Status Survey and Conservation Action Plan 2000–2004

Megapodes
Edited by René W.R.J. Dekker, Richard A. Fuller,
and Gillian C. Baker
on behalf of WPA/BirdLife/SSC Megapode Specialist Group
 Status Survey and Conservation Action Plan 2000–2004

Megapodes
Edited by René W.R.J. Dekker, Richard A. Fuller, and Gillian C. Baker
on behalf of WPA/BirdLife/SSC Megapode Specialist Group
The designation of geographical entities in this book, and the presentation of the material, do not imply the expression of any opinion
whatsoever on the part of IUCN concerning the legal status of any country, territory, or area, or of its authorities, or concerning the
delimitation of its frontiers or boundaries.

The views expressed in this publication do not necessarily reflect those of IUCN.

Published by: IUCN, Gland, Switzerland and Cambridge, UK and the World Pheasant Association, Reading, UK.

Copyright: © 2000 International Union for Conservation of Nature and Natural Resources.

Reproduction of this publication for educational or other non-commercial purposes is authorised without prior written
permission from the copyright holder provided the source is fully acknowledged.

Reproduction of this publication for resale or other commercial purposes is prohibited without prior written permission of
the copyright holder.

Citation: Dekker, R.W.R.J., Fuller, R.A., and Baker, G.C. (eds.). (2000). Megapodes. Status Survey and Conservation Action Plan
2000–2004. WPA/BirdLife/SSC Megapode Specialist Group. IUCN, Gland, Switzerland and Cambridge, UK, and the World
Pheasant Association, Reading, UK. vii + 39 pp.

ISBN: 2-8317-0537-1

Cover photo: Bruijn’s brush-turkey Aepypodius bruijnii from “Monographie des Oiseaux de la Famille des Mégapodiidés” (Oustalet 1880).

Produced by: The Nature Conservation Bureau Ltd, Newbury, UK.

Printed by: Information Press, Oxford, UK.

Available from: IUCN Publications Services Unit

219c Huntingdon Road, Cambridge CB3 0DL, United Kingdom
Tel: +44 1223 277894, Fax: +44 1223 277175
E-mail: info@books.iucn.org
http://www.iucn.org
A catalogue of IUCN publications is also available.

The text of this book is printed on 115 gsm Zone Silk, which is rated as 4-star under the Eco-Check system and is made from 100% sustainable
fibre sources using chlorine-free processes.

ii
 Contents
Foreword ....................................................................... v 2.3 Vulnerable species ................................................ 13
2.4 Lower Risk species ............................................... 15
Acknowledgements ....................................................... vi
Chapter 3. Species Accounts ........................................ 17
Executive Summary ..................................................... vii 3.1 Critically Endangered species ............................... 17
Polynesian megapode (Megapodius pritchardii) .... 17
Chapter 1. The Conservation of Megapodes ................... 1 3.2 Endangered species ............................................... 18
1.1 Introduction ........................................................... 1 Micronesian megapode (Megapodius laperouse) ... 18
1.2 Information on megapodes .................................... 1 3.3 Vulnerable species ................................................ 18
Species included in the Action Plan ........................ 1 Bruijn’s brush-turkey (Aepypodius bruijnii) .......... 18
Distribution and general biology ............................ 1 Malleefowl (Leipoa ocellata) ................................. 19
1.3 Relationship with humans ...................................... 2 Maleo (Macrocephalon maleo) .............................. 20
1.4 Other sources of information on megapodes .......... 2 Moluccan megapode (Eulipoa wallacei) ................ 20
1.5 Background to the second edition .......................... 2 Nicobar megapode (Megapodius nicobariensis) .... 21
Who are we? – the Megapode Specialist Group ..... 2 Biak megapode (Megapodius geelvinkianus) ......... 22
Updating the Megapode Action Plan ..................... 3 Vanuatu megapode (Megapodius layardi) ............ 22
1.6 Threats to the survival of megapodes ..................... 3
Habitat loss and degradation ................................. 3 Chapter 4. Five-year Plan of Action ............................. 24
Egg collecting ......................................................... 5 4.1 Critically Endangered species ............................... 24
Introduced predators .............................................. 5 Polynesian megapode (Megapodius pritchardii) .... 24
Other threats ........................................................... 5 4.2 Endangered species ............................................... 26
Threatened subspecies and populations ................. 5 Micronesian megapode (Megapodius laperouse) ... 26
Summary of the threat status of megapodes ........... 5 4.3 Vulnerable species ................................................ 26
1.7 Actions for the conservation of megapodes ............ 6 Bruijn’s brush-turkey (Aepypodius bruijnii) .......... 26
Gathering basic information .................................. 6 Malleefowl (Leipoa ocellata) ................................. 26
Making conservation recommendations ................. 6 Maleo (Macrocephalon maleo) .............................. 27
Types of conservation recommendation ................. 7 Moluccan megapode (Eulipoa wallacei) ................ 28
Implementing conservation recommendations ....... 9 Nicobar megapode (Megapodius nicobariensis) .... 29
Monitoring effects of conservation action ............ 10 Biak megapode (Megapodius geelvinkianus) ......... 30
Summary of conservation action .......................... 10 Vanuatu megapode (Megapodius layardi) ............ 31

Chapter 2. Summary of Megapode Conservation Status .. 11 References ................................................................... 32

2.1 Critically Endangered species ............................... 11
2.2 Endangered species ............................................... 12 Appendix. List of Contacts .......................................... 36

iii
 Foreword
Five years have passed since the publication of Megapodes as the numerous megapode publications in international
– An Action Plan for their Conservation 1995–1999, during journals, show the increased standard and diversity of
which the Megapode Specialist Group has been active in megapode studies worldwide.
promoting, initiating, and executing conservation and As mentioned above, this has not improved the
research projects on megapodes. However, despite all our conservation status of most (threatened) megapodes.
efforts, the conservation outlook for many species remains Although many of the projects as described in the first
bleak. Deforestation continues, while the economic Action Plan have been executed, these were mainly short-
situation in large parts of the range of most threatened term studies and surveys. These are, however, necessary
megapodes has deteriorated. This has serious implications steps to reach our conservation goals. The new Megapode
for conservation in general, and megapodes in particular, Action Plan has built on this foundation by describing
as some species are important to the local economy and longer-term conservation projects in situ, and focuses on
sustainable use is difficult to explain when food becomes active involvement of the local community and local
scarce and expensive. authorities. The consequence of this is that sufficient funding
We do, however, know much more about megapodes is required. I therefore hope that this Action Plan will not
now than we did five years ago. This has helped only make scientists and conservationists enthusiastic, but
considerably to redesign conservation projects in this new will also generate money; money necessary to get long-term
Megapode Action Plan. Not only do we know much more, megapode conservation projects off the ground.
the information has also become much more widely
available. In 1995, a 262-page monograph on the family René W.R.J. Dekker, Chairman, WPA/BirdLife/SSC
was published by Oxford University Press, while in 1999 Megapode Specialist Group
the Proceedings of the Third International Megapode National Museum of Natural History, P.O. Box 9517,
Symposium came off the press. Both publications, as well 2300 RA Leiden, The Netherlands

v
 Acknowledgements
This Action Plan is based on information, expertise, and the updated Action Plan, for which we are extremely
advice contributed by many members of the Megapode grateful.
Specialist Group and others interested in the conservation We are particularly thankful to the following for
of megapodes. We are extremely grateful to BirdLife contributing and reviewing text: Nicholas Aebischer of
International for providing species accounts from their the Game Conservancy Trust, Peter Garson, Carol Inskipp,
landmark publication Threatened Birds of the World and Darryl Jones, Pritpal Singh Soorae of the Re-introduction
the forthcoming Threatened Birds of Asia, developed Specialist Group, Simon Tonge of London Zoo, and Marc
through an extensive review process involving the BirdLife Argeloo for discussion on communications aspects.
Partnership, the Megapode Specialist Group, the World To the following we extend our thanks for advice and
Pheasant Association, and a worldwide network of information received during the course of the compiling
ornithologists, co-ordinated by the BirdLife Secretariat. process: Han Assink, Joe Benshemesh, Jenny Bowen,
We have benefited greatly from this fruitful collaboration Françoise Burhenne, Anni Lukács and Carola von Conrad
with BirdLife and look forward to continuing our of the IUCN Environmental Law Centre, Keith Chalmers-
relationship. We thank everyone who contributed Watson, Steve Edwards of the IUCN Sustainable Use
information and opinions during the process of reviewing Specialist Group, Anne-Marie Gillesberg, Mariano Gimenez-
the species accounts and, in particular, would like to thank Dixon, Ann Göth, Alain Hennache, Linette Humphrey,
the members of the BirdLife Secretariat team at Cambridge: Darryl Jones, Georgina Mace, David Priddel, Jonathan
Nigel Collar, Pete Davidson, Guy Dutson, Rachel Riley of Action Sampiri, Dieter Rinke, Gary Robbins,
McClellan, Sue Shutes, Alison Stattersfield, and Joe Ravi Sankaran, Christine Sheppard, J Ross Sinclair, Tom
Tobias. In addition, Alison Stattersfield provided sensitive Taylor of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Uwe Vogel,
co-ordination and communication throughout the process. Robert Wheeler, Gary Wiles, and Roger Wilkinson.
The World Pheasant Association provided logistical We would also like to thank Lynx Edicions for granting
and financial support during the preparation of this Action us permission to use the fine illustrations from their
Plan, including funds for the employment of Richard Handbook of Birds of the World, edited by J. del Hoyo, A.
Fuller and a trip to The Netherlands. Despite a heavy Elliot, and J. Sargatal (1994), to accompany this document.
workload, Philip McGowan provided guidance, insight, Other illustrations were provided by René Dekker, David
and co-ordination during the entire process of preparing Keystone, and Dieter Rinke.

The malleefowl is an unusual

megapode, found in semi-arid
habitats in Australia.

vi
 Executive Summary
This Action Plan covers the megapodes, a group of help protect them. It is intended as a broad introduction,
Australasian ground-dwelling birds comprising 22 species and will be particularly useful to those unfamiliar with the
found from the Nicobar Islands in the west, through group and conservation methods in general. Chapter 2
Indonesia, the Philippines, and Australia, to Polynesia in summarises the threat status of each species. The
the east. Their habit of nesting on or near beaches, often species identified as threatened are considered in more
on small islands, makes them vulnerable to disturbance detail in Chapter 3, which gives information on distribution,
and egg collecting, and several species are greatly threats, and possible conservation measures for each
threatened. In 1995, the first Action Plan for the species.
conservation of these species was published and this Chapter 4 is the most important part of the document,
document provides an update on the current situation. and contains details of practical work that is most
The objectives of this document are to identify the most urgently required to help protect each of the threatened
threatened species within this family (Chapters 2 and 3), species. There is a great variety of work proposed, from
and prioritise the conservation action needed to protect small-scale surveys suitable for university students carrying
them by outlining project briefs for the most urgent cases out short-term fieldwork, to more in-depth research
(Chapter 4). programmes requiring much greater financial and logistical
This plan of action will be distributed to biologists, resources. Governments and politicians can use these
conservationists, politicians, policy-makers, government larger projects as a basis for high-profile conservation
officials, educators, planners, grant-awarding bodies, and initiatives, either alone or in conjunction with other
commercial concerns that are in a position to help. The conservation projects in the region. In any case, we
greatest threats to the future survival of these fascinating recommend that researchers wishing to undertake any of
birds are over-exploitation of their eggs, loss of forested these projects develop their ideas in consultation with
habitats where they live, and the introduction of unnatural policy-makers, government officials, grant-awarding
predators. Much can be done at the local level, although bodies, and the Megapode Specialist Group.
national and international support will prove helpful in The Megapode Specialist Group is pleased to report a
some cases. This means that the projects in Chapter 4 large increase in the amount and quality of conservation
should be considered by those with local influence in the work since production of the first Action Plan in 1995, but
areas concerned, as well as by national officials and many species remain highly threatened and, in some
politicians. The full co-operation and involvement of local cases, almost unknown in the wild. The Megapode
people is fundamental to the success of any megapode Specialist Group will continue to do its best to stimulate
conservation project. follow up of this Action Plan and will be pleased to advise
Chapter 1 gives an overview of the megapodes, outlines on its implementation. We look forward to its continued
the major threats they face, and suggests possible ways to success.

vii
 Chapter 1

The Conservation of Megapodes

1.1 Introduction 1.2 Information on megapodes

In 1995, the first Action Plan for the megapodes was Species included in the Action Plan
produced, providing a comprehensive review of status and
outlines for conservation action. During the five-year This Action Plan covers the megapodes of the world. These
implementation period of that Action Plan, a large volume birds belong to the avian order Galliformes, which
of work on these species has been undertaken. The purposes contains all the birds often referred to as gamebirds: the
of this update are: megapodes (Megapodiidae), cracids (Cracidae), guineafowl
(Numididae), New World quails (Odontophoridae), turkeys
• to provide a new overview statement on megapode (Meleagrididae), grouse (Tetraonidae), and partridges, Old
conservation worldwide (Chapter 1); World quails, and pheasants (Phasianidae). Second edition
Action Plans for partridges, quails, francolins, snowcocks,
• to integrate this material into revised threat assessments guineafowl, and turkeys (Fuller et al. 2000), and the pheasants
(Chapter 2); (Fuller and Garson 2000) are being published, while Action
Plans for cracids (Strahl and Brooks 2000) and grouse (Storch
• to justify why certain species are priorities for 2000) have already come off the press. This means that all
conservation effort through updated species accounts Galliformes species are now covered by Action Plans.
(Chapter 3); The species taxonomy and names for megapodes used in
this Action Plan follow that of Jones et al. (1995) who
• to suggest a new set of conservation projects with recognised 22 species in seven genera.
international priority (Chapter 4). For a full discussion of the higher levels of classification
within the Galliformes, including a historical review and an
This document has been prepared on the basis of the analysis based on DNA comparison techniques, see Sibley
most recent information available during 1999, and the and Ahlquist (1990). Brom and Dekker (1992) and Mey
projects listed are intended for implementation during (1999) provide background on classification and taxonomy
2000–2004. It, therefore, supersedes the 1995 Action within the megapodes.
Plan, although some general information is repeated A complete list of the species considered in this Action
for new readers. It provides specific conservation Plan is given in Chapter 2, to which the reader should refer
assessments and interpretation of conservation-related for scientific names.
information and, as such, the reader should not expect
a full account of the biology of this group of birds.
Every effort has been made to gather information Distribution and general biology
and opinion that is up-to-date, from published and
unpublished literature, and from correspondence and Megapodes are found from Niuafo’ou Island, Tonga, in
discussions with people currently involved worldwide the east, through the western Pacific islands of Vanuatu
in the conservation of megapodes and their habitats. and the Solomon Islands, to New Guinea and surrounding
Wherever possible, all substantive statements are backed islands, Australia, eastern Indonesia, and the Philippines.
up with references to the literature. As in the first Two species occur outside this area, to the north at about
edition of the Action Plan, a large amount of information 18ºN on the Mariana and Palau Islands, and to the west at
has been reviewed and all suggested plans for action about 94ºE on the Nicobar Islands. The highest diversity of
have been checked for feasibility by the originators and both genera and species is found in New Guinea and
others. The Megapode Specialist Group is, therefore, Australia (Jones et al. 1995).
confident that this plan has the full backing of its Apart from the malleefowl, which lives in the semi-arid
international network of members and that many of the mallee habitat of southern Australia, all species prefer
proposed actions will be initiated within the five-year moist tropical forest and typically are found on oceanic
implementation period. islands. Despite their preference for tropical forest, many
During 2004, the contents of this Action Plan will megapode species use coastal areas for breeding. Both
again be reviewed and updated, and a third edition drafted types of habitat, therefore, are important for their continued
to cover the period 2005–2009. survival (Jones et al. 1995).

