U.S. Department of the Interior

U.S. Geological Survey

Scientific Investigations Report 2013–5093

Prepared in collaboration with the Hawaiÿi Cooperative Studies, University of 

Hawaiÿi at Hilo

Vegetation Map of the Watersheds Between Kawela and 

Kamalö Gulches, Island of Moloka‘i, Hawai‘i
COVER

View of the native mesic shrub community below Pu‘u Kolkole, Moloka‘i, down to the reef on the southern side of the Island of Moloka‘i. On the horizon is the Island of Läna‘i.
Prepared in collaboration with the Hawaiÿi Cooperative Studies, University of 

Hawaiÿi at Hilo

Scientific Investigations Report 2013–5093

U.S. Department of the Interior

U.S. Geological Survey

Vegetation Map of the Watersheds 

Between Kawela and Kamalö Gulches, 

Island of Moloka‘i, Hawai‘i

By James D. Jacobi and Stephen Ambagis
U.S. Department of the Interior

SALLY JEWELL, Secretary

U.S. Geological Survey

Suzette M. Kimball, Acting Director

U.S. Geological Survey, Reston, Virginia: 2013

For more information on the USGS—the Federal source for science about the Earth, its natural and living 

resources, natural hazards, and the environment, visit http://www.usgs.gov or call 1–888–ASK–USGS.

For an overview of USGS information products, including maps, imagery, and publications, 

visit http://www.usgs.gov/pubprod

To order this and other USGS information products, visit http://store.usgs.gov

Any use of trade, firm, or product names is for descriptive purposes only and does not imply endorsement by 

the U.S. Government.

Although this information product, for the most part, is in the public domain, it also may contain copyrighted 

materials as noted in the text. Permission to reproduce copyrighted items must be secured from the copyright owner.

Suggested citation:

Jacobi, J.D., and Ambagis, Stephen, 2013, Vegetation map of the watersheds between Kawela and Kamalö

Gulches, Island of Moloka‘i, Hawai‘i: U.S. Geological Survey Scientific Investigations Report 2013-5093, 22 p., 

http://pubs.usgs.gov/sir/2013/5093/.
 iii

Acknowledgments

We would like to acknowledge many people who have helped throughout this project. 

Special thanks go to Ed Misaki and his staff (particularly Kathy Tachibana, Brian Neaole, and 

Sam Aruch) with The Nature Conservancy of Hawai‘i’s, Moloka‘i Office, as well as to all of 

the members of the East Moloka‘i Watershed Partnership who are collaboratively managing 

this area to stabilize and restore the native ecosystems that have been subject to decades of 

impacts from grazing, logging, invasive species, and fire. We also deeply appreciate the support 

provided by the Kawela Plantation Homeowners Association, especially Juanita Colon, for 

allowing us to conduct our research throughout this landscape. 

Henry Wolter of the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS, now retired) helped locate and 

acquire images used for mapping; Paul Berkowitz (Hawai‘i Cooperative Studies Unit at the 

University of Hawai‘i at Hilo) helped with pulling together the seasonal images used for 

figure 4; and Jonathan Price (University of Hawai‘i at Hilo) helped us with interpreting the 

current and original vegetation of the project area. Linda Pratt and Keith Schulz provided 

very constructive comments when they reviewed the map and manuscript. Additionally, we 

would like to thank Bob and Elizabeth Granger, long-time residents of Kawela Plantations, 

who have always supported this project logistically and with their great hospitality and humor, 

particularly after a long and hot day in the field. Finally, this entire effort would not have been 

accomplished without support and camaraderie from the other members of the USGS Ridge-toReef Project: Pat Chavez, Mike Field, Maiana Hanshaw, Dave Helweg, Loyal Mehrhoff, Kevin 

Schmidt, Bill Steiner, John Stock, and Gordon Tribble—a truly indefatigable group of scientists 

and colleagues. 

Funding for this project was provided by the Western Region and National Office of 

the USGS (Doug Buffington, Anne Kinsinger, Mike Schulters, and many others) under 

the Ecosystems and Invasive Species Programs, as well as from the USGS Pacific Island 

Ecosystems Research Center. Administrative support was provided by the Hawai‘i Cooperative 

Studies Unit and the USGS Pacific Island Ecosystems Research Center. 
iv

Contents

Acknowledgments ......................................................................................................... iii

Conversion Factors........................................................................................................ vi

Abbreviations................................................................................................................. vi

Abstract ..........................................................................................................................1

Introduction.....................................................................................................................1

Description of the Project Area..............................................................................................2

Methods..........................................................................................................................4

Vegetation Classification and Field Sampling........................................................................4

Imagery Used for Mapping ....................................................................................................5

Mapping Procedures and Image Analysis.............................................................................6

Accuracy Assessment ...........................................................................................................6

Results............................................................................................................................7

Description of the Mapped Units ...........................................................................................7

‘Öhi‘a Montane Wet or Mesic Forest (Map Unit 1) ...........................................9

Mixed Native Lowland Dry/Mesic Forest with Shrub/Grass Understory 

(Map Unit 2).........................................................................................10

ÿÖhiÿa/Uluhe Montane Woodland (Map Unit 3)...............................................10

Mixed Native Mesic Shrubland (Map Unit 4)..................................................11

‘A‘ali‘i Dry Shrubland (Map Unit 5).................................................................11

‘Ilima and Mixed Grass Dry Shrubland (Map Unit 6)......................................12

Kukui Forest (Map Unit 7) ..............................................................................13

Mixed Alien Forest with Alien Shrub/Grass Understory (Map Unit 8) ............13

Introduced Tree Plantation (Map Unit 9).........................................................14

Kiawe Woodland with Alien Grass Understory (Map Unit 10)........................14

Lantana Shrubland (Map Unit 11)..................................................................15

Koa Haole Shrubland (Map Unit 12) ..............................................................15

Mixed Alien Grass with ‘Ilima Shrubs (Map Unit 13) ......................................15

No Vegetation or Very Sparse Grasses / Shrubs (Map Unit 14).....................16

Map Accuracy Assessment .................................................................................................16

Discussion ....................................................................................................................18

Conclusions..................................................................................................................19

References ...................................................................................................................19

Appendix 1. Species Distribution ...............................................................................22

Figures

 1. Map overview of the Kawela-Kamalö Ridge-to-Reef project area showing the 

vegetation map area, location of Nature Conservancy’s Kamakou Preserve, 

contour intervals, and roads ...........................................................................................3

 2. Distribution of moisture zones and annual rainfall for the Kawela-Kamalö 

Ridge-to-Reef project area.............................................................................................3

 3. Distribution of general vegetation zones for the Kawela-Kamalö Ridge-to-Reef 

project area ....................................................................................................................4
 v

 4. Map showing location of plots and photo points with vegetation classification units 

for the Kawela-Kamalö Ridge-to-Reef project area........................................................5

 5. Two satellite images of the Kawela-Kamalö project area showing differences in the 

vegetation in August and December 2004 .....................................................................6

 6. Map showing location of 100 random points used to assess accuracy of the vegetation 

map for the Kawela-Kamalö Ridge-to-Reef project area................................................7

 7. Vegetation map produced for the Kawela-Kamalö Ridge-to-Reef project area.....................9

 8. Typical view in the ÿÖhiÿa montane wet or mesic forest in the Kamakou Preserve 

(Map Unit 1)..................................................................................................................10

 9. General view of the ÿÖhiÿa montane wet or mesic forest in the upper portion of the 

Kawela watershed (Map Unit 1) ...................................................................................10

10. View of highly disturbed mixed mesic forest in the seasonal mesic moisture zone 

east of Kawela Gulch (Map Unit 2)...............................................................................10

11. Remnant stand of wiliwili dry forest in a small gulch within the Kawela watershed 

(Map Unit 2)..................................................................................................................11

12. ÿÖhiÿa/uluhe montane woodland in an opening in the mesic ÿöhiÿa forest near 

Pu‘u Kolekole (Map Unit 3)...........................................................................................11

13. Mixed native mesic shrubland dominated by ÿöhiÿa, pükiawe, and ‘a‘ali‘i shrubs 

(Map Unit 4)..................................................................................................................11

14. View of the mixed native mesic shrubland below Pu‘u Kolekole (Map Unit 4).....................11

15. ‘A‘ali‘i dry shrubland showing dense shrub canopy (Map Unit 5)........................................12

16. General view of ‘a‘ali‘i dry shrubland in the Kawela watershed (Map Unit 5)......................12

17. ‘Ilima and mixed grass dry shrubland dominated by ‘ilima at the edge of the east fork 

of Kawela Gulch (Map Unit 6) ......................................................................................12

18. Very open vegetation, primarily ‘ilima and Bidens pilosa shrubs with a few native 

and alien grasses (Map Unit 6) ....................................................................................12

19. Stands of kukui trees in the bottom of Kawela Gulch, Moloka‘i (Map Unit 7)......................13

20. Tall-statured mixed alien forest in the lower section of Kawela Gulch (Map Unit 8) ............13

21. Low-statured mixed alien forest community in the lower part of Kamalö Gulch 

(Map Unit 8)..................................................................................................................13

22. Aerial view of pine plantation at approximately 750 m elevation near Kawela Gulch 

(Map Unit 9)..................................................................................................................14

23. Introduced tree plantation near Pu‘u Kolekole, Moloka‘i, dominated by Cupressaceae, 

Eucalyptus, and other broadleaf species (Map Unit 9).................................................14

24. Kiawe trees growing in grassland dominated by the alien buffelgrass (Map Unit 10) .........14

25. Kiawe woodland with alien grass understory community on the edge of Kawela Gulch

(Map Unit 10)................................................................................................................14

26. Lantana shrubland (Map Unit 11)........................................................................................15

27. Koa haole shrubland in lower part of Kamalö Gulch (Map Unit 12) ....................................15

28. Small stand of koa haole growing above alien grasses in the lower part of the Kawela 

watershed (Map Unit 12)..............................................................................................15

29. Mixed alien grassland dominated by buffelgrass (Map Unit 13)..........................................16

30. Close-up of buffelgrass and seedling of ‘ilima (Map Unit 13) ..............................................16

31. Not vegetated or very sparse grass/shrub community at the edge of the upper east 

fork of Kawela Gulch (Map Unit 14)..............................................................................16

32. Steep slopes of the upper east fork of Kawela Gulch (Map Unit 14)...................................16
vi

Conversion Factors

SI to Inch/Pound

Multiply By To obtain

Length

centimeter (cm) 0.3937 inch (in.)

millimeter (mm) 0.03937 inch (in.)

meter (m) 3.281 foot (ft) 

Area

hectare (ha) 2.471 acre

Horizontal and vertical coordinate information is referenced to the North American Datum of 1983 (NAD 83); Spheroid: GRS_1980.

