marine turtle newslettermatthew h. godfrey nc sea turtle project nc wildlife resources commission...

Marine Turtle Newsletter No. 152, 2017 -

Issue Number 152 January 2017

ISSN 0839-7708

ArticlesDetection dogs for sea turtle nesting beach monitoring, management, and conservation outreach......B Witherington et al.A Preliminary Study on the Sea Turtle Density in Mauritius...........................................................................M Reyne et al.Evidence of a Green Turtle Starting its Post-nesting Migration Without Laying All Its Vitellogenic Follicles............................................................................................NJ Robinson et al.Community Participation in Sea Turtle Conservation in Karimunjawa National Park, Indonesia.....S Sumaryati & KuswadiA Long Migratory Record for a Small Post-Pelagic Hawksbill...........................................................RG von Brandis et al.Animal Mapping Using a Citizen-Science Web-Based GIS in the Bay Islands, Honduras....DS Baumbach & SG DunbarMonitoring Sea Turtles in an Estuary Altered by Human Use..........................................................................F Rocha et al.

Recent Publications

Captain Ron, a pocket beagle, in an alert posture at a fresh loggerhead nest. The blue flag marks the precise location indicated by a prior nose point. See pages 1-4. Photo by Samantha Pessolano.

Marine Turtle Newsletter

Marine Turtle Newsletter No. 152, 2017 - Page 1© Marine Turtle Newsletter

MTN Online - The Marine Turtle Newsletter is available at the MTN web site: http://www.seaturtle.org/mtn/.

Subscriptions and Donations - Subscriptions and donations towards the production of the MTN should be made online at http://www.seaturtle.org/mtn/ or c/o SEATURTLE.ORG (see inside back cover for details).

Managing Editor:Michael S. CoyneSEATURTLE.ORG

1 Southampton PlaceDurham, NC 27705, USA

E-mail: [email protected] Fax: +1 919 684-8741

Brendan J. Godley & Annette C. Broderick (Editors Emeriti) University of Exeter in Cornwall, UK

George H. BalazsNational Marine Fisheries Service, Hawaii, USA

Alan B. BoltenUniversity of Florida, USA

Robert P. van DamChelonia, Inc. Puerto Rico, USA

Angela FormiaUniversity of Florence, Italy

Colin LimpusQueensland Turtle Research Project, Australia

Nicolas J. Pilcher Marine Research Foundation, Malaysia

ALan F. ReesUniversity of Exeter in Cornwall, UK

Kartik ShankerIndian Institute of Science, Bangalore, India

Manjula TiwariNational Marine Fisheries Service, La Jolla, USA

Oğuz TürkozanAdnan Menderes University, Turkey

Jeanette WynekenFlorida Atlantic University, USA

Editorial Board:

This issue was produced with assistance from:

Contact [email protected] to become a sponsor of the Marine Turtle Newsletteror visit http://www.seaturtle.org/mtn/donate.shtml

The MTN-Online is produced and managed by ALan Rees and Michael Coyne.

Matthew H. GodfreyNC Sea Turtle Project

NC Wildlife Resources Commission1507 Ann St.

Beaufort, NC 28516 USAE-mail: [email protected]

Kelly R. StewartThe Ocean Foundation

c/o Marine Mammal and Turtle DivisionSouthwest Fisheries Science Center, NOAA-NMFS

8901 La Jolla Shores Dr.La Jolla, California 92037 USA

E-mail: [email protected]: +1 858-546-7003

Editors:

On-line Assistant:ALan F. Rees

University of Exeter in Cornwall, UK

Marine Turtle Newsletter No. 152, 2017 - Page 1

Detection Dogs for Sea Turtle Nesting Beach Monitoring, Management, and Conservation Outreach

Blair Witherington1, Pepe Peruyero2, J. Rachel Smith1, Marty MacPhee1, Rebekah Lindborg1, Emily Neidhardt1 & Anne Savage1

1Disney’s Animals, Science and Environment, Lake Buena Vista, FL, USA (E-mails: [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected]);

2J&K Canine Academy, Inc., High Springs, FL, USA (E-mail: [email protected])

Great efforts are undertaken to understand and protect sea turtles at their nesting beaches. These efforts largely focus on nests, including nest counts, egg translocation, screening for predators, and marking to reduce human interference and facilitate egg survivorship assessment. Nests and nesting areas are also used by conservation organizations as an impetus and venue for conservation outreach. Nesting beaches are areas where sea turtles, humans, and anthropogenic threats intersect, which makes these beaches hotspots for conservation challenges and opportunities.

Much of the research and conservation at nesting beaches involves locating eggs in nests. There are a number of requirements for accuracy and expediency in this task. To verify error rates in nest (clutch) counts, eggs should be located with a minimum of false negatives (Witherington et al. 2009). In order to translocate a clutch with minimal effects from movement-induced mortality, eggs must be excavated with minimal disturbance within 12 hours of deposition (Limpus et al. 1979). To effectively protect eggs from predators, nests must be screened/caged so that the predator-barrier is centered over the clutch (Ratnaswamy et al. 1997). Accurate clutch location and confidence in clutch presence are also important in marking nests to prevent damaging human activity such as foot and vehicular traffic. Due to the economic consequences of diverting human activity, along with conservation consequences of wrongly identifying a nest as an abandoned attempt, accuracy in nest determinations and clutch finding are priority objectives for nesting beach programs.

Accurate location of a clutch within a nest is also critical to unbiased assessments of reproductive success. Nests chosen as samples to represent egg survivorship and hatchling production for a beach are often excluded when they cannot be found for an inventory of their contents. Such exclusion can cause over-estimation of hatching success. This is because clutch locations with no signs of hatchling emergence are the most difficult to find. Precisely marking the location of the clutch (and using redundant marks/staking) in a sample-nest minimizes this lost-nest bias.

Given the conservation value of finding eggs within nests, many nesting beach programs have a training regimen to ensure that surveyors acquire these necessary skills. Although there are few published measures of efficiency and accuracy in egg-finding skills (Witherington et al. 2009), we assume that ease and accuracy affect three important conservation costs. One is the opportunity cost associated with time spent digging for eggs. This time could be spent conducting other research, management, or outreach. Another cost is in not finding eggs within a nest selected for monitoring or protection. As posited above, these false negatives can lead to sampling bias and ineffective nest protection. A third cost is when

eggs are found only after extensive digging, and either the egg chamber is compromised (eggs spill into an exploratory pit) or eggs are accidentally damaged.

Challenges of finding eggs within a nest vary by sea turtle species, and for different reasons (authors’ analysis forthcoming, and descriptions by Witherington & Witherington 2015). For example, loggerhead (Caretta caretta) nests are often on an open beach, and have a nest mound about 1 m2 with eggs that are about 40 cm below the sand surface. Hawksbill (Eretmochelys imbricata) nests are similar to loggerhead nests, but are frequently located in dense vegetation. Green turtle (Chelonia mydas) nests have a much larger mound (3 m2 or more) and deeper eggs (approximately 50 cm depth). Leatherback (Dermochelys coriacea) nests cover an even more extensive beach area (to 9 m2 or more) and have eggs that are commonly deeper than 60 cm. Kemp’s ridley (Lepidochelys kempii) nests pose a challenge for egg-finding because this species nests diurnally in dry sand during wind events. Nest circumstances that obscure visual nest signs (vegetation, wind-blown sand), that compound the egg-search area (large nest mounds), or that increase exploratory digging (egg depth), all contribute to the required effort and potential inaccuracy in egg finding.

Traditional identification of clutch location within a nest, after the turtle has left, relies on visual signs to indicate where the turtle was when oviposition took place. Additional methods include probing the nest mound using a thin rod or dowel, a technique that may damage eggs. Non-traditional methods have included imaging technology to find eggs, including ground-penetrating radar (Ermakov et al. 2012). In this paper, we describe the results of a passive technique to find eggs within sea turtle nests using alert behaviors in trained detection dogs.

The use of detection dogs to locate hidden items is well documented (reviewed by Browne et al. 2006). Domestic dogs (Canis lupus familiaris) have a number of sensory capabilities, especially olfaction, which allow them to locate concealed objects relatively efficiently. Dogs are employed by governmental and commercial enterprises to detect and locate disaster victims, explosives, contraband agricultural products, wood destroying insects, and a variety of other pests (Jezierski et al. 2016). Conservation use of detection dogs has included searching outgoing cargo to prevent introductions of invasive species, scat detection to locate and monitor imperiled wildlife, and direct scent detection of threatened birds. Surveys using conservation detection dogs have recently become accepted as an efficient means to gather monitoring data, particularly for elusive or low-density species (Reed et al. 2011) and subterranean animals (Waters et al. 2010). Dogs have been employed as the principal detection technique in population


studies involving tortoises (Cablk & Heaton 2006) and slider turtle nests (O’Keeffe 2009).

Although no study in the scientific literature describes the effectiveness of detection dogs in locating sea turtle eggs, this technique has been used in at least one instance. In Texas, Kemp’s ridley nests are translocated to protect them from vehicular traffic and other threats. There, D. Shaver has used a cairn terrier to verify locations of eggs so that they may be moved to a hatchery (https://www.tpwmagazine.com/archive/2009/apr/scout5/).

In our study, we examined a pilot effort to use a detection dog as part of a sea turtle conservation program undertaken in Vero Beach, Florida, USA. The study location was Disney’s Vero Beach Resort®, a nesting beach on Florida’s Atlantic coast that receives nesting loggerheads, green turtles, and leatherbacks. Our study took place during the 2015 and 2016 nesting seasons.

Prior to this study, a working dog was chosen by Pepe Peruyero, a dog handler with 24 years of experience, as part of a selection of dogs used for scent detection tasks. The dog in this study was “Captain Ron” (CR), a pocket (13 inch) beagle. This breed is commonly used for scent detection at airports, where the dog’s affable nature allows searches without unnerving passengers.

The target scent we chose as an odor stimulus to indicate sea turtle egg clutches was the oviductal fluid (cloacal mucus) exuded by sea turtles during oviposition. This mucus coats fresh eggs within a nest and is not likely to be associated with abandoned nesting attempts (false crawls). Swabs of mucus were collected from the cloacal vent of three loggerhead sea turtles as they laid eggs near our study beach. The swabs were broken off into 2 ml Nalgene vials, and transported

to a freezer within two hours. The samples were kept frozen until used for dog training.

In May 2015, scent training began for CR at age two. The training location was an inland facility in High Springs, (north-central) Florida. During training, a vial containing the mucus swab was opened to provide the training target scent. Initial odor imprinting employed a proprietary method. After imprinting, CR took part in trials where he was rewarded with a toy (rolled white hand towel) upon positive behaviors. To simulate field conditions, an artificial beach was created with sand and a variety of olfactory distractions. CR was trained to indicate the target scent location with a nose or forepaw, with a final response “alert” being a sit (sitting with eyes on the dog handler). This alert (see cover photo) would be the basis for the dog handler interpreting the target scent location. As CR’s training progressed, the target scent was offered in various hidden and buried locations.

In July 2015, following six weeks of training, CR and his designated handler, Pepe, began an initial test of CR’s egg-detection skills at the Disney’s Vero Beach Resort® study area and nearby beach. Prior to this, CR had never experienced an actual turtle egg or an ocean beach. CR was brought to seven fresh sea turtle crawls: three loggerhead nests, one loggerhead false crawl, one green turtle nest, and two green turtle false crawls. CR was also brought to three known loggerhead nests that were between one and six weeks old. Crawl species identification and nest determinations were made by a member of the research team with 30 years of nesting beach experience.

June July AugustLoggerhead Green turtle Loggerhead Green turtle Loggerhead Green turtle

Nest F/C Nest F/C Nest F/C Nest F/C Nest F/C Nest F/CCorrect 22 0 2 0 30 9 3 0 5 0 5 2

Incorrect 2 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Table 1. Detection dog alert accuracy at verified nests and false crawls (F/C, abandoned nesting attempts, with body pit). Correct dog determinations at nests had alerts, and correct determinations at false crawls had no alerts. The converse was true for incorrect determinations. Months of the trials were in 2016.

Figure 1. Detection dog alert horizontal distance to top eggs in 31 loggerhead nests (red circles) and 6 green turtle nests (green dots), plotted by ordinal date. The dotted line describes a significant (p < 0.01) linear relationship between alert distance and date.


Although CR’s alert behavior was to point a nose or paw, then sit, the dog could also indicate general interest in a scent area without pointing to a specific spot. These general indications were used by the handler to decide when a trial should end, normally within a minute of the dog’s first introduction to a site.

Results from this initial beach trial with fresh crawls showed good identification and location accuracy. The dog had no false positive alerts and no false negatives, and alert locations were all within 18 cm (horizontally) of the top egg location. CR did not show any alert at the weeks-old nest locations. We concluded that CR’s training on mucus swabs was sufficient to allow him to find fresh eggs in nests buried under 35-50 cm of beach sand. CR’s accuracy was 100%, both in correct positives (n = 4) and correct negatives (n = 3).

In May 2016, scent training continued for CR at age three. New mucus swab samples were collected from two loggerheads in May, and were frozen for later use as before. Dog training continued over a three-week period at the High Springs location. Following this, CR and his handler made weekly, 3-day visits to the study beach; June through mid-August. During these visits, CR’s behavior was shaped to focus alert locations on the nest area with the highest concentration of target scent. Throughout this effort, beach surveyors recorded alerts at crawls and noted the presence or absence of eggs, which was the basis for surveyors recording the alert location either a nest or false crawl. Alert locations were then marked by inserting a small vinyl flag with a PVC mast. When egg locations were determined in the nest, surveyors measured the horizontal distance between the flag at the sand surface and topmost egg (where one would dig to most directly access the clutch). These trials took place under a variety of wind and sand moisture conditions.

Surveyors in 2016 recorded CR’s alert responses at 69 loggerhead crawls and 12 green turtle crawls (Table 1). Of these, horizontal distance between alert and egg locations was measured in 37 nests (Fig. 1). We defined a false positive response from the dog as an alert exhibited at a putative false crawl (where eggs could not be found by the surveyors). We defined a false negative as the absence

of an alert at a nest where eggs were found. All of these incorrect determinations (n = 3) occurred during the initial weeks of training in 2016 (Table 1), with total false positive and false negative rates of 1.2% and 2.4%, respectively. Rates during the months of July and August were each 0.0%.

In nests of each species where CR gave an alert, the distance between the alert location and top eggs approached zero following the first month of sampling (Fig. 1). The mean alert-to-egg distance for July and August was 3 cm, a value that is insignificantly different from zero given the width of the hole typically dug to locate eggs in a nest.

An ancillary benefit to having a detection dog as part of a conservation program may be the availability of the dog for outreach efforts. Animals in commercial advertising are well known to inspire positive human emotions and favorable message receptivity (Lancendorfer et al. 2008). In terms of conservation messaging, this means that a dog’s association with sea turtle conservation presentations might make participants more likely to absorb information about solutions to threats, adopt desired behaviors, and transmit conservation messages to others.

Both within and outside of the sea turtle nesting season, we incorporated CR into a variety of conservation outreach events (Fig. 2). These included Earth Day celebrations at Epcot® and Disney’s Animal Kingdom®, presentations and photo opportunities at Disney’s Vero Beach Resort®, and Tour de Turtles®, which is an annual event held in conjunction with the Sea Turtle Conservancy at the resort beach. At each of these events, CR took part in skits and displayed learned behaviors that showcased how the public can play a role in reducing threats to sea turtles, including reducing litter and keeping nesting beaches naturally dark. In a single year (2016), over 2,800 people directly took part in the events listed above. Live feeds on social media from a single event alone (Tour de Turtles 2016) reached close to a million people. A video produced to showcase CR and his conservation role received a tremendous following (www.youtube.com/watch?v=-Y9yCzdLrRo). We have plans to measure effects that a working-dog, “Conservation Ambassador” might have on the effectiveness of sea turtle conservation messages.

Our conclusions highlight the value of a detection dog for research, monitoring and conservation on sea turtle nesting beaches. Based on this study, we have recommendations for others wishing to explore this kind of program asset:

1. The choice of oviductal fluid as a target scent for training was beneficial. Imprinting and training with mucus from a single species (loggerhead) allowed the dog to locate both loggerhead and green turtle eggs in initial trials. Collection of mucus samples is not destructive to eggs, which benefits conservation and ease of permitting. As a target scent, the mucus can be preserved by freezing, but the odor apparently diminishes in beach nests so that the scent from older nests does not compete with fresh nests in detection trials. This is helpful on high density nesting beaches. In our study, there were at least two cases where the dog gave accurate alerts to fresh nests directly adjacent to older nests, which were ignored.

2. We conclude that a scent detection dog can be an effective tool used to find eggs in nests for research and conservation purposes. In most cases, alert locations would allow surveyors to dig directly down into the top of the clutch within

Figure 2. Captain Ron greets kids from the Boys & Girls Clubs of America, at the 2016 Tour de Turtles conservation outreach event at Disney’s Vero Beach Resort®. Nearly a million people experienced this event through social media.


approximately one minute. The same task without the aid of a detection dog can take a half hour or longer.

3. We hypothesize that there are unique benefits to incorporating a detection dog into sea turtle conservation outreach. In a later study, we plan to examine effects from a dog on effectiveness of conservation messages.