1
 burrow-nesting species, which lay their eggs communally
and often in great numbers at volcanic sites and sun-
exposed beaches (e.g., maleo, Moluccan megapode,
Polynesian megapode, and Melanesian megapode). Tens
of thousands of eggs may be collected from a single such
site per year (Jones et al. 1995). The exploitation, which is
for immediate consumption, as well as for sale in local
markets, is poorly documented. Originally, it occurred
according to strict rules leading to a more or less sustainable
use, as still seems to be true in the case of the Moluccan
megapode in some areas. However, changing traditions
due to immigrations, emigrations, and increases in human
populations have led to over-exploitation of eggs almost
Malleefowl nesting mound. It consists of an inner core of leaf litter everywhere else, resulting in reductions and even
buried under a thick layer of sand. disappearances of megapode populations.
Egg harvesting is not necessarily detrimental to a
The breeding biology of megapodes is very different species, so long as it is sustainable. However, many
from that of all other Galliformes. Some species build megapodes that are subject to exploitation may also be
large mounds of vegetation in which eggs are incubated by affected by other pressures, such as forestry or agriculture,
heat from fungal decay of the material. Others bury their which may degrade their habitat and reduce populations
eggs in burrows, where incubation temperatures are to the point that exploitation becomes unsustainable.
achieved by heat from volcanic activity or the sun. After a
long incubation, the chicks hatch rapidly, dig their way to
the surface, and develop without parental care. Because 1.4 Other sources of information
suitable nesting sites are often few and far between, many on megapodes
burrow-nesting megapode species breed communally.
These features of megapode breeding biology have Information on natural history, speciation, ecology, and
profound implications for their conservation. behaviour of megapodes, as well as a bibliography can be
found in the monograph by Jones et al. (1995). See Elliot
(1994) for another account of the biology of all species.
1.3 Relationship with humans Detailed regional or national accounts are also available;
for example, those by Coates (1985) for Papua New
Megapodes and humans have always had a close Guinea, and Marchant and Higgins (1993) for Australia.
relationship. Megapode eggs have been collected for food In addition, there have been three international
throughout recorded history, particularly those of the symposia on megapodes, held in New Zealand (1990),
Austria (1994), and Australia (1997). Proceedings were
Digging for eggs of the Polynesian megapode at a nesting ground produced following the meetings in New Zealand (Dekker
near Teleka.
and Jones 1992) and Australia (Dekker et al. 1999). The
papers they contain provide much original information on
many different aspects of megapode biology, and especially
on their conservation status.

1.5 Background to the

second edition
Who are we? – the Megapode Specialist
Group

The Megapode Specialist Group (MSG) was formed in

October 1986 in Germany, at the conference Mechanisms
of Very Early Development in Animals and Man. Its purpose
is to provide a forum for those interested in the study and
conservation of megapodes. The MSG newsletter, now in
its 14th year, provides information on current research,

2
conservation projects, and publications on the study of methods to be employed, and estimated timescale and
megapodes (details can be obtained from the Chairman – resources required. They were written in a style designed to
see Appendix). The MSG organised international symposia be attractive to potential benefactors, conservationists,
in 1990, 1994, and 1997, where megapode scientists and and researchers, and should be used in conjunction with the
conservationists from around the world had the threatened species accounts in Chapter 3.
opportunity to share ideas and materials. A monograph
on megapodes was produced in 1995 and the first Action
Plan for the conservation of megapodes was published in 1.6 Threats to the survival of
the same year. For more details see Dekker and McGowan megapodes
(1995).
Threats to megapodes are many and varied, and frequently
a species is subject to two or more pressures simultaneously.
Updating the Megapode Action Plan This section provides background on the major types of
threat faced by megapode species, an overview of the
The content of this Action Plan has built on that assembled importance of different threats, and gives specific examples
for the 1995 edition (Dekker and McGowan 1995, see also to illustrate how they are affecting particular species.
McGowan et al. 1998), and has been reviewed by active
researchers across the world through the network
maintained by the MSG and BirdLife International. Each Habitat loss and degradation
species has been assigned to a threat category, based on the
IUCN Red List Categories (IUCN 1994). This system of Habitat loss is suspected to be causing a decline in most of
categorising threatened species, which has been adopted the threatened species covered in this plan and is, by far,
globally for expressing status information, was developed the most widespread and damaging threat to megapodes.
to provide a consistent and objective way of assessing It takes many forms. Areas of habitat may be destroyed,
threat levels. In order to provide a complete overview of for example, through deforestation. Habitats may be
the status of all megapode species, a section giving degraded through intensive livestock grazing, gradually
conservation assessments was produced (see Chapter 2). encroached upon through urban or agricultural expansion,
The species accounts in Chapter 3 were produced in or modified through human activities, such as selective
close co-operation with BirdLife International to a removal of vegetation for firewood, commercial purposes,
standard format for Threatened Birds of the World (BirdLife or for food. More than one of these forms of habitat
International 2000), the latest global assessment of the disturbance may affect a given area, and may act either
status of threatened birds. Texts for many Asian species simultaneously or one after another.
have been derived from Threatened Birds of Asia (BirdLife This section examines the most serious forms of habitat
International in prep.), a more detailed assessment of the loss and change. These are, complete habitat destruction
status and conservation requirements of Asian birds. The and the fragmentation of a species’ geographic range that
accounts were designed to explain why each species has often results, and habitat degradation, where vegetation is
been placed in a particular threat category by reference to not completely destroyed, but its quality is significantly
information on their past and present distributions, reduced.
estimated population size and trend, and identified threats. Habitat destruction is characterised by complete
Any work in progress is mentioned and a set of explicit removal of the existing vegetation structure. For species
conservation targets has been developed for each species. dependent on forests, the complete removal of all trees in
The final and most important part of the action planning an area (deforestation) causes a catastrophic decline.
process involved the selection and preparation of a series of Timber extraction by logging operations is the primary
project briefs. Through an assessment of progress on all reason for deforestation. Logging is especially common in
projects proposed in the 1995 Action Plan, we have areas with tropical forest over level ground, where
investigated the effectiveness of the first document. The commercially valuable trees can easily be extracted on a
results of this assessment are given in Chapter 4. Based on large scale. Many megapodes nest on or near beaches,
that experience, we provide outlines for a new set of priority where habitat destruction through human development is
projects for execution within the period 2000–2004. We often concentrated. Even if actual nesting grounds and
suggest a variety of project types involving status surveys, forested areas remain intact, megapodes may be prevented
research, population monitoring, habitat protection and from breeding by road building and other development
management, and conservation awareness programmes. along the coastal belt, which makes movement to and
Suggested projects for each species were written in a standard from nesting grounds difficult, dangerous, or even
format stressing the aims, justification, and means of impossible. A species particularly threatened by this form
implementation. Each outline includes details of objectives, of habitat destruction is the maleo.

3
 Habitat may also be cleared to make way for agriculture residual trunks and soil compaction, are discussed by
such as plantations of coffee, rubber, and tobacco, the Whitmore (1984), while Marshall and Swaine (1992) more
growing of wheat, or for the grazing of livestock. A species fully discuss the effects of selective logging on tropical
severely affected by such habitat clearance is the malleefowl. forest. The term “selective logging” is often taken to imply
The species is dependent on mallee habitat, which has been that trees are harvested according to sustainable principles
cleared extensively in Australia for wheat and sheep and that alterations to forest structure are as limited as
production (Benshemesh 1999). Increasingly, habitats are possible. At its most extreme, however, selective logging
cleared for conversion of the land to urban settlement, road can result in forest that is severely degraded, with few trees
building, or reservoir construction. The Micronesian left undamaged, and with an unnaturally patchy and
megapode is an endangered, forest-dependent species irregular canopy.
inhabiting the Mariana and Palau Islands in the Pacific Studies on the siting of incubation mounds by
Ocean. Since human colonisation in prehistoric times, its megapodes have found that the attributes of mound sites
habitat has been subjected to clearance and degradation differ significantly from random, and that mounds are
through over-grazing with livestock. It is now extinct on frequently built in less-disturbed forest (Jones 1988). This
Guam and Rota, and only found in substantial numbers on suggests that habitat degradation may reduce breeding
uninhabited islands. More recently, forested habitats in the success in megapodes (R. Sinclair in litt.).
southern Mariana Islands are being lost to golf courses and Habitat degradation is considered the most important
urban development (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 1998). factor threatening populations of the maleo in Sulawesi
Whatever the reason for habitat destruction, the (Baker and Butchart 2000). Many nesting grounds are
inevitable result of the process is increased fragmentation located near the coast where pressures from development
in the distribution of a species. Habitat loss frequently and increasing human populations have led to removal of
leads to the disruption of all but small blocks of suitable
habitat, which become separated from each other by large Forests are converted into agricultural land to feed a growing
expanses of uninhabitable ground. These habitat “islands” population in the Kingdom of Tonga. The loss of forests has
adverse effects on the population of Polynesian megapode there.
contain populations that are often both small and isolated,
making them particularly at risk of extinction through
effects such as genetic drift, inbreeding depression, and
local catastrophe (Primack 1998). For example, local
populations normally able to recover from natural
disasters, such as floods, may be rendered too small and
isolated to withstand these devastating events. Several
extinctions of isolated local populations through such
episodes may rapidly add up to large-scale disappearances
of a species.
The malleefowl was formerly one of the most
widespread of all megapodes, with a more or less continuous
distribution across southern Australia. However, habitat
clearance has led to a reduction in range of over 80%, and
most populations now occur in isolated habitat fragments.
Because the malleefowl is a poor flier and disperses mainly
on foot, many of these habitat patches are likely to be
inadequate for the long-term conservation of this species
(Benshemesh 1999). Wildfires, frequent natural features
of the mallee environment, may lead to total destruction of
such isolated populations, with little or no chance of re-
colonisation from the surrounding areas.
Habitat degradation is a reduction in the quality of a
habitat without the loss of all original vegetation. It can be
a result of such activities as selective removal of forest
products and grazing by domestic or feral animals. One
example is selective logging, where only a proportion of
trees (usually valuable species) is removed from the forest
in an area. Its impact can vary from the removal of a small
proportion of the standing trees, to the loss of all but a few
trunks. The associated problems, such as damage to

4
substantial amounts of original vegetation. Many areas other species. For example, native faunas have been
are now characterised by extensive secondary growth exterminated from most of the western Polynesian islands
between some original vegetation. In 23 of the 41 known (Steadman 1999). The most common and problematic
coastal nesting grounds, this degradation has proceeded at predators of megapodes and their eggs are dogs, cats, and
such a rate that they are completely isolated from suitable red foxes Vulpes vulpes. The brown tree-snake Boiga
foraging habitat. This is thought to have had severe impacts irregularis is considered a potential threat to populations
on chick survival (Baker and Butchart 2000). of Micronesian megapodes in the Mariana Islands (U.S.
Fish and Wildlife Service 1998).
Predation of malleefowl eggs and chicks by the red fox
Egg collecting in Australia has long been a problem and eradication
programmes are underway, particularly in areas where
Although, in many animal species, effects of direct captive-bred birds are being released to supplement wild
exploitation are considered relatively minimal, megapodes populations (Priddel and Wheeler 1997, Benshemesh 1999).
are often subject to very high egg-harvesting rates. It can Even individual predators can have a significant effect on
sometimes be difficult to distinguish the effects of direct a megapode nesting ground. A single dog is believed to
exploitation and more general threats to species through have killed many Melanesian megapodes at a site on
habitat loss, but this form of threat is considered important Simbo Island by ambushing them while they were digging
for several species of megapode. For example, during the (R. Sinclair in litt.). Chicks of communal nesters are
1990s, some 35,000–40,000 eggs were removed annually susceptible to predation by introduced predators due to
from a single nesting ground of the Moluccan megapode their localised origin of dispersal. For example, Sinclair
in Kailolo. This is believed to constitute more than 80% of (1999) found 66% of radio-tagged Melanesian megapode
the total number of eggs (Heij et al. 1997). When harvesting chicks were killed within 140 hours of hatching.
levels remain within sustainable limits, it is possible for
humans to derive long-term benefits from megapode
nesting grounds without harming megapode populations Other threats
(see Section 1.7 on Actions for the conservation of
megapodes). The possibility of a volcanic eruption is a potential threat
On Simbo Island, local people are very efficient at to the Polynesian megapode on Niuafo’ou Island, a small
finding eggs of the Melanesian megapode and over 99% and active volcanic peak in the Kingdom of Tonga (Richard
are harvested. In 1998, about 180,000 eggs were estimated 1962, Göth and Vogel 1999).
to have been removed (Sinclair 1999). Found only on the
island of Niuafo’ou, the Polynesian megapode is listed as
Critically Endangered and egg collecting is thought to be Threatened subspecies and populations
the main reason for its decline during the last 20 years
(Göth and Vogel 1999). This Action Plan provides a status survey and
recommendations for future action for megapode species.
The Species Survival Commission of IUCN – The World
Introduced predators Conservation Union works primarily at a species level,
and our desire has been to produce a document entirely
Many megapodes are found on relatively undisturbed compatible with their past and future publications. On a
oceanic islands with few natural predators. Indeed, the practical level, there is very little information on which to
global distribution of megapodes has been linked to this make judgements on the conservation status of many
absence of predators (Dekker 1989). Mound-building subspecies and populations of megapode. In view of the
species are particularly prone to predation by carnivores worldwide push for increasing rigour in conservation
when working at their mound. Communal burrow-nesting assessments through strict application of the IUCN Red
species, such as the maleo and Moluccan megapode, are List criteria (IUCN 1994), such an exercise would be
thought to be slightly better protected against direct attacks unjustified. Therefore, we have not considered subspecies
by cats, civets, and other carnivores by virtue of their sheer during the production of this Action Plan.
numbers. However, their communal nesting grounds are
frequently visited by introduced predator species and the
resulting disturbance can have catastrophic effects on Summary of the threat status of
nesting success (R. Dekker pers. obs.). megapodes
The intentional or accidental introduction of predators
by humans to much of the Pacific region over the last 200 The Megapode Specialist Group has concluded that of the
years has had a great impact on megapodes and many 22 species considered, one is Critically Endangered, one is

5
Endangered, and seven are Vulnerable. The remaining 13 have been suggested by the research team (Butchart and
species are considered Lower Risk. Baker 2000).
Urgent attention must focus on the Critically
Endangered species (Polynesian megapode) and the Basic biological research: Research with conservation
Endangered species (Micronesian megapode), and detailed objectives should be designed to provide detailed
proposals for these and other threatened species have been information on the biology of a threatened species,
produced (see Chapter 4). The status of all species, including including, for example, that relating directly to its habitat
those currently placed in the Lower Risk category, will be requirements, its tolerance of disturbance, or its use of
monitored at appropriate intervals through future editions secondary or marginal habitats. Collecting sufficient data
of the Megapode Action Plan. of the type required for individuals or populations will
always be physically demanding, labour intensive, and
expensive by comparison with extensive survey techniques
1.7 Actions for the conservation of such as those described above. Thus, research projects
megapodes need to be designed carefully to tackle important but
feasible objectives that are of immediate use in specifying
Incorporating experience gained from work carried out conservation efforts for the species concerned. Data useful
during the five-year implementation period of the first for conservation can also be a by-product of “pure”
Megapode Action Plan, this section outlines the different research projects. Research with conservation outputs is
forms of conservation action that have proved effective. recommended here for six threatened species.
They have been divided into five areas to emphasise the Research by Sankaran and Sivakumar (1999) into the
sequence of actions that must be undertaken to ensure biology of the Nicobar megapode has established many
long-term conservation of species. Examples are used to new and interesting facts about this species. Of particular
illustrate the different options available, and some new conservation importance is the finding that pair bonds are
actions are proposed. variable and, typically, more than two pairs use a single
mound. This information is critically important when
undertaking survey work to generate population estimates
Gathering basic information from mound counts. Additionally, data of this sort are
essential for establishing parameters of population
Surveys: These are the first steps toward understanding a dynamics for use in Population Viability Analyses (see
species’ requirements and potential threats to its survival. below).
Some megapodes, such as the Bruijn’s brush-turkey and
Biak megapode, remain virtually unknown. Extensive
surveys involve the collection of basic information on the Making conservation recommendations
presence or absence of a species at various sites and, if
possible, some data on relative abundance and population Identifying priority areas for conservation: Once adequate
sizes. Conservation action cannot be proposed without data from surveys and basic biological research have been
such basic knowledge. Surveys of one sort or another are collected, the information must be synthesised and large-
proposed for seven threatened species that sometimes lack scale patterns described. It is at this stage that threat
even the most basic field information on distribution and categorisations can effectively be applied and conservation
abundance. To generate comparable results for the priorities set in a global context. This is necessary before
assessment of long-term changes in abundance, it is local and specific conservation recommendations can be
important that future surveys are designed to leave the made. We will examine one example of the importance of
possibility open of repeating the same work at a later date. identifying large-scale patterns.
It is particularly important that methods are clearly Wherever possible, conservation recommendations
described and survey points are accurately located. This should be based on existing structures and frameworks
last point cannot be overstated. Formal techniques must (Dai Bo et al. 1998). One of the longest standing
be used and data collection should be standardised. conservation actions is the creation of protected areas.
Prior to 1998, surveys for the maleo in Sulawesi were Although it is true that enforcement is often weak in
restricted almost exclusively to the northern part of the protected areas, the fact remains that there is some impetus
island. However, recent work focused on central and behind them and they do have legal standing. Although we
southern areas has provided a wealth of new information, now see these places as being set aside specifically for the
allowing priority areas for maleo conservation to be conservation of species or habitats, it is important to
identified in the context of the entire range of the species realise that there is a variety of reasons why protected
(Baker 1998, Butchart et al. 1998). Forty-three new sites areas were first designated (Pressey et al. 1994) — many of
were located during this work, and eight priority regions these areas were not, strictly speaking, set aside for species