Elevation, as used in this report, refers to distance above the vertical datum.

Abbreviations

DEM digital elevation model

DOQQ digital orthophoto quarter quad map

EVT existing vegetation type (LANDFIRE mapping program)

GAP USGS Gap Analysis Program

GPS Global Positioning System

LANDFIRE USGS Landfire mapping program

NIR near infrared spectral band

POL Pictometry Online imagery service

RGB red, green, blue spectral bands

USGS U.S. Geological Survey

UTM Universal Transverse Mercator

Tables

1. Summary of vegetation plots and photo points used to calibrate the vegetation map units....4

2. Summary of the mapping units used to describe the plant communities, and the area 

covered by each unit on the map ...................................................................................8

3. Summary of the mapping units used to describe the plant communities, and the area 

covered by each unit on the map ...................................................................................9

4. Error matrix for the accuracy assessment conducted at 100 randomly located sample 

plots, depicting agreement or disagreement between the dominant class mapped 

in an assessment plot to the first-choice classification unit..........................................17

5. Error matrix for the accuracy assessment conducted at 100 randomly located sample 

plots, depicting agreement or disagreement between the two most abundant 

classes mapped within an assessment plot to either the first- or second-choice 

classification unit ..........................................................................................................17

6. Error matrix for the accuracy assessment conducted at 100 randomly located sample 

plots..............................................................................................................................18
 

Vegetation Map of the Watersheds Between Kawela 

and Kamalö Gulches, Island of Moloka‘i, Hawai‘i

By James D. Jacobi1 and Stephen Ambagis2, 3

1

U.S. Geological Survey; jjacobi@usgs.gov

2

Hawai‘i Cooperative Studies Unit, University of Hawai‘i at Hilo, HI

3

Current affiliation: Resource Mapping Hawai‘i LLC, Kea‘au, HI

Abstract

In this document we describe the methods and results of 

a project to produce a large-scale map of the dominant plant 

communities for an area of 5,118.5 hectares encompassing the 

Kawela and Kamalö watersheds on the island of Moloka‘i, 

Hawai‘i, using digital image analysis of multi-spectral 

satellite imagery. Besides providing a base map of the area 

for land managers to use, this vegetation map serves as spatial 

background for the U.S. Geological Survey’s (USGS) Moloka‘i 

Ridge-to-Reef project, which is an interdisciplinary study 

of erosion and sediment transport within these watersheds. 

A total of 14 mapping units were identified for the KawelaKamalö project area. The most widespread units were the 

‘Öhi‘a montane wet or mesic forest and No vegetation or very 

sparse grasses/shrubs communities, each present in more than 

800 hectares, or 16 percent of the mapping area. Next largest 

were the Kiawe woodland with alien grass understory and 

‘A‘ali‘i dry shrubland units, each of which covered more than 

500 hectares, or more than 12 percent of the area; followed by 

the Mixed native mesic shrubland, ‘Ilima and mixed grass dry 

shrubland, Mixed alien grass with ‘ilima shrubs, and the Mixed 

alien forest with alien shrub/grass understory communities, 

which ranged in size from approximately 391 to 491 hectares, 

or 7.6 to 9.6 percent of the project site. The other six mapped 

units covered less than 170 hectares of the landscape. Six of 

the map units were dominated by native vegetation, covering 

a total of 2,535.2 hectares combined, or approximately 50 

percent of the project area. The remaining map units were 

dominated by nonnative species and represent vegetation types 

that have resulted from invasion and establishment of plant 

species that had been either purposely or accidently introduced 

into Hawai‘i since humans arrived in these islands more than 

1,500 years ago. The preponderance of mapping units that 

are dominated by alien species of plants is a strong indication 

of how much anthropogenic disturbance has occurred in 

this area. The native-dominated ‘Öhi‘a forest and uluhe fern 

communities are probably most similar to the vegetation that 

was originally found in the upper part of the project area this 

area. Portions of the mixed mesic native shrub community 

still persist in the lowland mesic zone, but below that area, the 

vegetation is either dominated by alien species, or artificially 

opened by animal grazing and erosion, even in the few units 

that are still dominated by native species. The map produced 

for the Kawela to Kamalö watersheds can be used as a baseline 

for assessing the distribution and abundance of the various 

plant communities found across this landscape at the time of 

the imagery (2004). It can also be used to help understand 

the dynamics of the vegetation and other attributes of this 

watershed—such as erosion and surface transport of sediment, 

relative to current and future habitat conditions.

Introduction

A vegetation map is one of the most important and basic 

tools used to assess the natural resources of an area as it 

serves as a background layer for interpreting the distribution 

and dynamics of the other biological elements present and 

provides the foundation for designing a field-sampling 

framework. The units displayed on a vegetation map reflect 

the results of either an objective or subjective classification 

process to identify consistent species associations or structural 

characteristics of the vegetation across the area of interest 

(Shimwell, 1971; Mueller-Dombois and Ellenberg, 1974), 

and may depict physiognomic, floristic, environmental, 

geographical, successional, or environmental features of 

the plant communities (Mueller-Dombois, 1984). In all 

cases, however, the classification units reflect some level of 

generalization of the continuum of spatial variation of the 

distribution and abundance of plants as they occur relative 

to the environment. While the boundaries between units are 

sometimes very distinguishable in the field (for example, 

following distinct edaphic or topographical features), more 

often they are drawn to represent the midpoint of the transition 

from one classification unit to another. Originally, maps were 

produced by sketching unit boundaries in the field, or by 

drawing boundaries around similar-appearing units on aerial 

photographs prior to compiling them onto a base map. More 

recently, multivariate analysis techniques have been applied to 

interpreting reflectance values for spatial data blocks (pixels) 

from digital images collected from aircraft or satellites (Brown 

de Colstoun and others, 2003; Xie and others, 2008; Wang, 

2012). The combinations of reflectance values are used to build 

a probabilistic model (signature) that includes threshold levels 

of variation for each classification unit.
2 Vegetation Map of the Watersheds Between Kawela and Kamalö Gulches, Island of Moloka‘i, Hawai‘i

Mapping plant communities in the Hawaiian Islands 

presents many challenges. Primary complicating factors are 

extreme topographic variation in many areas, availability of 

suitable imagery, and a large number of invasive plant species 

that have become established in an otherwise relatively simple 

set of native vegetation units. Additionally, the vegetation in 

dry habitats may appear to be very different during the wet 

season versus the dry season. Although the land area of the 

main Hawaiian Islands is relatively small, two of the islands 

(Hawai‘i and Maui) rise to over 3,000 meters (m) elevation, and 

many parts of these and the other islands are highly eroded—

resulting in steep terrain. This highly variable topography 

leads to problems interpreting the data because of shadows on 

the imagery, and to dramatic transitions in plant community 

composition and structure over short distances. Cloud cover 

and shadows also compromise the imagery, making it difficult 

to perform standard classification analysis using digital image 

analysis or photo-interpretation. Finally, while the native 

ecosystems generally have only a few canopy species or 

species associations that dominate the landscape, since human 

colonization of this archipelago thousands of species of plants 

and animals have been either intentionally or accidentally 

introduced and have become established in the native 

ecosystems (Smith, 1985; Staples and Cowie, 2001). Invasive 

species have led to major alteration of some of the original 

plant communities, particularly in lowland habitats, as well as 

the incorporation of alien plants into many of the remaining 

native vegetation units (Pratt and Gon, 1998; Warshauer, 

1998; Pratt and Jacobi, 2009). As a result, a majority of the 

lowland communities are now (2012) dominated by introduced 

species at various stages of community succession, yielding an 

extremely high number of potential map units.

Many approaches have been used to map the vegetation 

of the Hawaiian Islands. These include extremely generalized 

(1:500,000 and smaller scale) maps depicting broad vegetation 

zones (for example, Robyns and Lamb, 1939; Ripperton and 

Hosaka, 1942; Krajina, 1963; Pratt and Gon, 1998); midscale maps (1:100,000–1:500,000) displaying generalized 

plant communities, such as the Hawai‘i GAP land cover 

map (Gon and others, 2006) or the recent LANDFIRE EVT 

map by the USGS (U.S. Geological Survey, 2009); as well 

as very large scale maps (1:12,000–1:100,000) with units 

that display very detailed plant communities with boundaries 

that could be identified relatively easily in the field (such as 

Mueller-Dombois, 1966; Jacobi, 1990; Shaw and Castillo, 

1997; Cogan and others, 2011). This document describes the 

methods and results of a project to produce a large-scale map 

of the dominant plant communities for a 5,118.5-hectare (ha) 

area encompassing the Kawela and Kamalö watersheds on 

the Island of Moloka‘i using digital image analysis of multispectral satellite imagery. Besides providing a base map of 

the area for land managers to use, this vegetation map serves 

as spatial background for the USGS Moloka‘i Ridge-to-Reef 

project, which is an interdisciplinary study of erosion and 

sediment transport within these watersheds (Stock and others, 

2011). Research components of the Ridge-to-Reef project 

include an assessment of current vegetation and projected 

changes with ungulate control, collecting data on local 

climate conditions and surface water flow, modeling sediment 

mobilization and transport, and sediment impacts on the nearshore reef ecosystem. 

Description of the Project Area

The Ridge-to-Reef project area is located on the southern 

side of east Moloka‘i. It extends from sea level to 1,365 m 

elevation (fig. 1), encompassing several ahupua‘a (Hawaiian 

land divisions) including Kawela, Kamalö, Mäkolelau, 

Kapuaoko‘olau, and Keonekü‘ino, as well as the major 

drainages of Kawela and Kamalö Gulches. The substrate of 

this area is predominantly highly weathered basaltic lava that 

was erupted between 1.75 and 1.31 million years ago and 

includes a few old cinder and spatter cones at upper elevations 

of the site (Sherrod and others, 2007). The extremely steep 

slope on this leeward side of the Island of Moloka‘i results 

in increasingly xeric conditions southward from the rim of 

Pelekunu Valley. Annual rainfall ranges from approximately 

3,400 millimeters (mm) at the top of the project area to 

approximately 305 mm at the coast (Giambelluca and others, 

2011) (fig. 1). This leeward side of the island is driest during 

the summer months, with less than 5 mm of rainfall per month 

from June to September (Giambelluca and others, 2011). Price 

and others (2012) mapped this portion of the island as having 

seven moisture zones, generally arranged in horizontal bands 

with moisture decreasing downslope (fig. 2). These moisture 

zones can be linked to four broad vegetation zones within the 

project area (fig. 3). 

