Marine Turtle Newsletter - Seaturtle.org

Marine Turtle Newsletter Issue Number 126

October 2009

Juvenile green turtle resting within (top) and a juvenile loggerhead resting upon (below) a mat of Sargassum. Both pictures were taken within minutes after each turtle was released in the ocean near a mat of floating algae - see pp 9-13 (photos by A. Cornett).

Editorials: Kemp’s Ridley Annual Reproductive Data Should be Posted on Government Agency Web Sites................CW Caillouet, Jr. The IUCN’S New Clothes: An Update on the Dhamra – Turtle Saga..................................................................J Lenin et al. Articles: Olive Ridley Nesting in Peru: The Southernmost Records in the Eastern Pacific..........................................S Kelez et al. Habitat Choices Made by Hatchling and Juvenile Green Turtles and Loggerheads.....................MM Smith & M Salmon Leatherback Nesting in Tomatal, Oaxaca, Mexico in 2007/2008.....................................L Vannini & PA Rosales Jaillet Genetic Characterization of Loggerhead Turtles from Bycatch and Uncommon Nesting Sites...........................EC Reis et al. IUCN-MTSG Quarterly Report Letter to the Editor Obituary Announcements Recent Publications

Marine Turtle Newsletter No. 126, 2009 - Page 1

ISSN 0839-7708

Editors:

Managing Editor:

Lisa M. Campbell Nicholas School of the Environment and Earth Sciences, Duke University 135 Duke Marine Lab Road Beaufort, NC 28516 USA

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

Michael S. Coyne SEATURTLE.ORG 1 Southampton Place Durham, NC 27705, USA Email: [email protected]

E-mail: [email protected] Fax: +1 252-504-7648

E-mail: [email protected]

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

Founding Editor: Nicholas Mrosovsky University of Toronto, Canada

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

Colin Limpus Queensland Turtle Research Project, Australia

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

Nicolas J. Pilcher Marine Research Foundation, Malaysia

Alan B. Bolten University of Florida, USA

Manjula Tiwari National Marine Fisheries Service, La Jolla, USA

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

ALan Rees University of Exeter in Cornwall, UK

Angela Formia University of Florence, Italy

Kartik Shanker Indian Institute of Science, Bangalore, India Jeanette Wyneken Florida Atlantic University, USA

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

We are grateful to our major donors:


© Marine Turtle Newsletter

Editorial: Kemp’s Ridley Hatchlings Produced and Nests Laid Annually Should be Posted on Government Agency Web Sites Charles W. Caillouet, Jr.

119 Victoria Drive West, Montgomery, Texas 77356 USA (E-mail: [email protected])

Although its population is on an exponential trajectory toward recovery, Kemp’s ridley (Lepidochelys kempii) remains the most seriously endangered of the sea turtles. Kemp’s ridley hatchlings produced and nests laid annually at nesting sites in Tamaulipas, Mexico are important population indices. They have been employed in age-based and stage-based modeling to determine Kemp’s ridley population status and trends, evaluate relative effectiveness of recovery actions, and make forward projections of time required for recovery criteria to be met (Heppell and Crowder 1994; Turtle Expert Working Group 1998, 2000; Heppell et al. 2005; Coyne and Landry 2007; Heppell et al. 2007). Annual numbers of hatchlings and nests have been tabulated (e.g., The Kemp’s Ridley Recovery Team 1992; Turtle Expert Working Group 1998, 2000) or graphed (e.g., Marquez-M. 1994; Heppell et al. 2005, 2007; Márquez-M. et al. 2005). However, such tabulations have not been made available via the Internet for easy access, annual updating, and use by interested parties. These data should be made more widely and easily accessible to scientists, conservationists, and the public. They have been obtained for the most part through government funding. As an example, Kemp’s ridley hatchlings produced and nests laid on Texas coast beaches are posted at http://www.nps.gov/pais/naturescience/strp.htm, thanks to Dr. Donna Shaver, National Park Service, Padre Island National Seashore, Corpus Christi, Texas. In my 1999 compilation of Marine Turtle Newsletter (MTN) articles on status of the Kemp’s ridley population and actions taken toward its recovery (http://www.seaturtle.org/mtn/special/ MTN_Kemps.pdf), I wrote: “Now that the Kemp’s ridley population appears to be recovering, the more recent articles in the series focus on explaining why (MTN 76:14-17; MTN 76:17-18; MTN 85:2-4).” In 2000, the National Center for Ecological Analysis and Synthesis initiated Project 3560, entitled Biggest Bang for the Buck: Really melding demographic theory with economics. Included in this study was an examination of various conservation approaches applied to Kemp’s ridley. The project was completed, but results for Kemp’s ridley were not published. Interest in examining cost-effectiveness of endangered species recovery actions continues to increase (e.g., Shogren et al. 2008). If updated annual data series of Kemp’s ridley hatchlings and nests were available via the Internet, this could encourage additional research on such topics. I recommend that those who collect and control the data on annual numbers of Kemp’s ridley hatchlings produced and nests laid consider posting them, by nesting beach, on Internet web sites.

COYNE, M. & A.M. LANDRY, JR. 2007. Population sex ratio and its impact on population models. In: Plotkin, P.T. (Ed.). Biology and Conservation of Ridley Sea Turtles. Baltimore: The John’s Hopkins University Press, pp. 191-211. HEPPELL, S.S., P.M. BURCHFIELD, & L.J. PEÑA. 2007. Kemp’s ridley recovery: how far have we come, and where are we headed? In: P.T. Plotkin (Ed.). Biology and Conservation of Ridley Sea Turtles. The Johns Hopkins University Press, pp. 325-335. HEPPELL, S.S., D.T. CROUSE, L.B. CROWDER, S.P. EPPERLY, W. GABRIEL, T. HENWOOD, R. MÁRQUEZ & N.B. THOMPSON. 2005. A population model to estimate recovery time, population size, and management impacts on Kemp’s ridley sea turtles. Chelonian Conservation & Biology 4:767-773. HEPPELL, S.S. & L.B. CROWDER. 1994. Is headstarting headed in the right direction? In: Schroeder, B.A. & Witherington, B. W. (Compilers). Proceedings of the Thirteenth Annual Symposium on Sea Turtle Biology and Conservation. NOAA Technical Memorandum NMFS-SEFSC-341. pp. 77-78. MARQUEZ-M., R. 1994. Synopsis of biological data on the Kemp’s ridley turtle, Lepidochelys kempi (Garman, 1880). NOAA Technical Memorandum NMFS-SEFSC-343, 91 pp. MÁRQUEZ-M., R., P. M. BURCHFIELD, J. DIAZ-F., M. SÁNCHEZ-P., M. CARRASCO-A., CARMEN JIMÉNEZ-Q., A. LEO-P., R. BRAVO-G. & J. PEÑA. 2005. Status of the Kemp’s ridley sea turtle, Lepidochelys kempii. Chelonian Conservation and Biology 4:761-766. SHAVER, D. J. 2005. Analysis of the Kemp’s ridley imprinting and headstart project at Padre Island National Seashore, Texas, 1978-1988, with subsequent nesting and stranding records on the Texas coast. Chelonian Conservation and Biology 4:846-859. SHOGREN, J. F., J. TSCHIRHART, T. ANDERSON, A. W. ANDO, S. R. BEISSINGER, D. BROOKSHIRE, G. M. BROWN, JR., D. COURSEY, R. INNES, S. M. MEYER, & S. POLASKY. 2008. Why economics matters for endangered species protection and the ESA. In: J. F. Shogren & J. Tschirhart (Eds.), Protecting Endangered Species in the United States: Biological Needs, Political Realities, Economic Choices. Cambridge University Press. THE KEMP’S RIDLEY RECOVERY TEAM. 1992. Recovery plan for the Kemp’s ridley sea turtle (Lepidochelys kempii). U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Albuquerque, New Mexico, and National Marine Fisheries Service, Washington, D.C., 40 pp. TURTLE EXPERT WORKING GROUP. 1998. An assessment of the Kemp’s ridley (Lepidochelys kempii) and loggerhead (Caretta caretta) sea turtle populations in the western north Atlantic. NOAA Technical Memorandum NMFS-SEFSC-409, 96 pp. TURTLE EXPERT WORKING GROUP. 2000. Assessment update for the Kemp’s ridley and loggerhead sea turtle populations in the western north Atlantic. NOAA Technical Memorandum NMFS-SEFSC-444, 115 pp.


Editorial: The IUCN’S New Clothes: An Update on the Dhamra – Turtle Saga Janaki Lenin1,6, Ashish Fernandes2, Aarthi Sridhar3, B.C. Choudhury4, Jack Frazier5,6, Sanjiv Gopal2, Areeba Hamid2, Sandra Kloff6, Biswajit Mohanty6,7, Bivash Pandav8, Sudarshan Rodriguez3, Basudev Tripathy4, Romulus Whitaker9, Sejal Worah10, Belinda Wright11 & Kartik Shanker3,12

IUCN/SSC/Crocodile Specialist Group, South Asia and Iran, P.O. Box 21 Chengalpattu 603001 India (E-mail: [email protected]); 2Greenpeace, Bangalore India; 3Dakshin Foundation, Bangalore, India; 4 Wildlife Institute of India, Dehradun, India; 5Smithsonian Institution, USA; 6IUCN/CEESP/Social & Environmental Accountability of the Private Sector; 7Wildlife Society of Orissa, Cuttack, India; 8Worldwide Fund for Nature-Nepal, Kathmandu, Nepal; 9Madras Crocodile Bank, Chengalpattu, India; 10Worldwide Fund for Nature-India, New Delhi, India; 11 Wildlife Protection Society of India, New Delhi, India; 12Centre for Ecological Sciences, Indian Institute of Science, Bangalore, India. 1

Local communities - in every part of the world - define “conservation” within their environmental, social, historical, cultural, economic, and political milieu. In developing countries, where demand for natural resources (sought by communities and corporations alike) is not only high, but directly linked to life styles, effecting positive conservation action becomes a bedeviling proposition. It has been widely recognized that it is not enough to just create laws and enforcement mechanisms; for species to survive in the long-term, local communities must become partners in the conservation enterprise. A case in point is the conservation of olive ridley turtles in Orissa, India, where the conflicting demands of traditional fishermen/small scale fishing communities, mechanized fishers (including trawlers), international conservation organizations, local conservationists, enforcement authorities, the state government and corporate interests have created a monumental imbroglio (Shanker & Kutty 2005; Mathew 2004; Sridhar 2005; Shanker & Choudhury 2006; Wright & Mohanty 2006; Shanker et al. 2009). Over the past 3 years, the waters have been further muddied by the direct involvement of IUCN/MTSG in advising a major corporation that is developing the largest port facility in South Asia, not surprisingly an environmentally and socially sensitive issue. The special issues of Marine Turtle Newsletter No. 121 and Indian Ocean Turtle Newsletter No. 8 carried eight articles with different perspectives on the IUCN’s and MTSG’s engagement with the ongoing port construction at Dhamra, Orissa, on the east coast of India. The port, being built by Dhamra Port Company Limited (DPCL), is located some 4 km from Bhitarkanika National Park, with one of the highest mangrove diversities in the world and less than 15 km from Gahirmatha Marine Sanctuary, one of the most famous turtle mass nesting beaches in the world. Shanker et al. (2009) provided a brief history of conservation and a summary of the current social and political context. Here, a section of the community, including academics, biologists, conservationists and other practitioners from a variety of institutions and backgrounds express their concerns for the biodiversity of the region, interactions with local communities, the conservation of olive ridleys, and most particularly, the interaction between IUCN and DPCL (the port promoters) and its implications on a broad range of issues fundamental to effective conservation (e.g. see Frazier 2008). In numerous collective and individual letters (and other communications) to the IUCN and MTSG over the last three years, many of us have raised several concerns regarding the lack of

consultation by IUCN and the MTSG with local conservationists (see MTN 121/ IOTN 8). Besides providing an update on our negotiations with TATA Steel and DPCL as well as the perception of IUCN’s impact in this region, we will focus on two concerns: first, the inadequacy of consultation, or even basic informationsharing, by IUCN/MTSG with national members, local fisherfolk organizations and civil society groups and NGOs, many of whom have long years of experience in this geographical area (for a full account, see MTN 121/IOTN 8); and second, the lack of clarity, transparency and the limited scope of IUCN’s agenda in the Dhamra case. Negotiations with the DPCL & TATA – Weaving sweet nothings Given the lack of meaningful dialogue with IUCN and MTSG, other attempts were made to develop dialogue and explore realistic measures for preventing environmental and social problems resulting from the development of Dhamra Port – consequences that are to be expected from such a massive development project. A coalition of local conservation groups approached the port promoters – TATA Steel and Larsen & Toubro (L&T), as well as the implementing company, DPCL. The following individuals and organisations took part in the dialogue process: Ashish Fernandes (Greenpeace India), Debi Goenka (Conservation Action Trust), Mitali Kakkar and Prahlad Kakkar (Reefwatch Marine Conservation), ND Koli (National Fishworkers’ Forum), Janaki Lenin (as Regional Chair of the IUCN’s Crocodile Specialist Group), Biswajit Mohanty (Wildlife Society of Orissa), Divya Raghunandan (Greenpeace India), Bittu Sahgal (Sanctuary Asia), Ravi Singh (WWF India), and Belinda Wright (Wildlife Protection Society of India). Throughout the dialogue, this collective of groups consulted others, including B.C. Choudhury, Jack Frazier, Sudarshan Rodriguez, Kartik Shanker, Aarthi Sridhar and Romulus Whitaker. Between October 2008 and February 2009, four meetings were held (the last of which was at the construction site at Dhamra). At these meetings, the obvious gaps in the sole Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) conducted in 1997 (for a totally different development site and a much smaller development project) were pointed out and the need to conduct a comprehensive, credible and independent impact assessment was stressed by the conservation alliance, some of whom are authors of this piece. It was also emphasized that a credible assessment should have been done prior to the commencement of construction work for the project.


From the very first meeting on October 23, 2008, the Precautionary Principle was cited repeatedly to urge the port promoters to suspend construction until the completion of the new assessment (i.e., for a period of one year), which TATA Steel, L&T and DPCL refused to do. At the third meeting on February 10, 2009, at Dhamra, Mr. Sengupta, Vice President, TATA Steel, offered to consider deferring elements of construction by a few days to avoid interference with any fresh impact assessment but totally ruled out suspending construction or dredging. On February 20, 2009, the conservation alliance proposed a compromise and requested the company to suspend dredging during the turtle season, but this was rejected on the grounds that the latter had been advised that suspension of work was unnecessary. Requests that the port promoters share the expert advice (studies, evidence, recommendations, etc.) that recommended that suspension of work was not required, were rejected by the port developers at this meeting and subsequently (a letter from Greenpeace requesting this information was addressed to Mr. Muthuraman, Managing Director, TATA Steel dated February 27, 2009 has elicited no response) (http://greenpeace.in/turtle/ category/docs; additional correspondence available on request). Not surprisingly, the conservationists present at this meeting considered this a poor demonstration of good intention/will and/or application of the precautionary approach by the company and its advisors. TATA Steel has publicly pledged to withdraw from the project should it cause unacceptable negative impact on the turtles and their nesting habitat. However, they had rejected a Greenpeace commissioned study nor have they cooperated in implementing an independent assessment. This situation left the conservation alliance with no option but to disengage from the dialogue process until such time that the port promoters were willing to reconsider their stance. From information made available on the IUCN website, the only source of information that has been made available by IUCN, the participating organizations and individuals can only presume that the company’s reluctance to conduct such a basic, universally required exercise for any development project, particularly in an environmentally sensitive area, was instigated by their IUCN advisors. Subsequently, an arribada took place in Gahirmatha in March 2009 and this was used as evidence to show that dredging did not negatively impact turtles and their habitats, while ignoring any mention of the long-term impacts on the coastline. Continuing impasse with IUCN & MTSG – Invisible revelations In November, 2008, several months after their interaction with the Dhamra project began, the IUCN planned a one day technical workshop at Bhubaneswar, Orissa. Presentations by the IUCN consultants on their activities at Dhamra dominated the agenda, while the meeting organizers ignored the fundamental concerns repeatedly expressed by local membership over the preceding months. Besides, some MTSG and IUCN members and several organizations with a long history of involvement in the Dhamra port issue were not even invited to participate. These objections were raised before the workshop, but no attempt was made to resolve them, despite repeated requests by several members to the MTSG and the IUCN. \ In the end the workshop was postponed and finally convened again in February 2009, with exactly the same agenda. While a few select institutions received invitations seven weeks earlier, most received their invitations just three weeks prior to the workshop.

