The American Galapagos

 

Yesterday I received the periodic Cornell Lab e-newsletter. Among the routine (backyard birds, Cornell Lab's new Facebook page) I noticed an article about the largest albatross colony in the world. The article, by Cliff Beitell, detailed the seabird nesting on Midway Island, one of the Hawai'ian chain. Cliff also made the following observation:

These mere specks (the Leeward Islands) once were the Hawaiian Islands, formed over the same volcanic hotspot that created the big islands of today. Some were as large as the big islands before erosion and subsidence took their toll. They are remnants, too, in terms of wildlife, a reminder that abundant, unwary wildlife characterized not just the Galápagos Islands but the whole Pacific Ocean before the arrival of humans and introduced predators. The Leewards are America’s Galápagos, its great ocean park.

Cliff understates the uniqueness of the entire Hawai'ian chain. Why limit the analogy to the Leewards? Consider Hawai'ian endemism.  Approximately 21,383 species have been recorded from the Hawai'ian Islands and surrounding waters. Of these, 8,759 are endemic to the Hawai'ian Islands. The Hawai'ian endemics comprise a significant portion of America's biodiversity. Hawai'i is also the most vulnerable of the American states to outside invasions from exotics, with serious (and continuing) impacts from introduced vertebrates, invertebrates, diseases (avian malaria, for starters), and flowering plants (here is an excellent reference paper on Hawai'ian endemism).

 

Consider this damselfly, Megalagrion blackburni. There are 26 species in the Megalagrion, all endemic to the Hawai'ian islands. All are thought to have arisen from a common ancestor, and many are currently threatened by habitat loss and the introduction of non-native fish. Here is a list of the Hawai'ian species of greatest conservation need. 

• Over a span of about 70 million years, plants and animals colonized Hawai'i at the rate of roughly one every 70,000 years.
• According to the NPS, over 90 percent of Hawai'i's native flora and fauna is endemic - found nowhere else on earth. The island's 100 endemic land birds evolved from as few as 20 original ancestors; a thousand kinds of flowering plants evolved from 272 colonizers; over 1,000 mollusks evolved from at least 22 immigrants; and about 10,000 insects and spider species evolved from 350 to 400 precursors.
• There are 71 known taxa of endemic Hawai'ian birds, of which 23 are extinct and 30 of the remaining 48 species and subspecies are listed as endangered or threatened by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.
• Hawai'i has the highest rate of extinction per square mile on Earth.

I can argue (and will) that most Americans have no idea as to the biological richness of the Hawai'ian Islands, or their fragility. Here is an example. The three species of tree ferns (Hapu'u) in Hawai'i are all endemic. Feral hogs love to root around their bases, often killing the fern in the process. This leaves a depression where water can collect, mosquitoes can breed, and through which avian malaria can continue its spread. Yet when the Nature Conservancy began its efforts to remove these feral hogs (lethally, I admit), American animal rights groups were in opposition.

If asked about biodiversity, no doubt most Americans would point to "rain forests," or Costa Rica, or the Galapagos. I also suspect that most American birders are unaware of the singularity of the Hawai'ian avifauna. Yet 90% of Hawaiian plants and animals exist nowhere else on this planet!

Please, explain to me how Hawai'i is not the American Galapagos other than the press the latter receives. Try to remember the last time you read about Hawai'ian endemic species in a travel magazine. No doubt you have seen many articles about the natural wonders of Costa Rica and the Galapagos. What about Hawai'i?

 

Let's warp over to the other side of North America, to Iceland. Yes, I said Iceland. The photograph above is Þingvellir; more specifically Almannagjá, in Þingvellir National Park.The Lögberg (or Law Rock, the ridge to the left) is where Iceland's legislative and judicial body (the Alþingi, the oldest parliament in Europe) met from 930 until 1271. This landscape (the Þingvellir rift valley) is also the eastern edge of North America drifting apart from the western boundary of Europe. From a geological perspective, North America is to the left (west) and Europe to the right (east). Þingvellir and the Great Rift Valley of Eastern Africa are the only sites on Earth where the effects of two major plates drifting apart can be observed.

My bird list from Iceland is from two continents. Do I need to keep tabs of where the rift is while I am birding, like making sure what I see in South Texas is on the "right" side of the Rio Grande? Iceland considers itself part of Europe, and its birds are included in European field guides. Hawaii is a state, for goodness sake, and of course considers itself part of the United States. Why the embargo?  

The ABA can begin to correct its glaring omission (or commission) by placing the Hawai'ian chain where it has always belonged, in America. Birders can begin to bring attention to the plight of Hawai'ian endemics by highlighting them through their recreation and ticking them off their lists. Any attention (even listing) is better than no attention at all. Without attention, without interest, Hawai'i and its spectacular biodiversity, its life, will continue to bleed away. 

 

 

Comments

[Radd Icenoggle]

Thank you for this post. I'm wondering why no one has produced a documentary (as far as I know)on the relationship between island endemics, invasive species, and how managers can or cannot deal with the invasive species in a compassionate way. Also if more folks actually made it out of the Four Seasons resort to see the real Hawai'i, I am sure that conservation of the islands would take precedence.

[Andrew Haffenden]

I'm in complete agreement. As long as American birders can comfortably ignore birds from Hawaii, there'll be little press for them, and they'll continue to be lost as the forests degrade. When a "save the destructive feral pig" movement with very few followers has more clout than the often touted millions of birders who spend vast amounts of money on their hobby, there's something wrong with the birding movement. I've seen more push in the listing birding literature - including in ABA publications - to include Mexico in the ABA area than I have for Hawaii. The Hawaii situation is like Australia including New Guinea in their area, but leaving off Tasmania. The current area may have made some sort of sense years ago when birders could drive to everywhere in the ABA area, but flying to Hawaii was expensive, yet many of these same birders fly all over the world. Hawaii is cheap and quick to get to - certainly usually cheaper than getting to the Aleutians. As an Australian living here in the US, I've never understood why the ABA area doesn't include all of the US, but does include Canada and parts of France.