Acknowledgments. We thank those who helped inspire this project, including Joe Schott, Tom Hopkins, Courtney Carroll, and John Fulton. Fieldwork was aided by Alisha Fredrickson, Jeff Halter, Jerry Brown, Kari Van Nevel, Mike Lebanik, Mike Taylor, Rob Carlson, Ecological Associates, Inc., and the University of Central Florida Marine Turtle Research Group. The Sea Turtle Conservancy is the principal organizer of Tour de Turtles; we greatly appreciate their support. We thank the talented Katie Roser and Mary Kay Sweeney for their design and creation of CR’s working vest. We offer thanks to the delightful Cast Members of Disney’s Vero Beach Resort, and to the Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission for their marine turtle permitting assistance. BROWNE, C., K. STAFFORD & R. FORDHAM. 2006. The use

of scent-detection dogs. Irish Veterinary Journal 59: 97.CABLK, M.E. & J.S. HEATON. 2006. Accuracy and reliability

of dogs in surveying for desert tortoise (Gopherus agassizii). Ecological Applications 16: 1926-1935.

ERMAKOV, V., A. DUBRAWSKI, T. DOHI, J. HODGINS & A. SAVAGE. 2012. Mining sea turtle nests: an amplitude independent feature extraction method for GPR data. In: 14th International Conference on Ground Penetrating Radar (GPR). Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers, Shanghai. pp. 393-398.

JEZIERSKI, T., J. ENSMINGER & L.E. PAPET. 2016. Canine Olfaction Science and Law: Advances in Forensic Science,

Medicine, Conservation, and Environmental Remediation. CRC Press. Boca Raton, Florida. 482pp.

LANCENDORFER K.M., J.L. ATKIN & B.B. REECE. 2008. Animals in advertising: Love dogs? Love the ad! Journal of Business Research 61: 384-391.

LIMPUS, C.J., V. BAKER, & J.D. MILLER. 1979. Movement induced mortality of loggerhead eggs. Herpetologica 35: 335-338.

O’KEEFFE, S. 2009. The practicalities of eradicating red-eared slider turtles (Trachemys scripta elegans). Aliens: The Invasive Species Bulletin 28: 19-25.

RATNASWAMY, M.J., R.J. WARREN, M.T. KRAMER & M.D. ADAM. 1997. Comparisons of lethal and nonlethal techniques to reduce raccoon depredation of sea turtle nests. Journal of Wildlife Management 61: 368-376.

REED, S.E., A.L. BIDLACK, A. HURT & W.M. GETZ. 2011. Detection distance and environmental factors in conservation detection dog surveys. Journal of Wildlife Management 75: 243-251.

WATERS, J., S. O’CONNOR, K.J. PARK & D. GOULSON. 2010. Testing a detection dog to locate bumblebee colonies and estimate nest density. Apidologie 42: 200-205.

WITHERINGTON, B., P. KUBILIS, B. BROST & A. MEYLAN. 2009. Decreasing annual nest counts in a globally important loggerhead sea turtle population. Ecological Applications 19: 30-54.

WITHERINGTON, B. & D. WITHERINGTON. 2015. Our Sea Turtles: A Practical Guide for the Atlantic and Gulf, from Canada to Mexico. Pineapple Press. Sarasota, FL. 296pp.


A Preliminary Study on the Sea Turtle Density in Mauritius

Marina Reyne1, Imogen Webster2 & Annette Huggins3

1Durrell Conservation Training Ltd (E-mail: [email protected]); 2Mauritius Marine Conservation Society, c/o Mauritius Underwater Group, Railway Road Phoenix, Mauritius. (E-mail: [email protected]);

3Whitstable, Kent, UK (E-mail: aehuggins @conservation-gis.org)

Figure 1. Map of Mauritius indicating sites and distribution of survey effort and turtle sightings.

Two species of sea turtle are regularly seen off the coast of Mauritius: the hawksbill turtle (Eretmochelys imbricata) and the green turtle (Chelonia mydas). The hawksbill turtle population suffered an over 80% reduction in its population size over the last century (Meylan & Donnelly 1999). Initially, the species was listed as Endangered by the IUCN Red List, but in 1996 the status was changed to Critically Endangered (www.iucnredlist.org). The green turtle is a more frequently encountered species in the Indian Ocean and is listed as Endangered (www.iucnredlist.org). For the last few decades, the population of green and hawksbill turtles has drastically declined throughout the Indian Ocean due to human activities (Shanker 2004). Changes in the turtle population may be more dramatic than expected due to lack of historical data regarding species ranges and densities (McClenachen et al. 2006). In Mauritius one of the main threats to the sea turtle population is degradation of nesting and foraging habitats. Both species are heavily reliant on the coral reef ecosystem (Turner & Klaus 2007). Unfortunately, 80% of the reef habitats in Mauritius were calculated to be at risk due to anthropogenic activities (Turner & Klaus 2007). Overexploitation of marine resources, targeted hunting and pressure from tourism development, such as removal of sea grass beds and coral destruction have further depleted sea turtle populations over the past decades (Fagoonee 1990; Daby 2003). In the past, Mauritius was an important nesting area for sea turtles. Due to the high development of the coastlines and loss of suitable beaches, the last recorded nests were from the 1970s. There was a single observation in 2007 in the south of the country. Since 2007, no other successful nesting attempts were recorded (Koonjul 2009). Both turtle species in Mauritius are protected by the Fisheries and Marine Resources Act, which prohibits harvest and selling of marine turtles. However, around 500 sea turtles are harvested in Mauritius annually, according to the Mauritius Marine Conservation Society (MMCS 2002). In 2000, turtle artifacts were still found for sale in Rodrigues and St. Brandon (MMCS 2002). On the outer islands of St. Brandon, there was still evidence of harvesting as recently as 2006 (Griffiths & Tatayah 2007) and on Agalega in 2013 (Webster & Cadinouche 2013). In addition to the direct harvest, incidental capture in fisheries can also be an important source of mortality (Kiszka 2012). Another alarming threat is the high level of boat traffic that is directly responsible for turtle deaths. In 2012 four dead turtles were recorded in Black River Bay, three of which had injuries consistent with boat impact (Webster 2013). Monitoring sea turtle population trends and recognizing high aggregation sites is essential for species survival given the increase of anthropogenic pressures in coastal waters. Currently, there are no standardized methods for turtle monitoring or reliable data on sea turtle density in Mauritius (Bourjea et al. 2008). In 2013, MMCS started a project aiming for a better understanding of the marine megafauna diversity in Mauritius. The current study presents the preliminary results of surveys conducted in 2013 and 2014 as part of the Biodiversity

Project. The main goal was to estimate the density of hawksbill and green turtles and to map their sightings.

Mauritius is a volcanic island in the Indian Ocean approximately 2,000 km off the coast of Africa. The island is surrounded by 240.4 km2 of coral reefs (Turner & Klaus 2007). The study area is focused on the coastal waters along the edge of the coral reef to a maximum of four km offshore (> 1000m depth). Two week-long surveys were conducted around the entire island in addition to more concentrated effort in three specific areas: Trou aux Biches (between Grand Bay and Port Louis), the North (between the mainland and two offshore islands: Gabriel and Flat Island) and Mahebourg lagoon in southeast Mauritius (Fig. 1). The current study was part of a larger project focused on cetacean populations, so the specific areas were chosen based on previous cetacean sightings.

Line transect surveys were conducted in 2013 and 2014. Observations were made from a number of different vessels including a 14-m catamaran, a 5-m dual engine pirogue (traditional fishing boat) and speed boats. The average speed of surveys was kept relatively consistent despite using different boats, and varied between 9.5 km/h and 13.5 km/h. A transect was defined as each ‘on-effort’ track. Therefore, on each day there could be several transects of varying length. As the primary focus of the study was cetaceans, the transects depended on marine mammal sightings that occurred. In addition, surveys were abandoned if sea conditions and/or visibility deteriorated, as such no transects were repeated.


Figure 2. Detection probability function.

In general surveys focused on the area behind the reef out to the 50 m contour although deviations were sometimes necessary into deeper water to avoid fishing activities (fish traps with buoys). However, when time and sea conditions allowed, surveys were extended out as far as the 2,000 m depth contour. In general, between two and six observers scanned the ocean for megafauna. Environmental variables that could affect detectability, including Beaufort sea state, swell and cloud cover (oktas) were recorded every 15 minutes and for all sightings. When possible, the depth at the boat was recorded for each sighting. The vessel was not stopped or diverted for turtle sightings to avoid double counts.

The sampling effort differed at the three locations. More surveys were done at the North area compared to the other two locations since this area is known to have more cetacean and boating activity and likely to have more impacts on cetacean and turtle populations. The angle and distance from the boat to the sea turtle were estimated. The turtle sighting locations were recorded using a global positioning system (GPS) device. For each sample location, a density estimation of sea turtle populations was created using standard distance sampling in DISTANCE 6.0 (Thomas et al. 2010). The perpendicular distance was calculated from the angle and the distance to the boat. Right truncation was used to delete unreliable data and outliers that are hard to model; this included the largest 5% of the distances. Only one observation in Mahebourg lagoon at a distance of 148 m was removed from the analysis. The data were grouped into six intervals of 10-m distances for a better fit of the model. The detection probability function was modeled for the whole data set as we expect the same detection probability at all sites given the average sea conditions. Densities were then calculated for each location. Half-normal key function with cosine series expansion was used in the model (Fig. 2).

In total, 115 on-effort transects were conducted opportunistically, covering an area of over 400 km2. This included 36 transects covering the circumference of the island; 15 transects in Mahebourg lagoon, 47 transects in the North area, and 17 transects at Trou aux Biches. During the survey, 75 sightings of turtles were recorded (Fig. 1). On average for all surveys and sites sea conditions were good (Beaufort < 3, mean = 2) and swell was less than one meter. Cloud cover averaged 3.6 oktas during the study period. Depth was recorded for 76% (n = 57) of sightings. Turtles were seen at depths ranging from 2 m to more than 60 m (n = 5) with an overall mean of 19.2

m (n = 52). In 57% (n = 43) of cases, the turtle species was not identified due to distance and the short surfacing time. The remaining sightings included 27 green turtles and 5 hawksbill turtles; 45% of the records (34 sightings) were from the surveys around the whole island. Trou aux Biches had the greatest number of sightings with 21 turtles observed, while there were 16 in the North area and four at Mahebourg.

According to the DISTANCE results, the highest density of sea turtles was in Trou aux Biches with 0.87 turtles per km2, while the lowest density was at Mahebourg with 0.20 turtles per km2. The results from the island perimeter surveys and the North area indicate densities of 0.47 and 0.40 turtles per km2, respectively (Table 1).

The study was designed to provide preliminary results for the sea turtle density in Mauritius. We were not able to provide separate density estimates for the two species of marine turtles as it is difficult to identify species at sea even for well trained and experienced observers. According to the results of this study the green turtle was the species more often recorded. However, this result may be related to the bigger size of the species, greater abundance and higher detection probability due to behavioral differences between the species (National Research Council 2010).

The results demonstrate that Trou aux Biches had the highest turtle density. This may be associated with food availability and shelter in the area. Coral ecosystems at this site have remained relatively stable with little change in coral cover (Ahamada et al. 2002). The area includes the Balaclava Marine Park, which was gazetted in 1997. Based on the results, we can assume that the area is an important site for sea turtle aggregation. However, more detailed and systematic research, that includes other important bay areas like Black River Bay (Webster 2013), is needed for more reliable results. In the North area, the most turtle sightings were recorded around the two offshore islands: Gabriel and Flat. The aggregation of sea turtles in the area may be related to a possible nesting site. Gabriel Island is uninhabited and has suitable nesting beaches while Flat has suitable beaches and a small number of Coast Guard personnel are the only permanent human presence on the island. There are however, daily boat trips taking guests to a restaurant and barbeque facilities on both islands. During the course of routine monitoring trips MMCS staff have observed evidence of turtle nesting activity on these islands in the form of body pits. There have also been similar body pit observations made by other wildlife conservation organizations and reports of hatchlings from locals and the Coast Guard.

As with most marine animals, sea turtles can be difficult to survey, especially in Mauritius where little or no nesting activity is observed and the use of sampling methods like female nesting counts is impossible. The density estimation results presented here are the minimum (surface) densities of the species. We were not able to sample all the turtles on the transect line as the submerged animals were missed. For future analyses we recommend estimating a multiplier for the DISTANCE analyses as a proportion of time spent above and below the surface for each species (Beavers & Ramsey 1998). Furthermore, the sampling effort at the different locations were not standardized, which may also be a source of bias for the density estimations. Transects were conducted opportunistically according to the weather conditions and availability of resources. Moreover, the surveys were part of a broader Biodiversity Project and sometimes the research vessel followed marine mammals in

Distance in meters

Det

ectio

n pr

obab

ility

0 10 20 30 40 50 60

1.0

0.8

0.6

0.4

0.2

0


order to observe their behavior. It is difficult to predict how well an in-water survey represents the true density of marine species. Using integrated methods like line transect surveys and satellite telemetry may provide a better understanding of habitat use and provide linkages between surface densities and the characteristics of the study areas (National Research Council 2010).

Within the region, there is a lack of knowledge from Mauritius and the isolated islands of Rodrigues, Agalega and St. Brandon with regards to nesting, and the importance of these areas, their status, and their relation to the known regional management units. In addition, there is limited knowledge on recruitment, site preference and selection within Mauritius as well as spatial dynamics of oceanic migrations within the region. However, the current preliminary study is providing the first estimates of sea turtle densities in Mauritius, which can be used as a baseline for future research and conservation efforts. A broader survey on marine turtles is essential for a better understanding of the conservation status in the country and adequate protection of the species. Identification of important turtle sites is needed in order to provide more adequate protection of the species as well as for the coral reef. Sea turtles play an essential role in sea grass communities and coral reef ecosystems (Pandolfi et al. 2003). Their decline can lead to dramatic changes in food webs and the entire marine ecosystem (Bjorndal & Jackson 2003). The Mauritius Marine Conservation Society, along with other local marine NGOs, is working to raise the public awareness regarding the importance of the sea turtles and to develop further research (Webster 2013). MMCS is actively working toward an adequate and effective sea turtle conservation management in Mauritius. Acknowledgments. We thank all the volunteers of the Mauritius Marine Conservation Society who contributed to the data collection. Thanks to the Global Environment Facility - Small Grants Programme for providing funding, and local partners for both Corporate Social Responsibility contributions and logistical support. Also, thanks to the skippers/boat owners who provided access to boats in the different areas. Thank you to Albion Fisheries Research Centre Government of Mauritius for approving the Biodiversity

Project “Study on the biodiversity and abundance of cetaceans around Mauritius” and providing the necessary permit (F 20/2/5). AHAMADA, S., L. BIGOT, J. BIJOUX, J. MAHARAVO, S.

MEUNIER, M. MOYNE-PICARD & N. PAUPIAH. 2002. Status of coral reefs in the South West Indian Ocean Island Node: Comoros, Madagascar, Mauritius, Reunion and Seychelles. In: Wilkinson, C.R. (Ed.) Status of Coral Reefs of the World: 2002. Australian Institute of Marine Science, Townsville. pp. 79-100.

BEAVERS, S.C. & F.M. RAMSEY. 1998. Detectability analysis in transect surveys. Journal of Wildlife Management 62: 948-957.

BJORNDAL, K.A. & J.B.C. JACKSON. 2003. Roles of sea turtles in marine ecosystems: reconstructing the past. In: Lutz, PL., J.A. Musick & J. Wynken (Eds.) Biology of Sea Turtles. Volume II. CRC Press, Boca Raton, Florida. pp. 259–273.

BOURJEA, J., R. NEL, N.S. JIDDAWI, M.S. KOONJUL & G. BIANCHI. 2008. Sea turtle bycatch in the Western Indian Ocean: Review, recommendations and research priorities. Western Indian Ocean Journal of Marine Science 7: 137-150.

DABY, D. 2003. Effects of seagrass bed removal for tourism purposes in a Mauritian bay. Environmental Pollution 125: 313- 324.

FAGOONEE, I. 1990. Coastal marine ecosystems of Mauritius. Hydrobiologia 208: 55-62.

GRIFFITHS, O. & V. TATAYAH. 2007. Rapid survey of marine turtles in Agalega, Western Indian Ocean. Marine Turtle Newsletter 115: 14-15.

KISZKA, J. 2012. Bycatch assessment of vulnerable megafauna in coastal artisanal fisheries in the southwest Indian Ocean. Final Report to the South West Indian Ocean Fisheries Project. 113pp.

KOONJUL, M. 2009. Green turtle nesting at Gris Gris beach in Mauritius. Indian Ocean Turtle Newsletter 9: 25-27.

MCCLENACHEN, L., J.B.C. JACKSON & M.J.H. NEWMAN. 2006. Conservation implications of historic turtle nesting beach loss. Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment 4: 290-296.

