Marine Turtle Newsletter - Seaturtle.org

Marine Turtle Newsletter Issue Number 133

April 2012

Local fisherman Tono Girón with incidentally caught hawksbill in the river Paz, close to Barra del Jioté, Guatemala, see pages 20-22 (photo: S. Handy).

Articles Guest Editorial: Progress..................................................................................................................................BP Wallace First Satellite Track of a Head-started Juvenile Hawksbill in the Colombian Caribbean...............K Pabón-Aldana et al. Wind Energy Plants and Possible Effects on Samandağ Sea Turtles...................................Ş Yalçın-Özdilek & S Yalçın First Evidence of Green Turtle Nesting in Peru....................................................................................KS Forsberg et al. Evaluation of Sex Ratios of the Olive Ridley on La Escobilla, Mexico......................OE Hernández-Echeagaray et al. First Contemporary Record of Green Turtle Nesting in the United Arab Emirates...........................AS Al Suweidi et al. Historical Occurrence and Characterization of Cutaneous Fibropapillomas in the Green Turtle along the Southern Brazilian Coast..........................................................................HA Rodrigues et al. Two Reports of Juvenile Hawksbill Sea Turtles on the Southeast Coast of Guatemala............................R Brittain et al. Project Profile Recent Publications

Marine Turtle Newsletter No. 133, 2012 - Page 1

ISSN 0839-7708

Editors:

Managing Editor:

Kelly R. Stewart NOAA-National Marine Fisheries Service Southwest Fisheries Science Center 3333 N. Torrey Pines Ct. La Jolla, California 92037 USA

Matthew H. Godfrey NC Sea Turtle Project NC Wildlife Resources Commission 1507 Ann St. Beaufort, NC 28516 USA

Michael S. Coyne SEATURTLE.ORG 1 Southampton Place Durham, NC 27705, USA

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

E-mail: [email protected]

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

Founding Editor: Nicholas Mrosovsky University of Toronto, Canada

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

Nicolas J. Pilcher Marine Research Foundation, Malaysia

George H. Balazs National Marine Fisheries Service, Hawaii, USA

Manjula Tiwari National Marine Fisheries Service, La Jolla, USA

Alan B. Bolten University of Florida, USA

ALan F. Rees University of Exeter in Cornwall, UK

Robert P. van Dam Chelonia, Inc. Puerto Rico, USA

Kartik Shanker Indian Institute of Science, Bangalore, India

Angela Formia University of Florence, Italy

Oğuz Türkozan Adnan Menderes University, Turkey

Colin Limpus Queensland Turtle Research Project, Australia

Jeanette Wyneken Florida Atlantic University, USA

MTN Online - The Marine Turtle Newsletter is available at the MTN web site: . Subscriptions and Donations - Subscriptions and donations towards the production of the MTN should be made online at or c/o SEATURTLE.ORG (see inside back cover for details).

We are grateful to our major donors:


© Marine Turtle Newsletter

Guest Editorial: Progress Bryan P. Wallace

Global Marine Division, Conservation International, 2011 Crystal Dr. Suite 500, Arlington, VA 22202 USA; Division of Marine Sciences and Conservation, Nicholas School of the Environment and Earth Science, Duke University, 135 Duke Marine Lab Rd., Beaufort, NC 28516 USA (E-mail: [email protected]); Current address: Oceanic Society, 624 Keefer Pl NW, Washington, D.C. 20010 (E-mail: [email protected])

Recently, the US National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) declared nearly 42,000 square miles off the West Coast states of Washington, Oregon, and California as critical habitat for the world’s largest turtle species, the leatherback (Dermochelys coriacea). For NMFS, which manages the marine resources of the US in what is collectively the largest exclusive economic zone of any country in the world, this is the largest such designation in US waters. Leatherback populations in the Pacific Ocean, in particular, are recognized as being in critical danger of extinction, as their numbers have declined substantially during the last two decades (Dutton et al. 2007; Santidrián Tomillo et al. 2007; Sarti Martinez et al. 2007; Spotila et al. 2000). Given the leatherback’s urgent conservation status, you might think that environmental groups that have been working for several years to secure safe havens for leatherbacks in the Pacific would be hailing this announcement as a major advance for sea turtle conservation. Unfortunately, you’d be wrong. Despite this groundbreaking decision, which will put federal controls on any non-recreational activity that might negatively alter habitat and affect leatherbacks, environmental groups that were behind the lawsuits and petitions urging NMFS to take action on this issue are still disappointed. Worse yet, they have been cavalier with information and how it is communicated, which undermines their credibility and message, not to mention those of their fellow conservationists. The purpose of this piece is not to single out these organizations for ridicule. Rather, it is to highlight issues that continue to plague the broader conservation movement and erode its continued progress. To be successful, we conservationists must shed the “doom and gloom” messaging, and move instead toward a fact-based focus on progress, no matter how incremental and seemingly small the achievements. Below, I present some quotes from media reports about the announcement, and then provide context and/or address problematic statements. I end with some thoughts on how we can move forward as a sea turtle conservation community. Some sample quotes from the organizations involved: Org. #1: “Habitat protections are vital to the survival of leatherbacks but this rule falls short of the goal.” Org. #2: “It’s a big step in the right direction, but we want protections for migratory pathways.” Press release by Org. #1: “Today’s final protection comes in response to a petition submitted in 2007… followed by two years of delay by the agency, missing multiple legal deadlines specified in the Endangered Species Act.” To recap: NMFS has already put in place significant measures to reduce fisheries bycatch (see below) as they are mandated to do by the US Endangered Species Act. Now, NMFS just established critical

