adobe acrobat (pdf) version -

Marine Turtle Newsletter - 1

Number 77 April 1997

Editors: Editorial Board:

Karen L. Eckert & Scott A. Eckert Nat B. FrazerHubbs-Sea World Research Institute Nicholas Mrosovsky2595 Ingraham Street David W. OwensSan Diego, California Peter C. H. Pritchard92109 USA James I. Richardson

DISTINGUISHING CAPTIVE-REARED FROM WILD KEMP'S RIDLEYS

In 1996, the U. S. National Marine Fisheries Service's (NMFS) Galveston Laboratory,Gladys Porter Zoo (GPZ, Brownsville, Texas USA) and Instituto Nacional de la Pesca (INP) ofMexico initiated tagging of hatchling Kemp's ridleys (Lepidochelys kempii) at Rancho Nuevo,Tamaulipas, Mexico. NMFS, GPZ and INP personnel tagged 3,336 hatchlings with non-magnetized wire tags (Patrick Burchfield, GPZ, pers. comm., January 1997). The tags (manu-factured by Northwest Marine Technology, Shaw Island, Washington USA) were injected intothe right foreflipper. Plans are to wire-tag up to 10,000 more hatchlings in the left foreflipper in1997, thus distinguishing them from the 1996 year-class.

The purpose of this paper is to alert the sea turtle research community to this taggingprogram, to provide background information concerning how and why it came about, and toprovide criteria for distinguishing captive-reared from wild Kemp's ridleys.

Background

In 1992, Eckert et al. (1994) conducted a peer review of the Kemp's ridley head-startexperiment, clarified its objectives, developed testable hypotheses and made recommendationsfor improvements (see also Wibbels, 1989 and Donnelly, 1994). They stated explicitly thathead-started turtles were the experimental group and wild turtles were the control group. How-ever, a direct comparison between head-started and wild year-classes was not possible, becauseages of the wild turtles were unknown. There had been no tagging program for known-age wildturtles (see recommendations of Byles et al., 1996) comparable in magnitude to that for known-age, head-started turtles.

To provide a control, Eckert et al. (1994) recommended tagging as large a sample ofwild hatchlings as possible in each of two consecutive seasons at Rancho Nuevo, using archivaltype tags (either internal wire or PIT, passive integrated transponder). The Galveston Labora-tory is conducting PIT-tagging experiments on loggerhead (Caretta caretta) hatchlings, but useof this tag on large numbers of hatchlings released into the wild is cost-prohibitive, especiallywhen the rate of tag returns is expected to be low. Eckert et al. (1994) recognized there werebiases in using wild hatchlings as a control. Most head-started year-classes were released duringyears in which turtle excluder devices (TEDs) were not required in shrimp trawls, whereas the

2 - Marine Turtle Newsletter, 1997, No. 77

tagged wild turtles will be exposed to trawling with mandatory TEDs. The wild turtles are beingtagged and released as hatchlings, but the captive-reared turtles were seven months old or olderwhen released (Caillouet et al., 1995).

At its October 1993 meeting in North Padre Island, Texas (USA), the Kemp's RidleyWorking Group (KRWG) requested laboratory tests of wire-tagging hatchlings, using logger-heads followed by Kemp's ridleys. The KRWG also expressed concern that magnetized wiretags might interfere with magnetic orientation and navigation of hatchlings (see also Eckert etal., 1994), and requested only non-magnetized wire tags be applied to large numbers of hatch-lings at Rancho Nuevo. These non-magnetized tags cannot be detected using magnetometersunless they are first magnetized (see Fontaine et al., 1993 for details). However, wire tags canbe detected by X-ray.

Galveston Laboratory experiments comparing non-tagged to two wire-tagged (non-magnetized and magnetized) groups of hatchlings were conducted on loggerheads of the 1993year-class, and repeated on Kemp's ridleys of the 1994 and 1995 year-classes (see Table 1).Tagging was done at Rancho Nuevo to simulate on a small scale the situation that would occurin a large scale wire-tagging operation. There were no significant differences in survival, growthor tag retention rates among groups in either species, and tag retention (as confirmed bymagnetometer and X-ray) was near 100%. For both year-classes of Kemp's ridleys, the threegroups all had magnetized wire tags when released (Table 1). At its November 1995 meeting inCollege Station, Texas USA, the KRWG cautioned against wire-tagging more than 5,000 hatch-lings in 1996, because this method had never been attempted on large numbers of hatchlingsunder field conditions.

Experimental Group

We consider head-started turtles to be the 22,205 "yearlings" of the 1978-1992 year-classes obtained as hatchlings from Padre Island National Seashore (PINS) near Corpus Christi,Texas USA or from Rancho Nuevo, captive-reared by the Galveston Laboratory for 7-15months, tagged and released into the Gulf of Mexico (Table 1). Hatchlings from PINS wereproduced from eggs collected at Rancho Nuevo. Additional Kemp's ridleys were captive-rearedfor longer periods (e.g., to develop a captive brood stock during the early years of the head-startexperiment). Some of these so-called "super-head-started" turtles (Phillips, 1989:103) wereeventually released. We do not consider them typical of head-started turtles, because extendedrearing may have habituated them to artificial conditions and predisposed them to exhibit aber-rant behavior when released (Caillouet et al., 1995). Any Kemp's ridleys of the 1978-1992 year-classes that may have been captive-reared by other organizations are not considered head-started. Finally, those of the 1993 and later year-classes captive-reared by the Galveston Labor-atory are not considered head-started. Regardless, we have included in Table 1 all captive-rearedKemp's ridleys released by the Galveston Laboratory or transferred to other organizations whichreleased them. The Galveston Laboratory maintains tag-release records for these turtles, andtherefore is the clearing house for their tag returns.

Distinguishing Groups

Tags applied to captive-reared turtles (Table 1) are the keys to distinguishing them fromwild ones, whether tagged or not. Researchers at Galveston Laboratory applied external, metal,foreflipper tags to every turtle released, and applied additional types of tags to most of them(Fontaine et al., 1985; Caillouet et al., 1986; Manzella et al., 1988; Fontaine et al., 1988, 1989a,1989b; Phillips 1989; Fontaine et al., 1993; Caillouet et al., 1995). In 1996, the firstdocumentation of head-started Kemp's ridley nestings (one each from 1983 and 1986 year-


Table 1. Numbers of captive-reared Kemp's ridleys tagged with various types of tags and thenreleased into the wild (includes head-started, "super-head-started" and other captive-reared tur-tles). "Internal-tagged" refers to turtles wire-tagged in either the left or right foreflipper."External-tagged" refers to yearling turtles receiving external metal foreflipper tags.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Year- Internal-tagged Living- PIT- External-class (left) (right) tagged tagged tagged Total-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

1978 9 1 8 2018 20281979 1363 13701980 180 1723 17231981 1639 16391982 12 12 436 12 1324 13361983 183 190 1901984 1041 1041 23 1017 10411985 1533 1533 1533a 15331986 1726 1492 97 1629b 17261987 1280 1265 5 1230 12801988 910 870 102 808 9101989 1914 1447 69 1845c 19141990 1979 1979 1979 1979 19791991 1944 1944 1944 1944d 19441992 1963 1963 1963 1963 19631993 188 188 188 187 1881994 170 142 170 170 1701995 168 160 168 168 168

Total 13458 1391 14824 6728 22730e 23102

____________________________________________

a Correction of the 1,534 reported by Caillouet et al. (1995).b Correction of the 1,630 reported by Caillouet et al. (1995).c Correction of the 1,894 reported by Caillouet et al. (1995).d Correction of the 1,943 reported by Caillouet et al. (1995).e Only the 22,205 from the 1978-1992 year-classes are considered head-started; correction of the 22,255 reported by

Caillouet et al., 1995).____________________________________________________________________________________________

classes) relied on more than one type of tag (Shaver, 1996a, b). Despite being tagged with oneto four types of tags, captive-reared turtles can still be misidentified as wild if tags are (a) lost,(b) retained but not detected by persons unfamiliar with the tags or who lack appropriate detec-tion equipment and training or (c) detected but not correctly reported.

One or more of the following criteria are necessary to distinguish captive-reared fromwild turtles:

1. Captive-reared turtles tagged with magnetized wire tags totaled 14,837 (Table 1), butwire tags in wild hatchlings released at Rancho Nuevo were non-magnetized. Distinguishing


captive-reared from wild turtles based on this difference will require retention of magnetism bythe magnetized tags, and the non-magnetized tags remaining non-magnetized in the wild. Underthese conditions, wire tags in the captive-reared turtles should be detectable with amagnetometer, and those in the wild will have to be magnetized with a magnet before they canbe detected with a magnetometer (Fontaine et al., 1993).

2. All captive-reared Kemp's ridleys of the 1978-1995 year-classes (23,102 turtles) weretagged with Hasco Style 681, external, metal, foreflipper tags bearing unique individual codes(manufactured by National Band and Tag Company, Newport, Kentucky USA). However, thesetags are not permanent. When lost, they leave scars, but the scars sometimes heal and are notrecognizable. As long as they are retained, these tags distinguish captive-reared from wild tur-tles by their unique codes. No other tags are needed to identify a captive-reared turtle when theexternal, foreflipper tag is retained, observed, correctly read and reported.

3. Most (14,824 turtles) captive-reared Kemp's ridleys were tagged with "living tags"(formed by grafting a small, light-colored piece of plastron tissue to the darker carapace)."Living tags" were placed on different scutes to distinguish year-classes (Caillouet et al., 1986;Fontaine et al., 1988). To our knowledge, no wild Kemp's ridleys have been "living tagged" andreleased. However, even trained observers sometimes fail to observe "living tags" (Fontaine etal., 1993). It is essential that observers scrub the carapace to remove adhering algae, mud orother debris before examining it carefully for a "living tag."

4. PIT tags (400 kHz; Biosonics, Inc., Seattle, Washington USA) bearing uniqueindividual codes were placed in 6,728 captive-reared Kemp's ridleys. Captive-reared turtlesshould be distinguishable from wild nesters and other PIT-tagged wild turtles by these codes,assuming they are detected, correctly read and reported.

5. No captive-reared Kemp's ridleys of year-classes 1979-1981 and 1983 were wire-tagged. Only nine of the 1978 year-class and 12 of the 1982 year-class (see Table 2 in Fontaineet al., 1985) that were "super-head-started" and eventually released were wire-tagged.

6. All captive-reared Kemp's ridleys should be larger than the wild turtles tagged ashatchlings at Rancho Nuevo in 1996. Captive-reared turtles of the 1996 year-class have not yetbeen released.

We expect the wire-tagged wild turtles of the 1996 year-class to enter the neritic habitatfollowing 1-2 years in the pelagic stage (see Ogren, 1989; Byles et al., 1996). There they maybe encountered by "in-water" researchers, or be found stranded by the Sea Turtle Stranding andSalvage Network (STSSN). It may take more than a decade before any appear on nestingbeaches (Byles et al., 1996). On the other hand, we expect captive-reared Kemp's ridleys to bereported for many years hence. Eckert et al. (1994) recommended that nesting beach coverageefforts be increased to examine all nesters and that all field teams be outfitted to detect head-started turtles (Pritchard, 1990; Byles, 1993; Williams, 1993). We urge participants in theSTSSN, "in-water" research and nesting beach operations to examine all Kemp's ridleys theyencounter, using criteria presented herein (see also Fontaine et al., 1993).

Byles, R. 1993. Head-start experiment no longer rearing Kemp's ridleys. Marine Turtle News-letter 63:1-2.

Byles, R., C. Caillouet, D. Crouse, L. Crowder, S. Epperly, W. Gabriel, B. Gallaway, M. Harris,T. Henwood, S. Heppell, R. Marquez, S. Murphy, W. Teas, N. Thompson and B.Witherington. 1996. A report of the Turtle Expert Working Group: results of a series of


deliberations held in Miami, Florida, June 1995-June 1996. NOAA/NMFS/SEFSC,Miami, Florida. Unpubl. rept.

Caillouet, C. W., Jr., C. T. Fontaine, S. A. Manzella, T. D. Williams and D. B. Revera. 1986.Scutes reserved for living tags. Marine Turtle Newsletter 36:5-6.

Caillouet, C. W., Jr., C. T. Fontaine, S. A. Manzella-Tirpak and D. J. Shaver. 1995. Survival ofhead-started Kemp's ridley sea turtles (Lepidochelys kempii) released into the Gulf ofMexico or adjacent bays. Chelonian Conservation and Biology 1(4):285-292.