Location Size (km2) Surveys Transects Sightings Estimate %CV d.f. 95% CIIsland 400 2 36 34

Density 0.47 18.28 77.28 0.33-0.67Abundance 188 18.28 77.28 131-270

Mahebourg bay 25 16 15 4Density 0.20 74.50 14.39 0.05-0.84

Abundance 5 74.50 14.39 1-21

North 17 24 47 16Density 0.40 31.81 53.50 0.22-0.75

Abundance 7 31.81 53.50 4-13

Grand Bay-Port Louis 80 16 17 21Density 0.88 24.60 22.09 0.53-1.45

Abundance 70 24.60 22.09 42-116Table 1. Density/abundance of sea turtles per site (% CV = coefficient of variation, d.f. = degrees of freedom, CI = confidence interval). Density measured as turtles per km2; abundance = number of turtles estimated per location.


Evidence of a Green Turtle Starting its Post-nesting Migration Without Laying All Its Vitellogenic Follicles

Nathan J. Robinson1,2, Frank V. Paladino2 & Pilar Santidrián Tomillo1,3

1The Leatherback Trust, Goldring-Gund Marine Biology Station, Playa Grande, Guanacaste, Costa Rica (E-mail: [email protected]); 2Department of Biology, Indiana University-Purdue University Fort Wayne, Fort Wayne, Indiana,

USA (E-mail: [email protected]); 3Population Ecology Group, Institut Mediterrani d’ Estudis Avançats, IMEDEA (CSIC-UIB), Miquel Marquès, 21, 07190, Esporles, Mallorca, Spain (E-mail: [email protected])

MEYLAN, A.B. & M. DONNELLY. 1999. Status justification for listing the hawksbill turtle (Eretmochelys imbricata) as Critically Endangered on the 1996 IUCN Red List of Threatened Species. Chelonian Conservation & Biology 3: 200-224.

MAURITIUS MARINE CONSERVATION SOCIETY (MMCS) 2002. Turtle Exploitation in Mauritius.Marine Turtle Newsletter 95: 21.

NATIONAL RESEARCH COUNCIL. 2010. Assessment of Sea-Turtle Status and Trends: Integrating Demography and Abundance. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.

PANDOLFI, J.M., R.H. BRADBURY, E. SALA, T.P. HUGHES, K.A. BJORNDAL, R.G. COOKE, D. MCARDLE, L. MCCLENACHAN, M.J. NEWMAN, G. PAREDES, R.R. WARNER & J.B. JACKSON. 2003. Global trajectories of the long-term decline of coral reef ecosystems. Science 301: 955-958.

SHANKER, K. 2004. Marine turtle status and conservation in the Indian Ocean. FAO Fisheries Report 738 Supplement: 85-134.

THOMAS, L., S.T. BUCKLAND, E.A. REXSTAD, J.L. LAAKE, S. STRINDBERG, S.L. HEDLEY, J.R.B. BISHOP, T.A. MARQUES & K.P. BURNHAM. 2010. Distance software: design and analysis of distance sampling surveys for estimating population size. Journal of Applied Ecology 47: 5-14.

TURNER, J. & R. KLAUS. 2007. Coral Reefs of the Mascarenes, Western Indian Ocean, Progress in Physical Geography 31: 421-434.

WEBSTER, I. 2013. Observations of green and hawksbill turtles on the southwest coast of Mauritius. Marine Turtle Newsletter 138: 15-17.

WEBSTER, I. & A. CADINOUCHE. 2013. Agalega Expedition Report: Summary of results with recommendations for management, research and monitoring. Report to the Outer Island Development Corporation. 27pp.

Ultrasonography is an invaluable tool for non-invasively monitoring the reproductive status of a wide-variety of organisms. In sea turtles, ultrasonography can be used to infer whether a nesting female will continue to lay more clutches of eggs in a given nesting season or whether she will begin migrating to post-nesting foraging areas (Blanco et al. 2012; Robinson 2014; Patel et al. 2015). Specifically, if multiple (> 10) vitellogenic follicles are present it is assumed that the turtle will lay one or more clutches that season. Alternatively, if only a few (< 10) vitellogenic follicles are present and there are numerous atretic follicles, it is assumed that the turtle will not nest further and will shortly begin its post-nesting migration (Rostal et al. 1996; Blanco et al. 2012). These assumptions appear logical, as it would appear to be a waste of time and energy for a nesting turtle to not shell and lay those vitellogenic follicles that have already been produced if there are presumably enough for a successful nest. Here, however, we used a combination of satellite telemetry and ultrasonography to describe an occurrence of a green sea turtle that began its post-nesting migration with numerous unlaid vitellogenic follicles still present in its ovaries. We also provide four potential hypotheses to explain this phenomenon.

We were conducting a study that employed satellite telemetry to uncover the inter-nesting movements of the green turtles nesting on Playa Cabuyal on the Pacific coast of Costa Rica. To determine whether nesting turtles had more clutches to lay that season, and

decide which females would be suitable for the attachment of a satellite transmitter, we scanned the ovaries of each turtle using a Sonosite 180 Plus real-time portable ultrasound (Sonosite, Bothell, Washington, USA). On 9 March 2015, which is towards the end of the nesting season for green turtles at Playa Cabuyal (August to April, Santidrián Tomillo et al. 2015), we encountered a turtle that had >10 vitellogenic follicles in both ovaries (Fig. 1). In addition, there was no evidence that atretic follicles were present and, as identified by her PIT tags, this was the first clutch that this turtle has been observed laying this season. Assuming that this turtle would therefore lay a subsequent clutch, we decided to deploy a SPOT5 satellite transmitter on the turtle (Wildlife Computers, Redmond, Washington, USA) (for details on the transmitter attachment see Clyde-Brockway 2014). The satellite tracking data were relayed using the Argos Satellite System and daily location estimates were generated using a Bayesian State Space Model as described in Jonsen et al. (2013).

Inter-nesting green turtles generally stay close to the nesting beach (Blanco et al. 2013, Clyde-Brockway 2014); however, this turtle immediately migrated north from Cabuyal and continued on a northerly trajectory for 17 d (Fig. 2). During this time, the turtle traveled at an average speed of 26 km d-1, covering a total distance of 400 km. In addition, there were no high-quality locations (Location Class 1, 2, or 3) that would indicate that the turtle returned to land to


nest again. Eventually the turtle reached the northern extent of the mouth of the Gulf of Fonseca, which has been identified as the most common foraging areas for the green turtles that nest on Cabuyal (Clyde-Brockway 2014). Upon reaching the Gulf of Fonseca on 26 March 2015, the turtle’s movement speed dropped to an average of 7 km d-1 and it appeared to take up residence. The turtle remained in the mouth of the Gulf of Fonseca for 4 days, until which point the transmitter stopped relaying information. Once again no high-quality locations were recorded over land in the Gulf of Fonseca that would suggest that the turtle was nesting here. In total, the transmitter was active for 21 days.

The tracking data suggest that this turtle began its post-nesting migration immediately after it was encountered nesting on Playa Cabuyal. Thus, this turtle must have eventually atrophied and reabsorbed its remaining vitellogenic follicles. While we only provide evidence of a single animal that migrated without laying all of its available vitellogenic follicles, this may be a relatively common phenomenon in sea turtles. Indeed, other scientists have reported finding mature follicles in the ovaries of female turtles that have just returned from their breeding areas (Miller &Limpus 1993).

It is not immediately clear why a sea turtle would commence a post-nesting migration without laying all its vitellogenic follicles. Indeed, sea turtles invest significant resources into egg production (Wallace et al. 2006) and any vitellogenic follicle that is not laid could represent a waste of resources. Nevertheless, we suggest four non-mutually exclusive hypotheses to explain this phenomenon.

1) In sea turtles, vitellogenesis begins 8 to 11 months before ovulation (Rostal et al. 1998, Hamann et al. 2002). This means that females must allocate a large proportion of their resources to vitellogenesis before commencing their pre-nesting migrations. Sea turtles also commonly do not feed during the breeding season (Houghton et al. 2002; Plot et al. 2013). Gravid turtles may therefore run the risk of not retaining large enough energy stores to ensure survival during pre- and post-nesting migrations

if they over invest in egg-production. We propose that to safe-guard against over-investing in egg production, turtles might retain the ability to reabsorb some vitellogenic follicles if their energy reserves drop below a threshold value. By reabsorbing the vitellogenic follicles, it might be possible to mobilize the resorbed lipids for other metabolic needs (Kuchling & Bradshaw 1993) or

Figure 1. Ultrasonographic images of left and right ovaries of an East Pacific green turtle immediately after nesting on Playa Cabuyal, Costa Rica and before it began its post-nesting migration. In both images, numerous vitellogenic follicles (vf) may be seen. Depth of the image is 20 cm. As the image is cross-sectional, it does not capture all the vitellogenic follicles that were observed in the ovary.

Figure 2. Post-nesting migration of an East Pacific green turtle from Cabuyal, Costa Rica. The large black circles represent the tagging location and the white circles represent subsequent daily locations.


reduce the time spent in the nesting area by not laying an entire clutch of eggs. If this is the case, then it might be expected that turtles would pre-emptively begin their post-nesting migrations and would also exhibit signs of emaciation, which were not observed in this instance. 2) Egg production, ovulation, and the initiation of migratory behavior all appear to be influenced by the production of a mix of hormones, including follicle-stimulating hormone, luteinizing hormone, progesterone, and testosterone (Wibbels et al. 1990; Wibbels et al. 1992). If there is a premature change in the hormones instigating migration, then turtles might migrate with many remaining vitellogenic follicles.3) Shelling vitellogenic follicles requires a substantial investment of calcium (Bilinski et al. 2001). Thus, turtles might occasionally not shell all vitellogenic follicles in order to prevent calcium depletion and thus maintain healthy Ca:P ratios.4) The epoxy method for attaching satellite transmitters, as used in this study, requires that the turtle is restrained for approximately 45 minutes to let the epoxy harden. It is possible that the handling stress could have elicited a ‘flight’ response in the nesting turtle causing it to return prematurely to its foraging area and abandon any attempts at future nesting events.We recommend that future studies assess the regularity of sea

turtles migrating with numerous vitellogenic follicles in combination with evaluations of physiologic status (e.g., body condition, blood chemistry, hormone levels, etc.) to conclusively determine if this is a common phenomenon and to explain its biological function. Understanding how sea turtles balance the costs of reproduction and survival could explain much about sea turtles’ life-history.Acknowledgements. Jennifer Swiggs provided assistance in the field. We thank Roger Blanco and the Area de Conservación Guanacaste for supporting this research. Financial support for this project was provided by Seeds of Change and The Leatherback Trust. The study was conducted under research permits from The Ministry of Environment and Energy (MINAE) of Costa Rica (#ACG-PI-050-2014). This research was performed in accordance with the Purdue University Animal Care and Use Committee.BILINSKI, J.J., R.D. REINA, J.R. SPOTILA & F.V. Paladino.

2001. The effects of nest environment on calcium mobilization by leatherback turtle embryos (Dermochelys coriacea) during development. Comparative Biochemistry and Physiology A 130: 151-162.

BLANCO, G.S., S.J. MORREALE, E. VÉLEZ, R. PIEDRA, W.M. MONTES, F.V. PALADINO & J.R. SPOTILA. 2012. Reproductive output and ultrasonography of an endangered population of East Pacific green turtles. Journal of Wildlife Management 76: 841-846.

BLANCO, G.S., S.J. MORREALE, J.A. SEMINOFF, F.V. PALADINO, R. PIEDRA & J.R. SPOTILA. 2013. Movements and diving behavior of internesting green turtles along Pacific Costa Rica. Integrative Zoology 8: 293-306.

CLYDE-BROCKWAY, C.E. 2014. Inter-nesting and post-nesting movements and behavior of East Pacific green turtles (Chelonia mydas agassizii) from Playa Cabuyal, Guanacaste, Costa Rica.MS Thesis, Indiana University-Purdue University Fort Wayne.

HAMANN, M., C.L. LIMPUS & J.M. WHITTIER. 2002. Patterns of lipid storage and mobilisation in female green sea turtles (Chelonia mydas). Journal of Comparative Physiology B 172: 485-493.

HOUGHTON, J.D.R., A.C. BRODERICK, B.J. GODLEY & J.D. METCALFE. 2002. Diving behaviour during the internesting interval for loggerhead turtles Caretta caretta nesting in Cyprus. Marine Ecology Progress Series 227: 63-70.

JONSEN, I.D., M. BASSON, S. BESTLEY, M.V. BRAVINGTON, T.V. PATTERSON, M.W. PEDERSEN, R. THOMSON, U.H. THYGESEN & S.J. WOTHERSPOON. 2013. State-space models for bio-loggers: a methodological road map. Deep Sea Research II 88-89: 34-46.

KUCHLING, G. & S.D. BRADSHAW. 1993. Ovarian cycle and egg production of the western swamp tortoise Pseudemydura umbrina (Testudines: Chelidae) in the wild and in captivity. Journal of Zoology 229: 405-419.

MILLER, J.D. & C.J. LIMPUS. 2003. Ontogeny of marine turtle gonads. In: Lutz, P.L., J.A. Musick & J. Wyneken. (Eds.) The Biology of Sea Turtles, Vol II. CRC Press, Boca Raton, FL. pp. 199-225.

PATEL, S.H., A. PANAGOPOULOU, S.J. MORREALE, S.S. KILHAM, I. KARAKASSIS, T. RIGGALL, D. MARGARITOULIS & J.R. SPOTILA. 2015. Differences in size and reproductive output of loggerhead turtles (Caretta caretta) nesting in the Eastern Mediterranean Sea linked to foraging site. Marine Ecology Progress Series 535: 231-241.

PLOT, V., T. JENKINS, J.-P. ROBINS, S. FOSSETTE & J.-Y. GEORGES. 2013. Leatherback turtles are capital breeders: morphometric and physiological evidence from longitudinal monitoring. Physiological and Biochemical Zoology 86: 385-397.

ROBINSON, N.J. 2014. Migratory ecology of sea turtles. Ph.D. Thesis, Purdue University, West Lafayette, IN. 167p.

ROSTAL, D.C., F.V. PALADINO, R.M. PATTERSON & J.R. SPOTILA. 1996. Reproductive physiology of nesting leatherback turtles (Dermochelys coriacea) at Las Baulas National Park, Costa Rica. Chelonian Conservation & Biology 2: 230-236.

ROSTAL, D.C., D.W. OWENS, J.S. GRUMBLES, D.S. MACKENZIE & M.S. AMOSS Jr. 1998. Seasonal reproductive cycle of the Kemp’s ridley sea turtle (Lepidochelys kempii). General and Comparative Endocrinology 109: 232-243.

WALLACE, B.P., S.S. KILHAM, F.V. PALADINO & J.R. SPOTILA. 2006. Energy budget calculations indicate resource limitation in Eastern Pacific leatherback turtles. Marine Ecology Progress Series 318: 263-270.

WIBBELS, T., D.W. OWENS, C. LIMPUS, P.C. REED & M.S. AMOSS JR. 1990. Seasonal changes in gonadal steroid concentrations associated with migration, mating, and nesting in loggerhead sea turtles. General and Comparative Endocrinology 79: 154-164.

WIBBELS, T., D.W. OWENS, P. LIGHT, C. LIMPUS, P.C. REED & M.S. AMOSS, Jr. 1992. Serum gonadotropins and gonadal steroids associated with ovulation and egg production in sea turtles. General and Comparative Endocrinology 87: 77-78.


Community Participation in Sea Turtle Conservation in Karimunjawa National Park, Central Java, Indonesia

Susi Sumaryati & KuswadiKarimunjawa National Park, Ministry of Environment and Forestry, Semarang, Indonesia (E-mail: [email protected])

In conservation, it is important to have a working relationship with communities. Traditionally, fishers have knowledge of the surrounding area. Excluding or limiting potential beneficiaries from using common-pool resources is a nontrivial problem due to many causes (Ostrom et al. 1994). According to Kelleher (1999), co-management is a link between the government’s interest for protected areas with the needs of the community around it. Sharing responsibility between state and community is a collaborative management effort. However, the balance of power and responsibility is unstable. Co-management will succeed if there is willingness, capacity, credibility, leadership, community cohesiveness, incentives, commitment and historic relationships between the government and user groups (Campbell et al. 2009).

Karimunjawa National Park is located along the northern coast of the Java Sea, covering an area of 111,625 Ha. The sub-district is divided into four villages. More than 80% of the inhabitants work as fishers. Karimunjawa is a priority management area due to its five unique ecosystems: coral reefs, sea grass, shoreline forest, mangroves and low land tropical rain forest. Most of the islands are characterized by white sand beaches and are slightly sloped. Fringing reefs around the island provide the island with protection. There are several conservation programs that involve the community that were implemented by the national park. Groups of community members are established based on economic backgrounds, species conservation programs, and livelihoods. One of the programs focuses on sea turtle conservation. The aim of this program is to increase stakeholder awareness of the importance of conserving sea turtles and their habitats.

Fishers in Karimunjawa are categorized as artisanal fishers. Their daily income varies due to weather conditions, currents, waves, and fish migration. The income of fishers is around Rp. 500,000 - 1,000,000 /day ($42 - 83) in good periods. With this income, it is not possible to lift the economic condition of the family as a whole and the fisher’s financial management capability is low. Fishers find it difficult to plan and manage their family income. Local fishers rely on the ability to borrow funds quickly to meet their daily needs. Unfortunately, they also spend the money quickly, and find it difficult to save money.