Contrary to the statements issued by MTSG and IUCN, numerous key individuals and institutions (many of the same ones who had been eliminated from the earlier invitation list) were simply not invited. The lack of participation in drafting the agenda, the short notice and selective invitations did not inspire confidence, and many IUCN members (WWF, WPSI) and MTSG members (B. Pandav, K. Shanker, W. Sunderraj, B. Tripathy, R. Whitaker) declined to attend. Besides the staff of DPCL and IUCN, representatives from eight out of approximately 24 IUCN member organizations in India, four NGOs and two universities participated. Hence, less than a third of the key actors participated in the workshop. Nonetheless, the press release (http://www.uicn.org/about/union/secretariat/offices/ asia/?2759/Vulnerable-Olive-Ridley-turtles-find-diverse-supportin-Orissa-India) issued after the February 24-25, 2009 ‘workshop’ in Bhubaneswar gives the impression that there was widespread agreement and support of the IUCN-DPCL partnership. On 24 April 2009, some of us requested the IUCN to provide details of their agreement with the port developers, financial and technical reports and recommendations given to the company. Specifically, we requested copies of: 1. The Terms of Reference/Scope of Engagement of the IUCN with the Dhamra Port Project. 2. The final agreement between the IUCN and DPCL/TATA Steel. 3. Financial details pertaining to the IUCN’s involvement with DPCL: particularly, how much are IUCN representatives being paid to advise DPCL? 4. Reports and recommendations submitted so far by IUCN/ MTSG to DPCL. 5. Periodic assessments and compliance reports from the commencement of IUCN’s work till the present. On 29 April 2009, Michael Dougherty, Regional Communications Coordinator, Asia Regional Office, IUCN, responded saying that these documents were circulated during the February 2009 workshop. However, colleagues who attended the workshop (among the authors of this piece) refute this claim; these documents were not made available during the workshop or at any other time. On 18 May 2009, we made the same request again. Moreover, an earlier letter was sent to the MTSG chairs (8 May 2009) requesting this information and further details on dredging and other port activities, but this also elicited no response. Hence, it has been difficult, if not impossible, to get basic information from the IUCN, and requests for specific information are not adequately answered. While some field trip reports and recommendations are now available on the IUCN website (http://www.iucn.org/about/union/ secretariat/offices/asia/asia_where_work/india_programme_ office/dhamra_port/), most documents including the agreement between IUCN and DPCL and its financial details have been declared confidential. In short, the relationship between IUCN/ MTSG and local organizations and conservationists contradicts the lofty rhetoric on the IUCN website, reminiscent of “selflaudatory monologue” typical of large international NGOs (Igoe & Sullivan 2009). We do not agree with IUCN’s claim that there is open discussion, sharing of information and positive conservation outcome. IUCN’s impact – Naked but not transparent Any recommendations and mitigation advice to port developers is handicapped by the lack of a scientific assessment of the


environmental impacts of the project on the coastline and the ecosystems in close proximity, not to mention social and economic impacts on marginalized inhabitants of coastal communities. In general, such attempts to bridge the gap between industry and conservation have raised concerns for both ecological health and justice (Frazier 2005; Igoe & Sullivan 2009). There is simply no reliable environmental impact assessment, nor – it would appear – any interest in producing one. It is widely believed that the IUCN capitulated to industry’s demands instead of insisting on a meaningful EIA, despite the fact that this is a basic pre-development requirement that is virtually a world-wide standard. The impacts of dredging of sand and other bottom sediments near the nesting beaches of Gahirmatha Wildlife Sanctuary (C.S. Kar pers. comm.) is apparently not being addressed by IUCN/MTSG as evidenced by the lack of reference to this in any report. The impact of annual dredging to maintain a 19 km shipping channel, and subsequent impacts on coastal currents and food webs are unknown. This is especially worrisome given the dramatic changes to the geomorphology of the Gahirmatha beaches during the last two decades (Shanker et al., 2004; Prusty and Dash, 2006). Little is known of the recommendations being made by the IUCN/ MTSG to DPCL to mitigate coastal erosion, invasive species or the other concomitant negative impacts of ports, if indeed any such recommendations are being made. MTSG’s advice to the company seems to have focused on two actions: to use deflectors on the dredger’s drag-head to shield turtles and to use light shades to reduce the disorientation of turtles and hatchlings during nighttime operations. These are likely to reduce some short-term negative impacts of the port development activities on turtles. Remarkably, the latest communiqué posted by the IUCN on its website (http://www.iucn.org/about/union/secretariat/offices/ asia/asia_where_work/india_programme_office/dhamra_port/) indicates that the IUCN-DPCL agreement is primarily to draft an Environmental Management Plan (EMP), and that this will be drafted in the second phase of the project. However, now more than two years after the agreement was developed, the only advice that seems to have been provided are a few isolated sea turtle mitigation measures. Hence, conservationists in India are mystified and deeply disappointed by the obsessive focus on sea turtles to the exclusion of other life forms and ecological interactions, particularly since the port site lies just 4 km away from Bhitarkanika National Park (a regionally important RAMSAR site and proposed UNESCO World Heritage site). IUCN’s engagement with the private sector is said to be governed by the private sector guidelines (http://liveassets.iucn.getunik.net/ downloads/ps_20guidelines.pdf), which include the preparation of a due diligence report, yet this essential document is not available on its websites. There is no information available to suggest that this was ever done. The lack of environmental precaution by the corporation and regulatory failure of the Ministry of Environment and Forests (see epilogue) has resulted in the flouting of environment laws and regulations (see MTN 121/ IOTN 8). Local conservationists view IUCN’s willingness to over-ride its own private sector guidelines in order to partner with a powerful corporation (and thereby attain significant corporate funding), as aiding and abetting an ecologically and socially devastating project, while undermining their own efforts to make the state and corporations play by environmental rules. It is particularly worrisome when IUCN has refused to collaborate with,

or even recognize, local conservation NGOs or community groups. Local individuals and groups have demonstrated their willingness to enter into meaningful discussion and constructively engage with both the company or IUCN (as summarised above), but they have been repeatedly spurned by these large, powerful organizations. Both the National Fishworkers’ Forum and the Orissa Traditional Fish Workers’ Union have opposed the project (See IOTN 8 and 9). Yet, without their crucial support, the sustainability of project recommendations is in jeopardy. Within the conservation community, IUCN has demonstrated that it is acting in isolation (if not in opposition) by refusing to seriously consider the opinions of local groups. International staff and contractors with their tenuous and ephemeral connections and superficial knowledge of the highly complex issues involved are hardly the way to effect change in the current context. Partnerships with industry: A global strategy to curb biodiversity loss or new suit? The collaboration with DPCL is part of IUCN’s global strategy to curb biodiversity loss. High-level dialogues and partnerships with extractive industries have been set up, e.g., the IUCN-International Council on Mining and Metals (http://www.iucn.org/about/work/programmes/business/bbp_our_ work/bbp_mining/), the Energy and Biodiversity Initiative (http:// www.theebi.org/) and the controversial partnership with Shell. These interactions generally aim to develop voluntary codes of good environmental and social conduct and to integrate considerations of biodiversity protection in the development of extractive industry projects. Although there is value in interacting directly with the private sector to address environmental issues, and not withstanding IUCN’s good intentions, many IUCN members worldwide, affected people, indigenous groups and advocacy organizations are deeply concerned about the way IUCN is handling these partnerships, and this concern has been elaborated in the specific case of the Dhamra Port development (Frazier 2008). At the last World Conservation Congress in Barcelona, no less than 60% of the NGO members supported a resolution to end IUCN’s partnership with Shell (Frazier 2005; Igoe & Sullivan 2009). IUCN’s partnership with DPCL is another example that justifies concern for all the reasons stated above (as well as others). It is critical that the IUCN and MTSG develop partnerships with local groups and address the range of conservation concerns engendered by the Dhamra project. Anything short of that runs contrary to the Precautionary Principle and the IUCN/MTSG’s own conservation mandate, but instead fits the general behaviour of large international NGOs that are notorious for undermining local groups to achieve their own agenda (Igoe & Sullivan 2009). When local environmental organisations and affected peoples lose confidence, then IUCN should reevaluate its partnership with the private sector and efforts should be made to bring these communities into the process. While we believe that it is necessary and possible to engage constructively with the DPCL and TATA Steel, this has to be done in a manner that truly considers local stakeholders and gives credence to local opinions and concerns. If these basic principles are not observed, any potential value of the IUCN- private sector partnership will be reduced to cheap greenwashing.


Epilogue Recently obtained documents from the offices of the Forest Department of Orissa show that the land on which the Dhamra port project is being built is a Protected Forest. The project does not have the mandatory clearance from the Government of India’s Ministry of Environment and Forests for usage of such land and has therefore violated the Indian Forest Conservation Act, 1980. An application has been filed in the Supreme Court by conservationists Bittu Sahgal, Romulus Whitaker and Shekar Dattatri seeking punitive action, and on October 9, 2009, the court issued notices to the Ministry of Environment and Forests and the state government of Orissa.

FRAZIER, J.G. 2005. Biosphere reserves and the Yucatan Syndrome: Another look at the role of NGOs. In: R. Smardon and B. Faust (Eds.) Biosphere Reserve Management in the Yucatan Peninsula - Special Edition. Landscape and Urban Planning 74: 313-333. FRAZIER, J. 2008. Why do they do that? Ruminations on the Dhamra drama. Marine Turtle Newsletter. 121: 28-33. IGOE, J. & S. SULLIVAN. 2009. Problematising Neoliberal Biodiversity Conservation: Displaced and Disobedient Knowledge Executive summary of a workshop held at Washington D.C., American University, Department of Anthropology, May 16-19, 2008. Available at www.iied. org/pubs/pdfs/G02526.pdf MATHEW, S. 2004. Socio-economic aspects of management measures aimed at controlling sea turtle mortality: a case study of Orissa, India. Paper presented at the Expert Consultation on Interactions between Sea Turtles and Fisheries within an Ecosystem Context, Rome, 9-12 March2004. FAO Fisheries Report No. 738, Suppl. Rome, Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO), 2004. 238p.

PRUSTY, B.G. & S. DASH. 2006. The effect of rookery geomorphology on olive ridley nesting in Gahirmatha, Orissa. In: K. Shanker & B.C. Choudhury (Eds.). Marine Turtles of the Indian Subcontinent. Universities Press, Hyderabad, India. pp. 384-392. SHANKER, K. B.C. CHOUDHURY, A. FERNANDES, S. GOPAL, A. HAMID, C. KAR, S. KUMAR, J. LENIN, B. MOHANTY, B. PANDAV, S. RODRIGUEZ, A. SRIDHAR, W. SUNDERRAJ, B. TRIPATHY, R. WHITAKER, S. WORAH & B. WRIGHT. 2009. A little learning …the price of ignoring politics and history. Marine Turtle Newsletter 124: 3-5. SHANKER, K., B. PANDAV & B.C. CHOUDHURY. 2004. An assessment of the olive ridley turtles (Lepidochelys olivacea) nesting population in Orissa, India. Biological Conservation 115: 149 – 160. SHANKER, K. & R. KUTTY. 2005. Sailing the flagship fantastic: myth and reality of sea turtle conservation in India. Maritime Studies 3-4: 213-240. SHANKER, K. & B.C. CHOUDHURY. 2006. Marine turtles in the Indian subcontinent: a brief history. In: In: K. Shanker & B.C. Choudhury (Eds.). Marine Turtles of the Indian Subcontinent. Universities Press, Hyderabad, India. pp. 3-16. SRIDHAR, A. 2005. Sea turtle conservation and fisheries in Orissa, India. Samudra Monograph. International Collective in Support of Fishworkers, Chennai, India. WRIGHT, B. & B. MOHANTY. 2006. Operation Kachhapa: an NGO initiative for sea turtle conservation in Orissa. In: In: K. Shanker & B.C. Choudhury (Eds.). Marine Turtles of the Indian Subcontinent. Universities Press, Hyderabad, India. pp. 290-303.

Olive Ridley Lepidochelys olivacea Nesting in Peru: The Southernmost Records in the Eastern Pacific Shaleyla Kelez1, Ximena Velez-Zuazo2, Fernando Angulo3 & Camelia Manrique4

ecOceanica, Peru & Duke University, 135 Duke Marine Lab Rd, Beaufort NC 28516, USA (E-mail: [email protected]); ecOceanica, Peru & Universidad de Puerto Rico,USA (E-mail: [email protected]); 3CORBIDI, Peru (E-mail: fangulo@ corbidi.org); 4Grupo de Tortugas Marinas, Peru (E-mail: [email protected])

1

2

The olive ridley sea turtle, Lepidochelys olivacea, is widely distributed in all oceans except the Mediterranean Sea, and is currently listed as Vulnerable by IUCN due to declining numbers in the past several decades (www.redlist.org). Some populations of olive ridleys, along with Kemp’s ridleys, exhibit a particular nesting strategy called arribadas, which consist of the simultaneous nesting of hundreds and even thousands females on a relatively small portion of beach (Hughes & Richard 1974). Ridleys also exhibit solitary nesting, the common reproductive behavior of other chelonians. The occurrence of these two contrasting nesting strategies, unique for ridley sea turtles, may demonstrate a capacity to maximize offspring survival in a complex ecological environment (Bernardo & Plotkin 2007).

In the Eastern Pacific (EP), the olive ridley is the most abundant sea turtle species and ranges from US to central Chile; however, it is most commonly observed in waters off Mexico and Central America (Eguchi et al. 2007; Olson et al. 2001a, 2001b). Currently, arribada beaches occur in Panama, Costa Rica, Nicaragua and Mexico (Abreu-Grobois & Plotkin 2007; NMFS & USFWS 1998). Non-arribada (i.e. solitary) beaches are located mainly in Mexico but nesting is reported from Mexico to Colombia and rarely from Ecuador and Peru (Hays-Brown & Brown 1982; NMFS & USFWS 1998). All the females that nest in the different rookeries in the EP are believed to belong to the same subpopulation (Abreu-Grobois & Plotkin 2007); however, it seems that some demographic independence does exist among beaches (Abreu-Grobois & Plotkin


Figure 1. Locations of recorded nests (circles) and sites where interviewees observed nesting activity (stars) in the northern Peruvian Coast. Nest references at Punta Malpelo and Nueva Esperanza from Hays-Brown & Brown 1982 and Vera et al. 2008, respectively. 2007; Lopez-Castro & Rocha-Olivares 2005). Diet analysis, feeding observations and turtle migrations have shown that coastal Peru (nearshore and offshore) is a significant foraging area for sea turtles (Hays-Brown & Brown 1982; Paredes 1969; Shillinger et al. 2008) but is not considered an important area for nesting, although nesting does occur in Peru. Hays-Brown & Brown (1982) reported an olive ridley nest laid in 1979 in Punta Malpelo, Tumbes (Fig. 1) with 79 undeveloped eggs and 1 egg with an embryo. Turtle crawls were also observed in beaches south to Punta Malpelo, suggesting nesting activity. In the subsequent two decades, no other evidence of nesting has been reported. However, in recent years, nesting activity has been observed. New findings: In July 2000, a nest in Caleta Grau, Tumbes (Fig. 1) was observed by fishermen who informed personnel from the Tumbes Laboratory of the Instituto del Mar del Peru (IMARPE) and from Fondo de Desarrollo Pesquero (FONDEPES). When the nest emerged in September, the hatchlings were raised in captivity in the facilities of the FONDEPES Aquaculture Center La Tuna Carranza at Puerto Pizarro, Tumbes (Perez et al. 2001). Nine months later, in June 2001, we were able to evaluate the olive ridley surviving hatchlings. The mean hatchling length was 18.7 ± 1.5 SD cm (range: 15-22.1, n=35) for curved carapace length from notch to tip (CCL) while their mean weight was 988 ± 229 SD g. (range: 630-1530, n=35). Turtles weighing more than 1.1 kg (n=9) were tagged with inconel tags in both rear flippers and all turtles were released 1 hour offshore. During 2001 and 2002, we conducted a sea turtle survey along the Peruvian coast (3080 km), covering a total of 57 localities, including ports, fishing villages, beaches, and guano islands and guano points. In 47 of these sites, we informally questioned a total

of 85 inhabitants, particularly fishermen, to learn about sea turtles in the area. Our questions covered a wide range of subjects including the presence of different sea turtle species and habitats, abundance, food items, human interactions, exploitation, commercialization, uses, strandings, and nesting activity. We specifically asked if they knew how sea turtles reproduce and if they have seen reproductive events. Of the 47 sites where we conducted interviews, we obtained information about nesting activity, including direct observations of nesting females, eggs and/or hatchlings in only five locations: Punta Capones, El Bendito, Playa Hermosa and Caleta Grau in Tumbes, and Negritos in Piura (Fig. 1). All these areas are located in the two northernmost coastal departments of Peru. Five years elapsed until we obtained new evidence of sea turtles nesting in Peru. In August 2007, several open nest chambers and one nest were observed by a house guard on a beach north of El Ñuro, Piura (Fig. 1). The nest was located about 50 m from the high tide mark and the guard estimated it had around 300 eggs, but eggs were not counted. Subsequently, within a week, the guard and a local fisherman removed all the eggs to eat them, either cooked or raw as accompaniments while drinking pisco (Peruvian liquor distilled from grapes). Three eggs, were observed, photographed and measured by F. A. (Fig. 2), who was also allowed to keep one for genetic analysis. This egg was analyzed using molecular techniques to determine the sea turtle species. A 740 base-pairs fragment of the control region of the mitochondrial DNA was amplified and sequenced using primers LTEi9 and H950 (Abreu-Grobois et al. 2006), and subsequently compared with available sequences for Pacific sea turtles on Genbank (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/) and SWFSC Marine Turtle Research Program (http://swfsc.noaa.gov). Results confirmed that the sea turtle clutch from El Ñuro was deposited by an olive ridley sea turtle with haplotype O. This haplotype has been previously reported for East Pacific nesting populations, including Costa Rica and Mexico (Bowen et al. 1998; Briseño-Dueñas 1998; Lopez-Castro & Rocha-Olivares 2005), and represents the first genetic information from a sea turtle nesting in Peru. The eggs had a mean diameter of 3.68 cm (range: 3.65-3.70, n=3), which is smaller than the global average (3.93 cm) reported for this species (Miller 1997), slightly larger than the range reported for Playa El Valle (2.9-3.6, mean = 3.3 cm), an important nesting beach in Colombia (Barrientos & Ramirez 2008) but is within the size range of olive ridley eggs in EP rookeries (Hirth 1980). This olive ridley nest is the southernmost record of a sea turtle nest in the Eastern Pacific. More recently, in March 2008, another nest was observed in Nueva Esperanza, Tumbes (Fig. 1), when 36 hatchlings were observed during hatchling emergence and positively identified as olive ridleys (Vera et al. 2008). Olive ridleys can be found along the entire Peruvian coast, but they are more common in the north where sea surface temperatures are warmer (Hays-Brown & Brown 1982). They are the third most abundant species captured on pelagic longlines in Peru (Kelez et al. 2008) and the second most commonly captured species in gillnets in the Pisco area (de Paz et al. 2002). Biometric data from our longline on-board observer project and from field surveys show that the mean CCL of olive ridleys in Peru is 61.1 ± 7.4 SD cm (range 42-78, n=63, unpublished data). Using the average size of nesting females as the best estimate for minimum adult size (Miller 1997) and data from