6
or habitat conservation. It is, therefore, advisable to assess modelling is the adequacy and reliability of available data.
how far protected areas are succeeding in conserving The amount and extent of information needed to run a
megapode species. This sounds simple but is, in fact, a simulation providing meaningful and feasible models is
challenging task, both scientifically and in practice. The enormous; hence, there is a need for great caution when
first step involves assessing how well the current system of attempting such an exercise.
protected areas covers the megapodes and identifying For many threatened species, much of the information
species poorly represented by, or even completely absent required for this analysis is not published, so a popular
from, the current network. We can then provide and useful approach has been to hold international
recommendations for embarking on the difficult challenge meetings where researchers familiar with a particular
of trying to fill in these gaps. species exchange information and ideas while conducting
In practice, these steps are difficult because data are the PVA. These meetings are also useful to discuss the
required at a large scale; the need is for information on feasibility of implementing different management
localities across entire species’ ranges. Although difficult, strategies, and ideally result in the production of a
this is possible and has been attempted for the Galliformes comprehensive and achievable set of actions for the
of eastern Asia (McGowan et al. 1999). Such work can conservation of a species.
provide a valuable context for specific field projects. For The Conservation Breeding Specialist Group of IUCN
example, recent survey work in Sulawesi has led to the regularly oversees meetings of this type, which are termed
proposal of eight priority areas for maleo conservation Population and Habitat Viability Assessments (PHVAs).
(Butchart and Baker 2000). They are held, wherever possible, within a range country
The critical feature of this interaction between desktop of the species in question.
analysis and fieldwork is that analysis can help direct Although no comprehensive PHVA has been held for
fieldwork to where it can make the most impact. In turn, any megapode species, it is a process that could clearly
the results of fieldwork feed back to help a large-scale benefit several species. Anyone considering holding a
assessment of how well the protected area network is meeting of this type should arrange it in close consultation
covering a species’ geographic range. with the Megapode Specialist Group and the Conservation
For the many megapode species found on small oceanic Breeding Specialist Group – the latter now provides training
islands, where much of the land is locally owned and courses around the world (see Appendix for contact details).
managed, the protected area concept may need modification. A PVA is here recommended for one species—the
On such islands, it is likely that major national parks and Nicobar megapode.
other forms of protected area designation are not
appropriate, as the feeling of local ownership and
responsibility may easily be lost. A better approach in these Types of conservation recommendation
situations may be to develop local partnerships, such as
that between WWF and the Simbo Island Megapode Protecting habitat: Given that habitat loss and degradation
Management Committee (R. Sinclair in litt.). are major threats to megapode species, establishing (and
maintaining) areas of suitable habitat is usually the best
Population dynamics of individual species: Once set in the way of ensuring their long-term survival. Thus, even in the
context of large-scale patterns and priorities, it is often desirable absence of detailed recommendations of the type emerging
to understand the dynamics of populations (changes in from a PVA, large-scale distribution and habitat
numbers over time), and how particular threats and proposed information can be used to recommend the designation
management strategies are likely to affect them. and expansion of important protected areas as described
One way of looking at the population dynamics of a above. This may either occur formally or result from the
single species is to perform a Population Viability Analysis development of a local partnership, the latter being
(PVA). The basic aim is to use information on the life particularly appropriate for small oceanic island
history, ecology, and distribution of the species to assess communities. Such action is proposed for seven of the
how population sizes might change in the future as a threatened species covered in this plan. It is necessary that
consequence of alternative management strategies, such as recommendations for protected area designation are based
habitat improvement, controlled hunting, and captive on sound science and effectively promoted through
breeding. The process allows combinations of actions to be lobbying of governments, local groups, and other parties
identified that reduce the risk of extinction to a minimum, involved in the decision-making process (see below).
at least in theory (Clark et al. 1991). Various computer Thus, designation of protected areas, often in addition
programs that simulate the behaviour of populations under to those already in existence, is considered to be an
different conditions have been developed (Lacy 1993), but important next step for numerous threatened species, as is
data input into these programs must be carefully checked to the protection and management of critical habitats within
avoid misleading results. A major limitation for population these areas.

7
Controlling illegal harvesting and encouraging sustainable part of the State Recovery Programme in New South
use: Humans have always had a close relationship with Wales, Australia (Priddel and Wheeler 1999). The
megapodes (see Section 1.3 on Relationship with Humans), Polynesian megapode is today found only on Niuafo’ou
and the eggs of most species are regularly harvested for Island, Tonga, but was formerly more widespread in
economic gain and sustenance (Argeloo and Dekker 1996). Polynesia (Steadman 1999). Translocation of birds from
If such harvesting is carried out within biologically sensible Niuafo’ou to other islands still capable of sustaining the
limits, the system may be sustainable and megapode species has been attempted recently on Late and Fonualei,
populations may not decline in the long term. In some with some success (Göth and Vogel 1999, Rinke 1994).
species of Galliformes, it has been shown that natural Further work is needed, as is a long-term monitoring
mortality rates decrease when population densities are programme to assess the effectiveness of this action (see
reduced artificially through harvesting (Aebischer 1997). Section 4.1 on Critically Endangered Species).
This is a density-dependent process—the birds respond to
the lowering of population density with increased Conducting conservation awareness programmes: Because
reproductive output and improved rates of survival. of the close relationship between humans and megapodes,
However, much of this work has been based on studies of there is great potential for conservation awareness
hunting of European species, and further investigation is programmes to highlight the plight of individual
needed to understand whether this density-dependent species, and raise awareness of general principles of
response is seen when megapode eggs are artificially environmental stewardship and sustainable use. In many
harvested. situations, especially where direct human causes have
Sustainable harvesting regimes mean that megapode been implicated in the decline of a species, effective long-
populations need not suffer in the long term and humans term conservation measures cannot be put in place
can derive lasting benefits from the birds. In some cases, without a rigorous and well-audited conservation
megapode species may actually benefit from sustainable awareness programme amongst local communities. Very
harvesting (the “paradox of wise use”) because the economic few project proposals involving a significant education
incentive from harvesting may encourage greater protection component are received by the Specialist Group each year,
of nesting grounds to increase population levels and allow but we nevertheless continue to urge that such initiatives
an even greater sustainable yield (Aebischer 1997). The are put together, and here present some guidelines on
implementation of sustainable harvesting programmes must submitting funding proposals.
always be accompanied by population monitoring to assess Specific conservation awareness programmes are most
the effects of particular rates of harvesting, so that appropriate at the local community level where a species of
appropriate levels can be determined. concern occurs. Initiatives may include, for example,
Allowing controlled harvesting within protected areas workshops involving stakeholders to discuss problems and
already affected by illegal collecting may mean that the possible solutions, and the establishment of mechanisms
whole process can be more tightly monitored and regulated, for distributing information in communities, such as the
and may provide reliable data to understand further the
Cover of an educational booklet of the Polynesian megapode or Malau.
dynamics of harvested populations. Such programmes,
however, should involve wide consultation between local
people, non-governmental organisations (NGOs), species
experts, and government departments.

Re-introduction and translocation: Re-introduction is “an

attempt to establish a species in an area which was once
part of its historical range, but from which it has been
extirpated or become extinct”, while translocation is the
“deliberate and mediated movement of wild individuals or
populations from one part of their range to another”
(IUCN 1998). These processes are extremely complex and
expensive, and the IUCN Guidelines for Re-introductions
(IUCN 1998) should be closely adhered to when designing
a re-introduction programme. Re-introduction should be
considered only as a last resort, where the historical
distribution of a species is well understood and the agents
responsible for a species’ decline or extirpation in the first
place have been addressed. For example, malleefowl are
being bred in captivity for release into restored habitat as

8
distribution of leaflets, construction of an information increasingly, there are conservation initiatives appearing
centre, creation of a nature trail, establishment of nature at regional and local levels. There are a great many global,
clubs at local schools with regular events (e.g., slide/video regional, and national conservation initiatives that deal
shows, field trips, and talks), and development of a field with issues other than the single species or species group
camp for schoolchildren or teachers. that are covered in this action plan. Many of these initiatives
More generalised awareness programmes could involve either incorporating conservation concerns into
involve funding publications, visual education material, or governmental policy, or issues relating to limiting the
exhibitions (travelling or static) to provide information damaging impacts of development programmes. In these
about the birds, why their conservation is important, and and other broad-scale programmes, such as protected area
what people can contribute as individuals and as members management, the kind of species information presented in,
of their communities. Such materials need to be carefully or arising from, plans and work suggested here could play
designed, taking into account the intended audience. a key role. The objectives of these programmes are to
All conservation awareness programmes must be maintain and, where possible, enhance biodiversity and
evaluated to reveal how people benefited from the initiative the information in this Action Plan is central to that.
and what conservation goals were achieved. The latter may Therefore, there is a need to ensure that reliable data on
not be specific, but the former can be tested using species are used when preparing conservation policy and
questionnaires and feedback workshops, depending on the assessing development needs.
situation. Once again, such evaluation exercises must be One prime example of a global initiative that is having
carefully thought through, and details submitted with project increasingly local impact is the Convention on Biological
proposals. Diversity, which was framed during the United Nations
The overall message is that conservation awareness Convention on Environment and Development (popularly
programmes should not just be added on to biological known as the ‘Earth Summit’) at Rio de Janeiro in Brazil
conservation projects because it seems the right thing to do. during 1992. The objectives of the Convention on Biological
If they are to be effective for conservation, these important Diversity are to ensure the conservation of biodiversity, its
initiatives must be carefully planned, executed, and sustainable use, and the equal sharing of benefits from its
evaluated. Ideally, experiences and evaluations should be use. Four key articles outline how this should be achieved
published both locally and internationally to aid in the (see Box 1.1).
design of future projects (C. Inskipp in litt.). The global importance of this convention is
A good example of a long-term conservation programme demonstrated in several ways; for example, the degree to
involving local communities at every level is provided by which many countries that are rich in biodiversity are
the Malleefowl Preservation Group, founded in August developing national biodiversity strategies and action
1992 in Gnowangerup Shire, Western Australia. As well as plans as required under Article 6. The first step in this
undertaking survey work, field studies, and habitat
management work, the group has fostered greater Box 1.1. The Convention on Biological Diversity.
community awareness of malleefowl conservation through Key articles relating to the conservation of
the production of a Community Action Plan. Other activities biodiversity.
included the production of an information pamphlet, and • Article 6: General measures of conservation and
the implementation of a programme for cat sterilisation to sustainable use
help reduce malleefowl chick mortality. Changing farming Requires the development of national strategies, plans, or
practices in Western Australia, combined with the fact that programmes for the conservation and sustainable use of
biodiversity.
malleefowl are frequently found on private land, have
emphasised the need for community involvement if the • Article 7: Identification and monitoring
Requires the identification and monitoring of biodiversity
conservation of this species is to be effective (Orsini and
and of impacts upon it. It also considers the knowledge
Hall 1995, Dennings 1999). A conservation awareness necessary for conservation and sustainable use.
programme is also underway for the Vanuatu megapode
• Article 8: In situ conservation (i.e., conservation of
(Foster 1999). biological diversity within natural habitats and
ecosystems)
Requires the management of biodiversity where it occurs
Implementing conservation naturally, and includes the need for protected areas and
recommendations the needs of threatened species.
• Article 9: Ex situ conservation (i.e., conservation of
In order to use species information and conservation biological diversity outside natural habitats)
Requires the management of biodiversity in places such as
recommendations arising from the various possible actions
zoos and botanical gardens. It also deals with collection
suggested above, there is a need to place them into context. from the wild.
Typically, this has been done at a governmental level but,

9
process is the production of a biodiversity assessment for considered an important next step (R. Sankaran in litt.). A
a country. monitoring programme using line transects to estimate
In concert with the rest of the Galliformes Specialist the abundance of adult Melanesian megapodes is being
Groups, there is a clear need to ensure that the best undertaken by the local community. WWF provides the
information on megapodes is made available to such local Megapode Management Committee with technical
national biodiversity assessments. This Megapode Action support in interpreting the data (Sinclair 1999). The
Plan and all of the supporting data used to produce it committee plans to use these data to assess the success of
should contain this information. Subsequently, we must their management actions.
bring all available expertise to bear on the resulting national
conservation recommendations as they affect threatened
megapodes. Summary of conservation action

The Megapode Specialist Group has concluded that of the

Monitoring effects of conservation action different conservation actions considered, the most urgent
in terms of assisting threatened species conservation are
Systematic monitoring of populations is an essential tool habitat protection (seven of the nine threatened species),
for detecting changes in the status of a species at particular surveys (seven species), conservation awareness
sites over long periods of time and should always be used programmes (six species), monitoring (six species), and
to assess the effectiveness of conservation actions. Careful basic biological research (six species).
thought must be given to the design of monitoring At present, the remaining 13 species are not considered
programmes, ideally through initial assessments of count in need of conservation action globally, although action
reliability that include correlating results of index counts may already be needed locally to prevent them from
with detailed counts at appropriate times of year. becoming extinct in certain parts of their ranges. As the
A large-scale monitoring programme for malleefowl is vast majority of megapode species are very poorly known
underway in Australia, where a grid-based system is being in the wild, these species at lower risk present an ideal
used to provide benchmark estimates of abundance. The opportunity for research training. For example, they may
data are being centralised at Birds Australia (the national be suitable subjects for research into wise use through
ornithological organisation) and a selection of these grids sustainable harvesting, which could provide economic
will form the basis of a long-term monitoring programme. incentive to conserve both the birds and their habitats
Baseline population data have been collected on the (Hudson and Rands 1988, Aebischer 1991). Such studies
Nicobar megapode (Sankaran and Sivakumar 1999) and may also lead to the development of techniques beneficial
a monitoring programme building on this foundation is in the context of threatened megapode conservation.

10
 Chapter 2

Summary of Megapode Conservation Status

In order to prioritise species for conservation, it is desirable
Box 2.1 The IUCN Red List Categories (from IUCN
to place them in different categories representing the severity
1994).
of threats they face and the likelihood of them becoming
extinct. This allows conservation actions to be targeted at Critically Endangered (CR)
species and areas most in need of attention in a global or A taxon is Critically Endangered when it is facing an extremely
regional context. high risk of extinction in the wild in the immediate future.
In November 1994, the IUCN Council approved a new Endangered (EN)
set of such threatened species categories (IUCN 1994), A taxon is Endangered when it is not Critically Endangered,
designed to provide an objective system that can be applied but is facing a very high risk of extinction in the wild in the
near future.
consistently by different people and across different groups
of organisms, although this only became widely available in Vulnerable (VU)
A taxon is Vulnerable when it is not Critically Endangered or
1996. The new system also allows the user of threatened
Endangered, but is facing a high risk of extinction in the wild
species lists to see exactly how and why each species has in the medium-term future.
been placed in a certain threat category. The three categories
Lower Risk (LR)
indicating threatened status are Critically Endangered, A taxon is Lower Risk when it has been evaluated, but does
Endangered, and Vulnerable. Species not considered under not satisfy the criteria for any of the categories Critically
threat are placed in the Lower Risk category, subdivided Endangered, Endangered, or Vulnerable.
into conservation dependent, near threatened, and least
concern. All judgements of threat status should be reviewed
on a regular basis.
Certain criteria must be met to qualify a species for 2.1 Critically Endangered species
inclusion in a particular threat category. For example, a
species represented by fewer than 2,500 mature individuals One megapode species meets criteria sufficient for
and with an estimated continuing decline of at least 20% classification as Critically Endangered:
within five years qualifies as Endangered (criterion C1),
and one with fewer than 250 mature individuals and a 25% Polynesian megapode
rate of decline within three years is considered Critically (Megapodius pritchardii)
Endangered (criterion C1). These criteria have to be stated
clearly and justified whenever a new threat categorisation is Distribution: Niuafo’ou Island, Tonga
made. In this chapter, we present the results of an assessment Threat status/criteria: CRITICALLY ENDANGERED/
conducted by experts in each species, through a process co- B1+2e
ordinated by the BirdLife Secretariat and using all relevant Priority conservation actions: translocation, conservation
information available. The criteria for each threat category awareness programme, population monitoring (see
are reproduced from IUCN (1994) and presented together Section 4.1)
with the categorisations of each megapode species. Polynesian megapode. This species is currently known only from
Full justifications as to why each species has been placed the Kingdom of Tonga.
in a particular threat category are given in the following
chapter.

