Hostname: page-component-6bf8c574d5-7jkgd Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-02-23T05:04:39.395Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Differences in breeding phenology between two geographically separated populations of the ʻuaʻu (Hawaiian Petrel Pterodroma sandwichensis)

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  21 February 2025

A. F. Raine*
Affiliation:
Archipelago Research and Conservation, Hanapēpē, Kauaʻi, HI, USA
S. Driskill
Affiliation:
Archipelago Research and Conservation, Hanapēpē, Kauaʻi, HI, USA
R. Sprague
Affiliation:
Pūlama Lānaʻi, Lānaʻi City, Lānaʻi, HI, USA
J. Rothe
Affiliation:
Archipelago Research and Conservation, Hanapēpē, Kauaʻi, HI, USA
G. Caceres
Affiliation:
Pūlama Lānaʻi, Lānaʻi City, Lānaʻi, HI, USA
J. Schuetz
Affiliation:
JGS Projects, Bath, ME, USA
M. McFarlin
Affiliation:
Archipelago Research and Conservation, Hanapēpē, Kauaʻi, HI, USA
M. S. Travers
Affiliation:
Archipelago Research and Conservation, Hanapēpē, Kauaʻi, HI, USA
*
Corresponding author: A. F. Raine; Email: [email protected]

Summary

The ʻuaʻu, or Hawaiian Petrel Pterodroma sandwichensis, is an endangered seabird endemic to the Hawaiian Islands. Genetic, morphometric, and behavioural differences have previously been found between different island populations of the species. Understanding the breeding phenology of different populations of ʻuaʻu is therefore vital for conservation actions targeting the species. To assess breeding phenology of ʻuaʻu on the islands of Kauaʻi and Lānaʻi, two main techniques were used over a 12-year period: direct burrow monitoring and burrow cameras. The breeding phenology of the ʻuaʻu is described based on this data. On Kauaʻi, breeding birds arrive in the middle of April, undergo an exodus of approximately one month, and return to lay in the beginning of June. Incubation continues until early August, followed by chick-rearing, which ends on average two weeks before the chick fledges. Fledging starts in mid-October, peaks in mid-November, and ends in the third week of December. Lānaʻi birds arrive two weeks earlier and fledge one week earlier than on Kauaʻi. On both islands breeding was asynchronous with a 68-day (Kauaʻi) and 48-day (Lānaʻi) gap between first and last fledging birds. Considering phenology data across its entire Hawaiian range, ʻuaʻu first arrive on east Maui, then Lānaʻi, Hawaiʻi Island, and Kauaʻi in that order. These differences in timing presumably reflect and/or reinforce genetic differentiation between subpopulations of the species. The utility of this information is discussed in terms of directing management actions towards key periods of vulnerability to introduced predators, including peak incubation, chick emergence, and chick exercise periods. Description of island-specific phenologies is also critical to inform efforts to rescue fledglings disoriented by artificial light, mitigate powerline collisions, and refine existing monitoring and restoration projects. Future work using acoustic monitoring and data collected at social attraction sites is recommended for assessing the phenology of non-breeders at colonies.