habitat for leatherbacks—a regulation that actually has a good chance of being enforced, a rarity in today’s world. Leatherbacks that will be protected by this designation migrate to the US West Coast from breeding areas on the western side of the Pacific (in Indonesia, Papua New Guinea, and the Solomon Islands)—tens of thousands of miles away (Benson et al. 2011). And these are the responses? To be disappointed that NMFS somehow can’t shut down anything that might harm leatherbacks along their entire migratory route is completely unreasonable. What ideal outcome would satisfy these groups? Personally, I think the appropriate response should be: “Thank you. Nice job.” What these groups neglect to mention—or appreciate—is the monumental efforts that both NMFS and the fishing industry in these states and Hawaii have undertaken in the last decade to reduce incidental catch of sea turtles, including leatherbacks. The Hawaii longline fleet is widely recognized as operating under perhaps the strictest management regime of any industrial fleet in the world with respect to sea turtle (and seabird) bycatch. In addition to numerous gear fixes to catch and injure fewer turtles, there is an extremely conservative cap on the number of leatherbacks and loggerheads that the fleet can accidentally catch before being shut down. (To give credit where it is due, all of this regulation can be traced back to a court-ordered closure of the fishery in response to lawsuits brought by these very organizations.) It doesn’t stop there. A seasonal fishing closure to gillnet fishing off the US West Coast has been in place to protect—wait for it— leatherbacks in their critical feeding areas since the early 2000s. So how many leatherbacks have been caught in this area since that was created? Zero. And longlines? They aren’t even allowed in the US West Coast EEZ. But despite these commendable, effective management efforts, these groups try to give the idea that NMFS and US fishermen are doing nothing to protect leatherbacks and fish responsibly. By the way, none of the dozens of other countries that fish in the North Pacific manage their fleets this carefully. So this means that while these groups continue to hammer NMFS for their supposed failure to adequately manage sea turtle bycatch, the rest of the world goes on fishing with impunity. More quotes: Org. #1: “Sea turtles will continue to swim a gauntlet to get to the best feeding areas off our coast, dodging ship traffic, long nets [sic] and hooks.” Org. #3: “Threats to these turtles are increasing, not diminishing.” To evaluate these claims, one should ask: how serious are the threats? And are these coastal areas now designated as critical habitat really where the most serious threats occur? Though


bycatch is recognized as the most pervasive threat to leatherbacks (and other sea turtles) around the world (Wallace et al. 2011), it is unlikely that bycatch in US waters is the primary issue for this particular population. In any case, wouldn’t this very critical habitat designation - along with all the regulations described above - actually mean that threats are necessarily decreasing? Aren’t there now more protections in place than there used to be? This leatherback population also ranges throughout Southeast Asian waters (Benson et al. 2011), a region replete with small-scale fishing gear that can have huge impacts on sea turtles and other vulnerable species (Chaloupka et al. 2004). These types of fishing activities are generally unreported, unobserved, and completely unmanaged. Furthermore, threats on nesting beaches can be at least as important as threats from bycatch (Santidrián Tomillo et al. 2008). To be sure, it is plausible that leatherbacks might face numerous threats across their vast ranges and long lives. But to compare this situation to “facing a gauntlet” is too dire and dramatic a perspective, and does not consider successful efforts to reduce threats to leatherbacks. Protection of leatherbacks and their offspring on western Pacific beaches (and elsewhere around the world) have been in place for many years, with increasing success. The aforementioned accomplishments in leatherback bycatch management in US fisheries are indisputable. A bigger stretch, and an error that appears far too commonly, is the assertion that leatherbacks and other sea turtle species are on the verge of extinction everywhere. This is simply false, as an increasing number of reports have shown (e.g., Chaloupka et al. 2008; Wallace et al. 2011). From the San Francisco Chronicle’s coverage of this announcement (Saturday, 21 January 2012): “The worldwide population has declined by 95 percent since the 1980s because of commercial fishing, egg poaching, destruction of nesting habitat, degradation of foraging habitat and changing ocean conditions. Listed as endangered since 1970 under the Endangered Species Act, there are believed to be only 2,000 to 5,700 nesting females left in the world.” From the Seattle Times (January 20, 2012): “Still, some also believe this is a step in the right direction for the turtles, whose population has been struggling for some time. In 1982, there were about 115,000 adult female leatherbacks in the world. Just 14 years later, studies found that number had dropped to about 34,500.” Org. #3: “We don’t want to see the leatherback turtles go the way of the grizzly bear and disappear.” These statements, like the previous ones, are incorrect. While appealing for media obsessed with controversy but not fact-based reporting, these types of statements are misinformed, oversimplified, and ultimately misleading. Based on current data, there is only one leatherback population in the world - the one found in the East Pacific Ocean - that has declined by more than 90 percent since the 1980s (Santidrián Tomillo et al. 2007; Sarti Martinez et al. 2007; Wallace & Saba 2009), and one nesting population (Malaysia) that has been functionally extirpated (Liew 2010). In fact, the West Pacific leatherback population that the NMFS designation would protect has essentially stabilized, although at much lower numbers than existed historically (Dutton et al. 2007). The study referenced in the Seattle Times article was published

15 years ago (Spotila et al. 1996), and the estimates it produced are now largely obsolete. But that hasn’t stopped it from continually appearing as a supposedly authoritative resource. The worldwide leatherback population is much, much larger, and definitely not decreasing at such a rate. Information on leatherback abundance from many sites not included in that study show that in the Atlantic Ocean alone there are currently between 20,000 and 56,000 adult females (Turtle Expert Working Group 2007). And many nesting populations are stable, if not increasing, on beaches around the world (Wallace et al. 2011). So how would such factual errors make it into print? Putting aside for a moment the fact that grizzly bears are not extinct, one wonders where media outlets get—not to mention vet—such information. Having been a part of several media releases about scientific papers, I have found that journalists—under pressure to file as many stories as quickly as possible—will run the facts and figures that they are given to save precious time. If I wanted to be sure that they got numbers right, I gave them only what I was comfortable associating my name with, i.e., what I could support with published data. (Of course, reporters still occasionally managed to describe details incorrectly; but in multiple cases, when I brought errors to their attention, most reporters responsibly and quickly fixed them.) In fairness, I could even understand - but respectfully disagree - if one were to think that I’m a hypocrite for writing this critique of other groups’ media campaigns. In recent years, I’ve translated scientific findings and conclusions into media-friendly quotes and soundbites in order to gain traction with press coverage and broad audiences. And by no means am I alone in these efforts; news reports covering sea turtle research and researchers have increased tremendously in recent years, which is definitely a good trend. Some of these translations might make scientists uncomfortable because of their brevity and illustrative nature, perhaps at the expense of the scientific nuance that provides a more thorough context for the facts on which they are based. Nonetheless, I think that just as it is our responsibility as scientists to communicate our research results to our peers in the scientific community, we should explore possibilities for communication to other audience as well. But there is a difference between translating from scientific language to one spoken by non-specialists to advance knowledge and conservation goals, and distorting or ignoring information to advance a particular agenda. For us conservationists, our message is only as good as the reliability and credibility of the messengers. Moreover, the facts are our friends; because stories and studies about sea turtles sell themselves, there is no need to exaggerate or obscure the situation. We can just tell it like it is. Furthermore, for our movement to succeed, it has to work under as big a tent as possible. Differences in philosophies and strategies should not be insurmountable obstacles to working together. That means that there is certainly a valuable role to be played by advocacy groups that keep the pressure on managers, but we must also acknowledge the difficult but important actions that managers make for sea turtle conservation. More importantly, we need to seek out and take advantage of opportunities for collaborations “across party lines,” i.e., where different organizations with distinct missions, methods, and constituents work together on common goals. In fact, we’re more likely to reach a broader audience and therefore leverage greater conservation successes by working together rather than separately or at odds with each other. Overall, we need to recognize


