Marine Turtle Newsletter - Seaturtle.org

Marine Turtle Newsletter Issue Number 139

October 2013

Green turtle released with a satellite tag in Kuwait after being rescued from a hadra fish trap. Photo credit: Musaad Al-Roumi.

Articles Record of a Hawksbill Aggregation at Anchieta Island State Park, Ubatuba, São Paulo, Brazil................TC Leite et al. Mongoose Trap Preference at Sandy Point National Wildlife Refuge, US Virgin Islands.......CG Pollock & J Hairston Characterization of the Interaction Between Sea Turtles and Bottom Gillnets In Southern Brazil Through Interviews with Fishers.....................KL Ramos & MC Vasconcellos Predation of Sea Turtle Nests by Armadillos in the Northern Coast of Bahia, Brazil.............................MD Gandu et al. Case report: Lung Spirorchidiasis in a Green Turtle (Chelonia mydas) in Southern Brazil...............DW Goldberg et al. Recent Publications

Marine Turtle Newsletter No. 139, 2013 - Page 1

ISSN 0839-7708

Editors: Kelly R. Stewart The Ocean Foundation c/o Marine Mammal and Turtle Division Southwest Fisheries Science Center NOAA-National Marine Fisheries Service 8901 La Jolla Shores Dr. La Jolla, California 92037 USA

Managing Editor:

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]

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

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

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).

Produced with assistance from:

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


© Marine Turtle Newsletter

Record of a Hawksbill Sea Turtle (Eretmochelys imbricata, Linneaus 1766) Aggregation at Anchieta Island State Park, Ubatuba, São Paulo, Brazil Tiago C. Leite1, Ana Cristina V. Bondioli2, Josef K. Martins1, Jennifer Rodrigues1 & Débora Guitierrez3

Proteção à Fauna e Monitoramento Ambiental, PROFAUNA, Ubatuba, SP 11680-000 Brazil (E-mail: [email protected]) 2 Instituto Biodiversidade Austral, IBA, São Paulo, SP 013007-001 Brazil (E-mail: [email protected]) 3 Parque Estadual da Ilha Anchieta, PEIA, Ubatuba, SP 11680-000 Brazil (E-mail: [email protected])

1

The hawksbill turtle, Eretmochelys imbricata (Linnaeus 1766), has a circumtropical distribution, occurring from 30°N to 30°S and is normally associated with coral reefs and coastal habitats (Mortimer & Donnelly 2008; Troëng et al. 2005). In Brazil, hawksbills nest on sandy beaches between the state of Espírito Santo in the south to the state of Ceará in the north; however, most nesting occurs in the northern end of the state of Bahia, the state of Sergipe, and the southern end of the state of Rio Grande do Norte (Marcovaldi et al. 2007). Juvenile hawksbill turtles, presumably foraging, have been observed in coastal waters from Santa Catarina in the south to Ceará in the north (Marcovaldi et al. 2011). The largest observed foraging aggregation occurs in the archipelago of Fernando do Noronha (Sanches & Bellini 1999). In all other areas, hawksbills are encountered relatively infrequently, compared to other species (Gallo et al. 2006). Here we report on an aggregation of juvenile hawksbill turtles observed in the coastal waters of the state of Sao Paulo. As part of a research project (“Identidade Caiçara: Pesca com Cerco Flutuante”) that focused the fishing activities of local indigenous populations on the coast of the state of Sao Paulo, we conducted in-water surveys in Anchieta Island State Park (AISP) (Fig. 1), from 7-9 March 2012. At flood tides, we monitored a survey transect that was 10 m wide by 800 m long, with a depth of 2-5 m. During our monitoring, we observed an aggregation of hawksbills concentrated in a small area, and opportunistically collected data.

Date CCL CCW 7/3/2012 41.0 35.5 7/3/2012 35.5 31.0 7/3/2012 49.0 42.0 7/3/2012 30.0 26.5 7/3/2012 79.5 71.0 8/3/2012 41.0 35.5 8/3/2012 49.0 42.0 8/3/2012 35.5 31.0 8/3/2012 41.5 36.0 9/3/2012 41.0 35.5 9/3/2012 79.5 71.0 9/3/2012 30.0 26.5 Average 46.0 40.3 Table 1. Curved carapace length (CCL) and width (CCW), in cm, of E. imbricata turtles encountered at Anchieta Island, Sao Paulo, Brazil.

For each observed turtle, we initially recorded its behavior and subsequently attempted to capture the animal to measure its carapace length. We also took photographs using a Canon® camera G12 in a waterproof case. We observed 20 turtles (19 hawksbills and one green turtle), and we were able to capture 12. When captured, nine were freeswimming, two were resting in hollows or spaces between the rocks, and one was foraging around a rock with white encrusting zoanthid (Palythoa caribaeorum). The eight turtles not captured were freeswimming and were able to elude us. All captured animals were brought to the surface for measurements and photography (Fig. 2), and they were immediately released near where captured. The curved carapace lengths (CCL) ranged from 30-79.5 cm (Table 1) and thus we conclude they were juveniles or subadults (Flores 2002). The largest individual (79.5 cm CCL, 71 cm curved carapace width) was moved to the beach for measurements and photography, and subsequently released. None of the turtles had external flipper tags. One hawksbill turtle was observed foraging on P. caribaeorum zoanthid colonies. Stampar et al. (2007) reported the same behavior pattern at the State Marine Park of Laje de Santos, São Paulo, Brazil. During our dives, we observed numerous scraping marks of hawksbill beaks on the P. caribaeorum colonies, highlighting their foraging behavior. Based on our observations, as well as the local features, such as shallow and calm water, good visibility, great

ulo

a oP

Sã

Figure 1. The study site at Anchieta Island, São Paulo state, Brazil. The dark line on the east side of the peninsula represents the 800 m long study transect. Marine Turtle Newsletter No. 139, 2013 - Page 1

A

B

C

D

E

F

Figure 2. (A) Juvenile E. imbricata captured; (B, C, D, E) Juveniles biometric CCL (curved carapace length) and CCW (curved carapace width) measurement; (F) Sub adult E. imbricata biometric CCL and CCW measurement. diversity and quantity of marine invertebrate, mainly P. caribaeorum zoanthid colonies, we suggest that this region is regularly used for foraging and resting by hawksbill individuals. This is the first record of a concentrated aggregation of immature E. imbricata in the state of São Paulo, and suggests that further study is needed to characterize this area as sea turtle habitat. According to Sanches & Bellini (1999) and Marcovaldi et al. (1998), the principal feeding areas for hawksbills in Brazil are the archipelago of Fernando de Noronha (PE) and Atol das Rocas (RN). Recently, Marcovaldi et al. (2011) reported new sites used as feeding and developmental areas by hawksbills, including Abrolhos (BA), Trindade Island (ES) and Arvoredo (SC). The latter is also described by Reisser et al. (2008) as an important feeding and developmental area for juvenile green and hawksbill turtles. The observation of a juvenile E. imbricata (33 cm CCL) found stranded on the Mostardas beach the coast of Rio Grande do Sul (Valls et al. 2011) and four stranded hawksbills measuring 36 - 38 cm CCL on the coast of the state of Paraná (Guebert et al. 2009) indicates that the size of the hawksbill turtles observed here were similar to those observed elsewhere in Brazil (Table 2). Gallo et al. (2002) reported 11 freedive captures of hawksbills in waters of the islands off the coast of São Paulo and suggested that these areas are potentially important for E. imbricata.

Location Anchieta Island State Park Ceará Fernando de Noronha Archipelago Ubatuba Arvoredo Marine Biological Reserve

It would be interesting to use molecular and telemetry techniques to investigate the level of connectivity among the various hawksbill foraging aggregations. These data would help define management units for hawksbill turtles in Brazil, and could inform conservation actions, both for the species and their habitat on Anchieta Island. Acknowledgments. We thank the floating net fishermen from Sul Beach, especially Mr. Joel and his partners, the Anchieta Island State Park team, the Florestal Foundation and the State Ministry of Culture (ProaC), which enabled this project (Caiçara Identity), Projeto TAMAR and ICMBio (Chico Mendes Institute for Biodiversity Conservation) in the name of H. Becker. A special thanks to our friend Bernard B. Felipe, for his contribution to the location study map. Figure 1 was created using Maptool from SEATURTLE.ORG, Inc. http://www.seaturtle.org/maptool/ FLORES, E.A.C. 2002. Caracterizacíon y mapeo del hábitat de la tortuga de carey (Eretmochelys imbricata, Linnaeus 1766) juvenil frente a la Reserva de Biosfera Ría Lagartos, Yucatán, México. Tesis de Licenciatura. Universidad Autónoma de Yucatán, Mérida. Universidad Autónoma de Yucatán, Mérida. 64 pp. GALLO, B.M.G., S. MACEDO, B.D. GIFFONI, J.H. BECKER & P.C.R. BARATA. 2006. Sea turtle conservation in Ubatuba, southeastern Brazil, a feeding area with incidental capture in

CCL range 30.0 - 79.5 35.7 - 43.2 30.5 - 75.5 32.0 - 67.0 36.0 - 59.5

mean CCL 46.4 39.3 52.3 46.1 44.1

Reference This study Lima et al. 2010 Sanches & Bellini 1999 Gallo et al. 2006 Reisser et al. 2008

Table 2. Biometrics of E. imbricata captured in five different study areas in Brazil. CCL = curved carapace length (in cm). Marine Turtle Newsletter No. 139, 2013 - Page 2

coastal fisheries. Chelonian Conservation & Biology 5: 93-101. GALLO, B.M.G., R.A.C. CAMPANHÃ, F.P. CAMPOS, A.C. CHAGAS, D. PALUDO, B.B. GIFFONI & J.H. BECKER. 2002. Levantamento preliminar da ocorrência de tartarugas marinhas nas ilhas do litoral do estado de São Paulo. In: Resumos do Simpósio Brasileiro de Oceanografia, 1.2002. Instituto Oceanográfico da Universidade de São Paulo, São Paulo. GUEBERT, M.F., L. ROSA, M.C. ROSSO-LONDOÑO, G. SASAKI & C. DOMIT. 2009. Registro de Eretmochelys imbricata, tartaruga-de-pente, no litoral paranaense, sul do Brasil. IV Jornadas de Investigación e conservación de Tortugas Marinas del Atlántico Sur Occidental-ASO. pp. 179-181. www.tortugasaso. org/publicaciones.htm LIMA, E.H.S.M., M.T.D. MELO & P.C.R. BARATA, P.C.R. 2010. Incidental captures of sea turtles by the lobster fishery off the Ceará Coast, Brazil. Marine Turtle Newsletter 128: 16-19. MARCOVALDI, M.A., G.G. LOPEZ, L.S. SOARES, A.J.B. SANTOS, C. BELLINI & P.C.R. BARATA. 2007. Fifteen years of hawksbill sea turtle (Eretmochelys imbricata) nesting in Northern Brazil. Chelonian Conservation & Biology 6: 223-228. MARCOVALDI, M.A., G.G. LOPEZ, L.S. SOARES, C. BELLINI, A.S. SANTOS & M. LOPEZ. 2011. Avaliação do estado de conservação da tartaruga marinha Eretmochelys imbricata (Linnaeus, 1766) no Brasil. Biodiversidade Brasileira 1: 20-27.

MORTIMER, J.A. & M. DONNELLY (IUCN SSC Marine Turtle Specialist Group). 2008. Eretmochelys imbricata. In: IUCN 2012. IUCN Red List of Threatened Species. Version 2012. www.iucnredlist.org. 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. SANCHES, T.M. & C. BELLINI. 1999. Juvenile Eretmochelys imbricata and Chelonia mydas in the Archipelago of Fernando do Noronha, Brazil. Chelonian Conservation & Biology 3: 308-311. STAMPAR, S.N., P.F. SILVA & J.J.O. LUIZ. 2007. Predation on the zoanthid Palythoa caribaeorum (Anthozoa, Cnidaria) in southeastern Brazil. Marine Turtle Newsletter 117:3-5. TROËNG, S., P.H. DUTTON & D. EVANS. 2005. Migration of hawksbill turtles Eretmochelys imbricata from Tortuguero, Costa Rica. Ecography 28: 394-402. VALLS, F.C.L., A.B. BASLER, T.R. BOBSIN, J.F.M. SCHERER, A.L. SCHERER, C. MARCHETTO & M.V. PETRY. 2011. Hawksbill turtle (Eretmochelys imbricata) (Linnaeus, 1766) found alive on the middle coast of Rio Grande do Sul, Brasil. Pan-American Journal of Aquatic Sciences 6: 244-246.

Mongoose Trap Preference at Sandy Point National Wildlife Refuge, US Virgin Islands Clayton G. Pollock1 & Jerry Hairston2

National Park Service, 2100 Church St. #100, Christiansted, St. Croix, USVI 00820 USA (E-mail: [email protected]); 2 USDA Wildlife Services, PO Box 3208 Frederiksted, St. Croix, USVI 00841 USA (E-mail:[email protected])

1

The introduction of the Indian mongoose (Herpestes auropunctatus) to various islands around the world has had deleterious impacts on native species including endangered and threatened species such as sea turtles (Sugoto & Mink 2011). In the Caribbean, previous studies have identified the Indian mongoose as a threat to sea turtle eggs and hatchlings (Small 1982; Nellis & Small 1983; Kontos 1985, 1987, 1988; Leighton et al. 2008, 2009). Even marginal levels of depredation by the non-native Indian mongoose on sea turtle nests are in direct conflict with the broad objectives outlined in recovery plans for these Critically Endangered and Threatened species. Although increasing nest success is critical for sea turtle recovery, few studies have provided an effective protocol for reducing mongoose depredation of sea turtle nests. Furthermore, current measures to decrease depredation rely on decreasing or eliminating mongoose populations but few studies have quantified the most cost effective method of humane removal. In this study we deployed three different kill-traps at various locations along a sea turtle nesting beach located within a wildlife refuge. We recorded the number of mongooses euthanized by trap type to determine whether mongooses demonstrated trap preference or avoidance behavior. We also discuss the management implications of this research for other Caribbean nations and territories seeking to reduce mongoose depredation on sea turtle nesting beaches.

Our study was conducted within Sandy Point National Wildlife Refuge (SPNWR). SPNWR is located on the southwest peninsula of St. Croix, US Virgin Islands (17.6760874 °N, -64.9004245 °W). The refuge is administered by the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service (USFWS) and was established in 1984 to provide and protect critical habitat for endangered and threatened species, including several sea turtle species (Dermochelys coriacea, Eretmochelys imbricata, Chelonia mydas), least terns (Sternula antillarum), Vahl’s boxwood (Buxus vahlii) and the Sandy Point orchid (Psychilis macconelliae). At SPWNR, particular management emphasis is focused on nesting habitat for leatherbacks, since the refuge hosts one of the largest populations of nesting leatherback sea turtles under US jurisdiction. For over 30 nesting seasons the Sandy Point Leatherback Project has conducted nightly saturation tagging and monitoring research during the peak of the leatherback nesting season (April-July). As part of the sea turtle project, sequential permanent stake markers (0-260) have been placed along the vegetation line at 20-m intervals (Fig. 1), allowing researchers to triangulate the nests laid by the turtles. The nests are later excavated after the hatchlings have emerged to investigate the fate of the clutch as well as to calculate hatching success rates. In addition, mongoose depredation rates on sea turtle eggs and hatchlings at SPNWR have been documented and monitored informally since 2005 (Garner & Garner 2010).