Ka hōʻuluʻulu pōkole

Ka hōʻuluʻulu pōkole

He manu lawaiʻa ka ʻuaʻu (Pterodroma sandwichensis) no ka pae ʻāina ʻo Hawaiʻi, he manu ʻāpaʻakuma ia i ʻane nalowale. ʻIke ʻē ʻia kekahi mau mea ʻokoʻa ma nā heluna manu o nā mokupuni like ʻole, ma ka welo kūʻauhau, ma ke ʻano kino, a ma ka hana kekahi. No laila, he koʻikoʻi ka hoʻomaopopo ʻana i ke ʻano o ko nā ʻuaʻu hoʻomau ʻana ma nā mokupuni ʻokoʻa, i mea e mālama ai i kēia lāhui manu. I kilo ʻia ai ke ʻano o ko ka ʻuaʻu hoʻomau ʻana ma nā mokupuni ʻo Kauaʻi lāua ʻo Lānaʻi, ʻelua nā kiʻina hana nui i hoʻohana ʻia ma nā makahiki he 12; ʻo ke kilo pololei ʻana aku i ko lākou mau lua, a me ka hoʻonoho ʻana i ka pahu paʻi kiʻi ma kahi o nā lua. Hōʻike ʻia ke ʻano o ka hoʻomau ʻana o ka ʻuaʻu ma nā mokupuni ʻokoʻa ma o kēia ʻike pili. Ma Kauaʻi, hōʻea nā manu e hoʻomau ana i waena o ʻApelila, haʻalele lākou no kekahi mahina, a hoʻi lākou e hānau i ka hoʻomaka ʻana o Iune. Hoʻomoe ʻia ka hua ā hiki i ka hoʻomaka ʻana o ʻAukake, a laila hānai ʻia ka pūnua. Pau ka hānai ʻia ʻana he ʻelua pule ma mua o ko ka pūnua lele ʻana, ma ka ʻawelike. Hoʻomaka ka lele ʻana ma waena o ʻOkakopa, ā hiki i ka nui loa i waena o Nowemapa, ā pau i ka pule ʻekolu o Kēkēmapa. He ʻelua pule ma mua ka hikina o nā ʻuaʻu Lānaʻi, a lele lākou he hoʻokahi pule ma mua kekahi, ke hoʻohālike aku i ko Kauaʻi. Ma nā mokupuni ʻelua, ʻaʻole hānau nā manu i ka manawa hoʻokahi. ʻO ke kaʻawale ʻana ma waena o ka pūnua lele mua a me ka lele hope, he 68 lā ma Kauaʻi a he 48 lā ma Lānaʻi. Ke nānā ʻia ka ʻike pili o ka pae ʻāina holoʻokoʻa, hiki mua ka ʻuaʻu ma Maui hikina, ma Lānaʻi, ma Hawaiʻi mokupuni, a laila ma Kauaʻi, i ia kaʻina nō. Ma nā manawa ʻokoʻa o ka hōʻea ʻana i hōʻike ʻia ai paha a hoʻokumu ʻia ai paha nā welo kūʻauhau o nā heluna manu o kēia lāhui. Hōʻike ʻia ka waiwai o kēia ʻike pili no ka mālama ʻana i ka ʻuaʻu i kōna mau wā i hiki wale ke pilikia i nā holoholona malihini, e laʻa ka wā nui o ka hoʻomoe hua ʻana, ka puka ʻana o nā pūnua, a me ka wā hoʻēheu. He koʻikoʻi hoʻi ka hōʻike ʻana i nā ʻano ʻokoʻa o ko nā mokupuni i mea e alakaʻi ai i ka hoʻopakele ʻana i nā pūnua i pilikia i ke kukui uila, i emi ai ka hoʻokuʻi ʻana i ka uea kelepona, a i hoʻokāʻoi ʻia ai hoʻi nā papahana e kū nei no ke kilo ʻana a me ka hoʻōla hou ʻana iā lākou. Ke paipai ʻia nei no kēia mua aku ke ana ʻana i ko lākou kani a me ka nānā ʻana i ka ʻike pili i loaʻa ma nā kahua kūhea manu no ke kilo ʻana i nā manu e hoʻomau ʻole ana ma loko o nā heluna nui.

Type
Research Article
Copyright
© The Author(s), 2025. Published by Cambridge University Press on behalf of BirdLife International