and respect the backgrounds, experiences, needs, and motivations of stakeholders - their realities - to effectively engage each other and find common ground in conservation efforts. Finally, we must make it a top priority to acknowledge progress when it occurs. Rome wasn’t built in a day, as the saying goes, and nor will government agencies (or anyone else, for that matter) figure out how to make humans live harmoniously with nature within such a short time period. Focusing only on the failures, on the negatives, on the shortcomings of today’s conservation efforts, only makes our hard jobs even harder, and certainly won’t attract many newcomers to the movement. We need to inspire hope and equanimity, not despair and acrimony. “It’s something we’ve been working on the past couple of years,” said a NMFS ecologist, in reference to the critical habitat designation. “The agency is very happy.” As it should be. We are a unique, diverse, quirky, infuriating, inspiring group of mildly (if not clinically) obsessed people trying to make the world a better place, one saved turtle at a time. For us to succeed in our mission to recover sea turtle populations around the world, we must celebrate and draw strength from our commonly shared passions, visions, and missions. The turtles and their ocean homes are counting on us. Benson, S.R., T. Eguchi, D.G. Foley, K.A. Forney, H. Bailey, C. Hitipeuw, B.P. Samber, R.F. Tapilatu, V. Rei, P. Ramohia, J. Pita & P.H. Dutton. 2011. Large-scale movements and high-use areas of western Pacific leatherback turtles, Dermochelys coriacea. Ecosphere 2(7):art84. doi:10.1890/ES11-00053.1. Chaloupka, M., P. Dutton & H. Nakano. 2004. Status of sea turtle stocks in the Pacific. FAO Report, pp. 135-206. Chaloupka, M., K.A. Bjorndal, G.H. Balazs, A.B. Bolten, L.M. Ehrhart, C.J. Limpus, H. Suganuma, S. Troeng & M. Yamaguchi. 2008. Encouraging outlook for recovery of a once severely exploited marine megaherbivore. Global Ecology and Biogeography 17: 297-304. LIEW, H.-C. 2010. Tragedy of the Malaysian leatherback population. In: P.H. Dutton, D. Squires & M. Ahmed (Eds.). Conservation of Pacific Sea Turtles. University of Hawaii Press, Honolulu, HI, USA, pp. 97-107. Dutton, P.H., C. Hitipeuw, M. Zein, S.R. Benson, G. Petro, J. Pita, V. Rei, L. Ambio & J. Barkabessy. 2007. Status and genetic structure of nesting populations of leatherback turtles (Dermochelys coriacea) in the Western Pacific. Chelonian Conservation & Biology 6: 47-53.

Peckham, S.H., D. Maldonado Díaz, A. Walli, G. Ruíz, L.B. Crowder & W.J. Nichols. 2007. Small-scale fisheries bycatch jeopardizes endangered Pacific loggerhead turtles. PLoS ONE 2:e1041. Santidrián Tomillo, P., E. Veléz, R.D. Reina, R. Piedra, F.V. Paladino & J.R. Spotila. 2007. Reassessment of the leatherback turtle (Dermochelys coriacea) nesting population at Parque Nacional Marino Las Baulas, Costa Rica: effects of conservation efforts. Chelonian Conservation & Biology 6: 54-62. Santidrián Tomillo, P., V.S. Saba, R. Piedra, F.V. Paladino & J.R. Spotila. (2008) Effects of illegal harvest of eggs on the population decline of leatherback turtles in Las Baulas Marine National Park, Costa Rica. Conservation Biology 22: 1216-1224. Sarti Martínez, L., A.R. Barragán, D.G. Muñoz, N. García, P. Huerta & F. Vargas. 2007. Conservation and biology of the leatherback turtle in the Mexican Pacific. Chelonian Conservation & Biology 6: 70-78. Shillinger, G.L., D.M. Palacios, H. Bailey, S.J. Bograd, A.M. Swithenbank, P. Gaspar, B.P. Wallace, J.R. Spotila, F.V. Paladino, R. Piedra, S.A. Eckert & B.A. Block .2008. Persistent leatherback turtle migrations present opportunities for conservation. PLoS Biology 6:e171. Spotila, J.R., A.E. Dunham, A.J. Leslie, A.C. Steyermark, P.T. Plotkin & F.V. Paladino. 1996. Worldwide leatherback population decline of Dermochelys coriacea: are leatherback turtles going extinct? Chelonian Conservation & Biology 2: 209-222. Spotila, J.R., R.D. Reina. A.C. Steyermark, P.T. Plotkin & F.V. Paladino. 2000. Pacific leatherback turtles face extinction. Nature 405: 529-530. Turtle Expert Working Group. 2007. An assessment of the Leatherback Turtle Population in the Atlantic Ocean. NOAA Technical Memorandum NMFS-SEFSC-555, 124 pp. Wallace, B.P. & V.S. Saba. 2009. Environmental and anthropogenic impacts on intra-specific variation in leatherback turtles: opportunities for targeted research and conservation Endangered Species Research 7: 1–11. Wallace, B., R. Lewison, S. McDonald, R. McDonald, C. Kot, S. Kelez, R. Bjorkland, E. Finkbeiner, S. Helmbrecht & L. Crowder. 2010. Global patterns of marine turtle bycatch. Conservation Letters 3: 131-142. Wallace, B.P., A.D. DiMatteo, A.B. Bolten, M.Y. Chaloupka, B.J. Hutchinson, F.A. Abreu-Grobois, J.A. Mortimer, J.A. Seminoff, D. Amorocho, K.A. Bjorndal, J. Bourjea, B.W. Bowen, R. Briseño-Dueñas, P. Casale, B.C. Choudhury, A. Costa, P.H. Dutton, A. Fallabrino, E.M. Finkbeiner, A. Girard, M. Girondot, M.H. Godfrey, M. Hamann, B.J. Hurley, M. López-Mendilaharsu, M.A. Marcovaldi, J.A. Musick, R. Nel, N.J. Pilcher, S. Troëng, B. Witherington & r.B. Mast. 2011. Global conservation priorities for marine turtles. PLoS ONE 6: e24510. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0024510