Sea turtle conservation has been carried out gradually in Karimunjawa National Park since 2003. The most common species of sea turtle found in Karimunjawa National Park is the hawksbill turtle (Eretmochelys imbricata). A major reason for the formation of the program was due to an apparent decline of the local sea turtle populations. The decline was mostly due to hunting by humans as well as natural predators such as eagles and lizards. Therefore, conservation measures needed to be integrated gradually. The Sea Turtle Conservation Program began with sea turtle identification and inventory. Some of the fishers had experience in successfully finding sea turtle nests. Indeed, sometimes park staff do not have the

skills for finding nests as well as fishers do. Therefore, this ability may be used to support a sea turtle conservation program. The interactions between the community and the environment generate close symbiotic relationships. The fishers’ abilities influence the program and the national park authorities recognize that participation by fishers plays an important role for the implementation of the program.

In order to protect sea turtle nests from predators and humans, Karimunjawa National Park built a semi-natural hatchery on the main island of Karimunjawa. Sea turtle nests are relocated from islands to the semi natural hatchery, to allow for effective monitoring of egg incubation. Sea turtles lay their eggs on 22 different islands in the park. It is expensive to monitor all islands. Initially, the national park provided guidance to fishers who reported the presence of turtle nests. Seeing the fishers becoming enthusiastic when reporting a nest, the national park staff taught the fishers how to relocate eggs from a nest from other islands to the hatchery on the central island. Fishers use their own boats and pay for their own fuel to go to the islands where sea turtle nesting occurs. As a tribute to the willingness of fishers to report nests, the national park provides a direct payment. The value of the direct payment is based on the distance from the main island to the island where the reported sea turtle nest is located. The amount of direct payment is between Rp 200,000 - 500,000 ($17 - 42 US).

Here is the illustration of the direct payment process: While most fishers stay on Karimunjawa island to catch fish around the coast, some must travel to other islands to seek other fishing opportunities. If fishers stay on a nesting island during the peak hawksbill breeding season (December - March), their opportunity to find a hawksbill nest increases. For example, it takes two hours to reach Burung Island from the main island, and if a fisher finds a new nest on Burung Island, he must report it to the national park. Together with the national park they put the eggs in a bucket and move them to the hatchery on Karimunjawa Island. The fuel used for this example is approximately 40 litres, because the entire trip involves travel from Karimunjawa to Burung to Karimunjawa to Burung to Karimunjawa. On the assumption that the cost of gasoline in Karimunjawa is Rp 10,000/L ($1/L), fishers will receive the direct payment for the fuel of Rp 400,000 ($40).

There were 428 nests reported by 63 fishers between 2003 - 2015 (Fig. 1). For the first few years, the number of nests reported by fishers increased, likely due to increasing interest of the fishers in the program. After the first few years, the number of nests reported/relocated fluctuated over time. There are two possibilities for this variation. First, it may reflect differences in experience and ability of individual fishers in finding sea turtle eggs. Not all fishers have the same ability for finding a nest and there are discrepancies in abilities among fishers. This not only may affect the ability of fishers to bring back eggs, but also may cause fishers to consider


an egg collection trip to be too costly, if they cannot find eggs (cost becomes the constraint for fisher to cooperate). A second reason may be that the variation in annual numbers of nests reported/relocated may reflect the seasonality and cyclical nature of sea turtle nesting. Sea turtles tend to have periodic nesting seasons on 4-year cycles (Marquez 1990). This may be the case even though there is not much evidence that nesting seasons at Karimunjawa cycles every 4 years.

The core of the sea turtle conservation program at Karimunjawa National Park is the participation of the fishers. It appears that the fishers’ reactions depend on the value of the reward. If the reward is greater than the cost, fishers will cooperate with the national park. This means that the national park should maintain the amounts of the rewards. Regarding the fishers’ ability, any discrepancy in the ability of individual fishers may influence the program. If the fishers’ skill of finding nests are not transmitted to others or to the younger generation, this may challenge the future sustainability of national park program. Currently, this model is successful and may be an example for other projects where fishers assist in conservation programs for sea turtles.

CAMPBELL L.M., J.J. SILVER, N.J. GRAY, S. RANGER, A. BRODERICK, T. FISHER, M.H. GODFREY, S. GORE, J. JEFFERS, C. MARTIN, A. MCGOWAN, P. RICHARDSON, C. SASSO, L. SLADE & B. GODLEY. 2009. Co-management of sea turtle fisheries: Biogeography versus geopolitics. Marine Policy 33: 137-145.

KELLEHER, G.1999. Guidelines for Marine Protected Areas. IUCN, Gland, Switzerland and Cambridge, UK. 107pp.

MARQUEZ, R. 1990. FAO Species Catalogue: Vol.11. Sea Turtles of The World. FAO of United Nations. Rome. 60pp.

OSTROM, E., R. GARDNER & J. WALKER. 1994. Rules, Games, and Common-Pool Resources. The University of Michigan Press. 387pp.

Figure 1. Hawksbill (n=428) and green (n=14) sea turtle nests relocated in Karimunjawa National Park with fisher participation, from 2003 - 2015.


A Long Migratory Record for a Small Post-Pelagic Hawksbill

Rainer G. von Brandis1, Jeanne A. Mortimer1,2,3, Casper van de Geer4 & James S. E. Lea1,5,6

1Save Our Seas Foundation - D’Arros Research Centre (SOSF-DRC), Rue Philippe Plantamour 20, CH-1201 Geneva, Switzerland (E-mail: [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]); 2Turtle Action Group of Seychelles

(TAGS), P.O. Box 1443, Victoria, Mahé, Seychelles; 3Department of Biology, University of Florida, Gainesville, Florida, USA; 4Local Ocean Conservation, Watamu, Kenya (E-mail: [email protected]); 5Marine Biological Association UK, The Laboratory,

Citadel Hill, Plymouth PL1 2PB, UK; 6Marine Research Facility, PO Box 10646, Jeddah, 21443, Saudi Arabia

We report on a long distance developmental migration of the smallest migrating post-pelagic hawksbill turtle (Eretmochelys imbricata) on record (Marcovaldi & Filippini 1991; Whiting & Koch 2006; Whiting et al. 2010). The turtle was first captured at St. Joseph Atoll, Seychelles, on 2 July 2013 as part of an acoustic tag deployment program. It measured 40.3 cm curved carapace length, notch to tip (CCL n-t) and 36.0 cm curved carapace width (CCW) and weighed 7.5 kg. Inconel 681 tags were affixed to both front flippers and a V13 acoustic transmitter (Vemco) was attached to the second rear marginal scute on the right using a combination of a cable tie (Seminoff et al. 2002) and epoxy (Hazel et al. 2013).

St. Joseph Atoll, situated on the Amirantes Bank of Seychelles, comprises a 2-7 m deep lagoon encircled by an uninterrupted reef flat that is mostly exposed on the low tide. An array of VR2W acoustic receivers (Vemco) was deployed by the Save Our Seas Foundation D’Arros Research Centre over several years in and around the atoll and at adjacent D’Arros Island at depths ranging between 1-7 m. The locations of these receivers are indicated in Fig. 1 along with the initial capture location of the turtle. Receivers in the deep lagoon and outside the atoll (Fig. 1) were deployed in August 2012 while those on the reef flats and seagrass beds (Fig. 1) were deployed in late November 2013. After the first encounter the turtle was captured by hand a second time, 26 days later on 28 July 2013, less than 200 m from its initial capture location. After that, the receiver array did not record its transmitter until 01 April 2014. During this 8.3-month period, the turtle appears to have either maintained a very

restricted home range within a blind spot of the array, or temporarily departed the atoll (behavior we have previously recorded for four other young hawksbills tagged at St. Joseph). Between April and October 2014, however, it was detected regularly (days detected = 97; longest period undetected = 13 days) (Fig. 1) and maintained a small home range of 1.8 km2 (minimum convex polygon) in an area of shallow, sparse seagrass where juvenile hawksbills are frequently encountered feeding on soft-bodied sponges and algae (von Brandis et al. 2014). The presence of a thick layer of soft silt on its carapace at the time of capture (Fig. 2) suggests that this turtle may have been residing within this seagrass area for at least several weeks prior to initial capture. Turtles encountered in the deeper lagoon and on the surrounding fringing reefs tend to have cleaner carapaces, apparently because the faster moving water of those habitats scours away the silt (R.G. von Brandis, pers. obs.).

No more detections of this turtle were logged at St. Joseph Atoll after 27 October 2014; but 11 months later on 3 October 2015, it was captured by local fishermen at Ngomeni village 22 km north of Malindi in Kenya, a straight-line distance of over 1,400 km from St. Joseph Atoll (Fig. 3). The fishermen delivered the unharmed turtle to Local Ocean Conservation through their Bycatch Release Program where it measured 41 cm (CCL n-t) and 36.5 cm (CCW) and weighed 6.7 kg. The turtle had grown only 0.7 cm in carapace length over the 27-month period since its initial capture and lost approximately 10% of its weight, possibly due to a shortage of food during its migration through mostly deep pelagic waters. The

Figure 1. St. Joseph Atoll and neighboring D’Arros Island, separated from each other by a 70-m deep channel. Dark grey represents land, light grey the reef flat (0-2 m depth), and white the inner lagoon (2-7 m depth). Crosses represent acoustic receiver locations and circles denote the number of days the turtle was detected at each receiver. Receivers in the inner lagoon and outside of the atoll where deployed in August 2012 and those on the reef flat in late November 2013. The closed triangle indicates the site of initial capture.


acoustic transmitter was still firmly attached giving testament to the efficacy of the tag attachment procedure.

The existence of ontogenetic shifts in habitat by marine turtles and of immature-dominated assemblages in developmental habitats are concepts first proposed by Carr & Caldwell (1956). Throughout Seychelles, including at D’Arros Island and St. Joseph Atoll (DAR/STJ), most coastal sea turtle foraging habitats host immature hawksbills with carapace lengths in the range of 30-66 cm (Mortimer 2004), and immature green turtles (Chelonia mydas) in the range of 30-70 cm (J.A. Mortimer, unpubl. data). Likewise, in the Caribbean, Meylan et al. (2011) confirmed the existence of foraging habitats utilized almost exclusively by juvenile turtles. In the Caribbean, however, departures of flipper tagged or satellite tagged green turtles

from developmental habitats were typically recorded for turtles only when they reached adolescence, beginning at 60-65 cm straight carapace length or SCL (Meylan et al. 2011).

In the Indian Ocean, other long distance migrations by immature hawksbills have been reported. In 2003 a satellite tagged juvenile hawksbill measuring 63.3 cm CCL and weighing 24 kg left Cocos Keeling and was last recorded more than 1,000 km westwards in the middle of the Indian Ocean (Whiting & Koch 2006). Another turtle first tagged at Cocos Keeling in 2003 at a size of 54.7 cm CCL was found dead five years later in a fishing net on the coast of Tanzania 6,100 km away (Whiting et al. 2010). A 70 cm hawksbill, flipper tagged at Providence Island in the southern Seychelles travelled 1,200 km to Pemba, Mozambique in the late 1990s (J.A. Mortimer,

Figure 2. When the turtle was captured on 2 July 2013 at St. Joseph Atoll, Seychelles, its carapace was laden with silt suggesting a home range restricted to the inside of the atoll (left). The number was painted (non-toxic) on its back during work-up. The acoustic tag (right) was still firmly attached when the turtle was captured at Ngomeni village 22 km north of Malindi, Kenya, 27 months later.

Figure 3. Map illustrating the 2 capture locations and the minimum distance travelled by the turtle between the initial capture site (St. Joseph Atoll) and the site of recapture 11 months later (Ngomeni). Map made with Maptool, a free tool from SEATURTLE.ORG, Inc. www.seaturtle.org/maptool/


unpubl. data). In the Atlantic Ocean, in 1990 a hawksbill measuring 74 cm SCL and weighing 40 kg migrated at least 3,680 km from Brazil to Senegal (Marcovaldi & Filippini 1991).

The extent to which these migrations were deliberate and the routes controlled by the turtles are unclear. In the case of our St. Joseph turtle, there are three arguments that support the notion of purposeful departure. 1) Prevailing meteorological and oceanographic factors at St. Joseph Atoll were not conducive to accidental displacement of turtles. Wind speeds did not exceed 57 km/h in 2013/2014, maximum current speed recorded to date is 1.56 km/h (R.G. von Brandis, unpubl. data), and the atoll has no channels that might sweep a small turtle into the open ocean on an outgoing tide. 2) Four other tagged turtles of similar size are known to have departed St. Joseph Atoll. Two acoustically-tagged turtles registered single detections at receivers more than 5 km away from the atoll, in 2014; and neither has been detected since. In addition, two flipper tagged juvenile hawksbills (measuring 38 cm CCL and 45 cm CCL) were each recorded foraging on the reef flats of both St. Joseph Atoll and D’Arros Island—within periods of two and four years, respectively at sites separated by straight line distances of 7.7 km and 5.5 km respectively. In fact, the smaller animal (38 cm CCL) was recorded at St. Joseph in 2006, at D’Arros in 2008, and then again at St. Joseph in 2010. It is noteworthy that D’Arros Island and St. Joseph Atoll are separated by a 70-m deep channel that is more than 1 km wide (Fig. 1). 3) The fact that juvenile hawksbill growth rates measured at DAR/STJ averaged only 1.1 cm per year (von Brandis 2011) suggests that forage quality is relatively poor.

We suspect that our turtle deliberately set out in search of better forage, but once beyond the rim of the atoll, being so small and possibly undernourished, may have been carried at least somewhat passively by prevailing westward currents until it reached the shallow foraging habitats off the East African coast. Our data provide evidence that small post-pelagic hawksbills may regularly engage in successive developmental migrations of varying distances over relatively short periods of time. Given the dramatic shift in their ontogeny from a pelagic to a benthic existence, it should not be surprising that their search for optimal foraging habitat may involve a certain level of trial and error behavior. Our data also highlight how precarious this transitional stage is in the life cycle of the turtles.

Acknowledgements. The authors thank and commend the fishermen who delivered this turtle unharmed to Local Ocean Conservation namely: Charo Suezi, Mohammed Bamkuu and Stephen Changawa. Chris Boyes, Kerryn Bullock, Scott Buckley, Fikiri Kiponda and Kahindi Changawa provided invaluable assistance during fieldwork. Funding for the work conducted at St. Joseph Atoll was generously provided by the Save Our Seas Foundation.CARR, A.F. & D.K. CALDWELL. 1956. The ecology and migration

of sea turtles. Results of field work in Florida, 1955. American Museum Novitates 1793: 1-23.

HAZEL, J., M. HAMANN & I.R. LAWLER. 2013. Home range of immature green turtles tracked at an offshore tropical reef using automated passive acoustic technology. Marine Biology 160: 617-627.

MARCOVALDI, M.A. & A. FILIPPINI. 1991. Trans-Atlantic movement by an immature hawksbill. Marine Turtle Newsletter 52: 3.

MEYLAN, P.A., A.B. MEYLAN & J.A. GRAY. 2011. The ecology and migrations of sea turtles. Tests of the developmental habitat hypothesis. Bulletin of the American Museum of Natural History 357: 1-70.

MORTIMER, J.A. 2004. Seychelles Marine Ecosystem Management Project (SEYMEMP): Turtle Component. Final Report. Vol 1: 243 p. Vol 2: Appendix 1-11, 158pp.

SEMINOFF, J.A., A. RESENDIZ & W.J. NICHOLS. 2002. Home range of green turtles (Chelonia mydas) at a coastal foraging area in the Gulf of California, Mexico. Marine Ecology Progress Series 242: 253-265.

VON BRANDIS, R.G. 2011. The ecology of foraging juvenile hawksbill turtles at D’Arros Island, Seychelles. Thesis Doctor Technologiae. Tshwane University of Technology, Pretoria, South Africa. 268pp.

VON BRANDIS, R.G., J.A. MORTIMER, R. VAN SOEST, B.K. REILLY & G. BRANCH. 2014. Diet composition of hawksbill turtles in the Republic of Seychelles. Western Indian Ocean Journal of Marine Science 13: 81-91.

WHITING, S.D. & A.U. KOCH. 2006. Oceanic movement of a benthic foraging juvenile hawksbill turtle from Cocos (Keeling) Islands. Marine Turtle Newsletter 112: 15-16.

WHITING, S.D., I. MACRAE, W. MURRAY, R. THORN, T. FLORES, C. JOYNSON-HICKS & S. HASHIM. 2010. Indian Ocean crossing by a juvenile hawksbill turtle. Marine Turtle Newsletter 129: 16.