The natural vegetation of the Hawaiian Islands has been 

heavily altered since human colonization starting more than 

1,500 years ago (Kirch and Hunt, 1997; Kirch, 1998, 2007), 

and accelerating since Western contact in 1778. Lowland dry 

and mesic habitats, such as those found in the lower two-thirds 

of the Moloka‘i project area, have been particularly impacted, 

with much of the native vegetation replaced by nonnative 

species as a result of damage from fire, logging, ungulate 

grazing and browsing, and competition from alien plants 

(Stone and Scott, 1985; Cuddihy and Stone, 1990; Pratt and 

Jacobi, 2009). The wet and montane mesic forest communities 

in the upper portion of the project area are protected as the 

Kamakou Preserve, and they are still relatively intact and 

dominated by native species because of intensive management 

of introduced plants and animals by The Nature Conservancy 

and the East Moloka‘i Watershed partnership. However, 

most of the lowland mesic and dry habitats in this area are 

now dominated by alien shrubs, grasses, and trees, and they 

continue to be browsed and grazed by introduced ungulates, 

primarily feral goats (Capra hircus) and axis deer (Axis axis). 

Additionally, the dense alien grass cover in the drier habitats 

presents a continual fire danger, and much of this area has 

burned several times in recent history (E. Misaki, The Nature 

Conservancy of Hawai‘i, oral commun., 2005).
Introduction 3

Kamalö

Gulch

Pu‘u Kolekole

Kawela

Gulch

Kamähu‘ehu‘e

Fishpond

0 1 2MILES

0 1 2 3 KILOMETERS

CONTOUR INTERVAL 500 METERS

NORTH AMERICAN DATUM OF 1983

EXPLANATION

Vegetation map area

Kamakou Preserve

500 meter (m) contours

500 m

1,000 m

Kamakou

Peak

500 m

1,000 m

Pelekunu Valley

1,510 m

1,205 m

Kamakou Preserve

Pacific Ocean

N Map area

Island of Moloka‘i

Figure 1. Map overview 

of the Kawela-Kamalö 

Ridge-to-Reef project area 

showing the vegetation map 

area, location of Nature 

Conservancy’s Kamakou 

Preserve, contour intervals, 

and roads.

2,500

2,000

1,000

1,500

3,000

500

750

CONTOUR INTERVAL 500 METERS

NORTH AMERICAN DATUM OF 1983

0 1 2 MILES

0 1 2 3 KILOMETERS

Kawela

Gulch

Pacific Ocean

N

EXPLANATION

Moisture zones and rainfall

Very wet

Moderately wet

Moist mesic

Seasonal mesic

Moderately dry

Very dry

Arid

Vegetation map area

Major roads

Annual rainfall,

 in millimeters (mm)

Map area

Island of Moloka‘i

Kamalö

Gulch

Kamähu‘ehu‘e

Fishpond

Figure 2. Distribution of 

moisture zones as mapped 

by Price and others (2012), 

and annual rainfall (isohyets) 

(Giambelluca and others, 

2011) for the KawelaKamalö Ridge-to-Reef 

project area.
4 Vegetation Map of the Watersheds Between Kawela and Kamalö Gulches, Island of Moloka‘i, Hawai‘i

Methods

Vegetation Classification and Field 

Sampling

The plant communities mapped for the Moloka‘i Ridgeto-Reef project area link directly to the alliance and association 

levels of the revised National Vegetation Classification (rUSNVC) 

which is based on the National Vegetation Classification Standard 

that was formally adopted by the Federal Geographic Data 

Committee (FGDC) in 2008. The rUSNVC classification expands 

upon on the original U.S. National Vegetation Classification 

(Grossman and others, 1998), and the units also correspond with 

NatureServe’s Terrestrial Ecological Systems Classification 

(NatureServe, 2010, 2011). This classification was also used to 

depict landcover in Hawai‘i as part of the USGS LANDFIRE 

mapping project (U.S. Geological Survey, 2009). 

Data on vegetation composition, cover, and structure were 

collected using a set of permanent plots, temporary plots, and 

photo points located throughout the project area (table 1; fig. 4). 

This information was used to correlate existing plant communities 

found within the project area with the vegetation classification 

units. Additionally, the ground plots were used to calibrate the 

image analysis for specific mapping units. Species names used 

in the description of the map units follow the taxonomy and 

nomenclature used by Wagner and others (1999, 2012).

1,000

1,000

500

CONTOUR INTERVAL 500 METERS

NORTH AMERICAN DATUM OF 1983

0 1 2 MILES

0 1 2 3 KILOMETERS

Pacific Ocean

N

EXPLANATION

Vegetation zones

Montane mesic

Montane wet

Lowland wet

Lowland mesic

Lowland dry

Vegetation map area

500 meter (m) contours

Kawela

Gulch

Map area

Island of Moloka‘i

Kamalö

Gulch

Kamähu‘ehu‘e

Fishpond

Figure 3. Distribution of 

general vegetation zones for the 

Kawela-Kamalö Ridge-to-Reef 

project area, adapted from Price 

and others (2012).

Table 1. Summary of vegetation plots and photo points located throughout the project area used to calibrate the vegetation map units 

with the imagery used for mapping.

Plot type Number Description

Erosion plots 2 Two vegetation sampling plots, approximately 0.25 hectare each, one of which is fenced to exclude ungulate browsing and grazing

GPS photo points (April 2010) 412 Geolocated photos taken of plant species and communities

Vegetation plots 7 50-meter belt plots located subjectively to describe specific communities

Rapid assessment plots (August 2005) 107 Subjectively located plots to describe specific communities or species as a site

Vegetation transect plots 68 50-meter belt plots located systematically along a transect running downslope east of Kawela Gulch
Methods 5

N

Kamakou Preserve

Pu‘u Kolekole 500 m

1,000 m

Kamakou

Peak

500 m

1,000 m

Pelekunu Valley

1,510 m

1,205 m

Kawela

Gulch

Map area

Island of Moloka‘i 0 1 2MILES

0 1 2 3 KILOMETERS

CONTOUR INTERVAL 500 METERS

NORTH AMERICAN DATUM OF 1983

EXPLANATION

Kawela erosion plots

Photo points (April 2010)

Vegetation plots

Rapid assessment plots (August 2005)

Kawela East transect plots

Vegetation map area

500 meter (m) contours

Pacific Ocean

Kamalö

Gulch

Kamähu‘ehu‘e

Fishpond

Figure 4. Map showing location of plots and photo points used to calibrate the image analysis with vegetation classification units for 

the Kawela-Kamalö Ridge-to-Reef project area.

Imagery Used for Mapping

Several different types of images were used during this 

project. Primary mapping was conducted using a digital image 

collected by DigitalGlobe from its QuickBird satellite (Image 

number: 005507556010_01_P001_MUL and PAN), on August 

19, 2004. This image has a pixel size of 2.4 m for the RGB 

(red, green, blue) and NIR (near infrared) spectral bands and 

0.65 m for the panchromatic band. Additionally, both still 

and video images were taken of many areas throughout the 

project area from a helicopter or on the ground to further 

document the composition and structure of the mapped units. 

The vegetation on this leeward side of Moloka‘i responds 

to the distinct wet and dry periods during the year. When 

the QuickBird images taken in August 2004 and December 

2004 are compared (fig. 5), the December image shows much 

more green vegetation, particularly in the lower section of 

the project area. This is probably the result of vigorous new 

growth of alien grasses. We chose to map on the August 2004 

image for two reasons: the sun angle in August was better, 

resulting in less shadow in the gulches; and we were able 

to avoid a potential problem with the vigorous grass growth 

from overwhelming the spectral signature of some of the 

mixed grass-shrub units. 
6 Vegetation Map of the Watersheds Between Kawela and Kamalö Gulches, Island of Moloka‘i, Hawai‘i

Mapping Procedures and Image Analysis

Preprocessing of the QuickBird image was necessary to 

ensure it was adequately orthorectified prior to classification. 

To do this we used a set of 50 control points collected from 

USGS Digital Orthophoto Quarter Quads (DOQQ) and the 

10-m USGS digital elevation model (DEM), with cubic 

convolution resampling, to achieve 5- to 8-m horizontal 

accuracy. This initial step was performed using ERDAS 

Imagine 8.7 (Intergraph, now owned by Hexagon). Display and 

summary analysis of the mapped units was conducted using 

ArcMap 10.0 (Environmental Systems Research Institute, 

Redlands, California). 

Primary image analysis and classification was conducted 

with an object-based image analysis strategy using the 

eCognition software program, originally developed by 

Difiniens AG, now owned by Trimble Navigation Ltd. 

eCognition utilizes a hierarchy of image objects to group 

and classify related pixels on digital images based on both 

spectral and shape characteristics of the data. Object-based 

analysis has been used successfully to differentiate detailed 

classification units by taking advantage of both spectral and 

size/shape characteristics of digital spatial data, particularly for 

image sets with high spatial resolution but a limited number 

of spectral bands, as is the case with QuickBird images 

(Blaschke, 2010). The first step in the process was to create a 

set of object primitives, or segments, based on a combination 

of spectral response and shape criteria. Once an acceptable 

initial segmentation was achieved the resulting pixel objects 

were linked to a preliminary set of the rUSNVC units, based 

on ground calibration points. An iterative process was then 

used to group the objects into temporary map units using a 

Figure 5. Two satellite images of the Kawela-Kamalö project area showing differences in the appearance of the vegetation on images 

taken by DigitalGlobe using its QuickBird satellite in August and December 2004. Vegetation map area outlined in red.

August 2004 November 2004

nearest neighbor classification and testing the classification 

by adding more ground calibration points. This process was 

continued until there was no significant change seen in the 

distribution and attributes of the classified units. In cases where 

single pixels or small groups of pixels that were obviously 

misclassified (for example, dry grassland within a closed wet 

forest community) were identified, they were homogenized 

with their adjacent neighbor pixels using the software program 

Grid Editor developed by ARIS B.V.

Accuracy Assessment

An accuracy assessment was conducted on the final 

vegetation map to describe the reliability of the mapping 

process when compared with actual vegetation on the ground 

following the procedures described by Congalton (1991) and 

Stehman and Czaplewski (1998). To do this we employed 

a random sampling design within a sampling frame that 

encompassed the entire mapping area. We randomly selected 

100 assessment points using the Create Random Points tool 

in ArcMap 10.0 and produced a 25-m buffer around each of 

them using the Buffer tool to define the reference sample plots 

(fig. 6). We calculated the percentage of each plot that was 

covered by the different classification units on the map using 

the Tabulate Area tool in ArcMap10. To assess the reference 

or “true” values at each plot we recorded the classification 

unit value for each 25-m radius plot using the high-resolution 

Pictometry Online (POL) imagery and user interface developed 

by Pictometry International Corp. The POL images were taken 

during 2009 and 2010 and have a pixel size of approximately 

15 centimeters (cm). This allowed for a completely 
Results 7

independent process for testing the accuracy of the mapped 

units because the POL images were obtained separately from 

the QuickBird image used for primary analysis and mapping. 