First Satellite Track of a Head-started Juvenile Hawksbill in the Colombian Caribbean Karen Pabón-Aldana, Carmen L. Noriega-Hoyos & Guiomar A. Jaúregui

Sea Turtle Conservation Program, Jorge Tadeo Lozano University, Faculty of Science and Engineering, Marine Biology Program, Carrera 2 No. 11-68. Mundo Marino Building, Rodadero Santa Marta, Colombia (E-mail:[email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected])

The hawksbill turtle (Eretmochelys imbricata) is one of the most notable species of sea turtle worldwide because of the attractiveness of the scutes that cover its shell. This feature has for decades encouraged an intensive illegal trade to meet the demands for tortoiseshell, otherwise known as bekko (Meylan 1999a). In addition, the consumption of its meat and eggs (Groombridge & Luxmoore 1989) along with the destruction of foraging, breeding and nesting areas (Chacón 2004; Meylan & Donnelly 1999) have contributed to the listing of this species as Critically Endangered on the International Union for Conservation of Nature Red List (IUCN 2009). One of the strategies for mitigating the high mortality of these individuals is the head-starting process, where hatchlings are raised in captivity for the first year of life (Ross 2000). This strategy is expected to increase survival by enhancing their size, which protects them to some degree from the high rates of natural predation to which they will be exposed during their early months of life (MINAMBIENTE 2002; Mortimer 1995). This technique is still debated, with some believing that captiveraised turtles may exhibit migratory behavior that differs from that of wild turtles. There may also be interference with the imprinting mechanism that guides turtles to the nesting beach (Bowen et al. 2007; Huff 1989; Meylan 1999b). Furthermore, there is limited data relating to survival, adaptation and eventual breeding success and thus it has been difficult to assess the success of head-starting (Klima & McVey 1981; NRC 1990). Nevertheless, the experience in Los Roques, Venezuela has been that immature hawksbills do have the ability to survive and to cover long distances even though they were raised in captivity (E. Weil In: Meylan 1999b). Shaver & Caillouet (1998) also reported that head-started Kemp’s ridleys (Lepidochelys kempii) returned to their release locations to reproduce successfully as adults. Therefore, the post-release monitoring of the behavior and survival of head-started animals may provide information that helps to realize the effectiveness of head-starting programs (Okuyama et al. 2010). To increase our knowledge about migratory behavior, such as the displacement of a four-year-old head-started hawksbill turtle, a satellite transmitter SPOT5 AM–S244B programmed according to the manufacturer-suggested specifications was used (Wildlife Computers 2006). We attached the device to the second dorsal vertebral scute using epoxy putty (Tubolit MEP 301) and followed the Regional Research and Conservation of Sea Turtles of Argentina (PRICTMA) tag attachment protocol. The turtle (named Cumbiarey) was raised by the Sea Turtle Conservation Program (ProCTM) in Santa Marta, Colombia from 2005 to 2009. It measured 52.6 cm curved carapace length (CCL) and 47.0 cm curved carapace width (CCW). It was released on 5 December 2009 in Gayraca Bay, Tayrona National Park, Colombia (11°19’5.98’’ N – 74°6’24.96’’W). We retrieved data using the

Argos CLS system and plotted it using the Satellite Tracking and Analysis Tool (STAT; Coyne & Godley 2005). To improve the location accuracy, positions were considered unacceptable if they were located on land (Parker et al. 2009) or if turtle speeds exceeded 5 km/h, which represents the maximum expected speed of travel (Hays et al. 2001; Luschi et al. 1998). Satellite images of surface currents were extracted from the Ssalto/Duacs system (Aviso 2010). The surface temperature of water in Colombia was obtained from the Center for Oceanographic and Hydrographic Research (CIOH) and in Panama from the Environmental Sciences Program of the Smithsonian Tropical Research Institute. The relationship between physical oceanographic parameters and the route taken by the turtle was estimated qualitatively by overlaying maps of each component. For correlations between variables, Pearson’s test was used with the InfoStat software (Zar 2010). The tag transmitted location data for 64 days and showed that the maximum distance traveled by the turtle was 1463.66 km from the release site (Fig. 1). January was the month with the highest number of locations recorded (n = 45), followed by December with 20 locations, while February had only three location data points.

Figure 1. Migratory movements of Cumbiarey after release on 5 December 2009 in Gayraca Bay, Tayrona National Park, Colombia. Distance traveled was 1,463.66 km over a 6-month period. The map was made using Maptool (www. seaturtle.org/maptool/).


