INVERTEBRATES RECORDED FROM THE NORTHERN MARIANAS ISLANDS STATUS 2002 O. BOURQUIN, CONSULTANT COLLECTIONS MANAGER : CNMI INVERTEBRATE COLLECTION CREES - NORTHERN MARIANAS COLLEGE, SAIPAN DECEMBER 2002 1 CONTENTS Page Introduction 3 Procedures 3 Problems and recommendations 5 Acknowledgements 11 Appendix 1 Policy and protocol for Commonwealth of the Northern Marianas (CNMI) invertebrate collection 12 Appendix 2 Taxa to be included in the CNMI collection 15 Appendix 3 Biodiversity of CNMI and its representation in CNMI collection 19 References 459 2 INTRODUCTION This report is based on work done under contract from March 1st 2001 to December 1st, 2002 on the CNMI Invertebrate collection, Northern Marianas College, Saipan. The collection was started by Dr. L.H. Hale during 1970, and was resurrected and expanded from 1979 due to the foresight and energy of Dr “Jack” Tenorio, who also contributed a great number of specimens. Originally the collection was intended as an insect collection to assist identification of insects affecting agriculture, horticulture and silviculture in the Northern Marianas, and to contribute to the ability of pupils and students to learn more about the subject. During 2001 the collection was expanded to include all terrestrial and freshwater invertebrates, and a collection management protocol was established (see Appendices 1 and 2). The collection was originally owned by the CNMI Department of Land and Natural Resources , and was on loan to the NMC Entomology Unit for curation. During 2001 it was transferred to the NMC by agreement with Dr. “Jack” Tenorio, who emphasized the need to maintain separate teaChing material as well as identified specimens in the main collection. As can be seen in Appendix 3, the collection serves the interests of farmers, landowners, teachers, students and researchers and indeed anybody with an interest in any aspect of invertebrates (whether benign or antagonistic !). The page layout of Appendix 3 has been designed to give information on species known to be present in the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands (CNMI) and Guam (together called the Mariana Islands), as well as indicating which species are actually represented in the collection, and as such it was considered appropriate that the report was linked to the concept of biodiversity. Because of the importance of environmental conservation, which does not appear to be widely or efficiently practiced, or indeed believed in, by most of the inhabitants and tourists in the Northern Marianas, a section pertaining to conservation relating to each taxon reported on is given, as well as in the “Summary of Results”. The report for each group is started at the top of a fresh page, so that future changes or additions can be made without disturbing the rest of the text. PROCEDURES 1. The collection was examined and all specimens without labels, or which had dried up in containers and were damaged, or which were otherwise damaged so as to make their identification impossible, were discarded. 2. The general taxonomic arrangements given in Hickman et al 1979 and Borror et al 1989 were followed (except where more recent updating had changed such sequences), to arrange the drawers in sequence prior to attending to species arrangements. 3. All locally available literature was used to establish species present in the Mariana Islands, including Guam. Sources included, in particular "Insects of Micronesia", "Insects of Guam", "Pacific Insects" and “Pacific Insects Monographs". From these and other sources Species lists were compiled and these were used for the final arrangement of species in the drawers. Spaces were left for each species known to occur in the Northern Marianas, except for most of those animals, which were to be stored as wet specimens. 4. Field collecting was carried out, mainly on Saipan, but also during a trip to Sarigan, 3 to add to and update the collection. 5. Various individuals outside the college were contacted in attempts to solicit specimens (for example from mosquito and termite control groups and the Veterinary Department), none have so far been forthcoming. 6. Identifications were made using keys available in the references, by comparison with specimens in the Guam University collection, and by scanning websites, particularly of Museum holdings, which sometimes provided illustrations and descriptions. 7. Specimens were sent to appropriate workers for identification, or identification confirmation. These included Dr. M. Saaristo (University of Turku, Finland - spiders), Dr. D Plisko (Natal Museum, South Africa - earthworms) and Dr. D.Otte (Philadelphia Academy of Natural Sciences, USA – grasshoppers and crickets). 8. With some assistance from Mr. E. Benjamin and Dr L. Eavy, all specimens collected were preserved and labeled. 