Figure 2. The three traps used in this pilot study (from left to right): KORO double spring trap (36 cm x 20 cm x 18 cm), Conibear 160 trap (36 cm x 19 cm x 18 cm), and the DOC250 trap (39 cm x 31 cm x 27 cm). Each box with trap was also weighed; KORO double spring trap = 2.6 kg, Conibear 160 trap = 2.3 kg and DOC250 = 8.1 kg. Figure 1. An overview of Sandy Point National Wildlife Refuge including Tranberg Rd. and other beach access trails. Note several permanent marker stakes are indicated. In recent seasons the sea turtle project expanded in scope to include surveys from February-November. The expanded survey season allows researchers to monitor hawksbill and green turtle nesting which typically occurs July-October. Nesting habitat for hawksbill and green turtles is refuge-wide and includes a narrow, vegetated section from marker 0-123 and a narrow, steeply bermed section from marker 200-260. In contrast, the majority of leatherback nesting occurs on the wide, gently sloping section between marker 123 and 187. However, during some seasons the available habitat for nesting leatherbacks is reduced by sprawling beach vegetation and dynamic erosion patterns. In particular, erosion patterns have increased the need to relocate nests that would otherwise become inundated or washed out. Imperiled leatherback nests are relocated to more stable areas of the beach that are often closer to the vegetation line, potentially increasing the probability of interaction with mongoose (Leighton et al. 2008). The expansion of the sea turtle project highlighted the need to monitor and manage mongoose depredation on hawksbill and green turtle nests. In 2011, 35 known hawksbill nests, 56 green sea turtle nests and eight leatherback nests were depredated by mongoose. This constitutes 52% of all confirmed hawksbill nests and 35% of all confirmed green sea turtle nests for that season (Daily & Valiulis 2011). Hawksbill and green turtles tend to nest closer to the vegetation line and construct shallower nests than leatherbacks thus exposing these species to increased levels of depredation (Leighton et al. 2008, 2009). Additionally, encroaching beach vegetation and the need to relocate nests may also increase the likelihood of interactions between potential predators like mongoose and sea turtle eggs and hatchlings (Leighton et al. 2008). As a result of increased awareness and apparent frequency of mongoose depredation on sea turtle nests at SPNWR, the USFWS partnered with USDA Wildlife Services (WS) and other researchers to help manage this emerging issue by attempting to remove mongooses from within the refuge. Since October 2009, the USDA WS has been assisting with predation

issues in a limited manner. After identifying the extent of depredation by mongooses on hawksbill and green turtle nests, the USDA WS have enhanced trapping efforts to protect sea turtle nests. Three different lethal traps were used in this study to determine if mongooses at SPNWR demonstrated a trap preference: the DOC250 trap (Haines Pallet Co. Ltd., Wellington, New Zealand), KORO large double spring trap (KORO traps, Ste. Anne, Manitoba, Canada) and the Victor 160 Conibear trap (R-P Outdoors, Mansfield, LA, USA). All three trap types were spring-loaded lethal traps. The Victor 160 Conibear trap is herein referred to as a Conibear 160 trap. To help exclude non-target species, guide target species, provide public safety and reduce bias all traps were enclosed in a box. The DOC250 trapping mechanism already came enclosed in a box and boxes were subsequently constructed for the KORO and Conibear 160 traps using ½ inch plywood for the side walls, ¼ inch plywood for the top and bottom, steel mesh for exclusion walls, stainless steel 2 inch nails and 3/8 inch staples (Fig. 2). Based on local prices for the construction materials and the cost of the traps themselves (at that time) we estimated the average cost per box/trap to be US$ 18.68 per Conibear 160 box and trap, US$ 24.30 per KORO box and trap, and US$ 62.70 per DOC250 box with trap. These prices do not include the cost of shipping and handling to the study site or the cost in labor time for constructing the boxes. For this study, a sample unit was comprised of three traps; one DOC250, one KORO, and one Conibear 160. We constructed six sample units and rotated them to various sites at SPNWR over the course of 26 days (25 February - 21 March 2012). Sample units were placed randomly at 29 different trapping sites where mongooses were frequently observed including along the beach–vegetation interface, near permanent stake markers, and along Tranberg Rd. (Fig. 3). The traps within each sample unit were randomly positioned within one m2 of one another. The orientation of the box openings was the same for all traps at each site (Fig. 2). Each trap was baited using a Styrofoam ball doused with a 5 ml mixture of fermented egg and fish oil. The bait ball was then secured to a nail located at the rear of the box behind the trap mechanism. Sample units were deployed for 96-144 hours before being moved to a new trapping site. However, the sample units were checked every 24-36 hours for mongooses and the disposition of the trap was recorded (n =


396). Baits were refreshed when the traps were relocated to new trap sites, and traps were reset when needed. This allowed a single trap type to potentially have multiple catches at a site. When a euthanized mongoose was observed, we recorded the date, sex of the animal, its size class (juvenile or adult), and the trap type that the animal selected. We used the statistical analysis software JMP version 9.0 to determine if the mongooses were demonstrating a preference for a particular trap type by generating contingency tables from our data. Using the same methods, we also performed a post-hoc analysis to determine if the presence or absence of a mongoose within a trap was related to the position of the trap within the sample unit (middle vs. edge). During our sampling period 31 mongooses were euthanized. One or more mongooses were euthanized at 16 of the 29 trap sites. This included 6 sites where both a male and female were euthanized within a 24-hour period (Fig. 3). All three trap types demonstrated the capacity to euthanize the target species and the total number of mongooses trapped per trap type was similar (DOC250; n = 12, KORO; n = 11, and Conibear 160; n = 8). The contingency table analysis showed no dependence of mongoose presence/absence on trap type (Likelihood ratio = 0.940, p = 0.6249). However, our post-hoc analysis revealed that mongoose presence/absence was significantly related to the location of trap within the sample unit (Likelihood ratio = 10.2, p < 0.01). Our results indicate that mongoose did not demonstrate a trap preference. Therefore, resource managers could use other considerations such as trap cost and trap size as a basis for selecting an effective means of mongoose reduction and management. Earlier studies have already demonstrated the efficacy of lethal over live capture traps and so live capture traps were not considered in this study (Nishimoto 2011; Peters 2011). In locations where catching non-target species is not an issue, lethal traps can be

Figure 3. An overview of the 29 trapping locations surveyed at Sandy Point National Wildlife Refuge 25 February - 21 March 2012. White dots represent sites where mongooses were not observed in traps, green dots indicate sites where one or more mongooses were trapped and red dots indicate sites where a male and female pair was trapped.

arranged into permanent trap lines that do not need to be checked daily. Consequently, lethal traps reduce the amount of time spent monitoring trap lines. Several studies have identified the DOC250 trap as an effective management tool for mongoose reduction programs in the Pacific. This trap has been certified by the National Animal Welfare Advisory Committee and is ideal for use in the Pacific islands because of its ability to exclude nontargeted species. However, the size and weight of the DOC250 may limit its field applications and increase the shipping cost to markets in the Caribbean. In this study we demonstrated that less expensive alternatives are available and present a practical option for the effective management of mongoose for places with limited management resources. Our post-hoc analysis, which indicated that mongooses were selecting traps based on the trap’s position within the sampling unit, is the result of mongoose being present in traps located on the edge(s) of the sampling unit. Our result is consistent with mongoose edge response behavior found at other sites (Leighton et al. 2008). Our investigation also suggests that mongoose at SPNWR form mating pairs during the spring (February-March) and additionally, that it may take up to 3-4 weeks for individual mongooses to re-establish territories in previously trapped locations. This study has implications for other Caribbean nations and territories seeking to manage mongoose populations efficiently and cost-effectively. Prior to conducting any management action, it is imperative that some baseline estimates of depredation are established so that ensuing management action and effort may be quantified and compared. Future studies at SPNWR should determine the effort invested in mongoose removal each season, and subsequent mongoose depredation rates on sea turtle nests to evaluate the implications of management action(s). In addition to recording the number of individual eggs or hatchlings that are depredated by mongoose, the overall fate of the nest should also be considered and recorded. Based on our findings, other natural resource managers or stewards may be able to minimize or eliminate mongoose depredation on native species by constructing lightweight, relatively inexpensive box traps. At locations such as SPNWR, box traps could be used as part of a permanent trapping regime to alleviate seasonal mongoose depredation on sea turtle nests. Such a practice may also improve critical habitat for other native species within the refuge. A permanent trap line, maintained along the vegetation line behind all potential sea turtle nesting habitat and at the neck of the peninsula could reduce mongoose immigration into critical habitat and may provide insights into temporal variations in mongoose immigration rates. In conjunction with an exclusion barrier, continuous trapping efforts at SPNWR could potentially create an ideal habitat for the reintroduction of the Critically Endangered St. Croix ground lizard (Ameiva polops) (Nellis 1996). Acknowledgements. We thank Dr. Marilyn Brandt and Dr. Paul Jobsis from the University of the Virgin Islands, Michael Evans and Claudia Lombard from US Fish and Wildlife Service, and Geographical Consulting LLC. This research was conducted under Acquisition Request #41526-2011. Two anonymous reviewers and an editor were also helpful with comments. DAILY, B. & J. VALIULIS. 2011. Saturation tagging and nest management of leatherback sea turtles (Dermochelys coriacea)


on Sandy Point National Wildlife Refuge, St. Croix, US Virgin Islands. Annual Report to U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 2011. GARNER, J.A. & S.A. GARNER. 2010. Saturation tagging and nest management of leatherback sea turtles (Dermochelys coriacea) on Sandy Point National Wildlife Refuge, St. Croix, U.S. Virgin Islands. Annual Report to U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 2010. KONTOS, A.R. 1985. Sea turtle research report, 1985, Mona Island, Puerto Rico. Annual report to US Fish and Wildlife Service. On file at US Fish and Wildlife Service, South Florida Ecosystem Office; Vero Beach, Florida. KONTOS, A.R. 1987. 1986 annual summary: Estimation of sea turtle abundance and nesting success on Mona Island, Puerto Rico. Annual Report to the US Fish and Wildlife Service, Unit Coop. Agreement No. 14-16-009-1551, Work Order #10. On file at US Fish and Wildlife Service, South Florida Ecosystem Office; Vero Beach, Florida. KONTOS, A.R. 1988. 1987 annual summary: Estimation of sea turtle abundance on Mona Island, Puerto Rico. Annual report to theUS Fish and Wildlife Service, Agreement 14-16-009-1551. On file at US Fish and Wildlife Service, South Florida Ecosystem Office; Vero Beach, Florida. LEIGHTON, P.A., J.A. HORROCKS, B.H. KRUEGER, J.A. BEGGS & D.L. KRAMER. 2008. Predicting species interactions from edge responses: mongoose predation on hawksbill sea turtle nests in fragmented beach habitat. Proceedings of the Royal Society B 275: 2465-2472.

LEIGHTON, P.A., J.A. HORROCKS & D.L. KRAMER. 2009. How depth alters detection and capture of buried prey: exploitation of sea turtle eggs by mongooses. Behavioral Ecology 139: 12991306. NELLIS, D.W. & V. SMALL. 1983. Mongoose predation of sea turtle eggs and nest. Biotropica 15: 159-160. NELLIS, D.W. 1996. Ameiva polops. In: IUCN 2013. IUCN Red List of Threatened Species. Version 2013.1. www.iucnredlist.org. NISHIMOTO, M. 2011. Predator trap efficiencies at Kealia Pond National Wildlife Refuge. Hawaii Wetland Monitor 5: 9-11. http:// pcjv.org/hawaii/newsletters/Newsletter-0511.php. PETERS, D., L. WILSON, S. MOSHER, J. ROHRER, J. HANLEY, A. NADIG, M. SILBERNAGLE & J. JEFFREY. 2011. Small Indian mongoose - management and eradication using DOC250 kill traps, first lessons from Hawaii. In: Veitoh, C.R., M.N. Clout & D.R. Towns (Eds.). 2011. Island Invasives: Eradication and Management. IUCN, Gland, Switzerland. Pp. 225-227. SMALL, V. 1982. Sea Turtle Nesting at Virgin Islands National Park and Buck Island Reef National Monument, 1980 and 1981. Department of the Interior, National Park Service, Research Resource Management Report SER-61. On file at US Fish and Wildlife Service, South Florida Ecosystem Office; Vero Beach, Florida. SUGOTO, R. & H. MINK. 2011. Herpestes auropunctatus. IUCN SSC Invasive Species Specialist Group. www.issg.org.

Characterization of the Interaction Between Sea Turtles and Bottom Gillnets In Southern Brazil Through Interviews with Fishers Karina L. Ramos & Marcelo C. Vasconcellos

Laboratory of Artisanal Fishery, Institute of Oceanography, Federal University of Rio Grande (FURG), Rio Grande-RS, Brazil (E-mail: [email protected]; [email protected]) Several studies report that gillnet fisheries and nets discarded at sea pose a high risk for sea turtle populations (Alfaro-Shigueto et al. 2007; Alfaro-Shigueto et al. 2011; Alverson et al. 1994; Casale 2008; Chuenpagdee et al. 2003; Dayton et al. 2002; Gilman et al. 2010; Hays et al. 2003; Moore et al. 2009; Wallace et al. 2010). Bycatch records of threatened species often depend on voluntary completion of logbooks by fishers, which reduces data reliability, or on the implementation of independent onboard observer programs that normally cover only a small part of the fishing fleet (Lewison et al. 2004). Additionally, interviews with fishers can provide a reasonable overview of accidental capture occurring at the regional level, as well as information on present and past conditions of the target and associated species (Bjorkland 2008; Cuevas et al. 2008; Hutchings 1996; Kalikoski & Vasconcellos 2012; Kiszka et al. 2008; Neis et al. 1999; Ollano et al. 2008; Pilcher et al. 2008; Poonian et al. 2008; Wildermann et al. 2008). Five sea turtle species occur in southern Brazil: the green turtle (Chelonia mydas), the loggerhead (Caretta caretta), the leatherback (Dermochelys coriacea), the hawksbill (Eretmochelys imbricata)

and the olive ridley turtle (Lepidochelys olivacea), with the first three being the most common (Bugoni et al. 2001; Monteiro 2004; Pinedo et al. 1996). Although there is no nesting in the region, these coastal waters are an important area for feeding and development (Bugoni et al. 2001; Bugoni et al. 2003). These waters also have high biological productivity due to the Subtropical Convergence and continental runoff from the Río de la Plata and the Patos/Mirim lagoon complexes (Seeliger et al. 1998), which explains the high abundance of small pelagic and demersal resources, particularly fishes from the Sciaenidae family (Haimovici et al. 2006). Like elsewhere in the world, fishing in Southern Brazil, from Cabo de Santa Marta (28°60’ S) to Chuí (33°74’ S), expanded from estuarine areas out across the continental shelf after the end of World War II (Tomás 1989; Yesaki & Bager 1975). Concurrently, bottom gillnets became the dominant fishing gear used (Vasconcellos et al. in press), and currently nearly 400 medium and large-scale bottom gillnetters operate off the coast of the states of Rio Grande do Sul (RS) and Santa Catarina (SC). The gillnet fleet operating from the cities of Rio Grande and São José do Norte comprises about 150