Animal Mapping Using a Citizen-Science Web-Based GIS in the Bay Islands, Honduras

Dustin S. Baumbach1,2 & Stephen G. Dunbar1,2

1Protective Turtle Ecology Center for Training, Outreach, and Research, Inc. (ProTECTOR Inc.), Loma Linda, CA 92350 USA (E-mail: [email protected]; [email protected]); 2Marine Research Group, Department of Earth and Biological Sciences, Loma

Linda University, Loma Linda, CA 92350 USA

Mapping animal distributions on a large spatial scale may be important for recognizing movement patterns not immediately apparent on smaller scales (Catlin-Groves 2012). Habitat health and distribution on a regional scale may be an important factor for spatial management of endangered species. One example is the historic and current distribution of the koala (Phascolarctos cinereus) in the New South Wales region of Australia (Lunney et al. 2000). Mapping the spatial extent of koalas and their habitat within this region using community based surveys has facilitated data-driven decision-making by the local government to incorporate habitat and distribution maps into their local environmental plan (Lunney et al. 2000). As an alternative to mapping sightings by hand, Geographic Information Systems (GIS) are changing how ecosystems and individual species are monitored, by providing easy access to long-term, wide-scale spatial views. However, some GIS programs are only accessible to researchers and can be complex without proper training. The Ocean Biogeographic Information System Spatial Ecological Analysis of Megavertebrate Populations (OBIS-SEAMAP) plots GPS data of turtle nesting sites and migrations using layers within a GIS (Halpin et al. 2009). Similarly, the Satellite Tracking and Analysis Tool (STAT) collects satellite-transmitted data and displays them in relation to various information layers (i.e., bathymetry, chlorophyll abundance, and sea

surface temperature) on a map (Coyne & Godley 2005). However, these systems, although freely accessible to anyone, are typically only used and manipulated by marine researchers.

The organization ECOCEAN uses a whale shark (Rhincodon typus) photo identification library populated by citizen-science sightings reports and photographs, to identify and track individual whale shark migrations throughout the world (Lenin 2013). Fox et al. (2013) have used the ECOCEAN database to successfully map and identify 95 individual whale sharks around the island of Utila, Honduras based on unique spot patterns. A similar database was established at the University of Hawaii by Whitney et al. (2012) for citizen-scientists to aid in collecting information and photographs on whitetip reef sharks (Triaenodon obesus) in Hawaii. Whitney et al. (2012) were able to use these data to map shark locations based on data gathered by citizen-scientists. To assess population recovery for the long-exploited basking shark (Cetorhinus maximus), Witt et al. (2012) used sightings populated by citizen-scientists from 1988 to 2008. After some data pre-processing, Witt et al. (2012) found three basking shark hot spots around Scotland, southwestern

Figure 1. Map of the Bay Islands of Honduras showing Roatán and Utila. The area of the Sandy Bay West End Marine Reserve is outlined on the western end of Roatán. Inset map provides a regional view of Honduras.

Figure 2. Turtle sightings map for the Sandy Bay West End Marine Reserve showing an example of dive sites and locations, represented by dive flags, within the boxed region of the inset map. Sea turtles colored by species (Green = green turtle; Yellow = hawksbill) represent currently logged turtle sightings by dive shops and individual volunteers.


England, and the Isle of Man. In each of these studies, researchers used information collected by citizen-scientists to map and explore the spatial extent of the data.

Representing data visually is important in designing a web-based GIS application to keep users involved and motivated (Newman et al. 2010). Allowing users to map their own data involves and informs contributors by immediately providing visual representations of the data. Azzurro et al. (2013) were able to utilize the citizen-science website, Seawatchers, to identify locations of the invasive sergeant major (Abudefduf saxatilis) in the Mediterranean using sightings and photos mapped by snorkelers.

Individual sea turtle identification may be important in monitoring foraging, movement, and gender specific behavior (Troëng et al. 2005; Van Dam et al. 2007). A widely used method for individual identification of turtles is the application of plastic or metal flipper tags, although metal tags are most commonly used (Balazs 1999). However, an alternative method for individual sea turtle identification involves using photographic identification (photo ID), which involves the use of identification software, requiring clear, high-resolution photographs (Reisser et al. 2008; De Zeeuw et al. 2010; Dunbar et al. 2014).

Recent developments in web-based GIS provide easy access to the tools needed to create and use online citizen-scientist mapping systems. Researchers are now able to partner with citizen-scientists to collect large amounts of data on a variety of research topics by providing web-based mapping tools that are user-friendly and easy to navigate (Catlin-Groves 2012). Our study describes the development of a web-based GIS mapping tool using ESRIs ArcGIS online software to collect citizen-scientist sightings reports and photographs for identifying individual sea turtles.

The island of Roatán lies approximately 60 km north of mainland Honduras (Fig. 1). The protected area of the Sandy Bay West End Marine Reserve (SBWEMR) is located on the west end of the 50-km island. Twenty-six dive shops are located along the SBWEMR that are frequented daily by dive tourists (Hayes et al. 2016). There are many opportunities for sighting turtles on a daily basis, due to resident populations of juvenile greens and hawksbills in the SBWEMR. The island of Utila lies approximately 34 km west of the SBWEMR and approximately 37 km north of mainland Honduras (Fig. 1). Off the town of Utila, resident juveniles and transient aggregations of adult hawksbills (typically observed during the breeding season) are encountered by divers.

We developed two interactive maps for logging in-water turtle sightings around the islands of Roatán and Utila. Latitude and longitude positions in degrees, minutes, seconds (DMS) of 98 dive site locations were collected and plotted for the island of Roatán (Fig. 2). For the island of Utila we plotted 74 dive site locations (Fig. 3). We then converted latitude and longitude positions from DMS to decimal degrees and mapped them displaying dive site names in ESRIs ArcGIS Online (ESRI, Redlands, CA). Another map layer was developed using ESRIs ArcMap software (ESRI ArcMap V. 10.3.1) in which we created the editable fields of Name, Depth, Time of Day, Weather Conditions, Visibility, Turtle Species, Turtle Gender, Approximate Size, and Date, along with the option to upload digital photographs (Fig. 4). The Turtle Species field was linked to turtle icons used for plotting sightings of species (hawksbill, green, loggerhead; see Fig. 4) and undetermined turtle species on the map. Eight towns around Roatán were mapped as reference points, while one town and two beaches were mapped for Utila. At two points on each map, instructions explaining how to log sightings are displayed as popup boxes under the Protective Turtle Ecology Center for Training, Outreach, and Research, Inc. (ProTECTOR

Figure 3. Utila dive site map showing an example of dive sites and locations, represented by dive flags, located within the boxed region of the inset map.

Figure 4. An example of a turtle sightings log with metadata and photographs of a hawksbill turtle sighting within the Sandy Bay West End Marine Reserve.

xxxxxx


Inc.) logo, along with links to more information about each of the three species displayed by turtle icons. These interactive Roatán and Utila maps were then embedded on the ProTECTOR Inc. website (www.turtleprotector.org), and map links were distributed to dive shops in the SBWEMR for use in logging in-water turtle sightings. Finally, we also provided an e-mail address for users to communicate with us, in the event that map links malfunction.

The Roatán interactive map was distributed to twelve dive shops in the town of West End. Each dive shop was offered the opportunity to receive formal training by the authors on how to properly log turtle sightings using the interactive map. However, one did not have Internet access and three were uninterested in receiving training. One hundred and fifteen turtle sightings have been logged to date, with ProTECTOR Inc. volunteers and three dive shops being responsible for the majority of turtle sighting logs on Roatán. However, not all dive sightings had associated photos, either because divers did not have cameras while diving, or because sightings were recorded during training dives and thus, no photos were taken at the time. To date, no dive shops on Utila have received the interactive turtle sightings map. Previous sea turtle sightings for Roatán and access to the Utila map may be gained through their respective interactive maps by visiting the link: http://bit.ly/2kcPl7d.

In this paper we report the launch of a user-friendly, web-based GIS mapping system that has been used to map in-water sightings of sea turtles within an MPA. Although it is common to use flipper tags for individual identification (Eckert & Beggs 2006), Balazs (1982) suggests that tags may not always be a reliable source of identification, as they are subject to degradation and loss. We propose the collection of photographs from divers, dive shops, or other scientists may be conducted with web-based GIS, which allow individuals to upload sightings data and photographs from their current location with ease and at their convenience.

Chassagneux et al. (2013) collected turtle sightings from divers, as implemented by Jean et al. (2010), to determine foraging locations of green and hawksbill turtles along Reunion Island, which may be useful for studying foraging habits of turtles. In future studies, citizen-scientist divers may be directed by researchers to collect photographs of facial scutes while turtles are foraging in order to track foraging habitat use on a long-term basis. Photo ID, in association with mapping in-water sightings and radio and satellite tracking methods, will assist researchers in tracking individual turtle movements and provide data for calculating population estimates using photographs uploaded by dive tourists into online databases.

Although some researchers have expressed concern over the quality of data that citizen-scientists report (Williams et al. 2015), data generated by experts appear very similar to those generated through citizen-science applications (Catlin-Groves 2012). Goffredo et al. (2010) used sport divers to participate in a global marine biodiversity assessment of flora and fauna and showed that sport divers recorded comparable data to those of a trained marine biologist. Similarly, Bell et al. (2009) used dive tourists and dive masters to record turtle sightings and visual measurements around the Cayman Islands. These authors found that a large quantity of data could be generated by dive tourists that were comparably as reliable and accurate as data collected by trained scientists. However, unless citizen-science websites and web mapping applications are formatted for their intended audiences, in some instances volunteers may lose interest, forget to log, or confuse their information,

contributing to a loss of data or incorrect data submission. Thus, GIS web mapping applications, and the websites in which they are embedded, require elements that make logging records attractive, interactive, and educational for citizens to maintain motivation for collecting and logging data (Newman et al. 2010). The future development of integrating photo ID into our interactive web map, may expand the use of citizen-science data by researchers, with the aim of collecting large amounts of data records for logging sea turtle sightings.

Our results show the positive response of self-motivated dive shops to log the majority of turtle sightings within the first month of releasing the web-maps, followed by a growing number of voluntary sighting uploads. In order to expand the citizen-scientist user group, we intend to provide dive tourists at multiple dive shops in the towns of West Bay and Sandy Bay with the sightings map link, then gradually distribute this sightings map to dive tourists in other areas of Roatán. Due to restrictions of time and funding resources, we are unable to be present on Roatán during the entire year and thus, the creation of a poster or banner that describes the required information for uploading turtle sightings to the interactive web-map will be created. This step will allow dive tourists to have immediate access to instructions when logging turtle sightings from home. Empowering citizen-scientists to log turtle sightings may represent an untapped source for data collection. To assist this data collection, using a web-based GIS provides the ability for more dive tourists to participate in both sea turtle and general marine animal research on a global scale, with the result that gathering large amounts of data may be accomplished relatively quickly, and with little temporal and financial investment.Acknowledgements. The Protective Turtle Ecology Center for Training, Outreach, and Research, Inc. (ProTECTOR, Inc.) provided funding and support for this project. We thank the Marine Research Group (Loma Linda University) and two anonymous reviewers for reviewing the manuscript and providing thoughtful feedback for improving the writing. We also thank the Roatán Dive Center, Tylls, ScubaTed, current volunteers, and individual divers (Brian McGuire, Gregor Irvine, Kal Lin, Kelvin and Michal, and Martin) who have logged sea turtle sightings during testing of this web-based map. Finally, we express our gratitude to both Jimmy Miller and Lidia Salinas for providing local support while in Honduras. This work was carried out under Honduran research permit number SAG-1950-2015 and Loma Linda University IACUC numbers 8120038 and 8150049. This is Contribution No. 27 of the Marine Research Group (LLU), and Contribution No. 14 of ProTECTOR Inc. AZZURRO, E., E. BROGLIO, F. MAYNOU & M. BARICHE.

2013. Citizen science detects the undetected: the case of Abudefduf saxatilis from the Mediterranean Sea. Management of Biological Invasions 4: 167-170.

BALAZS, G.H. 1982. Factors affecting the retention of metal tags on sea turtles. Marine Turtle Newsletter 20: 11-14.

BALAZS, G.H. 1999. Factors to consider in the tagging of sea turtles. In: Eckert, K.L., K.A. Bjorndal, F.A. Abreu-Grobois & M. Donnelly. (Eds.) Research and Management Techniques for the Conservation of Sea Turtles. IUCN/SSC Marine Turtle Specialist Group, Washington, DC. pp. 101-109.

BELL, C.D., J.M. BLUMENTHAL, T.J. AUSTIN, G. EBANKS-PETRIE, A.C. BRODERICK & B.J. GODLEY. 2009. Harnessing


recreational divers for the collection of sea turtle data around the Cayman Islands. Tourism in Marine Environments 5: 245-257.

CATLIN-GROVES, C.L. 2012. The citizen science landscape: from volunteers to citizen sensors and beyond. International Journal of Zoology 2012: 1-14.

CHASSAGNEUX, A., C. JEAN, J. BOURJEA & S. CICCIONE. 2013. Unraveling behavioral patterns of foraging hawksbill and green turtles using photo-ID. Marine Turtle Newsletter 137: 1-5.

COYNE, M.S. & B.J. GODLEY. 2005. Satellite Tracking and Analysis Tool (STAT): an integrated system for archiving, analyzing and mapping animal tracking data. Marine Ecology Progress Series 301: 1-7.

DE ZEEUW, P., E. PAUWELS, E. RANGUELOVA, D. BUONANTONY & S. ECKERT. 2010. Computer assisted photo identification of Dermochelys coriacea. In Fisher, B. (Ed.), Proceedings of International Conference on Pattern Recognition (ICPR). Springer, Berlin. pp. 165-172.

DUNBAR, S.G., H.E. ITO, K. BAHJRI & S. DEHOM. 2014. Recognition of juvenile Hawksbills (Eretmochelys imbricata) through face scale digitization and automated searching. Endangered Species Research 26: 137-146.

ECKERT, K.L. & J. BEGGS. 2006. Marine turtle tagging: a manual of recommended practices. 40pp.

FOX, S., I. FOISY, R. DE LA PARRA VENEGAS, B.E. GALVÁN PASTORIZA, R.T. GRAHAM, E.R. HOFFMAYER, J. HOLMBERG & S.J. PIERCE. 2013. Population structure and residency of whale sharks Rhincodon typus at Utila, Bay Islands, Honduras. Journal of Fish Biology 83: 574-587.

GOFFREDO, S., F. PENSA, P. NERI, A. ORLANDI, M.S. GAGLIARDI, A. VELARDI, C. PICCINETTI & F. ZACCANTI. 2010. Unite research with what citizens do for fun: “recreational monitoring” of marine biodiversity. Ecological Applications 20: 2170-2187.

HALPIN, P.N., A.J. READ, E. FUIJOKA, B.D. BEST, B. DONNELLY, L.J. HAZEN, C. KOT, K. URIAN, E. LABRECQUE, A. DIMATTEO, J. CLEARY, C. GOOD, L.B. CROWDER & K.D. HYRENBACH. 2009. OBIS-SEAMAP: The world data center for marine mammal, sea bird, and sea turtle distributions. Oceanography 22: 104-115.

HAYES, C.T., D.S. BAUMBACH, D. JUMA & S.G. DUNBAR. 2016. Impacts of recreational diving on hawksbill sea turtle

(Eretmochelys imbricata) behaviour in a marine protected area. Journal of Sustainable Tourism 25: 1-17.

JEAN, C., S. CICCIONE, E. TALMA, K. BALLORAIN & J. BOURJEA. 2010. Photo-identification method for green and hawksbill turtles - first results from Reunion. Indian Ocean Turtle Newsletter 11: 8-13.

LENIN, J. 2013. Whale shark gazing and citizen science: an interview with Dr. Brad Norman. Indian Ocean Turtle Newsletter 18: 12-16.

LUNNEY, D., A. MATTHEWS, C. MOON & S. FERRIER. 2000. Incorporating habitat mapping into practical koala conservation on private lands. Conservation Biology 14: 669-680.

NEWMAN, G., D. ZIMMERMAN, A. CRALL, M. LAITURI, J. GRAHAM & L. STAPEL. 2010. User-friendly web mapping: lessons from a citizen science website. International Journal of Geographic Information Science 24: 1851-1869.

REISSER, J., M. PROIETTI, P. KINAS & I. SAZIMA. 2008. Photographic identification of sea turtles: method description and validation, with an estimation of tag loss. Endangered Species Research 5: 73-82.

TROËNG, S., P.H. DUTTON & D. EVANS. 2005. Migration of hawksbill turtles Eretmochelys imbricata from Tortuguero, Costa Rica. Ecography 28: 394-402.

VAN DAM, R.P., C.E. DIEZ, G.H. BALAZS, L.A. COLÓN, W.O. MCMILLAN & B. SCHROEDER. 2007. Sex-specific migration patterns of hawksbill turtles breeding at Mona Island, Puerto Rico. Endangered Species Research 3: 1-10.

WHITNEY, N.M., R.L. PYLE, K.N. HOLLAND & J.T. BARCZ. 2012. Movements, reproductive seasonality, and fisheries interactions in the whitetip reef shark (Triaenodon obesus) from community-contributed photographs. Environmental Biology of Fishes 93: 121-136.

WILLIAMS, J.L., S.J. PIERCE, M.M.P.B. FUENTES & M. HAMANN. 2015. Effectiveness of recreational divers for monitoring sea turtle populations. Endangered Species Research 26: 209-219.