[Lynn Barber]

As someone who always wants to figure out a way that everybody is happy, I propose (as probably has been done before) that the ABA establish a category called something like "Complete ABA area" or "Wider ABA are" or "Extended ABA area" or "Inclusive ABA area" or "Greater ABA area". The smaller, original "ABA area" would remain for people's life lists and big year lists, past and future, but all of us could start a new life list for this larger area too, and maybe some would do (or perhaps already have done) a big year in this area, and records could be kept of that (retroactively for those who've kept such lists already). I love the idea myself. If we don't use the new area to supercede the original ABA area, but to augment it in the various lists that are possible, the addition of the new defined area would make the whole system better adapted to more different birders, and maybe make more people happy? (or as is sometimes the case with my mediating ideas, make everybody unhappy). Just a thought.

[Ted Floyd]

Lynn: Hal Opperman has a letter in the current issue of Birding (November 2010) which proposes much the same thing. I don't have Birding handy with me right here, but I believe his letter starts on p. 10.

[Jeff Gordon]

Aloha, birders,

Thanks, Ted, for a pair of posts that are both thought-provoking and beautifully illustrated.* 

As the new president of the ABA, I believe it's important that I engage in forums like this, not only to refine my own thinking, but to seek input as we develop future ABA policy and positions

ABA boundaries and how they impact bird conservation and the enjoyment of birding, in Hawaii and elsewhere—are of central importance to the ABA and its work. And what's happening in Hawaii (and what has already happened) is one of the saddest chapters in the long and troubled saga of the interaction of humans with other species. And I agree, if mainland U.S. citizens (and other North Americans) don't stand with the people of Hawaii and take an ownership interest in the welfare of these birds, who on earth will?

On the positive side, Hawaii's remaining native fauna and flora are certainly spectacular and well worth our attention, appreciation, and protection. I'll never forget watching a troop of gorgeous yet gawky ʻIʻiwis stomp their way through the branches of brightly-flowering ʻōhiʻa trees on my one visit there. And that was only one of dozens of such images that I could recount involving the marvelous birds that populate the islands.

So I'm right with you and the commenters when you say that it's imperative that ABA do what it can to promote and protect this spectacular and imperiled avifauna. Where I'm less sure is in your suggested method; i.e., adding Hawaii to the ABA area. Seems to me you're taking something wonderful (enjoying and protecting the birds of Hawaii) and trying to accomplish it in a way that is guaranteed to generate a good deal of opposition and division. And indeed it has in the past, when the question of Hawaii and the ABA area has been put before the membership.

I find just about all arguments I've heard that including (or excluding) Hawaii (or Mexico or wherever) is somehow rational or sensible while the current boundaries are neither to be unpersuasive. The ABA area is, at its base, the boundary for a playing field. Sure, it has biogeographic underpinnings (as do many geopolitical boundaries) but in many instances, it's arbitrary (as are many geopolitical boundaries).

Now, again, I'm not saying that I personally am opposed to adding Hawaii to the ABA area, but if we do, how on earth do we not add Puerto Rico or the Bahamas? What about Guam?

Another question: say we add Hawaii (and only Hawaii) to the ABA area, but take no other action. What does this really do for Hawaiian birds? More than nothing, I would guess, but in the end perhaps not all that much. 

My thought is this: instead of fighting a fractious and ultimately largely pointless battle over changing the rules of a game, what could the ABA do to promote the enjoyment, appreciation, and protection of Hawaii's birds in a more positive and more direct fashion? Maybe if we got people excited enough about the birds and birding there, the rule change would organically follow. And if it didn't, maybe the real goal (a more secure future for the birds of the islands) would have been accomplished anyhow.

So here's my challenge to you, Ted, and to those of you commenting. Let's set the ABA area issue down for a minute. What else could the ABA do to positively impact the dire situation in Hawai'i? Remember that our mission is to inspire people to enjoy and protect wild birds. How do we do that for Hawaii? I have some ideas, but I'd rather hear yours first.

Thanks all, especially Ted, for bringing this issue up. It's one that has come up regularly in the time I've been an ABA member, but one that still deserves consideration.

Good birding,

Jeff

*Isn't Creative Commons licensing a cool thing? I really need to get on the stick with doing that for most or all of my photos.

[Ted Floyd]

Hi, everybody.

I'm sure it's vanity, but I initially misread Jeff Gordon's "Thanks, Ted, for a pair of posts..." Just for the record, Jeff is talking about the OTHER Ted. Eubanks, that is; not me.

Thanks, Ted FLOYD

[Steve Tucker]

Completely agree Ted E. As someone who has lived on Midway, the Galapagos comparison is not inaccurate...it baffles me that birders get so caught up in (ultimately) pointing listing semantics and don't see the potential bigger impacts of drawing the Hawaiian Islands into the fold.

[YourBirdOasis.com]

What about Hawaiian biodiversity and endemics indeed! Hawaii offers a whole lot of practical lessons when it comes to the uncanny human ability to interfere with nature to such great negative consequence. Thankfully it would seem that more and more people understand the meaning of endemism, so perhaps a wider appreciation of the many ways in which Hawaii clearly displays this concept for us to learn from will follow?