southern part of the anticyclonic current to Costa Rica waters, in close association with surface currents; Fig. 2 shows the use of the surface currents along the turtle’s route. This path was 1,044 km long and represented 71% of the total movement. The highest speed recorded was 3.4 ± 0.19 km/h, while the lowest average speed was 0.73 ± 0.19 km/h; this occurred along the Colombian coast. This finding suggests that Cumbiarey attained higher speeds in the open sea, possibly due to the influence of currents. When the turtle was near shore, speeds decreased (Cuevas et al. 2008). The turtle continued in a southeasterly direction to the province of Bocas del Toro in Panama where it entered northeast of Isla Colon and continued southwest into the archipelago. Bocas del Toro is home to 90% of the coral species in Panama (Guzmán & Guevara 1999) and appears to be highly favorable feeding grounds for juvenile and adult hawksbill turtles (Carr et al. 1982; Meylan et al. 2006). Cumbiarey remained predominantly within the central aquatic region of this province, which is an area with a high coverage of corals (44%), a high diversity of sponges (51%) and a dominant Figure 2. Absolute geostrophic velocity for the Western algal presence (30%) (Guzmán & Guevara 1999). These conditions Caribbean (cm s-1) on 5 Jan. 2009. Red dots indicate the suggest that this region has a suitable foraging base to be designated locations of Cumbiarey between 25 Dec-5 Jan 2009. The as a developmental foraging habitat. Cumbiarey remained at this map was made using Maptool (www.seaturtle.org/maptool/). location for the duration of the transmission of the tag. One of the advantages of using tags like the SPOT5 is obtaining During March, April and May we continued receiving messages temperature data (Byles 1993). During the six months of tracking from the device; however the number of messages per satellite Cumbiarey, we received 69 temperature recordings within the range pass did not exceed the minimum requirement (>4) for estimating of 25.1°C to 30.6°C. The results of the Pearson test indicated a an accurate location. The interruption or cessation of transmission strong correlation (r = 0.70) between the station data from the (69) may be attributed to different factors including the expiration of the Smithsonian and temperature sensor data from the SPOT5; this battery, biofouling or physical damage (Hays et al. 2007), and in similarity is reflected in the monthly temperature average (Fig. 3). this case may have been the result of antenna wear after arrival of This correlation indicates that temperature is an important variable the turtle in a foraging area, or a degradation of the signal strength that may be useful for validating geographic locations of Cumbiarey. (Parker et al. 2009). There is some other information about the movements of During the first 21 days, the juvenile turtle remained in the waters hawksbill turtles tracked using satellite telemetry within the of the Tayrona National Natural Park swimming parallel to the coast Wider Caribbean, such as the work done since 2003 by the for over 149 km. This behavior is similar to the turtle tracked by Caribbean Conservation Corporation (now known as the Sea Turtle Klima & McVey (1981), where head–started turtles were observed Conservancy) at Chiriquí Beach (Espinosa et al. 2004; Espinosa et to remain in the release area for 10 days. al. 2006). Studies have also been done at Tortuguero, Costa Rica After the third week, the turtle swam away from the Magdalena (Tröeng et al. 2005), Mona Island in Puerto Rico (Van Dam et al. coast, possibly traveling within the Caribbean current. At that time 2008) and along the Yucatan Peninsula, Mexico (Cuevas et al. 2008). oceanographic reports indicated the formation of mesoscale eddies However, the route traced by Cumbiarey from Colombia to Panama as a result of the Caribbean current and Panama-Colombia counter is the first record from the Colombian Caribbean. Our data reveal current merging (CIOH 2008). Cumbiarey traveled within the a trajectory that connects with a possible migratory pathway from the Lesser Antilles. Additionally, it suggests that the foraging areas reported for adults may not be different from the developmental areas used by juveniles; they may be close to one another, even though there are bathymetric differences (Buitrago & Guada 2002; McGowan et al. 2008). This may indicate that Bocas del Toro is not only a region of great importance for nesting and breeding hawksbills but that it also has high value as a feeding and developmental habitat for young turtles (Meylan et al. 1993). Cumbiarey demonstrated that juvenile hawksbill turtles from head-started projects are able to migrate Figure 3. A comparison of average values between the monthly sea and survive in the wild for a period of at least of surface temperatures from the Smithsonian Tropical Research Institute 6 months, travelling within surface currents to (light grey bars) and the data from the SPOT5 (dark grey bars). Column successfully arrive at documented areas known for sea turtle nesting and foraging. However, it is necessary bars represent standard errors. Marine Turtle Newsletter No. 133, 2012 - Page 5

to increase the number of tracked turtles, both head-started and wild, to compare routes and confirm that head-starting projects are a valuable and appropriate conservation tool. Acknowledgements: Financial support was received from Jorge Tadeo Lozano University. We thank the contributors from Petrobras, Mundo Marino Aquarium and authorization from the Magdalena’s Autonomous Corporation and the National Natural Parks of Colombia. We also want to thank Alvaro Rodriguez Cabrera and Andrés Franco for their help with the maps, also to Jorge Bernal Gutiérrez, Nadya Ramírez and Jose Fernando Gonzalez Maya. Special thanks to Victoria Gonzalez Carman from PRICTMA who helped us with the satellite tag attachment and to The Environmental Sciences Program of the Smithsonian Tropical Research Institute. We also thank the two anonymous reviewers for their comments that were useful in improving the manuscript. AVISO. 2010. Live Access Server. LAS V7.0 Beta Version 6 UI. Available online: http://las.aviso.oceanosbs.com BOWEN, B.W., W.S. GRANT, Z. HILLIS-STARR, D.J. SHAVER, K.A. BJORNDAL, A.B. BOLTEN & A.L. BASS. 2007. Mixed-stock analysis reveals the migrations of juvenile hawksbill turtles (Eretmochelys imbricata) in the Caribbean Sea. Molecular Ecology 16: 49-60. BUITRAGO, J. & H. GUADA. 2002. La Tortuga Carey (Eretmochelys imbricata) en Venezuela. Interciencia 27: 392 - 399. BYLES, R. 1993. Telemetría por satélite de tortugas marinas. In: Frazier, J., R. Vázquez, E. Galicia, R. Durán & L. Capuro (Eds.). Memorias del IV Taller regional sobre Programas de Conservación de Tortugas Marinas en la Península de Yucatán, 11-13 de Marzo, 1991. Universidad Autónoma de Yucatán. pp. 27-35. CARR, A.F., A. MEYLAN, J.A. MORTIMER, K.A. BJORNDAL & T. CARR. 1982. Surveys of sea turtle populations and habitats in the western Atlantic. NOAA Tech Memo NMFS-SEFC-91. 82pp. CHACÓN, D. 2004. La tortuga carey del Caribe – Introducción a su biología y estado de conservación. WWF-Programa Regional para América Latina y el Caribe, San José, Costa Rica. 64pp. CIOH (Centro de Investigaciones Oceanográficas e Hidrográficas). 2008. Boletín Meteomarino Diario. Pronóstico de las condiciones meteorológicas y oceanográficas. Available online: http://www.cioh. org.co. 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. CUEVAS, E., F.A. ABREU-GROBOIS, V. GUZMAN-HERNANDEZ, M.A. LICEAGA-CORREA & R.P. VAN DAM. 2008. Post-nesting migratory movements of hawksbill turtles Eretmochelys imbricata in waters adjacent to the Yucatan Peninsula, Mexico. Endangered Species Research 10: 123-133. ESPINOSA O.C., A. RUIZ, S. TROËNG, A. MEYLAN & P. MEYLAN. 2004. Final project report: “2003 hawksbill turtle (Eretmochelys imbricate) research and population recovery, at Chiriqui Beach and Escudo de Veraguas Island, Ñö Kribo region, Ngöbe-Buglé Comarca, and Bastimentos Island Marine National Park.” Caribbean Conservation Corporation, Gainesville, FL. 21p. ESPINOSA O.C., A. RUIZ, S. TROËNG, A. MEYLAN & P. MEYLAN. 2006. Final project report: “2005 hawksbill turtle (Eretmochelys imbricata) research and population recovery at Chiriqui Beach and Escudo de Veraguas Island, Ñö Kribo region, Ngöbe-Buglé Comarca,