WITT, M.J., T. HARDY, L. JOHNSON, C.M. MCCLELLAN, S.K. PIKESLEY, S. RANGER, P.B. RICHARDSON, J. SOLANDT, C. SPEEDIE, R. WILLIAMS & B.J. GODLEY. 2012. Basking sharks in the northeast Atlantic: spatio-temporal trends from sightings in UK waters. Marine Ecology Progress Series 459: 121-134.


Monitoring Sea Turtles in an Estuary Altered by Human Use

Fernanda Rocha, Renata F.F. Nascimento, Fabiana P. Barbosa & Denis M. S. AbessaSão Paulo State University (UNESP), Pça. Infante D. Henrique, s/n, 11330-900, São Vicente, SP, Brazil

(E-mail: [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected])

Five species of sea turtles are found on the Brazilian coast: Caretta caretta (Linnaeus 1758), Chelonia mydas (Linnaeus 1758), Dermochelys coriacea (Vandelli 1761), Eretmochelys imbricata (Linnaeus 1766), and Lepidochelys olivacea (Eschscholtz 1829), and all are included on the IUCN Red List of Threatened Animals as Critically Endangered, Endangered, or Vulnerable (www.iucnredlist.org). The capture of sea turtles (or collection of their eggs) is illegal in Brazil since 1986 (SUDEPE 1986) when the Brazilian Ministry of Environment and the Pró-TAMAR Foundation started a conservation program for sea turtles (called ProjetoTAMAR/IBAMA). However, these animals remain threatened by illegal hunting, poaching of eggs from nests, incidental catch in fisheries, the destruction of nesting areas and feeding sites, pollution, and other human-induced factors (Márquez 1990).

The coast of São Paulo state is used as a feeding area for sea turtles, and young, sexually immature animals are frequently observed in coastal waters (Gallo et al. 2006). Historically, there has been more regular monitoring effort for sea turtles along the northern coast of São Paulo by Projeto TAMAR, while sea turtle occurrences along the central and southern coasts have been irregularly investigated (Nagaoka et al. 2008; Bahia & Bondioli 2010; Bondioli et al. 2014).

The central coast of São Paulo is of particular interest, because this region is highly urbanized and includes the Port of Santos, a major industrial complex, as well as the Baixada Santista Metropolitan Region, home to more than 1.5 million people (Lamparelli et al.

2001). This metropolitan region includes the Santos Estuarine System (SES), with large mangrove areas, mudflats, and rocky shores. According to the Brazilian Forest Code (Brasil 2012), the mangroves are legally protected in Brazil. Overall this region provides suitable feeding areas for several marine and estuarine organisms, including sea turtles. Nevertheless, common threats to marine and estuarine organisms in this area include intense urbanization, port activities, factories, intensive tourism, fishing, pollution, and habitat destruction.

The São Vicente Bay (SVB) is located within the SES (between -23.5 and -24 °S, and between -46.08 and -46.5 °W) . The SVB landscape is heterogeneous, including both altered and natural environments. The southwest portion of the SVB is occupied by the Xixová-Japuí State Park (XJSP), which has a marine portion that provides shelter to marine biota including sea turtles (São Paulo 2010). The rest of the SVB region has been significantly modified by humans. The SVB is particularly influenced by urbanization, in the form of sewage pollution, garbage, the presence of marinas, and coastal development (Lamparelli et al. 2001). The XJSP management plan recommended certain actions to control and/or eliminate the external anthropogenic stressors that threaten the park, in order to restore the environmental quality and increase local biodiversity (São Paulo 2010).

Surfers, tourists, and fishers frequently report the occurrence of sea turtles in SVB, including cases of accidental capture in fishing nets and stranded dead animals. In 2004, after warnings made by

Figure 1. Map of the study area showing the sampling stations in the São Vicente Bay (SVB), São Paulo, Brazil. Sampling stations are Station 1 (Pensil Bridge), Station 2 (Milionários Beach) and Station 3 (Porchat Island). Map on left generated by Maptool, a service of SEATURTLE.ORG, Inc. http://www.seaturtle.org/maptool/.

Station 1

*Station 2 *

Station 3 *

Map data ©2017 Google,


May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr

SVB residents about the presence of sea turtles in the area and that they could be at risk, the Brazilian Institute of the Environment and Renewable Natural Resources (IBAMA) requested a set of studies on the presence of sea turtles in the region, including the identification of the species and the main threats to them.

A preliminary study (Abessa et al. 2005) reported two species of sea turtles occurred in the SVB: the green and the hawksbill turtle. However, that study was unable to definitively determine whether sea turtle presence in the SVB was truly frequent and common, nor did it provide an accurate list of the risks to which they are subjected. The present study sought to confirm which species of sea turtles are present in the SVB, evaluate the temporal and spatial variability of sea turtles in the SVB, and to investigate which abiotic factors (sea disturbance, wave direction, tide, moon phase, weather conditions, wind intensity) may be associated with the presence of sea turtles in the area.

We established a sampling protocol consisting of 30 minutes of observation from three fixed stations on land, which we adapted from Altmann (1974). The sampling station locations were established

based on a preliminary investigation (Abessa et al. 2005) and on the complaints made to IBAMA (Fig. 1). Station 1 is located on a fishing pier above a rocky reef (-23.9747 °S, -46.3872 °W), located next to the Pensil suspension bridge and close to a deeper channel (> 15 m depth); Station 2 is positioned on a jetty near Milionários Beach (-23.9730 °S, -46.3730 °W), and Station 3 is located on a semi-sheltered rocky reef close to Porchat Island (-23.9769 °S, -46.3716 °W). Both stations 1 and 2 consist of shallow sites, where depths do not exceed 2 m. Station 1 is contaminated by sewage

Station Visits Total sightingsMean number of sightings

1 124 52 0.422 113 108 0.963 119 1008 8.47

Total 356 1168 3.28

Table 1. Number of visits (30 min period), total visits, and mean number of sightings per viewing period (MNS) at each sampling station within São Vicente Bay (SVB).

2005 2006Figure 2. Mean number of sea turtle sightings (MNS) at sampling stations in the São Vicente Bay (SVB), May 2005 - April 2006, and temperature (°C) from historical data. Vertical bars represent MNS at stations 1 (black), 2 (grey) and 3 (white). Solid line shows the average maximum monthly average air temperatures and the dotted line shows the minimum monthly average of air temperature.

and garbage (Lamparelli et al. 2001). Fish leftovers are frequently discarded at Stations 1 and 2. All three stations present, at least theoretically, the availability of food for young sea turtles, as they comprise rocky shores and hard man-made structures, which consist of suitable substrates for the attachment of macroalgae and invertebrates, such as sponges and soft corals.

Between May 2005 and April 2006, we visited each station three times per week and recorded all the sea turtles sighted in the monitored area, within the 30 minute viewing period. At each sampling station, reliable visualization of sea turtles was possible from a distance of up to approximately 30 m. We quantified the turtle breathing events within each viewing period as a proxy for relative abundance. Because the exact number of individuals present at each sampling could not be confirmed, the number of sightings represents how many times one turtle (or more) was seen breathing, not the number of specimens. Whenever possible, the species was identified according to Márquez (1990) and Pritchard & Mortimer (1999).

Figure 3. Mean number of sea turtle sightings (MNS) at three sampling stations at São Vicente Bay according to the abiotic conditions measured. Station 1 bars are black, Station 2 grey, and Station 3 white.

Mea

n nu

mbe

r of t

urtle

sigh

tings

Mea

n nu

mbe

r of t

urtle

sigh

tings


Abiotic conditionStation 1 Station 2 Station 3

MNS n p MNS n p MNS n p

Sea StateCalm 1.50 10

0.231.25 8

0.357.22 102

0.03**Stormy 0.32 114 0.94 104 16.00 17

Wave Direction

E 0 1

0.47

0 2

<0.01*

4.00 3

0.01*

ESE 0.43 14 0.22 9 1.17 12SE 0.18 33 0.68 38 5.44*** 36

SSE 0.90 31 0.60 20 8.56*** 18S 0.30 40 1.32 41 12.94*** 47

SSW 0 4 7.00*** 2 8.00 3

Tide

Low 0.07 15

0.09

0.40 10

0.57

4.31 26

0.07Flood 0.22 41 0.97 39 10.44 32Full 0.12 17 1.75 12 13.44 16Ebb 0.40 50 0.88 51 7.71 45

Moon Phase

Full 0.42 36

0.29

1.03 33

0.45

9.15 34

0.73First quarter 0.82 33 0.24 21 9.37 30

New 0.14 22 1.11 27 9.08 24Last quarter 0.21 33 1.26 31 6.39 31

Weather

Rainy 0.33 3

0.46

1.20 5

0.46

13.00 10

0.18Sunny 0.21 47 0.58 43 5.74 47Cloudy 0.71 42 1.42 36 9.46 37

Partly cloudy 0.34 32 0.93 28 10.32 25

Wind intensity

Absent 0 10

0.18

1.25 12

0.84

7.78 18

0.36Weak 0.29 68 0.89 66 7.33 66

Moderate 0.84 38 1.09 31 11.77 30Strong 0 8 0 3 6.20 5

Table 2. Mean number of sightings (MNS), number of visits (n), and significance level (p), organized by each abiotic condition and sampling station. *denotes significance level of p<0.05 at one-way ANOVA, **at t-test and ***at Tukey HSD test.

Additionally, abiotic conditions such as weather conditions, wind intensity (absent, weak, moderate, or strong), sea disturbance (calm or stormy), wave direction, tide, and phase of the moon were recorded, as well as some potential threats to sea turtles.

We made 356 visits to the three sampling stations, and recorded an average of 3.28 sea turtles per station per viewing period (Table 1). The mean number of sightings (MNS) of sea turtles between sampling stations was significantly different (one-way ANOVA, F(2, 353) = 49.86, p=8.44E-20), due to higher MNS at Station 3 (Tukey HSD, p=2.18E-05; Fig. 2).

At Stations 1 and 2, we observed sea turtles in 18.5% and 27.4% of observations, at a rate of 0.42 and 0.96 turtles seen, respectively. At Station 1, we successfully identified greens and hawksbills, as the distance between the researchers and the water was shorter at this site than at the other two sites and allowed for visual identification to species. At Stations 1 and 2, the presence of sea turtles was not found to be associated with the abiotic conditions considered (Fig. 3), except for wave direction at Station 2 (one-way ANOVA, F(5, 106) = 3.77, p=0.003), when waves were coming from the SSW (Tukey HSD test, p<0.01, Fig. 3).

Sea turtle sightings were much more frequent at Station 3, with sightings recorded during approximately 75% of the visits. These sightings represented approximately 85% of all the sightings recorded in the SVB. The highest MNS was obtained between December 2005 and March 2006, a period which represents the austral summer (Fig. 2). This might be due to the higher growth of macroalgae on the rocky shores, increasing the availability of food. However, we could not identify the sea turtle species that were present at Station 3. At this station, the MNS were significantly higher when the waves were coming from the S, SE and SSE (one-way ANOVA, F(5, 113)=3.12, p=0.011, Fig. 3b) and during full, flood and ebb tides (Tukey HSD, p<0.05). We also observed a trend of lower MNS during low tides at all stations (Fig. 3). Table 2 summarizes the MNS relative to different abiotic conditions.

The results showed that at least two species of sea turtles occur in the SVB: greens and hawksbills. In a previous study, Abessa et al. (2005) also identified greens and hawksbills in the region. On the northern coast of São Paulo, both greens and hawksbills are usually found close to rocky shores, as they forage on macroalgae (Gallo et al. 2006; Santos et al. 2011). The presence of sea turtles was


occasional at Stations 1 and 2 and frequent and strongly concentrated at Station 3. Abessa et al. (2005) also reported a higher frequency of sea turtle sightings in this area, a finding which indicates that Station 3 (Porchat Island) is an important site for sea turtles within the SVB.

The occurrence of sea turtles at Station 3, especially green turtles, may be related to the presence of more developed macroalgal beds at that site, because the rocky reefs located there are occupied by visibly larger stalks of the seaweed Ulva spp. Several studies on green turtle feeding habits have supported the hypothesis that a higher number of sightings at Station 3 is associated with food availability, because this species forages primarily on Ulva spp., other macroalgal species, and sea grass (López-Mendilaharsu et al. 2005; Fuentes et al. 2006; Russel & Balazs 2009; Santos et al. 2011). Bondioli et al. (2014) specifically stated that green turtles use sandy beaches and rocky shores on the central coast of São Paulo as a feeding area, while Oliveira-Filho & Berchez (1978) stated that Chlorophycea (which includes Ulva spp.) is an increasing and abundant species from the macroalgal communities of the SES and SVB, thus we can infer that Ulva spp. would be an available food resource for sea turtles. The higher Ulva spp. biomass during the austral summer (Guimaraens & Coutinho 2000) also corroborates the hypothesis that the presence of sea turtles is associated with food availability.

Higher MNS tended to occur when waters were stormy (Fig. 3). This may be explained by the animals’ increased activity under these conditions. In stormy waters, metabolic rates are higher because the animals have to be more active to avoid being carried away by the waves and currents (Southwood et al. 2003). As a consequence, the animals take shorter dives (Hays et al. 2000). Sea turtles feeding in rocky shores in stormy waters tend to breathe more frequently, thus increasing the number of times they are seen. The observed lower MNS during low tides at all stations likely involved the sea turtles’ difficulty in accessing the rocky shores when water depth was lower.

The main potential threats to sea turtles in SVB were pollution by sewage and garbage (at the three stations, but more visible at Station 1), boat traffic (particularly at Stations 2 and 3), and small-scale fishing (hooks and lines, spears, and cast nets, particularly at Stations 1 and 2). Boat traffic is more intense on weekends and holidays, a trend which increases the risk of accidents with sea turtles. Fishermen reported their experiences seeing sea turtles captured by fishing lines and nets. Though the directed capture of sea turtles is illegal in Brazil (Brasil 1998), accidental capture is not considered a crime. The main potential threats to sea turtles could be minimized with simple measures, such as the implementation of signs, educational campaigns, and the spread of information. Other threats, such as those that involve the discharge of domestic sewage and litter, are more difficult to manage and would rely on more effective government policies.

The present study showed that green turtles and hawksbill turtles were positively identified in the São Vicente Bay, and that their occurrence could be influenced by food availability. Other sea turtle species may also be present in SVB, but their identification would require further studies and a continuation of the monitoring efforts in the region. The area surrounding Porchat Island (Station 3) should be prioritized for the conservation and monitoring of sea turtles within the SVB. Studies should take other approaches for detecting and quantifying sea turtles, including visual surveys, active captures, records of stranded animals and those incidentally captured

by fishers, tagging animals, etc. Because greens and hawksbills are protected species in Brazil, stronger measures are required to minimize the potential threats to these animals and to monitor their population size and health status.Acknowledgments. The authors are grateful to the Brazilian Institute of the Environment and Renewable Natural Resources (IBAMA), to Projeto TAMAR, and to the Public Prosecutor’s Office of São Paulo State (MPE-SP) for their administrative and logistical support. We also thank Biologist José Henrique Becker for the training and support during the development of this study.ABESSA, D.M.S., I.M.F. OBERG, S.O.P. PELLEGRINI,

F.P. BARBOSA, F. ROCHA, R.F.F. NASCIMENTO, C.R. SANTANA, R.F. MALIMPENSA, F.B.F. CAMARGO, L.A. SILVA, A.R. OLIVEIRA & J.H. BECKER. 2005. Identification and quantification of sea turtle species of São Vicente Bay, São Paulo, Brazil (Tar-Roca Project). Technical Report UNESP CLP/IBAMA, São Vicente, SP, Brazil. 30pp.

ALTMANN, J. 1974. Observational study of behavior: sampling methods. Behavior 49: 227-267.

BAHIA, N.C.F. & A.C.V. BONDIOLI. 2010. Interação das tartarugas marinhas com a pesca artesanal de cerco-fixo em Cananéia, litoral sul de São Paulo. Biotemas 23: 203-213.

BONDIOLI, A.C.V., A. FERNANDES, A. & M.P.G. SÁ. 2014. Sea turtle occurrence in Baixada Santista, São Paulo, Brazil. Marine Turtle Newsletter 141: 1-3.

BRASIL. 1998. Federal law n. 9605/1998. Brasília, DF, Brasil. www.planalto.gov.br/ccivil_03/leis/L9605.htm

BRASIL. 2012. Federal law n. 12651/2012. Brasília, DF, Brasil. www.planalto.gov.br/ccivil_03/_ato2011-2014/2012/lei/l12651.htm

CLIMATEMPO. 2016. Climatology data for São Vicente, SP. www.climatempo.com.br/climatologia/561/saovicente-sp

FUENTES, M.P.B., I.R. LAWLER & E. GYURIS. 2006. Dietary preferences of juvenile green turtles (Chelonia mydas) on a tropical reef flat. Wildlife Research 33: 671-678.

GALLO, B.M.G., S. MACEDO, B.B. GIFFONI, J.H. BECKER & P.C.R. BARATA. 2006. Sea turtle conservation in Ubatuba, Southeastern Brazil, a feeding area with incidental capture in coastal fisheries. Chelonian Conservation & Biology 5: 93-101.

GUIMARAENS, M.A. & R. COUTINHO. 2000. Temporal and spatial variation of Ulva spp. and water properties in the Cabo Frio upwelling region of Brazil. Aquatic Botany 66: 101-114.