At each point on the POL imagery up to four map units were 

recorded, corresponding to the most abundant plant communities 

observed within 25 m of the coordinate point. Similarly, we 

analyzed the coded values for the pixels within a 25-m radius plot 

on the vegetation map and summarized the mapped values all of 

the classification units that were mapped within the plot. Three 

error matrices were produced summarizing the omission and 

commission errors for three different configurations of the accuracy 

assessment data. This allowed for an objective assessment of the 

overall accuracy of the map (that is, the percentage of mapped 

pixels that were correctly classified), as well as the “producer’s 

accuracy”—how well can a classification unit be mapped), and 

the “user’s accuracy”—the probability that a pixel classified on 

a map is actually that unit on the ground (Congalton, 1991). The 

analyses included comparisons between (1) the dominant class 

mapped in an assessment plot to the first-choice classification 

unit from the POL image assessment; (2) the two most abundant 

classes mapped within an assessment plot to either the first- or 

second-choice classification unit from the POL image assessment; 

and (3) agreement or disagreement between any of the classes 

mapped within an assessment plot to any of the classification units 

identified within that plot during the POL image assessment.

Results

Description of the Mapped Units

A total of 14 mapping units were identified for the 

Kawela-Kamaö project area (table 2; fig. 7). Classification 

nomenclature includes both a simple unit name (for example, 

‘Ilima and mixed grass dry shrubland), as well as its formal 

rUSNVC name (for example, Waltheria indica/Sida fallax

Shrubland) (NatureServe, 2010, 2011). The classification 

hierarchy for each unit relative to the rUSNVC, as well as a 

very simplified classification (Forest, Shrub/Open Woodland, 

Shrub, Grass, and Bare) that can be used to describe the area 

very generally are included in table 3.

The most widespread units were the ‘Öhi’a montane 

wet or mesic forest and No vegetation or very sparse grasses/

shrubs communities, each present in more than 800 ha, 

or 16 percent of the mapping area. Next largest were the 

Kiawe woodland with alien grass understory and ‘A‘ali‘i dry 

shrubland units, each of which covered more than 500 ha, or 

more than 12 percent of the area; followed by the Mixed native 

mesic shrubland, ‘Ilima and mixed grass dry shrubland, Mixed 

alien grass with ‘ilima shrubs, and the Mixed alien forest with 

N

Kamakou Preserve

Kamakou

Peak

Pelekunu Valley

1,510 m

Kawela

Gulch

Map area

Island of Moloka‘i

0 1 2MILES

0 1 2 3 KILOMETERS

CONTOUR INTERVAL 500 METERS

NORTH AMERICAN DATUM OF 1983

EXPLANATION

Accuracy assessment points

Vegetation map area

Pacific Ocean

Kamalö

Gulch

Kamähu‘ehu‘e

Fishpond

Figure 6. Map showing 

location of 100 random points 

used to assess accuracy of the 

vegetation map for the KawelaKamalö Ridge-to-Reef project 

area.
8 Vegetation Map of the Watersheds Between Kawela and Kamalö Gulches, Island of Moloka‘i, Hawai‘i

Table 2. Summary of the mapping units used to describe the plant communities of the Kawela-Kamalö Ridge-to-Reef project area, and 

the area covered by each unit on the map.

Map 

unit Map unit name Community type Area inhectares Area in acres Percentof map

1 ‘Öhi‘a montane wet or mesic forest Forest 852.1 2,105.6 16.6

2 Mixed native lowland dry/mesic forest with shrub/grass understory Open forest 16.5 40.8 0.3

3 ‘Öhi‘a/uluhe montane woodland Shrub/open woodland 26.5 65.5 0.5

4 Mixed native mesic shrubland Shrub 495.0 1,223.2 9.7

5 ‘A‘ali‘i dry shrubland Shrub 654.2 1,616.6 12.8

6 ‘Ilima and mixed grass dry shrubland Shrub 490.9 1,213.0 9.6

7 Kukui forest Forest 3.2 7.9 0.1

8 Mixed alien forest with alien shrub/grass understory Forest 390.7 965.4 7.6

9 Introduced tree plantation Forest 43.9 108.5 0.9

10 Kiawe woodland with alien grass understory Grass/shrub/woodland 737.5 1,822.4 14.4

11 Lantana shrubland Shrub 10.7 26.4 0.2

12 Koa haole shrubland Shrub 168.6 416.6 3.3

13 Mixed alien grass with `ilima shrubs Grass 392.3 969.4 7.7

14 No vegetation or very sparse grasses/shrubs Bare 836.4 2,066.8 16.3

Total mapping area 5,118.5 12,648.1 100.0

Table 3. Summary of the mapping units used to describe the plant communities of the Kawela-Kamalö Ridge-to-Reef 

project area and the area covered by each unit on the map.

Map 

unit Map unit name rUSNVC associations rUSNVC groups

1 ‘Öhi‘a montane wet or mesic forest Metrosideros polymorpha / cheirodendron spp. Montane wet forest

Metrosideros polymorpha / cibotium spp. Montane wet forest

Metrosideros polymorpha / mixed shrub montane wet forest

Metrosideros polymorpha montane mesic forest

Hawaiian montane rainforest and cloud forest group

Hawaiian montane-subalpine seasonal rainforest group

2 Mixed native lowland dry/mesic forest with 

shrub/grass understory

Diospyros sandwicensis lowland mesic forest

Pleomele auwahiensis lowland mesic woodland

Diospyros sandwicensis lowland dry forest

Erythrina sandwicensis lowland dry forest 

Hawaiian lowland - coastal seasonal rainforest group

Hawaiian lowland dry forest and woodland group

3 ‘Öhi‘a/uluhe montane woodland Metrosideros polymorpha / dicranopteris spp. montane wet woodland Hawaiian montane rainforest and cloud forest group

4 Mixed native mesic shrubland Dodonaea viscosa - 1styphelia tameiameiae lowland mesic shrubland

Sadleria cyatheoides - metrosideros polymorpha dwarf-shrubland

Hawaiian lowland mesic-wet shrubland and grassland 

group

Hawaiian montane-subalpine mesic-wet shrubland and 

grassland group

5 ‘A‘ali‘i dry shrubland Dodonaea viscosa lowland dry shrubland Hawaiian lowland dry shrubland and grassland group

6 ‘Ilima and mixed grass dry shrubland Waltheria indica / sida fallax shrubland Hawaiian lowland dry shrubland and grassland group

7 Kukui forest Aleurites moluccana lowland mesic forest [2provisional] Hawaiian riparian & floodplain forest and shrubland 

group

8 Mixed alien forest with alien shrub/grass 

understory

Grevillea robusta lowland mesic forest [provisional]

Samanea saman/prosopis pallida / leucaena leucocephala lowland dry 

forest [3

preliminary]

Hawaiian ruderal dry forest group

9 Introduced tree plantation Eucalyptus spp./Pinus spp./Cryptomeria japonica tree plantation 

[preliminary]

(No group)

10 Kiawe woodland with alien grass understory Prosopis pallida coastal dry semi-natural woodland Hawaiian ruderal dry forest group

11 Lantana shrubland Lantana camara shrubland [provisional] Hawaiian ruderal lowland shrubland, grassland and 

savanna group

12 Koa haole shrubland Leucaena leucocephala lowland dry semi-natural shrubland Hawaiian ruderal lowland shrubland, grassland and 

savanna group

13 Mixed alien grass with ‘Ilima shrubs Cenchrus ciliaris lowland dry grassland [preliminary] Hawaiian ruderal lowland shrubland, grassland and 

savanna group

14 No vegetation or very sparse grasses/shrubs Sida fallax very sparse shrubland with mixed alien grasses 

[preliminary]

Hawaiian lowland dry shrubland and grassland group

1

 Currently accepted name is Leptecophylla tameiameiae (Wagner et al. 2012).

2

 "Provisional" = This unit has not been formally recognized within the rUSNVC.

3

 "Preliminary" = This is a new unit that will be proposed for inclusion within the rUSNVC.
Results 9

N

Map area

Island of Moloka‘i

Pacific Ocean

Kamalo

Gulch

Very wet

Very wet

Moderately wet

Moderately wet

Moist mesic

Moist mesic

Seasonal

mesic

Seasonal

mesic

Moderately dry

Moderately dry

Very dry

Very dry

Arid

NORTH AMERICAN DATUM OF 1983

0 1 2 MILES

0 1 2 3 KILOMETERS

Kawela

Gulch

Moisture Zones (Price and others 2012)

Ohi‘a montane wet or mesic forest (MU1)

Mixed native lowland dry/mesic forest

with shrub/grass understory (MU2)

‘Ohi‘a/uluhe montane woodland (MU3)

Mixed native mesic shrubland (MU4)

‘A‘ali‘i dry shrubland (MU5)

‘Ilima and mixed grass dry shrubland 

(MU6)

Kukui forest (MU7)

Mixed alien forest with alien 

shrub/grass understory (MU8)

Introduced tree plantation (MU9)

Kiawe woodland with alien 

grass understory (MU10)

Lantana shrubland (MU11)

Koa haole shrubland (MU12)

Mixed alien with ‘ilima shrubs 

(MU13)

No vegetation or very sparse 

grasses/shrubs (MU14)

EXPLANATION (MU, Map Unit)

Kamalö

Gulch

Kamähu‘ehu‘e

Fishpond

Figure 7. Vegetation map produced for the KawelaKamalö Ridge-to-Reef project area.

alien shrub/grass understory communities, which ranged in 

size from approximately 391 to 491 ha, or 7.6 to 9.6 percent 

of the project site. The other six mapped units were found on 

less than 170 ha of the landscape.

Six of the map units were dominated by native 

vegetation, covering a total of 2,535.2 ha combined, or 

approximately 50 percent of the project area. The remaining 

map units were dominated by nonnative species and 

represent vegetation types that have resulted from invasion 

and establishment of plant species either purposely or 

accidently introduced into Hawai‘i since human contact. 