Annual capture of turtles

30

4.3176x + 2.7157

25 20 15 10 5 0

0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1

1.2

1.4

Fishing effort (Km2 x days at sea)

Figure 1. Relationship between fishing effort (km² net x days at sea) and the number of reported turtles caught/yr. medium and large-scale boats that use bottom gillnets for white croaker (Micropogonias furnieri) and surrounding surface gillnets for bluefish (Pomatomus saltatrix). Medium-scale boats have an average size of 14.3 m and use nets with an average length between 10.7 and 12.5 km, depending on the target resource. Large-scale boats are around 19.4 m and use nets with an average length of between 15.4 and 17.1 km (Ramos 2012). Stranding records of dead sea turtles along the coast of Rio Grande do Sul (Monteiro 2004; Silva et al. 2011) suggest that the region is an important area of interaction between sea turtles and commercial fishing. This study assessed the interaction between medium and large-scale gillnet fleets and sea turtles on the south coast of Rio Grande do Sul State, Brazil, through data obtained by interviews with sea captains. The study identifies the most frequently captured species, as well as periods of peak bycatch, areas and depths of highest interaction, thus evaluating the relative importance of mortality caused by the interaction with the gillnet fleets. We conducted interviews with 54 skippers of gillnetters operating in the municipalities of Rio Grande and São José do Norte (total fleet = 150 medium-scale and large-scale boats). Interviews were conducted with 20 skippers of medium-scale boats and 34 skippers of large-scale boats (randomly selected). The questionnaire included closed-and open-ended questions (Vieira et al. 2005). Interviews were performed between September 2010 and October 2011. The questionnaire focused on the three species of sea turtles most commonly found in the region (C. mydas, C. caretta and D. coriacea), and sought information on the annual capture of turtles per boat, location and depths of capture, species, periods of high bycatch and proportion of turtle mortality. Data from the annual capture of turtles by the large-scale fleet did not have a normal distribution; therefore, we gave a median value. Other questions assessed the knowledge and use of resuscitation techniques for unconscious turtles, the destination of captured individuals (released back to sea or used for consumption), perception of bycatch trends throughout their career as fisherman (decreasing, stable or increasing), knowledge of conservation status, and bycatch of other species (birds, cetaceans and pinnipeds). Photos of the three main sea turtles species in the area were shown to the interviewees to facilitate species identification. We gave logbooks to six gillnet boat captains to obtain accurate data about turtle interactions during their fishing trips. However, due to conflicts between the gillnet fisheries and the government environmental enforcement agency (IBAMA) during this study,

Medium-scale Large-scale Boat size (m) 14.3 ±1.64 19.4 ±1.79 (n = 19) (n = 33) Engine (HP) 150.61 ±75.29 267.64 ±75.77 (n = 21) (n = 34) White croaker net (km) 10.70 ±4.57 17.10 ±3.02 (n = 19) (n = 28) Bottom fish net (km) 12.56 ±3.42 15.46 ±2.77 (n = 11) (n = 31) Depth of interaction (m) 50.00 ±36.87 54.00 ±30.76 (n = 6) (n = 22) Annual capture of 3.20 ±3.42 3.00 turtles (n = 10) (n = 26) Table 1. Characteristics of the medium- and large-scale gillnet fleets and their interaction with sea turtles. Results are given as mean ± SD (except for bottom right field, which is the median value), and sample size. the fishermen became suspicious about our studies, and the few fishermen that agreed to take logbooks aboard did not return them. Thus, we were limited to using interview data. Fishermen may demonstrate negative reactions when approached by researchers because of the fear that the information collected could be used to restrict their activities (Silver & Campbell 2005). Fishers in other instances may participate voluntarily in the research when they feel their participation will ensure that any recommended management and conservation measures will reflect the reality of the fishery and their perspective about the causes of environmental problems. The present research was conducted with latter intention in mind, and one of our goals was that the results and recommendations were ethically acceptable to those who participated in the study. We performed statistical tests with a 95% confidence level, using either the t-test or the Mann-Whitney test; the latter was used for non-parametric data. We mapped areas with higher turtle bycatch using ArcMap 9.3.1. The shape of the area of turtle bycatch reported by each captain was drawn considering the north and south limits of the fishing areas and the maximum depths of interactions. By overlapping the individual shapes it was possible to define the areas with the highest levels of interaction with the gillnet fleet. In addition we used the location of turtle bycatch reported by bottom gillnetters from Santa Catarina off the coast of RS to determine the areas of interaction. We obtained these data from the database of the onboard observer program of the University of Vale do Itajaí-UNIVALI (Scientific Observer Program of UNIVALI, run in partnership with the MPA 039/2009), which monitored 34 trips by 16 boats of the gillnet fleet of Santa Catarina between 2008 and 2011. We obtained data on landings of the main fleets that operate on the south coast of RS from CEPERG/IBAMA. When analyzing the average net length used in 1995, we used the maximum length of nets used by the medium-scale fleet to fish white croaker (Ramos 2012). Out of 54 skippers interviewed, 50 (92.6%) reported the bycatch of one or more turtles every year. According to the skippers, the most frequently captured and sighted species in RS were C. mydas, C. caretta and D. coriacea. Through photo identification, the skippers shared the local popular names given to different species. The


52°W

50°W

Santa Catarina Laguna

48°W

30°S

Porto Alegre

Rio Grande do Sul Rio Grande

A

B

Patos Lagoon

32°S Atlantic Ocean Caretta caretta Chelonia mydas Number of boats: 1-2 3-5 6-8 9-10 11-14 0 0 25 50

34°S

C

Trawlers

100 km

Pair boats

Figure 2. Area of interaction between gillnets of RS and sea turtles monitored by onboard observers (UNIVALI). leatherback turtle is commonly called “caixote” or “keel turtle.” Some fishermen call the green turtle “little turtle” or “varnished-hull turtle.” The loggerhead turtle is known in the region as the “yellow turtle” (Monteiro 2004). In both fleets, turtles captured annually per boat varied between 1 to 24 individuals, with a median value among fleets of 3 turtles per boat per year (Table 1), showing a weak correlation between the annual capture and the fishing effort in the number of landings per boat (r = 0.26; Fig. 1). If this capture rate (n = 3) is extrapolated to the entire local fleet (150 boats, approximately), the average annual capture would be about 450 individuals. The total number of turtles caught annually by the gillnet fishery is likely to be higher than that, considering that 184 gillnet boats from Santa Catarina State also operate in the region, especially during the white croaker season (Pio 2011). Our results could therefore be considered a conservative estimate of the number of turtles caught annually by the gillnet fishery in southern Brazil. The fisheries impact on sea turtles in the region could be higher when taking into account fleets using other fishing methods. The majority of captains reported that summer is the season when most captures and sightings of sea turtles occur. This period coincides with the white croaker season, and when there is a greater fishing effort in the region by local boats and boats from SC (Ramos 2012; Vasconcellos et al. in press). Many (67.4%) of the sea captains said that more than 50% of the captured individuals are removed dead from the nets, indicating a high mortality for this group. All interviewees declared that they did not kill captured turtles but released them back into the sea, and in most cases released turtles even when they were dead. Only four captains reported the onboard consumption of dead turtles. Most interviewees revealed that they knew about and applied resuscitation techniques to turtles. This technical skill may help to reduce post-

Tangones

D

Figure 3. A) Number of strandings of sea turtles/10 km of beach on the coast of RS (Monteiro 2004; Silva et al. 2011). B) Number of landings of the bottom gillnet fleet operating in RS from September-April (CEPERG) and average length (km) of nets used for white croaker per boat (Ramos 2012; Vasconcellos et al. in press). The average length in 1995 refers to the maximum length of nets used to fish white croaker by the medium-scale fleet (Ramos 2012). C) Number of landings of the trawl fleet from September-April (CEPERG). D) Percentage of landings of white croaker by gillnets related to the total amount landed in RS (CEPERG). capture mortality of sea turtles, although it is unknown whether the techniques were applied properly. The depth of interaction with turtles reported by the interviewed skippers ranged from 10 to 300 m. However, there seems to be greater interactions up to the 50 m isobath (Table 1), and particularly up to 20 m (Fig. 2). Ramos (2012) analyzed the fishing areas and depths of the gillnet fleets operating in the south of RS and found a concentration of fishing effort up to the isobaths of 50 m, which


is similar to our results. The use of nets in Turtles/ Turtles/ Turtles/ 50-m depths or less was reported as a risk Fishery year boat/year km net Source Reference factor for loggerhead turtles that forage in Gillnetting in RS 450 3 n/a Interviews This study the Mediterranean and North Pacific (Godley et al. 2003; Houghton et al. 2002; Polovina Drift gill netting Onboard Silvani et et al. 2003). According to Casale (2008), Mediterranean 236 8.74 0.12 data al. 1999 the density of turtles is higher at this depth. Coastal drift gill Given that the majority of bycatch occurs netting - Trinidad >3000 n/a n/a Interviews Lum 2006 in the coastal zone, this affects mostly large Bottom gill netting Onboard Peckham juveniles and adults, age classes for which mortality by accidental fishing has a higher E. Pacific Mexico 830 11.06 1.04 data et al. 2008 impact on the population (Heppell 1998; Drift gill netting Onboard/ Lazar et Laurent et al. 1992). Adriatic Sea 657 2.81 1.11 Interviews al. 2006 Of the 34 trips of SC gillnetters monitored Drift gill netting Fiedler et by onboard observers, five of them registered SW Atlantic >1581 39.5 0.19 Logbooks al. 2012 bycatch of sea turtles, totaling 10 captures (seven C. mydas, two C. caretta and one Table 2. Comparison between turtle bycatch by different bottom and drift D. coriacea). Captures occurred between gillnet fisheries per year, boat/ year and per km of net, and the reference for latitudes 24°46’S and 33°29’S and at depths each value. For bottom gillnets on the RS coast, data represent estimated that varied from 17 to 58 m. The specimens captures for the fleet operating in Rio Grande and São José do Norte (RS). of D. coriacea and C. caretta were captured at deeper depths (53 - 58 m) and four of the captured individuals were temporal series of stranding and landings data revealed a general dead (three C. mydas and one D. coriacea). In February 2011, on one decrease in trawl effort in the region in parallel with an increase in of the sampled trips, four turtles (three C. mydas and one C. caretta) stranded turtles (Fig. 3), suggesting that other sources of mortality were captured between the latitudes of 32°09’S and 33°48’S; part besides trawls are at play. Indeed, gillnet effort has increased in recent of this area is of interest for this study. One C. mydas was captured years and is now the main fishing activity targeting white croaker. already dead. The C. mydas individuals were captured in shallow Although there are questions of quality in the fisheries statistics waters (17 - 19 m) and two individuals were captured in one haul. in the region (Trojan 2012), based on past studies (Haimovici et The single specimen of C. caretta was captured at 53 m depth (Fig. al. 2006) and our study, we believe that at least qualitatively, the 2). These data support the information obtained from the interviewed opposite tendency of these two types of fishery reflects the reality skippers, who indicated that most sea turtle bycatch occurs within of demersal fishing of southern Brazil in recent decades. Extrapolating from our data, we estimate that about 450 turtles 50 m of the surface. Moreover, this supports the finding that during summer in the coastal waters of southern Brazil there is a higher may be incidentally captured per year by gillnet fisheries on the southern coast of Rio Grande do Sul. Not every captured turtle probability for interactions between gillnets and sea turtles. In terms of changes over time, 61.3% of captains said that turtle is dead in the net, and some are released alive back to sea. Our bycatch has decreased, 27.2% thought that captures have remained interview data showed that the proportion of dead turtles in captures the same and 11.3% believed that captures have increased. Years is 50%. The data obtained from the onboard observers in the gillnet of experience working were not related to the answers given by fleet of SC operating in the region (Scientific Observer Program of captains. Few interviewees gave reasons for a possible reduction UNIVALI) reported 4 out of 10 captured turtles were dead (40%). in the number of turtles captured in the area and measures that Assuming our extrapolations are correct, about half of the estimated could protect them. Some captains characterized pelagic longlines 450 turtle bycaught each year would be dead. Relative to other regions (Table 2), the bottom gillnet fishery on and gillnets with trammel nets, locally called “feiticeira,” as the gears with the most turtle bycatch, while others said that fishing in the south coast of RS has intermediate values of annual captures of general, combined with the expanding fleet and the greater number turtles and captures of turtles per boat per year. Nevertheless, the rate of nets, is causing the decline in sea turtle populations. Two captains of capture per km of net is relatively low due to the long extension also said that turtles had benefited from the prohibition of nets for of nets used (about 14.5 km in white croaker season; Vasconcellos gillnet fishing for sharks. Pollution was also mentioned as having a et al. in press). Compared to other gillnet fisheries elsewhere, this negative impact on turtles. Some captains suggested investment in information indicates that the bottom gillnet fishery in Southern research, media dissemination and reduction in net length as possible Brazil has a low rate of interaction with turtles, but a relatively high mitigation measures for bycatch. There was good correspondence capture rate due to the excessive length of nets used. While we found skippers reported a decrease in numbers of between data collected in this study and data on turtle strandings on the coast of RS (Gandra 2005; Monteiro 2004; Silva et al. 2011). captures over time, Silva et al. (2011) observed that the number of According to Gandra (2005), C. caretta accounts for the majority of stranded C. caretta and C. mydas turtles in the studied area tripled, stranding records on the coast of RS (53%), followed by C. mydas while for D. coriacea it doubled between 1995 and 2004 (Monteiro (35%) and D. coriacea (9%). Spring and summer are the periods 2004) as well as between 2005 and 2010 (Fig. 3). This may reflect of greatest stranding occurrence (Monteiro 2004; Silva et al. 2011). an increase in the populations of these species in the country Monteiro (2004) indicated trawling as a major factor in the (Marcovaldi & Chaloupka 2007), and/or an increase in fishing mortality of turtles in the region. However, the analysis of the effort of various types of gear in the region. Bottom gillnets had the Marine Turtle Newsletter No. 139, 2013 - Page 9

greatest increase in fishing effort among the fleets operating on the south coast of RS (Fig. 3). It is plausible that an increase in effort led to an increase in the total capture of turtles but a decrease in bycatch per boat. More study is needed to evaluate the contributing factors to the increase in the number of stranded turtles in the region. Measures recently established for the gillnet fisheries by the Brazilian Interministerial Normative Decree No. 12/2012, such as the prohibition in the increase in number of boats, the limitation on the maximum size of nets and the implementation of a fishing exclusion zone along the south coast of Brazil (including a bathymetric range restriction from 15 to 25 m of maximum depth), could benefit not only commercial species but also any endangered species that inhabit the region. For sea turtles, the effect of these measures would likely be a reduction of bycatch in shallow waters, where turtles are found in higher numbers. The results of this study raise concerns about the potential impact of gillnet fishing on sea turtles in the southern region of Brazil, and call for the implementation of further studies based on the collection of georeferenced fishing effort and bycatch data obtained through onboard scientific observers. It is possible that the annual estimate of sea turtle bycatch obtained in this study is highly underestimated due to underreporting by skippers. However, it provides at least a minimum estimate of the extent of sea turtle bycatch resulting from interactions with gillnets in the region. New studies should be carried out covering at least part of the fleet with onboard observers to obtain more reliable data on the interaction between gillnet fishery and sea turtles. Acknowledgements. The authors are grateful to the skippers and ship owners from Rio Grande and São José do Norte for providing information on gillnet fisheries and sea turtle bycatch. We also thank Sérgio Estima and Danielle Monteiro (NEMA), RobertoWahrlich (UNIVALI), Márcio Morales, Gladimir Barenho and Rafaela Marreto. Eduardo Secchi, Manuel Haimovici and Daniel Danilewicz who provided useful comments on this research. We ensured all participants in this study were aware that the information collected was used in a Masters thesis project. Respondents remained anonymous and this project met all requirements of research at FURG. KLR was granted a scholarship by the Coordination of Improvement of Higher Education (CAPES). ALFARO-SHIGUETO, J., P. DUTTON, M.F. VAN BRESSEM & J. MANGEL. 2007. Interactions between leatherback turtles and Peruvian artisanal fisheries. Chelonian Conservation & Biology 6: 129-134. ALFARO-SHIGUETO, J., J.C. MANGEL, F. BERNEDO, P.H. DUTTON, J.A. SEMINOFF & B.J. GODLEY. 2011. Small-scale fisheries of Peru: a major sink for marine turtles in the Pacific. Journal of Applied Ecology 48: 1432-1440. ALVERSON, D.L., M.H. FREEBERG, S.A. MURAWSKI & J.G. POPE. 1994. A global assessment of fisheries bycatch and discards. FAO Fisheries Technical Paper 339. FAO, Rome. 235 pp. BJORKLAND, R. 2008. Prospects and challenges for assessing bycatch from fishers interviews: examples from Caribbean fisheries. In: Project GloBAL. 2009. Workshop Proceedings: Tackling Fisheries Bycatch - Managing and Reducing Sea Turtle Bycatch in Gillnets. Project GloBAL Technical Memorandum No. 1, pp. 41-49. http://bycatch.nicholas.duke.edu/publicationsandreports/

