Stephanie G. Yelenik Steven S. Perakis Robert W. Peck Paul C. Banko 20210517 tabular digital data https://doi.org/10.5066/P9J9QQ96 Paul C. Banko Robert W. Peck Stephanie G. Yelenik Eben H. Paxton Frank J. Bonaccorso Kristina Montoya-Aiona David Foote 2014 publication HCSU Technical Reports 058 http://hdl.handle.net/10790/2604 This data release includes metadata and tabular data that document estimates of litterfall, koa moth (Scotorythra paludicola) caterpillar frass production, soil nutrients, and foliar nutrients during 2013-2014 at Hakalau Forest National Wildlife Refuge. During this time, there was a massive defoliation event of Acacia koa (koa) trees by the koa moth. We monitored these metrics in 4 sites that varied in forest structure and composition at Hakalau. We used litter traps to monitor koa litter fall over time and foliar %N to estimate N inputs from litter. We used caterpillar counts, koa canopy estimates, frass production rates, and frass %N to estimate N inputs from frass on the landscape. We used resin bags under koa canopy where frass was directly falling as compared to open grass sites where no frass was falling to monitor soil inorganic N and P over time. Finally we collected foliage of various plant species over time, and tested for %N, under koa versus in the open to track how nutrients in frass fall may track into plants. Data were collected to estimate frass production during a koa moth outbreak during a massive defoliation event at Hakalau Forest National Wildlife Refuge, an important area for bird conservation in Hawaii. High frass production during such an outbreak event could lead to pulses of nitrogen (N) and phosphorus (P) in the sites. In turn, nutrient pulses could potentially lead to increased growth of native and exotic species in the understory of koa forests. This is especially important in restoration forest areas with exotic grass dominating the understory, as grasses may be able to more quickly take up pulses of N and P from frass fall. We also monitored nutrients coming in the form of koa litterfall. We then tracked the pulse of nutrients into soils and then watched for uptake in foliar nutrients of different plant species to form a picture of those species that might be benefitting from nutrient pulses. 20130418 20130726 observed Complete None planned -155.33501 -155.26428 19.83131 19.76670 Hakalau Forest National Wildlife Refuge ISO 19115 Topic Category biota None insect outbreak defoliation litter fall nutrient pulse soil nitrogen soil phosphorus frass foliar nutrients USGS Metadata Identifier USGS:609cbdc0d34ea221ce3c43bf Common geographic areas Hawaii Island Hakalau Forest National Wildlife Refuge None. Please see 'Distribution Info' for details. None. Users are advised to read the dataset's metadata thoroughly to understand appropriate use and data limitations. Stephanie Yelenik US Forest Service Rocky Mountain Research Station Rangeland Scientist physical