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Birdlife International (2018). Hawaiian Petrel Pterodroma sandwichensis. Available at https://doi.org/10.2305/IUCN.UK.2018-2.RLTS.T22698017A132378813.en (accessed November 2021).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brandt, C.A., Parrish, J.K. and Hodges, C.N. (1995). Predictive approaches to habitat quantification: Dark-rumped Petrels on Haleakala, Maui. The Auk 112, 571579.Google Scholar
Chevillon, L., Tourmetz, J., Dubos, J., Soulaimana-Mattoir, Y., Hollinger, C., Pinet, P. et al. (2022). 25 years of light-induced petrel groundings in Reunion Island: Retrospective analysis and predicted trends. Global Ecology and Conservation 38, e02232. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gecco.2022.e02232CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Clark, B.L., Carneiro, A.P.B., Pearmain, E.J., Rouyer, M.-M., Clay, T.A., Cowger, W. et al. (2023). Global assessment of marine plastic exposure risk for oceanic birds. Nature Communications 14, 3665. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-023-38900-zCrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Deppe, L., Rowley, O., Rowe, L.K., Shi, N., McArthur, N., Gooday, O. et al. (2017). Investigation of fallout events in Hutton’s shearwaters (Puffinus huttoni) associated with artificial lighting. Notornis 64, 181191.Google Scholar
Derraik, J.G.B. (2002). The pollution of the marine environment by plastic debris: a review. Marine Pollution Bulletin 44, 842852. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0025-326X(02)00220-5CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Friesen, V.L., González, J.A. and Cruz-Delgado, F. (2006). Population genetic structure and conservation of the Galápagos petrel (Pterodroma phaeopygia). Conservation Genetics 7, 105115. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10592-005-8704-6CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gilman, E., Kobayashi, D. and Chaloupka, M. (2008). Reducing seabird bycatch in the Hawaii longline tuna fishery. Endangered Species Research 5, 309323. https://doi.org/10.3354/esr00133CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Harrison, C. (1990). Seabirds of Hawaii: Natural History and Conservation. Ithaca: Cornell University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hu, D., Glidden, C., Lippert, J.S., Schnell, L., MacIvor, J.S. and Meisler, J. (2001). Habitat use and limiting factors in a population of Hawaiian Dark-rumped Petrels on Mauna Loa, Hawai’i. Studies in Avian Biology 22, 234242.Google Scholar
Judge, S. (2011). Interisland Comparison of Behavioral Traits and Morphology of the Endangered Hawaiian Petrel: Evidence for Character Differentiation. MSc thesis, University of Hawaii, Hilo.Google Scholar
Judge, S., Lippert, J.S., Misajon, K., Hu, D. and Hess, S.C. (2012). Videographic evidence of endangered species depredation by feral cat. Pacific Conservation Biology 18, 293296. https://doi.org/10.1071/PC120293CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Judge, S.W., Hu, D. and Bailey, C.N. (2014). Comparative analyses of Hawaiian Petrel Pterodroma sandwichensis morphometrics. Marine Ornithology 42, 8184.Google Scholar
Morra, K.E., Chikaraishi, Y., Gandhi, H., James, H.F., Rossman, S., Wiley, A.E. et al. (2019). Trophic declines and decadal-scale foraging segregation in three pelagic seabirds. Oecologia 189, 395406. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00442-018-04330-8CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Phillips, R.A., Xavier, J.C. and Croxall, J.P. (2003). Effects of satellite transmitters on albatrosses and petrels. The Auk 120, 10821090. https://doi.org/10.1093/auk/120.4.1082CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pyle, R.L. and Pyle, P. (2017). The Birds of the Hawaiian Islands: Occurrence, History, Distribution, and Status. Version 2.1. Honolulu: BP Bishop Museum.Google Scholar
Raine, A., Driskill, S., Raine, H., Rothe, J., Rossiter, S., Anderson, T. et al. (2023a). Post-fledging distribution of ’ua’u (Hawaiian petrel Pterodroma sandwichensis) from Kaua’i, Hawai’i and effectiveness of rehabilitation. Endangered Species Research 52, 2740. https://doi.org/10.3354/esr01268CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Raine, A.F., Driskill, S., Rossiter, S., Rothe, J., Pias, K., Sprague, R. et al. (2023b). The impact of feral honey bees on endangered seabirds in the Hawaiian Islands. Human–Wildlife Interactions 17. https://doi.org/10.26077/939d-5fe9Google Scholar
Raine, A.F., Driskill, S. and Rothe, J. (2024a). Monitoring of Endangered Seabirds on Kauaʻi Annual Report 2023. Hanapepe, HI: Archipelago Research & Conservation.Google Scholar
Raine, A.F., Driskill, S., Rothe, J., Rossiter, S., Gregg, J., Anderson, T. et al. (2024b). The impact of light attraction on adult seabirds and the effectiveness of minimization actions. Pacific Science 78, 85102. https://doi.org/10.2984/78.1.6CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Raine, A.F., Driskill, S., Rothe, J. and Travers, M.S. (2022a). Evaluating the breeding phenology of the endangered ‘a‘o (Newell’s Shearwater Puffinus newelli) on Kaua‘i to better focus conservation actions and management decisions. Bird Conservation International 33, e35. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0959270922000387CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Raine, A.F., Driskill, S., Rothe, J. and Vynne, M. (2022b). Nest site characteristics of two endangered seabirds in montane wet forests on the Island of Kauaʻi, Hawai‘i, USA. Waterbirds 44, 472482. https://doi.org/10.1675/063.044.0408Google Scholar