and Bastimentos Island Marine National Park, Panamá.” Caribbean Conservation Corporation, Gainesville, FL. 35p. GUZMÁN, H. & C. GUEVARA. 1999. Arrecifes coralinos de Bocas del Toro, Panamá: III. Distribución, estructura, diversidad y estado de conservación de los arrecifes de las Islas Pastores, Cristóbal, Popa y Cayo Agua. Revista de Biología Tropical, 47: 659–679. GROOMBRIDGE, B. & R. LUXMOORE. 1989. The Green Turtle and Hawksbill (Reptilia: Cheloniidae): World Status, Exploitation and Trade. Lausanne, Switzerland: CITES Secretariat, 601p. HAYS, G.C., C.J.A. BRADSHAW, M.C. JAMES, P. LOVELL & D.W. SIMS. 2007. Why do Argos satellite tags deployed on marine animals stop transmitting? Journal of Experimental Marine Biology and Ecology 349: 52–60. HAYS, G.C., S. ÅKESSON, B.J. GODLEY, P. LUSCHI & P. SANTIDRIAN. 2001. The implications of location accuracy for the interpretation of satellite-tracking data. Animal Behavior 61:1035-1040. HUFF, J.A. 1989. Florida (USA) terminates 'headstart' program. Marine Turtle Newsletter. 46: 1-2. IUCN (International Union for Conservation of Nature). 2009. IUCN Red List of Threatened Species. Version 2009.2. www.iucnredlist.org. KLIMA, E.F. & J.P. MCVEY. 1981. Headstarting the Kemp’s ridley turtle, Lepidochelys kempi. In: K.A. Bjorndal (Ed.). Biology and Conservation of Sea Turtles. Smithsonian Institute Press, Washington D.C. pp. 481-487. LUSCHI, P., G.C. HAYS, C. DEL SEPPIA, R. MARSH & F. PAPI. 1998. The navigational feats of green sea turtles migrating from Ascension Island investigated by satellite telemetry. The Royal Society B. 265: 2279-2284. MCGOWAN, A., A.C. BRODERICK, G. FRETT, S. GORE, M. HASTINGS, A. PICKERING, D. WHEATLEY, J. WHITE, M.J. WITT & B.J GODLEY. 2008. Down but not out: marine turtles of the British Virgin Islands. Animal Conservation 11: 92–103. MEYLAN, A., I. CASTILLO, N. D. GONZALEZ, C. ORDOÑEZ, S. TROËNG, A. RUIZ & P. MEYLAN. 2006. Bastimentos Island National Marine Park and Playa Chiriquí: protected areas vital to the recover of the hawksbill turtle (Eretmochelys imbricata) in Caribbean Panama. In: M. Frick, A. Panagopoulou, A.F. Rees & K. Williams (Comps.). Book of Abstracts, 26th Annual Symposium on Sea Turtle Conservation and Biology. International Sea Turtle Society, Athens, Greece. pp. 145-146. MEYLAN, A.B. 1999a. Status of the hawksbill turtle (Eretmochelys imbricata) in the Caribbean Region. Chelonian Conservation & Biology 3: 177-184. MEYLAN, A.B. 1999b. International movements of immature and adult hawksbill turtles (Eretmochelys imbricata) in the Caribbean Region. Chelonian Conservation & Biology 3: 189-194. 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 Animals. Chelonian Conservation & Biology 3: 200-224. MEYLAN, A., P. MEYLAN & A. RUIZ. 1993. Las tortugas marinas en la Provincia de Bocas del Toro. In: S. Heckadon (Ed.). Agenda Ecológica y Social para Bocas del Toro. Panamá. pp. 49-53. MINAMBIENTE (Ministerio del Medio Ambiente). 2002. Programa Nacional para la Conservación de las Tortugas Marinas y Continentales en Colombia. Dirección general de ecosistemas, Bogotá. 63p.


MORTIMER, J.A. 1995. Headstarting as a management tool. In: K.A. Bjorndal (Ed.). Biology and Conservation of Sea Turtles. Smithsonian Institute Press, Washington D.C. pp. 613-615.

Técnicas de Investigación y Manejo para la Conservación de las Tortugas Marinas. Grupo Especialista en Tortugas Marinas UICN/CSE Publicación No. 4. pp. 225-231.

NRC (National Research Council). 1990. Decline of the Sea Turtles: Causes and Prevention. National Academy Press, Washington DC. 259p.

SHAVER, D.J. & C.W. CAILLOUET, JR. 1998. More Kemp’s ridley turtles return to South Texas to nest. Marine Turtle Newsletter 82: 1-5.

OKUYAMA, J., T. SHIMIZU, O. ABE, K. YOSEDA & N. ARAI. 2010. Wild versus head-started hawksbill turtles Eretmochelys imbricata: postrelease behavior and feeding adaptions. Endangered Species Research 10: 181–190.

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

PARKER, D.M., G.H. BALAZS, C.S. KING, K. LARRY & W. GILMARTIN. 2009. Short-range movements of hawksbill turtles (Eretmochelys imbricata) from nesting to foraging areas within the Hawaiian Islands. Pacific Science 63: 371-382. ROSS, J.P. 2000. La crianza y reproducción en cautiverio de tortugas marinas: una evolución de su uso como estrategia de conservación. In: K.L. Eckert, K. Bjorndal, A. Abreu-Grobois & M. Donnelly (Eds).

VAN DAM, R.P., C.E. DIEZ, G.H. BALAZS, L.A. COLÓN COLÓN, W.O. MCMILLAN & B. SCHROEDER. 2008. Sex-specific migration patterns of hawksbill turtles breeding at Mona Island, Puerto Rico. Endangered Species Research 4: 85–94. WILDLIFE COMPUTERS. 2006. SPOT5 User guide. 25 pp. ZAR, J. 2010. Biostatistical Analysis. Fifth Edition. Prentice Hall. New Jersey. 944p.