Donnelly, M. 1994. Sea Turtle Mariculture: A Review of Relevant Information for Conserva-tion and Commerce. The Center for Marine Conservation, Washington, D.C. 113 pp.

Eckert, S. A., D. Crouse, L. B. Crowder, M. Maceina and A. Shah. 1994. Review of the Kemp'sridley sea turtle headstart program. NOAA Tech. Memo. NMFS-OPR-3, 10 pp. U. S.Dept. Commerce.

Fontaine, C. T., S. A. Manzella, T. D. Williams, R. M. Harris and W. J. Browning. 1989a.Distribution, growth and survival of head started, tagged and released Kemp's ridley seaturtles (Lepidochelys kempi) from year-classes 1978-1983, p.124-144. In: C. W.Caillouet, Jr. and A. M. Landry, Jr. (Editors), Proc. First International Symposium onKemp's Ridley Sea Turtle Biology, Conservation and Management, Texas A&M Univer-sity, Sea Grant College Program, TAMU-SG-89-105, vi + 260 pp.

Fontaine, C. T., K. T. Marvin, T. D. Williams, W. J. Browning, R. M. Harris, K. L. W.Indelicato, G. A. Shattuck and R. A. Sadler. 1985. The husbandry of hatchling to year-ling Kemp's ridley sea turtles (Lepidochelys kempi). NOAA Tech. Memo. NMFS-SEFC-158, iv + 34 pp., 10 Tables, 22 Figures, 2 Append. U. S. Dept. Commerce.

Fontaine, C. T., D. B. Revera, T. D. Williams and C. W. Caillouet, Jr. 1993. Detection, veri-fication and decoding of tags and marks in head started Kemp's ridley sea turtles, Lepi-dochelys kempii. NOAA Tech. Memo. NMFS-SEFC-334, iii + 40 pp. U. S. Dept.Commerce.

Fontaine, C. T., T. D. Williams and C. W. Caillouet, Jr. 1988. Scutes reserved for living tags: anupdate. Marine Turtle Newsletter 43:8-9.

Fontaine, C. T., T. D. Williams, S. A. Manzella and C. W. Caillouet, Jr. 1989b. Kemp's ridleysea turtle head start operations of the NMFS SEFC Galveston Laboratory, p.96- 110. In:C. W. Caillouet, Jr. and A. M. Landry, Jr. (Editors), Proc. First International Symposiumon Kemp's Ridley Sea Turtle Biology, Conservation and Management, Texas A&MUniversity, Sea Grant College Program, TAMU-SG-89-105, vi + 260 pp.

Manzella, S. A., C. W. Caillouet, Jr. and C. T. Fontaine. 1988. Kemp's ridley, Lepidochelyskempi, sea turtle head start tag recoveries: distribution, habitat, and method of recovery.Marine Fisheries Review 50(3):24-32.

Phillips, P. 1989. The Great Ridley Rescue. Mountain Press Publishing Company, Missoula,Montana. 180 pp.

Ogren, L. H. 1989. Distribution of juvenile and subadult Kemp's ridley turtles: preliminaryresults from the 1984-1987 surveys, p.116-123. In: C. W. Caillouet, Jr. and A. M.


Landry, Jr. (Editors), Proc. First International Symposium on Kemp's Ridley Sea TurtleBiology, Conservation and Management, Texas A&M University, Sea Grant CollegeProgram, TAMU-SG-89-105, 260 pp.

Pritchard, P. C. H. 1990. Kemp's ridleys are rarer than we thought. Marine Turtle Newsletter49:1-3.

Shaver, D. J. 1996a. A note about Kemp's ridleys nesting in Texas. Marine Turtle Newsletter75:25-26.

Shaver, D. J. 1996b. Head-started Kemp's ridley turtles nest in Texas. Marine Turtle News-letter 74:5-7.

Wibbels, T., N. Frazer, M. Grassman, J. Hendrickson and P. Pritchard. 1989. Blue ribbon panelreview of the National Marine Fisheries Service Kemp's ridley headstart program.Report to the NMFS Southeast Regional Office, St. Petersburg, Florida. 11 pp.

Williams, P. 1993. NMFS to concentrate on measuring survivorship, fecundity of head-startedKemp's ridleys in the wild. Marine Turtle Newsletter 63:3-4.

CHARLES W. CAILLOUET, JR., BRADLEY A. ROBERTSON, CLARK T. FONTAINE,THEODORE D. WILLIAMS, BENJAMIN M. HIGGINS and DICKIE B. REVERA, NOAANational Marine Fisheries Service, Southeast Fisheries Science Center, Galveston Laboratory,4700 Avenue U, Galveston, Texas 77551 USA.

RANGE EXTENSION: NESTING BY DERMOCHEL YS ANDCARETTA IN SOUTHERN BRAZIL

Nesting by sea turtles has been reported along the south Atlantic coast of Brazil as farsouth as the Biological Reserve of Comboios (19°45'S, 39°55'W), Espírito Santo (Marcovaldiand Albuquerque, 1982; Marcovaldi and Marcovaldi, 1987). This report describes the firstevidence of nesting further south. Loggerhead turtles (Caretta caretta) and leatherback turtles(Dermochelys coriacea) are involved (Table 1). Collected material was deposited in the MuseuOceanográfico do Vale do Itajaí (MOVI).

Table 1. First records of sea turtle nesting in Brazil south of 26°S.


Complementary Data

1. Nesting occurred at Quilombo Beach, City of Penha. Onlookers witnessed the event, whichlasted about two hours. Biometric data were not collected. Grain size analysis revealed a pre-dominance of coarse sand. Hatching took place the night of 28 February 1995 after 62 days ofincubation. A newborn (catalogued photos MOVI-05419), 46 x 35 mm straight-line carapacelength x width, was kept in captivity and fed a carnivorous diet of Sardinella sp. (Clupeidae),Callinectes sp., Xiphopenaeus sp. (Decapoda) and Illex sp. (Cephalopoda). At the end of one

month, its dimensions were 71 x 58.5 mm straight-line carapace length x width.

2. Nesting occurred at Paraíso Beach, City of Torres, and was reported by onlookers. Bio-metricdata were not collected. Grain size analysis revealed a predominance of fine sand. The beachhas a gradual slope, which led the animal to distance itself about 90 m from the sea, passing twosmall dunes and laying its eggs next to a pile of trash. Hatching took place on 5 March 1995after 64 days of incubation. For two days post-hatching, the nest attracted the interest of twospecimens of Didelphis albiventris (Mammalia, Marsupialia), but no plundering was observed.Four days after the primary emergence, more hatchling tracks were observed. However, sincethe nest could not be precisely located, it was impossible to prove that these hatchlings werefrom the same nest.

3. Nesting occurred at Plataforma Entremares, Rincao Beach, City of Içara. Onlookers wit-nessed the event (emergence from the sea, nest preparation, egg-laying, return to the sea), whichlasted about three hours. Biometric data were not collected. Grain size analysis revealed apredominance of fine sand. After 60 days of incubation, the nest was exhumed. None of the 104eggs showed any embryonic development.

4. Nesting occurred at Grande Beach, City of Penha. Grain size analysis revealed a predomi-nance of coarse sand. The female was seen returning to the sea after egg-laying. Seven dayslater, the eggs were collected by beachgoers. The eggs were examined by museum specialistswho confirmed that they had been developing until their intrusive removal from the nest. Eighty-eight eggs were counted; 50 (56.81%) had conjoined shells (Siamese, or "dumbbell shape").

We will add to this record a female (curved carapace length of 151 cm) found dead on 21November 1991, a victim of a fishing incident. She was carrying dozens of developing eggs,whose shells had not yet calcified. Photographs were catalogued (MOVI-00574).

Acknowledgements: We are grateful for the assistance of Marco A. Baylon (CEPSUL /IBAMA) for information on the nesting at Quilombo Beach; Linoberto M. da Rosa for informa-tion on the nesting at Paraíso Beach; Joao L. Betiol for information on the nesting at RincaoBeach; Fernando C. Luz for information on the nesting at Grande Beach; and Armand H. AminJr. (LOG / UNIVALI) for grain size analyses.

Marcovaldi, G. G. D. and J. C. B. Albuquerque. 1982. Projeto Tartaruga Marinha. Bol. FBCN17:70-74.

Marcovaldi, M. A. D. and G. G. D. Marcovaldi. 1987. Projeto Tartaruga Marinha. Areas dedesova, épocas de reproduçao, técnicas de conservaçao. Bol. FBCN 22:95-104.

JULES M. R. SOTO, RODRIGO C. P. BEHEREGARAY and ROBERTO A. R. de P.REBELLO, Universidade do Vale do Itajaí - UNIVALI, Faculdade de Ciências do Mar -FACIMAR, Museu Oceanográfico do Vale do Itajaí - MOVI, Cx. P. 360 CEP 88302-202 Itajaí,SC, BRAZIL.


NEW RECORDS OF LEPIDOCHEL YS OLIV ACEA (ESCHSCHOLTZ, 1829)AND ERETMOCHEL YS IMBRICA TA (LINNAEUS, 1766)

IN THE SOUTHWEST ATLANTIC

There are few literature records of olive ridleys in the southwest Atlantic. D'Amato(1992) reports an adult specimen 69 cm in carapace length at Mel Island (25°30'S, 48°20'W) inthe state of Paraná, Brazil. Frazier (1984), commenting on the first record of the species in thewestern South Atlantic based on two specimens, one 51.5 cm straight carapace length and theother without data, stated that one of the specimens was still on display in a restaurant at Puntadel Diablo, Department of Rocha, Uruguay. Lema (1994) cites the occurrence of L. olivacea inthe states of Paraná and Rio Grande do Sul, based on fragmentary information.

The primary nesting area for the olive ridley turtle, Lepidochelys olivacea, in Brazil isthe state of Sergipe (Marcovaldi and Marcovaldi, 1985); however, the southernmost recordednesting in the western Atlantic is the Biological Reserve of Comboios (19°45'S, 39°55'W) in thestate of Espírito Santo (Marcovaldi and Albuquerque, 1982). In this report we document fouradult olive ridleys south of 26°S (Table 1). The contention that the specimens are adults is basedon the size of breeding females at Eilanti, Suriname, where Schulz (1975) reports an averagestraightline carapace length of 68.5 cm (range 63-75 cm, n=500).

Table 1. New records of Lepidochelys olivacea in the southwest Atlantic.

The hawksbill turtle, Eretmochelys imbricata, is the most tropical of all marine turtles(Witzell, 1983). There are virtually no literature records of this species from our area. In hisstudy of Argentina and Uruguay, Frazier (1984) concluded there was no evidence of thepresence of this species in the southwest Atlantic. Lema and Ferreira (1990) mistakenly reportedthat adult specimens had been caught by fishing boats off the coast of Rio Grande in the state ofRio Grande do Sul, Brazil and kept alive in the Museu Oceanogr fico de Rio Grande. Museumoffi-cials have clarified the matter in personal communication, stating that the origins of thesespeci-mens had been examined and certified as being from northeastern Brazil. Lema (1994), inrefer-ring to this species, revises the count to a single record in the same locale, withoutmentioning the specimen in question.

The principal nesting areas for the hawksbill turtle in Brazil are between Forte Beachand the beaches of the Parque Interlagos condominium complex in the northern part of the stateof Bahia (Marcovaldi and Marcovaldi, 1985, 1987). Breeding populations are reduced in Brazil,and thus only a small percentage of the hatchlings emerging from the nation's beaches are ofthis species (D'Amato and Marczwski, 1993). All the records we describe are of large juvenilesor subadults, based on Witzell's (1983) definition of "subadults" as having a carapace length of34-65 cm.


Table 2. New records of Eretmochelys imbricata in the southwest Atlantic.

All of the new specimens mentioned here were victims of fishing incidents involvingnets or fishhooks. Both curved and straight carapace lengths were obtained from the leadingedge of the precentral scute to the posterior edge of the postcentral scute. All material wasdeposited in the Museu Oceanogr fico do Vale do Itajaí (MOVI). We are grateful for thecollaboration of Dr. Carlos N. Gofferjé.

Carr, A. 1952. Handbook of Turtles of the United States, Canada and Baja California. Ithaca,Comstock Publ. Assoc., Cornell Univ. Press. 542 pp.

D'Amato, A. F. 1992. Ocorrência de Lepidochelys olivacea (Eschscholtz,1829) (Testudines:Cheloniidae) para o Estado do Paraná - Brasil. Acta Biol. Leopoldensia 14(1):95-97.