HAYS, G.C., S. HOCHSCHEID, A.C. BRODERICK, B.J. GODLEY & J.D. METCALFE. 2000. Diving behaviour of green turtles: dive depth, dive duration and activity levels. Marine Ecology Progress Series 208: 297-298.

LAMPARELLI, M.L., M.P. COSTA, V.A. PRÓSPERI, J.E. BEVILÁCQUA, R.P.A. ARAÚJO, G.G.L. EYSINK & S. POMPÉIA. 2001. Santos and São Vicente Estuarine Systems. Technical Report CETESB. São Paulo. 178pp.

LÓPEZ-MENDILAHARSU, M., S.C. GARDNER, J.A. SEMINOFF & R. RIOSMERA-RODRIGUEZ. 2005. Identifying critical foraging habitats of the green turtle (Chelonia mydas) along the Pacific coast of the Baja California peninsula, México. Aquatic Conservation: Marine and Freshwater Ecosystems 15: 259-269.


MARCOVALDI, M.A. & G.G. MARCOVALDI. 1999. Marine turtles of Brazil: the history and structure of Projeto TAMAR-IBAMA. Biological Conservation 91: 35-41.

MÁRQUEZ, M.R. 1990. FAO species catalogue. Vol. 11: Sea Turtles of the World. An Annotated and Illustrated Catalogue of Sea Turtle Species Known to Date. FAO Fisheries Synopsis No. 125, Vol. 11. FAO, Roma. 81pp.

MEYLAN, A.B. & P.A. MEYLAN. 1999 Introduction to the evolution, life history, and biology of sea turtles. In: Eckert, K.L., K.A. Bjorndal, F.A. Abreu-Grobois & M. Donnelly (Eds). Research and Management Techniques for the Conservation of Sea Turtles. IUCN/SSC Marine Turtle Specialist Group Publication No. 4. Washington, D.C. pp 3-5.

NAGAOKA, S.M., A.C.V. BONDIOLI & E.L.A. MONTEIRO-FILHO. 2008. Sea turtle bycatch by cerco-fixo in Cananéia Lagoon Estuarine Complex, São Paulo, Brazil. Marine Turtle Newsletter 119: 4-6.

OLIVEIRA-FILHO, E.C. & F. BERCHEZ. 1978. Algas marinhas bentônicas da Baía de Santos - alterações da flora no período 1957-1978. Boletim de Botânica, Universidade de São Paulo 6: 49-59.

PRITCHARD, P.C.H & J.A. MORTIMER. 1999. Taxonomy, external morphology, and species identification. In: Eckert,

K.L., K.A. Bjorndal, F.A. Abreu-Grobois & M. Donnelly (Eds). Research and Management Techniques for the Conservation of Sea Turtles. IUCN/SSC Marine Turtle Specialist Group Publication No. 4. Washington, D.C. pp 21-40.

RUSSELL, D.F. & G.H. BALAZS. 2009. Dietary shifts by green turtles (Chelonia mydas) in the Kane’ohe Bay region of the Hawaiian Islands: a 28-year study. Pacific Sciences 63: 181-192.

SANTOS, R.G., A.S. MARTINS, J.N. FARIAS, P.A. HORTA, H.T. PINHEIRO, E. TOREZANI, C. BAPTISTOTTE, J.A. SEMINOFF, G.H. BALAZS & T.M. WORK. 2011. Coastal habitat degradation and green sea turtle diets in Southeastern Brazil. Marine Pollution Bulletin 62: 1297-1302.

SÃO PAULO. 2010. Plano de Manejo do Parque Estadual Xixová-Japuí. Fundação Florestal do Estado de São Paulo. São Paulo, Brazil. 572pp. www.fflorestal.sp.gov.br/files/2012/01/PE_XIXOVA-JAPUI/PEXJ-Principal.pdf

SOUTHWOOD, A.L., C.A. DARVEAU & D.R. JONES. 2003. Metabolic and cardiovascular adjustments of juvenile green turtles to seasonal changes in temperature and photoperiod. Journal of Experimental Biology 206: 4521-4531.

SUDEPE. 1986. Fisheries Development Superintendence, ordinance n.005/1986. www.pesca.sp.gov.br/leg_005.php


RECENT PUBLICATIONSThis section is compiled by the Archie Carr Center for Sea Turtle Research (ACCSTR), University of Florida. The ACCSTR maintains the Sea Turtle On-line Bibliography: (http://st.cits.fcla.edu/st.jsp). It is requested that a copy of all publications (including technical reports and non-refereed journal articles) be sent to both:

The ACCSTR for inclusion in both the on-line bibliography and the MTN. Address: Archie Carr Center for Sea Turtle Research, University of Florida, PO Box 118525, Gainesville, FL 32611, USA.The Editors of the Marine Turtle Newsletter to facilitate the transmission of information to colleagues submitting articles who may not have access to on-line literature reviewing services.

RECENT PAPERS Alfaro-Nunez, A., A.M. Bojesen, M.F. Bertelsen, N. Wales, G.H.

Balazs & M.T.P. Gilbert. 2016. Further evidence of Chelonid herpesvirus 5 (ChHV5) latency: high levels of ChHV5 DNA detected in clinically healthy marine turtles. PeerJ 4:e2274, DOI: 10.7717/peerj.2274. A. Alfaro-Nunez, Univ Copenhagen, Nat Hist Museum Denmark, Ctr GeoGenet, Sect Evolutionary Genom, Copenhagen K, Denmark. (E-mail: [email protected])

Almpanidou, V., G. Schofield, A.S. Kallimanis, O. Türkozan, G.C. Hays & A.D. Mazaris. 2016. Using climatic suitability thresholds to identify past, present and future population viability. Ecological Indicators 71: 551-556. V. Almpanidou, Department of Ecology, School of Biology, Aristotle University of Thessaloniki, 54124 Thessaloniki, Greece. (E-mail: [email protected])

Araujo, G., J. Montgomery, K. Pahang, J. Labaja, R. Murray & A. Ponzo. 2016. Using minimally invasive techniques to determine green sea turtle Chelonia mydas life-history parameters. Journal of Experimental Marine Biology and Ecology 483: 25-30. G. Araujo, Cora Luna Residence, Poblac, Oslob 6025, Cebu, Philippines. (E-mail: [email protected])

Bang, K., J. Kim, S.I. Lee & H. Choi. 2016. Hydrodynamic role of longitudinal dorsal ridges in a leatherback turtle swimming. Scientific Reports 6, 34283, DOI: 10.1038/srep34283. H. Choi, Seoul Natl Univ, Dept Mech & Aerosp Engn, Seoul, South Korea. (E-mail: [email protected])

Battelli, C. & F. Rindi. 2016. First report of the epizoic red alga Polysiphonia carettia (Hollenberg, 1971) on the loggerhead turtle Caretta caretta in the Adriatic Sea. Acta Adriatica 57: 173-178. F. Rindi, Univ Politecn Marche, Dipartimento Sci Vita & Ambiente, Via Brecce Bianche, I-60131 Ancona, Italy. (E-mail: [email protected])

Behera, S., B. Tripathy, K. Sivakumar & B.C. Choudhury. 2016. Beach dynamics and impact of armouring on olive ridley sea turtle (Lepidochelys olivacea) nesting at Gahirmatha rookery of Odisha coast, India. Indian Journal of Geo-Marine Sciences 45: 233-238. S. Behera, Wildlife Inst India, POB 18, Dehra Dun 248001, Chandrabani, India. (E-mail: [email protected])

Bessey, C., M.R. Heithaus, J.W. Fourqurean, K.R. Gastrich & D.A. Burkholder. 2016. Importance of teleost macrograzers to seagrass composition in a subtropical ecosystem with abundant populations of megagrazers and predators. Marine Ecology Progress Series 553: 81-92. C. Bessey, Florida Int Univ, Dept Biol Sci, Marine Sci Program, North Miami, FL 33181 USA. (E-mail: [email protected])

Beyer, J., H.C. Trannum, T. Bakke, P.V. Hodson & T.K. Collier. 2016. Environmental effects of the Deepwater Horizon oil spill:

A review. Marine Pollution Bulletin 110: 28-51. J. Beyer, NIVA Norwegian Inst Water Res, NO-0349 Oslo, Norway.

Bezy, V.S., M. Girondot & R.A. Valverde. 2016. Estimation of the net nesting effort of olive ridley arribada sea turtles based on nest densities at Ostional Beach, Costa Rica. Journal of Herpetology 50: 409-415. R.A. Valverde, Southeastern Louisiana Univ, Dept Biol Sci, Hammond, LA 70402 USA. (E-mail: [email protected])

Braun-McNeill, J., L. Avens, A.G. Hall, L.R. Goshe, C.A. Harms & D.W. Owens. 2016. Female-bias in a long-term study of a species with temperature-dependent sex determination: monitoring sex ratios for climate change research. PLoS ONE 11(8): e0160911. doi:10.1371/journal. pone.0160911. J. Braun-McNeill, NOAA-SEFSC, Beaufort, NC 28516 USA. (E-mail: [email protected])

Briscoe, D. K., D.M. Parker, S. Bograd, E. Hazen, K. Scales, G.H. Balazs, M. Kurita, T. Saito, H. Okamoto, M. Rice, J.J. Polovina & L.B. Crowder. 2016. Multi-year tracking reveals extensive pelagic phase of juvenile loggerhead sea turtles in the North Pacific. Movement Ecology 4: 23, DOI: 10.1186/s40462-016-0087-4. D.K. Briscoe, Biology, Stanford University, Hopkins Marine Station, 120 Oceanview Boulevard, Pacific Grove, CA 93950, USA. (E-mail: [email protected])

Broggi, M.F. 2016. The herpetofauna of the Island of Kythera (Attica, Greece) (Amphibia; Reptilia). Herpetozoa 29: 37-46. M.F. Broggi, St Mamertenweg 35, FL-9495 Triesen, Liechtenstein. (E-mail: [email protected])

Calcagnia, G. 2016. ABC of multi-fractal spacetimes and fractional sea turtles. European Physical Journal C 76: 181. G. Calcagnia, Instituto de Estructura de la Materia, CSIC Madrid, Spain.

Casale, P., D. Freggi, V. Paduano & M. Oliverio. 2016. Biases and best approaches for assessing debris ingestion in sea turtles, with a case study in the Mediterranean. Marine Pollution Bulletin 110: 238-249. P. Casale, Dept of Biology and Biotechnologies “Charles Darwin”, University of Rome “La Sapienza”, viale dell’Universitą 32, 00185 Roma, Italy. (E-mail: [email protected])

Cazabon-Mannette, M., D. Browne, N. Austin, A. Hailey & J. Horrocks. 2016. Genetic structure of the hawksbill turtle rookery and foraging aggregation in Tobago, West Indies. Journal of Experimental Marine Biology and Ecology 485: 94-101. M. Cazabon-Mannette, Univ West Indies, Dept Life Sci, St Augustine, Trinidad & Tobago. (E-mail: [email protected])

Chambault, P., B. de Thoisy, L. Kelle, R. Berzins, M. Bonola, H. Delvaux, Y. Le Maho & D. Chevallier. 2016. Inter-nesting behavioural adjustments of green turtles to an estuarine habitat in French Guiana. Marine Ecology Progress Series 555: 235-248.


P. Chambault, Univ Strasbourg, Inst Pluridisciplinaire Hubert Curien, 23 Rue Becquerel, F-67087 Strasbourg 2, France. (E-mail: [email protected])

Christiansen, F., N.F. Putman, R. Farman, D.M. Parker, M.R. Rice, J.J. Polovina, G.H. Balazs & G.C. Hays. 2016. Spatial variation in directional swimming enables juvenile sea turtles to reach and remain in productive waters. Marine Ecology Progress Series 557: 247-259. F. Christiansen, Deakin University, Geelong. Centre for Integrative Ecology, School of Life and Environmental Sciences, Warrnambool Campus, VIC 3280, Australia. (E-mail: [email protected])

da Silva, J., S. Taniguchi, J.H. Becker, M.R. Werneck & R.C. Montone. 2016. Occurrence of organochlorines in the green sea turtle (Chelonia mydas) on the northern coast of the state of Sao Paulo, Brazil. Marine Pollution Bulletin 112: 411-414. J. da Silva, Univ Sao Paulo, Oceanog Inst, Lab Marine Organ Chem, BR-05508 Sao Paulo, Brazil. (E-mail: [email protected])

Darsan, J., A. Jehu, H. Asmath, A. Singh & M. Wilson. 2016. The influence of fluvial dynamics and North Atlantic swells on the beach habitat of leatherback turtles at Grande Riviere Trinidad. Journal of Environmental Management 180: 111-122. J. Darsan, University of the West Indies, Department of Geography, St. Augustine, Trinidad & Tobago. (E-mail: [email protected])

Davies, L. 2016. The sea turtle. Fiddlehead 268: 105. L. Davies, Westminster Books, Fredericton, NB, Canada.

Donnelly, K., T.B. Waltzek, J.F.X Wellehan Jr., N.I. Stacy, M. Chadam & B.A. Stacy. 2016. Mycobacterium haemophilum infection in a juvenile leatherback sea turtle (Dermochelys coriacea). Journal of Veterinary Diagnostic Investigation 28: 718-721. B.A. Stacy, Univ Florida, Natl Marine Fisheries Serv, Office Protected Resources, P.O.Box 110885, 2187 Mowry Rd, Gainesville, FL 32611 USA. (E-mail: [email protected])

Dunkin, L., M. Reif, S. Altman & T. Swannack. 2016. A spatially explicit, multi-criteria decision support model for loggerhead sea turtle nesting habitat suitability: a remote sensing-based approach. Remote Sensing 8: 573, DOI: 10.3390/rs8070573. L. Dunkin, US Army Engn Res & Dev Ctr, 3903 Halls Ferry Rd, Vicksburg, MS 39180 USA. (E-mail: [email protected])

Eguchi, T., S.R. Benson, D.G. Foley, & K.A. Forney. 2017. Predicting overlap between drift gillnet fishing and leatherback turtle habitat in the California Current Ecosystem. Fisheries Oceanography 26: 17-33. T. Eguchi, 8604 La Jolla Shores Dr., La Jolla, CA 92037, USA. (E-mail: [email protected])

Escobar-Lasso, S., M. Gil-Fernandez, H. Herrera, L.G. Fonseca, E. Carrillo-Jimenez, J. Saenz & J. Wong. 2016. Scavenging on sea turtle carcasses by multiple jaguars in Northwestern Costa Rica. Therya 7: 231-239. S. Escobar-Lasso, Instituto Internacional en Conservación y Manejo de Vida Silvestre. ICOMVIS. Universidad Nacional de Costa Rica. Heredia, Costa Rica. (E-mail: [email protected])

Ferguson, S.D., J.F.Z. Wellehan Jr., S. Frasca Jr., C.J. Innis, H.S. Harris, M. Miller, E.S. Weber, H.S. Walden, E.C. Greiner, C. Merigo & B.A. Stacy. 2016. Coccidial infection of the adrenal glands of leatherback sea turtles (Dermochelys coriacea). Journal of Wildlife Diseases 52: 874-882. B.A. Stacy, Univ of Florida,

NMFS-NOAA, P.O.Box 110885, 2187 Mowry Rd, Gainesville, FL 32611 USA. (E-mail: [email protected])

Finlayson, K.A., F.D.L. Leusch & J.P. van de Merwe. 2016. The current state and future directions of marine turtle toxicology research. Environment International 94: 113-123. K.A. Finlayson, Australian Rivers Institute, Griffith School of Environment, Griffith University, Gold Coast, Australia. (E-mail: [email protected])

Foran, D.R. & R.L. Ray. 2016. Mitochondrial DNA profiling of illegal tortoiseshell products derived from hawksbill sea turtles. Journal of Forensic Sciences 61: 1062-1066. D.R. Foran, Michigan State Univ, Dept Integrat Biol, 655 Auditorium Rd,560 Baker Hall, E Lansing, MI 48824 USA. (E-mail: [email protected])

Gil, M.A. & J.B. Pfaller. 2016. Oceanic barnacles act as foundation species on plastic debris: implications for marine dispersal. Scientific Reports 6, 19987, DOI: 10.1038/srep19987. J. B. Pfaller, Univ. of Florida, Dept Biol, Archie Carr Ctr Sea Turtle Res, Gainesville, FL 32611 USA. (E-mail: [email protected])

Hammerschlag, N., I. Bell, R. Fitzpatrick, A.J. Gallagher, L.A. Hawkes, M.G. Meekan, J.D. Stevens, M. Thums, M.J. Witt & A. Barnett. 2016. Behavioral evidence suggests facultative scavenging by a marine apex predator during a food pulse. Behavioral Ecology and Sociobiology 70: 1777-1788. N. Hammerschlag, Univ Miami, Rosenstiel Sch Marine & Atmospher Sci, 4600 Rickenbacker Causeway, Miami, FL 33149 USA. (E-mail: [email protected])

Hayward, A., M. Pajuelo, C.G. Haase, D.M. Anderson & J.F. Gillooly. 2016. Common metabolic constraints on dive duration in endothermic and ectothermic vertebrates. PeerJ 4: e2569, DOI: 10.7717/peerj.2569. J.F. Gillooly, Univ Florida, Dept Biol, Gainesville, FL 32611 USA. (E-mail: [email protected])