BUGONI, L., L. KRAUSE & M.V. PETRY. 2001. Marine debris and human impacts on sea turtles in southern Brazil. Marine Pollution Bulletin 42: 1330-1334. BUGONI, L., L. KRAUSE & M.V. PETRY. 2003. Diet of sea turtles in southern Brazil. Chelonian Conservation & Biology 4: 685-688. CASALE, P. 2008. Incidental catches of marine turtles in the Mediterranean Sea: catches, mortality, priorities. WWF Italy, Rome. 73pp. assets.panda.org/downloads/casale_2008_turtle_ bycatch_med_wwf.pdf‎ CHUENPAGDEE, R., L.E. MORGAN, S.M. MAXWELL, E.A. NORSE & D. PAULY. 2003. Shifting gears: assessing collateral impacts of fishing methods in US waters. Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment 1: 517-524. CUEVAS, E., V. GUSMÁN-HERNÁNDEZ, P. GARCÍAALVARADO & B.I. GONZÁLEZ-GARZA. 2008. Artisanal fisheries and sea turtle bycatch in Campeche and Yucatan, Mexico. In: Project GloBAL. 2009. Workshop Proceedings: Tackling Fisheries Bycatch - Managing and Reducing Sea Turtle Bycatch in Gillnets. Project GloBAL Technical Memorandum No. 1, pp. 15-18. http://bycatch.nicholas.duke.edu/publicationsandreports/ DAYTON, P.K., S. THRUSH & F.C. COLEMAN. 2002. Ecological effect of fishing in marine ecosystems of the United States. Pew Oceans Commission, Arlington, Virginia. 52 pp. http://www. pewtrusts.org/ FIEDLER, F.N., G. SALES, B.B. GIFFONI, E.L.A. MONTEIROFILHO, E.R. SECCHI & L. BUGONI. 2012. Driftnet fishery threats sea turtles in the Atlantic Ocean. Biodiversity and Conservation 21: 915-931. GANDRA, T. 2005. Elaboração de um SIG (SITARS) para os encalhes e capturas incidentais de tartarugas marinhas no Rio Grande do Sul. Monografia de Oceanologia. FURG, Rio Grande. 47 pp. http://www.nema-rs.org.br/teses/elaboracao_sig.pdf GILMAN, E., J. GEARHART, B. PRICE, S. ECKERT, H. MILLIKEN, J. WANG, Y. SWIMMER, D. SHIODE, O. ABE, S.H. PECKHAM, M. CHALOUPKA, M. HALL, J. MANGEL, J. ALFARO-SHIGUETO, P. DALZELL & A. ISHIZAKI. 2010. Mitigating sea turtle by-catch in coastal passive net fisheries. Fish and Fisheries 11: 57-88. GODLEY, B.J., A.C. BRODERICK, F. GLEN & G.C. HAYS. 2003. Post-nesting movements and submergence patterns of loggerhead marine turtles in the Mediterranean assessed by satellite tracking. Journal of Experimental Marine Biology & Ecology 287: 119-134. HAIMOVICI, M., M. VASCONCELLOS, D.C. KALIKOSKI, P. ABDALAH, J.P. CASTELLO & D. HELLEBRANDT. 2006. Diagnóstico da pesca no litoral do Estado do Rio Grande do Sul. In: V.J. ISAAC, A.S. MARTINS, M. HAIMOVICI & J.M. ANDRIGUETTO (Eds.). A Pesca Marinha e Estuarina do Brasil no Início do Século XXI: Recursos, Tecnologias, Aspectos Socioeconômicos e Institucionais. UFBA, Belém, Pará. pp. 157-180. http://www.demersais.furg.br/ HAYS, G.C., A.C. BRODERICK, B.J. GODLEY, P. LUSCHI & W.J. NICHOLS. 2003. Satellite telemetry suggests high levels of fishing-induced mortality in marine turtles. Marine Ecology Progress Series 262: 305-309. HEPPELL, S.S. 1998. An application of life history theory and


population model analysis to turtle conservation. Copeia 1998: 367-375. HOUGHTON, J.D.R., A.C. BRODERICK, B.J. GODLEY, J.D. METCALFE & G.C. HAYS. 2002. Diving behaviour during the internesting interval for loggerhead turtles Caretta caretta nesting in Cyprus. Marine Ecology Progress Series 227: 63-70. HUTCHINGS, J.A. 1996. Spatial and temporal variation in the density of northern cod and a review of hypotheses for the stock’s collapse. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Science 53: 943-962. KALIKOSKI, D.C. & M. VASCONCELLOS. 2012. Case study of the technical, socio-economic and environmental conditions of small-scale fisheries in the estuary of Patos Lagoon, Brazil: a methodology for assessment. FAO Fisheries and Aquaculture Circular. No. 1075. FAO, Rome. 190 pp. KISZKA, J., C. MUIR, C POONIAN, T.M. COX, O.A. AMIR, J. BOURJEA, Y. RAZAFINDRAKOTO, N. WAMBIJI & N. BRISTOL. 2008. Marine mammal bycatch in the Southwest Indian Ocean: review and need for a comprehensive status assessment. Western Indian Ocean Journal of Marine Science 2: 119-136. LAURENT, L., J. CLOBERT & J. LESCURE. 1992. The demographic modeling of the Mediterranean loggerhead sea turtle population: first results. Rapport de la Commission Internationale pour l’Exploration Scientifique de la Mer Méditerrannée 33: 300. LAZAR, B., V. ZIZA & N. TVRTKOVIC. 2006. Interactions of gillnet fishery with loggerhead sea turtles Caretta caretta in the northern Adriatic Sea. In: Frick, M., A. Panagopoulou , A.F. Rees & K. Williams (Comps.). Book of Abstracts, 26th Annual Symposium on Sea Turtle Biology and Conservation. International Sea Turtle Society, Athens, Greece, p. 252. LUM, L.L. 2006. Assessment of incidental sea turtle catch in artisanal gillnet fishery in Trinidad and Tobago, West Indies. Applied Herpetology 3: 357-368. LEWISON, R.L., A.S. FREEMAN & L.B. CROWDER. 2004. Quantifying the effects of fisheries on threatened species: the impact of pelagic longlines on loggerhead and leatherback sea turtles. Ecology Letters 7: 221-231. MONTEIRO, D.S. 2004. Encalhes e interação de tartarugas marinhas com a pesca no litoral do Rio Grande do Sul. Monografia de Ciências Biológicas. FURG. 58 pp. http://www.nema-rs.org. br/teses/tartarugas_pesca.pdf MOORE, J.E., B.P. WALLACE, R.L. LEWISON, R. ZYDELIS, T.M. COX & L.B. CROWDER. 2009. A review of marine mammal, sea turtle and seabird bycatch in USA fisheries and the role of policy in shaping management. Marine Policy 33: 435-451. NEIS, B., D. SCHNEIDER, L. FELT, R. HAEDRICH, J. HUTCHINGS & J. FISCHER. 1999. Northern cod stock assessment: what can be learned from interviewing resource users? Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Science 56: 1949-1963. OLLANO, G., D. FADDA, G. LENTI, A. RUSSO, E. DEMURO, S. PIOVANO & C. GIACOMA. 2008. Loggerhead bycatch in Sardinian waters (Italy). In: Project GloBAL. 2009. Workshop Proceedings: Tackling Fisheries Bycatch - Managing and Reducing Sea Turtle Bycatch in Gillnets. Project GloBAL

Technical Memorandum No. 1, pp. 23-26. http://bycatch.nicholas. duke.edu/publicationsandreports/ PECKHAM, S.H., D.M. DIAZ, V. KOCH, A. MANCINI, A. GAOS, M.T. TINKER & W.J. NICHOLS. 2008. High mortality of loggerhead turtles due to bycatch, human consumption nd strandings at Baja California Sur, Mexico, 2003 to 2007. Endangered Species Research 5: 171-183. PILCHER, N.J., T. RAMACHANDRAN, T.C. DAH, L.S. EE, J. BELIKU, K. PALANIVELOO, L.K. HIN, L.S. LING, L.C. HUI, R. LEWISON & J. MOORE. 2008. Rapid gillnet bycatch assessment: Sabah, Malaysia, 2007. In: Project GloBAL. 2009. Workshop Proceedings: Tackling Fisheries Bycatch - Managing and Reducing Sea Turtle Bycatch in Gillnets. Project GloBAL Technical Memorandum No. 1, pp. 38-40. http://bycatch.nicholas. duke.edu/publicationsandreports/ PINEDO, M.C., R.R. CAPITOLI, A.S. BARRETO & A. ANDRADE. 1996. Occurrence and feeding of sea turtles in southern Brazil. In: Byles, R. & Y. Fernandez (Comps.). Proceedings of the 16th Annual Symposium on Sea Turtle Conservation and Biology. NOAA Tech Memo NMFS-SEFSC-412, pp. 117-118. PIO, V.M. 2011. A pesca industrial de emalhe de fundo em Santa Catarina – Brasil: dinâmica, tecnologia, economia e gestão. Dissertação de mestrado, Universidade do Vale do Itajaí, Santa Catarina. 101 pp. http://www6.univali.br/tede/tde_busca/arquivo. php?codArquivo=912 POLOVINA, J.J., E. HOWELL, D.M. PARKER & G.H. BALAZS. 2003. Dive-depth distribution of loggerhead (Caretta caretta) and olive ridley (Lepidochelys olivacea) sea turtles in the central North Pacific: might deep longline sets catch fewer sea turtles? Fishery Bulletin 101: 189-193. POONIAN, C.N.S., M.D. HAUZER, A.B. ALLAOUI, T.M. COX, J.E. MOORE, A.J. READ, R.L. LEWISON & L.B. CROWDER. 2008. Rapid assessment of sea turtle and marine mammal bycatch in the Union of the Comoros. Western Indian Ocean Journal of Marine Science 7: 207-216. RAMOS, K.L. 2012. Caracterização das pescarias de emalhe de média e grande escala e sua interação com tartarugas marinhas no litoral sul do Rio Grande do Sul. Dissertação de mestrado. Universidade Federal do Rio Grande, Rio Grande. 99 pp. SEELIGER, U., C. ODEBRECHT & J.P. CASTELLO. 1998. Os Ecossistemas Costeiro e Marinho do Extremo Sul do Brasil. Ecoscientia, Rio Grande 326 pp. http://www.ecomidia.pro.br/ ecos.html SILVA, A.P., D.S. MONTEIRO & S.C. ESTIMA. 2011. Encalhes de tartarugas marinhas no litoral sul do Rio Grande do Sul. Resumo para a V Jornada de Pesquisa e Conservação de Tartarugas Marinhas do Atlântico Sul Ocidental (ASO), Florianópolis, Santa Catarina, Brasil. pp. 39-42. http://www.tortugasaso.org/ASO6.pdf SILVANI, L., M. GAZO & A. AGUILAR. 1999. Spanish driftnet fishing and incidental catches in the western Mediterranean. Biological Conservation 90: 79-85. SILVER, J.J. & L.M. CAMPBELL. 2005. Fisher participation in research: dilemmas with the use of fisher knowledge. Ocean & Coastal Management 48: 7121-741. TOMÁS, A.R.G. 1989. Escolas de pesca: uma realidade histórica.


Ciência e Cultura 41: 1091-1098. TROJAN, T.B. 2012. Composição dos desembarques e caracterização da frota de arrasto de parelha no litoral do Rio Grande do Sul. Monografia de Oceanologia. Universidade Federal do Rio Grande, Rio Grande. 51 pp. VASCONCELLOS, M., M. HAIMOVICI & K.L. RAMOS. In press. Pesca de emalhe demersal no sul do Brasil: evolução, conflitos e (des)ordenamento. In: M. HAIMOVICI, J.M. ANDRIGUETTO & P. SUNYE (Orgs.). A Pesca Marinha e Estuarina no Brasil: Abordagem Multidisciplinar Aplicada a Estudos de Caso. Editora da Universidade Federal do Rio Grande, Rio Grande. VIEIRA, P.H.F., F. BERKES & C.S. SEIXAS. 2005. Gestão Integrada e Participativa de Recursos Naturais: Conceitos, Métodos e Experiências. APED, Florianópolis. 415 pp. WALLACE, B.P., R.L. LEWISON, S.L. MCDONALD, R.K. MCDONALD, C.Y. KOT, S. KELEZ, R. BJORKLAND. E.M.

FINKBEINER, S. HELMBRECHT & L.B. CROWDER. 2010a. Global patterns of marine turtle bycatch. Conservation Letters 10: 131-142. WILDERMANN, N., N. ESPINOZA, M.G. MONTIELVILLALOBOS & H. BARRIOS-GARRIDO. 2008. Analysis of the artisanal longline fishing gear at Zapara Island: a threat for subadult loggerhead sea turtles? In: Project GloBAL. 2009. Workshop Proceedings: Tackling Fisheries Bycatch - Managing and Reducing Sea Turtle Bycatch in Gillnets. Project GloBAL Technical Memorandum No. 1, pp. 32-37. http://bycatch.nicholas. duke.edu/publicationsandreports/ YESAKI, M. & K.J. BAGER. 1975. Histórico da evolução da pesca industrial no Rio Grande. Programa de Pesquisa e Desenvolvimento Pesqueiro do Brasil PNUD/FAO: Ministério Agricultura SUDEPE. Rio de Janeiro. Sér. Doc. Técnicos 11: 1-15.