D'Amato, A. F. and M. Marczwski. 1993. Aspectos da biologia de tartarugas marinhas(Cheloniidae) na regiao de Praia do Forte, Município de Mata de Sao Joao, Bahia,Brasil, Durante o período reprodutivo 1990-1991. Arq. Biol. Tecnol. 36(3):513-519.

Frazier, J. 1984. Las tortugas marinas en el Oceano Atlantico Sur Occidental. Asoc. Herp. Arg.Sér. Divulg. 2:2-21.

Lema, T. de. 1994. Lista comentada dos répteis ocorrentes no Rio Grande do Sul, Brasil.Comun. Mus. Ciênc. Tecnol. PUCRS, Sér. Zool., Porto Alegre 7:41-150.

Lema, T. de and T. S. Ferreira. 1990. Contribuiçao ao conhecimento dos testudines do RioGrande do Sul (Brasil) - Lista sistemática comentada (Reptilia). Acta Biol. Leopoldensia12(1):125-164.

Marcovaldi, G. G. D. and J. C. B. Albuquerque. 1982. Projeto Tartaruga Marinha. Bol. FBCN17:70-74.

Marcovaldi, M. A. D. and G. G. D. Marcovaldi. 1985. Projeto Tamar/MA-IBDF: Areas dedesova, ocorrência e distribuiçao das espécies, época de reproduçao, comportamento depostura e técnicas de conservaçao das tartarugas marinhas no Brasil. Brasília, Brasil.MA-IBDF. 47 pp.


Marcovaldi, M. A. D. and G. G. D. Marcovaldi. 1987. Projeto Tartaruga Marinha. Areas dedesova, épocas de reproduçao, técnicas de conservaçao. Bol. FBCN 22:95-104.

Schulz, J. P. 1975. Sea Turtles Nesting in Surinam. Nederl. Commiss. Intern. Natuurbes., Sticht.Natuurbeh. Sur. 23(3):1-143.

Witzell, W. N. 1983. Synopsis of Biological Data on the Hawksbill Turtle,Eretmochelysimbricata (Linnaeus, 1766). FAO Fisheries Synopsis No. 137. 78 pp.

JULES M. R. SOTO and RODRIGO C. P. BEHEREGARAY, Universidade do Vale do Itajaí -UNIVALI, Faculdade de Ciências do Mar - FACIMAR, Museu Oceanográfico do Vale do Itajaí- MOVI, Cx. P. 360 CEP 88302-202 Itajaí, SC, BRAZIL.

CHELONIA MYDAS IN THE NORTHERN REGION OFTHE PATOS LAGOON, SOUTH BRAZIL

The Patos Lagoon (30°20' - 32°00'S, 50°40' - 52°20'W) in Rio Grande do Sul is thelargest lagoon in Brazil and the second largest in South America. Covering an area greater than10,000 km2, it is approximately 300 km long and 80 km wide at its widest points, and as deep as7 m (Diretoria de Hidrografia e Navegaçao, 1968). It connects to the ocean through a singlechannel 740 m wide. Tapes Bay (30°45'S, 51°21'W) is situated in the northeastern sector of thelagoon between Dona Helena Point and Santo Antônio Spit (Figure 1). Tapes, a city with a smallcommunity of fishermen, is situated at the foot of the bay. On 31 January 1992, a live C. mydaswas found in the catch of these fishermen. The turtle was released offshore by helicopter; thusbegan an informal investigation on the occurrence of marine turtles in the bay.

Figure 1. Tapes Bay, Patos Lagoon, on the southern Atlantic coast of Brazil.


Based on interviews with fishermen, a total of 11 specimens (Table 1) were catalogedover a period of four years (January 1992 - January 1996). These specimens were caught byfishing nets (8-14 cm mesh between knots) which extend from the sea bed to the surface; thenets are 60 m in total length and 4 m in height. The captured turtles are all juveniles, and theiroccurrence in the bay is seasonal during spring and summer months.

Table 1. Specimens of C. mydas caught in Patos Lagoon, Brazil, January 1992 - January 1996.Material collected was deposited in the Museu Oceanogr fico do Vale do Itajaí (MOVI).

Diretoria de Hidrografia e Navegaçao. 1968. Carta náutica N° 2140. Marinha do Brasil.

JULES M. R. SOTO and RODRIGO C. P. BEHEREGARAY, Universidade do Vale do Itajaí -UNIVALI, Faculdade de Ciências do Mar - FACIMAR, Museu Oceanográfico do Vale do Itajaí- MOVI, Cx. P. 360 CEP 88302-202 Itajaí, SC, BRAZIL.

SEA TURTLE DEATHS COINCIDE WITH TRAWLINGACTIVITIES IN NORTHERN AUSTRALIA

The threats posed by shrimp trawling to the survival of sea turtles have been well docu-mented in the United States (e.g., National Research Council, 1990). In Australian fisheries,limited, yet conflicting, data exist on the impact of prawn (shrimp) trawling on sea turtle popu-lations. Early authors confused the issue by comparing high annual harvests of green (Cheloniamydas) and hawksbill (Eretmochelys imbricata) sea turtles in Indonesia and New Guinea withincidental drowning of mainly flatback (Natator depressus), loggerhead (Caretta caretta) andolive ridley (Lepidochelys olivacea) sea turtles in Northern Australia, and thereby deducing the


trawler induced mortality (9%) to be at a level which was not of immediate concern (Poiner etal., 1990; Poiner and Harris, 1994).

Sea turtle mortality from incidental capture by trawler operators in Queensland was esti-mated at 1%, but may be as high as 6% (Robins, 1995). Loggerheads are prone to higher mor-talities when trawling activities overlap with feeding aggregations near nesting beaches (Limpusand Reimer, 1994; Tucker et al., 1996). Trawling has significantly contributed to the decline ofloggerheads in eastern Australia (Limpus and Reimer, 1994; Heppell et al., 1996). Few data areavailable for non-breeding turtles trawled on feeding grounds which are not associated withnesting aggregations.

In the United States, the coincidence of sea turtle strandings on beaches with the peak ofshrimp trawling activities offshore has been demonstrated many times (e.g., Whistler, 1989;Amos, 1989; Caillouet et al., 1992; Steiner, 1994; Shaver, 1994, 1995). Yet reports of similarcoincidences between sea turtle mortalities and trawling activities are unknown from theNorthern Prawn Fishery which extends across the sparsely populated coastline of northernAustralia (see Poiner et al., 1990). Herein is reported a stranding of four species of sea turtlethat coincided with trawling activities in the Northern Prawn Fishery.

On 2-3 September 1995, 15 dead sea turtles washed ashore along 20 km of coastline atDundee Beach, Fog Bay, Northern Territory Australia (12°43'S, 130°21'E). Twelve were oliveridleys with curved carapace lengths (CCL) between 51-67 cm; also, one loggerhead (CCL =70cm), one sub-adult green (CCL=40 cm) and one flatback (CCL=71 cm). An aerial survey of 60km of coastline in the vicinity revealed no other strandings. This is the same locality wherenumerous sea turtles were killed by a bottom-set gill net in 1991 (Guinea and Chatto, 1992).Most of the flesh had decomposed from the carcasses leaving only the carapace and plastron.There was no sign of human-induced physical damage from what remained of each animal.Judging by their advanced decomposition, we estimated that the animals had been dead for atleast a week.

As four species, each with a different diet, were involved, it was unlikely that a toxin inthe food chain was responsible. The cause of death remains unknown but it is reasonable to con-sider the potential impact of human activities in the Fog Bay region at the time. Prawn trawlersusing otter trawls operated windward of the beach and about 12 km from shore. Inshore, theusers included an unknown number of recreational anglers and a professional crab pot (trap)fisher. Of these activities, trawling was the most likely to have caused the death of the turtles.Vessels in the Northern Prawn Fishery are not required, at the present time, to record incidentalcaptures of sea turtles, or to use Trawl Efficiency Devices (TED's) which exclude bycatch spe-cies including sea turtles.

The lack of previous reports of sea turtle mortality during trawling activities in theNorthern Prawn Fishery may be attributable, in part, to a minimal negative impact of trawlers(Poiner et al., 1990; Poiner and Harris, 1994; Robins, 1995), or possibly, to the extensive,largely uninhabited northern Australian coastline, or even, to the low density of sea turtles oversome of the trawling grounds. Fog Bay is exceptional in having a small but lucrative prawnfishery (Grey, 1978), a coastal community of environmentally-conscious people who reportdead turtles, and a large sea turtle population. These factors make the area suitable for assessingthe impact of trawling on sea turtles on a feeding ground and thereby providing an independenttest of the efficiency of sea turtle excluding devices or the usefulness of incidental catch log-books by the fishing industry.


Netting and trawling activities pose a real threat to the five species of sea turtle that livein Fog Bay. The high relative frequency of olive ridleys amongst beach-washed specimens, is ofparticular concern as so little is known about the Australian population (Limpus, 1982; Guinea,1990; Harris, 1994). The demand for prawns and other marine products from northern Australiais high and is likely to increase. Modifications to existing fishing gear with Trawl EfficiencyDevices (Mounsey et al., 1995; Robins-Troeger et al., 1995) and more selective fish-ing traps(Buckworth, 1995) which reduce the threat to sea turtles, are overdue developments. Australianfishers have been receptive to these innovations, but await the results of extension work beforedeciding to trial the new technologies.

Acknowledgement: We are grateful to Dr. Colin Limpus (Queensland Department ofEnvironment and Heritage) who provided helpful comments on an earlier draft.

Amos, A. F. 1989. Recent strandings of sea turtles, cetaceans and birds in the vicinity ofMustang Island, Texas, p.51 (abstract). In: C. W. Caillouet Jr. and A. M. Landry(Editors), Proceedings of the First International Symposium on Kemp's Ridley SeaTurtle Biology, Conservation and Management, 1-4 October 1985. TAMU-SC-89-105.

Buckworth, R. C. 1995. The non-trawl capture of prawns: the commercial feasibility of trap-ping. Fisheries Research and Development Corporation. Fisheries Division, Departmentof Primary Industries and Fisheries. Northern Territory, Australia. 46 pp.

Caillouet, Jr., C. W., M. J. Duronslet, A. M. Landry, Jr. and D. J. Shaver 1992. Sea turtlestranding and shrimping effort on coasts of southwestern Louisiana and Texas, p.24-27.In: M. Salmon and J. Wyneken (Compilers), Proceedings of the Eleventh AnnualWork-shop on Sea Turtle Biology and Conservation. NOAA Tech. Memo. NMFS-SEFSC-302. U. S. Dept. Commerce.

Grey D. 1978 The Fog Bay banana prawn fishery. Department of Primary Production, NorthernTerritory, Australia. 14 pp.

Guinea, M. L. 1990. Notes on the sea turtle rookeries on the Arafura Sea islands on ArnhemLand, Northern Territory. Northern Territory Naturalist 12:4-12.

Guinea, M. L. and R. Chatto, 1992. Sea turtles killed in Australian shark fin fishery. MarineTurtle Newsletter 57:5-6.

Harris, A. 1994. Species review: olive ridleys, p.58-61. In: R. James (Editor), Proceedings of theAustralian Marine Turtle Conservation Workshop, Queensland Department of Envi-ronment and Heritage and Australian Nature Conservation Agency.

Heppell, S. A. , C. J. Limpus, D. T. Crouse, N. B. Frazer, and L. B. Crowder. 1996. Popu-lationmodel analysis for loggerhead sea turtle Caretta caretta in Queensland. WildlifeResearch 23:143-59.

Limpus, C. J. 1982. The status of Australian sea turtle populations, p.297-303. In: K. A.Bjorndal (Editor), Biology and Conservation of Sea Turtles. Smithsonian InstitutionPress. Washington, D. C.


Limpus, C. J. and D. Reimer 1994. The loggerhead turtle, Caretta caretta, in Queensland: apopulation in decline, p.39-60. In: R. James (Editor), Proceedings of theAustralianMarine Turtle Conservation Workshop, Queensland Department ofEnvironment and Heritage and Australian Nature Conservation Agency.

Mounsey, R. P., G. A. Baulch and R. C. Buckworth. 1995. Development of a trawl efficiencydevice (TED) for Australian prawn fisheries I. the AusTED design. Fisheries Research22(1995):99-105.