Figure 2. Three eggs observed in a beach north of El Ñuro, Piura. the closest significant nesting beach Playa El Valle in Colombia (Barrientos & Ramirez 2008), 33% of the individuals observed in Peru can be considered adults. However, if we removed the turtles caught by longlines and consider only the individuals found during coastal surveys (strandings and carapaces on sale), which seem to come from more near shore areas, the proportion of adults changes to 57% (average CCL = 64 ± 7.2 SD cm, range 48.3-78, n=28). Also, during longline on-board observations we were able to observe 3 adult males showing secondary sexual characteristics and one of them measured 63 cm CCL. These findings indicate that olive ridleys are a common species in Peru and that there is a large adult component in coastal waters. This is not restricted to years with incursions of warm water (el Niño or ENSO), but is generally the case. The recent observations of nests in Peru are not unique in the Southeast Pacific. In the last five years, nesting activity has been also reported in Ecuador. Alava et al. (2007) reported a nest with 50 eggs and one dead late-stage embryo in a beach near Manta in October 2004. The authors also reported a hatchling found in October 2006 in a beach in the Province of Esmeralda. More recently, increasing evidence of nesting activities was found in several beaches in continental Ecuador: Ayampe – Puerto Rico, Montañita, Puerto López, Jupiter, Portete and Isla de la Plata (Baquero et al. 2008). In Pacific Colombia, the olive ridley is the most common nesting species. The Colombian Institute of Coastal and Marine Research (INVEMAR) considers four beaches to have abundant olive ridley nesting (more than 100 turtles/beach/year). These are in order of importance Playa El Valle, Amarales, Mulatos and Vigia (CeballosFonseca et al. 2003). In addition to these four, an additional 36 other beaches are used by olive ridleys for nesting. Despite being abundant in Colombia, the nesting aggregations there are threatened by intensive direct capture of nesting females and egg predation for human consumption (Barrientos & Ramirez 2008; Ceballos-Fonseca et al. 2003). Nonetheless, current conservation efforts might be increasing the survival of hatchlings. Some hatcheries are protecting a large number of nests, especially at Playa El Valle, which has had an active hatchery since 1991 (Ceballos-Fonseca et al. 2003). Nesting at low density in higher latitudes, such as the recent nesting events in Peru and Ecuador, may reflect relaxed natal homing in olive ridleys, which facilitates the colonization of beaches distant from the respective natal beaches. Studies have shown that olive

ridleys do not always return to the same beach to nest. A small proportion of ridleys have been found using both Nancite and Ostional beaches; other adult females from Nancite and Ostional have been observed nesting, or about to nest, in Chacocente, Nicaragua and Escobilla in Mexico (Cornelius & Robinson-Clark 1986). More recently, a female that nested in Osa Peninsula, Costa Rica was seen nesting in Playa El Valle, Colombia, 728 Km away (Barrientos & Ramirez 2008). The relaxed natal homing behavior may explain the lack of strong genetic structure observed among EP olive ridley rookeries (Bowen & Karl 2007). Wandering gravid females are important to the species’ continuity in the long term, as particular nesting beaches may become unsuitable over time for reproduction. In northern Peru, coastal inhabitants often assert that sea turtle nesting was common “in the past,” probably around the 1960s (Hays-Brown & Brown 1982). Therefore, the new nesting activity might be a re-colonization of beaches at the southern limit of their reproductive distribution in the Eastern Pacific. The recent nesting activity reported in Peru and Ecuador might also be the result of a combination of two factors: increased research efforts and more conservation. Even though there are no ‘baseline’ data, there has been greater activity related to sea turtles in Peru and Ecuador in the past 10 years. Additionally, in the EP, actions such as protection of nesting females and nests and by-catch mitigation in coastal an oceanic waters have also increased, and likely have had a positive impact on olive ridleys. If population numbers in the area are increasing, nesting events could be increasing as well. The hatcheries established in Playa El Valle, the most important nesting beach in Pacific South America, have been protecting nests and releasing hatchlings into the population since 1991. Considering that time to maturity has been calculated in 13 years for olive ridleys (Zug et al. 2006), an increase in the adult population since 2004, with concomitant increased nesting activity, seems like a plausible possibility. Additionally, nesters numbers in the 2 most important arribada beaches in the EP, Ostional and Escobilla, increased considerable from the 1980s to the year 2000 (Chaloupka et al. 2004). However, the intense capture of olive ridleys in the EP must not be forgotten. During the 1960s and 1970s, olive ridleys were harvested for the leather industry. Slaughter houses dedicated exclusively to this sea turtle species operated intensely in Mexico and Ecuador in the 1970s until populations began to decline (Cliffton et al. 1982; Cornelius 1982). As a consequence, many arribada beaches collapsed and have not been able to recover to past levels yet (Abreu-Grobois & Plotkin 2007). Currently, olive ridleys are legally protected in all countries of the EP with some exceptions for egg harvest in Panama, Costa Rica, Nicaragua and Guatemala (e.g. Hope 2002); El Salvador banned this practice in February, 2009 (http://www.mag.gob.sv). Nevertheless, in spite of the legal protection, enforcement is sub-optimal and two principal threats remain in the region: fisheries bycatch and egg exploitation (Cornelius et al. 2007; Frazier et al. 2007). The findings presented here are an encouraging sign of conservation efforts and monitoring. The need for increasing conservation programs in the northernmost coastal departments of Peru (Tumbes and Piura) is evident. Under these circumstances, it is extremely important to protect each nest deposited on Peruvian beaches and increase conservation efforts. Nests in northern Peru will not only add to population numbers but also have the potential


of contributing to a higher proportion of males due to colder temperatures compared to rookeries north of Peru (Fiedler & Lavin 2006). We recommend the implementation of regular monitoring of beaches and the protection of each natural nest. Acknowledgments: We thank O. Perez and A. Lujan for giving us access to the headstarted hatchlings and for all their efforts to release them offshore, Dr. Llanos for all his help in Tumbes, APECO for their support, NMFSSEFSC for field materials and M. Godfrey for his valuable comments. The sequencing and genotyping facility of the University of Puerto Rico-Rio Piedras is supported in part by the following agencies: NCRR-AABRE grant no. P20RR16470, NIH-SCORE grant no. S06 GM08102, University of Puerto-Rico Biology Department, NSF-CREST grant no. 0206200 and NINDS-SNRP USA NS39405. The information reported were obtained under the following research permits: 016-2002-INRENA-J-DGFFSDCB, 049-2002-INRENA-DGFFS-DCB, 014-2004-INRENA-IFFS-DCB, 017-2004-INRENA-IFFS-DCB, and 117-2008-INRENA-IFFS-DCB. ABREU-GROBOIS, A., J. HORROCKS, A. FORMIA, P. DUTTON, R. LEROUX, X. VELEZ-ZUAZO, L. SOARES & P. MEYLAN. 2006. New mtDNA control region primers which work for a variety of marine turtle species may increase the resolution capacity of mixed stock analyses. In: M. Frick, 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 pp. 179. ABREU-GROBOIS, A. & P. PLOTKIN. 2007. MSTG global assessment of olive ridley turtles for the IUCN Red List. Available at www.iucnmtsg.org ALAVA, J.J., P.C.H. PRITCHARD, J. WYNEKEN & H. VALVERDE. 2007. First documented record of nesting by olive ridley turtle (Lepidochelys olivacea) in Ecuador. Chelonian Conservation & Biology 6: 282-285. BAQUERO, A., J.P. MUÑOZ PÉREZ & M. PEÑA MOSQUERA. 2008. Identificacion de las playas de anidacion de tortugas marinas en la costa del Ecuador y sus principales amenazas. Primeras evidencias de anidacion en algunas playas del pais. In: S. Kelez, F. van Oordt, N. de Paz & K. Forsberg (Eds.). Libro de Resumenes. II Simposio de Tortugas Marinas en el Pacifico Sur Oriental pp. 97-98. Available at www.ecOceanica. org/publicaciones BARRIENTOS, K. & C. RAMIREZ. 2008. Estado actual de Lepidochelys olivacea en el Valle, Pacifico Chocoano, Colombia. In: S. Kelez, F. van Oordt, N. de Paz & K. Forsberg (Eds.). Libro de Resumenes. II Simposio de Tortugas Marinas en el Pacifico Sur Oriental pp. 17-21. Available at www.ecOceanica.org/publicaciones BERNARDO, J. & P.T. PLOTKIN. 2007. An evolutionary perspective on the arribada phenomenon and reproductive behavioral polymorphism of olive ridley sea turtles (Lepidochelys olivacea). In: P.T. Plotkin (Ed.). Biology and Conservation of Ridley Sea Turtles. Johns Hopkins University Press, Baltimore pp. 59-87. BOWEN, B.W., A.M. CLARK, F.A. ABREU-GROBOIS, A. CHAVES, H.A. REICHART & R.J. FERL. 1998. Global phylogeography of the ridley sea turtles (Lepidochelys spp.) as inferred from mitochondrial DNA sequences. Genetica 179-189. BOWEN, B.W. & S.A. KARL. 2007. Population genetics and phylogeography of sea turtles. Molecular Ecology 23: 4886-4907. BRISEÑO-DUEÑAS, R. 1998. Variación genética en la región control del ADN mitocondrial de poblaciones de la tortuga golfina Lepidochelys

olivacea en el Pacífico oriental y las implicaciones para su conservación. M. Sc. Thesis, Universidad Autónoma de Sinaloa, Mexico. CEBALLOS-FONSECA, C., L. MARTINEZ & D. QUIROGA. 2003. Distribucion, amenazas y esfuerzos de conservacion de las tortugas marinas en el Pacifico Colombiano. Informe final, INVEMAR, Santa Marta, Colombia. pp. 78. CHALOUPKA, M., P. DUTTON & H. NAKANO. 2004. Status of sea turtle stocks in the Pacific. . FAO Fisheries Report. No. 738, Supplement. Rome, Italy pp. 135-164. CLIFFTON, K., D.O. CORNEJO & R.S. FELGER. 1982. Sea turtles of the Pacific coast of Mexico. In: K.A. Bjorndal (Ed.). Biology and Conservation of Sea Turtles. Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington, D.C. pp. 199-209. CORNELIUS, S.E. 1982. Status of sea turtles along the Pacific coast of Middle America. In: K.A. Bjorndal (Ed.). Biology and Conservation of Sea Turtles. Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington, D.C. pp. 211-219. CORNELIUS, S.E., R. ARAUZ, J. FRETEY, M.H. GODFREY, R. MARQUEZ-M. & K. SHANKER. 2007. Effect of land-based harvest of Lepidochelys. In: P.T. Plotkin (Ed.). Biology and Conservation of Ridley Sea Turtles. Johns Hopkins University Press, Baltimore pp. 231-251. CORNELIUS, S.E. & D.C. ROBINSON-CLARK. 1986. Post-nesting movements of female olive ridley turtles tagged in Costa Rica. Vida Silvestre Neotropical 1: 12-23. DE PAZ, N., J.C. REYES & M. ECHEGARAY. 2002. Datos sobre captura, comercio y biologia de tortugas marinas en el area de Pisco - Paracas. In: J. Mendo & M. Wolf (Eds.). I Jornada Cientifica “Bases ecologicas y socioeconomicas para el manejo de los recursos vivos de la Reserva Nacional de Paracas”. Universidad Nacional Agraria La Molina. pp. 125-129. EGUCHI, T., T. GERRODETTE, R.L. PITMAN, J.A. SEMINOFF & P.H. DUTTON. 2007. At-sea density and abundance estimates of the olive ridley turtle Lepidochelys olivacea in the eastern tropical Pacific. Endangered Species Research 2: 191-203. FIEDLER, P.C. & M.F. LAVIN. 2006. Introduction: a review of eastern tropical Pacific oceanography. Progress in Oceanography 69: 94-100. FRAZIER, J., R. ARAUZ, J. CHEVALIER, A. FORMIA, J. FRETEY, M.H. GODFREY, R. MÁRQUEZ-M., B. PANDAV & K. SHANKER. 2007. Human-turtle interactions at sea. In: P.T. Plotkin (Ed.). Biology and Conservation of Ridley Sea Turtles. Johns Hopkins University Press, Baltimore pp. 253-295. HAYS-BROWN, C. & W.M. BROWN. 1982. Status of sea turtles in the Southeastern Pacific: Emphasis on Peru. In: K.A. Bjorndal (Ed.). Biology and Conservation of Sea Turtles. Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington D.C. pp. 235-240. HIRTH, H.F. 1980. Some aspects of the nesting behavior and reproductive biology of sea turtles. American Zoologist 507-523. HOPE, R.A. 2002. Wildlife harvesting, conservation and poverty: the economics of olive ridley egg exploitation. Environmental Conservation 29: 375-384. HUGHES, D.A. & J.D. RICHARD. 1974. The nesting of the Pacific ridley turtle Lepidochelys olivacea on Playa Nancite, Costa Rica. Marine Biology 2: 97-107. KELEZ, S., X. VELEZ-ZUAZO, C. MANRIQUE, L. AYALA, S. AMOROS & S. SANCHEZ. 2008. Captura incidental de tortugas marinas en la


pesca con palangre en Peru. In: S. Kelez, F. van Oordt, N. de Paz & K. Forsberg (Eds.). Libro de Resumenes. II Simposio de tortugas marinas en el Pacifico Sur Oriental pp. 59-61. Available at www.ecOceanica. org/publicaciones LOPEZ-CASTRO, M.C. & A. ROCHA-OLIVARES. 2005. The panmixia paradigm of eastern Pacific olive ridley turtles revised: consequences for their conservation and evolutionary biology. Molecular Ecology 11: 3325-3334. MILLER, J.D. 1997. Reproduction in sea turtles. In: P.L. Lutz&J. A. Musick (Eds.). The Biology of Sea Turtles. CRC Press, Boca Raton, FL. pp. 51-81. NMFS & USFWS. 1998. Recovery Plan for U.S. Pacific Populations of the Olive Ridley Turtle (Lepidochelys olivacea). National Marine Fisheries Service, pp. 53. OLSON, P.A., R.L. PITMAN, L.T. BALLANCE, K.R. HOUGH, P. DUTTON & S.B. REILLY. 2001a. Summary of seabird, marine turtle, and surface fauna data collected during a survey in the Eastern Tropical Pacific Ocean, July 28 - December 9, 1999. NOAA-TM-NMFS-SWFSC-301. Available from http://swfsc.noaa.gov/publications OLSON, P.A., R.L. PITMAN, L.T. BALLANCE, K.R. HOUGH, P.H. DUTTON & S.B. REILLY. 2001b. Summary of seabird, marine turtle, and surface fauna data collected during a survey in the Eastern Tropical Pacific Ocean, July 28 - December 9, 2000. NOAA-TM-NMFS-SWFSC-304. Available from http://swfsc.noaa.gov/publications

PAREDES, R.P. 1969. Introduccion al estudio biologico de Chelonia mydas agassizi en el perfil de Pisco. Master Thesis, Universidad Nacional Federico Villareal, Lima, Peru. PEREZ, O., A. LUJAN & Z. CARRION. 2001. Crianza durante nueve meses en cautiverio de neonatos de Chelonia mydas “tortuga marina verde” en el Centro de Acuicultura La Tuna Carranza del FONDEPES - Tumbes. SHILLINGER, G.L., D.M. PALACIOS, H. BAILEY, S.J. BOGRAD, A.M. SWITHENBANK, P. GASPAR, B.P. WALLACE, J.R. SPOTILA, F.V. PALADINO & R. PIEDRA. 2008. Persistent leatherback turtle migrations present opportunities for conservation. PLoS Biology 7: e171. VELEZ-ZUAZO, X., S. KELEZ & C. MANRIQUE. 2006. Genetic composition of sea turtles bycatch from Peruvian fisheries: results of mtDNA analysis. In: M. Frick, 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. 207. VERA, M., J. LLANOS, E. TORRES, C.A. ROSALES & F. VAN OORDT. 2008. Primer registro de anidamiento de Lepidochelys olivacea (Eschscholtz 1829) en la playa Nueva Esperanza, Tumbes, Peru. In: S. Kelez, F. van Oordt, N. de Paz & K. Forsberg (Eds.). Libro de Resumenes. II Simposio de Tortugas Marinas en el Pacifico Sur Oriental. p. 105. Available at www.ecOceanica.org/publicaciones ZUG, G.R., M. CHALOUPKA & G.H. BALAZS. 2006. Age and growth in olive ridley seaturtles (Lepidochelys olivacea) from the North-central Pacific: a skeletochronological analysis. Marine Ecology 27: 263-270.

A Comparison Between the Habitat Choices Made by Hatchling and Juvenile Green Turtles (Chelonia mydas) and Loggerheads (Caretta caretta) Morgan Michelle Smith1,2 & Michael Salmon1

Department of Biological Sciences, Florida Atlantic University, 777 Glades Rd, Box 3091, Boca Raton, Florida 33431 USA (E-mail: [email protected]); 2 Pacific Whale Foundation, 300 Ma’alaea Rd, Suite 211, Wailuki, Maui, Hawaii 96793 USA (E-mail: [email protected]) 1

Hatchling green turtles and loggerheads emerge from underground nests at night, crawl to the ocean, and swim offshore during a “frenzy” period that lasts about 24 h (Wyneken & Salmon 1992). By the end of the frenzy period, the turtles are typically in deep oceanic waters where they remain for several years (Bjorndal et al. 2000; Reich et al. 2007). Many hatchling and juvenile marine turtles fail to survive (Heppell et al. 2003) because they are unable to defend themselves against their predators (Gyuris 1994; Pilcher et al. 2000). Their best option may be to avoid detection. In the Western Atlantic, postfrenzy loggerheads (Caretta caretta) probably accomplish that feat by minimizing movement in open water and by associating with mats of Sargassum which the turtles resemble in color and in “texture” (Musick and Limpus 1997; Witherington 2002). This association makes them difficult at least for humans to distinguish from an algal background although whether their natural predators are similarly affected remains unknown.

Much less is known about how hatchling green turtles (Chelonia mydas) avoid detection by predators except that when released in the ocean after the frenzy period, they are not inactive like loggerheads. Instead, young (2 – 8 week old) green turtles swim vigorously, make frequent shallow dives and only briefly return to the ocean surface to breathe (Salmon et al. 2004), probably because at that location they are vulnerable to avian predators (such as frigate birds; Carr and Meylan 1980). Their counter-shaded coloration has led to the hypothesis that both hatchlings and small juveniles prefer open water (Musick & Limpus 1997) even though in the absence of cover many predators take small turtles (Stancyk 1982). Nevertheless, the “open water” hypothesis was until recently supported by the apparent absence of juvenile green turtles from the same Sargassum mats where juvenile loggerheads were abundant (Witherington 2002), and by a behavioral study done in large tanks demonstrating that young green turtles avoided floating mats (plastic “plants”) and swam instead in the tank’s “open” areas (Mellgren et al. 2003).