Wind Energy Plants and Possible Effects on Samandağ Sea Turtles Şükran Yalçın-Özdilek1 & Sevil Yalçın2

Çanakkale Onsekiz Mart University, Faculty of Science and Letters, Department of Biology, Terzioğlu Campus 17020 Çanakkale, Turkey (E-mail: [email protected]); 2Çanakkale Onsekiz Mart University, Faculty of Education Anafartalar Campus, 17100 Çanakkale, Turkey (E-mail: [email protected])

1

Wind energy plants (WEPs) in offshore and onshore locations have grown dramatically over the past decade in various parts of the world, including the Mediterranean. When compared to fossilbased and nuclear energy supplies, renewable energies such as wind plants are often assumed as environmentally inoffensive. The advantages of renewable energy are well known on a global scale; however, possible impacts of renewable energy sources on the local environment must nevertheless be considered (Inger et al. 2009). Alternating electric currents generate electromagnetic field. Power lines are highly observable sources of these artificial electromagnetic fields (EMF). SEA (2004) identified four potential sources of EMF associated with wind farming: the grid interconnection power line, the wind turbine generators, electrical transformers and the underground collector network cabling. Bansal et al. (2002) indicated that the wind turbine towers also can cause electromagnetic interference (EMI) on the performance of the nearby transmitters or receivers (Patel 1999). The EMI nearby transmitters or receivers can have hazardous effects on organisms. Koops (2000) calculated that a monopolar cable carrying 1500 A produces a magnetic flux density of approximately 300 µT on the seabed above the cable, falling off to 50 µT at a distance of 5 m above the seabed, and 13 µT at 20 m above the seabed. Samandağ beach is located in the southern part of the Turkey, on the eastern Mediterranean (Fig. 1). The main beach is ~14 km and the extended beach is about 24 km in length. The beach width varies between 50 and 250 m in different parts of the beach. Two sea turtle species, Caretta caretta and Chelonia mydas, use the

beaches as nesting habitat. Samandağ beach is one of the most important nesting beaches for green turtles in Mediterranean. The nest number of green turtles in this area has reached 621 in 2009 nesting season (Yalçın-Özdilek & Sönmez 2011). The River Asi separates the beaches into two sections, Meydan Beach on the south and the Çevlik and Şeyhhızır beaches on the north. Green turtles nest particularly about 3 km north and south of the Asi River mouth. Moreover, there is some evidence that that the area also serves as foraging habitat for sea turtles (Yalçın-Özdilek & Sönmez 2007; Yalçın-Özdilek & Auregi 2006). The high wind energy potential of some locations in Turkey has encouraged private firms to attempt installing wind power plants. Samandağ has one of the most important wind energy potentials in Turkey (EİE 2010). To date, there are two licensed wind energy plants in Samandağ. One of the turbine fields is located about 250 m from the sea turtle nesting beach. Currently, there are 28 new applications for renewable wind energy plants in Samandağ, including one application for a 33-unit turbine field, producing 165 MW of power, located nearshore near the three km zone around the Asi river (Fig. 1) that has the highest density of nesting (RTEMRA 2012). Although the protected areas of Samandağ beach include the dune and open sandy zones, the planned positions of the turbines are just off the beach, in the nearshore area, where nesting females and hatchling have to traverse to get on and/or off the nesting area of Samandağ. Concerns related to the proposed wind plants have been discussed in different platforms with broad participation of academics and official decision makers and NGOs. The remarks


possible negative consequences for sea turtles (Fig. 2), particularly if cables on or under the sea floor also generate large EMF values. Sea turtles often display strong migratory behaviour between foraging and breeding grounds, including loggerheads and green turtles (e.g. Carr 1975; 1986; Limpus et al. 1992). Loggerhead hatchlings leave nests in the northwestern Atlantic follow the Gulf Stream across to the northeastern Atlantic, and migrate back as large juveniles to the northwestern Atlantic (Bolten et al. 1998). Experimental studies show that hatchlings and juvenile turtles are sensitive to the earth’s natural magnetic field and they can distinguish magnetic inclination in different places during their migration routes (Lohmann 1991; Luschi et al. 2007). The magnetic field intensity varies in different parts of the earth and this is a potential source for positional information. Sea turtle can distinguish magnetic differences lighter than 9 mT (Lohmann et al. 1999; 2001). Therefore, the changes to electromagnetic fields in natural habitats from under sea or under sand cables with respect to impacts on the behaviour of sea turtles should be considered and investigated. Hepbaşlı et al. (2001) ranked WEPs as potentially important future energy sources in Turkey, yet did not Figure 1. The left map indicates the Samandağ and extended beaches adequately consider the potential negative impacts (TR-H-1, TR-H-2, TR-H-3, Kale), the right map indicates sections of of WEPs on the environment. The benefits of WEPs include low carbon emissions, being derived from a Samandağ beach. renewable source (wind), and being local. However, put forward by academics in the meetings have been fruitful and WEPs may have possible negative impacts, particularly on migrating drawn attention to the issue. animals such as sea turtles. Therefore, construction of these kinds Here we address the potential threats to sea turtles from both the of energy requires careful consideration, particularly in areas with wind turbines and the cables that carry energy from the turbines. high levels of biodiversity. The development of wind farms in Using an electromagnetic meter to measure EMF in different Samandağ, which is one of the most important green turtles nesting locations around a turbine and its cable, we found generally that beaches in the Mediterranean, should be assessed on site-specific EMF values decreased with distance from the turbine, except for a and species-specific criteria to determine whether the adverse corridor where the energy transfer cable is located one meter under impacts can be mitigated. From an ecological point of view, coastal the ground (Fig. 2). areas in Samandağ are fragile ecosystems with high ecological Based on our measurements, the cables leaving from the and biodiversity values, including sea turtles. According to the wind turbines have stronger EMF values and thus may have Bern Convention, endangered species such as sea turtles should be afforded primary protection. The Ministry of Forestry and Water Affairs of Turkey has invested time and energy with university researchers to protect nesting sea turtles in Samandağ. The protection of endangered species individuals is important, however in terms of conservation, the protection of a population, including its various habitats used for nesting, feeding, migration and wintering is critical for success. The protection of habitats in turn provides umbrella protection for larger ecosystems that are used by various flora and fauna. Therefore, we recommend that more effort is expended to protect all life stages and habitats of sea turtles, thereby conserving larger ecosystems on which many species depend. BANSAL, R.C., T.S. BHATTI & D.P. KOTHARI. 2002. On some of the design aspects of wind energy conservation systems energy. Conservation and Management 43: 2175-2187.

Figure 2. The measured electromagnetic field around a wind turbine, located in the centre of the circle. Small circles indicate the measurement points.