NOTE
In the first Megapode Action Plan, the conservation status
of species was assessed using the criteria proposed by Mace
and Lande (1991). These criteria were widely known as the
Mace-Lande Criteria, and have now been given the version
number 1.0 in the process to revise the IUCN Red List
© Lynx Edicions

categories and criteria (IUCN 1994). Because the criteria

for assigning species to the categories have been revised, the
present categorisations cannot be directly compared with
those given in the first Action Plan.

11
 Box 2.2 Criteria for Critically Endangered (CR)

A taxon is Critically Endangered when it is facing an extremely high risk of extinction in the wild in the immediate future, as
defined by any of the following criteria (A to E):

A. Population reduction in the form of either of the following:

1. An observed, estimated, inferred, or suspected reduction of at least 80% over the last 10 years or three generations,
whichever is the longer, based on (and specifying) any of the following:
a) direct observation
b) an index of abundance appropriate for the taxon
c) a decline in area of occupancy, extent of occurrence, and/or quality of habitat
d) actual or potential levels of exploitation
e) the effects of introduced taxa, hybridisation, pathogens, pollutants, competitors, or parasites.
2. A reduction of at least 80%, projected or suspected to be met within the next 10 years or three generations, whichever is
the longer, based on (and specifying) any of (b), (c), (d), or (e) above.

B. Extent of occurrence estimated to be less than 100km2 or area of occupancy estimated to be less than 10km2,
and estimates indicating any two of the following:
1. Severely fragmented or known to exist at only a single location.
2. Continuing decline, observed, inferred, or projected, in any of the following:
a) extent of occurrence
b) area of occupancy
c) area, extent, and/or quality of habitat
d) number of locations or subpopulations
e) number of mature individuals.
3. Extreme fluctuations in any of the following:
a) extent of occurrence
b) area of occupancy
c) number of locations or subpopulations
d) number of mature individuals.

C. Population estimated to number less than 250 mature individuals and either:
1. An estimated continuing decline of at least 25% within three years or one generation, whichever is longer, or
2. A continuing decline, observed, projected, or inferred, in numbers of mature individuals and population structure in the form
of either:
a) severely fragmented (i.e., no subpopulation estimated to contain more than 50 mature individuals) or
b) all individuals are in a single subpopulation.

D. Population estimated to number less than 50 mature individuals.

E. Quantitative analysis showing the probability of extinction in the wild is at least 50% within 10 years or three
generations, whichever is the longer.

Micronesian megapode. There are probably less than 2,500 birds

2.2 Endangered species left in the world.

One megapode species meets criteria sufficient for

classification as Endangered:

Micronesian megapode
(Megapodius laperouse)

Distribution: Mariana Islands, Palau Islands

Threat status/criteria: ENDANGERED/B1+2b,c,d,e
Priority conservation actions: see Section 4.2
© Lynx Edicions

12
 Box 2.3 Criteria for Endangered (EN)

A taxon is Endangered when it is not Critically Endangered, but is facing a very high risk of extinction in the wild in the near
future, as defined by any of the following criteria (A to E):

A. Population reduction in the form of either of the following:

1. An observed, estimated, inferred, or suspected reduction of at least 50% over the last 10 years or three generations,
whichever is the longer, based on (and specifying) any of the following:
a) direct observation
b) an index of abundance appropriate for the taxon
c) a decline in area of occupancy, extent of occurrence, and/or quality of habitat
d) actual or potential levels of exploitation
e) the effects of introduced taxa, hybridisation, pathogens, pollutants, competitors, or parasites.
2. A reduction of at least 50%, projected or suspected to be met within the next 10 years or three generations, whichever is
the longer, based on (and specifying) any of (b), (c), (d), or (e) above.

B. Extent of occurrence estimated to be less than 5,000km2 or area of occupancy estimated to be less than
500km2, and estimates indicating any two of the following:
1. Severely fragmented or known to exist at no more than five locations.
2. Continuing decline, observed, inferred, or projected, in any of the following:
a) extent of occurrence
b) area of occupancy
c) area, extent, and/or quality of habitat
d) number of locations or subpopulations
e) number of mature individuals.
3. Extreme fluctuations in any of the following:
a) extent of occurrence
b) area of occupancy
c) number of locations or subpopulations
d) number of mature individuals.

C. Population estimated to number less than 2,500 mature individuals and either:
1. An estimated continuing decline of at least 20% within five years or two generations, whichever is longer, or
2. A continuing decline, observed, projected, or inferred, in numbers of mature individuals and population structure in the form
of either:
a) severely fragmented (i.e., no subpopulation estimated to contain more than 250 mature individuals) or
b) all individuals are in a single subpopulation.

D. Population estimated to number less than 250 mature individuals.

E. Quantitative analysis showing the probability of extinction in the wild is at least 20% within 20 years or five
generations, whichever is the longer.

2.3 Vulnerable species Maleo (Macrocephalon maleo)

The following seven megapode species meet criteria Distribution: Sulawesi and surrounding islands
sufficient for classification as Vulnerable: Threat status/criteria: VULNERABLE/A1a,c,d; A2b,c,d;
C1; C2a
Bruijn’s brush-turkey (Aepypodius bruijnii) Priority conservation actions: habitat protection, research,
sustainable harvesting programme, conservation
Distribution: Waigeo Island awareness programme, population monitoring (see
Threat status/criteria: VULNERABLE/D1 Section 4.3)
Priority conservation actions: surveys, research, re-
assessment of global status (see Section 4.3) Moluccan megapode (Eulipoa wallacei)

Malleefowl (Leipoa ocellata) Distribution: northern and central Moluccas, Misool Island
Threat status/criteria: VULNERABLE/A1d; A2c,d; C1
Distribution: southern Australia Priority conservation actions: habitat protection, research,
Threat status/criteria: VULNERABLE/A1c,e; A2b,c,e sustainable harvesting programme, conservation
Priority conservation actions: see Section 4.3 awareness programme (see Section 4.3)

13
 © Lynx Edicions

© Lynx Edicions
Maleo. A beautiful megapode, well suited to its status as a Vanuatu megapode. This species is threatened by unsustainable
flagship species for conservation in Sulawesi. levels of egg collecting.

Box 2.4 Criteria for Vulnerable (VU)

A taxon is Vulnerable when it is not Critically Endangered or Endangered but is facing a high risk of extinction in the wild in
the medium-term future, as defined by any of the following criteria (A to E):

A. Population reduction in the form of either of the following:

1. An observed, estimated, inferred, or suspected reduction of at least 20% over the last 10 years or three generations,
whichever is the longer, based on (and specifying) any of the following:
a) direct observation
b) an index of abundance appropriate for the taxon
c) a decline in area of occupancy, extent of occurrence, and/or quality of habitat
d) actual or potential levels of exploitation
e) the effects of introduced taxa, hybridisation, pathogens, pollutants, competitors, or parasites.
2. A reduction of at least 20%, projected or suspected to be met within the next 10 years or three generations, whichever is
the longer, based on (and specifying) any of (b), (c), (d), or (e) above.

B. Extent of occurrence estimated to be less than 20,000km2 or area of occupancy estimated to be less than
2,000km2, and estimates indicating any two of the following:
1. Severely fragmented or known to exist at no more than 10 locations.
2. Continuing decline, observed, inferred, or projected, in any of the following:
a) extent of occurrence
b) area of occupancy
c) area, extent, and/or quality of habitat
d) number of locations or subpopulations
e) number of mature individuals.
3. Extreme fluctuations in any of the following:
a) extent of occurrence
b) area of occupancy
c) number of locations or subpopulations
d) number of mature individuals.

C. Population estimated to number less than 10,000 mature individuals and either:
1. An estimated continuing decline of at least 10% within 10 years or three generations, whichever is longer, or
2. A continuing decline, observed, projected, or inferred, in numbers of mature individuals and population structure in the form
of either:
a) severely fragmented (i.e., no subpopulation estimated to contain more than 1,000 mature individuals) or
b) all individuals are in a single subpopulation.

D. Population very small or restricted in the form of either of the following:

1. Population estimated to number less than 1,000 mature individuals.
2. Population is characterised by an acute restriction in its area of occupancy (typically less than 100km2) or in the number
of locations (typically less than five). Such a taxon would thus be prone to the effects of human activities (or stochastic
events whose impact is increased by human activities) within a very short period of time in an unforeseeable future, and
is thus capable of becoming Critically Endangered or even Extinct in a very short period.

E. Quantitative analysis showing the probability of extinction in the wild is at least 10% within 100 years.

14
Nicobar megapode Brown-collared talegalla
(Megapodius nicobariensis) (Talegalla jobiensis)

Distribution: Nicobar Islands Distribution: New Guinea

Threat status/criteria: VULNERABLE/C1 Threat status: LOWER RISK (lc)
Priority conservation actions: research, re-assessment
of global status, habitat protection, conservation Philippine megapode
awareness programme, population monitoring (see Section (Megapodius cumingii)
4.3)
Distribution: Philippines to islands of northern Borneo,
Biak megapode Sulawesi
(Megapodius geelvinkianus) Threat status: LOWER RISK (lc)

Distribution: Geelvink Bay Islands (Irian Jaya) Sula megapode (Megapodius bernsteinii)
Threat status/criteria: VULNERABLE/C1
Priority conservation actions: surveys, research, re- Distribution: Sula Islands, Banggai Islands
assessment of global status, predator control (see Threat status: LOWER RISK (nt)
Section 4.3)
Tanimbar megapode
Vanuatu megapode (Megapodius tenimberensis)
(Megapodius layardi)
Distribution: Tanimbar Islands
Distribution: Vanuatu Threat status: LOWER RISK (lc)
Threat status/criteria: VULNERABLE/C1
Priority conservation actions: surveys, sustainable Dusky megapode (Megapodius freycinet)
harvesting programme (see Section 4.3)
Distribution: northern Moluccas to islands of western
New Guinea
2.4 Lower Risk species Threat status: LOWER RISK (lc)

The following 13 megapode species are presently considered Forsten’s megapode

Lower Risk: (Megapodius forstenii)

Australian brush-turkey Distribution: central Moluccas

(Alectura lathami) Threat status: LOWER RISK (lc)

Distribution: eastern Australia Melanesian megapode

Threat status: LOWER RISK (lc) (Megapodius eremita)

Wattled brush-turkey Distribution: islands off eastern New Guinea, including

(Aepypodius arfakianus) the Solomon Islands
Threat status: LOWER RISK (lc)
Distribution: New Guinea, Japen Island, and Misool Island
Threat status: LOWER RISK (lc) New Guinea megapode
(Megapodius decollatus)
Red-billed talegalla (Talegalla cuvieri)
Distribution: New Guinea
Distribution: New Guinea Threat status: LOWER RISK (lc)
Threat status: LOWER RISK (lc)
Orange-footed megapode
Black-billed talegalla (Megapodius reinwardt)
(Talegalla fuscirostris)
Distribution: eastern Indonesia, New Guinea, and northern
Distribution: New Guinea Australia
Threat status: LOWER RISK (lc) Threat status: LOWER RISK (lc)

15
Box 2.5 Criteria for Lower Risk (LR)

A taxon is Lower Risk when it has been evaluated, but does not satisfy the criteria for any of the categories Critically Endangered,
Endangered, or Vulnerable. Taxa included in the Lower Risk category can be separated into three subcategories:

1. Conservation Dependent (cd).

Taxa which are the focus of a continuing taxon-specific or habitat-specific conservation programme targeted towards the
taxon in question, the cessation of which would result in the taxon qualifying for one of the threatened categories above
within a period of five years.

2. Near Threatened (nt).

Taxa which do not qualify for Conservation Dependent, but which are close to qualifying for Vulnerable.

3. Least Concern (lc).

Taxa which do not qualify for Conservation Dependent or Near Threatened.

16
 Chapter 3

Species Accounts
The previous chapter presented an overview of the 3.1 Critically Endangered species
conservation status of all megapodes, and assigned a
threat category to each. This chapter expands on this Polynesian megapode
information and provides a detailed justification as to why (Megapodius pritchardii)
each threatened species has been placed in that particular
category. Species considered at Lower Risk are not treated Critically Endangered B1+2e
here, as our aim is to draw attention to the species most in
need of conservation action. These species accounts have This species qualifies as Critically Endangered because it has
been developed through an extensive review process a viable population on just one tiny island (which is an active
involving the BirdLife Partnership, the Megapode volcano) and is likely to be declining, despite available
Specialist Group, the World Pheasant Association, and a habitat, owing to harvesting and predation. It has been
worldwide network of ornithologists, co-ordinated by the translocated to two other islands, but further evidence is
BirdLife Secretariat. This means that the information needed to confirm that these populations are self-sustaining.
presented here has been developed and reviewed by a wide
range of active megapode researchers. Range and population: The Polynesian megapode is endemic
Each species is treated in a standard format. After to Niuafo’ou, Tonga and has been introduced to Late and
detailing the criteria supporting inclusion in a particular Fonualei, where its status is uncertain. On Niuafo’ou, it is
category of threat and supplying a summary justification, concentrated around the inner slopes of the caldera and on
the following information is provided: two cat-free islets in the crater lake. In 1979, the population
was estimated at 820 adults (Todd 1983) and in 1991–1993,
Range and population: The full geographic distribution of at 188–235 pairs occupying an area of 641ha in 719ha of
the species is given, together with any available partial or suitable habitat (Göth and Vogel 1995). This represents
complete estimates of population numbers or density. If 52–65% of possible carrying capacity, assuming an average
any inferences can be made, or data exist on trends in of 0.5 pairs per ha (Göth and Vogel 1995). A comparison
population numbers and geographic range, these are given between the two population figures is not appropriate
here. Facts are always distinguished from inferences. because of differences in techniques, but comparisons
between individual sites and interviews with local people
Ecology: Brief details of habitat use, diet, and breeding strongly suggest an overall decline (Göth and Vogel 1995).
biology are provided in this section.
Ecology: It inhabits broadleaf, secondary to mature forest
Threats: The major known threats facing the species are (Göth and Vogel 1995), but needs open ground with little
given, together with some indication as to the relative vegetation, where it can forage in leaf litter and topsoil
importance of the different types. mainly for insects and worms, but also for small reptiles,
seeds, and small fruits (Rinke et al. 1993). It uses hot
Conservation: This section outlines whether the species is volcanic ash to incubate its eggs, a habit which confines its
protected by legal instruments or occurs in existing nesting sites to areas of loose soil close to vents in forests,
protected areas. It also highlights recent conservation on open ash, or on beaches of crater lakes (Todd 1983).
research and action that has been carried out to help
protect the species. Threats: All nesting sites are harvested and at least 50% of
all eggs laid are collected or destroyed (Göth and Vogel
Targets: These are the recommendations supplied by 1995). Adults are also hunted on a small scale, and adults
various experts on each species, and endorsed by BirdLife and chicks are predated by feral cats and dogs. In addition,
International and the Megapode Specialist Group. These pigs may compete with this species for food (Göth and
targets outline the work most urgently required to help Vogel 1995).
prevent the species from becoming more threatened or
even extinct. Conservation: It is legally protected, although in practice
there is no enforcement (Elliot 1994). From 1991 to 1993,
60 eggs were buried at volcanically heated sites on Late
(Göth and Vogel 1995), and an additional 35 eggs and

17
chicks were transferred to Fonualei (Rinke 1994), both (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 1998). It eats a variety of
uninhabited and rarely visited by humans. Surveys in foods, including seeds, insects, crabs, and plant matter
1995, 1996, and 1997 showed that breeding was successful (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 1998, Engbring 1988).
on both islands, although there is no evidence that chicks Nominate laperouse nests in burrows in sun-warmed cinder
have survived (C. Matevalea in litt.). See SPREP (1999) for fields or areas warmed by geothermal heat (U.S. Fish and
further information. Wildlife Service 1998). Race senex nests in mounds made
from leaf litter and sand (Engbring 1988).
Targets:
• Continue long-term monitoring of the nesting grounds on Threats: Forests are periodically degraded by typhoons
Niuafo’ou. and damaged by feral herbivores, and volcanic eruptions
• Protect the three crater-lake islets as nature reserves, pose a continuing threat (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
minimise disturbance, and regularly survey for introduced 1998). In addition, birds are hunted, eggs are collected
predators. (Engbring 1988), and both are taken by introduced
• Enforce the ban on egg collecting or restrict it, preferably predators, such as monitor lizards Varanus indicus, rats
through a council of residents endowed with necessary Rattus spp., and feral dogs, cats, and pigs (U.S. Fish and
powers. Wildlife Service 1998). The accidental introduction of the
• Establish a long-term monitoring programme on Late brown tree-snake from Guam to other islands is a
and continue translocation following strict guidelines. potentially serious threat (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
• Investigate the possibility of translocation to Tofua. 1998). In Palau, there is increasing tourist use of beaches
• Continue and intensify conservation awareness and possible disturbance to nest sites (Stinson and Glass
programmes. 1992).