National Research Council. 1990. Decline of the Sea Turtles, Causes and Prevention. Natl.Acad. Press. Washington, D. C. 259 pp.

Poiner I. R., R. C. Buckworth and A. N. M. Harris. 1990. Incidental capture and mortality of seaturtles in Australia's Northern Prawn Fishery. Aust. J. Mar. Freshw. Res. 41:97-110.

Poiner, I. R. and A. N. M. Harris. 1994. The incidental capture and mortality of sea turtles inAustralia's northern prawn fishery, p.127-135. In: R. James (Editor), Proceedings of theAustralian Marine Turtle Conservation Workshop, Queensland Department of Environ-ment and Heritage and Australian Nature Conservation Agency.

Robins, J. B. 1995. Estimated catch and mortality of sea turtles from the east cost otter trawlfishery of Queensland, Australia. Biological Conservation 74:157-167.

Robins-Troeger, J. B., R. C. Buckworth and M. C. L. Dredge 1995. Development of a trawlefficiency device (TED) for Australian prawn fisheries II. field evaluations of theAusTED. Fisheries Research 22(1995):107-117.

Shaver, D. J. 1994. Sea turtle strandings along the Texas coast reach alarming levels. MarineTurtle Newsletter 66:8-9.

Shaver, D. J. 1995. Sea turtle strandings along the Texas coast again cause concern. MarineTurtle Newsletter 70:2-4.

Steiner, T. 1994. Shrimpers implicated as strandings soar in the USA. Marine Turtle Newsletter67:2-5.

Tucker, A. D., N. N. FitzSimmons and C. J. Limpus 1996. Conservation implications of inter-nesting habitat use by loggerhead turtles Caretta caretta in Woongara Marine Park,Queensland, Australia. Pacific Conservation Biology 2(2):157-166.

Whistler, R. G. 1989. Kemp's ridley sea turtle strandings along the Texas coast, 1983-1985,p.43-50. In: C. W. Caillouet Jr. and A. M. Landry (Editors), Proceedings of the FirstInternational Symposium on Kemp's Ridley Sea Turtle Biology, Conservation andManagement, 1-4 October 1985. TAMU-SC-89-105.

MICHAEL L. GUINEA and SCOTT WHITING, Faculty of Science, Northern TerritoryUniversity, Darwin 0909, Northern Territory, AUSTRALIA and RAY CHATTO, Parks andWildlife Commission of the Northern Territory P. O. Box 496, Palmerston 0831, NorthernTerritory, AUSTRALIA.


SEA TURTLE CONSERVATION IN GUATEMALA

The Wildlife Rescue and Rehabilitation Association (Asociación Rescate yConservación de Vida Silvestre, ARCAS) is a Guatemalan non-profit conservation organizationcommitted to preserving Guatemalan wildlife and wildlife habitat. Best known for its AnimalRescue Center in the Peten rain forest region of Guatemala, it also carries out sea turtleconservation activities on a natural reserve on the south cost near the village of Hawaii. Thereserve consists of man-grove estuaries, dry tropical forests, and volcanic sand beaches. Thebeaches are of the "high energy" type characteristic of much of the Pacific coast (i.e., relativelysteep and narrow with strong waves and tides; no offshore reef formations).

The rainy season at Hawaii occurs annually between June and October. The olive ridleyturtle (Lepidochelys olivacea) nesting season corresponds with the rainy season, peaking inSeptember, but low density nesting (ca. 2-4 turtles per night) occurs throughout the year. Thereare no arribadas (mass nesting events) at Hawaii. The olive ridleys seem to prefer dark nights, asetting or rising moon, and strong southeast winds (turtles will even nest during the day in thepresence of such winds). On the 15 km of coastline monitored by ARCAS, nesting frequency isgenerally 10-15 nests per night during the peak nesting months of August, September and Octo-ber. Leatherback turtles (Dermochelys coriacea) are much rarer than olive ridleys. Leatherbacknesting occurs in November and December, when only 2-3 turtles arrive to nest per night on thebeach at Hawaii.

Turtle eggs are prized by local populations as a supplement to their income and diets.Competition for turtle nests is intense, and it is extremely rare that a nest escapes plunder. Turtleeggs are sold to local buyers who transport them to ceviche (a pickled seafood cocktail)restaurants in the nation's capitol. Sea turtle eggs have a reputation for being aphrodisiacs, not abasic need in Guatemala where the population growth rate is 2.6%. Prices for olive ridley eggsvary from 12 quetzals (6 quetzals = 1 US$) per dozen during the height of the nesting season, tomore than 36 quetzals in the off-season. Leatherback eggs range from 16-40 quetzals per dozen.An average nest can, therefore, bring in roughly 140 quetzals; roughly one quarter of themonthly income of an agricultural worker or local fisherman.

According to local villagers, the number of ridleys and leatherback turtles that nest onarea beaches is rapidly declining. Many report that even just 15 years ago, an egg collectorcould expect to collect 2-3 nests per night during the nesting season. Now, due to fewer turtlesand more competition for nests, collectors may find only 2-4 nests per year. Many fear that ifpresent trends continue, the turtles will stop returning to the beaches altogether.

Hawaii Sea Turtle Conservation Program: The Hawaii Sea Turtle Conservation Pro-gram, managed by ARCAS, in cooperation with DIGEBOS (the Guatemalan forestry agency),encourages a donation by local egg collectors of one dozen eggs per nest. The eggs are reburiedin protected hatcheries. Egg collectors who donate one dozen eggs are given a receipt whichgives them the right to "legally" sell the rest of the nest. [ N.B. According to formal Guatema-lan law, sea turtles are endangered species and their eggs cannot be collected or eaten for anyreason. Informally, however, the one dozen eggs "donation system" has been in place sinceabout 1980 to ensure that at least some hatchlings are returned to the sea. Unfortunately, at bestonly half of the egg collectors participate. ] More than 5,000 hatchlings in 1993, 7,000 in 1994and 10,000 in 1995 were released from the ARCAS hatchery at Hawaii. The Hawaii hatchery isby far the most productive in Guatemala.

Hatcheries in Guatemala are typically enclosed with corrugated tin or fiberboard andlightly roofed (thatched) with palm. Depredation by cats (domestic), opossums, jay-birds, ghost


crabs and other predators on hatchlings is a problem and is controlled by the use of"scarecrows" and weighted nest cages. This is the situation at the ARCAS hatchery, where thefenced enclo-sure is sited on the upper beach and thatched with palm fronds. The hatcheryenclosure is 10 m x 6 m and typically holds 300-400 nests per year. Groups of one dozen eggsare combined into "clutches" of 24 eggs and buried at a depth of 30-35 cm. Nests are shaped toresemble the orig-inal "flask" form and buried roughly 30 cm apart from one another. Each nestis marked with a numbered stake. Hatch success ranges from 88-95%.

In addition to protecting sea turtle eggs, ARCAS is involved with other aspects of seaturtle conservation. For example, dead turtles wash ashore on the south coast of Guatemala afterbeing caught and drowned in fishing gear offshore; mainly shrimp trawls operated byGuatemalan and foreign boats. In 1995, there were numerous strandings (perhaps 3-5 per weekon the 15 km monitored by ARCAS) during the beginning of the nesting season (June and July).In response, ARCAS wrote several articles for the Guatemalan press on this "turtle massacre".Whether due to the publicity caused by these articles or several patrols subsequently conductedby the Guatemalan Navy, the shrimp trawlers moved further offshore and no more strandingswere seen for the rest of the season. In 1996, the Guatemalan shrimp fleet installed TEDs, anaction which seemed to reduce incidental capture and drowning because very few turtleswashed ashore dead on the beaches.

ARCAS also conducts environmental education activities in area schools and managesthree school hatcheries where students collect and bury their own eggs and release thehatchlings when they emerge. ARCAS also has a crocodile and iguana captive breedingprogram and con-ducts mangrove reforestation.

Lessons Learned: There are several aspects of the Hawaii Sea Turtle ConservationProject, and of sea turtle conservation in general in Guatemala, that distinguish it from conser-vation activities in other countries, and these differences may be of interest to readers of theMarine Turtle Newsletter. One aspect is that sea turtle conservation in Guatemala is a highlydecentralized activity. Conservation efforts (mainly hatcheries) are carried out at the initiative ofa disparate group of actors ranging from private landowners to the military to a high school.Government involvement in turtle conservation is limited and uncoordinated. Three separategovernment agencies run turtles hatcheries, but regulation of the egg harvesting industry as awhole is virtually nonexistent. Buses and other vehicles known to transport turtle eggs to mar-ket are only sporadically searched by authorities. There are few national parks and no marinereserves in Guatemala, and no focus to government conservation initiatives or personneltraining.

In addition to this lack of government involvement, there is also a lack of involvementby national and international conservation non-government organizations (NGOs). This is due,in part, to a kind of "brain drain" to the Mayan Biosphere Reserve in Peten, a United Nations-declared natural heritage site and a major focus for international conservation efforts. It is alsodue to the perception of the south coast and its coastal plains (prime agricultural lands rich involcanic loam) as environmentally "lost". Moreover, the Guatemalan sea turtle conservationmovement is relatively young and unsophisticated, especially when compared to similar move-ments in countries such as Costa Rica, México and the U. S. The main focus has been andcontinues to be on establishing hatcheries. There have been very few attempts to address otherissues, such as changing environmentally harmful fishing practices or reducing demand forturtle eggs among Guatemala consumers.

The decentralized nature of turtle conservation activities in Guatemala has its pluses andminuses. The minuses include the fact that there is little formal oversight of hatchery opera-tions. Hatcheries are often operated by untrained local personnel or volunteers using outdated


methods. Due to limited funding and technical expertise, hatchery personnel often fail to gathereven basic data regarding clutch size, incubation duration and hatch success. The "plus side" ofturtle conservation in Guatemala is that there is relatively strong local support for activities.Although some egg collectors refuse to cooperate with the "one dozen eggs" donation system,there are also many who gladly give and realize that this is an effort to conserve the resource fortheir children. There are 23 hatcheries in Guatemala, and certain communities take pride in howmany eggs they are able to bury. There has even arisen a spirit of competition among hatcheriesas to which collects the most eggs.

Successful turtle conservation efforts in other parts of the world (e.g., Ostional, CostaRica; Matura, Trinidad; Colola, Michoac n, México) have clearly shown the need to workclosely with local communities. This is especially true in a country like Guatemala where thereare limited opportunities to focus formal conservation effort (e.g., there are few national parksand no arribada sites) and the resources and/or the will to impose stringent conservation mea-sures are lacking on the part of authorities. Given the realities of the Guatemalan political andconservation environment, what is needed is technical and material support to existinghatcheries and an effort to strengthen the government, non-governmental and private turtleconservation network. Research and data collection are sorely needed, and should directlysupport concrete conservation goals (e.g., improving hatchery techniques, lobbying for the useof TEDs, preserv-ing nesting habitat). Of equal importance is the harnessing and encouraging oflocal, indigenous efforts to conserve sea turtles.

How To Help: ARCAS has volunteer programs at both the Hawaii Sea Turtle Conserva-tion Project and at its Animal Rescue and Rehabilitation Center in Peten. For a copy of thevolunteer guidelines, please send US$ 10.00 to ARCAS, Section 717, P. O. Box 52-7270,Miami, Florida 33152-7270 USA. For more information, contact the authors at the Miamiaddress, or the ARCAS office in Guatemala City.

RICARDO JUAREZ and COLUM MUCCIO, ARCAS, 11 Calle 6-66, Zona 2, 01002 Cuidad deGuatemala, GUATEMALA; Tel/Fax: (502) (2) 535329; E-mail: [email protected]

MARINE TURTLE NESTING IN THE GÖKSU DELTA, TURKEY, 1996

A 1988 survey of the Turkish coastline revealed 17 areas to be important nesting sites formarine turtles, one of which is the region of the Göksu Delta (Baran and Kasparek, 1989). In1990, this area was designated a Special Protection Area by the Turkish authorities. Subsequentsurveys in 1991 (van Piggelen, 1993) and 1992 (Peters and Verhoeven, 1992) confirmed thatthese beaches support nesting by both loggerhead (Caretta caretta) and green (Chelonia mydas)turtles. Within the Mediterranean, this is one of the few sites, other than Cyprus, where bothspecies nest.