‘Öhi‘a Montane Wet or Mesic Forest (Map Unit 1)

Closed canopy forest dominates the upper elevation part of 

the mapping area, ranging from approximately 1,000 m elevation 

up to the southern rim of Pelekunu Valley near Kamakou Peak at 

1,510 m (figs. 8 and 9). This unit includes 852.1 ha of both mesic 

and wet habitat types. The mesic forest is generally found in 

areas with 2,000 to 2,700 mm annual rainfall; the wet component 

is at the higher elevations where annual rainfall exceeds 2,700 

mm. In all forested areas the tree canopy is dominated by ‘öhi‘a 

(Metrosideros polymorpha) with scattered other subcanopy trees, 
10 Vegetation Map of the Watersheds Between Kawela and Kamalö Gulches, Island of Moloka‘i, Hawai‘i

including ‘ölapa (Cheirodendron trigynum) and kölea (Myrsine

spp.). In the lower mesic sections of this mapped unit the 

understory is dominated by a mix of native shrubs and ferns, 

as well as some uluhe (Dicranopteris linearis) under canopy 

openings. In the upper wet sections of this forest, the understory 

is again dominated by native shrub and fern species, but also 

includes more häpu‘u tree ferns (Cibotium spp.). Most of this 

wet and mesic habitat, including the mixed mesic native shrub 

community described below, has been fenced to protect it from 

the impacts of feral pigs (Sus scrofa), goats, and axis deer within 

The Nature Conservancy’s Kamakou Preserve and adjacent lands 

managed by the East Moloka‘i Watershed Partnership.

Mixed Native Lowland Dry/Mesic Forest with 

Shrub/Grass Understory (Map Unit 2)

Lowland communities in the main Hawaiian Islands have 

been severely altered by land-use changes for agriculture and 

urban development, browsing by feral ungulates, as well as 

invasion by nonnative plant species (Cuddihy and Stone, 1990; 

Warshauer,1998; Pratt and Jacobi, 2009). Lowland mesic and 

dry forests in particular have been greatly reduced from their 

original extent and those that remain have a reduced number 

of species, particularly in the understory. Within the KawelaKamalö project area, just a few remnants of mixed native dry/

mesic forest remain, mostly along the edges of the larger gulches 

where they are less accessible to browsing by feral goats and 

introduced axis deer, or in the bottoms of the many drainages 

found across the watershed (fig. 10). In this study, only 16.5 

ha of mixed native dry/mesic forest were mapped within the 

project area. This highly degraded community likely contained a 

great diversity of endemic tree, shrub, and fern species, but it is 

now reduced to those native woody species that have been able 

to survive, including halapepe (Pleomele auwahiensis), lama 

(Diospyros sandwicensis), naio (Myoporum sandwicense), and 

‘iliahi (Santalum ellipticum). The lower dry forest is dominated 

primarily by the native trees wiliwili (Erythrina sandwicensis), 

lama, and naio (fig. 11). We speculate that this community 

type was originally much more widespread across the KawelaKamalö watersheds prior to Western contact more than 200 years 

ago, extending in a band across the lower landscapes below 

approximately 700 m elevation, where annual rainfall is less than 

1,200 mm. 

ÿÖhiÿa/Uluhe Montane Woodland (Map Unit 3)

This plant community is relatively simple in composition, 

being dominated by a dense mat of uluhe ferns in the montane 

wet and mesic forest zones where the tree canopy is open (fig. 

12). The uluhe patches are generally not very large and are 

mixed into the matrix of montane ‘öhi‘a forest in small openings 

in the forest canopy or on steeper slopes that have fewer tall 

trees. A total of 26.5 ha of this unit were mapped, all above 1,000 

m elevation in the zone that receives more than 2,000 mm of 

annual rainfall.

Figure 8. Typical view in the ÿÖhiÿa montane wet or mesic forest 

in the Kamakou Preserve, Moloka‘i. (Map Unit 1)

Figure 9. General view of the ÿÖhiÿa montane wet or mesic forest 

in the upper portion of the Kawela watershed. (Map Unit 1)

Figure 10. View of highly disturbed mixed mesic forest in the 

seasonal mesic moisture zone east of Kawela Gulch, Molokaÿi. 

Dominant trees include halapepe (inset), lama, naio, and ‘iliahi. 

(Map Unit 2)
Results 11

Figure 11. Remnant stand of wiliwili (seen flowering in inset 

photo) dry forest in a small gulch within the Kawela watershed, 

Moloka‘i. (Map Unit 2)

Figure 12. ÿÖhiÿa/uluhe montane woodland in an opening in the 

mesic ÿöhiÿa forest near Pu‘u Kolekole, Moloka‘i. (Map Unit 3)

Figure 13. Mixed native mesic shrubland dominated by ÿöhiÿa, 

pükiawe, and ‘a‘ali‘i shrubs. (Map Unit 4).

Figure 14. View of the mixed native mesic shrubland below Pu‘u 

Kolekole, Moloka‘i. (Map Unit 4)

Mixed Native Mesic Shrubland (Map Unit 4)

The mixed mesic native shrub community is relatively 

rich in composition, including some elements of the adjacent 

montane mesic ‘Öhi‘a forest above it, as well as species 

from the lower elevation dry communities (figs. 13, 14). This 

community forms a distinct band between approximately 700 

and 1,100 m elevation, primarily within the moist mesic and 

seasonal mesic moisture zones mapped by Price and others 

(2012), receiving between 1,300 and 2,700 mm of rainfall per 

year. More than 495.0 ha of this community were mapped, 

occupying 9.7 percent of the project area. The vegetation 

is generally less than 2 m in height and is dominated by 

several native shrub species including a smaller form of 

‘öhi‘a, ‘a‘ali‘i (Dodonaea viscosa), pükiawe (Leptecophylla 

tameiameiae), ‘öhelo (Vaccinium spp.), and pilo (Coprosma

spp.). Additionally, it contains a mix of ferns such as ‘ama‘u 

(Sadleria spp.), uluhe, and Dryopteris wallichiana. The 

current lower extent of this community has been modified by 

decades of grazing by feral (goats and cattle) and wild (axis 

deer) ungulates in this area, as well as from the many fires that 

have burned this habitat.

‘A‘ali‘i Dry Shrubland (Map Unit 5)

More than 654.2 ha of the ‘A‘ali‘i dry shrubland 

community were mapped, generally between 200 and 800 

m elevation in the relatively dry middle section of the project 

area, which receives less than 1,500 mm of annual rainfall 

(figs. 15, 16). Less of this community was found in the 

western part of the project area than in the central and eastern 

parts. ‘A‘ali‘i shrubland occurs both on the sides of gullies 

and in the flatlands between gulches where it forms dense 

thickets that can be difficult to walk through. The vegetation 

is dominated by the indigenous shrub ‘a‘ali‘i with few other 
12 Vegetation Map of the Watersheds Between Kawela and Kamalö Gulches, Island of Moloka‘i, Hawai‘i

species. In areas with less ‘a‘ali‘i cover, other native plants can 

also be found, including the native shrubs ‘ilima (Sida fallax), 

nehe (Lipochaeta rockii), kö‘oko‘olau (Bidens menziesii), and 

the native grass Panicum fauriei, as well as introduced species 

such as Lantana camara, Natal redtop grass (Melinis repens), 

molasses grass (M. minutiflora), and buffelgrass (Cenchrus 

ciliaris). This community currently appears to be relatively 

resistant to browsing by feral goats and axis deer, but is highly 

susceptible to fire.

‘Ilima and Mixed Grass Dry Shrubland (Map 

Unit 6)

The ‘ilima and mixed grass dry shrubland community is 

found on rough and rocky substrates below 1,100 m elevation 

in dry moisture zones and some mesic areas that receive less 

than 1,500 mm of annual rainfall (figs. 17, 18). This unit has 

greater than 50 percent bare ground, but a persistent cover of 

the native ‘ilima and a few other native and alien grass, shrubs, 

and herbaceous plants, particularly during the wet winter 

months. A total of 490.9 ha of this community was mapped, 

which represents 9.6 percent of the project area. Although this 

community probably existed in a similar form prior to humans 

coming to the Hawaiian Islands, it would have been much 

more restricted in abundance and distribution at that time to a 

secondary successional community colonizing recent rockfall 

areas. Today this vegetation type is much more widespread 

because of the extensive browsing pressure this area has had 

from feral goats and axis deer, which removes most of the 

more palatable shrubs and grasses from the landscape, leaving 

only ‘ilima and a few other hardy species. After a small 

area of this community type was fenced to exclude ungulate 

browsing in 2009, the vegetation changed rapidly over the next 

three years. By 2011 the fenced area was covered by a mixed 

native shrub and grass community dominated by ‘ilima and 

‘äweoweo (Chenopodium oahuense) shrubs and the native 

grass Panicum fauriei (J. Jacobi, unpublished data). 

Figure 15. ‘A‘ali‘i dry 

shrubland showing 

dense shrub canopy. 

The yellow band 

in this photo is the 

measuring tape used 

to mark field transects. 

(Map Unit 5)

Figure 16. General view of ‘a‘ali‘i dry shrubland in the Kawela 

watershed, Moloka‘i. (Map Unit 5)

Figure 17. ‘Ilima and mixed grass dry shrubland dominated by 

‘ilima at the edge of the east fork of Kawela Gulch, Moloka‘i. (Map 

Unit 6)

Figure 18. Very open 

vegetation, primarily 

‘ilima and Bidens pilosa

shrubs with a few native 

and alien grasses. (Map 

Unit 6)
Results 13

Figure 19. Stands of kukui trees in the bottom of 

Kawela Gulch, Moloka‘i.(Map Unit 7)

Kukui Forest (Map Unit 7)

The Kukui forest unit is extremely simple in composition 

because few plants can grow in the dense shade produced by 

the tall trees that dominate this community (fig. 19). Kukui 

(Aleurites moluccana) was introduced into Hawai‘i by the early 

Polynesian settlers and has spread into many lowland mesic 

and wet habitats, particularly along streambeds where the trees 

can grow to over 30 m tall and form a very dense, pale green 

canopy. Only 3.2 ha of this community were mapped within 

the project area, all along the sides of streams below 800 m 

elevation. Although this unit had a very small areal distribution 

within the project area, it was included because its mapping 

signature was very distinctive and could be easily identified 

during the image analysis process.

