SPECIES

Kauai Oo Moho braccatus Scientific name definitions

Paul W. Sykes Jr., Angela K. Kepler, Cameron B. Kepler, and J. Michael Scott
Version: 1.0 — Published March 4, 2020
Text last updated January 1, 2000

Conservation and Management

Effects of Human Activity

Feather Work

Exceptional craftsmanship of Hawaiian feather work has earned prominence as producing some of the finest royal garments and regalia in history, comparable to crowning art, architectural, and musical achievements of other cultures (Kaeppler Kaeppler 1970, Kaeppler 1978). In ancient Hawai‘i, feathers and feather work, especially using yellow, red, and black from ‘ö‘ö, Hawai‘i Mamo (Drepanis pacifica), Black Mamo (D. funerea), and ‘I‘iwi, were valued above other possessions (Malo 1951). Most revered were cloaks, capes, and mantles; sacred images; feathered religious temples; royal banners (kahili); helmets; leis; and a sacred cordon, or sash, of yellow ‘ö‘ö feathers. Lesser artifacts included fly-flaps, aprons, mats, fans, idols, and rattles. Feathers were the exclusive property of chiefs and royalty, taboo to commoners. Black and yellow ‘ö‘ö feathers, as well as red ‘I‘iwi plumage, were featured prominently in almost all Hawaiian feather work. Integrally bound with social structure, religion, dancing, chanting, and war, they were in such demand that commoners were forced to pay taxes in feather bundles (Malo 1951). Feathered garments provided status for their owners, especially after King Kamehameha I ascended to power, a time of accelerated change during the initial westernization of Hawai‘i. Chiefs vied to outdo one another with the beauty, design, and rarity of their capes; every extant cape is unique. At the time of first Western contact (1778), feather work was at its height, and 50–60 yr later it had practically ceased. Bright yellow and scarlet were traditional, aristocratic colors throughout Oceania (Webb 1965).

‘I‘iwi and Hawai‘i ‘Ö‘ö were of greatest value in terms of numbers of articles and feathers used, providing the majority of red, yellow, and black feathers in unknown hundreds if not thousands of feathered items completed from about 400 to 1900. Little known extent of use of the other 3 ‘ö‘ö and Kioea.

Of 75 standing kahili in the Bishop Museum (including many from late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries, when native birds were little used), Hawai‘i ‘Ö‘ö was used in the greatest number: 20, or 27% (Rose et al. 1993). At least 1 had short feathers from Kaua‘i ‘Ö‘ö (S. Conant pers. comm.). Feathers from all parts of bird were used. Some kahili were constructed entirely of yellow Hawai‘i ‘Ö‘ö axillary feathers. Rose et al. (Rose et al. 1993) estimated that 163,000 feathers from 20,208–32,608 birds were used in 18 selected kahili. On the basis of extrapolation from these figures relating to a small number of artifacts, to those required for hundreds or thousands of feather work items, it is evident that numbers of ‘ö‘ö alone once totaled several hundred thousand.

Shooting And Trapping

Special guilds of professional feather gatherers were appointed by chiefs. These bird hunters were well versed in natural history, frequenting otherwise unvisited areas. It was not difficult to enforce taboos against commoners taking feathers, because they lacked catching skills and were generally afraid to enter forests. Bird hunters knew many ecological and behavioral details pertaining to target species. They whistled song imitations and knew the species' molting regimes, capturing birds when feathers were freshest; worn feathers lacked glossiness, and barbule hooklets were less springy. Feather quality was extremely important, determining smoothness, beauty, and practicality of garments.

Despite contrary information in popular literature, it is well documented that most forest birds were divested of feathers and then eaten (Emerson 1894a, Brigham 1899, Malo 1951, Handy 1972). This was particularly true for ‘ö‘ö, which yielded virtually all yellow and black body feathers for feather work. ‘Ö‘ö and mamo for centuries were used as food (Malo 1951). According to Wilson and Evans (Wilson and Evans 1890: 105), “the O-O is esteemed a great delicacy by the natives, and used formerly to be eaten by them, fried in its own fat.” Wilson himself confirmed the tastiness of ‘ö‘ö meat when his cook prepared for dinner a fresh specimen (Berger 1981). ‘Ö‘ö sometimes released, especially as populations diminished. Emerson (Emerson 1894a) noted that birds destined to be eaten after being plucked were quickly killed by pressure over the thorax, and those destined to be released were placed in cages.

Traditional techniques used for catching forest birds included snaring with birdlime-treated poles, trapping with nets of various sizes, using handheld flower decoys, and shooting with bows and arrows. Live decoys of ‘ö‘ö and ‘I‘iwi and imitations of calls were used to lure birds. After European contact, shooting with guns replaced most other techniques (Henshaw 1902a, Munro 1944a, Beaglehole 1967).