Evidence to the contrary was provided by Carr (1986a, 1986b). small dim flashlight whose beam passed through a red filter. Each He proposed that downwelling areas at oceanic fronts were rich set of 3-day counts was replicated 6 times using 10 turtles from a sites of organic material (including floating alga such as Sargassum) different nest. During half of the replicates the Sargassum mat was where small juvenile loggerheads and green turtles during their “lost located at the opposite end of the tank. Because the morning and years” could find sufficient food to survive. He listed sightings of afternoon counts yielded similar values they were averaged for each both species at these locations made personally, as well as by others. day. The turtles were not otherwise disturbed, nor were they fed Recently, Witherington & Hirama (2006) found several species of until the morning after the last (night 3) count. juvenile turtles, including green turtles, resting in Sargassum mats The laboratory results are based upon data from 55 loggerheads located in the northeastern Gulf of Mexico. (5 turtles died for unknown reasons during observations) and 57 Thus, the data on green turtles are equivocal and inspired us to green turtles (3 turtles died; Fig. 1). During morning and afternoon initiate this study. We released hatchling and juvenile green turtles observations on day 1 (averaged), the two species showed no near a Sargassum mat under both laboratory and field conditions statistical differences in distribution (33 green turtles in open water and noted whether the turtles remained where they were released, and 24 over Sargassum; 30 loggerheads in open water and 25 over swam away, or associated with the mat (by crawling over its surface). Sargassum; X2 = 0.03, 1 d.f., n.s.). However, in the later daylight Loggerheads of the same age were similarly tested to enable (days 2 and 3) observations and during the three night observations, comparisons. Our results indicate that both species associate with more green turtles were observed over Sargassum than in open water Sargassum, but that they do so differently. We hypothesize that those whereas more loggerheads were observed in open water than over differences reflect independently evolved anti-predator strategies. Sargassum (Fig. 1). Averages during the light period of days 2 All observations and experiments were done between July – and 3 were 36 green turtles over Sargassum and 21 in open water, September, 2005-2006, using hatchlings from nests deposited whereas for loggerheads they were 16 and 39, respectively (X2 = in Palm Beach and Broward Counties, Florida, USA (26.14° N, 13.1, p < 0.0001). At night the average of the nocturnal observations 80.08°W to 26. 37° N, 80.11° W). was 39 green turtles over Sargassum and 18 in open water, and for Laboratory observations. Observations were made on 120 turtles loggerheads 17 and 38, respectively (X2 = 15.8, p < 0.0001). (10 hatchlings per nest from 6 nests of each species). Turtles were The mean green turtle distribution under illumination during days either captured inside the nest just below the sand surface on the 2 and 3 did not differ from the mean distribution at night (X2 = 0.35, day they would have emerged, or obtained in the early evening n.s.). However, both the diurnal and noctural distribution differed as they naturally emerged. They were taken to our marine laboratory at the Gumbo Limbo Environmental Complex in Boca Raton where they were weighed, measured (SCL using calipers), marked with non-toxic nail polish and held at ambient shaded beach temperatures in covered Styrofoam boxes containing a layer of moist sand. At about midnight, they were released inside a seawater-filled rectangular blue polypropylene tank (1.83 x 0.91 x 0.23 m deep; capacity, ~ 382 L). One end of the tank was filled with a rectangular mat of fresh Sargassum about 10 cm thick, kept in place from below by a net. The mat occupied ~ 25 % of the water surface inside the tank. The tank was illuminated to supplement the natural light cycle (~ 14L:10D) by two 40 W fluorescent tubes (one Zoo-Med™ 5.0; one Verilux™ full spectrum UV) centered 46 cm above the tank and oriented parallel to the tank’s long axis. Sand-filtered ocean water (23 - 27º C, depending upon the season) entered the tank at each corner (flow rate, 9 L/min) and exited the tank through a central standpipe covered with plastic mesh screening to prevent hatchling entrapment. After the lights were switched on the next Figure 1. Number of green turtle (left two columns) and loggerhead (right morning, the location of each turtle (in “open two columns) hatchlings found in open water (clear portion of each circle) water” or on the Sargassum mat) was tallied and above Sargassum (shaded portion of each circle) during a three days of during a brief morning, afternoon and an evening laboratory observations. One observation was made each night. Daytime (1-2 h after dark) count that took place over three values are the average of a morning and afternoon observation. days. At night the turtles were observed using a Marine Turtle Newsletter No. 126, 2009 - Page 10

significantly from a distribution based upon the expectation that the turtles would be evenly distributed inside the tank (e.g., 75 % in open water and 25 % over Sargassum). For n = 57 turtles, that expected ratio was 43 and 14 (X2 = 17.2 [days 2-3] and X2 = 22.0 [nights 1-3]; p < 0.0001). The mean loggerhead distribution under illumination during days 2 and 3 also failed to differ from the mean distribution at night (X2 = 0.04, n.s.). Neither distribution differed statistically from one based upon habitat area for n = 55 turtles (expected: 41 in open water and 14 over Sargassum; n.s. during the day or at night). When the tank was approached during the day to make counts, loggerheads on the mat showed no reaction; however, an average of 6 of the green turtles observed on the mat during days 2 and 3 dove into the water. Field trials. We also determined how both species, when released in the ocean, responded to the presence of a natural Sargassum mat. Green turtles and loggerheads used in these trials were captured from four pairs of nests that were temporally matched (hatchlings emerged within 3 days of one another). Hatchlings were isolated by species and reared in identically large holding tanks supplied with sand-filtered ocean water. No Sargassum was present. Beginning on day 3 post emergence, the turtles were fed once daily by suspending raw shrimp or tuna inside the tank. Between 15 – 30 days post emergence, an equal number of age-matched loggerheads and green turtles was taken 2-6 km offshore by boat on a search for a Sargassum mat of sufficient size (> 4 m in diameter; > 20 cm in thickness) to use in trials. Trips were scheduled for days when wind velocities were light (< 10 knots) and wave elevation was low (< 0.3 m) as under these conditions, underwater visibility was 10 – 20 m in the horizontal plane and the mats remained intact long enough to be located and used. When a suitable mat was found, each turtle experienced a single trial carried out as follows. The boat was positioned ~ 60 m downwind from the mat. Two swimmers with snorkeling gear swam away from the boat to the mat holding a single turtle (one of each species) just above the water surface. Swimmers positioned themselves on opposite sides of the mat then held the turtle at the water surface. On a prearranged signal, each turtle was released at an arm’s length, facing away from the swimmer and ~ 5-10 cm from the mat’s edge. At release, the turtle’s long body axis was parallel to the mat’s edge so that the mat was visible on one side and the open ocean on the opposite side of the turtle’s body. Each swimmer remained motionless while noting how their turtle responded: (i) remained where released without moving, (ii) swam away from the mat toward open water, or (iii) swam toward and crawled/swam over the mat. For turtles selecting option (iii), swimmers also noted where each turtle was located on the mat once it ceased moving (on the mat surface or within the mat itself). Both turtles were then recaptured and returned to the boat. Swimmers reported how each turtle behaved to an observer on board who recorded the information as field notes. Both swimmers were then given a new turtle and the process was repeated. Each swimmer released an equal number of green turtles and loggerheads, alternating species between trials. Swimmers were always on opposite sides of the mat but for each trial they rotated their position at the mat periphery clockwise so that each turtle had to swim in a different direction (relative to the direction of wind, waves, the sun’s location and the boat) to swim toward the mat. After all of the

turtles were tested once, they were release near the mat. More than half of the turtles (11 of 17 green turtles; 13 of 17 loggerheads) swam to the mat. The loggerhead (but not the green turtle) distribution differed statistically from equivalence (p = 0.05 by a 2-tailed binomial test) but the two species distributions did not differ from one another by a Fisher Exact test (p = 0.71). Other aspects of their behavior differed. Green turtles remaining in open water immediately dove and swam away; their recapture required a brief but vigorous chase. Loggerheads in open water assumed a “tuck” position (fore flippers flexed over the carapace) and remained motionless at the surface. Nine of the 11 green turtles that swam over the mat submerged their carapace beneath the algae so that only their head was visible from above (see cover photo, top). All of the 13 loggerheads that swam over the mat remained fully exposed at the water surface (see cover photo, bottom). Our purpose in this study was to determine whether hatchling and young juvenile green turtles differed from loggerheads of similar age in their choice of habitat. Our results suggest that under laboratory and field conditions, both species associate with Sargassum but that they do so differently. We speculate below that those differences arise because the two species differ in how they avoid their predators. Algal mats at oceanic fronts are locations that from the turtles’ perspective have both benefits and costs. The benefits consist of added habitat complexity that the turtles can exploit to hide from predators, to conserve energy by reducing their swimming costs (Witherington 2002), and to find sufficient food to avoid starvation. But there are costs as productive habitats also attract predators that are known to capture small turtles in the area (Witham 1974; Carr & Meylan 1980). Thus, selection should favor behavioral adaptations that achieve the best balance between the conflicting demands associated with predator avoidance (which favors hiding and/or lack of movement) and efficient foraging (that usually requires searches and movement; Krebs & Davies 1997). Unfortunately, with few exceptions (e.g., Witherington’s [2002] study on loggerheads) there is little information available on the nature of those adaptations for hatchlings of any species of marine turtle. The solution adopted by loggerheads is resemblance to background (crypsis; Edmunds 1974) or more specifically, masquerade (Endler 1986) in which the animal resembles an object that is inedible (e.g., floating algae for a carnivore). The turtles’ combine this form of crypsis with reduced movement (“float and wait” foragers; Witherington 2002), common elements among predators found in the Sargassum community (e.g., Hacker & Madin 1991) that not only enhance their ability to capture prey but also reduce the probability of detection by their own predators. Additional benefits may accrue to loggerhead hatchlings through color polymorphism (colors range from light brown to almost black; Dodd 1988) which might allow some individuals to better match one of the many backgrounds presented by the assorted flotsam that accumulate at downwelling sites. Because loggerheads resemble inedible objects that also fragment locally, they do not necessary have to reside within the mat to receive protection. That may be why during our laboratory observations many of the turtles did not directly associate with the algal mat but instead remained in “open water”. A larger proportion of the fieldreleased turtles crawled on the algae then the turtles used under laboratory conditions, perhaps because habitat choices in the field were made under more stressful conditions (shortly after being


handled). Alternatively, as they age the turtles might more strongly prefer to reside over the mat. Green turtles differ most noticeably from loggerheads in their carapace coloration and in its surface texture; both make it relatively easy (for a human observer) to distinguish the turtle from a Sargassum background. Why, then, did the majority of the turtles under laboratory conditions choose the mat? The answer may be that the turtles are most vulnerable when swimming in open water and so residing on the mat affords at least some protection by reducing potential detection by fish predators. But, resting above the mat may increase vulnerability to avian predators. Hiding within the mat when it is thick and/or dense enough, that is, by covering the body (anachoresis; Edmunds 1974; Fig. 2), may be the best option for avoiding detection by any predators. It is also a common antipredator adaptation used by many marine animals (e.g., decorator crabs; Hultgren & Stachowicz 2008). Green turtles couple this primary defense with a secondary defense – leaving the head uncovered to watch for approaching predators, and an escape dive (Frick 1976; Salmon et al. 2004) that takes advantage of their ability to swim in rapid bursts (Carr 1967). If the “flight distance” that elicits this behavior exceeds the detection distance of the predator, the turtle will go unnoticed. That may be why until recently (e.g., Witherington & Hirama 2006) young green turtles were not often observed in Sargassum (but see Carr 1986b). While hatchling green turtles are counter-shaded, it does not necessarily follow from that observation that they prefer open water or that they reside in it under all circumstances. The more appropriate conclusion is that countershading renders them less likely to be detected at a distance by underwater predators (MCFallNgai 1990). Countershading may not provide protection from avian predators while small turtles swim near to or are exposed at the water surface (Carr & Meylan 1980), nor does it necessarily make turtles once detected in open water less vulnerable to their many faster swimming, pelagic fish predators (listed in Hirth 1997). Early in development when the turtles are small, hiding in floating algae may be more likely to promote survival but clearly additional field observations and quantitative data are needed to settle this issue. Our laboratory results with green turtles differ from those reported by Mellgren et al. (2003), probably because of methodology. Their observations on green turtle hatchlings were made over a short observation period (a 15 min pretest followed by a test period of equal length) that may not have given the turtles time to adjust to changes in their surroundings. Hatchlings were presented with artificial (plastic) weed but in tests done later with older turtles, Sargassum proved to be more attractive. Finally, their tanks were outdoors and partially shaded, resulting in exaggerated differences in light intensity. Green turtles were apparently attracted to the brighter areas of the tank, a response that would not occur in open water and that might have inhibited or interfered with an attraction to floating material. In summary, our results are consistent with the hypothesis that both small loggerheads and green turtles find Sargassum habitats attractive but that the two species use the algae in different ways and occupy a different microhabitat. These contrasts have probably co-evolved with other species-specific traits such as coloration, body size and shape, and differences in swimming speed and maneuverability (Wyneken 1997). That there are differences between small loggerheads and green turtles in these respects is

not surprising since the two species have had a separate evolution for an estimated 50 million years (Avise et al. 1992), enough time in which to independently develop unique anti-predator strategies. Acknowledgments.This paper represents a portion of a Masters thesis prepared by MMS. We thank A. Cornett for his assistance in the field, E. Proffitt for statistical advice, and J. Wyneken, B. E. Witherington, two referees and the Editor for suggestions that improved the manuscript. K. Rusenko and the marine turtle specialists at the Gumbo Limbo Environmental Complex helped us locate nests and hatchlings. Financial support was provided by generous contributors to the Nelligan Sea Turtle fund of Florida Atlantic University (FAU). This study was approved by the FAU Institutional Animal Care Committee (A06-05) and was authorized by the Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission (Turtle Permit - 173). AVISE, J.C., BOWEN, B.W., LAMB, T., MEYLAN, A.B. & E. BERMINGHAM. 1992. Mitochondrial DNA evolution at a turtle’s pace: evidence for low genetic variability and reduced microevolutionary rate in the Testudines. Molecular Biology and Evolution 9: 457-473. BJORNDAL, K.A., BOLTEN, A.B. & MARTINS, H.R. 2000. Somatic growth model of juvenile loggerhead sea turtles Caretta caretta: duration of pelagic stage. Marine Ecology Progress Series 202: 265-272 CARR, A. 1967. So Excellent a Fishe. Natural History Press, New York. CARR, A. 1986a. Rips, FADs, and little loggerheads. BioScience 36:78-86. CARR, A. 1986b. New perspectives on the pelagic stage of sea turtle development. Conservation Biology 1: 1-22. CARR, A. & A.B. MEYLAN. 1980. Evidence of passive migration of green turtle hatchlings in Sargassum. Copeia 1980: 366-368. DODD, C. K., Jr., 1988. Synopsis of the biological data on the loggerhead sea turtle Caretta caretta (Linnaeus 1758). Biological Report 88, Fish and Wildlife Service, U.S. Department of the Interior, Washington, D.C. EDMUNDS, E. 1974. Defense in Animals: A Survey of Anti-predator Defenses. Longman Group Limited, Essex, U. K. ENDLER, J.A. 1986. Defense against predators. In: M.E. Feder & G.V. Lauder (Eds.) Predator-Prey Relationships: Perspective and Approaches from the Study of Lower Vertebrates. University of Chicago Press, Chicago. pp. 109-134. FRICK, J. 1976. Orientation and behaviour of hatchling green turtles (Chelonia mydas) in the sea. Animal Behavior 24: 849-857. GYURIS, E. 1994. The rate of predation by fishes on hatchlings of the green turtle (Chelonia mydas). Coral Reefs 13:137-144. HACKER, S.D. & L.P. MADIN. 1991. Why habitat architecture and color are important to shrimps living in pelagic Sargassum: use of camouflage and plant-part mimicry. Marine Ecology Progress Series 70:143-155. HEPPELL, S.S., L.B. CROWDER, D.T. CROUSE, S.P. EPPERLY & N.B. FRAZER. 2003. Population models for Atlantic loggerheads: past, present, and future. In: A.B. Bolten & B.E. Witherington (Eds.), Loggerhead Sea Turtles, Smithsonian Books, Washington D.C. pp. 255-273. HIRTH, H.F. 1997. Synopsis of the biological data on the green turtle Chelonia mydas (Linnaeus 1758). Biological Report 97(1), Fish and Wildlife Service, U.S. Department of the Interior, Washington D.C. HULTGREN, K.M. & J.J. STACHOWICZ. 2008. Alternative camouflage strategies mediate risk among related co-occurring kelp crabs. Oecologia 155: 519-528. KREBS, J.R. & N.B. DAVIES. 1997. Behavioural Ecology: An Evolutionary Approach. Oxford, Blackwell. MCFALL-NGAI, M. J. 1990. Crypsis in the pelagic environment. American Zoologist 30: 175-188. MELLGREN, R.L., M.M. MANN, M.E. BUSHONG, S.R. HARKINS &


V.L. KEATHLEY. 2003. Habitat selection and antipredator behavior in three species of hatchling sea turtles. International Journal of Comparative Psychology 16:156-171.

STANCYK, S.E. 1982. Non-human predators of sea turtles and their control. In: K.A. Bjorndal (Ed.) Biology and Conservation of Sea Turtles, Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington, D.C. pp. 19-38.

MUSICK, J.A. & C.J. LIMPUS. 1997. Habitat utilization and migration in juvenile sea turtles. In: P.L. Lutz & J.A. Musick (Eds.), The Biology of Sea Turtles, CRC press, Boca Raton, FL. pp. 137-159.

WITHAM, R. 1974. Neonate sea turtles from the stomach of a pelagic fish. Copeia 1974: 548.