Conservation: A recovery plan exists and the species is

3.2 Endangered species protected by federal and local laws (U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service 1998). In the Marianas, more surveys are planned
Micronesian megapode (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 1998). In 1998 and 1999,
(Megapodius laperouse) feral herbivores were removed from Sarigan (G. Wiles in
litt.). The uninhabited islands of Asuncion, Maug,
Endangered B1+2b,c,d,e Uracus, and Guguan are wildlife sanctuaries (U.S. Fish
and Wildlife Service 1998). In Palau, the Ngerukewid
This species qualifies as Endangered because it has a very Islands Wildlife Reserve protects 50–80 birds (Wiles and
small range restricted to isolated, undisturbed, offshore islets, Cony 1990).
with few birds elsewhere. Given the multiple threats across its
range, it is likely to be suffering from a continuing decline. Targets:
• Conduct detailed censuses.
Range and population: The Micronesian megapode occurs • Develop a long-term monitoring programme.
on Palau and the Northern Marianas Islands (to U.S.A.), • Continue ecological research.
and is extirpated from Guam (to U.S.A.). In Palau, race • Assess the extent of hunting and egg collection.
senex is locally common on limestone and outlying islands • Control introduced predators selectively and protect all
(e.g., Kayangel), but rare on larger volcanic islands (e.g., islands from accidental introduction of the brown tree-
Babeldaob). In 1991, the population was estimated at 497 snake.
birds, excluding Kayangel (Engbring and Pratt 1985, • Determine the risk of human disturbance in Palau.
Engbring 1992). In the Marianas, nominate laperouse is • Protect remnant forest in the Marianas from development
mainly restricted to islands north of Saipan (including and feral ungulates.
Farallon de Medinilla (Lusk et al. 2000)). In 1997, the
population was estimated at 1,440–1,975 birds (the largest
subpopulation being 545–810 on Sarigan) (U.S. Fish and 3.3 Vulnerable species
Wildlife Service 1998). There is a small remnant population
on Aguijan, possibly a persisting re-introduced population Bruijn’s brush-turkey
(a few birds) on Tinian (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 1998, (Aepypodius bruijnii)
J. Lepson in litt.), and a small, re-introduced population (14
birds) on Saipan. Vulnerable D1

Ecology: It prefers limestone forest, occasionally occurring There have been no confirmed records of this species for over
in adjacent secondary forest and dense coconut groves 60 years and its population is, therefore, inferred to number

18
less than 1,000 individuals, qualifying it as Vulnerable. • Conduct field surveys to establish the species’ distribution
However, there are few data on the species or the threats that and population status.
may impinge upon it, and this classification may need • Conduct research into its habitat requirements and
revision. threats.
• Research presence and impact of introduced mammalian
Range and population: The Bruijn’s brush-turkey is endemic predators.
to Waigeo, West Papuan Islands, Indonesia. It is known • Determine how much suitable habitat remains on
from just 15 specimens (most recently collected in 1938) Waigeo.
(Holmes 1989, Jones et al. 1995), with the only specified • Produce and promote management recommendations
locality being Jeimon, on the east side of Majalibit Bay. for the bird and its habitat.
None was seen in 1993, when many islanders did not know • Prevent the introduction of potential ground predators.
the bird at all (although some thought it was uncommon)
(Dekker and Argeloo 1993), and a 10-day survey in 1986
did not reveal any birds (K.D. Bishop and J.M. Diamond Malleefowl (Leipoa ocellata)
in litt.). Based on the extent of available habitat, it has been
suggested that the population may number 100–2,500 Vulnerable A1c,e; A2b,c,e
individuals (Dekker and McGowan 1995, Jones et al.
1995). This species qualifies as Vulnerable because it has undergone
a decline of more than 20% over the last 45 years (three
Ecology: It appears to inhabit mountain forests, including generations), based on a decline in its range owing to habitat
the extremely rugged karst interior of the island, and is clearance and fragmentation and the compounding effects
presumably sedentary, although it may shift in elevation of introduced species. Furthermore, this decline is likely to
or habitat use seasonally (Holmes 1989, Dekker and continue and, as numbers get smaller, some reserves may
Argeloo 1993). There may be some resource partitioning prove too small to support viable populations.
with the dusky megapode, which occurs widely in coastal
areas and on slopes up to 400m (Dekker and Argeloo Range and population: The malleefowl was formerly
1993). There is no information on diet, foraging behaviour, widespread in Australia but its range appears to have
or breeding, although (like other brush-turkeys) it is contracted by over 50%. There are few data on population
thought to be a mound builder. sizes, but estimates in the 1980s suggested there were only
750 pairs in New South Wales and less than 1,000 pairs in
Threats: Waigeo’s rugged relief, lack of infrastructure, Victoria. Numbers in South Australia are probably higher,
and apparently intact forest suggest there are no immediate perhaps several thousand pairs. There are no population
threats to the species (Holmes 1989, Dekker and McGowan data in Western Australia. It has not been recorded for
1995). A proposed reduction in the size of the existing several decades (and is probably extinct) in the Northern
reserve on Waigeo and the prospect of cobalt mining were Territory (Benshemesh in press).
concerns in the late 1980s, but have apparently not come
to pass (Dekker and McGowan 1995). Selective logging Ecology: It is found principally in semi-arid to arid
has been reported in the north and hunting was speculated shrubland and woodland dominated by mallee eucalypts
to be a problem (Dekker and McGowan 1995). The Eucalyptus and/or wattles Acacia. It requires a sandy
southeast corner of the island was ravaged by fire in 1982, substrate and abundance of leaf litter for breeding. Higher
perhaps rendering it unsuitable for the species (Dekker breeding densities occur on better soils with more rainfall,
and Argeloo 1993). The introduction of predators and habitat that has not been burned for several decades
represents another potential threat (Dekker 1989). is preferred. It feeds on herbs, seeds, flowers, fruits, fungi,
tubers, and invertebrates, and also forages in stubble on
Conservation: Cagar Alam Waigeo Barat Nature Reserve adjoining agricultural land. Its “nest” is a mound,
was established in the late 1980s and covers 1,530 km2, comprising an inner core of leaf litter buried under a thick
slightly less than half the island (Holmes 1989, Dekker and layer of sand. A single female may lay over 30 eggs in a
McGowan 1995). A two-week survey was conducted in season but on average, each breeding pair produces 8–10
the southeast corner of Waigeo in October 1993, which chicks each year (Frith 1959).
failed to find the species (Dekker and Argeloo 1993,
Dekker and McGowan 1995). Threats: Clearance for agriculture has eliminated much
habitat, resulting in localised extinction and fragmented
Targets: populations (Frith 1962, Benshemesh in press). It is highly
• Conduct further extensive village interviews on Waigeo sensitive to grazing by introduced herbivores, such as
to gather presence/absence data. sheep (Frith 1962), large-scale wildfires (Benshemesh 1990),

19
and predation by introduced foxes (Frith 1962, Priddel lake shores, and riverbanks heated by solar radiation and/
and Wheeler 1997). or geothermal sources (MacKinnon 1978, Dekker 1990).
Eggs are left to incubate and hatch with no further parental
Conservation: Recommended actions in a national recovery support (MacKinnon 1978, 1981).
plan are directed at securing existing populations (e.g.,
preserving habitat, connecting isolated populations, Threats: Unsustainable harvesting of eggs combined with
reducing threats from introduced species and wildfire), human disturbance of nesting grounds has caused the
obtaining further information (e.g., current distribution, abandonment of most coastal nesting colonies and poses
population trends and dynamics, habitat requirements, a major threat to those remaining (Butchart and Baker
genetic variation), and promoting community involvement 2000). Forest destruction and fragmentation increasingly
in research and management (Benshemesh in press; see threaten surviving populations (Dekker 1988). Logging,
also Garnett and Crowley in press). and agricultural, urban, and road developments have
isolated virtually all coastal nesting grounds from non-
Targets: breeding habitats, significantly elevating the risk of
• Assess the size and distribution of populations in mortality and natural predation of chicks (MacKinnon
fragments and remoter regions. 1981). Invasive vegetation poses a further threat to nesting
• Establish national monitoring standards. grounds (MacKinnon 1981).
• Monitor populations in at least 10 sites in each state.
• Encourage adoption of suitable fire regimes. Conservation: CITES Appendix I. It has been protected
• Maintain or establish habitat corridors between under Indonesian law since 1972 (Inskipp 1986). Over 50%
fragments. of known nesting grounds (overwhelmingly inland sites)
• Close or fence off artificial water supplies in reserves, are located inside protected areas (Dekker 1990). Many
and remove livestock. field studies relating to the species’ conservation have been
• Control goats, rabbits, and foxes. initiated (Dekker and Wattel 1987, Dekker 1990, Argeloo
• Foster communication with graziers about malleefowl 1994, Dekker and McGowan 1995, Butchart and Baker
requirements. 2000).

Targets:
Maleo (Macrocephalon maleo) • Monitor daily numbers of birds laying at as many colonies
as possible.
Vulnerable A1a,c,d; A2b,c,d; C1; C2a • Assess status of colonies in southeast Sulawesi.
• Continue researching the effectiveness of hatcheries and
This charismatic megapode is classified as Vulnerable artificial incubation programmes.
because it has undergone an observed rapid decline, which is • Promote traditional, sustainable egg-harvesting regimes
projected to continue based on actual levels of exploitation and renew community-based protection initiatives.
and decline in extent and quality of habitat, combined with • Expand management activities in protected areas,
the fact that it has a small population that is continuing to particularly scrub clearance at nesting sites.
undergo severe fragmentation. • Extend protected area status to selected key nesting
grounds and forest corridors connecting nesting grounds
Range and population: The maleo is endemic to Sulawesi and non-breeding areas.
and Buton Islands, Indonesia. Of the 131 currently or • Encourage eco-tourism to provide alternative local
formerly known nesting grounds, 42 have been abandoned, revenue to egg harvesting.
38 are severely threatened, 34 are threatened, 12 are of
unknown status, and only five are not yet threatened
(Butchart and Baker 2000). The global population is Moluccan megapode (Eulipoa wallacei)
currently estimated to be in the region of 4,000–7,000
breeding pairs (Butchart and Baker 2000), and declining Vulnerable A1d; A2c,d; C1
rapidly (up to 90% in places since 1950) (Argeloo and
Dekker 1996). The viability of many smaller populations The rapid population decline of this megapode through over-
is becoming increasingly threatened. exploitation is projected to continue, which, combined with
its small, declining, and increasingly fragmented population,
Ecology: It inhabits lowland and hill rainforest, up to at qualifies it for classification as Vulnerable.
least 1,065m, and human-modified habitats when travelling
to coastal nesting grounds (Jones et al. 1995). It nests Range and population: The Moluccan megapode is endemic
communally at traditional sites, typically sandy beaches, to the Moluccan Islands of Buru, Seram, Haruku, Ambon,

20
Bacan, Halmahera, Ternate, and Misool off Irian Jaya Nicobar megapode
(from where there is only one record), Indonesia (Jones et (Megapodius nicobariensis)
al. 1995). It has undergone a substantial decline, such that
the global population is now estimated at about 10,000 Vulnerable C1
individuals. The vast majority of the population nests at
two sites, on Halmahera and Haruku (Dekker and This species qualifies as Vulnerable because it has a small,
McGowan 1995). It is probably extinct on Ambon and declining population as a result of the destruction of coastal
Ternate, and is apparently rare on Bacan and Seram. forest.

Ecology: It inhabits dense evergreen rainforest, but also Range and population: The Nicobar megapode is endemic
occurs in degraded forest and coastal scrub, from sea-level to the Nicobar Islands, India, where it occurs on all but the
to 2,000m, although perhaps more typically above 750m islands of Car Nicobar, Pilo Milo, and Chaura. Historical
except when nesting (Jones et al. 1995). It lays and buries reports from Little Andaman, India, and the Cocos Islands,
its eggs nocturnally in colonies, chiefly on solar-radiated Myanmar lack substantiating evidence (Sankaran 1995).
sandy beaches or other loose, unvegetated substrates (Jones The population in coastal forests has been estimated at
et al. 1995, Heij and Rompas 1997). Egg-laying occurs between 2,300 and 4,000 breeding pairs (Sankaran 1995).
year-round, apparently showing marked peaks at some Population densities are believed to be lower within the
sites during the regionally variable dry season (Baker interior of islands, but these have not been estimated. The
1999, Baker and Dekker 2000, Dekker et al. 1995, Heij main populations on Great and Little Nicobar appear
1995). stable, but extinctions are probably imminent on
Megapode and perhaps Kondul islands (R. Sankaran in
Threats: Over-harvesting of its highly nutritious eggs is the litt., Sankaran 1995).
main reason for its decline, even in some areas where
traditional regulatory management is practised (Dekker Ecology: It inhabits forests and secondary growth, with
1991, Dekker et al. 1995, Heij 1995). Natural predation of greatest concentrations in coastal forests. It builds nest
eggs and chicks by Varanus lizards, snakes, and birds of mounds of sand, loam, and humus, in which its eggs are
prey poses an increasing threat as colonies decline (Siebers incubated. Pairs often share nest mounds. Larger mounds
1930, Heij and Rompas 1997, Baker 1997). Sand extraction tend to have more stable incubation temperatures and the
for local road construction and other small-scale shortest incubation period (about 72 days). Annual
development projects potentially endanger nesting grounds hatching success fluctuates widely (Dekker 1992, Sankaran
(Dekker 1991, Dekker et al. 1995). Deforestation (through 1995, Sankaran and Sivakumar 1999).
logging and agricultural encroachment) is presumed to be
a threat in its non-breeding habitats (Jepson 1993). Threats: The key threats are: loss of coastal forest through
conversion to agricultural uses, such as coconut, banana,
Conservation: It has been legally protected since 1979 and cashew plantations, and rice paddy cultivation; road
(Inskipp 1986). Traditional management regimes for development projects, which threaten to fragment habitat
sustainable egg harvesting have been observed for at least blocks, particularly on Great Nicobar; and settlement
80 years at the two main nesting grounds (Kailolo and expansion. Snaring and shooting for food and unsustainable
Galela), reputedly without serious detriment to the species egg collection are localised problems (Dekker 1992, Collar
(Dekker et al. 1995). Surveys of nesting grounds et al. 1994, Sankaran 1995, Stattersfield et al. 1998). A
commenced in 1995, including a biological study at the proposal to develop Great Nicobar as a free-trade port,
Haruku nesting ground (Heij 1995, Argeloo and Dekker creating a dry dock and refuelling base for international
1996, Baker 1997, Heij et al. 1997). shipping at the mouth of the Galatea River is potentially
major threat (Sankaran 1995, 1997).
Targets:
• Conduct further surveys of the major historical nesting Conservation: It is listed in Schedule I of the Wildlife
grounds on Buru. Protection Act. It occurs in Campbell Bay and Galathea
• Monitor breeding success at selected key nesting grounds. National Parks on Great Nicobar (a Biosphere Reserve),
• Conduct research into non-breeding season habitat and and three wildlife reserves on uninhabited islands.
range. Designation of most of the Nicobars as tribal areas legally
• Campaign for full legal protection of all important viable prohibits commercial exploitation of natural resources
nesting grounds, particularly on Halmahera and Haruku. and settlement or ownership of land by non-tribals
• Conduct education programmes and work closely with (Sankaran 1997). Detailed status surveys and ecological
local people to achieve and maintain sustainable egg- studies have been conducted (Sankaran 1995, Sankaran
harvest regimes. and Sivakumar 1999).