Raine, A.F., Driskill, S., Vynne, M., Harvey, D. and Pias, K. (2020). Managing the effects of introduced predators on Hawaiian endangered seabirds. The Journal of Wildlife Management 84, 425435. https://doi.org/10.1002/jwmg.21824CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Raine, A.F., Holmes, N.D., Travers, M., Cooper, B.A. and Day, R.H. (2017). Declining population trends of Hawaiian Petrel and Newell’s Shearwater on the island of Kaua‘i, Hawaii, USA. The Condor 119, 405415. https://doi.org/10.1650/CONDOR-16-223.1CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Raine, A.F. and Rossiter, S. (2020). 2020 Annual Radar Monitoring Report. Hanapepe, HI: Kauai Endangered Seabird Recovery Project.Google Scholar
Raine, A.F., Vynne, M. and Driskill, S. (2019). The impact of an introduced avian predator, the Barn Owl Tyto alba, on Hawaiian seabirds. Marine Ornithology 47, 3338. http://doi.org/10.5038/2074-1235.47.1.1289Google Scholar
R Core Team (2024). _R: A Language and Environment for Statistical Computing_. R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna, Austria. https://www.R-project.org/.Google Scholar
Reed, J.R., Sincock, J.L. and Hailman, J.P. (1985). Light attraction in endangered procellariiform birds: reduction by shielding upward radiation. The Auk 102, 377383. https://doi.org/10.2307/4086782CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rodríguez, A. and Rodríguez, B. (2009). Attraction of petrels to artificial lights in the Canary Islands: effects of the moon phase and age class. Ibis 151, 299310. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1474-919X.2009.00925.xCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rodríguez, A., Rodríguez, B., Curbelo á. J., Pérez, A., Marrero, S. and Negro, J.J. (2012). Factors affecting mortality of shearwaters stranded by light pollution. Animal Conservation 15, 519526. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1469-1795.2012.00544.xCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sileo, L., Sievert, P.R., Samuel, M.D. and Fefer, S.I. (1989). Prevalence and characteristics of plastic ingested by Hawaiian seabirds. Proceedings of the Second International Conference on Marine Debris 2, 665681.Google Scholar
Simons, T.R. (1985). Biology and behavior of the endangered Hawaiian Dark-rumped Petrel. The Condor 87, 229245. https://doi.org/10.2307/1366887CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Simons, T.R. and Bailey, C.N. (2020). Hawaiian Petrel (Pterodroma sandwichensis), version 1.0. In Poole, A.F. and Gill, F.B. (eds), Birds of the World. Ithaca: Cornell Lab of Ornithology.Google Scholar
Telfer, T.C., Sincock, J.L., Byrd, G.V. and Reed, J.R. (1987). Attraction of Hawaiian seabirds to lights: conservation efforts and effects of moon phase. Wildlife Society Bulletin 15, 406413.Google Scholar
Tomkins, R.J. and Milne, B.J. (1991). Differences among Dark-rumped Petrel (Pterodroma phaeopygia) populations within the Galapagos archipelago. Notornis 38, 135.Google Scholar
Travers, M.S. (2022). Reducing collisions with structures. In Young, L. and Vanderwerf, F. (eds), Conservation of Marine Birds. Amsterdam: Elsevier, pp. 379401. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-323-88539-3.00004-2Google Scholar
Travers, M.S., Driskill, S., Scott, C., Hanna, K., Flaska, S.R., Bache, M. et al. (2023). Spatial overlap in powerline collisions and vehicle strikes obscures the primary cause of avian mortality. Journal for Nature Conservation 75, 126470. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jnc.2023.126470CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Travers, M.S., Driskill, S., Stemen, A., Geelhoed, T., Golden, D.M., Koike, S. et al. (2021). Post-collision impacts, crippling bias, and environmental bias in a study of Newell’s Shearwater and Hawaiian Petrel powerline collisions. Avian Conservation and Ecology 16, art15. https://doi.org/10.5751/ACE-01841-160115CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Troy, J.R., Holmes, N.D., Veech, J.A., Raine, A.F. and Green, M.C. (2017). Habitat suitability modeling for the endangered Hawaiian petrel on Kauai and analysis of predicted habitat overlap with the Newell’s shearwater. Global Ecology and Conservation 12, 131143. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gecco.2017.10.002CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Urmston, J., Hyrenbach, K.D. and Swindle, K. (2022). Quantifying wedge-tailed shearwater (Ardenna pacifica) fallout after changes in highway lighting on Southeast Oʻahu, Hawaiʻi. PLOS ONE 17, e0265832. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0265832CrossRefGoogle Scholar
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) (1983). Hawaiian Dark-rumped Petrel and Newell’s Manx Shearwater Recovery Plan. Honolulu: USFWS.Google Scholar
VanZandt, M., Delparte, D., Hart, P., Duvall, F. and Penniman, J. (2014). Nesting characteristics and habitat use of the endangered Hawaiian Petrel (Pterodroma sandwichensis) on the island of Lāna’i. Waterbirds 37, 4351. https://doi.org/10.1675/063.037.0107CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wiley, A.E., Ostrom, P.H., Welch, A.J., Fleischer, R.C., Gandhi, H., Southon, J.R. et al. (2013). Millennial-scale isotope records from a wide-ranging predator show evidence of recent human impact to oceanic food webs. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences – PNAS 110, 89728977. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1300213110CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Wiley, A.E., Welch, A.J., Ostrom, P.H., James, H.F., Stricker, C.A., Fleischer, R.C. et al. (2010). Foraging segregation and genetic divergence between geographically proximate colonies of a highly mobile seabird. Oecologia 168, 119130. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00442-011-2085-yCrossRefGoogle Scholar