PILCHER, N.J., S. ENDERBY, T. STRINGELL & L. BATEMEN. 2000. Nearshore turtle hatchling distribution and predation. In: N.J. Pilcher & L. Ali (Eds.), Sea Turtles of the Indo-Pacific, Asean Academic Press, London. pp. 151-166. REICH, K.J., K.A. BJORNDAL & A.B. BOLTEN. 2007. The ‘lost years’ of green turtles: using stable isotopes to study cryptic lifestages. Biology Letters 3: 712-714. SALMON, M., T.T. JONES & K.W. HORCH. 2004. Ontogeny of diving and feeding behavior in juvenile sea turtles: leatherback sea turtles (Dermochelys coriacea L.) and green sea turtles (Chelonia mydas L) in the Florida Current. Journal of Herpetology 38: 36-43.

WITHERINGTON, B.E. 2002. Ecology of neonate loggerhead turtles inhabiting lines of downwelling near a Gulf Stream front. Marine Biology 140: 843-853. WITHERINGTON, B.E. & S. HIRAMA. 2006. Sea turtles of the epipelagic Sargassum drift community. In: M. Frick, A. Panagopoulou, A.F. Rees & K. Williams (Compilers), Proceedings of the 26th Annual Symposium on Sea Turtle Biology and Conservation, International Sea Turtle Society, Athens, Greece. p. 209. WYNEKEN, J. 1997. Sea turtle locomotion. In: P.L. Lutz & J.A. Musick (Eds.) The Biology of Sea Turtles, CRC Press, Boca Raton, FL. pp.155198. WYNEKEN, J. & M. SALMON. 1992. Frenzy and postfrenzy swimming activity in loggerhead, green, and leatherback hatchling sea turtles. Copeia 1992: 478-484.

Leatherback Nesting in Tomatal, Oaxaca, Mexico in 2007/2008 F.Vannini1 & P.A. Rosales Jaillet2

Marine Turtle Conservation Program of Red de los Humedales de la Costa de Oaxaca, Mexico (E-mail: [email protected]) 2 Carretera Costera del Pacifico Km 1.5, Puerto Escondido, Oxaca, Mexico (E-mail: [email protected])

1

Tomatal Beach, located in the municipality of Santa Maria Colotepec, in the coastal state of Oaxaca, Mexico, is known as a nesting beach for the olive ridley turtle Lepidochelys olivacea (Vasquez et al. 2008). This species nests year-round with a peak between August and January; it is the most abundant species in the entire Mexican Pacific. Females usually exhibit a mass-nesting phenomenon known as an arribada, including Tomatal beach. Monitoring studies at Tomatal Beach mainly concentrate on this species, although the leatherback (Dermochelys coriacea) also nests here (Vasquez et al., 2008). Although this turtle is considered critically endangered (Sarti 2004) and listed as an endangered species under the maximum threat category cited in the NOM-059ECOL-2001 in Mexico, there are no data on nesting activity at this beach. The reason for the drastic decline of Dermochelys coriacea is still unknown, although both fisheries bycatch and intensive looting of eggs on the nesting beaches have been implicated (Sarti Martines et al. 2007, Barragán et al. 2007). During the nesting season of 2007-2008 (from October 2007 to February 2008), a team from the University of Oaxaca, composed of volunteers and a marine biologist (field director), along with residents of the Tomatal community, used an all-terrain vehicle ATV to monitor Tomatal Beach every night from 21:00 p.m. to 06:00 a.m. They patrolled 8 km of beach to locate a majority of the nests. At each nest, they collected humidity and temperature data in preparation for relocation of clutches to protected hatcheries. The hatcheries are located along the beach and each year several hundred sea turtle nests are relocated to the hatcheries. We collected

leatherback eggs on the beach using plastic bags, and we tried to be as quick as possible when relocating the eggs to a protected area. The eggs were reburied in a chamber that was between 70 and 85 cm deep and between 40 and 50 cm wide in the sand. The females that were found while nesting were measured using a Vernier caliper and a metric tape (carapace length and width over the curve (CCL and CCW), straight carapace length (SCL) and width (SCW), head length (HL) and width (HW), total length (TL), and right posterior flipper length. We calculated the hatching success (HS) of the protected eggs using this formula: HS = (hatched eggs + pipped eggs + pipped dead eggs) ÷ (eggs) HS also included live hatchlings in the nest chamber that we found outside their shells during the excavation of the nest. We counted 19 leatherback crawls at this beach, of which 15 resulted in successful nests. We collected morphometric data from four nesting females that we encountered (Table 1). Four nests were looted and 11 were relocated to the protected area. From these relocated nests, 656 eggs were incubated in the hatcheries, of which 300 hatched, although 3 of these animals died before leaving the nest chamber (HS = 46.2%). The remaining 297 hatchlings were released into the sea. The hatching success at Tomatal beach is comparable to hatching success values at other leatherback nesting beaches along the Pacific coast of Oaxaca (47.2%; Barragán et al. 2007). The number of protected nests at Tomatal Beach illustrate that this beach has good potential as a favorable environment for leatherbacks


mean range

CCL CCL SCL SCW HL HW TL FL 150.4 105 141.4 75.1 29.4 20.4 195 57.7 (139-158) (97-110) (129-148.2) (66.5-93.9) (26.4-32.8) (18-21.5) (194-196) (48-64)

EGGS 65.6 (38-85)

Table 1. Average biometric values for four nesting leatherbacks from Tomatal beach, Mexico. CCL = carapace length over the curve, CCW = carapace width over the curve, SCL = straight carapace length, SCW = straight carapace width, HL = head length, HW = head width, TL = total length, FL = posterior right flipper length, Eggs = number of fertile eggs. All values except eggs are reported in cm. in the Eastern Pacific, and we recommend ongoing protection of leatherback nests in the future. Conservation of beaches with only a few nests (such as Tomatal Beach) are important to the overall population status of leatherbacks because of their critical situation in the Pacific, especially when the status of many beaches is still unknown. The use of a motorized vehicle for patrol enhances the efficiency of the project, especially on a long beach, by allowing conservation workers to encounter turtles more frequently each night, and affording protection to nests as soon as possible after laying. A long-term goal is to work with local authorities to develop a program to reduce the looting of nests. In the meantime, we will continue to focus on maximizing hatchling production through intense nest protection. Acknowledgements: The Grupo Rural para la Conservacion de la Tortuga Marina, formed by residents of the Tomatal community, in cooperation with the Red de Los Humedales of the Oaxaca Coast, have protected nests laid in Tomatal since 2004. Special thanks to Doctor René Márquez, University of Oaxaca, Red de los Humedales de la Costa de Oaxaca and the volunteers that support the Project. BARRAGÁN A., E. OCAMPO, D. GARCÍA, L. SARTI & P. DUTTON. 2007. Conservación de la tortuga laúd (Dermochelys coriacea) en el las playas índice del Pacifico mexicano. Temporada 2006-2007. Informe Técnico Final. Dirección de Especies Prioritarias para la Conservación,

CONANP. Kutzari Asoc. para el Estudio y Conservación de las Tortugas Marinas A.C. 15pp. NOM. 059-ECOL-2001. Protección ambiente – Especies Nativas de México de Flora y Fauna Silvestre – Categorías de Riesgo y Especificaciones para su inclusión, exclusión o cambio. Lista de Especies en Riesgo, Diario Oficial de la Federación 6 de marzo de 2002. SARTI, L. 2004. Situación actual de la tortuga laúd (Dermochelys coiarcea) en el Pacifico mexicano y medidas para su conservación y recuperación, SEMARNAT. Jatziri Pérez ediciones. www.wwf.org.mx/wwfmex/ descargas/laud_041207.pdf SARTI MARTINEZ, L. 2000. Dermochelys coriacea. In: IUCN 2008. 2008 IUCN Red List of Threatened Species. Downloaded on 21 March 2009. SARTI MARTINEZ, L., A.R. BARRAGAN, D.G. MUNOZ, N. GARCIA, P. HUERTA & F. VARGAS. 2007. Conservation and biology of the leatherback turtle in the Mexican Pacific. Chelonian Conservation & Biology 6: 70-78. VASQUEZ, F., V. GARCIA, C. SANTOS, E. CRUZ, P. FRANCO & P. LUNA. 2008. Monitoreo de anidaciones de las diferentes especies de tortuga marina en las playas de Ventanilla (Santa Maria Tonameca), El Tomatal, Los Naranajos (Santa Maria Colotepec), Cerro Hermoso (San Pedro Tututepec) y la Tuza (Santiago Jamiltepec), Oaxaca. Temporada 2007/2008. Informe final de la Red de los Humedales de la Costa de Oaxaca.

Figure 1. Measuring a nesting leatherback on Tomatal beach, Oaxaca, Mexico. Marine Turtle Newsletter No. 126, 2009 - Page 14

Genetic Characterization of Loggerhead Turtles from Bycatch Reports and Uncommon Nesting Sites Estéfane Cardinot Reis1, Luciano Soares Soares2 & Gisele Lôbo-Hajdu1

Instituto de Biologia Roberto Alcântara Gomes, Departamento de Genética, Laboratório de Genética Marinha, Universidade do Estado do Rio de Janeiro, Rua São Francisco Xavier, 524 - PHLC - Sala 205, Maracanã, Rio de Janeiro, RJ, 20550-013, Brazil (E-mail: [email protected]); 2Fundação Centro Brasileiro de Proteção e Pesquisa das Tartarugas Marinhas, Projeto TAMARICMBio, Cx. Postal 2219, Rio Vermelho, Salvador, BA, 41950-970, Brazil 1

The loggerhead sea turtle, Caretta caretta (Linnaeus 1758), is widely distributed in tropical and temperate waters (Pritchard & Trebbau 1984). The Brazilian nesting population of loggerheads is one of the largest in the world, after the super-aggregations at Masirah, Oman, and eastern Florida, USA (Marcovaldi & Chaloupka 2007). This species is the most abundant nesting species in Brazil. The nesting beaches range from the north of the state of Rio de Janeiro to Sergipe (21o21’04”S 40o57’51”W - 10o30’52”S 36o25’20”W), with higher density on beaches of Bahia (Marcovaldi et al. 2005) (Figure 1). On a global level, the loggerhead turtle is considered endangered (IUCN 2008). Genetic analyses (Bowen & Karl 2007; Bowen et al. 2007; Bjorndal & Bolten 2008) and telemetry (Revelles et al. 2007; Lohmann et al. 2008) are useful for investigating population dynamics. Previous loggerhead surveys have demonstrated that Brazilian nesting populations have a unique haplotype profile (Bowen et al. 2004; Reis 2008), which was demonstrated through the existence of endemic haplotypes (CC-A4, CC-A24, CC-A25) (Reis 2008). The CC-A4 haplotype is common to all Brazilian nesting (Rio de Janeiro, Espírito Santo, Bahia and Sergipe) and feeding areas (Elevação do Rio Grande). This fact, associated with the Brazilian low nucleotide diversity and phylogenetic proximity

Figure 1. Distribution of loggerhead rookeries along the Brazilian coast and collection sites of the samples used in the present study, where RJ=Rio de Janeiro, BA=Bahia, SE=Sergipe, RN=Rio Grande do Norte, and CE=Ceará states.

among nesting haplotypes, suggests a common origin, with CC-A4 being the probable ancestral haplotype of Brazilian populations (Reis 2008). In the present work, we genetically characterized loggerhead individuals from bycatch reports and uncommon nesting sites through the analysis of sequences of the mtDNA control region. Tissue samples were collected using 6 mm disposal biopsy punches by biologists from Projeto TAMAR-ICMBio. We analyzed samples from one unusual loggerhead nesting specimen from Rio Grande do Norte and from five specimens that were incidentally captured in fisheries in Rio de Janeiro (N=2), Sergipe (N=1), Rio Grande do Norte (N=1) and Ceará (N=1) states (Figure 1; Table 1). Genomic DNA extraction was performed according to a modified protocol from Damato & Corach (1996). The mtDNA control region was amplified using primers LCM15382 (5’ - GCT TAA CCC TAA AGC ATT GG - 3’; Abreu-Grobois et al. 2006) and H599 (5’ - TGC ACG GCC AAT CAT TTT GAA CGT AG - 3’; Laurent et al. 1998), according to the conditions described in Shanker et al. (2004). The amplified fragment of about 800 base pairs (bp) was purified using GFXTM PCR DNA and gel band purification kit (GE Healthcare), following manufacturer’s instructions. Direct DNA sequencing was performed with the ET Dye terminator cycle sequence kit (GE Healthcare) and analyzed in a MegaBace 1000 automated sequencer (GE Healthcare). For each PCR amplicon, a 627 bp consensus sequence was produced by the BioEdit sequence alignment editor version 7.0.1 (Hall 1999). Mitochondrial haplotypes were classified by comparison with known C. caretta mtDNA control region haplotypes of the Atlantic and Mediterranean already deposited at the DNA database of the Archie Carr Center for Sea Turtle Research (ACCSTR 2009) Five distinct C. caretta control region haplotypes were observed among the six loggerhead turtles sampled: CC-A1 (N=1, unusual nesting report for Rio Grande do Norte), CC-A2 (N=1, Rio Grande do Norte bycatch report), CC-A4 (N=2, Rio de Janeiro bycatch reports), CC-A17 (Ceará bycatch report) and CCxLO (Sergipe bycatch report) (Table 1). The CC-A4 haplotype, found for the Rio de Janeiro bycatch samples, is the most common Brazilian haplotype for both nesting and feeding grounds. The CCxLO haplotype, only found in Sergipe, was attributed to specimens considered hybrids because they have the typical Lepidochelys olivacea mtDNA haplotype, but the external morphology of C. caretta. Our group formerly notified the episode of hybridization between C. caretta and L. olivacea to Sergipe population, using the PCR-SSCP technique (Reis et al. 2009).


Haplotype CC-A1 CC-A2 CC-A4 CC-A17 CCxLO

Nesting RN 1

RJ

Bycatch SE RN

Turtle DNA Sequence Patterns. University of Florida. Available from: accstr.ufl.edu/ccmtdna.html. Accessed 15 Jan 2009.

CE

1

BJORNDAL, K.A. & A.B. BOLTEN. 2008. Annual variation in source contributions to a mixed stock: implications for quantifying connectivity. Molecular Ecology 17:2185-2193. BOWEN, B.W. & S.A. KARL. 2007. Population genetics and phylogeography of sea turtles. Molecular Ecology 16:4886-4907.

2 1 1

Table 1. Loggerheads from bycatch reports and uncommon nesting sites used in the present study and their mitochondrial DNA haplotypes. Abbreviations used are the same in Figure 1. For the first time, CC-A1, CC-A2 and CC-A17 haplotypes were reported for the Brazilian coast. The loggerhead sampled in Rio Grande do Norte (6o13’39”S 35o03”01”W) is an unusual report because in Brazil the northern-most regular nesting region for this species is Sergipe. CC-A1, found for this sample, is a characteristic haplotype from north western Atlantic nesting and feeding grounds (Bowen et al. 2004). But it has also been reported for Cape Verde rookery, as well as for feeding aggregations in the eastern Atlantic and western Mediterranean Sea (Monzón-Argüello et al. 2009). CC-A2 haplotype, found for the Rio Grande do Norte bycatch sample, has been reported for north eastern and western Atlantic and Mediterranean rookeries and feeding aggregations (MonzónArgüello et al. 2009). Finally, CC-A17, from a bycatch sample of Ceará (3o43’06”S 38o32’02”W), is typically found in juvenile aggregations from Andalusia, Madeira and Canary Islands and has recently been reported for Cape Verde rookery (Bolten et al. 1998; Monzón-Argüello et al. 2009). The occurrence of these haplotypes suggests transoceanic migratory behavior of C. caretta and a possible origin for the Brazilian rookeries colonization. The phylogenetic proximity between CC-A1 and CC-A4 haplotypes suggests that the colonization of Brazilian rookeries could have had an origin from the USA stock (Reis 2008). The natal homing behavior of C. caretta is also confirmed by the fact that there are some in-water loggerheads with haplotypes (CC-A2 and CC-A17) that are not found in Brazilian rookeries, suggesting these animals would return to their natal nesting areas for reproduction.

BOWEN, B.W., A.L. BASS, S.M. CHOW, M. BOSTROM, K.A. BJORNDAL, A.B. BOLTEN, T. OKUYAMA, B.M. BOLKER, S. EPPERLY, E. LACASELLA, D. SHAVER, M. DODD, S.R. HOPKINSMURPHY, J.A. MUSICK, M. SWINGLE, K. RANKIN-BARANSKY, W. TEAS, W.N. WITZELL & P.H. DUTTON. 2004. Natal homing in juvenile loggerhead turtles (Caretta caretta). Molecular Ecology 13:3797-3808. BOWEN, B.W., W.S. GRANT, Z. HILLIS-STARR, D.J. SHAVER, K.A. BJORNDAL, A.B. BOLTEN & A.L. BASS. 2007. Mixed-stock analysis reveals the migrations of juvenile hawksbill turtles (Eretmochelys imbricata) in the Caribbean Sea. Molecular Ecology 16:49-60. BOLTEN, A.B., K.A. BJORNDAL, H.R. MARTINS, T. DELLINGER, M.J. BISCOITO, S.E. ENCALADA & B.W. BOWEN. 1998. Transatlantic developmental migrations of loggerhead sea turtles demonstrated by mtDNA sequence analysis. Ecological Applications 8:1-7. DAMATO, M.E. & D. CORACH. 1996. Genetic diversity of populations of the freshwater shrimp Macrobrachium borelli (Cardidea, Palaemonidae) evaluated by RAPD analysis. Journal of Crustacean Biology 16:650-655. HALL, T.A. 1999. BioEdit: a user-friendly biological sequence alignment editor and analysis program for Windows 95/98/NT. Nucleic Acids Symposium Series 41:95-98. IUCN. 2008. International Union for the Conservation of Nature and Natural Resources, Red List of Threatened Species. Available from . Accessed 15 Jan 2009. LAURENT, L., P. CASALE, M.N. BRADAI, B.J. GODLEY, G. GEROSA, A.C. BRODERICK, W. SCHROTH, B. SCHIERWATER, A.M. LEVY, D. FREGGI, E.M. ABD-EL-MAWLA, D.A. HADOUD, H.E. GOMATI, M. DOMINGO, M. HADJICHRISTOPHOROU, L. KORNARAKY, K. DEMIRAYAK & C.H. GAUTIER. 1998. Molecular resolution of marine turtle stock composition in fishery bycatch: a case study in the Mediterranean. Molecular Ecology 7:1529-1542. LOHMANN, K.J., P. LUSCHI & G.C. HAYS. 2008. Global navigation and island-finding in sea turtles. Journal of Experimental Marine Biology and Ecology 356:83-95. MARCOVALDI, M.A. & M. CHALOUPKA. 2007. Conservation status of the loggerhead sea turtle in Brazil: an encouraging outlook. Endangered Species Research 3:133-143.