During the period 19 June to 13 August 1996, students from the University of Glasgowmonitored the beaches of the Göksu Delta every 7-10 days, completing a total of six surveys perbeach (a similar methodology characterised the initial 1988 survey). Observers counted andidentified tracks in order to record the distribution and number of nests of both species. Speciesidentification was possible using criteria pertaining to track and nest pit morphology (Broderickand Godley, 1996). Whilst carrying out nesting surveys, potential threats to turtle and nest sur-vival were assessed.


In 1996, as in previous years, Caretta dominated, but fewer nests were recorded than in1991 or 1992 (see Glen et al., 1996, for details). The difference is likely due, in part, to the factthat the surveys in 1991 and 1992 (when beaches were monitored regularly for the full nest-ingseason) were more comprehensive than the surveys in 1996 or 1988. It is possible, how-ever,that these data reflect actual inter-annual variation in the number of nesting females. Rela-tivelylow nesting numbers of both species were also recorded in Northern Cyprus (Godley and Kelly,1996) and at other sites in Turkey (Baran et al., 1996) in 1996.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Species 1988 1991 1992 1996

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

C. caretta 45 117 89 36C. mydas 0 20 14 3TOTAL 45 137 103 39

______________________________________________________________________________

Threats to sea turtles in the Göksu Delta include sand removal, beach inundation, highlevels of nest depredation by canids, pollution, and human use of habitat largely related to tour-ism. Fifteen stranded turtle carcasses were recorded, 12 of which were juvenile C. mydas.Injuries sustained by most individuals suggested incidental catch in local longline and driftnetfisheries as the cause of mortality. No direct conservation action was undertaken as part of the1996 survey effort, but participating Glasgow students met and exchanged methodologies withboth Turkish and international volunteers working at other marine turtle monitoring and conser-vation projects at Kazanli, Anamur and Akyatan. These exchanges were beneficial to all con-cerned.

We recommend, based on the results of our field work and discussions with relevantauthorities, that detailed ongoing surveys of marine turtle nesting be carried out to enable amore complete assessment of the importance of this area to marine turtles. In conjunction withthese studies, the long term status of these populations would be improved by undertaking apro-gramme of nest screening (to reduce the effects of predation) and strict enforcement ofconser-vation laws afforded by the area's protected status. The Turkish authorities and theSociety for the Protection of Nature (DHKD) should be applauded for the valuable inroadswhich have been made into conservation awareness in the region; we recommend thatconservation awareness programmes continue, and that targeting fishermen be a priority.

Addendum: The authors have since been informed that DHKD intends to carry outdetailed surveying of these beaches in tandem with local universities during the 1997 nestingseason.

Acknowledgements: This project was largely supported by a grant from the BritishCouncil, Ankara. Accommodation was generously provided by the Institute of Marine Sci-ences, Middle Eastern Technical University. In addition we would like to thank Professors IlkaySalihoglu and Umit Unluata of the Institute for their advice and support, Drs. Ali Cemal Gucuand Ahmet Kideys for their expert advice, and the rest of the staff and students for their help.Thanks also to all at DHKD, Tasucu for their collaboration over the years.

Baran, I. and M. Kasparek. 1989. Marine Turtles in Turkey: Status survey 1988 and Recom-mendations for Conservation and Management. WWF Publication.


Baran, I., O. Türkozan, Y. Kaska, Ç. Ilgaz and S. Sak. 1996. Research on the marine turtlepopulations of Dalyan, Fethiye, Patara and Belek beaches: Final Report. 44pp. Unpubl.

Broderick, A. C. and B. J. Godley. 1996. Population and nesting ecology of the green turtle,Chelonia mydas, and the loggerhead turtle, Caretta caretta, in Northern Cyprus. Zoologyin the Middle East 13:27-46.

Godley, B. J. and A. Kelly. 1996. Glasgow University Turtle Conservation Expedition toNorthern Cyprus 1996: Expedition Report. Department of Veterinary Anatomy, Univer-sity of Glasgow Veterinary School. 23 pp. Unpubl.

Glen, F., B. J. Godley and A. Kelly. 1996. Marine turtle monitoring in Turkey by students fromthe University of Glasgow: A report to the British Council, Ankara. 14 pp. Unpubl.

Peters, A. and K. J. F. Verhoeven. 1992. Breeding success of the loggerhead, Caretta caretta, andthe green turtle, Chelonia mydas, in the Göksu Delta, Turkey. Rapport 310. Depart-mentof Animal Ecology, University of Nijmegen, The Netherlands. 26 pp. Unpubl.

van Piggelen, D. C. G. 1993. Marine turtle survey in the Göksu Delta, Turkey, June - August1991. Report 314. Department of Animal Ecology, University of Nijmegen, The Nether-lands. 35 pp. Unpubl.

FIONA GLEN, BRENDAN J. GODLEY, ANDREW KELLY and ANNETTE C. BRODERICK,Division of Environmental and Evolutionary Biology, Graham Kerr Building, University ofGlasgow, Glasgow G12 8QQ, SCOTLAND.

THE YOLNGU PEOPLE OF NORTHEAST ARNHEM LAND(AUSTRALIA) SAY "NO" TO BEACH CLEANERS

The traditional Aboriginal owners of north east Arnhem Land in Australia, or Yolngu asthey call themselves, have said "no" to the use of beach cleaning equipment. Their decision,voiced through their land and resource management agency, the Dhimurru Land ManagementAboriginal Corporation (or, Dhimurru), was made because of concerns about the environmentaldamage that beach cleaners can cause, including the potential disturbance to sea turtle nestinghabitat. The Yolngu live in the remote north east corner Arnhem Land in the Northern Terri-toryof Australia. Arnhem Land is a vast area of tropical wet-dry Australia -- some 97,000 km2 ofmainland and 6,000 km2 of offshore islands -- that is owned and managed by Aboriginal people.Unlike much of the rest of Australia, it remains largely unmodified by European settle-ment andis sparsely populated.

Dhimurru is based in the mining township of Nhulunbuy on the Gove Peninsula.Nhulunbuy was established in the late 1960's to accommodate the employees of an open cutbauxite mine. The mine and township occupy a mining lease which is effectively an excision ofthe Arnhem Land Aboriginal Reserve. Management of the town lease and provision of essentialservices is the responsibility of the Nhulunbuy Corporation Ltd. Other than a nearby missionstation at Yirrkala, established in 1934, there was no permanent European presence in this areaprior to the establishment of the mine. Nhulunbuy has since grown to become a regional centre,servicing other remote Aboriginal communities, and now has a permanent population of approx-imately 3,500 mostly non-Aboriginal people.


Dhimurru Land Management Aboriginal Corporation was established by traditionalowners in 1992, primarily to manage designated recreation areas outside of the leases which aremade available for recreational use by residents of Nhulunbuy and visitors to the township. Itnow has a broader role in land and resource management in the region.

In 1995, the Nhulunbuy Corporation Ltd. was considering how to spend governmentfunds in implementing an anti-litter campaign. The purchase of a tractor and beach cleaner wasstrongly favoured, and the idea was canvassed with community organisations, includingDhimurru. The beach cleaner was to be used to remove litter from Gadalathami, the 'townbeach' area. There is a fluctuating population of permanent and transitory Yolngu people camp-ing in the immediate vicinity Nhulunbuy, primarily at Gadalathami. Nhulunbuy CorporationLtd. considered that the refuse generated by the 'town campers' was aesthetically unpleasant,represented a significant health risk, and reduced potential recreational use of the location.Although most of the litter was found within the town lease boundary, the Nhulunbuy Corpora-tion Ltd. did not provide any garbage collection or removal services to Gadalathami.

The proposed beach cleaner is drawn by a tractor and operates by removing the top 15-20 cm of sand and passing it through a screening mechanism to filter out debris, rocks, shellsand litter. The anticipated cost of the tractor and beach cleaner was $80,000 (Aus). Dhimurru'sconcerns about the use of the beach cleaner included its detrimental impact on sea turtle nestsand nesting activity, as well as on other biota within the littoral zone (e.g., shellfish). There werealso concerns about the destruction of beach-stabilising vegetation such as grass, vines andseedling trees, and damage to the root systems of larger trees. Replanting the area would berequired to prevent erosion but there were no commitments or funds to ensure that this wouldoccur. Furthermore, reestablishment of the plants would be very difficult during the dry season,when an intensive watering program would be required to sustain replanted trees, vines, grasses,and shrubs. Essentially, they felt that the machine represented a quick 'techno- fix' to a problemthat had deeper social roots that required time, effort and consultation to solve.

Initially Nhulunbuy Corporation Ltd. expressed skepticism about Dhimurru's concernsand its credibility in commenting on environmental matters. To better inform and strengthen itsresponse, Dhimurru sought information from other resource management organisations on theen-vironmental impact of beach cleaners. With only a few days notice to prepare a formalresponse, Dhimurru turned to the global electronic network "CTURTLE". Rapid responses fromseveral individuals and organisations such as the Florida Department of EnvironmentalProtection (USA) provided information that supported Dhimurru's concerns about the impact ofbeach cleaners. The information provided through the CTURTLE network brought internationalexperience and know-ledge to the debate. Ultimately, this support and information played a keyrole in encouraging Nhulunbuy Corporation Ltd. to drop the proposal to purchase a beachcleaner.

Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal community members and organisations have begun acoop-erative effort to develop alternative strategies to address the underlying causes of beachlitter. The work is supported by a government grant ($100,000) to the Aboriginal health service(Miwatj Health Inc.), and includes the hand collection of rubbish, mainly wine casks, bottlesand cans. A work team of 15 Yolngu women patrol the beach and consult with town campersabout ways to reduce litter. Alcohol consumption has been identified as a major factorcontributing to litter; an education program to address social and environmental problemscaused by drinking is underway.

KELVIN LEITCH, Dhimurru Aboriginal Land Management Aboriginal Corporation, P. O. Box1551, Nhulunbuy, Northern Territory 0881, AUSTRALIA and ROD KENNETT, North AustraliaResearch Unit, The Australian National University, P. O. Box 41321, Casuarina, NorthernTerritory 0810, AUSTRALIA.


1996 WORKSHOP ON MARINE TURTLE RESEARCHAND MANAGEMENT: EAST JAVA, INDONESIA

Marine turtle research and management in Indonesia and surrounding countries werediscussed at a workshop conducted in Jember, East Java, Indonesia, from 18-22 November1996. The workshop was undertaken as part of the bilateral cooperation programme between theDirectorate General of Forest Protection and Nature Conservation (PHPA) of the IndonesianMinistry of Forestry and the Australian Nature Conservation Agency (ANCA) of the FederalGovernment of Australia, with the assistance of Wetlands International-Indonesia Programme.Participants from Australia, Papua New Guinea, Thailand, Malaysia and the Philippines, as wellas from Indonesian government agencies, universities, national and international NGO's, andrepresentatives of the private sector, attended the workshop.

The workshop's aim was to identify a future research plan and management progammefor marine turtles in Indonesia. Several presentations were given on the subject of the status ofmarine turtle populations and conservation efforts in the region. Following these presentations,workshop participants discussed three specific topics: marine turtle research and management,marine turtle utilisation, and public awareness and education initiatives. The discussions result-ed in the workshop adopting statements and recommendations regarding these three aspects ofmarine turtles.

A majority of the workshop participants also attended the field trip to Sukamade beachin Meru Betiri, East Java, where Dr. Colin J. Limpus of the Queensland Department of Environ-ment and Heritage gave presentations about marine turtle biology and conservation, and alsoprovided practical training. The field trip offered an opportunity for discussion about theregional aspects of marine turtle conservation. This discussion resulted in priorities for theregional conservation of marine turtles being agreed upon by the workshop participants. Thesepriorities included conservation management training, research and monitoring, and regionalawareness and education programmes. Participants felt that networking among marine turtleresearchers and managers within the region is of major importance if marine turtle managementis to improve.

Proceedings for the workshop are currently being compiled and will be announced in theMarine Turtle Newsletter upon completion. For further information about the workshop and theproceedings, please contact Wetlands International - Indonesia Programme (address below).

YUS RUSILA NOOR and SEBASTIAN TROENG, Wetlands International - IndonesiaProgramme, P. O. Box 254/BOO - Bogor 16002, INDONESIA.