21
Targets: Threats: Specific threats are undocumented, but probably
• Monitor coastal populations and survey inland include egg collecting (though its widely spaced nest
populations. mounds may reduce this risk (S. van Balen and B. Beehler
• Conduct a detailed ecological study of its population in litt.)), hunting, and perhaps predation by introduced
dynamics and social organisation. mammals (Dekker and McGowan 1995). Much forest on
• Expand the existing protected areas system to encompass Biak (particularly the southern plains) and Numfor has
wider tracts of coastal forest on Great Nicobar, the been destroyed or damaged by logging and subsistence
Nancowry Island group, and Little Nicobar. farming, and the remainder is under pressure (Bishop
• Lobby against the proposed port development on Great 1982, K.D. Bishop in litt., D. Holmes in litt.). Much of
Nicobar. Supiori comprises virtually impenetrable, forested
• Initiate a conservation awareness programme to reduce limestone mountains, habitat that is likely to be safe from
local exploitation pressure. degradation.

Conservation: There are two protected areas on the islands,

Biak megapode Biak-Utara and Pulau Supiori Nature Reserves, which
(Megapodius geelvinkianus) cover substantial areas of lowland and hill forest on Biak
and Supiori (Stattersfield et al. 1998). A further reserve
Vulnerable C1 has been proposed for Numfor (Diamond 1986).

This little-known megapode is classified as Vulnerable on Targets:

account of a small estimated population, which is inferred • Conduct surveys on all appropriate islands to establish
to be declining at more than 10% in three generations, fully its distribution and current population status.
owing to a variety of threats. However, further research • Assess its habitat requirements and threats.
may show that this species’ range is severely fragmented • Conduct research into its breeding biology.
and hence may be considered Endangered. On the other • Assess status of forest on Biak-Supiori.
hand, it may show that its current rate of decline is much • Devise a list of management recommendations, including
slower and, therefore, should be reclassified as Near ensuring adequate protection of nesting areas if different
Threatened. from non-breeding habitats.
• Prevent potential introduction of ground predators.
Taxonomy: The Biak megapode differs somewhat from • Ensure tourist development proposals on Biak are
the dusky megapode in morphology and size, and is adequately balanced with biodiversity conservation needs.
recognised as a full species in the latest family review
(Jones et al. 1995).
Vanuatu megapode (Megapodius layardi)
Range and population: The Biak megapode is endemic to
Biak-Supiori in Irian Jaya, Indonesia, and its satellite Vulnerable C1
islands, Mios Korwar, Numfor, Manim, and Mios Num
(Jones et al. 1995). It is not clear whether one specimen, This species qualifies as Vulnerable because it is inferred to
apparently from Manokwari on mainland Papua, have a small population that is likely to be declining, owing
represents a straggler from a nearby island or a mislabelled to unsustainable egg collecting and loss of coastal forest.
specimen (Jones et al. 1995). Its population size is unknown,
but believed to be small and declining. It was formerly Range and population: The Vanuatu megapode is endemic
common on Biak (Mayr and Meyer de Schauensee 1939) to Vanuatu where it has been recorded from most islands
and it was recorded daily in and around Biak-Utara north of Efate (Bregulla 1992). In 1995, it was surveyed on
Reserve in 1997 (S. van Balen and B. Beehler in litt.), but Ambrym where 148 burrows were counted in three breeding
only “small numbers” were seen recently on Owi (a satellite grounds. Local villagers reported a decline in numbers
of Biak) and Supiori (D. Gibbs in litt.). (Bowen 1996). The population density was estimated at
about 100 birds per km2 in the Loru Protected Area on
Ecology: It has been recorded in forest, logged forest, Espiritu Santo (Bowen 1997), but birds appear less common
secondary growth, dry scrub, and scrub near a river. in other forests on the island (G. Dutson in litt.). There are
However, there is no information on its habitat preferences, 1970s records from islands which have not been visited
general habits, food, or breeding biology, although these subsequently: Vanua Lava, Aoba, Malo, Malakula,
are probably broadly similar to other Megapodius spp. It Lopevi, Paama, Epi, Tongoa, and Emae (J. Diamond in
presumably builds nest mounds or buries its eggs between litt.). On Tanna, its status is uncertain and it may be
decaying roots of trees (Jones et al. 1995). extinct there (G. Dutson in litt.).

22
Ecology: It inhabits lowland hill forest (to an unknown Conservation: Effective protection measures are limited (J.
altitude) and is believed to be poorly tolerant of degraded Bowen in litt.), but on Santo it does breed in the Big Bay
forest. Away from volcanically heated areas, it nests on and Loru Protected Areas, and it is legally protected from
beaches and in decomposing vegetation (e.g., around hunting between 1 July and 31 March. On Ambrym, local
rotting trees). As with other congeners, it is thought to be communities, NGOs, and the government are developing
a dispersive species, flying to nesting and roosting sites, a programme of ongoing surveys and protection measures
and not at risk from population fragmentation. It forages on the communal nesting grounds (Bowen 1996, 1997, G.
by scratching in the leaf litter on the forest floor (Bregulla Dutson in litt., Foster 1999).
1992, Bowen 1996).
Targets:
Threats: On Ambrym, most burrows showed signs of • Survey the population at Lake Fanteng on Ambrym.
human disturbance and hundreds or thousands of eggs are • Assess the success of egg-collecting control measures on
collected annually. It is hunted by rural communities and Ambrym.
killed by feral dogs. Large areas of lowland forest across • Survey other islands with communal nesting grounds.
its range are scheduled for logging, and other forest areas • Enforce legislation.
are degraded by agriculture and cattle grazing. Coastal • Hold workshops with village and church leaders, egg
forests, where many communal nesting grounds are located, collectors, women’s groups, and schoolchildren in villages
are particularly threatened. Fires and cyclones also degrade near nesting grounds to disseminate information about
foraging and nesting habitat (Bregulla 1992, S. Maturin in the species and the consequences of egg collecting.
litt., Bowen 1996, Foster 1999).

23
 Chapter 4

Five-year Plan of Action

The previous chapter provided a summary of information Structure of project outlines: Suggested projects are grouped
that is of conservation importance for all species of under each species. They are outlines of what needs to be
megapode, and outlined the conservation targets that, if done, as well as why and how. They are designed to be read
achieved, should prevent the species from becoming extinct. as much by people who might then seek or donate funds
This chapter builds upon these recommendations by allowing a project to be carried out, as by biologists
proposing key projects that the Megapode Specialist Group wishing to conduct research that should contribute to the
recommends should be started or continued during the conservation of megapodes and their habitats. Together
period 2000–2004. with the species accounts given in Chapter 3, and the
Before examining these projects in detail, it is helpful to references cited therein, they could be used to develop full
assess the results of projects suggested in the first edition. project proposals. Such proposals can be submitted to the
This assessment was accomplished by sending out a Megapode Specialist Group, which will be able to provide
questionnaire to everyone undertaking projects on advice and contacts, and help with funding applications
megapodes relating to those suggested in the first edition. through their endorsement procedure and international
Of the 10 projects proposed in 1995, two were existing network.
national projects, six have been initiated, and two have not Each project outline includes entries under a standard
yet been attempted. Of the 26 individual project objectives set of sub-headings, as follows:
suggested in the 1995 Action Plan, 20 were achieved by the
end of the implementation period, two were attempted but Aims: A brief statement of the project’s major objectives.
not achieved, and a further objective is pending. Three Justification: Why the project is urgent and valuable.
objectives were not attempted during the implementation Project description: Includes a description of how the aims
period. might be achieved, often with some mention of study areas
These data indicate that a great deal of the work and methods.
recommended in the first edition of the Megapode Action Timescale: How long the project might last, including time
Plan has been initiated. Indeed, the projects outlined in this travelling to and from the study area.
second edition are clear evidence of a new phase in megapode Resources: An indication of the approximate scale of the
conservation, moving on from conducting basic survey project through a cost estimate in US$. Estimated costs
work to combining existing data with new biological should be carefully itemised for inclusion in full project
information to generate well-informed threat assessments proposals. Totals may ultimately differ substantially from
and construct management strategies at a variety of scales. what is presented here particularly if researchers work on
Major components of many projects are conservation a voluntary basis. Details of other important resource
awareness programmes, which can now be attempted considerations are provided where appropriate.
realistically because much of the necessary baseline data
has become available over the past five years. The same
applies to providing and promoting scientifically based 4.1 Critically Endangered species
management recommendations to decision-makers.
Another major focus is on population monitoring to assess Polynesian megapode
the effectiveness of sustainable harvesting programmes (Megapodius pritchardii)
and management initiatives. Throughout, it is intended
that local communities be involved wherever possible. Although the three projects suggested for this species
In this chapter, a section is devoted to each species, could be undertaken individually, we suggest they
containing details of suggested priority projects. A national be co-ordinated as part of a long-term conservation
recovery plan is in production for the malleefowl strategy.
(Benshemesh 1997, 1999, in press), and another has been
produced for the Micronesian megapode (U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service 1998). For researchers wishing to work on Project 1. Monitoring of the Polynesian
these species, we recommend establishing contact with the megapode on Niuafo’ou Island.
executors of these recovery programmes to co-ordinate
work and assess current priorities. For these reasons, we Aim: To continue monitoring the breeding population of
do not include specific project suggestions for these species. this species.

24
Justification: The Critically Endangered Polynesian Timescale: For the duration of this Action Plan and beyond.
megapode is known only from the island of Niuafo’ou in
the north of the Kingdom of Tonga. The global population Resources: As a long-term and large-scale project, this
may be as low as about 200 breeding pairs and census data work is expected to require substantial funding of over
indicate that it is in long-term decline (Todd 1983, Göth $25,000.
and Vogel 1999). The species is subject to a variety of
threats, and it is essential that the remaining population is
monitored at least every five years, preferably more Project 3. Translocation programme for the
frequently, so that further changes can be identified and Polynesian megapode.
appropriate action taken.
Aims: To continue the translocation of megapodes from
Project description: Polynesian megapodes lay eggs Niuafo’ou to Late and possibly Fonualei; to ensure the
throughout the year, although this activity may be outcomes of this work are monitored and methods modified
suppressed during dry weather. Eggs are laid in burrows as necessary.
where they are heated by underground volcanic activity.
These breeding sites, particularly on the crater-lake islets, Justification: Fossil evidence indicates that this species
should be visited to conduct counts during the census was formerly more widespread (Steadman 1999). Some
period. During this work, the islets could also be searched eggs have already been translocated to Late and Fonualei,
for feral cats and other introduced predators. If predators although the results have not been intensively monitored
are found, eradication is recommended and should be (Rinke 1994). If the species can be successfully introduced
implemented if at all possible. to other islands, its conservation outlook will be drastically
improved and it would be downlisted to Endangered.
Timescale: A complete census of the species could be
conducted in three months, although the ongoing nature Project description: Strict guidelines should be followed
of the monitoring programme means that this work must whenever a translocation is carried out (IUCN 1998), and
be undertaken in the context of a long-term strategy. any removal of eggs should be explained and justified
through a public awareness programme. The hatching
Resources: Total costs for a single census should remain success of translocated eggs should be monitored on Late
below $5,000. and Fonualei and, ideally, information on subsequent
breeding success of adults should be gathered. The
possibility of translocating birds to other volcanic islands
Project 2. Raising public awareness of the in the Tongan Archipelago could be investigated further.
conservation of the Polynesian megapode.
Timescale: For the duration of this Action Plan and beyond.
Aim: To continue and intensify the conservation awareness
programme already begun on Niuafo’ou. Resources: As a project requiring expensive equipment
and long-term follow-up, this work is expected to require
Justification: Harvesting of Polynesian megapode eggs and substantial funding of over $25,000.
utilisation of other natural resources is an integral part of
the culture on Niuafo’ou, and increasing economic pressures Polynesian megapode. Believed to have occurred on several
islands in the Kingdom of Tonga; research must now focus on
are placing further strain on these natural resources. Egg whether they can be successfully re-introduced.
harvesting is believed to be the main reason for the drastic
decline in megapode numbers (Göth and Vogel 1999), and
the species is now considered Critically Endangered.

Project description: Conservation awareness programmes

must work sensitively within the cultural system, and not
dictate how Tongan people should use their natural
resources. Information must be presented in a clear and
understandable format, and ways of reducing direct pressure
on the megapode must be balanced by alternative means of
sustenance and income for local people. The programme
must work in close consultation with the Tongan
government and investigate forming an island-wide council
of residents to discuss suitable conservation measures.

25
4.2 Endangered species the Cagar Alam Waigeo Barat Protected Area. If possible,
habitat at a variety of altitudes should be searched so the
Micronesian megapode altitudinal range of the species can be identified.
(Megapodius laperouse)
Timescale: Initial survey work should take approximately
Recovery programme for the Micronesian three months, with a minimum of two months actually on
megapode Megapodius laperouse laperouse. the island.

The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (1998) has produced a Resources: The lack of infrastructure on Waigeo means
comprehensive recovery plan for the Micronesian that this project may cost $5,000–10,000. Considerable
megapode, and anyone wishing to work on this species local guidance would be needed to travel to and around
should contact the Commonwealth of the Northern the island.
Mariana Islands (CNMI), Division of Fish and Wildlife
(DFW), Saipan, or the Megapode Specialist Group in the Project 2. Management plan for the
first instance to assess current priorities. The Megapode conservation of the Bruijn’s brush-turkey.
Specialist Group supports all recommendations made in
the recovery plan. Aims: To identify how much suitable habitat remains on
the island; to identify and quantify the threats to the future
survival of this species; to produce and promote a list of
4.3 Vulnerable species management recommendations for the species and its
habitat.
Bruijn’s brush-turkey (Aepypodius bruijnii)
Justification: The long-term survival of this species depends
Project 1. Survey for Bruijn’s brush-turkey on entirely on the population inhabiting Waigeo. Therefore,
Waigeo Island. appropriate habitat protection or active conservation
measures must be implemented based on quantification of
Aims: To locate this species on Waigeo and describe its the threats faced by the species.
basic habitat requirements; to measure population densities
and generate a global population estimate. Project description: This study would build upon the
previous project, with the details being dependent on the
Justification: Despite several efforts to locate this species, results of that survey work. The amount of suitable habitat
it has never been observed in the wild by ornithologists remaining on Waigeo should be measured and the most
and so its status remains unknown. However, it is presumed important threats to the survival of the species identified. A
to be Vulnerable. It is considered at risk because the extent management plan for the conservation of Bruijn’s brush-
of its habitat is very limited. turkey should be produced and promoted to the appropriate
authorities.
Project description: The first step is to conduct a systematic
search of the island. As long-term fieldwork on Waigeo is Timescale: Combined with the above survey work (Project
difficult, it may be appropriate to concentrate initially on 1), the fieldwork necessary to establish appropriate data
for a management plan should take 6–12 months.
Bruijn’s brush-turkey. This species has never been observed in
the wild by biologists. Resources: Approximately $10,000–25,000 would be
needed to carry out this work effectively.

Malleefowl (Leipoa ocellata)

National Recovery Programme for the

malleefowl Leipoa ocellata.

The National Malleefowl Recovery Team (Benshemesh

© Lynx Edicions

1997, 1999, in press) is producing a comprehensive recovery

plan for this species, and anyone wishing to work on
malleefowl should contact the Recovery Programme
author or the Megapode Specialist Group in the first

26
 and their inland forest habitat, forested corridors are
required. A second part of this project could develop and
promote proposals for the establishment and maintenance
of such corridors.

Timescale: The need for this work is ongoing and this

project should continue through the duration of this
Action Plan.

Resources: Costs are likely to remain within $5,000–10,000.

Good communication among decision-makers is needed
at all appropriate levels.

Project 2. A conservation awareness

programme for the maleo.