Henschke, N., J.D. Everett, A.J. Richardson & I.M. Suthers. 2016. Rethinking the role of salps in the ocean. Trends in Ecology & Evolution 31: 720-733. N. Henschke, Princeton Univ, Program Atmospheric & Oceanic Science, Princeton, NJ 08540 USA, (E-mail: [email protected])

Hesni, M.A., M. Tabib & A.H. Ramaki. 2016. Nesting ecology and reproductive biology of the hawksbill turtle, Eretmochelys imbricata, at Kish Island, Persian Gulf. Journal of the Marine Biological Association UK 96: 1373-1378. M.A. Hesni, Shahid Bahonar Univ Kerman, Dept Biol, Fac Sci, Kerman, Iran. (E-mail: [email protected])

Hunt, K.E., C.J. Innis, C. Merigo & R.M. Rolland. 2016. Endocrine responses to diverse stressors of capture, entanglement and stranding in leatherback turtles (Dermochelys coriacea). Conservation Physiology 4: cow022, DOI:10.1093/conphys/cow022. K.E. Hunt, New England Aquarium, Cent Wharf, Boston, MA 02110 USA. (E-mail: [email protected])

Huys, R. 2016. Harpacticoid copepods - their symbiotic associations and biogenic substrata: a review. Zootaxa 4174: 448-729. Nat Hist Museum, Dept Life Sci, Cromwell Rd, London SW7 5BD, UK. (E-mail: [email protected])

Jardim, A., M. Lopez-Mendilaharsu & F. Barros. 2016. Demography and foraging ecology of Chelonia mydas on tropical shallow reefs in Bahia, Brazil. Journal of the Marine Biological Association UK 96: 1295-1304. A. Jardim, Fundacao ProTAMAR, Rua Rubens


Guelli 134 Sl 307, BR-41815135 Salvador, BA, Brazil. (E-mail: [email protected])

Jessop, T.S., M.L. Lane, L. Teasdale, D. Stuart-Fox, R.S. Wilson, V. Careau & I.T. Moore. 2016. Multiscale evaluation of thermal dependence in the glucocorticoid response of vertebrates. American Naturalist 188: 342-356. T.S. Jessop, Deakin Univ, Ctr Integrat Ecol, Sch Life & Environm Sci, Waurn Ponds, Vic 3216, Australia. (E-mail: [email protected])

Kanghae, H., K.Thongprajukaew, S. Jatupornpitukchat & K. Kittiwattanawong. 2016. Optimal-rearing density for head-starting green turtles (Chelonia mydas Linnaeus, 1758). Zoo Biology 35: 454-461. K. Thongprajukaew, Prince Songkla Univ, Dept Appl Sci, Fac Sci, Hat Yai 90112, Thailand. (E-mail: [email protected])

Karaa, S., F. Maffucci, I. Jribi, M.A. Bologna, M. Borra, E. Biffali, M.N. Bradai & S. Hochscheid. 2016. Connectivity and stock composition of loggerhead turtles foraging on the North African continental shelf (Central Mediterranean): implications for conservation and management. Marine Ecology 37: 1103-1115. F. Maffucci, Stn Zool Anton Dohrn, I-80121 Naples, Italy. (E-mail: [email protected])

Kirkbride-Smith, A.E., P.M. Wheeler & M.L. Johnson. 2016. Artificial reefs and marine protected areas: a study in willingness to pay to access Folkestone Marine Reserve, Barbados, West Indies. PeerJ 4:e2175, DOI: 10.7717/peerj.2175. A.E. Smith, Univ Hull, Sch Environm Sci, Kingston Upon Hull, UK (E-mail: [email protected])

Lea, J.S.E., N.E. Humphries, R.G. von Brandis, C.R. Clarke & D.W. Sims. 2016. Acoustic telemetry and network analysis reveal the space use of multiple reef predators and enhance marine protected area design. Proceedings of the Royal Society B-Biological Sciences 283(1834): 20160717. J.S.E. Lea, Marine Biol Assoc UK, Citadel Hill, Plymouth PL1 2PB, Devon, UK. (E-mail: [email protected])

Lenz, A.J., L. Avens, C.C. Trigo & M. Borges-Martins. 2016. Skeletochronological estimation of age and growth of loggerhead sea turtles (Caretta caretta) in the western South Atlantic Ocean. Austral Ecology 41: 580-590. A.J. Lenz, Inst Desenvolvimento Sustentavel Mamiraua, Tefe, Amazonas, Brazil. (E-mail: [email protected])

Mbae, S.B., M. Mindasse, S. Mihidjae & T. Seyler. 2016. Food-poisoning outbreak and fatality following ingestion of sea turtle meat in the rural community of Ndrondroni, Moheli Island, Comoros, December 2012. Toxicon 120: 38-41. T. Seyler, EpiConcept, Dept Epidemiology, 47 Rue Charenton, F-75012 Paris, France. (E-mail: [email protected])

Mingozzi, T., R. Mencacci, G. Cerritelli, D. Giunchi & P. Luschi. 2016. Living between widely separated areas: long-term monitoring of Mediterranean loggerhead turtles sheds light on cryptic aspects of females spatial ecology. Journal of Experimental Marine Biology and Ecology 485: 8-17. T. Mingozzi, Univ Calabria, Dept Biol Ecol & Earth Sci, DiBEST, Arcavacata Di Rende, Italy. (E-mail: [email protected])

Okuyama, J., J.A. Seminoff, P.H. Dutton & S.R. Benson. 2016. Fine-scale monitoring of routine deep dives by gravid leatherback turtles during the internesting interval indicate a capital breeding strategy. Frontiers in Marine Science 3: 166, DOI: 10.3389/

fmars.2016.00166. S.R. Benson, Marine Mammal and Turtle Division, Southwest Fisheries Science Center, NMFS, NOAA Moss Landing, CA, USA. (E-mail: [email protected])

Pajuelo, M., K.A. Bjorndal, M.D. Arendt, A.M. Foley, B.A. Schroeder, B.E. Witherington & A.B. Bolten. 2016. Long-term resource use and foraging specialization in male loggerhead turtles. Marine Biology 163: 235, DOI:10.1007/s00227-016-3013-9. M. Pajuelo, Univ Florida, Archie Carr Ctr Sea Turtle Res, Dept Biol, Gainesville, FL 32611 USA. (E-mail: [email protected])

Perrault, J.R., A. Page-Karjian & D.L. Miller. 2016. Nesting leatherback sea turtle (Dermochelys coriacea) packed cell volumes indicate decreased foraging during reproduction. Marine Biology 163: 232, DOI: 10.1007/s00227-016-3007-7. J.R. Perrault, Univ South Florida, Dept Biol Sci, St Petersburg, FL 33701 USA. (E-mail: [email protected])

Pfaller, J.B. & M.A. Gil. 2016. Sea turtle symbiosis facilitates social monogamy in oceanic crabs via refuge size. Biology Letters 12(9), DOI: 10.1098/rsbl.2016.0607. J.B. Pfaller, Univ. of Florida, Dept Biol, Archie Carr Ctr Sea Turtle Res, Gainesville, FL 32611 USA. (E-mail: [email protected])

Piniak, W.E.D., D.A. Mann, C.A. Harms, T.T. Jones & S.A. Eckert. 2016. Hearing in the juvenile green sea turtle (Chelonia mydas): A comparison of underwater and aerial hearing using auditory evoked potentials. PLoS ONE 11(10): e0159711. W.E.D. Piniak, Dept of Environmental Studies, Gettysburg College, Gettysburg, Pennsylvania, USA (E-mail: [email protected])

Segniagbeto, G.H., D. Okangny, K. Afiademagno, D. Dendi, J. Fretey & L. Luiselli. 2016. Spatio-temporal patterns in occurrence and niche partitioning of marine turtles along the coast of Togo (West Africa) (Testudines: Cheloniidae, Dermochelyidae). Herpetozoa 29: 15-26. L. Luiselli, IDECC, Via Giuseppe Tomasi Lampedusa 33, I-00144 Rome, Italy. (E-mail: [email protected])

Shimada, T., R. Jones, C. Limpus & M. Hamann. 2016. Time-restricted orientation of green turtles. Journal of Experimental Marine Biology and Ecology 484: 31-38. T. Shimada, James Cook Univ, Coll Sci & Engn, Townsville, QLD 4811, Australia. (E-mail: [email protected])

Song, S.H., M.S. Kim, H. Rodrigue, J.Y. Lee, J.E. Shim, M.C. Kim, W.S. Chu & S.H. Ahn. 2016. Turtle mimetic soft robot with two swimming gaits. Bioinspiration & Biomimetics 11: 036010, DOI: 10.1088/1748-3190/11/3/036010. S.H. Ahn, Seoul Natl Univ, Dept Mech & Aerosp Engn, Seoul 151742, South Korea. (E-mail: [email protected])

Stelfox, M., J. Hudgins & M. Sweet. 2016. A review of ghost gear entanglement amongst marine mammals, reptiles and elasmobranchs. Marine Pollution Bulletin 111: 6-17. M. Stelfox, Univ Derby, Coll Life & Nat Sci, Environm Sustainability Res Ctr, Derby DE22 1GB, UK.

Strindberg, S., R.A. Coleman, V.R. Burns Perez, C.L. Campbell, I. Majil & J. Gibson, J. 2016. In-water assessments of sea turtles at Glover’s Reef Atoll, Belize. Endangered Species Research 31: 211-225. S. Strindberg, Wildlife Conservation Society, Global Conservation Program, 2300 Southern Blvd., Bronx, NY 10460, USA. (E-mail: [email protected])

Taylor, B.K. 2016. Validating a model for detecting magnetic field intensity using dynamic neural fields. Journal of Theoretical


Post-nesting green turtle crawling to the sea on Long Beach, Ascension Island. For more detail, see Huxley MTN 84: 7-9. Photo: Matthew H. Godfrey.

Biology 408: 53-65. Air Force Res Lab, Munit Directorate, 101 West Eglin Blvd, Ste 209, Bldg 13, Eglin AFB, FL 32542 USA.

Vander Zanden, H.B., A.B. Bolten, A.D. Tucker, K.M. Hart, M.M. Lamont, I. Fujisaki, K.J. Reich, D.S. Addison, K.L. Mansfield, K.F. Phillips, M. Pajuelo & K.A. Bjorndal. 2016. Biomarkers reveal sea turtles remained in oiled areas following the Deepwater Horizon oil spill. Ecological Applications. 26: 2145-2155. H.B. Vander Zanden, Univ of Utah, Dept Geol & Geophys, 115 S 1460 E, Salt Lake City, UT 84112 USA. (E-mail: [email protected])

Velasco-Charpentier, C., F. Pizarro-Mora, A. Estrades & G.M. Velez-Rubio. 2016. Epibiota of juvenile hawksbill sea turtles Eretmochelys imbricata stranded in the coast of Rocha Department, Uruguay. Revista De Biologia Marina y Oceanografia 51: 449-453. C. Velasco-Charpentier, Univ Valparaiso, Fac Ciencias Mar & Recursos Nat, Casilla 5080, Vina Del Mar, Chile. (E-mail: [email protected])

Venegas, D., A. Marmolejo-Valencia, C. Valdes-Quezada, T. Govenzensky, F. Recillas-Targa & H. Merchant-Larios. 2016. Dimorphic DNA methylation during temperature-dependent sex determination in the sea turtle Lepidochelys olivacea. General and Comparative Endocrinology 236: 35-41. H. Merchant-Larios, Univ Nacl Autonoma Mexico, Inst Invest Biomed, Dept Biol Celular & Fisiol, Ciudad Univ, Mexico City 04510, DF, Mexico. (E-mail: [email protected])

Werneck, M.R. & R.J. Da Silva. 2016. Checklist of sea turtles endohelminth in Neotropical region. Helminthologia 53: 211-223. M.R. Werneck, BW Vet Consulting, Rua Ponciano Eugenio Duarte 203, BR-11680000 Ubatuba, SP, Brazil. (E-mail: [email protected])

Yari, M., A. Moghimi & S. Fakhari. 2016. Preparation of modified magnetic nano-Fe3O4 chitosan/graphene oxide for the preconcentration and determination of copper (II) ions in

biological and environmental water samples prior to flame atomic absorption spectrometry. Oriental Journal of Chemistry 32: 1659-1669. A. Moghimi, Islamic Azad Univ, Varamin Pishva Branch, Dept Chem, Varamin, Iran. (E-mail: [email protected])

TECHNICAL REPORTSBoura, L., S.S. Abdullah & M.A. Nada. 2016. New observations of

sea turtle trade in Alexandria, Egypt. MEDASSET - Mediterranean Association to Save the Sea Turtles. 27pp. http://www.medasset.org/publications

Kraus, S.D., S. Leiter, K. Stone, B. Wikgren, C. Mayo, P. Hughes, R.D. Kenney, C.W. Clark, A.N. Rice, B. Estabrook & J. Tielens. 2016. Northeast Large Pelagic Survey Collaborative aerial and acoustic Surveys for large whales and sea turtles. BOEM Tech Report 2016-054. 117 pp. http://bit.ly/2kDmFSh

MEDASSET. 2016. Update Report. Development Plans in Kyparissia Bay, Southern Kyparissia (Western Peloponnese, Greece). T-PVS/Files (2016) 34. Presented to the Standing Committee to the Convention on the Conservation of European Wildlife and Natural Habitats (Bern Convention) at the Council of Europe. 12pp. http://www.medasset.org/publications

MEDASSET. 24 August 2016. Update Report. Loggerhead Sea Turtle (Caretta caretta) Conservation Monitoring in Fethiye and Patara SPAs, Turkey. T-PVS/Files (2016) 35. Presented to the Standing Committee to the Convention on the Conservation of European Wildlife and Natural Habitats (Bern Convention) at the Council of Europe. 44pp. See address above.

MEDASSET. 2015. Information Note: Follow-up of Recommendation No. 95 (2002) on the conservation of marine turtles in Kazanli beach (Turkey). T-PVS/Files (2015) 45. Presented to the Standing Committee to the Convention on the Conservation of European Wildlife and Natural Habitats (Bern Convention) at the Council of Europe. 14pp. See address above.


AimThe Marine Turtle Newsletter (MTN) provides current information on marine turtle research, biology, conservation and status, in an open-access format. A wide range of material will be considered for publication in the MTN including editorials, articles, notes, letters and announcements. Research articles, notes and editorials published in the MTN are subject to peer-review, with an emphasis on ensuring clarity and transparency of information that is accessible to individuals from a variety of disciplines and organizations world-wide.

Scope of the Marine Turtle Newsletter Material in the MTN may include any aspect of the biology or conservation of sea turtles. Subject areas include, but are not limited to nesting biology, physiology, behavior, sensory biology, population trends, conservation biology, management techniques, policy, human dimensions, stories, poetry, etc.

INSTRUCTIONS FOR AUTHORS

Readership Material published in the MTN is of interest to researchers, conservationists, academics, teachers, naturalists, volunteers, policy makers, planners, resource managers and media professionals. Editorial Policy The MTN publishes submitted and commissioned articles, debates and discussions, editorials, book reviews, comments and notes, and reader feedback. The MTN is published four times a year in PDF and HTML formats, available at seaturtle.org/MTN. All manuscripts submitted to the MTN are processed using a single blind reviewer system, although occasionally reviewers will sign their comments. The editors will work with authors to revise manuscripts as needed to make them publishable in the MTN.

Submission All manuscripts and supporting material must be submitted electronically to [email protected].

SUBSCRIPTIONS AND DONATIONS

The Marine Turtle Newsletter (MTN) is distributed quarterly to more than 2000 recipients in over 100 nations world-wide. In order to maintain our policy of free distribution and free access to colleagues throughout the world, the MTN relies heavily on donations. We appeal to all of you, our readers and contributors, for continued financial support to maintain this venture. All donations are greatly appreciated and will be acknowledged in a future issue of the MTN. Typical personal donations have ranged from $25-100 per annum, with organisations providing significantly more support. Please give what you can. Donations to the MTN are handled under the auspices of SEATURTLE.ORG and are fully tax deductible under US laws governing 501(c)(3) non-profit organisations. Donations are preferable in US dollars as a Credit Card payment (MasterCard, Visa, American Express or Discover) via the MTN website <http://www.seaturtle.org/mtn/>. In addition we are delighted to receive donations in the form of either a Personal Cheque drawn on a US bank, an International Banker’s Cheque drawn on a US bank, a US Money Order, an International Postal Money Order, or by Direct Bank Wire (please contact [email protected] for details). Please do not send non-US currency cheques.

Please make cheques or money orders payable to Marine Turtle Newsletter and send to:

Michael Coyne (Managing Editor)Marine Turtle Newsletter

1 Southampton PlaceDurham, NC 27705, USA

Email: [email protected]

Full Instructions for Authors can be found here:http://www.seaturtle.org/mtn/authors.shtml

The MTN was founded in 1976 by Nicholas Mrosvoskyat the University of Toronto, Canada

marine turtle newslettermatthew h. godfrey nc sea turtle project nc wildlife resources commission...

Documents