RECENT PAPERS

ACUÑA-MESEN, R. A. 1996. Monosporium apiospermum Saccardo (Fungi, Deuteromycetes),associated with sea turtle eggs Lepidochelys olivacea (Eschscholtz 1829) in Costa Rica.Brenesia 38:159-162. R. Acuña-Mesen, Dept. Anatomia Comparada, Escuela Biol.,Univ. Costa Rica, San José, COSTA RICA. (in Spanish) [ N.B. listed in MTN 75 with-out an author address. ]

AIME, S., M. FASANOI, S. PAOLETTI, F. CUTRUZZOLA, A. DESIDERI, M. BOLOGNESI,M. RIZZI and P. ASCENZI. 1996. Structural determinants of fluoride and formatebinding to hemoglobin and myoglobin: Crystallographic and 1H-NMR


relaxometric study. Biophysical Journal 70(1):482-488. S. Aime, Dept. Inorganic, PhysicalMaterials Chem., Univ. Turin, Via Pietro, Giuria 7, 10125 Turin, ITALY.

BARAN, I. and O. TÜRKOZAN. 1996. Nesting activity of the loggerhead turtle, Carettacaretta, on Fethiye Beach, Turkey, in 1994. Chel. Conserv. Biol. 2(1):93-96. I. Baran,Dokuz Eylül Üniv., Buca Egitim Fakültesi, Biyoloji Bölümü, Buca-Izmir, TURKEY.

BASKAR, S. 1996. Renesting intervals of the hawksbill turtle (Eretmochelys imbricata) onSouth Reef Island, Andaman Islands, India. Hamadryad 21:19-22. S. Baskar, Centre forHerpetol., Madras Crocodile Bank Trust, Post Bag 4, Mamallapuram, Tamil Nadu 603104 INDIA.

BORKENT, A. 1995. Biting midges (Ceratopogonidea: Diptera) feeding on a leatherback turtlein Costa Rica. Brenesia 43-44:25-30. A. Borkent, Royal British Columbia Museum,1171 Mallory Road, R1-S20-C43, Enderby, British Columbia V0E IV0, CANADA.

BUDEN, D. W. 1996. Reptiles, birds, and mammals of Pakin Atoll, eastern Caroline Islands.Micronesica 29(1):37-48. D. Buden, Div. Mathematics Sci., College of Micronesia, P. O.Box 159 Kolonia, Pohmpei, Federated States of Micronesia 96941.

CHAUDHURI, T. K. and N. K. SINHA. 1996. Refolding of trypsin-subtilisin inhibitor frommarine turtle eggwhite. J. Protein Chem. 15(3):315-320. T. Chaudhuri [ no address ].

CHIN, C. C. Q., R. G. KRISHNA, P. J. WELDON and F. WOLD. 1996. Characterization of thedisulfide bonds and the N-glycosylation sites in the glycoprotein from Rathke's glandsecretions of Kemp's ridley sea turtle (Lepidochelys kempi). Analytical Biochemistry233(2):181-187. C. Chin, Dept. Biochem. Mol. Biol., University Texas Medical School,

P. O. Box 20708, Houston, Texas 77225 USA.

COWAN, J., T. WIBBELS, D. ROSTAL, D. OWENS and R. BYLES. 1995. BKM DNAfingerprint analysis of the olive ridley sea turtle, Lepidochelys olivacea. Annual Meetingof the American Society of Zoologists, December 26-30, 1995. American Zoologist35(5):38A. J. Cowan, Univ. Alabama, Birmingham, Alabama 35203 USA.

CROWDER, L. B., S. R. HOPKINS-MURPHY and J. A. ROYLE. 1995. Effects of turtleexcluder devices (TEDs) on loggerhead sea turtle strandings with implications for con-servation. Copeia 1995:773-779. L. Crowder, Duke Univ. Sch. Environ., Mar. Lab., 135Duke Marine Lab. Rd., Beaufort, N. Carolina 28516-9721 USA.

CUNNINGTON, D. C. and R. J. BROOKS. 1996. Bet-hedging theory and eigenelasticity: Acomparison of the life histories of loggerhead sea turtles (Caretta caretta) and snappingturtles (Chelydra serpentina). Canadian J. Zoology 74(2):291-296. D. Cunnington [ noaddress given ].

DE LEON, G. P. P., L. GARCIA PRIETO and V. LEON REGAGNON. 1996. Gastrointestinaldigenetic trematodes of olive ridley's turtle (Lepidochelys olivacea) from Oaxaca, México.

Taxonomy and infracommunity structure. Journal of the Helminthological Society ofWashington 63(1):76-82. G. De Leon [ no address given ].

FRANZ, R., C. K. DODD, Jr. and S. D. BUCKNER. 1996. A review of herpetology of theBahamian Archipelago. Bahamas J. Sci. 3(3):22-30. R. Franz, Florida Museum ofNatural History, University of Florida, Gainesville, Florida 32611 USA.


GARCIA, A., R. ADAYA and G. CEBALLOS. 1996. Sea turtle conservation in Cuixmala,Jalisco: The role of nest translocation in small beaches. 1996 Annual Combined Meetingof the Ecological Society of America on Ecologists/Biologists as Problem Solvers,Provi-dence, Rhode Island, USA, August 10-14, 1996. Bull. Ecol. Soc. Amer. 77(3SUPPL. PART 2):155. A. Garcia, Fundacion Ecol. Cuixmala, A.C., A.P. 161, SanPatricio, 48980 Jalisco, MEXICO.

GATES, C., R. VALVERDE, C. MO, A. CHAVES, J. BALLESTEROS and J. PESKIN. 1996.Estimating arribada size using a modified instantaneous count procedure. J. Agri-cultural, Biological, and Environmental Statistics 1:275-287. C. Gates, Department ofStatistics, Texas A&M Univ., College Station, Texas 77843 USA.

GREGORY, L. F., T. S. GROSS, A. B. BOLTEN, K. A. BJORNDAL and L. J. GUILLETTE,Jr. 1996. Plasma corticosterone concentrations associated with acute captivity stress in wild

loggerhead sea turtles (Caretta caretta). Gen. Comp. Endocrinol. 104:312-320. L.Gregory, Dept. Zoology, Univ. Florida, Gainesville, Florida 32611 USA.

JUPP, B. P., M. J. DURAKO, W. J. KENWORTHY, G. W. THAYER and L. SCHILLAK. 1996.Distribution, abundance, and species composition of seagrasses at several sites in Oman.Aquatic Botany 53(3-4):199-213. B. Jupp [ no address given ].

KROGH, M. and D. REID. 1996. Bycatch in the protective shark meshing programme offsouth-eastern New South Wales, Australia. Biological Conservation 77(2-3):219-226. M.Krogh [ no address given ].

LAZAR, B. and N. TVRTKOVIC. 1995. Marine turtles in the eastern part of the Adriatic Sea:preliminary research. Nat. Croat. 4(1):59-74. B. Lazar, Dept. Zool., Croatian NaturalHistory Museum, Demetrova 1, HR-41000 Zagreb, CROATIA.

LOOP, K. A., J. D. MILLER and C. J. LIMPUS. 1995. Nesting by the hawksbill turtle(Eretmochelys imbricata) on Milman Island, Great Barrier Reef, Australia. Wildl. Res.22(2):241-252. K. Loop, Queensland Department of Environment, P. O. Box 5391,Townsville, Qld 4810 AUSTRALIA. Present address: Inst. Marine Life Sciences, TexasA&M University, 4700 Ave U. (Bldg 303), Galveston, Texas 77551 USA.

MROSOVSKY, N. 1996. Sea turtles, past and present utilisation, p.88-96. In: H. Roth and G.Merz (Editors), Wildlife Resources: A Global Account of Economic Use. Springer. N.Mrosovsky, Dept. Zoology, 25 Harbord St., Univ. Toronto, Toronto M5S 3G5CANADA.

HOOGMOED, M. S. 1995. In Memoriam: Prof. Dr. Leo Daniel Brongersma (1907-1994).Zoologische Mededelingen (Leiden) 69(15-29):177-201. M. Hoogmoed, Natl. Natuur-historisch Museum, Postbus 9517, 2300 RA Leiden, THE NETHERLANDS.

NARO, E. F. S., N. MROSOVSKY and M. A. MARCOVALDI. 1996. Thermal profiles ofmarine turtle hatcheries and nesting areas at Praia do Forte, Brazil. 1996 AnnualCombined Meeting of the Ecological Society of America on Ecologists/Biologists asProblem Solvers, Providence, Rhode Island, USA, August 10-14, 1996. Bull. Ecol. Soc.Amer. 77(3 SUPPL. PART 2):320. E. Naro, Yale Univ., New Haven, Connecticut 06520USA.


PANDAV, B., B. C. CHOUDHURY and C. S. KAR. 1997. Mortality of olive ridley turtles,Lepidochelys olivacea due to incidental capture in fishing nets along the Orissa coast,India. Oryx 31(1):32-36. B. Pandav, Wildlife Inst. of India. P. O. Box 18, Dehradun-248001, Uttar Pradesh, INDIA.

PEARE, T., P. G. PARKER and M. IRWIN. 1996. Paternity analysis of green sea turtle clutches.1996 Annual Combined Meeting of the Ecological Society of America on Ecol-ogists/Biologists as Problem Solvers, Providence, Rhode Island, USA, August 10-14, 1996.Bull. Ecol. Soc. Amer. 77(3 SUPPL. PART 2):345. T. Peare, Ohio State Univ.,Columbus, Ohio 43210 USA.

PENICK, D. N., F. V. PALADINO, A. C. STEYERMARK and J. R. SPOTILA. 1996. Thermaldependence of tissue metabolism in the green turtle, Chelonia mydas. Comp. Biochem.Physiol. A 113(3): 293-296. F. Paladino, Purdue Univ., Rm G80 Kettler Hall,

Fort Wayne, Indiana 46805 USA.

PETRUZZELLI, R., G. AURELI, A. LANIA, A. GALTIERI, A. DESIDERI and B.GIARDINA. 1996. Diving behaviour and haemoglobin function: The primary structureof the alpha- and beta-chains of the sea turtle Caretta caretta and its functional implica-tions. Biochemical Journal 316(3):959-965. R. Petruzzellli, Instituto Scienze Bio-chimiche, Facolta Medicina, Universita Chieti, Via dei Vestini, 66100 Chieti, ITALY.

PLATT, T. R and D. BLAIR. 1996. Hapalotrema looss, 1899 (Digenea): Proposed designationof H. loossi Price, 1934 as the type species. Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature53(2):89-91. T. Platt [ no address given ].

POINER, I. R. and A. N. M. HARRIS. 1996. Incidental capture, direct mortality and delayedmortality of sea turtles in Australia's Northern Prawn Fishery. Marine Biology (Berlin)125(4):813-825. I. Poiner, CSIRO Division of Fisheries, Marine Laboratories, P. O. Box120, Cleveland, Qld. 4163 AUSTRALIA.

POLICANSKY, D. D. 1996. Science, management, and decision making. 1996 Annual Com-bined Meeting of the Ecological Society of America on Ecologists/Biologists as ProblemSolvers, Providence, Rhode Island, USA, August 10-14, 1996. Bull. Ecol. Soc. Amer.77(3 SUPPL. PART 2):356. D. Policansky, Natl. Res. Council, Washington, D. C. 20418USA.

READ, M. A., G. C. GRIGG and C. J. LIMPUS. 1996. Body temperatures and winter feeding inimmature green turtles, Chelonia mydas, in Moreton Bay, southeastern Queensland. J.Herpetol. 30(2):262-265. M. Read, Queensland Department of Environment, P. O. Box5391, Townsville, Qld. 4810 AUSTRALIA.

REYNOLDS, J. E. III and S. A. ROMMEL. 1996. Structure and function of the gastrointestinaltract of the Florida manatee, Trichechus manatus latirostris. Anat. Rec. 245(3):539-558.J. Reynolds, Eckerd Coll., 4200 54th Ave. South, St. Petersburg, Florida 33711 USA.

ROBINS, J. B. 1995. Estimated catch and mortality of sea turtles from the East Coast OtterTrawl Fishery of Queensland, Australia. Biol. Conserv. 74(3):157-167. J. Robins,Southern Fisheries Ctr., Queensland Dept. Primary Ind., P. O. Box 76, Deception Bay,Qld. 4508, AUSTRALIA.


SIDDEEK, S. M. and R. M. BALDWIN. 1996. Assessment of the Oman green turtle(Cheloniamydas) stock using a stage-class matrix model. Herpetological J. 6(1):1-8. S.Siddeek

[ no address given ].

SIVASUNDAR, A. and K. V. DEVI PRASAD. 1996. Placement and predation of nest inleatherback sea turtles in the Andaman Islands, India. Hamadryad 21:36-42. A. Siva-sundar, S lim Ali School of Ecology, Pondicherry Univ., Pondicherry 605 014, INDIA.