9. A report format was designed and used for the main body of the report (Appendix 3). Time constraints and a lack of available literature and expertise have led to obvious deficiencies in the lists. The decision as to whether a species was endemic, indigenous or alien to the Marianas was often arbitrary and in may cases was simply a guess based on known distribution – if a species was widely distributed it was likely to have been introduced. General information on the arthropods was derived in great part from Borror et al 1989. Where other sources were used these are indicated in the references. 10. An electronic database was planned, and had reached some way towards completion, but by the beginning of 2002 it became clear that under local work circumstances the job would not be completed. The plan was therefore shelved. 4 PROBLEMS AND RECOMMENDATIONS Continuity The curator ship of the collection has, over the past, fallen to the lot of people employed to do other things as well. Since the work involved (such as identification) can be very time consuming (or very expensive) this tended to be neglected, as did the regular checking of wet and dry preserved specimens. Up-dating the collection and the database, and rearranging specimens as more species are found is also an onerous but necessary task. My fear is that, when I leave, the work will not be continued, and this valuable heritage of local biota will suffer losses and decay. Given that a lot of effort, time and money have been involved in the collection during the last 30 years, and its real and intrinsic value, it would be nothing short of criminal to allow that to happen. Recommendation – options in my order of preference. A part time (4-5 hours per day) curator is employed whose function is entirely tied to collection and database management of the collection at NMC. The collection from Guam University is amalgamated with that of the CNMI to form a Marianas collection, and is managed by a full-time curator – locality of the collection needs to be determined. A Natural History Museum for the Marianas Islands is established to service the needs of research, education and public awareness, incorporating invertebrates as part of the system and managed professionally. 4. The collection is donated to a museum (e.g. Bishop Museum in Hawaii), provided proper curator ship is guaranteed – this should only be done if there is a strong threat of loss of the collection through neglect. Biodiversity Conservation Although surveys of vertebrates such as mammals, birds and reptiles have been done to a fair to good degree, most of the freshwater and terrestrial invertebrates have been poorly surveyed in the Northern Mariana Islands. Before any real conservation steps can be taken the presence, distribution and population status of the species need to be known. Given that for smaller invertebrate species this is very difficult, time-consuming and in many cases costly to achieve, there are nevertheless some steps that can be taken to at least attempt to maintain populations of indigenous, and especially endemic, species. Recommendations. 1. Collect from specific areas known to represent the various habitats identified on the islands. In general terms, different vegetation complexes provide a good indication of different habitats – as do geological/soil maps, and altitude and aspect differences. It would be well worthwhile to identify and map these differences prior to doing intense collecting. One of the factors is the presence of large areas of transformed landscapes and vegetation complexes – this will help narrow down specific collecting sites. 1. Sites so identified will probably represent areas which should be conserved from development, these need to be carefully judged, and a conservation policy established which, as much as possible, bears the good will of the people. However, in view of the continuing poaching of species such as fruit bats and coconut crabs, it does not appear that there is a culture of nature conservation. This will not become evident until most of the people involved with land ownership and use understand the benefits of maintaining their natural heritage and the need to conserve (=put to wise use - as an end result to maintain viable populations of indigenous plants and animals). 2. The implication of what was said in #2, is that (a.) better education and conservation awareness of policy makers, community leaders, school- and post-school attendees and the general public is needed, and (b.) better laws are enacted, and better law enforcement is practiced. 3. Identify important species (all endemic species, for example) and attempt to establish, at least, their continued presence in the type locality and in other areas. Information on their habitats and habits is required to make this a practicable venture. Publicize results. 5 4. Identify experts in the identification of invertebrates, and solicit their help in building up a good database for use in education, science and natural biodiversity conservation. 5. Ensure the maintenance and development of the collection and the databases connected to it. Teaching material Surplus preserved and named specimens are available for teaChing or awareness purposes.