Degradation Of Habitat

Habitat degradation included introduction and spread of alien plants, animals, and associated pathogens. Consensus is clear that demise of forest birds in Hawaiian Is. resulted from anthropogenic causes (Warner 1968a, Atkinson 1977, Ralph and Van Riper III 1985, Scott et al. 1986, Van Riper et al. 1986, Van Riper III 1991). Stresses imposed by Polynesians included extensive land-clearing at lower elevations, use of feathers, and introduction of Polynesian rat and of pig (Sus scrofa). Europeans increased land-clearing and introduced sandalwood (Santalum spp.) trade, black rat, other predators, mosquitoes, scores of alien birds and their diseases, ungulates, and plants. Stresses are unknown for most species that survived past 1778. Extinction rarely has a single cause; demise of Hawaiian meliphagids was probably due to several factors acting synergistically. Although dozens of species had been lost during Polynesian era (Olson and James 1982b), all honeyeaters treated in this account survived beyond European contact in 1778. Since then, 27% of endemic Hawaiian birds have gone extinct as result of human activities (Smith and Fancy 1997).

Polynesian rat arrived with early Hawaiians; now found on all main Hawaiian islands. An agile climber and known predator of birds (Kepler 1967, Tomich 1969, Fleet 1972, Atkinson 1977) and reptiles (Dingwall et al. 1978), it had probably coexisted with honeyeaters in Hawai‘i for >1,000 yr before European contact. Impact on Kioea and the 4 ‘ö‘ö unknown (Scott et al. 1986), but undoubtedly resulted in some nest losses, and may have increased in importance as other stresses began affecting Hawaiian forest birds.

Black rat arrived in Hawai‘i well after European discovery, possibly as late as 1870–1880, when wharves were constructed (Atkinson 1977), and it now occurs on all main islands. Atkinson (Atkinson 1977) argued persuasively that rat population explosions on each island, in succession, could have accounted for catastrophic decrease and extinction of 30 taxa of forest birds between 1892 and 1930. Such mass extinctions are known for Ontong Java (formerly Lord Howe Is.) and for Big South Cape Is., New Zealand, following their colonization by the black rat (Atkinson 1977, Dingwall et al. 1978). Postirruptive populations of black and Polynesian rats can exert great pressure on native forest birds. Hole-nesting species, such as Kaua‘i ‘Ö‘ö and possibly Hawai‘i ‘Ö‘ö, would be especially vulnerable. Current 10-yr effort to poison these predators in the Takitumu Conservation Area on Rarotonga, Cook Is., resulted in 6-fold increase in the endangered Rarotonga Monarch (Pomarea dimidiata) from 1989 to 1998 (Mccormack and Kunzlé 1990, Tiraa and Saul 1998, Ed Saul pers. comm.). However, rat predation alone does not explain large number of birds that died off at turn of twentieth century (Scott et al. 1986, Van Riper et al. 1986). Other causes of decline were also evident, including diseases (see Demography and populations: diseases and body parasites, above) and habitat destruction due to agricultural expansion and the incessant modification of native forest by introduced pigs, cattle (Bos taurus), and goats (Capra hircus).

In the course of Polynesian settlement, virtually all forests below about 500 m and most xeric and mesic forests up to 1,500 m were cleared, but most rain forest above 500 m remained (Cuddihy and Stone 1990). Further loss of native forest by logging and grazing occurred after Western contact in 1778, destroying most remaining xeric and mesic forests, leaving only large tracts of rain forest (Cuddihy and Stone 1990).

King Kamehameha I simultaneously demanded yellow ‘ö‘ö feathers and another precious commodity, sandalwood (Rock 1913, Rock 1916, Kaeppler 1985). Thus began the notorious Sandalwood Era (about 1795–1825), 1 of 3 major chapters in defilement of Hawai‘i's native forests. By 1830, Hawai‘i's sandalwood was almost nonexistent. The forests on O‘ahu, Hawai‘i, Moloka‘i, Kaua‘i, and Maui were so ravaged that commoners dug sandalwood roots to pay tax quotas (Rock 1916, St. John 1947).

Although all literature commenting on the various causes of ‘ö‘ö and mamo extinction underplay the role of feather-collecting, we believe that the rush to create dozens of yellow, red, and black capes and cloaks within a period of about 50 yr played a major role in decimating populations of mamo and Hawai‘i and O‘ahu ‘ö‘ö. Perhaps they could have survived, had lowland and montane rain forests not simultaneously undergone major transformations.

Then, nearing the end of the Sandalwood Era (1826), the disease-bearing Mexican night-flying mosquito was introduced. Eventually this spread played a major role in decimation of all native birds living below about 1,500 m elevation. Approximate dates of extinction for the 5 meliphagids range from 1837 to 1987. A different mix of stresses is involved for each species.

Kaua‘i ‘Ö‘ö. Loss and modification of native forest after Western contact in 1778 greatly restricted suitable habitat (Smith and Fancy 1997). This species suffered major population decline at turn of the twentieth century, when its congeners on Moloka‘i and Hawai‘i disappeared; black rat is widely thought to have played a role in restricting the species to small area in wet forests of Alaka‘i Swamp. There it declined slowly in the presence of Polynesian and black rats, domestic cats, and habitat changes associated with encroaching alien plants. Scott et al. (Scott et al. 1986) predicted a collapse of the Alaka‘i forest birds resulting from increasing incidence of malaria as the Mexican night-biting mosquito gradually extended its range to higher, more temperate forests. The demise of the Kaua‘i ‘Ö‘ö in about 1987 preceded by about 10 yr the extinction of ‘Ö‘ü (Psittirostra psittacea) and Käma‘o (Myadestes myadestinus) in Alaka‘i. Diseases and/or predation by rats were most likely the final cause of these extinctions.