TUCKER, A. D., N. N. FITZSIMMONS and C. J. LIMPUS. 1996. Conservation implications ofinternesting habitat use by loggerhead turtles, Caretta caretta, in Woongarra MarinePark, Queensland, Australia. Pacific Conservation Biology 2(2):157-166. A. Tucker,Department of Zoology, University of Queensland, Brisbane, Qld. 4072 AUSTRALIA.

TÜRKOZAN, O. and I. BARAN. 1996. Research on the loggerhead turtle, Caretta caretta, ofFethiye Beach. Tr. J. Zool. 20(1996):183-188. O. Turkozan, Dokuz Eylül Üniv., BucaEgitim Fakültesi, Biyoloji Bölümü, Buca-Izmir, TURKEY.

WILLIAMS, E. H., Jr. and L. BUNKLEY-WILLIAMS. 1996. The earliest Pacific record andunconfirmed hawksbill records of fibropapillomas in Hawaiian sea turtles. Rec. HawaiiBiol. Survey for 1995, Bishop Museum Occasional Papers 46:46-49. E. Williams, Dept.Marine Sciences, University of Puerto Rico, P. O. Box 908, Lajas, Puerto Rico 00667.

TECHNICAL REPORTS

AGUIRRE, A. A. 1996. Plasma biochemistry values of green turtles (Chelonia mydas) with andwithout fibropapillomas in the Hawaiian Islands. NOAA/NMFS/SWFSC Admin. ReportH-96-10C. 15 pp. Available from: U. S. National Marine Fisheries Service (PublicationOfficer), Honolulu Lab., 2570 Dole Street, Honolulu, Hawaii 96822 USA.

BARTHOLOMEW, B. (Compiler) 1997. 1996 Herpetological Index. Bibliomania. 151 pp.Available from:B. Bartholomew, Bibliomania, 195 W. 200 North, Logan, Utah 84321USA. [ Price: $20 for the book; $15 for computer disks, specify Macintosh or DOS. ]

BOLTEN, A. B., J. A. WETHERALL, G. H. BALAZS and S. G. POOLEY (Compilers). 1996.Status of marine turtles in the Pacific Ocean relevant to incidental take in the Hawaii-based pelagic longline fishery. NOAA Tech. Memo. NMFS-SWFSC-230. U. S. Dept.Commerce. 167 pp. Available from: U. S. National Marine Fisheries Service(Publication Officer), Honolulu Lab., 2570 Dole Street, Honolulu, Hawaii 96822 USA.

BOWEN, B. W. and W. N. WITZELL. 1996. Proceedings of the International Symposium onSea Turtle Conservation Genetics, 12-14 September 1995, Miami. NOAA Tech. Memo.NMFS-SEFSC-396. U.S. Dept. Commerce. 173 pp. Available from: W. Witzell, NOAA/NMFS/SEFSC, 75 Virginia Beach Drive, Miami, Florida 33149 USA. (Written requestsonly; include a self-addressed mailing label.)

CAILLOUET, C. W., Jr. 1997. Publications and Reports on Sea Turtle Research by the NationalMarine Fisheries Service, Southeast Fisheries Science Center, Galveston Labor-atory,1979-1996. NOAA Tech. Memo. NMFS-SEFSC-397. U.S. Dept. Commerce. 21 pp.Available from: C. Caillouet, NMFS/SEFSC Galveston Lab, 4700 Avenue U, Galveston,Texas 77551-5997 USA.


GLEN, F., B. J. GODLEY and A. KELLY. 1996. Marine Turtle Monitoring in Turkey byStudents from the University of Glasgow: A Report to the British Council, Ankara. 14pp. Available from: B. Godley, DEEB, Graham Kerr Bldg., Univ. Glasgow, GlasgowG12 8QQ U.K.

GODLEY, B. and A. KELLY. 1996. Glasgow University Turtle Conservation Expedition toNorthern Cyprus 1996: Expedition Report. University of Glasgow Veterin. School,Glasgow. Available from: B. Godley, DEEB, Graham Kerr Bldg., Univ. Glasgow,Glasgow G12 8QQ U.K.

IUCN. 1996. A Marine Turtle Conservation Strategy and Action Plan for the Western IndianOcean. Prepared by IUCN East Africa Regional Office and IUCN/SSC Marine TurtleSpecialist Group. World Conservation Union (IUCN). 24 pp. Available free from: IUCNPublications Services Unit, 219c Huntingdon Road, Cambridge CB3 0DL U.K.

LAURENT, L., M. N. BRADAI, D. A. HADOUD and H. E. GOMATI. 1995. Marine turtlenesting activity assessment on Libyan coasts. Phase I: survey of the coast betweenEgyptian border and Sirte. RAC/SPA (MAP-UNEP), Tunis. 51 pp. +tab. Available from:Regional Activity Centre for Specially Protected Areas (RAC/SPA), Boulevard del'Envionnement B.P. 337, 1080 Tunis Cedex TUNISIA.

MARQUEZ M., R. 1996. Las Tortugas Marinas y Nuestro Tiempo. La Ciencia/144. Fondo deCultura Económica, México. 197 pp. [ ISBN 968-16-4436-0 ] Limited copies availablefrom: R. M rquez M., INP/CRIP, Playa Ventanas S/N, A.P. 591, Manzanillo, Colima,MEXICO, CP 28200. Please include US$8 for orders within the Americas; US$12 else-where. For additional information, contact the publisher: Fondo de Cultura Económica,Av. Picacho Ajusco no. 227, Col. Bosque del Pedregal, Delegacion Tlalpan, C.P. 14200,México D.F. MEXICO.

VALKERING, N. P., P. VAN NUGTEREN and T. J. W. VAN EIJCK. 1996. Sea TurtleConservation on Bonaire: Sea Turtle Club Bonaire 1995 Project Report and Long-TermProposal. Verslagen en Technische Gegevens No. 68:1-103. Univ. van Amsterdam.Limited copies available from: STCB, c/o T. J. W. van Eijck, Madurastraat 126 hs, 1094GW Amsterdam, THE NETHERLANDS.

THESES AND DISSERTATIONS

ADAMANY, STEPHANIE LYNNE. 1996. Nest Caging as a Sea Turtle Management Strategy:Do the Benefits Outweigh the Costs on Urban Beaches? Master of Science Thesis, Florida

Atlantic University. [UMI, 300 N. Zeeb Road, Ann Arbor, Michigan 48106 USA; orderno. GAX13-80714]

GLENN, JOHN LAWRENCE. 1996. The Orientation and Survival of Loggerhead Sea TurtleHatchlings (Caretta caretta L.). Master of Science Thesis, Florida Atlantic University.[UMI, 300 N. Zeeb Road, Ann Arbor, Michigan 48106 USA; order no. GAX13-78634]

GOFF, MATTHEW DOUGLAS. 1996. The Magnetic Compass of the Loggerhead Sea Turtle(Caretta caretta, L.): Can Surface Waves Establish Magnetic Directional Preference?Master of Science Thesis, Florida Atlantic University. [UMI, 300 N. Zeeb Road, AnnArbor, Michigan 48106 USA; order no. GAX13-78637]


LOOP, KIRSTIN ANNE. 1996. Hawksbill Turtle (Eretmochelys imbricata) Nesting at MilmanIsland, Queensland, Australia. Ph.D. Dissertation, Texas A&M University. [UMI, 300 N.Zeeb Road, Ann Arbor, Michigan 48106 USA; order no. GAX96-34799]

RATNASWANY, MARY JOSANNE. 1995. Raccoon Depredation of Sea Turtle Nests at Can-averal National Seashore, Florida: Implications for Species Management and Conserva-tion (Caretta caretta, Procyon Lotor, Chelonia mydas). Ph.D. Dissertation, University ofGeorgia. [UMI, 300 N. Zeeb Road, Ann Arbor, Michigan 48106 USA; order no.GAX96-35816]

SIVASUNDAR, ARJUN. 1996. Studies on the Nesting of Leatherback Sea Turtles (Dermo-chelyscoriacea) in the Andaman Islands. Master of Science Thesis, Salim Ali School ofEcology, Pondicherry University, India.

VALVERDE, ROLDAN ARTURO. 1996. Corticosteriod Dynamics in a Free-Ranging Popula-tion of Olive Ridley Sea Turtles (Lepidochelys olivacea Eschscholtz, 1829) at PlayaNancite, Costa Rica, as a Function of their Reproductive Behavior. Ph.D. Dissertation,Texas A&M University. [UMI, 300 N. Zeeb Road, Ann Arbor, Michigan 48106 USA;order no. GAX97-01728]

17th ANNUAL SYMPOSIUM ON SEA TURTLE BIOLOGY & CONSERVATION

The 17th Annual Symposium on Sea Turtle Biology and Conservation was held at theDelta Orlando Resort in Orlando, Florida USA from 4-8 March 1997. The Symposium washosted by Florida Atlantic University, Mote Marine Laboratory, University of Central Florida,University of Florida, and the Comité Nacional para la Conservación y Protección de las Tortu-gas Marinas (México). The Symposium was the largest to date, 720 biologists, students, regu-latory personnel, managers, and volunteers participated from 38 countries. Vendors displayedscientific equipment, books and periodicals, original art, and gifts. In addition to 79 oral, twovideo, and 120 poster presentations, three workshops (Population Modeling, Veterinary Medi-cine, Conservation on Nesting Beaches) filled to capacity. P. C. H. Pritchard presented athoughtful retrospect on the late Archie Carr. Through stories and reading from Carr's writ-ings,Pritchardÿ20showed many sides of a complex man who studied and wrote about sea turtles; itwas a presentation that none of us will forget.

The winner of the Archie Carr Best Student Presentation (oral presentation category)was Amanda Southwood (University of British Columbia, Vancouver): "Heart rates anddiveÿ20behavior of the leatherback sea turtle during the internesting interval." ÿ20The runners-up were Richard Reina (Australian National University, Canberra): "Regulation of salt glandactivity in Chelonia mydas" and Singo Minamikawa (Kyoto University): "The influence thatartificialÿ20specific grav-ity change gives to diving behavior of loggerhead turtles." The winnerof the Archie Carr Best Student Presentation (poster presentation category) was Mark Roberts(University of South Flor-ida, Tampa): "Global population structure of green sea turtles(Chelonia mydas) using microsat-ellite analysis of male-mediated gene flow." The runners-upwere Larisa Avens (University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill): "Equilibrium responses torotational displacements by hatchling sea turtles: maintaining a migratory heading in a turbulentocean" and Annette Broderick (Uni-versity of Glasgow): "Female size, not length, is a correlateof reproductive output." Winners receive $400 and a subscription to Chelonian Conservationand Biology; runners-up receiveÿ20$100. The Symposium is grateful to A. G. J. Rhodin,Director of the Chelonian Research Foundation, for co-sponsoring the awards.


The Symposium adopted six Resolutions; four are reprinted in this issue. [ N.B. TheOrissa Resolution was not available at press time; the final Resolution was a letter to RollandSchmitten, Director of the U.S. National Marine Fisheries Service. ] All six Resolutions will bepublished in their entirety in an upcoming issue of Chelonian Conservation and Biology. DavidOwens (Texas A&M University) was elected President of the 19th Annual Symposium. AlbertoAbreu (Universidad Nacional Autónomous de México), President of 18th Annual Sym-posium,announced that sites in México were under consideration for 1998; members were clearlysupportive of this option. The Symposium delivered a heartfelt "Thank You", including tributesfrom several past Presidents, to Thelma Richardson who has served as Symposium Sec-retaryand Registrar since the symposium began more than a decade ago. Her tireless service and thework load she has shouldered on our behalf is evidenced by the very real likelihood that theSymposium will need to recruit a whole team of professionals to replace her!

Thanks to the devoted efforts of Karen Eckert, Jack Frazier and Marydele Donnelly, andthose who donated money to the Symposium on behalf of international travel assistance, theSymposium sponsored the attendance of 38 colleagues from 28 nations around the globe. Inemphasizing international participation, we all learn a great deal more about the biology andconservation of sea turtles than would otherwise be the case; beyond the knowledge gained, webenefit from professional contacts and enjoy new friendships. The Symposium Auction raisednearly $8,000 for the 1998 International Travel Fund! We owe many thanks to Auctioneer BobShoop, who kept the bidding high, fast-paced, and entertaining. As the Symposium has grownfrom a small Florida gathering to an international event, it has remained in its heart always openand cordial. It is a meeting in which pretenses are dropped, good science is presented, andfriendly, open communication is the rule. The camaraderie ultimately translates into under-standing and cooperation. These aspects, combined, have gone and will go a long way towardhelping to protect sea turtles and the habitats upon which they depend around the world.