Aims: To raise public awareness of reasons for the decline

in maleo populations and how these trends can be arrested
or reversed; to disseminate information on systems for
Malleefowl. The National Malleefowl Recovery Team has produced
a comprehensive recovery plan for this unusual megapode. sustainable harvesting of maleo eggs, in conjunction with
Project 3.
instance to assess current priorities. The Megapode
Specialist Group supports all the recommendations made Justification: Much of the decline in maleo populations
in the recovery plan. results from degradation of habitat in and around nesting
grounds, and over-exploitation of eggs. Increased public
awareness of the plight of this species and the reasons for
Maleo (Macrocephalon maleo) its decline may help reverse this trend. Successful
implementation of sustainable harvesting will help
Project 1. Improving protection of maleo safeguard this species in the long term.
nesting grounds in Sulawesi.
Project description: Conduct a high-impact, conservation
Aims: To campaign for improved protection of maleo awareness programme through the media and community
nesting grounds both inside and outside existing protected groups to raise the profile of the species. Local people could
areas; to develop proposals for forested corridors linking be involved in projects to restore degraded habitat around
known nesting grounds and montane forest. nesting grounds, which can then provide benefit in the form
of long-term sources for the sustainable harvesting of eggs.
Justification: The maleo is endemic to the islands of Sulawesi As the symbol of Sulawesi, this species is widely known,
and Buton. It has suffered a considerable decline in numbers and can act as a flagship for more generalised conservation
in recent times due to over-exploitation of eggs by man, and awareness and environmental stewardship programmes.
loss and degradation of habitat. Research work and
conservation initiatives have been underway since the late Timescale: The need for this work is ongoing and this
1970s, but there is now a need for further protection of project should continue through the duration of this
known nesting grounds to prevent further decline, as well Action Plan.
as new protected status for certain priority sites.
Resources: This is a large-scale and long-term project, and
Project description: This work should be carried out by, or is likely to cost over $25,000.
through, international and national conservation
organisations. Lobbying for improved protection of maleo
nesting grounds both inside and outside existing protected Project 3. Developing a system for sustainable
areas is recommended, including such areas as Tambun harvesting of maleo eggs.
and Tumokang in NP Nani Wartabone (formerly NP
Dumoga-Bone), Hulurawa and Saluki in NP Lore Lindu, Aims: To design and promote a system for sustainable
Batu Katunda in NR Morowali, Libun, Tanjung Matop, harvesting of maleo eggs; to evaluate the effectiveness of
and Bakiriang. As maleos move between nesting grounds hatcheries in maleo conservation.

27
Justification: Sustainable harvesting of eggs is believed to Project 2. A conservation awareness
be one of the best ways to ensure long-term survival at programme for the Moluccan megapode.
harvested nesting grounds. In the case of the maleo,
hatchery projects have also been used to supplement wild Aims: To raise public awareness of the importance of these
populations in certain cases. However, detailed biological few nesting grounds for the continued survival of the
information is necessary to design and evaluate such species; to disseminate information on systems for
programmes effectively. sustainable harvesting of Moluccan megapode eggs, in
conjunction with Project 3.
Project description: Conduct research to establish the
natural survival rate of eggs and chicks, and evaluate the Justification: Being a beach-nester, the Moluccan
effectiveness of hatchery programmes in maleo megapode frequently comes into contact with humans and
conservation. The results of this research should be egg-harvesting levels are high. A conservation awareness
translated into a system of sustainable harvesting of eggs programme could focus on assisting local communities to
for the local community. develop long-term sustainable harvesting strategies. This
would ensure that both the people and the birds benefit.
Timescale: Detailed research work over several seasons is
required to establish the necessary biological data. Project description: Conduct a high-impact conservation
Combined with work on translating this into a system for awareness programme through the media and community
sustainable harvesting, the whole project could occupy the groups to raise the profile of the species, especially on
duration of the Action Plan and beyond. Halmahera and Haruku. Local people could be involved
in projects to manage nesting grounds, which can provide
Resources: This intensive project would require in excess benefit in the form of long-term sources for the sustainable
of $25,000. harvesting of eggs.

Timescale: The need for this work is ongoing and this

Moluccan megapode project should continue through the duration of this
(Eulipoa wallacei) Action Plan.

Project 1. Improving protection of Moluccan Resources: Costs for this project should remain between
megapode nesting grounds. $5,000 and $10,000.

Aim: To campaign for improved protection of Moluccan

megapode nesting grounds. Project 3. Developing a system for sustainable
harvesting of Moluccan megapode eggs.
Justification: During the past five years, it has become
clear that the vast majority of the global population of Aim: To design and promote a system for sustainable
this species lays eggs in two nesting grounds. If these harvesting of Moluccan megapode eggs.
sites were lost, there would be a catastrophic decline
in this species. Protection for these areas is a major Justification: Sustainable harvesting of eggs is believed to
priority to safeguard the future of the Moluccan be one of the best ways to ensure long-term survival at
megapode. harvested nesting grounds. For this species, which is
subject to high rates of egg harvesting, this could be crucial
Project description: This work should be carried out by, in ensuring its long-term survival. However, detailed
or through, international and national conservation biological information is necessary to design and evaluate
organisations. Lobbying for improved protection of such programmes effectively.
Moluccan megapode nesting grounds is recommended,
including such areas as Kailolo, Haruku, and Galela. Project description: Conduct research to establish the natural
survival rate of eggs and chicks, and translate the results
Timescale: The need for this work is ongoing and this into a system of sustainable harvesting of eggs for the local
project should continue through the duration of this community. It may be necessary to monitor nesting grounds
Action Plan. in the long term and, if so, every effort should be made to
implement such a monitoring programme.
Resources: Costs are likely to remain within $5,000–10,000.
Good communication among decision-makers is needed Timescale: Detailed research work over several seasons is
at all appropriate levels. required to establish the necessary biological data.

28
Combined with work on translating this into a system for Timescale: The need for this work is ongoing and this project
sustainable harvesting, the whole project could occupy the should continue through the duration of this Action Plan.
duration of the Action Plan and beyond.
Resources: Owing to current restrictions, work in the
Resources: This intensive project would require in excess Nicobar Islands must be conducted by an Indian researcher.
of $25,000. This project is expected to cost between $5,000 and $10,000.

Nicobar megapode Project 2. A conservation awareness programme

(Megapodius nicobariensis) for the Nicobar megapode.

Project 1. Improving protection of Nicobar Aims: To raise public awareness of reasons for the decline
megapode nesting habitat. in Nicobar megapode populations, and how these trends
can be arrested or reversed.
Aim: To campaign for improved protection of Nicobar
megapode nesting habitat. Justification: The people of the Nicobar Islands are exempt
from Indian Forest and Wildlife Protection Law, and
Justification: This species has a restricted range and is human disturbance (both wilful and incidental) is a major
endemic to the Nicobar Islands. Nicobar megapodes build cause for concern with this species. A conservation
their mounds in coastal areas and, therefore, suffer from awareness programme is required to alleviate some of these
disturbance and habitat destruction and degradation. problems, while providing local people with long-term
Many such areas have been located over the past five years methods of sustainable harvesting, and reducing disturbance
and now there is an urgent need for improved protection and habitat clearance.
for these sites.
Project description: Conduct a high-impact, conservation
Project description: This work should be carried out by, or awareness programme through the media and community
through, international and national conservation groups to raise the profile of the species among local
organisations. Lobbying for improved protection of these people. Conservation awareness programmes must work
coastal strips within existing protected areas is strongly sensitively within the cultural system and not dictate how
suggested. In addition, new protected areas are needed in people should use their natural resources. Information
the Nancowry Group. Recommendations for more must be presented in a clear and understandable format,
effective protection of nesting habitat should include and ways of reducing direct pressure on the megapode must
reducing hunting pressure at the several locations where be balanced by alternative means of sustenance and income
Thai poachers come in by boat. for local people.

Nicobar megapode at its

mound, Great Nicobar, March
1992. This species often builds
its mounds near beaches.

29
Timescale: The need for this work is ongoing and this Timescale: A minimum of three years will be required to
project should continue through the duration of this Action collect the necessary data and conduct a PVA.
Plan.
Resources: As an intensive and long-term project, this
Resources: This project is likely to cost between $10,000 work is expected to cost in excess of $25,000.
and $25,000.

Biak megapode
Project 3. Monitoring of the Nicobar megapode. (Megapodius geelvinkianus)

Aim: To continue monitoring the breeding population of Project 1. Survey for Biak megapode on Biak
this species. and surrounding islands.

Justification: Although the broad distribution and Aims: To locate this species on Biak and surrounding
abundance of the Nicobar megapode is known, information islands and describe its basic habitat requirements; to
on population trends is essential for understanding the measure population densities and generate a global
long-term conservation status of the species. These data population estimate.
can be used to highlight particular regions of concern and
establish where further conservation effort should be Justification: Owing to confusion about the taxonomic
targeted. status of this species, recently split from the dusky megapode,
very little is known of its conservation status in the wild. It
Project description: Periodically re-survey coastal areas in is listed as Endangered as a precaution pending further
the 16 islands where the species is present. Aim to establish information on the species. Habitats on the island of Biak
a five-year programme of survey work, beginning in 2000. are under pressure, and there is an urgent need to clarify the
Survey work should also investigate the interior of the distribution and abundance of the Biak megapode.
larger islands, as these have not yet been surveyed in Gathering such baseline data must be the first step in
detail. understanding the overall conservation needs of the species.

Timescale: Each survey could be completed in two three- Project description: Conduct a basic survey of Biak and
month periods during the dry season. surrounding islands. Describe the habitats occupied by
the species (e.g., whether it occurs in secondary forest) and
Resources: Each complete survey should cost between identify how much suitable habitat remains on these islands.
$5,000 and $10,000. Estimate population densities and produce a total
population estimate.

Project 4. Population dynamics of the Nicobar Timescale: This project should require about three months
megapode.
Resources: Probably less than $5,000.
Aims: To study population dynamics (e.g., survival,
recruitment); to investigate the viability of small
populations (e.g., PVA). Project 2. Management plan for conservation of
the Biak megapode.
Justification: As more and more biological data become
available on this species, it will be possible to conduct Aims: To identify how much suitable habitat remains on
quantitative modelling of population dynamics and project the islands; to identify and quantify threats to the future
future trends in conservation status. survival of this species; to produce and promote a list of
management recommendations for the species and its
Project description: All relevant data should be assembled, habitat.
and any gaps filled by field research or reference to other
megapode species. A range of population models should Justification: Once baseline data have been collected on
be investigated and appropriate methods developed. the Biak megapode, it will be necessary to re-assess its
Effects of possible management strategies can be conservation status in the light of this new information.
investigated, and the project should culminate in a strategic Combining this with data on habitat availability and
assessment of the best way forward for the long-term levels of disturbance will allow an initial assessment of the
conservation of the species. most urgent conservation priorities to be made.

30
 declines, and allow the populations to regain long-term
stability.

Project description: Assist local communities on Ambrym

through local organisations such as the Vanuatu Protected
Areas Initiative, in regulating egg harvesting during the
peak nesting period of June to August. This needs to be
applied and upheld by all chiefs from nearby villages, and
supported by the National Council of Chiefs. Workshops
with village and church leaders, egg collectors, women’s
groups, and schoolchildren in villages near nesting grounds
are needed to disseminate information locally about the
status, laws, ecology, and threats to this species. To monitor
the progress of this work, annual assessments of the
species’ status and the number of eggs laid should be made
at the nesting ground. This model could be extended to

© Lynx Edicions
other islands in Vanuatu.

Timescale: This project will require at least one year in the

first instance. Follow-up survey work would be additional
Biak megapode. A poorly-known species, partly because until
to this.
recently it was considered a subspecies of the dusky megapode,
a much more widespread and common species.
Resources: This large-scale project would probably cost
Project description: This study would build upon the between $10,000 and $25,000.
previous project, and the details are dependent on the
results of that survey work. The amount of suitable habitat
remaining on the islands should be measured, and the Project 2. Survey for Vanuatu megapode.
most important threats to the survival of the species
identified. A management plan for the conservation of the Aim: To provide information on the distribution and
Biak megapode should be produced and promoted to the status of the Vanuatu megapode on islands other than
appropriate authorities. Ambrym; to assess its tolerance of degraded forest and its
altitudinal distribution.
Timescale: Combined with the above survey work (Project
1), the fieldwork necessary to establish appropriate data Justification: Although this species has been studied on
for a management plan should take 6–12 months. Ambrym, extensive survey work is required on other
islands to ascertain the true status of this species. In view
Resources: Approximately $10,000–25,000 would be of its apparent restriction to closed canopy forest, basic
needed to carry out this work effectively. details of habitat use are urgently required (Dutson 1999).

Project description: This study should begin by developing

Vanuatu megapode (Megapodius layardi) an appropriate survey method for the Vanuatu megapode,
which is known to adopt a variety of breeding strategies
Project 1. A sustainable egg-harvesting from single-occupation burrows to large communal
programme for the Vanuatu megapode. nesting grounds. They may also build mounds. When a
suitable method has been developed, each island where the
Aim: To develop, in conjunction with local communities, species is known or thought to occur should be visited and
a sustainable egg-harvesting regime on Ambrym; to searched.
monitor the success of this programme.
Timescale: Approximately six months would be required
Justification: Egg harvesting has been implicated as the for the basic survey work.
main factor in the decline of the Vanuatu megapode. An
appropriate and sensitive way of reducing this pressure on Resources: This project could cost between $5,000 and
megapode populations is urgently required to halt these $10,000.

31
 References
Aebischer, N.J. 1991. Sustainable yields: Gamebirds as a Bishop, K.D. 1982. Endemic birds of Biak Island.
harvestable resource. Gibier Faune Sauvage 8:335–351. International Council for Bird Preservation survey.
Aebischer, N.J. 1997. Impact of hunting on the population Unpublished report.
dynamics of wild birds. Gibier Faune Sauvage 14:183– Bowen, J. 1996. Notes on the Vanuatu megapode
200. Megapodius layardi on Ambrym, Vanuatu. Bird
Argeloo, M. 1994. The maleo Macrocephalon maleo: New Conservation International 6: 401–408.
information on the distribution and status of Sulawesi’s Bowen, J. 1997. The status of the avifauna of Loru Protected
endemic megapode. Bird Conservation International Area, Santo, Vanuatu. Bird Conservation International
4:383–393. 7:331–344.
Argeloo, M. and Dekker, R.W.R.J. 1996. Exploitation of Bregulla, H. L. 1992. Birds of Vanuatu. Anthony Nelson,
megapode eggs in Indonesia: The role of traditional Oswestry.
methods in the conservation of megapodes. Oryx 30: Brom, T.G. and Dekker, R.W.R.J. 1992. Current studies
59–64. on megapode phylogeny. In: Dekker, R.W.R.J. and
Baker, G. 1997. Birds of the Spice Islands: Moluccan Jones, D.N. (eds.) Proceedings of the First International
Megapode Conservation Project, November 1996 – Megapode Symposium, Christchurch, New Zealand,
January 1997. Final report. Unpublished. 1990. Zoologische Verhandelingen 278:7–17.
Baker, G.C. 1998. Maleo Survey and Education Project. Butchart, S. H. M. and Baker, G. C. 2000. Priority sites for
Phase One. Unpublished report. conservation of maleos (Macrocephalon maleo) in central
Baker, G.C. 1999. Temporal and spatial patterns of laying Sulawesi. Biological Conservation 94:74–91.
in the Moluccan megapode Eulipoa wallacei (G.R. Gray). Butchart, S.H.M., Ma’dika, B., Zarlif, Yamin, M.,
In: Dekker, R.W.R.J., Jones, D. N., and Benshemesh, J. Lukman, Irfan, M., Tinulele, I., Intjehatu, R., and
(eds.). Proceedings of the Third International Megapode Mallo, F.N. 1998. The status of maleo in western central
Symposium, Nhill, Australia, December 1997. Sulawesi. Preliminary report of the Maleo Survey Project.
Zoologische Verhandelingen, Leiden 327:53–60. Phase Two. Unpublished report.
Baker, G.C. and Butchart, S.H.M. (2000) Threats to maleo Clark, T.W., Backhouse, G.N., and Lacy, R.C. 1991. The
Macrocephalon maleo and recommendations for its population viability assessment workshop: A tool for
conservation. Oryx 34: 255–261. threatened species management. Endangered Species
Baker, G.C. and Dekker, R.W.R.J. 2000. Lunar synchrony Update 8:1–5.
in the reproduction of the Moluccan megapode Coates, B.J. 1985. The birds of Papua New Guinea. Volume
Megapodius wallacei. Ibis 142:382–388. 1. Dove Publications, Alderley.
Benshemesh, J. 1990. Management of malleefowl with Collar, N.J., Crosby, M.J., and Stattersfield, A.J. 1994.
regard to fire. Pp.206–211 in: Nobel, J.C., Joss, P.J., and Birds to watch 2: The world list of threatened birds.
Jones, G.K. (eds.) The mallee lands: A conservation BirdLife Conservation Series No. 4, BirdLife
perspective. CSIRO. Melbourne. International, Cambridge.
Benshemesh, J. 1997. National Malleefowl Recovery Plan Dai Bo, Dowell, S.D., Martins, R.P., and Williams, R.S.R.
(draft). Malleefowl Recovery Team, Adelaide. 1998. Conservation status of the Sichuan hill-partridge
Benshemesh, J. 1999. The National Malleefowl Recovery Arborophila rufipectus in China. Bird Conservation
Plan: A framework for conserving the species across International 8:349–359.
Australia. In: Dekker, R.W.R.J., Jones, D. N., and Dekker, R.W.R.J. 1988. Notes on ground temperatures at
Benshemesh, J. (eds.). Proceedings of the Third nesting sites of the maleo Macrocephalon maleo
International Megapode Symposium, Nhill, Australia, (Megapodiidae). Emu 88:124–127.
December 1997. Zoologische Verhandelingen, Leiden Dekker, R.W.R.J. 1989. Predation and the western limits
327:101–124. of megapode distribution (Megapodiidae; Aves).
Benshemesh, J. (in press) National Malleefowl Recovery Journal of Biogeography 16:317–321.
Plan (draft). Malleefowl Recovery Team, Adelaide. Dekker, R.W.R.J. 1990. The distribution and status of
BirdLife International (in prep.) Threatened birds of Asia: nesting grounds of the maleo Macrocephalon maleo in
The BirdLife International/IUCN Red Data Book. Sulawesi, Indonesia. Biological Conservation 51:139–
BirdLife International, Cambridge. 150.
BirdLife International 2000. Threatened birds of the world. Dekker, R.W.R.J. 1991. The Moluccan megapode
BirdLife Conservation Series. BirdLife International, Eulipoa wallacei “rediscovered”. Megapode Newsletter
Cambridge. 5:9–10.