Mixed Alien Forest with Alien Shrub/Grass 

Understory (Map Unit 8)

This plant community is really a combination of three 

types of units dominated by introduced tree species, ranging 

from the seasonal mesic zone around 1,000 m elevation nearly 

down to sea level in the arid zone at the coast. A total of 

390.7 ha of this community was mapped, which is 7.6 percent 

of the project area. The upper elevation form of this 

community, found primarily within the seasonal mesic zone 

of Price and others (2012), is a mix of introduced tree species 

that have spread from some of the tree plantations, including 

Pinus spp., Eucalyptus spp., and silver oak (Grevillea 

robusta). The understory in this area is primarily introduced 

Figure 20. Tall-statured mixed alien forest in the lower section 

of Kawela Gulch, Moloka‘i. Dominant trees in this community are 

kiawe, monkeypod, and java plum. (Map Unit 8)

Figure 21. Low-statured mixed alien forest community in the 

lower part of Kamalö Gulch, Moloka‘i. Dominant trees are guava 

(Psidium guajava), java plum, kiawe, and koa haole. (Map Unit 8)

grass and shrub species, but in some areas the alien trees grow 

over remnants of the mixed mesic native shrub community. 

In gulch bottoms within the lower section of the mapping 

area, this community forms a relatively tall and dense canopy, 

dominated by several introduced trees including monkeypod 

(Samanea saman), kiawe (Prosopis pallida), and Java plum 

(Syzygium cumini). It has an understory composed of shrubs 

such as lantana (Lantana camara), koa haole (Leucaena 

leucocephala), and guineagrass (Urochloa maxima, also 

known as Panicum maximum (Clayton and Snow, 2010)) 

(fig. 20). The third phase of this community is open woodland 

dominated by Leucaena leucocephala, Java plum, and kiawe, 

with lantana and guineagrass forming most of the understory. 

The last form of this community is quite similar to the 

Leucaena shrubland community, but it has more tree species 

in its overstory (fig. 21).
14 Vegetation Map of the Watersheds Between Kawela and Kamalö Gulches, Island of Moloka‘i, Hawai‘i

Introduced Tree Plantation (Map Unit 9)

There are a few tree plantations within the upper northern 

section of the mapped area, covering an area of 43.9 ha. 

These plantations mostly comprise Pinus, Eucalyptus, or 

Cupressaceae species that were planted more than 50 years 

ago (figs. 22, 23). Generally all of these stands have a tall 

closed canopy with trees over 20 m in height, resulting in 

a very densely shaded understory supporting few plants, 

including native and alien ferns and shrubs.

Kiawe Woodland with Alien Grass Understory 

(Map Unit 10)

The kiawe trees with alien grass understory community 

occupies 737.5 ha of the mapped area. This unit is found in the 

lower dry sections of the mapping area where annual rainfall is 

less than 1,200 mm. The kiawe-dominated woodland/grassland 

community represents highly altered vegetation from the 

original plant communities that occupied this landscape in 

prehuman times. The degradation of this area is the result of 

a combination of grazing, fire, and subsequent invasion by 

nonnative plant species. This alien-dominated community is 

relatively simple in both composition and structure, dominated 

by an open canopy of kiawe trees up to 3 m tall and a dense 

understory composed primarily of buffelgrass (fig. 24). In 

places where the grass understory is more open, such as on the 

edges of small gullies, some additional species can be found, 

including the indigenous shrubs ‘ilima and ‘uhaloa (Waltheria 

indica), as well as a mix of alien grasses, herbs, and shrubs 

(fig. 25). This community is highly susceptible to fire and has 

burned many times in the past, as indicated by the abundance 

of charcoal in the soil and fire-scarred trees.

Figure 23.

Introduced tree 

plantation near 

Pu‘u Kolekole, 

Moloka‘i, 

dominated by 

Cupressaceae, 

Eucalyptus, and 

other broadleaf 

species. (Map 

Unit 9)

Figure 24. Kiawe trees growing in grassland dominated by the 

alien buffelgrass. (Map Unit 10)

Figure 25. Kiawe woodland with alien grass understory 

community on the edge of Kawela Gulch, Moloka‘i. (Map Unit 10)

Figure 22. Aerial view of pine plantation at approximately 

750 m elevation near Kawela Gulch, Moloka‘i. (Map Unit 9)
Results 15

Lantana Shrubland (Map Unit 11)

The Lantana shrubland community was found in very 

small patches but was widely distributed—from near sea level 

at the coast to approximately 800 m elevation, but covering 

only a total of 10.7 ha within the project area. This map unit 

had a distinct signature that could be identified consistently 

because it is predominately monospecific—dominated by just 

one species, Lantana camara (fig. 26). It was mostly found 

in the moderately dry, very dry, and arid moisture zones, but 

a few lantana plants were found in disturbed sites within the 

seasonal mesic habitat. The shrubs grow to 1 m tall, and they 

can form dense patches that are quite difficult to walk through, 

particularly because the stems have short thorns.

Koa Haole Shrubland (Map Unit 12)

The koa haole shrubland community was the most 

difficult one to map because the dominant species, koa haole, 

is summer-deciduous and is hard to detect when it loses its 

leaves. This species can also be heavily browsed by feral 

ungulates, further masking its visibility on an image. Most of 

the koa haole shrubland community was found in the eastern 

section of the project area, particularly on the lower sections 

of Kamalö Gulch. Overall, 168.6 ha of this community were 

mapped in the dry and very dry moisture zones below 700 m 

elevation. Koa haole may grow like a small tree up to 3 m tall, 

but it is more often found in this area as shrub less than 2 m in 

height (figs. 27, 28). The canopy of this unit is relatively open 

and the understory is generally occupied by a mix of alien 

shrubs and alien grasses (buffelgrass, guinea grass, molasses 

grass), as well as the ubiquitous native shrub ‘ilima. 

Mixed Alien Grass with ‘Ilima Shrubs (Map 

Unit 13)

A total of 392.3 ha of this alien grassland community 

was mapped throughout most of the project area—from near 

sea level at the coast to approximately 1,100 m elevation at 

the edge of the closed forest (fig. 29). A few small grassdominated patches were also mapped in disturbed openings 

within the closed mesic ‘öhi‘a forest unit. In the lower dry 

section of the area, this community is heavily dominated by 

a number of introduced grass species, including buffelgrass 

(fig.30), although other species such as Natal redtop 

grass, sandbur (Cenchrus echinatus), and thatching grass 

(Hyparrhenia rufa) are also found within the grassland. The 

native shrub ‘ilima is widely distributed throughout this 

community but does not attain significant cover. Many other 

alien shrubs and herbaceous species are also found here, as 

well as the indigenous herb ‘uhaloa, but again in low cover. 

Along the coast, this map unit included some dense stands 

of the alien herb Batis maritima (pickleweed) in wetland 

habitat. The spectral signature of Batiswas very similar to the 

other alien grass species, so they were combined into a single 

Figure 26. Lantana shrubland. (Map Unit 11)

Figure 27. Koa haole shrubland in lower part of Kamalö Gulch, 

Moloka‘i. (Map Unit 12)

Figure 28. Small stand of koa haole growing above alien 

grasses in the lower part of the Kawela watershed, Moloka‘i. (Map 

Unit 12)
16 Vegetation Map of the Watersheds Between Kawela and Kamalö Gulches, Island of Moloka‘i, Hawai‘i

Figure 29. Mixed alien grassland dominated by buffelgrass. The 

yellow band in this photo is the measuring tape used to mark field 

transects. (Map Unit 13)

Figure 30. Close-up of 

buffelgrass and seedling 

of ‘ilima. (Map Unit 13)

map unit. At higher elevations (above 1,000 m elevation), the 

dominant grass species in this unit was molasses grass, which 

forms very dense monospecific patches of grassland.

No Vegetation or Very Sparse Grasses / 

Shrubs (Map Unit 14)

The not vegetated map unit is very similar to the ‘ilima 

and mixed grass dry shrubland, but it has even less plant cover 

(figs. 31, 32). This very sparse plant community was found 

extensively across the project area, covering a total of 836.4ha, 

ranging from approximately 1,100 m elevation to near sea 

level at the coast. This unit was found on two different types 

of substrates: very rocky areas, such as steep sides of gulches 

or on ridges that have been heavily eroded, and bare areas 

that still have fine substrate. These latter nonvegetated sites 

can be a major source of sediment as surface flow following 

heavy rainfall runs through those sites. The few plants that are 

found in this unit include small individuals of ‘ilima, Spanish 

needle (Bidens pilosa), Dysphania carinatum (formerly called 

Chenopodium carinatum), as well as native and alien grasses 

such as Panicum fauriei, buffelgrass, and Natal redtop grass.

Map Accuracy Assessment

We tested the accuracy of the vegetation map by 

comparing mapped community units with the vegetation 

interpreted from high-resolution georectified aerial imagery 

obtained from Pictometry OnLine (POL) at a set of 100 

points randomly located across the mapping area (tables 4–6). 

However, most of the mapped units that are relatively small 

in spatial extent received only a small number of accuracy 

assessment points—resulting in lower confidence of their 

Figure 32. Steep slopes of the upper east fork of Kawela 

Gulch, Moloka‘i. These steep cliff faces have very little vegetation, 

primarily alien grass and shrub species, plus the native shrub 

‘ilima. (Map Unit 14)

Figure 31. Not vegetated or very sparse grass/shrub community 

at the edge of the upper east fork of Kawela Gulch, Moloka‘i. (Map 

Unit 14)
Results 17

Table 4. Error matrix for the accuracy assessment conducted at 100 randomly located sample plots across the Kawela-Kamalö Ridgeto-Reef project area, depicting agreement or disagreement between the dominant class mapped in an assessment plot to the first-choice 

classification unit from the Pictometry Online imagery service (POL) image assessment.

[Grey boxes indicate number of ground reference plots that agree with the vegetation map]

Ground reference data (Map unit) Producer's

accuracy

1 2 4 5 6 8 9 10 12 13 14 Total Percent

Correct

Vegetation

map

(Map unit)

1 19 19 100.0

2 0 0.0

4 8 1 1 2 12 66.7

5 5 1 2 8 62.5

6 8 1 1 10 80.0

8 6 6 100.0

9 1 1 0.0

10 2 11 1 14 78.6

12 1 2 1 4 25.0

13 5 6 2 13 46.2

14 1 1 11 13 84.6

Total 20 1 8 7 11 7 1 18 2 7 18 100

75.0

95.0 0.0 100.0 71.4 72.7 85.7 0.0 61.1 50.0 85.7 61.1 Overall

accuracy

Table 5. Error matrix for the accuracy assessment conducted at 100 randomly located sample plots across the Kawela-Kamalö Ridgeto-Reef project area, depicting agreement or disagreement between the two most abundant classes mapped within an assessment plot 

to either the first- or second-choice classification unit from the Pictometry Online imagery service (POL) image assessment.