Predation of Sea Turtle Nests by Armadillos in the Northern Coast of Bahia, Brazil Mariana Duarte Gandu, Milagros López-Mendiaharsu, Daphne Wrobel Goldberg, Gustave Gilles Lopez & Frederico Tognin

Fundação Pró-TAMAR, Rua Rubens Guelli, n.134, sala 307, Centro Empresarial Itaigara, Itaigara, Salvador, Bahia, Brazil (E-mail: [email protected]; [email protected])

The northern coast of Bahia hosts over 50 percent of the total nests monitored along the mainland coast of Brazil (Marcovaldi & Laurent 1996; Marcovaldi & Chaloupka 2007). The loggerhead turtle (Caretta caretta) is the most common species nesting in Bahia, followed by hawksbills (Eretmochelys imbricata) and olive ridleys (Lepidochelys olivacea) (Marcovaldi & Chaloupka 2007; Castilhos et al. 2011; Marcovaldi et al. 2011; Santos et al. 2011). On the nesting grounds, TAMAR (National Marine Turtle Conservation Program in Brazil) is responsible for monitoring all sea turtle nesting activities. The monitoring program consists of marking all nests (Marcovaldi & Marcovaldi 1999) and protecting them against human exploitation, animal predation and habitat destruction (Marcovaldi & Chaloupka 2007). The area monitored by the Costa do Sauípe Station consists of 56 km of continuous coastline in the northern part of Bahia, which is divided into an Intensive Study Area (ISA) of 16 km and a Protection Area (PA) of 40 km. In the ISA, collection of data with full coverage is required, so that all the information regarding nesting activities (i.e. incubation parameters, species identification and hatching success) is fully captured (Paes e Lima et al. 2012). The ISA is located in the southern part of the monitored area and it is patrolled by TAMAR staff at least once daily during each nesting season. The PA is patrolled daily by “tartarugueiros” (residents) hired and trained by TAMAR, working under direct supervision of the TAMAR staff (Marcovaldi & Marcovaldi 1999). Natural predation by foxes, crabs, and ants can occur in sea turtle nests. In order to reduce predation by foxes (Cerdocyon thous), all

nests are protected with metal wire mesh grids, which are buried 10 cm below the surface of the sand, above the eggs. The metal mesh size is large enough to allow hatchlings to exit (Marcovaldi & Marcovaldi 1999). Additionally, in some places along the northern coast of Bahia, flags made from 1.20 m wooden sticks with 50 x 80 cm resistant textile were used over the nests, as an alternative to try to reduce the predation by foxes (Longo et al. 2009). Recently, there was a substantial increase in the predation rate of incubating eggs by armadillos. Among 526 nests laid between 2009 and 2012, 167 were predated and armadillos were responsible for 153 nest predation events (Table 1). Coastal development may be linked to greater armadillo predation of sea turtle nests, as natural habitat and prey for armadillos are negatively affected by construction and human inhabitation of coastal areas, forcing the armadillos to expand their range into the sandy nesting beach. Most of the nests were predated more than once, and frequently during the first15 days of incubation. Predation usually occurred at

Predator Armadillo Fox Total

2009-2010 58 (89.2%) 7 (10.8%) 65 (100%)

2010-2011 46 (95.8%) 2 (4.2%) 48 (100 %)

2011-2012 49 (90.7%) 5 (9.3%) 54 (100%)

Table 1. Number (percent) of predated nests by armadillos and foxes along the three nesting seasons in Costa do Sauípe station, Bahia, Brazil.


CASTILHOS, J.C., C.A. COELHO, J.F. A R G O L O , E . A . P. S A N T O S , M . A . MARCOVALDI, A.S. SANTOS & M. LÓPEZ-MENDILAHARSU. 2011. Avaliação do estado de conservação da tartaruga marinha Lepidochelys olivacea (Eschscholtz, 1829) no Brasil. Revista Biodiversidade Brasileira 1:28-36. DRENNEN, D., D. COOLEY & J.E. DEVORE. 1989. Armadillo predation on loggerhead turtle eggs at two National Wildlife Refuges in Florida, USA. Marine Turtle Newsletter 45: 7-8. LONGO, G.O., F.D. PAZETO, J.A.G. ABREU & S.R. FLOETER. 2009. Flags reduce sea turtle nest predation by foxes in NE Brazil. Marine Turtle Newsletter 125: 1-3. MARCOVALDI, M.Â. & G.G. MARCOVALDI. 1999. Marine turtles of Brazil: the history and structure of Projeto TAMAR-IBAMA. Figure 1. Left panel: armadillo burrow next to marked sea turtle nest. Right Biological Conservation 91: 35-41. panel: fox burrow next to a marked sea turtle nest. MARCOVALDI, M.Â. & A. LAURENT. 1996. night, with no direct observation of the predators. However, based A six season study of marine turtle nesting at Praia do Forte, Bahia, on the characteristic shape the burrows dug by armadillos vs. foxes, Brazil, with implications for conservation and management. we were able to distinguish between the two predators using only Chelonian Conservation & Biology 2: 55-59. the tracks found in the sand each morning (Fig. 1). Two species MARCOVALDI, M.Â., V. PATIRI, & J.C. THOMÉ. 2005. of armadillos have been identified in the coastal Bahia region: the Twenty-five years protecting Brazilian sea turtles through a nine-banded armadillo (Dasypus novemcinctus L.) and the sixcommunity-based conservation programme. Maritime Studies banded armadillo (Euphractus sexcinctus L.). We were unable to and Management 3-4: 39-62. distinguish which species were involved with the predation events. MARCOVALDI, M.Â., M. CHALOUPKA. 2007. Conservation Data concerning ecological information of the two species are scarce status of the loggerhead sea turtle inBrazil: an encouraging (Anacleto & Diniz - Filho 2008). outlook. Endangered Species Research 3: 133-143. The predation of sea turtle nests by nine-banded armadillos has been documented in Florida, USA (Drennen et al. 1989). To our MARCOVALDI, M.Â., G.G. LOPEZ, L.S. SOARES, A.J.B SANTOS, C. BELLINI, A.S. SANTOS & M. LÓPEZknowledge this study represents the first report on sea turtle nest MENDILAHARSU. 2011. Avaliação do estado de conservação predation by armadillos in Bahia. The presence of six-banded da tartaruga marinha Eretmochelys imbricata (Linnaeus, 1766) armadillos close to sea turtle nests was reported by Neto et al. 2010 no Brasil. Biodiversidade Brasileira 1: 20-27. using camera traps at the Barreira do Inferno beach, in Rio Grande do Norte state, Brazil, however no predation was documented. The NETO, L. D., SANTOS, A. J. B., SPECHT, C. G. H. F. & use of metal wire mesh above the clutches of eggs does not appear to BERTOLDO, L. P. P. 2010. Utilização de armadilhas fotográficas be an effective means of eliminating predation by armadillos. More para identificação de potenciais predadores de ninhos de tartarugas work is needed to reduce egg destruction by this newly documented marinhas. In: Resumos do XXVIII Congresso Brasileiro de sea turtle egg predator in Brazil. Zoologia, Sociedade Brasileira de Zoologia, Belém, Pará, Brazil. p. 508. Acknowledgements. We thank Neca Marcovaldi and Alexsandro Santos. Projeto TAMAR, a conservation program of the Brazilian PAES E LIMA, E., J. WANDERLINDE, D.T. ALMEIDA; G.G. Ministry of the Environment, is affiliated with ICMBio (Chico LOPEZ & D.W. GOLDBERG. 2012. Nesting ecology and Mendes Institute for Biodiversity Conservation) and is co-managed conservation of the loggerhead sea turtle (Caretta caretta) in by Fundação Pró-TAMAR. Data collection was authorized Rio de Janeiro, Brazil. Chelonian Conservation & Biology 11: by ICMBio, through special license number 14122, issued by 249-254. Biodiversity Authorization and Information System (SISBIO). SANTOS, A.S., L.S. SOARES, M.Â. MARCOVALDI, D.S. ANACLETO, T.C.S. & J.A.F. DINIZ-FILHO. 2008. Efeitos da MONTEIRO, B. GIOFFONI & P. ALMEIDA. 2011. Avaliação alteração antrópica do Cerrado sobre a comunidade de tatus do estado de conservação da tartaruga marinha Caretta caretta (Mammalia, Cingulata, Dasypodidae). In: N.R. Reis, A.L. (Linnaeus, 1758) no Brasil. Biodiversidade Brasileira 1: 3-11. Peracchi & G.A.S.D. Santos (Eds.). Ecologia de Mamíferos. Technical Books Publishers, Londrina, PR. pp.55-67.


Case report: Lung Spirorchidiasis in a Green Turtle (Chelonia mydas) in Southern Brazil Daphne W. Goldberg1, Gustavo D. Stahelin1, Camila T. Cegoni1, Juçara Wanderlinde1, Eron Paes e Lima2, Raphael Mansur Medina3, Rachel Bittencourt Ribeiro3, Maria Aparecida da Silva3 & Eulógio Carlos Queiróz de Carvalho3

Fundação Pró-Tamar, CP5098, Trindade, Florianópolis, Santa Catarina CEP 88040-970, Brazil (E-mail: [email protected]) Centro Nacional de Proteção e Pesquisa das Tartarugas Marinhas (Projeto TAMAR), Instituto Chico Mendes de Conservação da Biodiversidade (ICMBIO), CP5098, Trindade, Florianópolis, Santa Catarina CEP 88040-970, Brazil; 3 Universidade Estadual do Norte Fluminense Darcy Ribeiro, Av. Alberto Lamego, 2000 - Parque Califórnia, Campos dos Goytacazes, Rio de Janeiro, CEP 28013-602, Brazil. 1

2

Spirorchiid trematodes are implicated as an important cause of stranding and mortality in sea turtles worldwide (Stacy et al. 2010). However, the real impact of these parasites on sea turtle health is poorly understood. The complete life cycle of marine spirorchids still remains unknown; however snails or polichaete annelids may serve as intermediate hosts shedding cercariae that penetrate the mucous membranes of sea turtles, which are their final host (Dailey 1992). The adult trematodes inhabit the cardiovascular system, primarily the heart, as well as visceral and mesenteric vessels, where they copulate and oviposit, causing severe vasculitis, parasitic granulomas and thrombosis (Aguirre et al. 1998). Eggs may migrate and lodge in different tissues, where they induce a granulomatous response (Work et al. 2005). The disease is spread when infected turtles shed the parasite eggs in their feces or urine, through the cloaca (Dailey & Morris 1995). Diagnosis of spirorchidiasis in sea turtles is usually made at necropsy, when adult worms or eggs are observed either grossly or microscopically. The antemortem detection of spirorchiid infection in wildlife is difficult, due to the common occurrence of subclinical infections, and is currently limited to serology (Work et al. 2005). The blood flukes of turtles (Digenea: Spirorchiidae) and the blood flukes of crocodilians, birds and mammals (Digenea: Schistosomatidae) have long been considered as closely related, but distinct evolutionary lineages. However, recent morphological and molecular studies have considered these families as sister

Figure 1. Multiple black nodules occurring throughout the parenchyma of the lungs of a green turtle from São Francisco do Sul, Santa Catarina, Brazil.

taxa within the Schistosomatoidea (Platt & Brooks 1997; Snyder 2004). The immune response to spirorchid and schistosome eggs appears to be similar in their respective hosts. The arterial-dwelling spirorchids release eggs in the direction of blood flow, resulting in a wide dissemination of eggs within the host (Platt & Brooks 1997). On 28 January 2013, a juvenile green turtle (Chelonia mydas) was rescued by Projeto Tamar (Brazilian sea turtle conservation program) after stranding in São Francisco do Sul municipal district, in Santa Catarina State, Brazil. On admission, the animal measured 43.1 cm curved carapace length, 40.7 cm curved carapace width, and weighed 8 kg. The turtle was lethargic, weak and emaciated. Clinical signs included cachexia, anaemia (PCV 11%), dehydration, anorexia, abnormal respiratory sounds, increased respiratory rate and asymmetric floating, suggesting a true buoyancy problem. Death occurred a few days after initial supportive care, and a necropsy was performed to determine the cause of death. During the procedure, visual examination of the gonads confirmed the turtle was female. All celomic organs were examined; however, gross changes were observed only in the lungs and consisted of multiple black nodules throughout the pulmonary parenchyma (Fig. 1). Lung samples were collected and fixed in 10% neutral formalin solution and sent to the Laboratory of Animal Pathology, in northern Rio de Janeiro State University Darcy Ribeiro (UENF). The samples were cleaved and packaged in disposable plastic tissue cassettes. Infiltration and blocking were performed in paraffin, and leaf material was sliced into 5-μm-thick sections using a rotary microtome. Sections were stained with hematoxylin and eosin (H&E) and mounted on the slide for subsequent histopathologic examination by light microscopy. The histological analysis revealed lesions stemming from the presence of numerous fluke eggs, mostly located in the alveolar septum, where they frequently affect both airways and blood vessels. A chronic granulomatous pneumonia was characterized by heavy infiltrates of inflammatory cells, with multinucleated giant cells phagocytizing Spirorchiid eggs (Fig. 2). Spirorchidiasis is usually chronic and debilitating in its course, with most of the pathogenesis caused not directly by the adult worms but by the eggs they produce. The trematode eggs are released within the vascular system, reaching remote areas, such as the central nervous system (CNS) where they become lodged in small vessels, inciting a pronounced granulomatous reaction. The eggs may also migrate through blood vessel walls, causing damage and inflammation in adjacent tissues (Gordon et al. 1998). The most commonly affected tissues are the gastrointestinal tract, liver, spleen,


Figure 2. Representative photomicrographs of the lungs of a green turtle from São Francisco do Sul, Santa Catarina, Brazil. Left: Multiple eggs of Spirorchis spp. (arrows) with septal thickening and reduction of alveolar space. Parasite eggs being phagocytized by giant cells (H&E stain, X10 obj.). Right: Larger view of the previous image: Spirorchiid eggs being phagocytized by Langhans giant cells (arrow), resulting in a granulomatous pneumonia by Spirorchiid eggs (H&E stain, X20 obj.). lungs and CNS (Glazebrook et al. 1989). Clinical signs may include generalized debilitation, severe ulcerative colitis, pitted ulcerations (due to ischemic necrosis) of the carapace and plastron, edematous limbs due to vascular obstruction and buoyancy problems secondary to pneumonia (Norton 2005). The most commonly reported therapy for Spirorchidiasis has been praziquantel, given orally at relatively high doses (50 mg/ kg) (Adnyana et al. 1997). Supportive care with fluid replacement and anti-inflammatory drugs may also be useful. It is relevant to cite that ALT and AST levels are expected to be elevated following treatment with this anthelmintic, due to dislodgement of dead flukes from mesenteric arteries and bile duct into the liver, causing release of hepatocellular enzymes into plasma (Adnyana et al. 1997). Unfortunately, although praziquantel is considered effective against adult trematodes, it may be only partly effective or ineffective against the parasite eggs (Norton 2005). Detailed knowledge of parasite life cycles, with special reference to disease transmission and routes of infection, is essential to the understanding every aspect of host parasite interaction (Stacy et al. 2010), and may provide useful information regarding the implications for disease management. Acknowledgements. Projeto TAMAR, a conservation program of the Brazilian Ministry of the Environment, is affiliated with ICMBio (Chico Mendes Institute for Biodiversity Conservation) and is comanaged by Fundação Pró-TAMAR. Data collection was authorized by ICMBio, through special license number 14122, issued by Biodiversity Authorization and Information System (SISBIO). ADNYANA, W., P.W. LADDS & D. BLAIR. 1997. Efficacy of Praziquantel in the treatment of green sea turtles with spontaneous infection of cardiovascular flukes. Australian Veterinary Journal 75: 405-407. AGUIRRE, A.A., T.R. SPRAKER, G.H. BALAZS & B. ZIMMERMAN. 1998. Spirorchiidiasis and fibropapillomatosis in green turtles from the Hawaiian Islands. Journal of Wildlife Diseases 34: 91-98.