920 Valley Road

Reno NV 89512 USA 808-985-6402 stephanie.yelenik@usda.gov Research funded by U.S. Geological Survey Pacific Island Ecosystems Research Center Windows 7 Enterprise, Excel 2013 None Acacia koa Scotorythra paludicola Cibotium glaucum Vaccinium calycinum Cheirodendron trigynum Coprosma rhynchocarpa Poaceae Rubus Leptecophylla tameiameiae Metrosideros polymorpha Domain Eukaryota Kingdom Plantae Subkingdom Viridiplantae Infrakingdom Streptophyta Superdivision Embryophyta Division Tracheophyta Subdivision Spermatophytina Class Magnoliopsida Superorder Rosanae Order Fabales Family Fabaceae Genus Acacia Species Acacia koa TSN: 182079 Order Rosales Family Rosaceae Genus Rubus TSN: 24848 Order Myrtales Family Myrtaceae Genus Metrosideros Species Metrosideros polymorpha TSN: 27259 Superorder Asteranae Order Ericales Family Ericaceae Genus Vaccinium Species Vaccinium calycinum TSN: 23618 Genus Leptecophylla Species Leptecophylla tameiameiae TSN: 894525 Order Apiales Family Araliaceae Genus Cheirodendron Species Cheirodendron trigynum TSN: 29385 Order Gentianales Family Rubiaceae Genus Coprosma Species Coprosma rhynchocarpa TSN: 34975 Superorder Lilianae Order Poales Family Poaceae TSN: 40351 Subdivision Polypodiophytina Class Polypodiopsida Subclass Polypodiidae Order Cyatheales Family Cibotiaceae Genus Cibotium Species Cibotium glaucum TSN: 17949 Kingdom Animalia Subkingdom Bilateria Infrakingdom Protostomia Superphylum Ecdysozoa Phylum Arthropoda Subphylum Hexapoda Class Insecta Subclass Pterygota Infraclass Neoptera Superorder Holometabola Order Lepidoptera Superfamily Geometroidea Family Geometridae Subfamily Ennominae Tribe Boarmiini Genus Scotorythra Species Scotorythra paludicola TSN: 117595 Observers worked in teams to check one another for accuracy and consistency and before each field session they reviewed protocols and calibrated their estimates of study variables among themselves. All data is logical, consistent, and falls within expected ranges. All data was checked for duplications and omissions. Data represent measurements and estimates only within the study area. NA NA Caterpillar biomass per unit foliage: At Hakalau, we surveyed caterpillar abundance on koa by removing 4−10 branches from up to 10 trees at intervals of 1−3 weeks during 18 April−26 July 2013 for a total of 11 sampling events. Trees were selected if they were sufficiently large to withstand branch removal (canopy >4 m in diameter). As defoliation levels increased during the outbreak, we sampled only trees that retained >50% of their foliage. The two trapping locations at Pua Akala were pooled for caterpillar assessment. Branches were placed in nylon bags and returned to the lab where caterpillars were separated from foliage and measured (head capsule width). Foliage was removed from twigs, air dried at 50° C and weighed. A subset of caterpillars was maintained on fresh, young koa phyllodes to measure rates of parasitism and to confirm identification. A subset of the caterpillars was dried at 50° C and weighed to determine average biomass for each of the five instars. Age-structured biomass was used to estimate biomass of all caterpillars within the samples. Frass per caterpillar: Caterpillar frass production was estimated by rearing caterpillars in growth chambers maintained at 15°C, which approximated the daily average (12.2–13.8°C) and hourly maximum (14.9–16.4°C) temperatures expected at our Hakalau study sites during June. Caterpillars representing instars 3, 4 and 5 were weighed at the beginning of the experiment after having been fasted for 24 h and then fed fresh, young koa phyllodes over a 48-h period. Frass produced by these caterpillars was collected at 24-h intervals and subsequently dried to a constant mass at 50°C. Caterpillars were reared to moths after the experiment to confirm their identities. Mean dry mass of each of the five instars was calculated for caterpillars collected during the outbreak (i.e., n = 30 randomly selected individuals per instar). A best-fit regression equation based on the amount of frass produced by instars 3–5 was used to estimate frass production for instars 1 and 2, where instar mass was used to predict frass mass. Foliage per unit area at Hakalau: We established survey stations at 50-m intervals that were offset at random distances and directions perpendicular to our line of travel along roads and fence lines. We marked each station location using GPS and assessed all koa and ‘ōhi‘a within a 10-m radius (314 m2) of the station. Diameter at breast height (dbh, 1.4 m) was measured on all trees. At trees with multiple trunks, we measured the dbh of each trunk and calculated the total dbh using the method of the U.S. Forest Service (2007): SQRT(a^2 + b^2 + c^2…). Foliage biomass was calculated by allometric equations (Pearson and Vitousek 2001) for koa 1−8 cm dbh (Y = 0.0268dbh2.168) and for koa 8−30 cm dbh (Y = 0.034*dbh^1.746). Estimated frass per unit area per day: We used the number of caterpillars of each instar (# individual caterpillars/g foliage) at specific sample dates and multiplied this by frass production (dry mg frass/individual caterpillar) to estimate frass production at each sample date (dry mg frass/g foliage). We then used foliage biomass (g foliage/m2) to scale up to frass deposition per unit area at each sample date. Lastly, we linearly interpolated between sample dates to estimate frass production over time. Pearson, H. L., and P. M. Vitousek. 2001. Stand dynamics, nitrogen accumulation, and symbiotic nitrogen fixation in regenerating stands of Acacia koa. Ecological Applications 11:1381−1394. U.S. Forest Service. 2007. Field data collection procedures for phase 2 plots, Version 4.0. Volume I. Pp. 1−224 in Forest inventory and analysis national core field guide. 2021 Stephanie Yelenik US Forest Service Rocky Mountain Research Station Rangeland Scientist physical

920 Valley Road

Reno NV 89512 USA 808-985-6402 stephanie.yelenik@usda.gov EstimatedFrass.csv Comma Separated Value (CSV) file containing data. Producer Defined date Date for which frass production was estimated Producer Defined 4/18/2013 7/9/2013 day 1 site Site in which frass production was estimated Producer Defined Pedro High Higher elevation site on Pedro Road Producer defined Pedro Low Lower elevation site on Pedro Road Producer defined Pedro Mid Middle elevation site on Pedro Road Producer defined Pua Akala SIte at Pua Akala Producer defined estimated frass (kg/ha/day) Estimated frass production Producer Defined 0.0 280.28 kilograms per hectare per day 0.01 The entity and attribute information provided here describes the tabular data associated with the data set. Please review the detailed descriptions that are provided (the individual attribute descriptions) for information on the values that appear as fields/table entries of the data set. The entity and attribute information was generated by the individual and/or agency identified as the originator of the data set. Please review the rest of the metadata record for additional details and information. GS ScienceBase U.S. Geological Survey mailing address

Denver Federal Center, Building 810, Mail Stop 302

Denver CO 80225 United States 1-888-275-8747 sciencebase@usgs.gov Unless otherwise stated, all data, metadata and related materials are considered to satisfy the quality standards relative to the purpose for which the data were collected. Although these data and associated metadata have been reviewed for accuracy and completeness and approved for release by the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS), no warranty expressed or implied is made regarding the display or utility of the data on any other system or for general or scientific purposes, nor shall the act of distribution constitute any such warranty. Any use of trade, firm, or product names is for descriptive purposes only and does not imply endorsement by the U.S. Government. Digital Data https://doi.org/10.5066/P9J9QQ96 None 20210517 Paul C Banko U.S. Geological Survey, NW-PACIFIC ISLAND REGION Research Wildlife Biologist physical

Bldg 344 Crater Rim Drive

Hawaii National Park HI 96718 USA 808-985-6402 808-967-8568 pbanko@usgs.gov FGDC Biological Data Profile of the Content Standard for Digital Geospatial Metadata FGDC-STD-001.1-1999