O‘ahu ‘Ö‘ö. Disappeared about 1837, before introduction of black rat or avian malaria, suggesting that more direct human intervention was involved. It inhabited a small island severely degraded by agriculture and overgrazing. Collection of birds and coincidental harvesting of all available sandalwood, as well as other species of trees, must have been major causes of its loss.

Bishop's ‘Ö‘ö. Common on Moloka‘i I. in 1890s, yet disappeared completely about 1904. Invasion by black rat (Atkinson 1977), possibly supplemented by avian pox, was likely the cause of its final demise. May have been extant in remote ne. Maui into 1980s.

Hawai‘i ‘Ö‘ö. Early in nineteenth century, tens of thousands of Hawai‘i ‘Ö‘ö were collected to make capes, kahili, and other feather ornaments. During the reign of King Kamehameha I (1782–1819), which corresponded to latter period of extensive feather work, royal Hawaiian colors changed from traditional red to yellow; yellow feathers came primarily from Hawai‘i ‘Ö‘ö. Feather cloaks and capes were by that time made longer, more shapely, and colored exclusively yellow, red, and black (Brigham 1899, Kaeppler 1985). Last cape was made in 1880s for King Kalakaua, at which time ‘ö‘ö populations were greatly decreased. Yet the species survived in extensive forests of Hawai‘i I. More than 1,000 birds were collected in 1898 alone (Henshaw 1902a), but by 1904 this ‘ö‘ö was nearing extinction. Avian pox (van Riper and van Riper 1985) and black rat have been suggested as probable agents for the extinction of this species, which was already depleted by hunting for feather trade.

Kioea. Not known to be hunted for feathers, Kioea inhabited lowland dry forests on Hawai‘i I. that had been extensively modified by Hawaiian agriculture. After European contact, forests were under increased assault by grazing ungulates, agricultural development, and sandalwood harvest. Considered rare in eighteenth century, and probably succumbed to habitat loss by mid-nineteenth century.

Management

Kaua‘i ‘Ö‘ö. A number of conservation strategies were implemented that afforded limited protection and management for the Kaua‘i ‘Ö‘ö, including Forest Reserve Act of 1903 to protect watersheds and forests; law to protect native perching birds by Hawaiian Territorial Legislature in 1907; efforts by territorial foresters to control cattle and goats in 1930 to protect watersheds; establishment of Alaka‘i Wilderness Preserve, consisting of 4,022 ha, in 1964; various studies, surveys, and management efforts by federal, state, university, and private conservation organization biologists and managers (Sincock et al. 1984, Scott et al. 1986); federal listing as Endangered in 1966, 1968, and 1973 (Bureau of Sport Fisheries and Wildlife Bureau Of Sport Fisheries 1966, Bureau Of Sport Fisheries 1966, U.S. Dept. Interior 1973); Endangered Species Conservation Act of 1969 (U. S. Congress 1969); Endangered Species Act of 1973 (U. S. Congress 1973); and Kaua‘i Forest Birds Recovery Plan (Sincock et al. 1984). From 1972 to 1975, J. L. Sincock (unpubl.) erected a series of nest boxes in Alaka‘i Swamp, which he checked routinely; none were ever used by Kaua‘i ‘Ö‘ö.

Only since mid-1960s have conservation measures been directed specifically to Kaua‘i ‘Ö‘ö. Specific laws protecting birds were passed, but little, if anything, was actually done (e.g., predation or disease control, captive propagation). No resource management agency took action when it might have made a difference (Sincock et al. 1984). Population plummeted to too low a level to benefit from all efforts on its behalf, since the problems were difficult to rectify quickly. In early 1940s, Munro (Munro 1944a: 84) considered the species to be “in danger of extinction.” Unfortunately his prediction was correct.

O‘ahu ‘Ö‘ö, Hawai‘i ‘Ö‘ö, and Kioea. Extinction preceded any environmental ethics, management, or conservation measures.

Bishop's ‘Ö‘ö. Primary conservation strategy for endemic Hawaiian forest birds is protection and restoration of native forests above 1,500 m elevation on Moloka‘i and Maui Is., and control of ungulates; control of feral cats, rodents, and mosquitoes has never covered an area large enough to have biological significance.

Recommended Citation

Sykes Jr., P. W., A. K. Kepler, C. B. Kepler, and J. M. Scott (2020). Kauai Oo (Moho braccatus), version 1.0. In Birds of the World (A. F. Poole, Editor). Cornell Lab of Ornithology, Ithaca, NY, USA. https://doi.org/10.2173/bow.kauoo.01