[Grey boxes indicate number of ground reference plots that agree with the vegetation map]

Ground reference data (Map unit) Producer's

accuracy

1 2 4 5 6 8 9 10 12 13 14 Total Percent

Correct

Vegetation

map

(Map unit)

1 20 20 100.0

2 0 0.0

4 8 1 1 10 80.0

5 5 1 1 7 71.4

6 12 1 13 92.3

8 6 6 100.0

9 1 1 100.0

10 16 1 17 94.1

12 1 1 1 3 33.3

13 1 6 7 85.7

14 1 14 15 93.3

15 1 1 0.0

Total 20 1 8 7 13 7 1 18 2 6 17 0 100

89.0

100.0 0.0 100.0 71.4 92.3 85.7 100.0 88.9 50.0 100.0 82.4 0.0 Overall

accuracy
18 Vegetation Map of the Watersheds Between Kawela and Kamalö Gulches, Island of Moloka‘i, Hawai‘i

calculated accuracy values. The accuracy assessment analysis 

yielded three levels of overall accuracy: 75.0, 89.0, and 95.0 

percent, depending on how the map data and the reference 

plot data were compared. The lowest accuracy was obtained 

when just the dominant class mapped in an assessment plot 

was compared to the first-choice classification unit from the 

POL image assessment. The greatest accuracy value came 

from a comparison among any of the classes mapped within 

an assessment plot to any of the classification units identified 

within that plot during the POL image assessment. Given the 

high spatial resolution (and corresponding small pixel size) 

of the QuickBird imagery used to create the map, it seems 

reasonable to be more robust with the analysis, particularly 

since an observer in the field would have a difficult time 

accurately locating a point with less than a 1-m error without 

differential correction of the GPS coordinates. The horizontal 

positional error from the original QuickBird image used for 

mapping was determined to be between 5 and 8 m, which 

could also account for some of the difference in location 

between the mapping and assessment images. Additionally, 

many of the mapped units are closely related to each other. For 

example, Map Unit 6 (‘ilima and mixed grass dry shrubland), 

Map Unit 13 (mixed alien grass with ‘ilima shrubs), Map Unit 

12 (koa haole shrubland), and Map Unit 14 (no vegetation or 

very sparse grasses / shrubs) share many species and differ 

primarily on the cover of one or two of the dominant plant 

species or the amount of nonvegetated ground within the 

unit. The error matrix for the most restrictive assessment 

(table 4) indicates low user’s accuracy values (that is, less 

than 75 percent) for many of these units. There are fewer 

Table 6. Error matrix for the accuracy assessment conducted at 100 randomly located sample plots across the Kawela-Kamalö Ridgeto-Reef project area, depicting agreement or disagreement between any of the classes mapped within an assessment plot to any of the 

classification units identified within that plot during the Pictometry Online imagery service (POL) image assessment.

[Grey boxes indicate number of ground reference plots that agree with the vegetation map]

Ground reference data (Map unit) Producer's

accuracy

1 4 5 6 8 9 10 12 13 14 Total Percent

Correct

Vegetation

map

(Map unit)

1 20 20 100.0

4 9 1 10 90.0

5 5 1 1 7 71.4

6 12 12 100.0

8 6 6 100.0

9 1 1 100.0

10 14 1 15 93.3

12 1 2 3 66.7

13 9 9 100.0

14 17 17 100.0

Total 20 9 5 13 6 1 15 2 9 20 100

95.0

100.0 100.0 100.0 92.3 100.0 100.0 93.3 100.0 100.0 85.0 Overall

accuracy

lower accuracy values in table 5, where a comparison is made 

between the two most abundant plant communities within 

the assessment plot on the map versus the first two map units 

identified from the POL image assessment. In the most robust 

comparison between the data for the plots on the map and the 

POL data (table 6), only Map Units 5 (‘a‘ali‘i dry shrubland) 

and 12 (koa haole shrubland) had a producer’s accuracy value 

less than 75 percent. 

Some of the inaccuracy found in the map may be due 

to seasonal or temporal changes in the vegetation between 

the time when the QuickBird image used for mapping was 

taken (August 2004) and the date of the POL imagery (2009–

2010). Unfortunately, we were not able to collect the “field” 

assessment dataset until the POL imagery became available. 

However, we feel that the user of the resulting map will be 

able to get a reasonable perspective of our mapping accuracy 

from this analysis.

Discussion

The preponderance of mapping units that are dominated 

by alien plant species is a strong indication of how much 

disturbance has occurred in nearly half of the project area. The 

major factors causing such a dramatic change include logging 

of ‘iliahi (sandalwood) trees in the 19th century (Cuddihy 

and Stone, 1990); grazing by domestic cattle, feral goats and 

pigs, and introduced axis deer; numerous fires; and invasion 

and competition from nonnative plant species. The current 

vegetation in the approximately 50 percent of the project area 
References 19

that was mapped with units dominated by alien species is 

dramatically different in composition, and probably also 

structure, from the original plant communities that would 

have been found there. The vegetation zones described by 

Price and others (2012) (fig. 3) indicate the lower half of 

the project area was covered by lowland dry forest that was 

likely dominated by a diverse mixture of native tree, shrub, 

grass, and herbaceous species.

The native-dominated ‘öhi‘a forest and uluhe fern 

communities in the upper portion of the project area are 

probably most similar to the vegetation that was originally 

found in this area and correspond very closely to the 

distribution of montane wet and mesic forest in the Price 

and others (2012) vegetation zone map (fig. 3). Portions of 

the mixed mesic native shrub community still persist in the 

area mapped by Price and others as the lowland mesic zone. 

However, below that area the vegetation is either dominated 

by alien species, or artificially opened by animal grazing 

and erosion. Both the ‘a‘ali‘i dry shrubland and open ‘ilima 

mixed grass dry shrubland vegetation units are likely seral 

communities that persist as secondary succession units that 

have responded positively to the disturbance to the original 

vegetation. Jonathan Price (University of Hawai‘i at Hilo, 

oral commun., 2011) speculates that the lowland mesic zone 

was likely covered by a diverse mixed mesic forest, remnants 

of which are still found in the upper elevation mesic gulches. 

Below this area in the lowland dry zone, he suggests that 

the vegetation was a mixed tree/shrub/grass savannah, with 

several dry forest tree species in the open overstory and 

native shrubs and grasses filling in the understory. Steeper 

slopes in the gulches would likely have been dominated by 

either native shrub or grass species, depending upon how 

long the vegetation had to become established following rock 

slides, and very little bare ground was originally exposed, 

except in the steepest areas or in the open stream beds. 

Conclusions

The map produced for the Kawela to Kamalö 

watersheds can be used as a baseline for assessing the 

distribution and abundance of the various plant communities 

found across this landscape at the time of the imagery 

(2004). It can also serve as a backdrop for studying the 

dynamics of the vegetation and other attributes of this 

watershed, such as erosion and surface transport of sediment, 

relative to current and future habitat conditions. The future 

composition and structure of the vegetation of this entire area 

will be determined by the levels of management applied to 

the various factors that influence the habitats found within 

the project area. If ungulate browsing and grazing pressure 

can be reduced or eliminated, and wildfires are prevented, 

it is likely that some of the areas that are now mostly bare 

may become revegetated, even by native species of plants, 

potentially reducing erosion throughout this area.

References

Blaschke, T., 2010, Object based image analysis for remote sensing: 

ISPRS Journal of Photogrammetry and Remote Sensing, v. 65, 

p.2–16.

Brown de Colstoun, E.C., Story, M.H., Thompson, C., Commisso, 

K., Smith, T.G., and Irons, J. R., 2003, National Park vegetation 

mapping using multitemporal Landsat 7 data and a decision tree 

classifier: Remote Sensing of Environment, v. 85, p. 316–327.

Clayton, W.D., and Snow, Neil, 2010, A key to Pacific grasses: Kew 

Publishing, Royal Botanic Gardens, Kew (London).

Cogan, D., Schulz, K., Benitez, D., Kudray, G., and Ainsworth, 

A., 2011, Vegetation inventory project; Pu‘ukoholä Heiau 

National Historic Site: Natural Resource Report NPS/PUHE/

NRR-2011/459, National Park Service, Fort Collins, Colo. (Also 

available at https://irma.nps.gov/App/Reference/Profile/2176695.) 

Congalton, R.G., 1991, A review of assessing the accuracy of 

classifications of remotely sensed data: Remote Sensing of 

Environment, v. 37, p. 35–46.

Cuddihy, L.W., and Stone, C.P., 1990, Alteration of native Hawaiian 

vegetation—Effects of humans, their activities and introductions: 

Honolulu, University of Hawaii Press.

Federal Geographic Data Committee. 2008, National Vegetation 

Classification Standard, Version 2 FGDC-STD-005-2008: 

Vegetation Subcommittee, Federal Geographic Data Committee, 

FGDC Secretariat, U.S. Geological Survey, Reston, Va. (Also 

available at http://usnvc.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/02/NVCS_

V2_FINAL_2008-02.pdf.)

Giambelluca, T.W., Chen, Q., Frazier, A.G., Price, J.P., Chen, Y.L., 

Chu, P.S., Eischeid, J., and Delparte,D., 2011, The rainfall atlas 

of Hawai‘i: Honolulu, University of Hawai‘ at Manoa. (Also 

available at http://rainfall.geography.hawaii.edu.)

Gon, S.M., III, 2006, The Hawai‘i Gap Analysis Project final report: 

Honolulu, University of Hawai‘i, Research Corporation of the 

University of Hawai‘i, 163 p. 

Grossman, D.H., Faber-Langendoen, D., Weakley, A.S., Anderson, 

M., Bourgeron, P., Crawford, R., Goodin, K., Landaal, S., Metzler, 

K., Patterson, K.D., Pyne, M. Reid, M., and Sneddon, L.,1998. 

International classification of ecological communities—Terrestrial 

vegetation of the United States. Volume I. The National Vegetation 

Classification System; development, status, and applications: 

Arlington, Va., The Nature Conservancy. (Also available at http://

www.natureserve.org/library/vol1.pdf.)

Jacobi, J.D., 1990. Distribution maps, ecological relationships, 

and status of native plant communities on the island of Hawai‘i: 

Honolulu, University of Hawaii at Manoa, Ph.D. dissertation, 290 

p., 2 pls., 31 figs.

Kirch, P.V., 1998, Archaeology, in Juvik, S.P., Juvik, J.O., and 

Paradise, T.R., eds., Atlas of Hawaii: Honolulu, University of 

Hawaii Press, p. 161–168.
20 Vegetation Map of the Watersheds Between Kawela and Kamalö Gulches, Island of Moloka‘i, Hawai‘i

Kirch, P.V., 2007, Three islands and an archipelago; reciprocal 

interactions between humans and island ecosystems in Polynesia: 

Earth and Environmental Science Transactions of the Royal 

Society of Edinburgh, v. 98, p. 85–99.