Acknowledgements: Special thanks are addressed to CENPES/PETROBRAS (Centro de Pesquisas da PETROBRAS) that supported the “Mamíferos e Quelônios Marinhos” project, to which this work is connected. The Projeto TAMAR-ICMBio staff collected the samples and provided the necessary field assistance. Authors acknowledge CAPES, PROCIÊNCIA-SR2-UERJ, FAPERJ and CNPq/MCT for fellowships and grants. The present study followed all ethical guidelines and legal requirements of Brazil concerning sampling a species under state of endangerment.

MARCOVALDI, M.A., V. PATRI & J.C. THOMÉ. 2005. Projeto TAMARIBAMA: Twenty-five years protecting Brazilian sea turtles through a community-based conservation programme. Maritime Studies 3:39-62.

ABREU-GROBOIS, F.A., J. HORROCKS, A. FORMIA, P. DUTTON, R. LEROUX, X. VÉLEZ-ZUAZO, L. SOARES & A. MEYLAN. 2006. New mtDNA D-loop primers which work for a variety of marine turtle species may increase the resolution of mixed stock analysis. In: Frick M., A. Panagopoulous, A.F. Rees & K. Williams (Eds.). Proceedings of the 26th Annual Symposium on Sea Turtle Biology and Conservation. International Sea Turtle Society, Athens, Greece. Available from www. iucn-mtsg.org/genetics/meth/primers/abreu_grobois_etal_new_dloop_ primers.pdf.

PRITCHARD, P.C.H. & P. TREBBAU. 1984. The turtles of Venezuela. Contributions in Herpetology 2, Society for the Study of Amphibians and Reptiles, Fundación de Internados Rurales, Caracas, Venezuela.

ACCSTR. 2009. Archie Carr Center for Sea Turtle Research. Marine

MONZÓN-ARGÜELLO, C., C. RICO, C. CARRERAS, P. CALABUIG, A. MARCO & L.F. LÓPEZ-JURADO. 2009. Variation in spatial distribution of juvenile loggerhead turtles in the eastern Atlantic and western Mediterranean Sea. Journal of Experimental Marine Biology and Ecology 373:79-86.

REIS, E.C. 2008 Caracterização genética e filogeografia de populações de tartarugas marinhas da espécie Caretta caretta (Linnaeus, 1758) no litoral brasileiro. MSc thesis, Universidade do Estado do Rio de Janeiro, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil. REIS, E.C., R.M. ALBANO, A.C.V. BONDIOLI, L.S. SOARES & G. LÔBO-HAJDU. 2009. Detection of polymorphisms of the mtDNA


control region of Caretta caretta (Testudines: Cheloniidae) by PCRSSCP. Genetics and Molecular Research 8:215-222. REVELLES, M., L. CARDONA, A. AGUILAR, M. SAN FÉLIX & G. FERNÁNDEZ. 2007. Habitat use by immature loggerhead sea turtles in the Algerian Basin (western Mediterranean): swimming behavior, seasonality and dispersal pattern. Marine Biology 151:1501-1515.

SHANKER, K., J. RAMADEVI, C. CHOUDHURY, L. SINGH & R.K. AGGARWAL. 2004. Phylogeography of olive ridley turtles (Lepidochelys olivacea) on the east coast of India: implications for conservation theory. Molecular Ecology 13:1899-1909.

IUCN-SSC Marine Turtle Specialist Group Quarterly Report: Progress from the Fifth Burning Issues Workshop (BI-5) Roderic B. Mast1, Bryan Wallace1, Brian J. Hutchinson1, Milani Chaloupka2, Alan B. Bolten3 & Nicolas J. Pilcher4 Conservation International, 2011 Crystal Drive, Suite 500, Arlington, VA 22202 USA (E-mail: [email protected], [email protected], [email protected]); 2Ecological Modelling Services Pty Ltd., P.O. Box 6150, University of Queensland, St Lucia, Qld 4067, Australia (E-mail: [email protected]); 3Archie Carr Center for Sea Turtle Research, University of Florida, PO Box 118525,, Gainesville, FL 32611 (E-mail: [email protected]); 2Marine Research Foundation, 136 Lorong Pokok Seraya 2, Taman Khidmat, 88450 Kota Kinabalu, Sabah, Malaysia (E-mail: [email protected]) 1

The Burning Issues Process. The MTSG recognizes that Red List Assessments are important for determining the global risk of extinction of the seven sea turtle species we are tasked to represent. Past Red List Assessments have provided a useful basis for conservation priority-setting and have undoubtedly played a significant role in the global conservation of sea turtles. Yet Red List Assessments alone are insufficient for directing the local and regional-scale interventions that are necessary for conserving sea turtles and their habitats (Godfrey & Godley 2008; Mast 2008; Seminoff & Shanker 2008). In continuation of the MTSG’s ongoing development and fine-tuning of a complementary conservation priority-setting process for sea turtles, the 5th MTSG Burning Issues Workshop (BI-5) was held September 1-4, 2009 and brought together 20 sea turtle experts representing all the major ocean basins and sea turtle species of the world. The MTSG’s Burning Issues process began at the group’s December 2003 Vision Meeting (see Mast et al. 2004) with the goal to pursue the development of a continually improving, scientifically rigorous set of tools for directing effort and resources to the most important species, locales and threats to sea turtles. The products from the 2003 meeting included consensus on a re-validated MTSG Mission Statement that underscores the importance of priority setting for effective global sea turtle conservation, and a series of preliminary lists highlighting expert opinion-based global priorities for 1) Research; 2) Conservation, and; 3) Key Threatened Populations; the latter became known as the Top Ten List. They were a good start, and useful tools for communications and outreach, but these priority lists lacked sufficient rigor and data to be defensible as scientifically valid conservation tools. BI-2 (August 2005) made progress on the “Top Ten List of Most Threatened Global Sea Turtle Populations,” and produced other valuable components to help guide the development of a more scientifically sound priority setting methodology such as the “Five

Hazards”—a list of major threats that can result in decline, local extinction and / or prevent the recovery of sea turtles (for review see Mast et al. 2005). BI-3 (August 2006) discussed a method and created a structure for better assuring timely and accurate Red List Assessments, discussed other issues with the Red List criteria and process leading to an MTSG white paper by Seminoff & Shanker and subsequent peer-reviewed publication (http://www.iucn-mtsg.org/red_list/docs/ Seminoff_Shanker_MTSG-WHITEPAPER_15oct07.pdf; Seminoff & Shanker 2008); developed a survey tool for gathering broader membership input into Burning Issues Assessments, and drafted a list of the “Major Unanswered Questions of Sea Turtle Natural History” as a method for directing scientists and students toward those research themes that would best contribute to conservation (see Mast et al. 2006, and SWOT Report II, available at http:// seaturtlestatus.org). In the year following BI-3, the MTSG and BI Co-Chairs developed a two-year plan, with support from the National Fish and Wildlife Foundation via Conservation International, to define and prioritize Regional Management Units (RMUs) for the segments of the global distributions of sea turtles that are most appropriate for evaluation of conservation status, and at which most conservation actions can be implemented (see below). BI-4 (August 2008) participants made major strides toward developing a definition of “Regional Management Units”, and also began development of criteria and methods by which to rank RMUs based on multiple conservation objectives (see Mast et al. 2008). These preliminary results were presented in various fora (29th International Sea Turtle Symposium, 2009 MTSG Annual General Meeting & MTSG Website, International Marine Conservation Congress, etc.) and further refined through contributions by various MTSG members and external collaborators. The information previously compiled in the Red List Assessments produced by the


MTSG for green turtles (Seminoff 2004), hawksbills (Mortimer & Donnelly 2008), olive ridleys (Abreu-Grobois & Plotkin 2007) and flatbacks (Whiting et al. 2008) proved to be invaluable sources of baseline data and reference material during the process of defining and evaluating the status of the RMUs for each species. The objectives of BI-5 (September 2009) were: 1) to review and finalize RMUs for all sea turtle species worldwide; 2) to revisit and finalize ranking criteria and methods for conservation prioritization of RMUs; 3) to populate the ranking matrices for all RMUs, and develop a portfolio of global conservation priorities; and 4) to develop a plan for publication and dissemination of results. The results are discussed below, and will be circulated in greater detail (as a white paper) to MTSG members for comment. Regional Management Units. Regional management units (RMUs) refer to geographically explicit population segments, based on biogeographical data (e.g. nesting sites, genetics, telemetry) that can be applied to regionally appropriate management issues. Regional management units have been developed as ‘nested envelope models,’ which incorporate geographical information as well as population abundance and trend estimates, and data on genetics and movements and distributions at multiple spatial and biological scales. Thus, a RMU includes information from individual nesting sites, genetic stocks (mtDNA as well as nDNA), and spatial distributions of marine turtle species within geographic regions, and across the globe. Importantly, RMUs are anchored by nesting sites in a region, and integrate not only genetic information to distinguish population segments, but also available ecological and behavioral information. All levels of RMUs are georeferenced in ArcGIS, and associated attribute tables contain information on population abundance, trends, and relevant citations. For more information on the RMU approach, see the presentation from the 2009 MTSG Annual General Meeting: http://www.iucn-mtsg.org/AGM2009/ Attachment_10_Wallace_BI4.pdf. During BI-5, participants reviewed draft RMUs resulting from extensive work by Bryan Wallace, Brendan Hurley, Andrew DiMatteo, and Elena Finkbeiner, as well as from discussions at BI-4 for all species, consultations with MTSG members, and recommended modifications and improvements. Importantly, participants standardized the nomenclature of RMUs to indicate ocean basin and geographic orientation of RMUs within ocean basins, and also created putative RMUs in regions where insufficient information was available to construct a RMU shapefile (i.e., only nesting sites, and possibly genetic information available). Following extensive discussion of the RMU concept and methodology, BI-5 participants refined RMU designations for all species. These will be circulated in detail to the MTSG membership in the near future and later published. Criteria for ranking RMUs. BI-5 participants also discussed draft criteria and a ranking process by which RMUs would be evaluated, compared, and organized in terms of conservation priorities. Participants developed two matrices of criteria for evaluation: a ‘population status’ matrix, and a ‘degree of threats’ matrix. The “Status Matrix” consisted of the following criteria, all evaluated on a scale of 1 to 3 (generally from low to high risk), or data deficient, DD:

1) Population abundance: annual number of nesting females in the RMU, assessed in coarse, species-specific numerical bins. 2) Recent trend: population trend for RMU based on last 10 years of data; 3) Long-term trend: population trend for RMU based on time series of minimum one generation length (i.e., 30-40 yr for loggerheads, green turtles, hawksbills and flatbacks; 20 yr for leatherbacks and ridley sea turtles); 4) Rookery vulnerability: likelihood of complete loss of nesting rookeries within RMU (considers spatial distribution of nesting sites, nesting densities across RMU) 5) Diversity: number of known and presumed genetic stocks in an RMU (presumed stocks determined based on species-specific patterns of genetic distinctiveness among rookeries based on distance). The “Threats Matrix” was based on the 5 categories of hazards determined during BI-3 (see Mast et al. 2008), and were evaluated on a scale of 1 (low degree of threat) to 3 (high degree of threat): 1) Fisheries bycatch (if 3, the primary fishing gear was noted); 2) Take (if 3, the particular type of take was noted: a) egg loss from feral animals, b) egg loss from human harvest/poaching, c) nesting female harvest, d) in-water directed capture); 3) Coastal development (if 3, the particular activity was noted); 4) Pollution and pathogens (if 3, the particular source/effect was noted); 5) Climate change (if 3, the particular impact/process was noted). Data Quality and Availability Adjustments. To account for data deficiencies and quality issues, BI-5 participants included information on sources of all criteria scores in both Status and Threats matrices. Participants scored criteria for which insufficient information was available to provide a numeric score as data deficient (DD). For a RMU to be ranked in a conservation priority category (see below), it must have received numeric scores for ≥3 criteria in the Status Matrix and for ≥2 threats in the Threats Matrix. If an RMU failed to meet this threshold, it was assessed as to its relative importance as an assessment need (see below). For each numeric score, the relative data quality was assessed, and related citations were provided. Data quality scores were ‘low’ (i.e. non peer-reviewed publications, background information “in lit,” expert opinion, grey literature [e.g. ISTS, agency reports]), ‘medium’ (i.e. monitoring of nesting populations; combination of grey literature and some peer-reviewed publications; 50% of RMU population abundance] on both long-term monitoring of nesting and some in-water work [e.g. mark-and-recapture, satellite telemetry, etc.]). The Conservation Priority Portfolio. Participants developed a ‘conservation priority portfolio approach’ using combinations of scores from both matrices among RMUs. Such a portfolio approach recognizes that conservation priorities vary from avoiding imminent extinction, to conserving genetic diversity, to maintaining long-term monitoring efforts, to capitalizing on opportunities, to identifying assessment needs. The categories below show where RMUs might fall according to their matrix scores, but it is important to note that,


by definition, a portfolio will exclude some items (i.e. RMUs), which increases the value of the RMUs that do merit listing as conservation priorities. Conservation priority portfolio categories include: 1) ‘Now-or-Never’ RMUs (i.e. high-risk populations [e.g. small, declining, not diverse] under high degree of threats); 2) ‘Timely Intervention’ RMUs (i.e. low-risk populations [e.g. large, stable, diverse] under high degree of threats); 3) ‘Potential Problem’ RMUs (i.e. high-risk populations under low degree of threats); 4) ‘Continued Monitoring’ RMUs (i.e. low-risk populations under low degree of threats); 5) ‘Critical Data Needs’ RMUs (i.e. RMUs with excessive ‘DD’ scores that exhibit either high-risk population traits and/or are under high degree of threats) For each RMU’s score, data availability and quality information will be integrated into a single ‘data reliability index,’ which will be represented graphically as ‘uncertainty bars.’ In this way, data needs for RMUs can be assessed within conservation priority portfolio categories. Conclusion. We are pleased and excited with the continued improvement of the Burning Issues process and with the progress made at BI-5 on this important effort to guide sea turtle conservation efforts worldwide. Much work remains ahead as we use the methods described above to build portfolios and recommendations for investment in on-the-ground conservation. Broad participation is important to assuring that these methods and models are as good as they can be. Over the coming months we will circulate a technical report to MTSG members explaining BI-5 discussions and results and soliciting feedback, and we aim to present finalized results at the forthcoming MTSG Annual General Meeting at the 30th International Sea Turtle Symposium in Goa, India (April 2009). We encourage all MTSG members to become engaged in the Burning Issues process by reviewing these outputs and offering your comments and input whenever possible—we are a group whose strength lies in the collective knowledge and expertise of our members. Visit our website, use our listserv, liaise with your Regional Vice Chair and participate in the many annual gatherings where we congregate in pursuit of the MTSG vision. Acknowledgements: Many people have contributed to the development of the Burning Issues process since its beginning in 2003, and the progress we have made would not have been possible without the contribution of dozens of individuals both within and outside of the Burning Issues meetings. The authors would like to acknowledge, in particular, all of

the participants in the BI-4 and BI-5 meetings, who have been critical to the current evolution of the BI process: Alberto Abreu, Diego Amorocho, Karen Bjorndal, Brian Bowen, Raquel Briseño, Paolo Casale, B.C. Choudhury, Alice Costa, Naamal DaSilva, Andrew DiMatteo, Alejandro Fallabrino, Elena Finkbeiner, Alexandre Girard, Marc Girondot, Brendan Hurley, Neca Marcovaldi, Jeanne Mortimer, Jack Musick, Ronel Nel, Michelle Pico, Earl Possardt, Sebastian Troeng, Patricia Villegas, and Blair Witherington. ABREU-GROBOIS, A. & P. PLOTKIN. 2007. MTSG 2007 IUCN Red List Status for the olive ridley turtle (Lepidochelys olivacea). 39pp. Available at: http://www.iucn-mtsg.org/red_list/ GODFREY, M.H. & B.J. GODLEY. 2008. Seeing past the red: flawed IUCN global listings for sea turtles. Endangered Species Research 6:155159. MAST, R. 2008. The road to conservation. Swot Report III, p. 14. Available at: http://seaturtlestatus.org/ MAST, R.B., B.J. HUTCHINSON& N.J. PILCHER. 2004. IUCN/SSC Marine Turtle Specialist Group news, first quarter 2004. Marine Turtle Newsletter 104:21-22. MAST, R.B., B.J. HUTCHINSON, E. HOWGATE & N.J. PILCHER. 2005. MTSG update: IUCN/SSC Marine Turtle Specialist Group hosts the second Burning Issues Assessment Workshop. Marine Turtle Newsletter 110:13-15. MAST, R.B., N.J. PILCHER, B.J. HUTCHINSON & A. HUTCHINSON. 2006. IUCN-MTSG quarterly report: Marine Turtle Specialist Group hosts third Burning Issues Workshop, August 2006. Marine Turtle Newsletter 114:17-18. MAST, R.B., N.J. PILCHER & B.J. HUTCHINSON. 2008. IUCN-SSC Marine Turtle Specialist Group quarterly update. Marine Turtle Newsletter 122:18-19. MORTIMER, J.A. & M. DONNELLY. 2008. MTSG 2007 IUCN Red List Status Assessment hawksbill turtle (Eretmochelys imbricata), 121 pp. Available at: http://www.iucn-mtsg.org/red_list/ SEMINOFF, J.A. 2004. MTSG 2004 IUCN Red List Status Assessment for the Green Turtle (Chelonia mydas), 87pp. Available at: http://www. iucn-mtsg.org/red_list/ SEMINOFF, J.A. & K. SHANKER. 2008. Marine turtles and IUCN Red Listing: A review of the process, pitfalls, and novel assessment approaches. Journal of Experimental Marine Biology 356:52-68. WHITING, A.U., C.J. LIMPUS & K.A. DOBBS. 2008. MTSG Draft 2008 IUCN Red List Status Assessment for the flatback turtle (Natator depressus). Available at: http://www.iucn-mtsg.org/red_list/nd/