32
Dekker, R.W.R.J. 1992. Status and breeding biology of Engbring, J. and Pratt, H.D. 1985. Endangered birds in
the Nicobar megapode Megapodius nicobariensis abbotti Micronesia: Their history, status, and future prospects.
on Great Nicobar, India. Unpublished report. National Bird Conservation 2:71–105.
Museum of Natural History, Leiden. Foster, T. 1999. Update on the Vanuatu megapode
Dekker, R.W.R.J. and Argeloo, M. 1993. Bruijn’s brush- Megapodius layardi on Ambrym, Vanuatu. Bird
turkey Aepypodius bruijnii remains a mystery. Megapode Conservation International 9:63–71.
Newsletter 7:15–17. Frith, H.J. 1959. Breeding of the mallee fowl, Leipoa
Dekker, R.W.R.J. and Jones, D.N. (eds.) 1992. Proceedings ocellata Gould (Megapodiidae). CSIRO Wildlife
of the First International Megapode Symposium, Research 4:31–60.
Christchurch, New Zealand, 1990. Zoologische Frith, H.J. 1962. Conservation of the mallee fowl, Leipoa
Verhandelingen, Leiden 278:1–78. ocellata Gould (Megapodiidae). CSIRO Wildlife
Dekker, R.W.R.J. and McGowan, P.J.K. 1995. Megapodes Research 7: 33–49.
— An action plan for their conservation 1995–1999. Fuller, R.A. and Garson, P.J. 2000. Pheasants — Status
IUCN, Gland. survey and conservation action plan 2000–2004. IUCN,
Dekker, R.W.R.J. and Wattel, J. 1987. Egg and image: Gland and Cambridge.
New and traditional uses for the maleo (Macrocephalon Fuller, R.A., Carroll, J.P., and McGowan, P.J.K. 2000.
maleo). Pp. 83–87 in: Diamond, A.W. and Filion, F.L. Partridges, quails and francolins — Status survey and
(eds.) The value of birds. International Council for Bird conservation action plan 2000–2004. IUCN, Gland and
Preservation, Technical Publication No. 6, Cambridge. Cambridge.
Dekker, R.W.R.J., Argeloo, M., and Jepson, P. 1995. Garnett, S.T. and Crowley, G.M. (in press) Revised action
Notes on the Moluccan megapode Eulipoa wallacei plan for Australian birds. Environment Australia and
(G.R. Gray, 1960) following the rediscovery of two Birds Australia, Canberra.
major nesting grounds. Zoologische Mededelingen Göth, A. and Vogel, U. 1995. Status of the Polynesian
Leiden 69: 252–260. megapode Megapodius pritchardii on Niuafo’ou
Dekker, R.W.R.J., Jones, D.N., and Benshemesh, J. (eds.) (Tonga). Bird Conservation International 5:117–129.
1999. Proceedings of the Third International Megapode Göth, A. and Vogel, U. 1999. Notes on breeding and
Symposium, Nhill, Australia, December 1997. conservation of birds on Niuafo’ou Island, Kingdom
Zoologische Verhandelingen, Leiden 327:1–174. of Tonga. Pacific Conservation Biology 5:103–114.
del Hoyo, J., Elliott, A., and Sargatal, J. (eds.) 1994. Heij, C. J. 1995. The biology of the Moluccan megapode
Handbook of birds of the world, Volume 2. New World Eulipoa wallacei (Aves, Galliformes, Megapodiidae)
vultures to guineafowl. Lynx Edicions, Barcelona. on Haruku and other Moluccan islands Part 1: Scope
Dennings, S. 1999. “Its gnow or never”: A case study of of the study and preliminary results. Deinsea 2:145–
community action for malleefowl conservation in the 155.
wheatbelt area of Western Australia. in: Dekker, Heij, C.J. and Rompas, F.E. 1997. The Moluccan scrubfowl
R.W.R.J., Jones, D.N., and Benshemesh, J. (eds.) Eulipoa wallacei. Oriental Bird Club Bulletin 25: 50–52.
Proceedings of the Third International Megapode Heij, C.J., Rompas, C.F.E., and Moeliker, C.W. 1997.
Symposium, Nhill, Australia, December 1997. The biology of the Moluccan megapode Eulipoa wallacei
Zoologische Verhandelingen, Leiden 327:143–150. (Aves, Galliformes, Megapodiidae) on Haruku and
Diamond, J. 1986. The design of a nature reserve system other Moluccan islands Part 2: Final report. Deinsea
for Indonesian New Guinea. Pp. 485–503 In: Soule, 3:1–124.
M.E. (ed.) Conservation biology: The science of scarcity Holmes, D.A. 1989. Status report on Indonesian
and diversity. Sinaeur, Sunderland. Galliformes. Kukila 4:133–143.
Dutson, G. 1999. Notes on the Melanesian megapode Hudson, P.J. and Rands, M.R.W. (eds.) 1988. Ecology
Megapodius eremita and Vanuatu megapode and management of gamebirds. Blackwell Scientific
Megapodius layardi. Megapode Newsletter 13:5. Publications, Oxford.
Elliot, A. 1994. Family Megapodiidae (Megapodes). Pp. Inskipp, T. 1986. Birds protected in Indonesia. Traffic
278–309 in: del Hoyo, J., Elliott, A., and Sargatal, Bulletin 8:29–31.
J.(eds.) 1994. Handbook of the birds of the world, Volume IUCN. 1994. IUCN Red List Categories. IUCN, Gland.
2. New World vultures to guineafowl. Lynx Edicions, IUCN. 1998. IUCN Guidelines for Re-introductions.
Barcelona. Prepared by the IUCN/SSC Re-introduction Specialist
Engbring, J. 1988. Field guide to the birds of Palau. Group. IUCN, Gland and Cambridge. Also accessible
Conservation Office and Bureau of Education, Koror. in English, French and Spanish at http://www.iucn.org/
Engbring, J. 1992. A 1991 survey of the forest birds of the themes/ssc/programs/rsg.htm.
republic of Palau. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Jepson, P. 1993. Recent ornithological observations from
Honolulu. Buru. Kukila 6:85–109.

33
Jones, D. 1988. Selection of incubation mound sites by the Pressey, R.L., Johnson, I.R., and Wilson, P.D. 1994. Shades
Australian brush-turkey Alectura lathami. Ibis 130:251– of irreplaceability: Towards a measure of the contribution
260. of sites to a reservation goal. Biodiversity and
Jones, D.N., Dekker, R.W.R.J., and Roselaar, C.S. 1995. Conservation 3:242–262.
The megapodes. Oxford University Press, Oxford. Priddel, D. and Wheeler, R. 1997. Efficacy of fox control
Keystone, D. 1993. Pyramids in the bush: A book about in reducing the mortality of released captive-reared
malleefowl. Pye Anderson Limited, New Zealand. malleefowl, Leipoa ocellata. Wildlife Research 24:469–
Lacy, R.C. 1993. VORTEX: A computer simulation model 482.
for population viability analysis. Wildlife Research Priddel, D. and Wheeler, R. 1999. Malleefowl conservation
20:45–65. in New South Wales: A review. In: Dekker, R.W.R.J.,
Lusk, M.R., Bruner, P., and Kessler, C. 2000. The avifauna Jones, D.N., and Benshemesh, J. (eds.) Proceedings of
of Farallon de Medinilla, Mariana Islands. Journal of the Third International Megapode Symposium, Nhill,
Field Ornithology 71:22–33. Australia, December 1997. Zoologische Verhandelingen,
Mace, G.M. and Lande, R. 1991. Assessing extinction Leiden 327:125–141.
threats: Towards a re-evaluation of IUCN threatened Primack, R.B. 1998. Essentials of Conservation Biology.
species categories. Conservation Biology 5:148–157. Second edition. Sinauer Associates, Sunderland.
MacKinnon, J. 1978. Sulawesi megapodes. Journal of the Richard, J.J. 1962. Catalogue of the active volcanoes of the
World Pheasant Association 3:96–103. world including solfatara fields. Part XIII. Kermadec,
MacKinnon, J. 1981. Methods for the conservation of Tonga and Samoa. International Association of
maleo birds, Macrocephalon maleo on the island of Volcanology, Rome.
Sulawesi, Indonesia. Biological Conservation 20: 183– Rinke, D. 1994. The malau on Fonualei in northern Tonga.
193. World Pheasant Association News 44:7–8.
Marchant, S. and Higgins, P.J. 1993. Handbook of Rinke, D.R., Soakai, L.H., and Usback, A. 1993. Koe
Australian, New Zealand and Antarctic birds, Volume 2. malau: Life and future of the malau. Brehm Fund for
Raptors to lapwings. Oxford University Press, International Conservation, Bonn.
Melbourne. Sankaran, R. 1995. The distribution, status, and
Marshall, A.G. and Swaine, M.D. (eds.). 1992. Tropical conservation of the Nicobar megapode Megapodius
rain forest: Disturbance and recovery. Royal Society, nicobariensis. Biological Conservation 72:17–25.
London. Sankaran, R. 1997. Developing a protected area network
Mayr, E. and Meyer de Schauensee, R. 1939. Zoological in the Nicobar Islands: The perspective of endemic
results of the Denison-Crockett Expedition to the South avifauna. Biodiversity and Conservation 6:797–815.
Pacific for the Academy of Natural Sciences of Sankaran, R. and Sivakumar, K. 1999. Preliminary results
Philadelphia, 1937–1938. Part 1: The birds of the island of an ongoing study of the Nicobar megapode
of Biak. Proceedings of the Academy of Natural Sciences Megapodius nicobariensis Blyth. In: Dekker, R.W.R.J.,
of Philadelphia 91:1–37. Jones, D.N., and Benshemesh, J. (eds.) Proceedings of
McGowan, P.J.K., Dekker, R.W.R.J., Dowell, S., and the Third International Megapode Symposium, Nhill,
Garson, P. 1998. The making of conservation action Australia, December 1997. Zoologische Verhandelingen,
plans for the Galliformes. Bird Conservation International Leiden 327:75–90.
8:173–184. Sibley, C.G. and Ahlquist, J.E. 1990. Phylogeny and
McGowan, P., Ding Chang-qing, and Kaul, R. 1999. classification of birds: A study in molecular evolution.
Protected areas and the conservation of grouse, Yale University Press, New Haven and London.
partridges and pheasants in East Asia. Animal Siebers, H.C. 1930. Fauna Buruana: Aves. Treubia 7
Conservation 2:93–102. (suppl.):165–303.
Mey, E. 1999. Phylogenetic relationships of the Sinclair, J.R. 1999. Lape forever – Biological research and
Megapodiidae as indicated by their ischnoceran, in monitoring of the Melanesian megapode (Megapodius
particular goniodid, chewing lice (Insecta: Phthiraptera). eremita) on Simbo Island, Solomon Islands. Technical
In: Dekker, R.W.R.J., Jones, D.N., and Benshemesh, J. report to the World Wide Fund for Nature Solomon
(eds.) Proceedings of the Third International Megapode Islands Community Resource Conservation and
Symposium, Nhill, Australia, December 1997. Development Project, Gizo.
Zoologische Verhandelingen, Leiden 327:23–35. SPREP 1999. Proceedings of the Polynesian avifauna
Orsini, J.P. and Hall, G. 1995. The Malleefowl Preservation conservation workshop held in Rarotonga, 26–30 April
Group in Western Australia: A case study in community 1999. South Pacific Regional Environment Programme
participation. Pp. 517–522 in: Saunders, D.A., Craig, (Unpublished report), Apia.
J.L., and Mattiske, E.M. (eds.). The role of networks. Stattersfield, A.J., Crosby, M.J., Long, A.J., and Wege,
Surrey Beatty, Chipping Norton. D.C. 1998. Endemic bird areas of the world: Priorities

34
 for biodiversity conservation. BirdLife International, Strahl, S.D. and Brooks, D.M. 2000. Curassows, guans
BirdLife Conservation Series No. 7, Cambridge. and chachalacas — Status survey and action plan 2000–
Steadman, D.W. 1999. The biogeography and extinction 2004. IUCN, Gland and Cambridge.
of megapodes in Oceania. In: Dekker, R.W.R.J., Jones, Todd, D. 1983. Pritchard’s megapode on Niuafo’ou Island,
D.N., and Benshemesh, J. (eds.) Proceedings of the Kingdom of Tonga. Journal of the World Pheasant
Third International Megapode Symposium, Nhill, Association 8:69–88.
Australia, December 1997. Zoologische Verhandelingen, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1998. Recovery plan for the
Leiden 327:7–21. Micronesian megapode (Megapodius laperouse
Stinson, D.W. and Glass, P.O. 1992. The Micronesian laperouse). U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Portland.
megapode Megapodius laperouse: Conservation and Whitmore, T.C. 1984. Tropical rain forests of the Far East.
research needs. Zoologische Verhandelingen, Leiden Second edition. Oxford University Press, Oxford.
278:53–55. Wiles, G.J. and Cony, P.J. 1990. Terrestrial vertebrates of
Storch, I. 2000. Grouse — Status survey and conservation the Ngerukewid Islands Wildlife Preserve, Palau Islands.
action plan 2000–2004. IUCN, Gland and Cambridge. Micronesia 23:41–66.

35
 Appendix

List of Contacts
Contributing Organisations
Individual Editors
World Pheasant Association
P.O. Box 5 René W. R. J. Dekker
Lower Basildon National Museum of Natural History
Reading, Berkshire RG8 9PF P.O. Box 9517
United Kingdom 2300 RA Leiden
Tel: +44 118 984 5140 The Netherlands
Fax: +44 118 984 3369 Tel: +31 71 5687623
E-mail: wpa@gn.apc.org Fax: +31 71 5687666
Website: http://www.gn.apc.org/worldpheasant/ E-mail: dekker@naturalis.nnm.nl

BirdLife International Richard A. Fuller

Wellbrook Court Department of Biological Sciences
Girton Road University of Durham
Cambridge CB3 0NA South Road
United Kingdom Durham DH1 3LE
Tel: +44 1223 277318 United Kingdom
Fax: +44 1223 277200 Tel: +44 191 374 3350
E-mail: birdlife@birdlife.org.uk E-mail: r.a.fuller@durham.ac.uk
Website: http://www.birdlife.net
Gillian C. Baker
Megapode Specialist Group c/o 6 Smallholdings
René W. R. J. Dekker (Chairman) Clockhouse Lane
National Museum of Natural History Ashford, Middlesex TW15 2HB
P.O. Box 9517 United Kingdom
2300 RA Leiden E-mail: maleobird@hotmail.com
The Netherlands
Tel: +31 71 5687623
Fax: +31 71 5687666
E-mail: dekker@naturalis.nnm.nl

Conservation Breeding Specialist Group

U.S. Seal (CBSG Chairman)
12101 Johnny Cake Ridge Road
Apple Valley
MN 55124-8151
United States
Tel: +1 612 431 9325
Fax: +1 612 432 2757
E-mail: office@cbsg.org
Website: http://www.cbsg.org/

36