Kirch, P.V., and Hunt, T L., 1997, Historical ecology in the Pacific 

Islands: New Haven, Conn., Yale University Press.

Krajina, V.J., 1963, Biogeoclimatic zones on the Hawaiian Islands: 

Hawaiian Botanical Society Newsletter, v. 2, p. 93–98.

Mueller-Dombois, D., 1966, The vegetation map and vegetation 

profiles, chap. 8 of Doty, M.S., and Mueller-Dombois, D., eds., 

Atlas and bioecology studies in Hawaii Volcanoes National Park: 

Honolulu, University of Hawaii Press, 472 p.

Mueller-Dombois, D., 1984, Classification and mapping of plant 

communities—A review with emphasis on tropical vegetation, in

Woodell, G.M., ed., The role of terrestrial vegetation in the global 

carbon cycle; measurement by remote sensing: New York, John 

Wiley & Sons Inc,, p. 21–88.

Mueller-Dombois, D., and Ellenberg, H., 1974, Aims and methods 

of vegetation ecology: New York, London, Sydney, Toronto, John 

Wiley & Sons Inc.

NatureServe, 2010, International ecological classification standard—

Terrestrial ecological classifications; descriptions of ecological 

systems for modeling of LANDFIRE biophysical settings, State of 

Hawai‘i: Arlington, Va., NatureServe, Report.

NatureServe, 2011, Terrestrial ecological classifications—ecological 

systems of Hawai‘i: Arlington, Va,, and Boulder, Colo., 

NatureServe, Technical Report. 

Pratt, L.W., and Gon, S.M., III, 1998, Terrestrial ecosystems, in 

Juvik, S.P., Juvik, J.O., and Paradise, T.R., eds., Atlas of Hawaii: 

Honolulu, University of Hawaii Press, p. 121–129.

Pratt, L.W., and Jacobi, J.D., 2009, Loss, degradation, and 

persistence of habitats, in Pratt, T.K., Atkinson, C.T., Banko, P.C., 

Jacobi, J.D., and Woodworth, B.L., eds., Conservation biology 

of Hawaiian forest birds, implications for Island avifauna: New 

Haven, Conn., and London, Yale University Press, p, 139–158.

Price, J.P., Jacobi, J.D., Gon, S.M., III, Matsuwaki, D., Mehrhoff, 

L., Wagner, W.L., Lucas, M., and Rowe, B., 2012, Mapping 

plant species ranges in the Hawaiian Islands—Developing a 

methodology and associated GIS layers: U.S. Geological Survey 

Open-File Report 2012–1192, 38 p. (Also available at: http://pubs.

usgs.gov/of/2012/1192/of2012-1192_text.pdf)

Ripperton, J.C., and Hosaka, E.Y., 1942, Vegetation zones of Hawaii: 

Hawaii Agricultural Experiment Station Bulletin 89, p. 1–60.

Robyns, W., and Lamb, S.H., 1939, Preliminary ecological survey 

of the island of Hawaii: Bulletin du Jardin Botanique de L’e’tat, 

Bruxelles, v. 15, p. 241–293.

Shaw, R.B., and Castillo, J.M., 1997, Plant communities of 

Pohakuloa Training Area: Ft. Collins, Colo., Colorado State 

University, Center for Ecological Management of Military Lands, 

Department of Forest Sciences. 

Sherrod, D.R., Sinton, J.M., Watkins, S.E., and Brunt, K.M., 2007, 

Geologic map of the State of Hawai‘i: U.S. Geological Survey 

Open-File Report 2007–1089, scale 1:100,000 and 1:250,000. 

(Also available at http://pubs.usgs.gov/of/2007/1089/.)

Shimwell, D.W., 1971, The description and classification of 

vegetation: Seattle, Wash., University of Washington Press.

Smith, C.W., 1985, Impact of alien plants on Hawaii’s native biota, in 

Stone, C.P., and Scott, J.M., eds., Hawaii’s terrestrial ecosystems; 

preservation and management: Honolulu, University of Hawaii, 

Department of Botany, Cooperative National Park Resources 

Studies Unit, p. 180–250.

Staples, G.W., and Cowie, R.H., eds., 2001, Hawaii’s invasive 

species; a guide to invasive plants and animals in the Hawaiian 

Islands (1st ed.): Honolulu, Mutual Publishing and the Bishop 

Museum Press.

Stehman, S.V., and Czaplewski, R.L., 1998, Design and analysis 

for thematic map accuracy assessment; fundamental principles: 

Remote Sensing of Environment, v. 64, p. 331–344.

Stock, J.D., Cochran, S.A., Field, M.E., Jacobi, J.D., and Tribble, 

G., 2011, From ridge to reef—linking erosion and changing 

watersheds to impacts on the coral reef ecosystems of Hawai‘i and 

the Pacific Ocean: U.S/. Geological Survey Fact Sheet 2011–3049. 

(Also available at http://pubs.usgs.gov/fs/2011/3049/.)

Stone, C.P., and Scott, J.M., eds., 1985, Hawaii’s terrestrial 

ecosystems; preservation and management: Proceedings of a 

Symposium Held June 5–6, 1984, at Hawaii Volcanoes National 

Park: Honolulu, University of Hawaii, Department of Botany, 

Cooperative National Park Resources Studies Unit.

U.S. Geological Survey, 2009, LANDFIRE.HI_100EVC: Hawai‘i 

existing vegetation type layer: U.S. Geological Survey. (Also 

available at http://landfire.cr.usgs.gov/viewer/viewer.html?b

box=-164,15.79,-151.67,25.48.)

Wagner, W L., Herbst, D.R., and Lorence, D.H., 2012, Flora of the 

Hawaiian islands: Washington, D.C., Smithsonian Institution, 

Department of Botany. (Also available at http://botany.si.edu/

pacificislandbiodiversity/hawaiianflora/index.htm.)

Wagner, W.L., Herbst, D.R., and Sohmer, S.H., 1999, Maunal of 

the flowering plants of Hawaii (2d ed.): Honolulu, University of 

Hawaii Press, Bishop Museum Press.

Wang, Y., ed.. 2012, Remote sensing of protected lands: Terre Haute, 

Ind., CRC Press.

Warshauer, F.R., 1998, Alien species and threats to native ecology, in 

Juvik, S.P., Juvik, J.O., and Paradise, T.R., eds., Atlas of Hawaii: 

Honolulu, University of Hawaii Press, p, 146–149. 

Xie, Y., Sha, Z., and Yu, M., 2008, Remote sensing imagery in 

vegetation mapping—a review: Journal of Plant Ecology v. 1, 

p.9–23.
Appendix 1 21

Appendix 1
22 Vegetation Map of the Watersheds Between Kawela and Kamalö Gulches, Island of Moloka‘i, Hawai‘i

Species name Common name Family

Lifeform/

group

Origin1

Map unit number

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14

Aleurites moluccana kukui Euphorbiaceae tree P X

Batis maritima pickleweed, ‘äkulikuli kai Bataceae herb A X

Bidens menziesii kö‘oko‘olau Asteraceae shrub E X

Bidens pilosa Spanish needle Asteraceae shrub A X

Cenchrus ciliaris buffelgrass Poaceae grass A X X X X

Cenchrus echinatus sandbur Poaceae grass A X

Cheirodendron trigynum ‘ölapa Araliaceae tree E X

Chenopodium oahuense ‘äweoweo Amaranthaceae shrub E X

Cibotium spp. häpu‘u Cibotiaceae fern E X

Coprosma spp. pilo Rubiaceae shrub E X

Dicranopteris linearis uluhe Gleicheniaceae fern I X X X

Diospyros sandwicensis lama Ebenaceae tree E X

Dodonaea viscosa ‘a‘ali‘i Sapindaceae shrub I X X

Dryopteris wallichiana laukahi Dryopteridaceae fern I X

Dysphania carinatum (Chenopodium carinatum) Amaranthaceae herb A X

Erythrina sandwicensis wiliwili Fabaceae tree E X

Eucalyptus spp. Eucalyptus species Myrtaceae tree A X X

Grevillea robusta silver oak Proteaceae tree A X

Hyparrhenia rufa thatching grass Poaceae grass A X

Lantana camara Lantana Verbenaceae shrub A X X X X

Leptecophylla tameiameiae2 pükiawe Ericaceae shrub E X

Leucaena leucocephala koa haole Fabaceae shrub A X X

Lipochaeta rockii (no common name) Asteraceae herb E X

Melinis minutiflora molasses grass Poaceae grass A X X

Melinis repens Natal redtop grass Poaceae grass A X X X

Metrosideros polymorpha ‘öhi‘a Myrtaceae tree E X X

Myoporum sandwicense naio Scrophulariaceae tree E X

Myrsine spp. kolea Primulaceae tree E X

Panicum fauriei (no common name) Poaceae grass E X X X

Pinus spp. Pine species Pinaceae tree A X X

Pleomele auwahiensis halapepe Asparagaceae tree E X

Prosopis pallida kiawe Fabaceae tree A X X

Sadleria spp. ‘ama‘u Blechnaceae fern E X

Samanea saman monkeypod Fabaceae tree A X

Santalum ellipticum ‘iliahi Santalaceae tree E X

Sida fallax ‘ilima Malvaceae shrub I X X X X X X

Syzygium cumini Java plum Myrtaceae tree A X

Urochloa maxima3 guineagrass Poaceae grass A X

Vaccinium spp. ‘öhelo Ericaceae shrub E X

Waltheria indica ‘uhaloa Malvaceae herb I X X

1

Origin: A, introduced alien species; E, endemic species; I, indigenous species; P, Polynesian introduction.

2

This species was formerly known as Styphelia tameiameiae

3

This species was formerly known as Panicum maximum

Appendix 1. Species Distribution

Appendix 1 Table. Occurrence of species in the various map units.
Menlo Park Publishing Service Center, California

Manuscript approved for publication, April 18, 2013

Edited by Larry Slack and Peter H. Stauffer

Design and layout by Jeanne S. DiLeo
24 Vegetation Map of the Watersheds Between Kawela and Kamalö Gulches, Island of Moloka‘i, Hawai‘i

Jacobi and Ambagis

—Vegetation Map of the Watersheds Between Kawela and Kamal

ö Gulches, Island of Moloka‘i, Hawai‘i

—Scientific Investigations Report 2013–5093