DAILEY, M.D. 1992. A survey of the trematoda (Platyhelminthes: Diginea) parasitic in green turtles, Chelonia mydas (L.) from Hawaii. Bulletin of the Southern California Academy of Sciences 91: 84-91. DAILEY M. & R. MORRIS. 1995. Relationship of parasites (Trematoda: Spirochidae) and their eggs to the occurrence of fibropillomas in the green turtle (Chelonia mydas). Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 52: 84-89. GLAZEBROOK J.S., R.S.F. CAMPBELL & D. BLAIR. 1989. Studies on cardiovascular fluke (Digenea: Spirorchiidae) infections in sea turtles from the Great Barrier Reef, Queensland, Australia. Journal of Comparative Pathology 101: 231-250. GORDON, A.N., W.R. KELLY & T.H. CRIBB. 1998. Lesions caused by cardiovascular flukes (Digenea: Spirorchidae) in stranded green turtles (Chelonia mydas). Veterinary Pathology 35: 21-30. NORTON, T.M. 2005. Chelonian emergency and critical care. Seminars in Avian and Exotic Pet Medicine. 14: 106-130. PLATT, T.R. & D.R. BROOKS. 1997. Evolution of the schistosomes (Diginea: Schistosomatoidea): the origin of dioecy and colonization of the venous system. Journal of Parasitology 83: 1035-1044. SNYDER, S.D. 2004. Phylogeny and paraphyly among tetrapod blood flukes (Digenea: Schistosomatidae and Spirorchiidae). International Journal of Parasitology 34: 1385-1392. STACY, B.A., A.M. FOLEY, E. GREINER, L. H. HERBST, A. BOLTEN, P. KLEIN, C.A. MANIRE & E.R. JACOBSON. 2010. Spirorchiidiasis in stranded loggerhead Caretta caretta and green turtles Chelonia mydas in Florida (USA): host pathology and significance. Disease of Aquatic Organisms 89: 237-259. WORK, T.M., G.H. BALAZS, J.L. SCHUMACHER & M. AMARISA. 2005. Epizootiology of spirorchiid infection in green turtles (Chelonia mydas) in Hawaii. Journal of Parasitology 91: 871-87.


RECENT PUBLICATIONS This 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 ABD MUTALIB, A.H., N. FADZLY & R. FOO. 2013. Striking a balance between tradition and conservation: general perceptions and awareness level of local citizens regarding turtle conservation efforts based on age factors and gender. Ocean & Coastal Management 78: 56-63. N. Fadzly, University of Sains Malaysia, Sch Biol Sci, Minden 11800, Penang, Malaysia. (E-mail: [email protected]) AL-MOHANNA, S.Y., A.S.Y. AL-ZAIDAN & P. GEORGE. 2013. Green turtles (Chelonia mydas) of the north-western Arabian Gulf, Kuwait: the need for conservation. Aquatic Conservation (DOI: 10.1002/aqc.2371). Amani S.Y. Al-Zaidan, Department of Biological Sciences, Marine Science Program, University of Kuwait, P.O. Box 5969, Safat 13060, Kuwait. (E-mail: asysa_ [email protected]) ANDRAKA, S., M. MUG, M. HALL, M. PONS, L. PACHECO, M. PARRALES, L. RENDON, M.L. PARGA, T. MITUHASI, A. SEGURA, D. ORTEGA, E. VILLAGRAN, S. PEREZ, C. DE PAZ, S. SIU, V. GADEA, J. CAICEDO, L. ZAPATA, J. MARTINEZ, P. GUERRERO, M. VALQUI & N. VOGEL. 2013. Circle hooks: developing better fishing practices in the artisanal longline fisheries of the Eastern Pacific Ocean. Biological Conservation 160: 214-224. S. Andraka, 400 M Sur Plaza Sol, POB 629-2350, San Jose, Costa Rica. (E-mail: sandra.andraka@ wwf.panda.org) ANONYMOUS. 2013. DNA reveals mating patterns of critically endangered sea turtle. Marine Pollution Bulletin 69: 5. ANONYMOUS. 2013. Ghost nets threaten turtles in Australia. Marine Pollution Bulletin 67: 4. AZANZA RICARDO, J., M.E. IBARRA MARTIN, G. GONZALEZ SANSON, F.A. ABREU GROBOIS, K.L. ECKERT, G. ESPINOSA LOPEZ & K. OYAMA. 2013. Nesting ecology of Chelonia mydas (Testudines: Cheloniidae) on the Guanahacabibes Peninsula, Cuba. Revista de Biologia Tropical 61: 1935-1945. J. Azanza Ricardo, Centro de Investigaciones Marinas, Universidad de La Habana, Calla 16 No. 114, Playa, CP 11300, Ciudad Habana, Cuba. (E-mail: [email protected]) BELLINI, C., A.J.B. SANTOS, A. GROSSMAN, M.A. MARCOVALDI & P.C.R. BARATA. 2013. Green turtle (Chelonia mydas) nesting on Atol das Rocas, north-eastern Brazil, 1990-2008. Journal of the Marine Biological Association UK 93: 1117-1132. C. Bellini, CLBI Setor Oeste, Projeto Tamar ICMBio, Ave Joaquim Patricio 4000, BR-59160530 Parnamirim, RN, Brazil. (E-mail: [email protected]) BONELLI, M.A.D., D.C. DE OLIVEIRA, L.A.V.S. COSTA, J.G. FORATTINI, J.L.R. JUNIOR, F.L.G. LEITE & F.S. COSTA.

2013. Quantitiative computed tomography of the liver in the juvenile green sea turtle (Chelonia mydas). Journal of Zoo and Wildlife Medicine 44: 310-314. F.S. Costa, Department of Veterinary Medicine, Federal Rural University of Pernambuco, R. Dom Mansel de Medeiros S/N, Recife, 52171-900, Brazil (E-mail: [email protected]) BROTZ, L. 2012. Of leatherbacks and lion's manes. The Sea Around Us Project Newsletter Issue 71: 1-4 CAMACHO, M., P. CALABUIG, O.P. LUZARDO, L.D. BOADA, M. ZUMBADO & J. OROS. 2013. Crude oil as a stranding cause among loggerhead sea turtles (Caretta caretta) in the Canary Islands, Spain (1998-2011). Journal of Wildlife Diseases 49: 637-640. J. Oros, Veterinary Faculty, University of Las Palmas de Gran Canaria (ULPGC), Trasmontana s/n, 35416 Arucas (Las Palmas), Spain. (E-mail: [email protected]) CAMACHO, M., O.P. LUZARDO, L.D. BOADA, L.F. LOPEZ JURADO, M. MEDINA, M. ZUMBADO & J. OROS. 2013. Potential adverse effects of persistent organic pollutants on sea turtles: evidences from a cross-sectional study on Cape Verde loggerhead sea turtles. Science of the Total Environment 458: 283-289. O.P. Luzardo, Universidad de Las Palmas de Gran Canaria, Dept Clinical Science, Toxicology Unit, P.O.Box 550, Las Palmas Gran Canaria 35080, Spain. (E-mail: operez@dcc. ulpgc.es) CAMPBELL, L.M. & M.H. GODFREY. 2013. Of legacies and icons: evolution of sea turtle science and conservation. Conservation Biology 27: 890-893. L.M. Campbell, Duke University Marine Lab, Nicholas School of Environment, Beaufort, NC, USA. (E-mail: [email protected]) CAPPER, A., L.J. FLEWELLING & K. ARTHUR. 2013. Dietary exposure to harmful algal bloom (HAB) toxins in the endangered manatee (Trichechus manatus latirostris) and green sea turtle (Chelonia mydas) in Florida, USA. Harmful Algae 28: 1-9. A. Capper, School of Marine and Tropical Biology and Centre for Sustainable Tropical Fisheries and Aquaculture, James Cook University, Townsville, QLD 4811, Australia. (E-mail: angela. [email protected]) CARLOS BAEZ, J., D. MACIAS, J. ANTONIO CAMINAS, J.M. ORTIZ DE URBINA, S. GARCIA-BARCELONA, J. JESUS BELLIDO & R. REAL. 2013. By-catch frequency and size differentiation in loggerhead turtles as a function of surface longline gear type in the western Mediterranean Sea. Journal of the Marine Biological Association of the United Kingdom 93: 1423-1427. J. C. Baez, Ctr Oceanog Malaga, Inst Espanol Oceanog, Puerto Pesquero S-N Fuengirola, Malaga, Spain. (E-mail: [email protected])


CARRERAS, C., B.J. GODLEY, Y.M. LEON, L.A. HAWKES, O. REVUELTA, J.A. RAGA & J. TOMAS. 2013. Contextualising the last survivors: population structure of marine turtles in the Dominican Republic. PLoS One 8, no. 6: e66037. C. Carreras, Centre for Ecology and Conservation, University of Exeter, Penryn, UK. (E-mail: [email protected]) CURTIS, K.A. & J.E. MOORE. 2013. Calculating reference points for anthropogenic mortality of marine turtles. Aquatic Conservation-Marine and Freshwater Ecosystems 23: 441-459. K.A. Curtis, NOAA-SWFSC, 8901 La Jolla Shores Dr, La Jolla, CA USA. (E-mail: [email protected]) DE OLIVEIRA ALVES, M.D., R. SCHWAMBORN, J.C. GOMES BORGES, M. MARMONTEL, A.F. COSTA, C.A. FRANCA SCHETTINI & M.E. DE ARAUJO. 2013. Aerial survey of manatees, dolphins and sea turtles off northeastern Brazil: Correlations with coastal features and human activities. Biological Conservation 161: 91-100. M. D. D. Alves, Fed Univ Pernambuco UFPE, Dept Oceanog, Cidade Univ S-N, BR-50670901 Recife, PE, Brazil. (E-mail: [email protected]) DELFINO, M., T.M. SCHEYER, F. CHESI, T. FLETCHER, R. GEMEL, S. MACDONALD, M. RABI & S.W. SALISBURY. 2013. Gross morphology and microstructure of type locality ossicles of Psephophorus polygonus Meyer, 1847 (Testudines, Dermochelyidae). Geological Magazine 150: 767-782. M. Delfino, Univ. Turin, Dipartimento Sci Terra, Via Valperga Caluso 35, I-10125 Turin, Italy. (E-mail: [email protected]) DENKINGER, J., M. PARRA, J. PABLO MUNOZ, C. CARRASCO, J. CARLOS MURILLO, E. ESPINOSA, F. RUBIANES & V. KOCH. 2013. Are boat strikes a threat to sea turtles in the Galapagos Marine Reserve? Ocean & Coastal Management 80: 29-35. J. Denkinger, Univ San Francisco Quito, Galapagos Sci Ctr, Puerto Baquerizo Moreno, Galapagos, Ecuador. (E-mail: [email protected]) DUTTON, P.H., S.E. RODEN, K.R. STEWART, E. LACASELLA, M. TIWARI, A. FORMIA, J.C. THOME, S.R. LIVINGSTONE, S. ECKERT, D. CHACON-CHAVERRI, P. RIVALAN & P. ALLMAN. 2013. Population stock structure of leatherback turtles (Dermochelys coriacea) in the Atlantic revealed using mtDNA and microsatellite markers. Conservation Genetics 14: 625-636. P.H. Dutton, NOAA-NMFS SWFSC, 8604 La Jolla Shores Drive, La Jolla, CA 92037 USA. (E-mail: [email protected]) ERLACHER-REID, C.D., T.M. NORTON, C.A. HARMS, R. THOMPSON, D.J. REESE, M.T. WALSH & M.A. STAMPER. 2013. Intestinal and cloacal strictures in the free-ranging and aquarium-maintained green sea turtles (Chelonia mydas). Journal of Zoo and Wildlife Medicine 44: 408-429. C. D. Erlacher-Reid, Department of Large Animal Clinical Sciences, Univ Florida College of Veter Med, 2015 SW 16th Avenue, Gainesville, Florida 32610, USA. (E-mail: [email protected]) FAUQUIER, D.A., L.J. FLEWELLING, J. MAUCHER, C.A. MANIRE, V. SOCHA, M.J. KINSEL, B.A. STACY, M. HENRY, J. GANNON, J.S. RAMSDELL & J.H. LANDSBERG. 2013. Brevetoxin in blood, biological fluids and tissues of sea turtles naturally exposed to Karenia brevis blooms in central west Florida. Journal of Zoo and Wildlife Medicine 44: 364-375. D. A. Fauquier, Mote Marine Laboratory, 1600 Ken Thompson Pkwy,

Sarasota, Florida 34236, USA. (E-mail: [email protected]) FOLEY, A.M., B.A. SCHROEDER, R. HARDY, S.L. MACPHERSON, M. NICHOLAS & M.S. COYNE. 2013. Postnesting migratory behavior of loggerhead sea turtles Caretta caretta from three Florida rookeries. Endangered Species Research 21: 129-142. A.M. Foley, Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission, Fish and Wildlife Research Institute, Jacksonville Field Laboratory, Jacksonville, Florida 32218, USA. (E-mail: [email protected]) FREY, A., P.H. DUTTON & G.H. BALAZS. 2013. Insights on the demography of cryptic nesting by green turtles (Chelonia mydas) in the main Hawaiian Islands from genetic relatedness analysis. Journal of Experimental Marine Biology and Ecology 442: 80-87. A. Frey, NOAA-NMFS SWFSC Protected Resources Div, 8901 La Jolla Shores Dr, La Jolla, CA 92037 USA. (E-mail: [email protected]) GRIFFIN, D.B., S.R. MURPHY, M.G. FRICK, A.C. BRODERICK, J.W. COKER, M.S. COYNE, M.G. DODD, M.H. GODFREY, B.J. GODLEY, L.A. HAWKES, T.M. MURPHY, K.L. WILLIAMS & M.J. WITT. 2013. Foraging habitats and migration corridors utilized by a recovering subpopulation of adult female loggerhead sea turtles: implications for conservation. Marine Biology (DOI: 10.1007/s00227-0132296-3). D.B. Griffin, SCDNR, Mount Pleasant, SC 29464, USA. (E-mail: [email protected]) GUEBERT, F.M., M. BARLETTA & M.F. COSTA. 2013. Threats to sea turtle populations in the Western Atlantic: poaching and mortality in small-scale fishery gears. Journal of Coastal Research, Special Issue No. 65: 42-47. F.M. Guebert, LEGECE, Departamento de Oceanografia, Universidade Federal de Pernambuco, Av. Arquitetura s/n, Cidade Universitaria, Recife, PE, Brazil. CEP: 50740-550. (E-mail: [email protected]) GUERRANTI, C., S. ANCORA, N. BIANCHI, G. PERRA, E. L. FANELLO, S. CORSOLINI, M.C. FOSSI & S.E. FOCARDI. 2013. Perfluorinated compounds in blood of Caretta caretta from the Mediterranean Sea. Marine Pollution Bulletin 73: 98-101. C. Guerranti, Department of Physical, Earth and Environmental Sciences, University of Siena, Via Mattioli 4, 53100 Siena, Italy. (E-mail: [email protected]) HART, K.A., T. GRAY & S.M. STEAD. 2013. Consumptive versus non-consumptive use of sea turtles? Stakeholder perceptions about sustainable use in three communities near Cahuita National Park, Costa Rica. Marine Policy 42: 236-244. K.A. Hart, Newcastle University, School Marine Science & Technology, Ridley Bldg 2,Claremont Rd, Newcastle Upon Tyne NE1 7RU, Tyne & Wear, England, UK. (E-mail: [email protected]) HART, K.M., M.M. LAMONT, A.R. SARTAIN, I. FUJISAKI & B.S. STEPHENS. 2013. Movements and habitat-use of loggerhead sea turtles in the northern Gulf of Mexico during the reproductive period. PLoS One 8: e66921. K.M. Hart, USGS, Southeast Ecological Science Center, 3205 College Avenue, Davie, FL 33314, USA. (E-mail: [email protected]) HART, K.M., D.G. ZAWADA, I. FUJISAKI & B.H. LIDZ. 2013. Habitat-use of breeding green turtles Chelonia mydas tagged in Dry Tortugas National Park: making use of local and regional MPAs. Biological Conservation 161: 142-154. K. M. Hart, US