LETTER TO THE EDITORS Ridleys in Orissa: another reply to Mohanty Hejmadi Mohanty Hejmadi (2009) has detailed the reasons that consumptive use is not an option for Orissa. Partly, this is based on a philosophical premise, that we should not argue here, and partly on a cultural one, that Mrosovosky (2009) has adequately responded to. Here, I would like to respond to the biological statements made in the brief article. First, there is no evidence to support the claim that, in historic times, olive ridley turtles nested at arribada densities along a larger part of the coast or that significantly larger numbers nested. While possible, the statements in Hamilton’s book (Mohanty Hejmadi 2000) that Mohanty Hejmadi uses to support this claim only indicate a general nesting region and indicate “prodigious Number of Sea Tortoises”. Therefore this information is largely irrelevant to current conservation or management plans. Second, arribadas have become somewhat unpredictable at Gahirmatha, but have in fact become more predictable at the southern beach of Rushikulya (Shanker et al. 2003; Tripathy 2005, 2008; K. Shanker unpubl. data). In the last decade, most arribadas have occurred between the second week of February and the last week of March (ibid.). Olive ridleys do not nest en masse anywhere on the Orissa coast, as suggested by the author. While there may be a potential shifting of nesting beaches from Gahirmatha to Rushikulya, arribadas have been reported from few other sites in the last decade. No mass nesting has occurred at the Devi River mouth rookery, and apart from one or two recorded instances of mini arribadas (a few thousand turtles), these two sites remain the principal mass nesting beaches at this point (Shanker & Choudhury 2006; K. Shanker unpubl. data). The role of hatcheries in the conservation of sea turtles at mass nesting sites is inexplicable. An average mass nesting event in Orissa involves 50,000 to 150,000 nests. Hatching success has been typically high, especially at Rushikulya. Moving 100 or 200 or even a thousand nests (well beyond what is practiced today) cannot conceivably have any impact. Disturbingly, Mohanty-Hejmadi (2009) also follows each of her statements about Orissa by categorically stating that this prevents the exploitation of eggs in Orissa. Exploitation of eggs was first banned in the 1970s on the recommendation of Bustard (Bustard 1980). However, he only recommended a temporary ban on use of eggs till the levels of exploitation could be determined and generally favoured sustainable use. His student, Kar, now a long serving officer of the Forest Department, devotes a page and a table to the exploitation of adults and eggs in “The Turtle Paradise:

Gahirmatha” (Dash & Kar 1990). These discussions, however, no longer occur amongst local conservationists. If anything prevents the use of eggs today, it is the deeply entrenched philosophy of protectionism promoted by conservationists in India and elsewhere. Indeed, there may be problems associated with consumptive use in Orissa, but these should be debated neutrally, and with due respect to all cultural perspectives. BUSTARD, H.R. 1980. Should sea turtles be exploited? Marine Turtle Newsletter 15: 3-5. DASH, M.C. & C.S. KAR. 1990. The Turtle Paradise – Gahirmatha. Interprint, New Delhi, 295 p. MOHANTY HEJMADI, P. 2009. Comments on Mrosovsky’s suggestions for Orissa. Marine Turtle Newsletter 123: 20-21. MROSOVSKY, N. 2009. Ridleys in Orissa. Reply to Mohanty Hejmadi. Marine Turtle Newsletter 123: 21. SHANKER, K., B. PANDAV & B.C. CHOUDHURY. 2004. An assessment of the olive ridley turtles (Lepidochelys olivacea) nesting population in Orissa, India. Biological Conservation 115: 149 – 160. SHANKER, K. & CHOUDHURY, B.C. 2006. Marine turtles in the Indian subcontinent: a brief history. In: Marine Turtles of the Indian Subcontinent (eds. Shanker, K. & B.C. Choudhury), pp. 3-16. Universities Press, Hyderabad, India. TRIPATHY, B. 2005. A study of the ecology and conservation of the olive ridley turtle (Lepidochelys olivacea) at the Rushikulya rookery of Orissa, India. PhD Thesis. Andhra University TRIPATHY, B. 2008. An assessment of solitary and arribada nesting of olive ridley turtles (Lepidochelys olivacea) at the Rushikulya rookery of Orissa, India. Asiatic Herpetological Research 11: 136-142

Kartik Shanker, Centre for Ecological Sciences, Indian Institute of Science, Bangalore 560012, INDIA (E-mail: [email protected])


OBITUARY Ed B. Drane (1949-2009) Sally R. Murphy1 & Barbara Schroeder2

PO Box 136, Sheldon, SC 29941 USA (E-mail: [email protected]) NMFS Office of Protected Resources, 1315 East West Hwy, Silver Spring, MD 20910 USA (E-mail: [email protected]) 1

2

Sally R. Murphy: I don’t remember the first time I actually met Ed Drane. In 1980, I was trying to set up the South Carolina Sea Turtle Stranding and Salvage Network and contacted Audubon and Sierra Clubs along the coast. At about that time, Ed and a friend were organizing the Sierra Club on Hilton Head Island. He was one of the stranding network volunteers and also helped with the nest projection project. In 1988, he became leader of the project. Although soft spoken and unassuming, Ed was a “warrior” (in the words of Steve Riley, the town manager). I remember an instance when a dead turtle washed ashore with lots of heavy chains tied to it. This was during the controversial TED era. Ed immediately contacted all the local TV stations to come film the chains on the turtle. His stranding forms were neat (in that precise architect’s handwriting) and complete. When we got one for a really huge male loggerhead, I questioned that it was correct. Then I saw that I was Ed who had taken down the data. I thought, well this is weird, but I trust Ed. So I called him to get the particulars. The turtle had been alive and had followed a female up on the beach. He only had a piece of string, not a measuring tape and was sure the turtle would not wait for him to go get one. He measured it with the string, making a knot at the right spot and then measured the string with a tape. I was sure the measurements were correct. When it became my “turn” again to host the 10th Sea Turtle Workshop, Ed suggested we have it at Hilton Head Island Beach and Tennis Resort. He also volunteered to help me. It is also how he came to be Treasurer. In the Old Days, we funded the “workshop” by selling cocktails and beer and tee-shirts. We could not get a temporary liquor license with the states, so we would buy a lot of booze and beer and wheels of “tickets”. People were buying tickets (not booze) so that wasn’t illegal and then they would use their tickets to get a drink; two tickets for a mixed drink and one for beer. People would wear “garlands” of tickets around their necks at the opening social. Then at the end of the meeting, whoever was the current president would hand over a check from the proceeds to the next president. That person would then open up a temporary account at a local bank to pay for the next meeting. Ed warned me that we would soon run afoul of the IRS if we kept up this procedure. He said he would do the legal work to establish a “real” entity with the IRS and keep the books. The 10th was also the first time the meeting was called a “symposium”, so although Karen Eckert suggested we change the name from workshop to symposium, Ed’s contribution of legally establishing us was also a factor.

though the formality of these offices would not be established for another year. Ed was incredibly helpful from the very start, as he would be again when I served as President of the 14th Symposium. He was immensely helpful with all things financial as well as meeting logistics and brought his experience from each and every Symposium to the next one and the one after that, all the way through our third decade. In those early years Ed would carry around the money briefcase, picking up loads of cash from the t-shirt sales and bar sales and auction sales throughout the day and night. His briefcase never left his side; I don’t think it was ever handcuffed to his wrist, but it probably should have been! My favorite Symposium memories of Ed were during the Auctions every year, when the quilt made by his mother would come up on the Auction block. “Mom’s” quilts were always among the top grossing, if not the highest grossing, items auctioned. I know Ed was so proud of those quilts - how treasured they were by everyone, and how much money they brought in to support international travel the following year. I regret having been outbid on every one of those quilts (you know who you are!). Each year, I would lament my loss to Ed and he would tell me “there’s always next year”. In the mid-1990s we presented Ed with a beautiful plaque made by our friend and turtle sculptor, Tom McFarland, to recognize Ed’s efforts and outstanding contributions to the Symposium and the newly formed Society. He was, as usual, humble in his acceptance of our thanks. Ed was one of the finest in every way, devoting so much of his free time to turtles and turtle people, not just in his beloved South Carolina, but around the world. I consider myself extremely lucky to have called him my friend and I will miss him always.

Barbara Schroeder: Like Sally, I’m not sure when I first met Ed but it would have been at one of the Workshops in the mid-1980s and it was probably at the Tippling Turtler, also mentioned above by Sally. When I was “volunteered” to take the reins of the 11th Annual Sea Turtle Workshop, Ed was now officially our treasurer,

Ed Drane (left) watches as Chuck Oravetz (NMFS retired) interviews “Tony the Turtle” (Jeff Brown), during the 10th Annual Sea Turtle Workshop in Hilton Head, SC in 1990 (photo by Sally Murphy).


ANNOUNCEMENTS The International Sea Turtle Society Awards Nominations are sought for the International Sea Turtle Society Life-time Achievement Award and ISTS Champions Award. ISTS Life-Time Achievement Award honours an individual(s) that has had a significant impact on sea turtle biology and conservation through the course of their career. ISTS Champions Awards are presented to individuals or communities, governmental or non-governmental organisations that have, in the recent past, carried out outstanding work towards the effective conservation of sea turtles. Nominations can be made online at http://www.seaturtlesociety. org/ists/nominations.shtml or can be emailed, mailed or faxed to Karen Arthur (Nominations Committee Chair). All nominations must be received by 1 st December 2009 and should include the name and contact details for both the nominator and the individual / organization nominated for the award. Also, please indicate for which award they are being nominated and provide a short supporting statement. You will be contacted by the Awards

Committee for any additional information. Only current ISTS members are eligible to make nominations for these Awards. To confirm your ISTS membership status, look on line at: http://www. seaturtlesociety.org/members/membership_list.shtml If you are not a current member of the ISTS and would like to join, please visit: http://www.seaturtlesociety.org/members/join.shtml Awards will be announced at the Sea Turtle Symposium in Goa, India in April 2010. Nominations should be emailed, faxed or posted to: Dr Karen Arthur Department of Geology and Geophysics POST 701 1680 East-West Road University of Hawaii Honolulu, Hawaii 96822 Email: [email protected] Phone: +1 808 220 0627 Fax: +1 808 956-5512

30th Annual Symposium on Sea Turtle Biology & Conservation 27th – 29th April, 2010 in Goa, India Kartik Shanker

President, International Sea Turtle Society and Centre for Ecological Sciences, Indian Institute of Science, Bangalore 560012, India (E-mail: [email protected]) Symposium website: india.seaturtle.org/symposium2010 A wide range of thematic sessions are being planned at the 30th Annual Sea Turtle Symposium in Goa, India in April 2010. With this, we hope to bring together more than just sea turtle researchers and welcome representatives from NGOs, indigenous communities, the Government, interested corporations, students and people who are in any way interested in sea turtles. Theme: The World of Turtles Sea turtles inhabit the land and the sea. They connect the shallow nearshore waters to the open sea, cold temperate to warm tropical waters. They migrate across ocean basins. And through several thousands of years, they have connected us ecologically and culturally to the sea. The thirtieth annual symposium on sea turtle biology and conservation will seek to explore these connections and focus on the world they live in. The world of coral reefs, seagrass meadows, open seas and sandy beaches. The world of people, living and working on the coast or at sea; of fishing cultures and livelihoods. All connected by sea turtles and by us. Programme: india.seaturtle.org/symposium2010/programme

Date 24-26 April 2010

Event Pre-symposium meetings and workshops

Venue The Kala Academy & Taj Vivanta, Panaji, Goa

27-29 April 2010

Symposium

The Kala Academy, Panaji, Goa

30 April 2010

Post-symposium meetings and tours

The Kala Academy & Taj Vivanta, Panaji, Goa

27-29 April 2010 – Presentations Be seen and heard at the oral and poster presentation sessions of the main symposium (27 – 29, April 2010). The choice of medium of presentation includes oral presentation (15 min presentation), speed talk (4 min presentation) and poster presentation. One oral submission (and a maximum of two submissions in total) per submitting author is allowed. You can choose to present your work in any of the following sessions:


Environmental Impacts Ecosystem Function Fisheries & Bycatch Migration & Navigation Foraging Research in Social Science Conservation, Management & Advocacy Reproduction Health & Physiology Student awards. You may also choose for your presentation (regular oral presentation or poster presentation) to be considered for the Archie Carr Student Award. Presentations made under the speed talk category however, are not eligible for the award at present. Awards are based on merit, and are judged by a Student Awards Committee. Recently graduated presenters who are presenting work done as students also qualify for these awards. More information about the student award and guidelines for submission of abstracts is available online at iconferences.seaturtle.org. 24-26 and 30 April 2010: Learn more through workshops and regional meetings at the 30th ISTS, India! To find out more about pre-symposium meetings and workshops visit our website: india.seaturtle.org/symposium2010/ programme.Associated meetings include: Africa meeting Indian Ocean meeting Latin America – RETOMALA meeting

Mediterranean meeting Freshwater and Terrestrial Turtle meeting IUCN / Marine Turtle Specialist Group meeting IOSEA meeting South Asia Mini-symposium Fisheries and Resource Dependent Livelihoods meeting Pre/post-symposium workshops include: Workshop on stable isotopes Workshop on satellite telemetry Workshop on statistics Workshop on marine invasives Workshop on rehabilitation Workshop on ports and shipping More workshops are being planned and we will send you announcements about them as they are finalised. You will also find details on india.seaturtle.org/symposium2010/programme. Social events. Let your hair down and join in the Indian merrymaking at our social events! Join in and sign up for: Welcome Social Event Video Night Live and Silent Auction Farewell Banquet Sign up for these events at the registration site online at iconferences. seaturtle.org.

Sea Turtle Course at Duke University, Summer 2010 Duke University Marine Lab 2010 Summer Course: The Biology and Conservation of Sea Turtles Dates: Summer Term II: 12 July - 13 August 2010 Course limit: 20 students (undergraduates, graduate students, professionals) Application deadline (for Global Fellowship): 15 February 2010 Application deadline (for Tuition Scholarship): 1 April 2010 Application deadline (no funding support): 14 June 2010 Description: BIO125L/ENV 227L. The essential biology of sea turtles (evolution, anatomy, physiology, behavior, life history, population dynamics) and their conservation needs, with an emphasis on the role turtles play in marine ecosystem structure and function. Basic ecological concepts are integrated with related topics including the conservation and management of endangered species, the contributions of technology to the management of migratory marine species, the role of research in national and international law and policy, and the veterinary aspects of conservation. The course includes laboratory and field experience with the animals and with their habitat requirements. Instructor: TBA A s p a r t o f S u m m e r Te r m I I I n t e g r a t e d M a r i n e Conservation Program, a core course BIO 109/ENV 209

(Conservation Biology & Policy) may be taken with The Biology and Conservation of Sea Turtles. Students are encouraged (but not required) to take both courses. Approximately ten Global Fellowships in Marine Conservation will be awarded on a competitive basis to international students, especially those from developing countries, and will fully cover travel expenses, room and board, and tuition for both BIO 109/ENV 209 Conservation Biology and Policy plus one elective course subject to availability. Electives include: Biology and Conservation of Sea Turtles; Marine Mammals; Marine Ecology; Marine Invertebrate Zoology; and Independent Research. Experience the beautiful North Carolina coast! Join students from all over the world in participating in this unique summer session experience. Enrollment is limited, apply early! For more information: [email protected] (Tel: 252.504.7502). www.nicholas.duke.edu/marinelab/programs/enrollment_forms/ index.html www.nicholas.duke.edu/marinelab/programs/summeraid www.nicholas.duke.edu/marinelab/programs/courses/ summer20102