BOLTEN, A.B., K.A. BJORNDAL, H.R. MARTINS, T. DELLINGER, M.J. BISCOITO, S.E. ENCALADA & B.W. BOWEN. 1998. Transatlantic developmental migrations of loggerhead sea turtles


demonstrated by mtDNA sequence analysis. Ecological Applications 8: 1-7. CARR, A. 1975. The Ascension Island green turtle colony. Copiea 1975: 547-555. CARR, A. 1986. Rips, FADS, and little loggerheads. Bioscience 36: 92– 100. Elektrik Işleri Etüd İdaresi Genel Müdürlüğü (EİE) 2010. Rüzgar Enerjisi Potansiyel Atlası. Retrived on 22 June 2010. www.eie.gov.tr/duyurular/YEK/YEKrepa/REPA-duyuru_01.html HEPBAŞLI, A., A. ÖZDAMAR & N. ÖZALP. 2001. Present status and potential of renewable energy sources in Turkey. Energy Sources 23:631-648.

LOHMANN, K.J, S.D. CAIN & C.M.F. LOHMANN. 2001. Regional magnetic fields as navigational markers for sea turtles. Science 294:364-366. LUSCHI, P., S. BENHAMOU, C. GIRARD, S. CICCIONE, D. ROOS, J. SUDRE & S. BENVENUTI. 2007. Marine turtles use geomagnetic cues during open-sea homing. Current Biology 17: 126-133. PATEL M.R. 1999. Wind and solar power systems. CRC Press, Boca Raton, Florida. Republic of Turkey Energy Market Regulatory Authority (RTEMRA) 2012. İnceleme ve değerlendįrmeye alinan üretım lisanı başvurulari ve ıtıraz sürelerı. http://www2.epdk.org.tr/ lisans/elektrik/lisansdatabase/basvuruuretimRES.asp

INGER R., M.J. ATTRILL, S. BEARHOP, A.C. BRODERICK, W.J. GRECIAN, D.J. HODGSON, C. MILLS, E. SHEEHAN, S.C. VOTIER, M.J. WITT & B.J.GODLEY. 2009. Marine renewable energy: potential beneﬁts to biodiversity? An urgent call for research. Journal of Applied Ecology 46: 1145–1153.

Sustainable Energy Australia (SEA) Pty. Ltd. 2004. The electromagnetic compatibility and electromagnetic field implications for wind farming in Australia. Australian Greenhouse Office & Australian Wind Energy Association: Melbourne and Canberra. www.w-wind.com. au/downloads/CBP10_EMCEMF.pdf

KOOPS, F.B.J. 2000. Electric and magnetic fields in consequence of undersea power cables. In: Proceeding of International Seminar on Effect of electromagnetic Fields on the living Environment, 4-5 October 1999, Ismaning Germany.Oberschleissheim (Germany): ICNIRP. pp. 189-210.

WILLIAMS, L.O. 1994. Alternative energy sources. Applied Energy 47: 123-146. YALÇIN-ÖZDİLEK, Ş. & M. AUREGGI. 2006. Strandings of juvenile green turtles at Samandağ, Turkey. Chelonian Conservation & Biology 5: 152-154.

LIMPUS, C.J., J.D. MILLER, C.J. PARMENTER, D. REIMER, N. MCLACHLAN & R. WEBB. 1992. Migration of green (Chelonia mydas) and loggerhead (Caretta caretta) turtles to and from eastern Australian rookeries. Wildlife Research 19: 347-358.

YALÇIN-ÖZDİLEK Ş. & B. SÖNMEZ. 2007. Samandağ Kumsalları’nda Karaya Vurmuş Ölü Kaplumbağalar. II. Ulusal Deniz Kaplumbağaları Sempozyumu, 25-27 Ekim 2007 Dalyan Muğla p. 82.

LOHMANN, K.J. 1991. Magnetic orientation by hatchling loggerhead sea turtles (Caretta caretta). Journal of Experimental Biology 155: 37-49.

YALÇIN-ÖZDİLEK Ş. & B. SÖNMEZ 2011. Nesting characteristics at Samandağ and extended beaches, Turkey. Marine Turtle Newsletter 131: 7-9.

LOHMANN, K.J., J.T. HESTER & C.M.F. LOHMANN. 1999. Longdistance navigation in sea turtles. Ethology, Ecology & Evolution 11: 1-23.

First Evidence of Green Turtle Nesting in Peru Kerstin S. Forsberg1, Fernando Casabonne L.1 & Jacinto Castillo Torres1,2

Planeta Océano – Planet Ocean / Proyecto Tortugas Marinas. Tumbes, Perú (E-mail: [email protected]); 2 Instituto Superior Tecnológico Público Contralmirante Manuel Villar Olivera, Tumbes, Perú

1

The east Pacific green turtle (also known as black turtle or “tortuga negra”, Chelonia mydas; Linnaeus 1758) occurs principally from Baja California (Mexico) to Valparaiso (Chile) and west to the archipelagos of Revillagigedos (Mexico) and Galapagos (Ecuador), with the principal nesting rookeries located at the beaches of Michoacan in Mexico, the Pacific coast of Costa Rica, and the Galapagos islands (Chaloupka et al. 2004; Seminoff 2002; Seminoff et al. 2008; Troncoso Fierro & Urbina Burgos 2007). Previously, the southernmost nesting of green turtles in the eastern Pacific had been recorded in Piqueros beach, south to the Machalilla National Park, Ecuador (Peña et al., unpublished data; Fig. 1). Here we report the first record of green turtle nesting in Peru, which, in addition, constitutes one of the southernmost nesting accounts for this species in the eastern Pacific. Since 2007, volunteers from the Peruvian NGO “Planeta Océano” (Planet Ocean) and its sea turtle flagship program

“Proyecto Tortugas Marinas” have engaged local community members from villages along the coast of Tumbes, northern Peru, in efforts to promote conservation of sea turtles and other marine resources. The northern coast of Peru is considered an important foraging and development area for sea turtles (Hays Brown & Brown 1982; Forsberg 2008; Rosales et al. 2008); and to date, only the olive ridley turtle (Lepidochelys olivacea) was documented nesting in this region (Hays & Brown 1982; Manrique et al. 2003; Kelez et al. 2009; Vera et al. 2008). Chelonia mydas nesting had never been reported from Peru before, despite the proximity to nesting sites in Ecuador. In March 2009, residents from the coastal community of Los Pinos, province of Contralmirante Villar, Tumbes (Fig. 1) reported the discovery of sea turtle hatchlings that had been encountered on the beach three months earlier, close to nearby homes (3°41’00.8”S, 80°41’19.9”W). Based on field interviews, it was determined that


Figure 2. Green turtle from nest laid in Los Pinos, Peru, held in captivity by local community members. Curved carapace length