The Tuamotu Sandpiper: little known, little cared for

Forest and Bird, Volume 15, Issue 4, 1 November 1984, Page 17

The Tuamotu Sandpiper: little known, little cared for

by

Rod Hay*

The Tuamotu sandpiper (Aechmorhynchus cancellatus) is now close to extinction, and one does not have to look far to see why: the spread of humans across the Pacific has been accompanied by rats, cats and dogs, animals that the bird had not previously known. It is a familiar story. But what is to prevent the Tuamotu sandpiper sliding towards the fate of its close relative, the Tahiti sandpiper, which became extinct not long after Cook’s travels? The key is information on the bird, followed by action to help it survive. The sandpiper is found in the Tuamotu Islands, one of the least biologically known archipelagos of the Pacific. Most of its 76 atolls, with nearly 400 islets, are little Known, although Mururoa and Fangataufa are certainly not in that category, thanks to the French nuclear test programme. While humans are found on all the major islands, remote wilderness still remains, albeit in a fragile fashion. The Tahiti sandpiper (Prosobonia leucoptera) is only Known from three specimens collected from Tahiti and

Eimeo in the Society group in 1774 during one of Cook’s forays into the Pacific. In fact only one single mounted specimen remains — to be seen in the Rijksmuseum von Natuurilijke Historie in Leiden in the Netherlands. Its distribution during Cook’s day appears to have been very limited, and its extinction, due to unknown causes, was very swift. The Tuamotu sandpiper was not discovered until Cook’s third expedition, which included a stop at Christmas Island, 2000 km to the north of the Tuamotu achipelago. In contrast to the Tahiti sandpiper, this species was widespread, though ironically it has never again been found where it was Originally discovered. In the 1920s, field naturalists from the Whitney South Sea Expedition, Quayle and Beck, collected or reported sandpipers from at least 16 atolls, although they had already gone from others by then (Holyoak and Thibault, ms.). The then current attitude of "collect before it disappears’ means that 60 of the specimens are today found in the American Museum of Natural History. Similar collecting today could have disastrous consequences. Recent records are limited to the islands of Marutea du Sud and Maturei-Vavao, where they are probably breeding (Lacan and Mougin, 1974), Pinaki and Nukutavake (King, 1981) and the sighting of a single bird on Rangiora (Holyoak, 1973a). Recent breeding records do not exist and no detailed studies of the species have been carried out. Philip Bruner (1972) has summarised the little known about the birds’ ecology. Known locally as the kivi-kivi, they measure only 16-17 cm in length, and exhibit two colour-phases: a dark form with a dark brown head and upper back and underparts heavily streaked with brown on a light buff background, and a light form with similar markings but much paler in tone. Both forms have a light streak over the eye and brown tail and wings. Apparently they interbreed freely and the colour differences do not relate to sex. They are very active, keeping up an almost constant peeping call, similar to that of a small plover like the wrybill or banded dotterel. Their diet is mainly insects — ants, wasps, crickets and beetles — along with some seashore invertebrates. Like many species which have evolved in the absence of ground predators, they are exceedingly tame and have been caught by hand. They are most vulnerable during breeding, with chicks remaining on the ground for weeks until they can fly. The nest is a loose structure of twigs

and grass in a depression in the sand amongst coral rubble. A plan for conserving the species has been prepared for the South Pacific Regional Environment Programme and the International Council for Bird Preservation. It says a survey of the following atolls has to be made to see if the bird has survived since reports of the 1920s: Fakareva, Kauehi, Taenga, Katiu, Tuanake, Hiti, Tepoko, Vanavana, Teneraro, Vahanga, Tenarunga and Maria. Also suggested is a study of breeding and habitat needs on Marutea du Sud, Maturei-Vavao or Nukutavake, and investigation of the feasibility of establishing a reserve on, for example, Maturei-Vavao. It is vital to avoid the ‘‘colonial’’ attitude of coming from afar and not involving the locals in the work or sharing information with them. A "reserve’’ for the species may not be a reserve in the sense with which we are familiar, but may be an area in which certain conditions to land use apply in recognition of wildlife. Cats, dogs and rats other than the Polynesian species should be restricted. Other conservation measures such as relocation and captive breeding would have to be considered carefully in the light of research results and local acceptability. we References: Bruner, P. L. 1972. Field Guide to The Birds of French Polynesia. Pacific Science Information Centre. Bernice P. Bishop Museum. Honolulu. Holyoak, D. T. 1973a. Notes on the birds of Rangiora, Tuamotu Archipelago, and the surrounding ocean. Bull. Brit. Orn Club 93: 26-32. Holyoak, D. T. and J.-C. Thibault. 1983. Contribution a l’etude des oiseaux de Polynesie Orientale. Manuscript in press with the Paris Museum. Lacan, F. and J. L. Mougin 1974. Les Oiseaux des lles Gambier et de quelques orientaux de l’'archipel des Tuamotu (Ocean Pacifique). L’Oiseau et R.F.O. 44: 192-280. Zusi, R. L. and J. R. Jehl Jr. 1972. The systematic relationship of Aechmorhynchus, Proscbonia and Phegornis (Charadriiformes: Charadrii). The Auk 87: 760-780.

*Ornithologist, South Pacific conservation