Geological Survey, SE Ecological Science Center, 305 College Ave. Davie, FL 33314 USA. (E-mail: [email protected]) HATASE, H. 2013. Studies on migratory ecology and life histories of sea turtles. Nippon Nogei Kagakukaishi; Bulletin of the Japanese Society of Scientific Fisheries 79: 634-37. JOURDAN, J. & M.M.P.B. FUENTES. 2013. Effectiveness of strategies at reducing sand temperature to mitigate potential impacts from changes in environmental temperature on sea turtle reproductive output. Mitigation and Adaptation Strategies for Global Change (DOI 10.1007/S11027-013-9482-y). M.M.P.B. Fuentes, Australian Research Council Centre of Excellence for Coral Reef Studies, James Cook University, Townsville 4811 Queensland, Australia. (E-mail: [email protected]) KARAA, S., I. JRIBI, A. BOUAIN, M. GIRONDOT & M.N. BRADAI. 2013. On the occurrence of leatherback turtles Dermochelys coriacea (Vandelli, 1761), in Tunisian waters (central Mediterranean Sea) (Testudines: Dermochelydae). Herpetozoa 26: 65-75. S. Karaa, University of Sfax , Tunisia & Natl Inst Sea Sci & Technol, Dept Life Sci, Sfax Fac Sci, POB 1035, Sfax 3018, Tunisia. (E-mail: [email protected]) LABRADA-MARTAGON, V., L.C. MENDEZ-RODRIGUEZ, M. MANGEL & T. ZENTENO-SAVIN. 2013. Applying generalized linear models as an explanatory tool of sex steroids, thyroid hormones and their relationships with environmental and physiologic factors in immature East Pacific green sea turtles (Chelonia mydas). Comparative Biochemistry & Physiology. Part A, Molecular & Integrative Physiology 166: 91-100. V. LabradaMartagon, Programa de Planeacion Ambiental y Conservacion, Centro de Investigaciones Biologicas del Noroeste, S.C., La Paz, Baja California Sur, Mexico. (E-mail: [email protected]) LAM, T., XU LING, K. TAKAHASHI & E.A. BURGESS. 2012. Market Forces: an examination of marine turtle trade in China and Japan. TRAFFIC East Asia, Hong Kong: 48 pp. www.traffic. org/species-reports/traffic_species_reptiles34.pdf‎ MACDONALD, B.D., S.V. MADRAK, R.L. LEWISON, J.A. SEMINOFF & T. EGUCHI. 2013. Fine scale diel movement of the east Pacific green turtle, Chelonia mydas, in a highly urbanized foraging environment. Journal of Experimental Marine Biology and Ecology 443: 56-64. B.D. MacDonald, NOAANMFS SWFSC, 8901 La Jolla Shores Dr, La Jolla, CA 92037 USA. (E-mail: [email protected]) MAFFUCCI, F., I. D'ANGELO, S. HOCHSCHEID, M. CIAMPA, G. DE MARTINO, A. TRAVAGLINI, G. TREGLIA & F. BENTIVEGNA. 2013. Sex ratio of juvenile loggerhead turtles in the Mediterranean Sea: is it really 1:1? Marine Biology 160: 1097-1107. F. Maffucci, Stazione Zoologica Anton Dohrn, Villa Comunale I, 80121 Naples, Italy. (E-mail: fulvio.maffucci@ szn.it) MANIRE, C.A., E.T. ANDERSON, L. BYRD & D.A. FAUQUIER. 2013. Dehydration as an effective treatment for brevetoxicosis in loggerhead sea turtles (Caretta caretta). Journal of Zoo and Wildlife Medicine 44: 447-452. C.A. Manire, Sea Turtle Rehabilitation Hospital , Mote Marine Laboratory and Aquarium, 1600 Ken Thompson Parkway, Sarasota, FL 34236, USA. (E-mail: [email protected]) MAZOR, T., N. LEVIN, H.P. POSSINGHAM, Y. LEVY, D.

ROCCHINI, A.J. RICHARDSON & S. KARK. 2013. Can satellite-based night lights be used for conservation? The case of nesting sea turtles in the Mediterranean. Biological Conservation 159: 63-72. T. Mazor, ARC Centre of Excellence for Environmental Decisions, School of Biological Sciences, University of Queensland, Brisbane, Queensland 4072, Australia. (E-mail: [email protected]) MEYLAN, A.B., P.A. MEYLAN & C. ORDONEZ ESPINOSA. 2013. Sea turtles of Bocas del Toro Province and the Comarca Ngobe-Bugle, Republic of Panama. Chelonian Conservation & Biology 12: 17-33. A.B. Meylan, Florida FWCC, Fish and Wildlife Research Institute, 100 8th Ave. SE, St. Petersburg, FL 33701, USA. (E-mail: [email protected]) MORTIMER, J.A. & R.G. VON BRANDIS. 2013. Mortality of adult green turtles (Chelonia mydas) at the nesting beaches of Aldabra Atoll, Seychelles. Chelonian Conservation & Biology 12: 151157. J.A. Mortimer, Seychelles Island Foundation, P.O. Box 853, Victoria, Mahe, Seychelles. (E-mail: [email protected]) MYCOO, M.A. & J.F. GOBIN. 2013. Coastal management, climate change adaptation and sustainability in small coastal communities: leatherback turtles and beach loss. Sustainability Science 8: 441-453. M.A. Mycoo, Univ. of the West Indies, Fac Engn, Dept Geomat Engn & Land Management, St Augustine, Trinidad & Tobago. (E-mail: [email protected]) NARAZAKI, T., K. SATO, K.J. ABERNATHY, G.J. MARSHALL & N. MIYAZAKI. 2013. Loggerhead turtles (Caretta caretta) use vision to forage on gelatinous prey in mid-water. PLoS ONE 8, no. 6: e66043. T. Narazaki, Univ. of Tokyo, Atmosphere & Ocean Res Inst, Int Coastal Res Ctr, Kashiwa, Chiba, Japan. (E-mail: [email protected]) NISHIZAWA, H., Y. NAITO, H. SUGANUMA, O. ABE, J. OKUYAMA, K. HIRATE, S. TANAKA, E. INOGUCHI, K. NARUSHIMA, K. KOBAYASHI, H. ISHII, S. TANIZAKI, M. KOBAYASHI, A. GOTO & N. ARAI. 2013. Composition of green turtle feeding aggregations along the Japanese archipelago: implications for changes in composition with current flow. Marine Biology (DOI: 10.1007/S00227-013-2261-1): 15 pp. H. Nishizawa, Kyoto University, Graduate School of Informatics, Dept of Social Informatics, Kyoto 606-8501, Japan. (E-mail: [email protected]) NISHIZAWA, H., T. NODA, T. YASUDA, J. OKUYAMA, N. ARAI & M. KOBAYASHI. 2013. Decision tree classification of behaviors in the nesting process of green turtles (Chelonia mydas) from tri-axial acceleration data. Journal of Ethology 31: 315-332. H. Nishizawa, Kyoto Univ. Graduate School of Informatics, Yoshida Honmachi, Sakyo, Kyoto 606-8501, Japan. (E-mail: [email protected]) OKUYAMA, J., K. NAKAJIMA, T. NODA, S. LIMURA, H. KAMIHATA, M. KOBAYASHI, N. ARAI, S. KAGAWA, Y. KAWABATA & H. YAMADA. 2013. Ethogram of immature green turtles: behavioral strategies for somatic growth in large marine herbivores. PLoS One 8, no. 6: e65783. J. Okuyama, Graduate School of Informatics, Kyoto University, Yoshida Hon-Machi, Sakyo, Kyoto 606-8501, Japan. (E-mail: [email protected]) PARSONS, A.W., T.R. SIMONS, A.F. O'CONNELL JR. & M.K.


STOSKOPF. 2013. Demographics, diet, movements, and survival of an isolated, unmanaged raccoon Procyon lotor (Procyonidae, Carnivora) population on the Outer Banks of North Carolina. Mammalia 77: 21-30. A.W. Parsons, NCSU, USGS, North Carolina Cooperative Fish & Wildlife Research Unit, Dept Biology, Raleigh, NC 27695 USA. (E-mail: [email protected]) PASCOE, S., J. INNES, A. NORMAN-LOPEZ, C. WILCOX & N. DOWLING. 2013. Economic and conservation implications of a variable effort penalty system in effort-controlled fisheries. Applied Economics 45: 3880-3890. S. Pascoe, CSIRO Marine & Atm Res, EcoSci Precinct, Wealth Oceans Flagship, POB 2583, Brisbane, Qld 4001, Australia. (E-mail: [email protected]) PERON, C., D. CHEVALLIER, M. GALPIN, A. CHATELET, E. J. ANTHONY, Y. LE MAHO & A. GARDEL. 2013. Beach morphological changes in response to marine turtles nesting: a preliminary study of Awala-Yalimapo beach, French Guiana (South America). Journal of Coastal Research, Special Issue No. 65: 99-104. C. Peron, CNRS Guyane, USR 3456, 2 Avenue Gustave Charlery, 97300 Cayenne, French Guiana. (E-mail: [email protected]) PERRAULT, J.R., D.L. MILLER, J. GARNER & J. WYNEKEN. 2013. Mercury and selenium concentrations in leatherback sea turtles (Dermochelys coriacea): population comparisons, implications for reproductive success, hazard quotients and directions for future research. Science of the Total Environment 463/464: 61-71. J.R. Perrault, Dept. of Biological Sciences, Florida Atlantic University, 777 Glades Road, Box 3091, Boca Raton, FL 33431-0991, USA. (E-mail: [email protected]) PERRIN, M. 2013. Between the tides: in search of sea turtles. South African Journal of Wildlife Research 43: 90. Research Centre for African Parrot Conservation, School of Life Sciences, University of KwaZulu-Natal, Pietermaritzburg, South Africa. (E-mail: [email protected]) PIKESLEY, S.K., P. DIDIER AGAMBOUE, E. AUGOWET BONGUNO, F. BOUSSAMBA, F. CARDIEC, J.M. FAY, A. FORMIA, B.J. GODLEY, W.F. LAURANCE, B. DIDIER KOUMBA MABERT, C. MILLS, G. AVERY MOUNGUENGUI MOUNGUENGUI, C. MOUSSOUNDA, S. NGOUESSONO, R.J. PARNELL, G-P. SOUNGUET, B. VERHAGE, L. WHITE & M.J. WITT. 2013. Here today, here tomorrow: beached timber in Gabon, a persistent threat to nesting sea turtles. Biological Conservation 162: 127-132. A. Formia, WCS, Global Conservation Program, 2300 Southern Blvd., Bronx, NY 10460, USA. (E-mail: [email protected]) PIKESLEY, S.K., S.M. MAXWELL, K. PENDOLEY, D.P. COSTA, M.S. COYNE, A. FORMIA, B.J. GODLEY, W. KLEIN, J. MAKANGA-BAHOUNA, S. MARUCA, S. NGOUESSONO, R.J. PARNELL, E. PEMO-MAKAYA & M.J. WITT. 2013. On the front line: integrated habitat mapping for olive ridley sea turtles in the southeast Atlantic. Diversity and Distributions (DOI: 10.1111/ ddi.12118). M.J. Witt, Environment and Sustainability Institute, University of Exeter, Cornwall Campus, Tremough, Penryn, Cornwall TR10 9EZ, UK. (E-mail: [email protected]) PLOT, V., T. JENKINS, J-P. ROBIN, 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. V. Plot, NOAA Southwest Fisheries Science Center, Environmental Research Division, Pacific Grove, CA 93950, USA. (E-mail: [email protected]) PUTMAN, N.F. & E. NARO-MACIEL. 2013. Finding the 'lost years' in green turtles: insights from ocean circulation models and genetic analysis. Proceedings of the Royal Society B 280: 20131468. N. F. Putman, Dept. of Fisheries and Wildlife, Oregon State Univ., 104 Nash Hall, Corvallis, OR 97330, USA. (E-mail: [email protected]) R E E S , A . F. , A . A L H A F E Z , J . R . L L O Y D , N . PAPATHANASOPOULOU & B.J. GODLEY. 2013. Green turtles, Chelonia mydas, in Kuwait: nesting and movements. Chelonian Conservation & Biology 12: 157-163. A.F. Rees, Marine Turtle Research Group, Centre for Ecology and Conservation, University of Exeter, Cornwall Campus, TR10 9EZ, UK. (E-mail: [email protected]) REISSER, J., M. PROIETTI, I. SAZIMA, P. KINAS, P. HORTA & E. SECCHI. 2013. Feeding ecology of the green turtle (Chelonia mydas) at rocky reefs in western South Atlantic. Marine Biology (DOI: 10.1007/S00227-013-2304-7). J. Reisser, Instituto de Oceanografia, Universidade Federal do Rio Grande (FURG), Caixa Postal 474, Av. Italia km 8, 96201-300 Rio Grande, Rio Grande do Sul, Brazil. (E-mail: [email protected]) RISKAS, K.A. & M. TIWARI. 2013. An overview of fisheries and sea turtle bycatch along the Atlantic coast of Africa. Munibe Monographs Nature Series 1: 71-82. K.A. Riskas, Marine Turtle Ecology and Assessment Program, Protected Resources Division, Southwest Fisheries Science Center, NOAA-NMFS, La Jolla, CA, USA. (E-mail: [email protected]) RODEN, S.E., P.A. MORIN, A. FREY, G.H. BALAZS, P. ZARATE, I-J. CHENG & P.H. DUTTON. 2013. Green turtle population structure in the Pacific: new insights from single nucleotide polymorphisms and microsatellites. Endangered Species Research 20: 227-34. S.E. Roden, NOAA-NMFS SWFSC 8901 La Jolla Shores Dr, La Jolla, CA 92037, USA. (E-mail: suzanne. [email protected]) ROE, J.H., P.R. CLUNE & F.V. PALADINO. 2013. Characteristics of a leatherback nesting beach and implications for coastal development. Chelonian Conservation & Biology 12: 34-43. F.V. Paladino, Indiana-Purdue University, Fort Wayne, IN 46805, USA. (E-mail: [email protected]) ROUPHAEL, A.B., A. ABDULLA, O. ATTUM, N. MARSHALL & U. GHAZALI. 2013. Do marine protected areas in the Red Sea afford protection to dugongs and sea turtles? Journal of Biodiversity & Endangered Species 1: 1000102. A.B. Rouphael, Marine Biodiv & Conserv Science Group, IUCN Global Marine Program, Perth, Australia. (E-mail: [email protected]) SANTOS, A.J.B., C. BELLINI, D.H.G. VIEIRA, L.D. NETO & G. CORSO. 2013. Northeast Brazil shows highest hawksbill turtle nesting density in the South Atlantic. Endangered Species Research 21: 25-32. A.J.B. Santos, Fundacao Pro-TAMAR, Alameda do Boldro s/no,53990-000 Fernando de Noronha-PE, Brazil. (E-mail: [email protected]) SCHOFIELD, G., R. SCOTT, A. DIMADI, S. FOSSETTE, K.A. KATSELIDIS, D. KOUTSOUBAS, M. K.S. LILLEY, J.D.