It was an honor to serve as President of the 17th Annual Symposium on Sea TurtleBiology and Conservation. To the dozens and dozens of members and others who made my jobpossible, Thank You. See you next year!

JEANETTE WYNEKEN, Department of Biological Sciences, Florida Atlantic University, 777Glades Road, Boca Raton, Florida 33431-0991 USA.

RESOLUTION OF THE PARTICIPANTS AT THE17th ANNUAL SYMPOSIUM ON SEA TURTLE BIOLOGY & CONSERVATION

on theINTER-AMERICAN CONVENTION FOR

THE PROTECTION AND CONSERVATION OF SEA TURTLES

To: All Governments of the Americas; FAO, UNEP, UNDP, OAS, OLDEPESCA, ALEP, IUCN, WWF,sea turtle specialists and managers, and all other concerned parties.

Whereas the assembled members of the 16th Annual Symposium on Sea Turtle Biology and Conservation (1996)passed a resolution supporting the adoption of the measures outlined in the Inter-American Convention for thePro-tection and Conservation of Sea Turtles;

Whereas information regarding this convention has been somewhat slow in reaching many sectors of societywhich should be involved in its implementation;


Whereas the limited knowledge about and appreciation of the Inter-American Convention for the Protection andCon-servation of Sea Turtles has resulted in a lack of support from many sectors of society which should beinvolved in its implementation;

Whereas there is a pressing need to inform these sectors of society about this Convention;

We therefore urge that members of the conservation, academic, scientific, and management communities - and inparticular sea turtle specialists - identify and make use of all mechanisms of communication to ensure that there isgreater knowledge of that Convention in all sectors of society.

Whereas the acceptance and ratification of the Inter-American Convention for the Protection and Conservation ofSea Turtles has been open for signature by all Parties in the Americas since December 1996;

Whereas to date (February 1997) six countries have already signed the Convention, and the minimum numberneeded for this Convention to enter into force is eight;

We strongly urge all concerned Parties to sign and ratify the Convention at the earliest possible opportunity.

Passed overwhelmingly6 March 1997, Orlando


on theFAO CODE OF CONDUCT FOR RESPONSIBLE FISHERIES

To: Governments represented in these Annual Symposia; FAO, UNEP, UNDP, OAS, OLDEPESCA,ALEP, IUCN, WWF, sea turtle specialists and managers, and all other concerned parties.

The assembled members of the 17th Annual Symposium on Sea Turtle Biology and Conservation strongly supportthe concepts and procedures described in the Code of Conduct for Responsible Fisheries published by the Foodand Agriculture Organization [FAO] of the United Nations, Rome in 1995.

Recognizing that in general the world's fisheries resources are in decline and that the fate of human societies andcultures is threatened by the scarcity and lack of security from food resources, in particular, fisheries resources, itis critical that these trends not only be stopped, but reversed;

Whereas the Code of Conduct for Responsible Fisheries provides numerous and diverse recommendations formeet-ing this pressing goal, while at the same time respecting the rights of sovereign states, the rights of rarelyrepresent-ed indigenous and other rural peoples, and the needs of artisanal fishermen;

Recognizing that, unfortunately, relatively few people in the scientific, conservation and fisheries productioncom-munities know of the Code of Conduct for Responsible Fisheries; and that this lack of familiarity with andappreci-ation of the value of the document greatly reduces its effectiveness and impact;

We therefore emphatically urge that all governments, all fisheries organizations both governmental andnongovern-mental and all other groups involved in the exploitation, management, conservation, and investigationof marine living resources and the environments fundamental for the survival of these organisms adopt the Codeof Conduct for Responsible Fisheries and fully implement the recommendations therein.


In order to accomplish this, we urge that every possible effort be made to identify and make use of all possiblemeans and mechanisms to disperse reliable information about the Code of Conduct for Responsible Fisheries.This effort in public education must include all sectors of society, notably: the fishery industry at all levels,fisheries production, processing, and marketing; scientific; academic; educational; conservation; political;judicial; consum-er; and all other relevant entities.

Passed unanimously6 March 1997, Orlando


on theREAUTHORIZATION OF THE U.S. ENDANGERED SPECIES ACT

WHEREAS the U.S. Endangered Species Act is one of the most important and fundamental laws globally for theconservation of biological diversity, balancing long-term economic, social, and environmental values with short-term economic interests, and serves as an example to other nations of a commitment to long-term maintenance ofnatural biotic richness and resources;

THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the 17th Annual Symposium on Sea Turtle Biology and Conservationurges the U.S. Congress to reauthorize and strengthen the Endangered Species Act, to provide more effectiveprotection against the loss of species and their habitats, based on the following principles:

I. Prevention. The prevention of endangerment should be encouraged through mechanisms such as consultationand conservation activities for rare and declining species, and ecosystem planning.

II. Recovery. Recovery goals and criteria must be scientifically derived and based, while inclusion of balancedparticipation of stakeholders may facilitate development of effective implementation strategies for achievingrecov-ery goals. Applicants for incidental take permits should be required to: (1) ensure their activities areconsistent with recovery of the species; (2) mitigate fully any adverse impacts of their activities on listed species;and, (3) monitor the impacts of their activities and take appropriate action if conservation plans fail to achievetheir goals.

III. Science. Federal land management agencies should be required to inventory and monitor the status and trendsof listed and rare or declining species and habitats on lands under their jurisdiction. The Secretary should berequired, in cooperation with the states, to develop a system for tracking rare and declining species. The Secretaryshould be authorized to list populations of invertebrates and plants threatened with extinction within the entireU.S. Endangered species policy should protect large contiguous, viable tracts of habitat that support a multitudeof spe-cies wherever possible. Opportunities should be provided for independent scientists to review and offerrecommen-dations on the development, approval and implementation of Habitat Conservation Plans (HCPs) andother non-federal land management plans.

IV. Citizen Participation. Opportunities should be provided for citizens to participate in the development of recov-ery plan implementation strategies, and review and comment on the development, approval and implementation ofHCPs and other nonfederal land management plans. The public should be notified of the initiation of formalSection 7 consultations and the completion of all Section 7 consultations. Documents reflecting Section 7consultations should be made available for public review.

V. Federal Agency Accountability. Congress should clarify that federal agencies are legally obligated to carry outthe "reasonable and prudent measures" identified in Section 7 biological opinions and that federal agencyactivities outside the U.S. are subject to the requirements of Section 7.


VI. Private Citizen Incentives. Congress should provide monetary and tax credit incentives to landowners to carryout conservation measures that go beyond the ESA's requirements. Congress should not pay landowners for carry-ing out activities required under an incidental take permit and should not authorize incentives to be used as asubsti-tute for incidental take permit requirements.

VII. Funding. Significantly increased ESA and Land and Water Conservation Fund funding should be providedfor the Act to more effectively conserve species and ecosystems. Additional, non-appropriated funding sourcesshould also be provided.



on theARCHIE CARR NATIONAL WILDLIFE REFUGE

Whereas the beaches of the Archie Carr National Wildlife Refuge host a considerable portion of the second largestnesting population of threatened loggerhead sea turtles in the entire world, as well as hundreds of nests of endan-gered green sea turtles and a number of endangered leatherback turtle nests;

Whereas the beaches in and around the Carr Refuge rapidly are being developed and critical sea turtle nestinghabi-tat is being lost or degraded;

Whereas the Carr Refuge was established to provide protection for this highest U.S. concentration of nests forthreatened and endangered sea turtles;

Whereas local and state governments and private foundations have provided more than $80 million for theacquisi-tion of land in and around the Carr Refuge and the federal government has only contributed $8.89 million,or 11 percent, of the total dollars thus far expended;

Whereas the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service has ranked the Carr Refuge as #2 in its acquisition priorities for FY98;

And Whereas the Congress has failed for two years in a row to provide any additional funding for land acquisitionwithin the Carr Refuge;

THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the 17th Annual Symposium on Sea Turtle Biology and Conservationurges the U.S. Congress to appropriate $5 million toward acquisition for the Archie Carr National Wildlife Refugein FY 98.


MARK YOUR CALENDARS! 18th ANNUAL SYMPOSIUM ONSEA TURTLE BIOLOGY & CONSERVATION

The 1998 Symposium on Sea Turtle Biology and Conservation will be held at Hotel ElCid, Mazatl n, Sinaloa, México. Registration will begin on Tuesday, 3 March; oral presenta-tions will start Wednesday morning and continue through Saturday, 7 March. See you there!


The Réunion de Especialisatas Latinoamericanos en Tortugas Marinas will precede theSymposium, convening on Saturday, 28 February, and continuing through Monday, 2 March.The Réunion will be held at and co-sponsored by Centro de Educacion y Capacitacion para elDesarrollo Sustentable. The Centro will donate free room and board for 60 participants, inaddition to an auditorium and audiovisual equipment. The agenda will include sea turtle-fisheryinteractions in Latin America, advances in national conservation programs, and a workshop(conducted by Centro staff) on community participation in sea turtle conservation.

F. ALBERTO ABREU GROBOIS, 1998 Sea Turtle Symposium President, Laboratorio deConservacion y Manejo de Recursos Bioticos y Banco de Informacion sobre Tortugas Marinas(BITMAR), Estacion Mazatl n, Instituto de Ciencias del Mar y Limnologia - UNAM, A. P. 811,Mazatlan, Sinaloa 82000 MEXICO; Tel: 52 (69) 85-28-45/8; Fax: 52 (69) 82-61-33; Tel: (priv.)52 (69) 81-22-94; E-mail: [email protected]

VOLUNTEERS ARE NEEDED TO PROTECT HAWKSBILLS

Volunteers are needed to monitor nesting hawksbills at remote beaches in Hawaii Vol-canoes National Park and on adjacent lands on the island of Hawaii, USA. The hawksbill is veryrare on the island; only 67 nests were documented in 1996. Volunteers are needed for the May-December 1997 nesting season. We prefer stays of 8-12 weeks, but will consider shorterperiods. Volunteers will camp 3-5 nights/wk. Duties include monitoring nesting hawksbills andbasking green turtles, rescuing stranded hatchlings, excavating nests, and trapping and euthani-zing predators (mongooses, feral cats, rats). Some nesting beaches are only accessible by hikinga 6.6 mile trail over recent lava flows; others are reached by 4-wheel drive truck. The weather ishot and very windy. Shared dormitory-style housing is provided near Park Headquarters at thesummit of Kilauea Volcano (4,000 ft elevation). A small stipend ($7/day) is provided; sup-plemental personal funds are needed. Contact the Hawaii Volcanoes National Park, P. O. Box52, Hawaii 96718; Tel: (808) 967-8226, Fax: 985-8614, E-mail: [email protected]_____________________________________________________________________________________________

Publication of this issue was made possible by donations from the Maryland Department of Natural Resources,Terri Garland (Soquel, CA), Louise Hamlin (El Segundo, CA), New Brunswick Museum(Canada), Laura Faller(Decatur, GA), Mark Laubach (Mt. View, CA), Robert Parker Hodge(Gig Harbor, WA), Vancouver Aquarium(B.C., Canada), Luc Laurent (Villeurbanne, France), Diana Vineyard (Dallas, TX), Julia Horrocks (St. Thomas,Barbados), Save-A-Turtle (Islamorada, FL), David Addison (Naples, FL), Sneed Collard (Milton, FL), ElizabethMitchell (Eugene, OR), Ric and Elvia Zambrano (W. Palm Beach, FL), Brian & Ruthellen Bowen(Gainesville,FL), Linda Righetti (San Francisco, CA), Richard Byles (Albuquerque, NM), Antonio & Bety Resendiz (B.C.S.,Mexico), Lisa Richman (Raleigh, NC), Coastal Conservation Foundation (Tucson, AZ), Peter Pritchard (Oveido,FL), The Chelonian Research Foundation, Columbus Zoo, Sea World Inc., Cayman Turtle Farm Ltd., and U. S.Fish and Wildlife Service. Angela Mast translates and produces the Spanish edition, Noticiero de TortugasMarinas. The opinions expressed herein are those of the individual authors and are not necessarily shared by theEditors, the Editorial Board, Hubbs-Sea World Research Institute, Conservation International, or any individualsor organizations providing financial support.