PANTIS, A.D. KARAGOUNI & G.C. HAYS. 2013. Evidencebased marine protected area planning for a highly mobile endangered marine vertebrate. Biological Conservation 161: 101-109. G. Schofield, Swansea Univ, Dept Biosci, Singleton Pk, Swansea SA2 8PP, W Glam, Wales, UK. (E-mail: g.schof@ gmail.com) SCHUYLER, Q., B.D. HARDESTY, C. WILCOX & K. TOWNSEND. 2013. Global analysis of anthropogenic debris ingestion by sea turtles. Conservation Biology (DOI: 10.1111/ cobi.12126). Q. Schuyler, School Biol Sciences, Moreton Bay Research Station, University of Queensland, Dunwich, Queensland 4183, Australia. (E-mail: [email protected]) SENKO, J., E.R. WHITE, S.S. HEPPELL & L.R. GERBER. 2013. Comparing bycatch mitigation strategies for vulnerable marine megafauna. Animal Conservation (DOI: 10.1111/Acv.12051): 14 pp. J. Senko, School of Life Sciences, Arizona State University, Tempe, AZ 85287, USA. (E-mail: [email protected]) SHAMBLIN, B.M., B.E. BERRY, D.M. LENNON, A.B. MEYLAN, P.A. MEYLAN, M.E. OUTERBRIDGE & C.J. NAIRN. 2013. Tetranucleotide microsatellite loci from the critically endangered hawksbill turtle (Eretmochelys imbricata). Conservation Genetics Resources 5: 23-26. C.J. Nairn, Univ Georgia, Daniel B Warnell School Forestry & Natural Resources, Athens, GA 30602 USA. (E-mail: [email protected]) SHAVER, D.J., K.M. HART, I. FUJISAKA, C. RUBIO, A.R. SARTAIN, J. PENA, P.M. BURCHFIELD, D. GOMEZ GAMEZ & J. ORTIZ. 2013. Foraging area fidelity for Kemp's ridleys in the Gulf of Mexico. Ecology and Evolution 3: 2002-2012. D.J. Shaver, Padre Island National Seashore, P.O. Box 181300, Corpus Christi, TX 78480-1300, USA. (E-mail: [email protected]) SHIMADA, T., R. JONES, C. LIMPUS & M. HAMANN. 2012. Improving data retention and home range estimates by datadriven screening. Marine Ecology Progress Series 457: 171180. T. Shimada, School of Earth and Environmental Sciences, James Cook University, Townsville, Queensland 4811, Australia. (E-mail: [email protected]) SNAPE, R.T.E., D. BETON, A.C. BRODERICK, B.A. CICEK, W.J. FULLER, O. OZDEN & B.J. GODLEY. 2013. Strand monitoring and anthropological surveys provide insight into marine turtle bycatch in small-scale fisheries of the eastern Mediterranean. Chelonian Conservation & Biology 12: 44-55. R.T.E. Snape, Marine Turtle Research Group, Centre for Ecology and Conservation, University of Exeter, Cornwall Campus, Penryn, Cornwall, TR10 9EZ, UK. (E-mail: [email protected]) STERLING, E.J., K.W. MCFADDEN, K.E. HOLMES, E.C. VINTINNER, F. ARENGO & E. NARO-MACIEL. 2013. Ecology and conservation of marine turtles in a central Pacific foraging ground. Chelonian Conservation & Biology 12: 2-16. E. J. Sterling, Center for Biodiversity and Conservation, American Museum of Natural History, New York, New York 10024, USA. (E-mail: [email protected]) STEWART, K.R. & P.H. DUTTON. 2012. Sea turtle CSI: It's all in the genes. SWOT Report 7: 12-13. K. R. Stewart, NOAA, Protected Resources Div, Southwest Fisheries Science Center, NMFS, 8901 La Jolla Shores Dr, La Jolla, CA 92037 USA. (E-mail: [email protected])

STEWART, K.R., M.C. JAMES, S. RODEN & P.H. DUTTON. 2013. Assignment tests, telemetry and tag-recapture data converge to identify natal origins of leatherback turtles foraging in Atlantic Canadian waters. Journal of Animal Ecology 82: 791803. (Address same as above) STIEBENS, V.A., S.E. MERINIO, C. RODER, F.J.J. CHAIN, P.L.M. LEE & C. EIZAGUIRRE. 2013. Living on the edge: how philopatry maintains adaptive potential. Proceedings of the Royal Society B Biological 280: 20130305. V.A. Stiebens, Dept of Evolutionary Ecology of Marine Fishes, GEOMAR|Helmholtz Center for Ocean Research, Kiel, 24105, Germany. (E-mail: [email protected]) STRINGELL, T.B., M.C. CALLOSO, J.A.B. CLAYDON, W. CLERVEAUX, B.J. GODLEY, K.J. LOCKHART, Q. PHILLIPS, S. RANGER, P.B. RICHARDSON, A. SANGHERA & A.C. BRODERICK. 2013. Marine turtle harvest in a mixed smallscale fishery: evidence for revised management measures. Ocean & Coastal Management 82: 34-42. A.C. Broderick, Centre for Ecology and Conservation, College of Life and Environmental Sciences, University of Exeter, Cornwall Campus, Penryn TR10 9EZ, UK. (E-mail: [email protected]) VAN DE MERWE, J.P., K. IBRAHIM & J.M. WHITTIER. 2013. Post-emergence handling of green turtle hatchlings: improving hatchery management worldwide. Animal Conservation 16: 316323. J.P. van de Merwe, Griffith University, Australian Rivers Inst, Gold Coast, Qld 4222, Australia. (E-mail: jpvanders@ hotmail.com) VILACA, S.T., P. LARA-RUIZ, M.A. MARCOVALDI, L.S. SOARES & F.R. SANTOS. 2013. Population origin and historical demography in hawksbill (Eretmochelys imbricata) feeding and nesting aggregates from Brazil. Journal of Experimental Marine Biology and Ecology 446: 334-344. F.R. Santos, LBEM, Instituto de Ciencias Biologicas, Universidade Federal de Minas Gerais, Av Antonio Carlos 6627, C.P. 486, Belo Horizonte, MG, CEP: 31.270-010, Brazil. (E-mail: [email protected]) WANG, J., J. BARKAN, S. FISLER, C. GODINEZ-REYES & Y. SWIMMER. 2013. Developing ultraviolet illumination of gillnets as a method to reduce sea turtle bycatch. Biology Letters 9: 20130383. J. Wang, Joint Institute for Marine and Atmospheric Research, University of Hawaii, Honolulu, HI 96822, USA. (E-mail: [email protected]) WANG, Z., J. PASCUAL-ANAYA, A. ZADISSA, W. LI, Y. NIIMURA, Z. HUANG, C. LI, S. WHITE, Z. XIONG, D. FANG, B. WANG, Y. MING, Y. CHEN, Y. ZHENG, S. KURAKU, M. PIGNATELLI, J. HERRERO, K. BEAL, M. NOZAWA, Q. LI, J. WANG, H. ZHANG, L. YU, S. SHIGENOBU, J. WANG, J. LIU, P. FLICEK, S. SEARLE, J. WANG, S. KURATANI, Y. YIN, B. AKEN, G. ZHANG & N. IRIE. 2013. The draft genomes of softshell turtle and green sea turtle yield insights into the development and evolution of the turtle-specific body plan. Nature Genetics 45: 701-706. N. Irie, RIKEN Center for Developmental biology, Kobe, Japan. (E-mail: [email protected]) WILLIAMS, S.R., S. DENNISON, B. DUNNIGAN, B. MOORE, J. NICHOLSON, K. ZAGZEBSKI, D. KETTEN, S. CRAMER & J. ARRUDA. 2013. Diagnosis and management of intestinal partial obstruction in a loggerhead sea turtle (Caretta caretta). Journal of


Zoo and Wildlife Medicine 44: 457-461. S.R. Williams, National Marine Life Center, 120 Main Street, P.O. Box 269, Buzzards Bay, MA 02532-0269, USA. (E-mail: [email protected]) WOMBLE, J.N., M. HORNING, M.A. LEA & M.J. REHBERG. 2013. Diving into the analysis of time-depth recorder and behavioural data records: A workshop summary. Deep-Sea Research Part II-Topical Studies in Oceanography 88-89, Special Issue: 61-64. J. N. Womble, National Park Service, Glacier Bay Field Station, 3100 National Park Road, Juneau, AK 99801 USA. (E-mail: [email protected]) WROBEL GOLDBERG, D., S.A. TOBAR LEITAO, M.H. GODFREY, G. GILLES LOPEZ, A.J. BARSANTE SANTOS, F. ALVES NEVES, E.P. GARCIA DE SOUZA, A. SANCHEZ MOURA, J. DA CUNHA BASTOS & V.L. FREIRE DA CUNHA BASTOS. 2013. Ghrelin and leptin modulate the feeding behaviour of the hawksbill turtle Eretmochelys imbricata during nesting season. Conservation Physiology 1: 1-13. D. Wrobel Goldberg, Fundacao Pro-Tamar, Professor Ademir Francisco s/n, Barra de Legoa, Florianopolis, SC 88061-160, Brazil. (E-mail: [email protected]) THESES & DISSERTATIONS FERREIRA, M.B. 2012. Nesting habitat preferences and nest predation of green turtles (Chelonia mydas) in the Bijagos Archipelago, Guinea Bissau. M.S. Thesis. Universidade de Lisboa - Faculdade de Ciencias: 47 pp. USSA, M. 2013. Evaluating the effects of sea level rise on sea turtle nesting sites: a case study of the Archie Carr National Wildlife Refuge. M.S. Thesis. Florida International University, Miami: 70 pp. (E-mail: [email protected]) WOODROM-LUNA, R. 2013. Turtlephilia in the Pacific: an integrated comparative analysis from the perspectives of biological, cultural, and spiritual ecology in a particular case of biophilia. Ph.D. Diss. University of Hawai'i at Manoa: 184 pp. REPORTS & PROCEEDINGS COSEWIC. 2012. COSEWIC assessment and status report on the leatherback sea turtle Dermochelys coriacea in Canada. Ottawa. Xv + 58 Pp. www.registrelep-sararegistry.gc.ca/default_e.cfm. (E-mail: COSEWIC/[email protected]) DOW PINIAK, W.E., S.A. ECKERT, C.A. HARMS & E.M. STRINGER. 2012. Underwater hearing sensitivity of the leatherback sea turtle (Dermochelys coriacea): assessing the

potential effect of anthropogenic noise. US. Bureau of Ocean Energy Management, Headquarters, Herndon, VA. OCS Study BOEM 2012-01156: 35 pp. www.data.boem.gov/PI/PDFImages/ ESPIS/5/5279.pdf‎ MICHEL, J., A.C. BEJARANO, C.H. PETERSON & C. VOSS. 2013. Review of biological and biophysical impacts from dredging and handling of offshore sand. U.S. Bureau of Ocean Energy Management, Herndon, VA. OCS Study BOEM 2013-0119: 258 pp. www.data.boem.gov/PI/PDFImages/ ESPIS/5/5268.pdf‎ NATIONAL MARINE FISHERIES SERVICE. 2013. Sea Turtle Assessment Status and Research Needs. U.S. Dept. of Commerce, NOAA Technical Memorandum NMFS-F/SPO-131: 52 pp. Copies of this report may be obtained from: Office of Science and Technology, 1315 East-West Highway, SSMC 3, 12th Floor, Silver Spring, MD 20910, USA. http://spo.nmfs.noaa.gov/tm/ TM131.pdf NORMANDEAU ASSOCIATES, INC. 2012. High resolution aerial imaging surveys of marine birds, mammals & turtles on the US Atlantic Outer Continental Shelf - Utility assessment, methodology recommendations, and implementation tools for the US Bureau of Ocean Energy Management. Contract # M10PC00099: 378 pp. www.data.boem.gov/PI/PDFImages/ ESPIS/5/5272.pdf TUCKER, T., L. BELSKIS, A. PANAGOPOULOU, A. REES, M. FRICK, K. WILLIAMS, R. LEROUX & K. STEWART, Compilers. 2013. Proceedings of the 33rd Annual Symposium on Sea Turtle Biology and Conservation. NOAA Tech Memo NMFS-SEFSC-645: 263 pp. www.sefsc.noaa.gov/species/turtles/ techmemos.htm WARING, G.T., S.A. WOOD & E. JOSEPHSON. 2012. Literature search and data synthesis for marine mammals and sea turtles in the U.S. Atlantic from Maine to the Florida Keys. US Bureau of Ocean Energy Management, Headquarters, Herndon, VA. OCS Study BOEM 2012-109: 456 pp. www.data.boem.gov/PI/ PDFImages/ESPIS/5/5276.pdf‎ ZALDUA-MENDIZABAL, N. & A. EGANA-CALLEJO, Editors. 2012. Marine Turtles of the North East Atlantic. Contributions for the First Regional Conference, San Sebastian 14-15 November, 2008. Munibe Monographs. Nature Series 1. Aranzadi Society of Sciences. San Sebastian: 107 pp. http://www.aranzadi-zientziak. org/wp-content/themes/aranzadi/monographs/munibetortugas. pdf

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS Publication of this issue was made possible by donations from: Dick Geier and Michael Guinea. The MTN-Online is produced and managed by Michael Coyne. The opinions expressed herein are those of the individual authors and are not necessarily shared by the Editors, the Editorial Board, National Marine Fisheries Service, NC Wildlife Resources Commission, or any individuals or organizations providing financial support.


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

Aim The 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 worldwide. 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.

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 . 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 Place Durham, NC 27705, USA Email: [email protected]