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://accstr.ufl.edu/biblio.html). Included in this section are publications that have been pre-published online prior to the hardcopy publication.  These citations are included because of the frequent delay in hardcopy publication and the importance of keeping everyone informed of the latest research accomplishments. Please email us when your papers are published online.  Check the online bibliography for final citation, including volume and page numbers. It is requested that a copy of all publications (including technical reports and non-refereed journal articles) be sent to both: 1) 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. 2) 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 AL-BAHRY, S.N., I.Y. MAHMOUD, I.S. AL-AMRI, T.A. BA-OMAR, K.O. MELGHEIT & A.Y. AL-KINDI. 2009. Ultrastructural features and elemental distribution in eggshell during pre and post hatching periods in the green turtle, Chelonia mydas at Ras Al-Hadd, Oman. Tissue & Cell 41: 214-221. S. N. Al-Bahry, Sultan Qaboos Univ, Coll Sci, Dept Biol, POB 36, PC 123, Al Khoud, Oman. (E-mail: [email protected]) AL-BAHRY, S., I. MAHMOUD, A. ELSHAFIE, A. AL-HARTHY, S. AL-GHAFRI, I. AL-AMRI & A. ALKINDI. 2009. Bacterial flora and antibiotic resistance from eggs of green turtles Chelonia mydas: An indication of polluted effluents. Marine Pollution Bulletin 58: 720-725. (Address same as above) BENYR, G. & C. BENYR. 2009. Bedrohung, Schutz und Nutzung von Meeresschildkroeten. Teil 1: Die Beziehung des Menschen zu den Meeresschildkroeten im Wandel der Zeit. Marginata 21: 46-51. German. BENYR, G. & C. BENYR. 2009. Bedrohung Schutz und Nutzung von Meeresschildkroeten Teil 2: Die geschichtliche Entwicklung und Situation in Costa Rica. Marginata 22: 46-52. German. BLUMENTHAL, J.M., T.J. AUSTIN, C.D.L. BELL, J.B. BOTHWELL, A.C. BRODERICK, G. EBANKS-PETRIE, J.A. GIBB, K.E. LUKE, J.R. OLYNIK, M.F. ORR, J.L. SOLOMON & B.J. GODLEY. 2009. Ecology of hawksbill turtles, Eretmochelys imbricata, on a western Caribbean foraging ground. Chelonian Conservation & Biology 8: 1-10. J. Blumenthal, Dept. of Environment, Cayman Islands Government, P.O. Box 486, Grand Cayman KY1-1106, Cayman Islands. (E-mail: JBlumenthal@ seaturtle.org) BOYLE, M.C., N.N. FITZSIMMONS, C.J. LIMPUS, S. KELEZ, X. VELEZ-ZUAZO & M. WAYCOTT. 2009. Evidence for transoceanic migrations by loggerhead sea turtles in the southern Pacific Ocean. Proc. R. Soc. B. 276: 1993-1999. M. C. Boyle, Dept. of Environment and Resource Management Level 8, 160 Ann Street, Brisbane 4001, Australia. (E-mail: michelle.boyle@ derm.qld.gov.au) BROOKS, L.B., J.T. HARVEY & W.J. NICHOLS. 2009. Tidal movements of East Pacific green turtle Chelonia mydas at a

foraging area in Baja California Sur, México. Marine Ecology Progress Series 386: 263-274. W.J. Nichols, Blue Ocean Institute, P.O. Box 324, Davenport, California 95017, USA. (E-mail: j@ oceanrevolution.org) CARDONA, L., A. AGUILAR & L. PAZOS. 2009. Delayed ontogenic dietary shift and high levels of omnivory in green turtles (Chelonia mydas) from the NW coast of Africa. Marine Biology (Berlin) 156: 1487-1495. L. Cardona, Univ Barcelona, Fac Biol, Dept Anim Biol, Avda Diagonal 645, E-08028 Barcelona, Spain. (E-mail: [email protected]) CASAL, A.B., M. CAMACHO, L.F. LOPEZ-JURADO, C. JUSTE & J. OROS. 2009. Comparative study of hematologic and plasma biochemical variables in Eastern Atlantic juvenile and adult nesting loggerhead sea turtles (Caretta caretta). Veterinary Clinical Pathology 38: 213-218. J. Oros, ULPGC, Fac Vet, Dept Morphol, Trasmontana S-N, Arucas 35413, Las Palmas, Spain. (E-mail: [email protected]) CASAL, A.B. & J. OROS. 2009. Plasma biochemistry and haematology values in juvenile loggerhead sea turtles undergoing rehabilitation. Veterinary Record 164: 663-665. (Address as above) CASALE, P., A.D. MAZARIS, D. FREGGI, C. VALLINI & R. ARGANO. 2009. Growth rates and age at adult size of loggerhead sea turtles (Caretta caretta) in the Mediterranean Sea, estimated through capture-mark-recapture records. Scientia Marina 73: 589595. P. Casale, Dept. of Animal and Human Biology, University of Rome 1 “La Sapienza”, Viale dell ‘Universita 32, 00185 Rome, Italy. (E-mail: [email protected]) CASALE, P., P. PINO D’ASTORE & R. ARGANO. 2009. Age at size and growth rates of early juvenile loggerhead sea turtles (Caretta caretta) in the Mediterranean based on length frequency analysis. Herpetological Journal 19: 29-33. (Address as above) CHAVEZ, B., L. RAMOS, H. MERCHANT-LARIOS & F. VILCHIS. 2009. Cloning and expression of the estrogen receptor-alpha (Esr1) from the Harderian gland of the sea turtle (Lepidochelys olivacea). General and Comparative Endocrinology 162: 203-209. F. Vilchis, Inst Nacl Ciencias Med & Nutr SZ,


Dept Reprod Biol, Vasco de Quiroga 15, Mexico City 14000, DF Mexico. (E-mail: [email protected])

Program, Duke Univ, Durham, NC 27706, USA. (E-mail: [email protected])

CHUNG, F.C., N.J. PILCHER, M. SALMON & J. WYNEKEN. 2009. Offshore migratory activity of hawksbill turtle (Eretmochelys imbricata) hatchlings, I. Quantitative analysis of activity, with comparisons to green turtles (Chelonia mydas). Chelonian Conservation & Biology 8: 28-34. M. Salmon, Dept. of Biological Sciences, Florida Atlantic University, 777 Glades Road, Box 3091, Boca Raton, FL 33431-0991, USA. (email: [email protected])

HAWKES, L.A., A.C. BRODERICK, M.H. GODFREY & B. J. GODLEY. 2009. Climate change and marine turtles. Endangered Species Research 7: 137-154. B.J. Godley, Centre for Ecology and Conservation, School of Biosciences, Univ. of Exeter, Tremough Campus, Treliever Road, Penryn, Cornwall TR10 9EZ, UK. (E-mail: [email protected])

CHUNG, F.C., N.J. PILCHER, M. SALMON & J. WYNEKEN. 2009. Offshore migratory activity of hawksbill turtle (Eretmochelys imbricata) hatchlings, II. Swimming gaits, swimming speed, and morphological comparisons. Chelonian Conservation & Biology 8: 35-42. (Address as above) COLL, M., A. SANTOJANNI, I. PALOMERA & E. ARNERI. 2009. Food-web changes in the Adriatic Sea over the last three decades. Marine Ecology-Progress Series 381: 17-37. M. Coll, CSIC, ICM, Inst Marine Sci, Passeig Maritim Barceloneta 37-49, Barcelona 08002, Spain. (E-mail: [email protected]) DA SILVA, M.R. & F.P. RODRIGUES. 2009. Flutuacao em tartaruga marinha da especie Caretta caretta decorrente de pneumonia bacteriana. PUBVET 3: unpaginated. Portuguese; Summary Language: English. M. R. da Silva, Universidade de Franca - UNIFRAN, Franca, SP, Brazil FERRARO, P.J. & H. GJERTSEN. 2009. A global review of incentive payments for sea turtle conservation. Chelonian Conservation & Biology 8: 48-56. H. Gjertsen, Aquativ Farms Ltd., 49-139 Kamehameha Hwy., Kaneohe, HI, USA. (E-mail: [email protected]) FONSECA, L.G., G.A. MURILLO, L. GUADAMUZ, R.M. SPINOLA & R. A. VALVERDE. 2009. Downward but stable trend in the abundance of arribada olive ridley sea turtles (Lepidochelys olivacea) at Nancite Beach, Costa Rica (1971-2007). Chelonian Conservation & Biology 8: 19-27. R. Valverde, Dept. of Biological Sciences, Southeastern Louisiana University, Hammond, LA 70402, USA. (E-mail: [email protected]) GAMEZ VIVALDO, S., L.J. GARCIA MARQUEZ, D. OSORIO SARABIA, J.L. VAZQUEZ GARCIA & F. CONSTANTINO CASAS. 2009. Pathology in the olive ridley turtles (Lepidochelys olivacea) that arrived to the shores of Cuyutlan, Colima, Mexico. Veterinaria Mexico 40: 69-78. S.G. Vivaldo, Ctr Ecol El Tortugario, Av Adolfo Lopez Mateos,Sin 4 Km Poblado de Cuyutl, Cuyutlan 28300, Colima, Mexico. (E-mail: suskabel@ hotmail.com) GIRARD, C., A.D. TUCKER & B. CALMETTES. 2009. Postnesting migrations of loggerhead sea turtles in the Gulf of Mexico: dispersal in highly dynamic conditions. Marine Biology 156: 1827-1839. A.D. Tucker, Mote Marine Lab, 1600 Ken Thompson Parkway, Sarasota, FL 34236, USA. (E-mail: [email protected]) HALPIN, P.N., A.J. READ, E. FUJIOKA, B.D. BEST, B. DONNELLY, L.J. HAZEN, C. KOT, K. URIAN, E. LABRECQUE, A. DIMATTEO, J. CLEARY, C. GOOD, L.B. CROWDER & K. D. HYRENBACH. 2009. OBIS-SEAMAP the world data center for marine mammal, sea bird, and sea turtle distributions. Oceanography 22: 104-115. P.N. Halpin, Geospatial Ecol

HAZEL, J. 2009. Evaluation of fast-acquisition GPS in stationary tests and fine-scale tracking of green turtles. Journal of Experimental Marine Biology and Ecology 374: 58-68. James Cook Univ, Sch Earth & Environm Science, Townsville, Qld 4811 Australia. (E-mail: [email protected]) HEATWOLE, H. & V. LUKOSCHEK. 2009. Reptiles. Eds. P. Hutchings, M. Kingsford, and O. HoeghGuldberg. Great Barrier Reef: Biology, Environment and Management: 343-49. HULIN, V., V. DELMAS, M. GIRONDOT, M.H. GODFREY & J-M. GUILLON. 2009. Temperature-dependent sex determination and global change: are some species at greater risk? Oecologia 160: 493-506. V. Hulin, Univ Paris 11, Lab Ecol Systemat and Evolut UMR8079, Fac Sci Orsay, Batiment 362, F-91405 Orsay, France. (E-mail: [email protected]) IKONOMOPOULOU, M.P., H. OLSZOWY, M. HODGE & A. J. BRADLEY. 2009. The effect of organochlorines and heavy metals on sex steroid-binding proteins in vitro in the plasma of nesting green turtles, Chelonia mydas. Journal of Comparative Physiology B-Biochemical Systemic and Environmental Physiology 179: 653-662. M.P. Ikonomopoulou, Univ Queensland, Sch Biomed Sci Anat & Dev Biol, Brisbane, Qld 4072, Australia. (E-mail: [email protected]) INNIS, C.J., A.C. NYAOKE, C.R. III WILLIAMS, B. DUNNIGAN, C. MERIGO, D.L. WOODWARD, E.S. WEBER & S. JR. FRASCA. 2009. Pathologic and parasitologic findings of coldstunned Kemp’s ridley sea turtles (Lepidochelys kempii) stranded on Cape Cod, Massachusetts, 2001-2006. Journal of Wildlife Diseases 45: 594-610. C.J. Innis, New England Aquarium, One Central Wharf, Boston, MA 02110 USA. (E-mail: cinnis@neaq. org) ISCHER, T., K. IRELAND & D. T. BOOTH. 2009. Locomotion performance of green turtle hatchlings from the Heron Island Rookery, Great Barrier Reef. Marine Biology 156: 1399-409. D.T. Booth, Univ Queensland, Physiol Ecol Grp, Sch Integrat Biol, Brisbane, Qld 4072, Australia. (E-mail: [email protected]) KABISCH, K. 2009. Nistplaetze der Unechten Karettschildkroete (Caretta caretta) und der Suppenschildkroete (Chelonia mydas) auf Zypern. Radiata 18: 45-52. German. K. Kabisch, Schwanenweg 100, 04420 Markranstaedt, Germany. KELLE, L., N. GRATIOT & B. DE THOISY. 2009. Olive ridley turtle Lepidochelys olivacea in French Guiana: back from the brink of regional extirpation? Oryx 43: 243-246. B. de Thoisy, Assoc Kwata, BP 672, F-97335 Cayenne, French Guiana. (E-mail: [email protected]) LEE, J. C-I., L-C. TSAI, S-P. LIAO, A. LINACRE & H-M. HSIEH. 2009. Species identification using the cytochrome b gene of


commercial turtle shells. Forensic Science International-Genetics 3: 67-73. H-M. Hsieh, Cent Police Univ, Dept Forensic Science, 56 Shu Jen Rd, Tao Yuan 33334, Taiwan (E-mail: mei@mail. cpu.edu.tw) LEWISON, R.L., C.U. SOYKAN & J. FRANKLIN. 2009. Mapping the bycatch seascape: multispecies and multi-scale spatial patterns of fisheries bycatch. Ecological Applications 19: 920-930. R. L. Lewison, San Diego State Univ, Dept Biol, 5500 Campanile Dr, San Diego, CA 92182, USA. (E-mail: rlewison@sunstroke. sdsu.edu) LIMPUS, C.J., D.J. LIMPUS, M.A. READ & N. N. FITZSIMMONS. 2009. When is a male turtle not a male? Observations on intersex turtles. Chelonian Conservation & Biology 8: 102-105. C. J. Limpus, Dept. of Environment and Resource Management, P.O. Box 15155, City East, Queensland 4002 Australia. (E-mail: col. [email protected]) LIMPUS, C.J., J.D. MILLER, & D.J. LIMPUS. 2009. The occurrence of ectopic cloaca deformity in the green turtle in eastern Australia. Chelonian Conservation & Biology 8: 100-101. (Address as above) MANCINI, A. & V. KOCH. 2009. Sea turtle consumption and black market trade in Baja California Sur, Mexico. Endangered Species Research 7: 1-10. V. Koch, Univ Autonoma Baja California, Dept Biol Marina, Carretera Km 5-5, La Paz 23080, Baja California, Mexico. (E-mail: [email protected]) MAZARIS, A.D., S. KRAMER-SCHADT, J. TZANOPOULOS, K. JOHST, G. MATSINOS & J.D. PANTIS. 2009. Assessing the relative importance of conservation measures applied on sea turtles: comparison of measures focusing on nesting success and hatching recruitment success. Amphibia-Reptilia 30: 221-231. A.D. Mazaris, Aristotle Univ Thessaloniki, Sch Biol, Dept Ecol, UP Box 119, Thessaloniki 54124, Greece. (E-mail: amazaris@ bio.auth.gr) MCALOOSE, D. & A.L. NEWTON. 2009. Wildlife cancer: a conservation perspective. Nature Reviews Cancer 9: 517-526. D. McAloose, Wildlife Conservation Society, Global Health Program, 2300 So Blvd, New York, NY 10460, USA. (E-mail: [email protected]) MITCHELL, M.A. 2009. Reptile conservation medicine: what roles do chelonians play in assessing ecosystem health? Small Animal and Exotics. Proceedings of the North American Veterinary Conference, Orlando, Florida, USA, 17-21 January, 2009: 1909. MONZON-ARGUELLO, C., C. RICO, C. CARRERAS, P. CALABUIG, A. MARCO & L.F. LOPEZ-JURADO. 2009. Variation in spatial distribution of juvenile loggerhead turtles in the eastern Atlantic and western Mediterranean Sea. Journal of Experimental Marine Biology & Ecology 373: 79-86. C. Monzon-Arguello, Inst Canario Ciencias Marinas, Crta Taliarte S-N, Telde 35200, Gran Canaria, Spain. (E-mail: catalinama@ iccm.rcanaria.es) MORGAN, D.A., R. CLASS, G. VIOLETTA & G. SOSLAU. 2009. Cytokine mediated proliferation of cultured sea turtle blood cells: morphologic and functional comparison to human blood cells. Tissue and Cell 41: 299-309. G. Soslau, Office of Professional Studies in the Health Sciences, Drexel University College of

Medicine, 245 N 15th St., NCB, Mail Stop 344, Philadelphia, PA 19102, USA. (E-mail: [email protected]) MUNIZ-PEREIRA, L.C., F.M. VIEIRA & J.L. LUQUE. 2009. Checklist of helminth parasites of threatened vertebrate species from Brazil. Zootaxa 2123: 1-45. L.C. Muniz-Pereira, Laboratoire de Helmintos Parasitos de Vertebrados, Instituto Oswaldo Cruz, Av. Brasil 4365, FIOCRUZ, CEP 21040-900, RJ, Brazil. (E-mail: [email protected]) NEWSON, S.E., S. MENDES, H.Q.P. CRICK, N.K. DULVY, J.D.R. HOUGHTON, G.C. HAYS, A.M. HUTSON, C.D. MACLEOD, G.J. PIERCE & R.A. ROBERTSON. 2009. Indicators of the impact of climate change on migratory species. Endangered Species Research 7: 101-113. S.E. Newson, The Nunnery, British Trust Ornithol, Thetford IP24 2PU, UK. (E-mail: stuart.newson@ bto.org) OOSTERBAAN, A. & I. MOL. 2009. Een levende onechte karetschildpad Caretta caretta. Zeepaard 69: 8-11. Dutch. A. Oosterbaan, Ecomare, Ruyslaan 92, 1796 Az de Koog, Netherlands. (E-mail: [email protected]) PARKER, D.M., G.H. BALAZS, S. KING, L. KATAHIRA & W. GILMARTIN. 2009. Short-range movements of hawksbill turtles (Eretmochelys imbricata) from nesting to foraging areas within the Hawaiian Islands. Pacific Science 63: 371-382. D. Parker, NMFS-PIFSC, 2570 Dole Street, Honolulu, Hawaii 96822-2396, USA. (E-mail: [email protected]) PETERSEN, S.L., M.B. HONIG, P.G. RYAN, R. NEL & L.G. UNDERHILL. 2009. Turtle bycatch in the pelagic longline fishery off southern Africa. African Journal of Marine Science 31: 87-96. S.L. Petersen, WWF S Africa, POB 50035, ZA-8002 Waterfront, South Africa. (E-mail: [email protected]) PIKE, D.A. 2009. Do green turtles modify their nesting seasons in response to environmental temperatures? Chelonian Conservation & Biology 8: 43-47. School Biological Sciences A08, Univ. of Sydney, Sydney, NSW 2006 Australia. (E-mail: david.pike@bio. usyd.edu.au) POWELL, R. & S.J. INCHAUSTEGUI. 2009. Conservation of the herpetofauna of the Dominican Republic. Applied Herpetology 6: 103-122. R. Powell, Avila Univ, Dept Biol, Kansas City, MO 64145 USA. (E-mail: [email protected]) PRETORIUS, E., W.A. VIEIRA, H.M. OBERHOLZER & R.E.J. AUER. 2009. Comparative Scanning Electron Microscopy of platelets and fibrin networks of human and different animals. International Journal of Morphology 27: 69-76. E. Pretorius, Univ Pretoria, Fac Health Science, Sch Med, Dept Anat, BMW Bldg, POB 2034, ZA-0002 Pretoria, South Africa. (E-mail: resia. [email protected]) RICHARDSON, A.J., A. BAKUN, G.C. HAYS & M.J. GIBBONS. 2009. The jellyfish joyride: causes, consequences and management responses to a more gelatinous future. Trends in Ecology and Evolution 24: 312-322. A.J. Richardson, CSIRO Marine and Atmospheric Research, Cleveland, QLD 4163, Australia. (E-mail: [email protected]) ROBINSON, R.A., H.Q.P. CRICK, J.A. LEARMONTH, I.M.D. MACLEAN, C.D. THOMAS, F. BAIRLEIN, M.C.


FORCHHAMMER, C.M. FRANCIS, J.A. GILL, B.J. GODLEY, J. HARWOOD, G.C. HAYS, B. HUNTLEY, A.M. HUTSON, G.J. PIERCE, M.M. REHFISCH, D.W. SIMS, M.B. SANTOS, T.H. SPARKS, D.A. STROUD & M. E. VISSER. 2009. Travelling through a warming world: climate change and migratory species. Endangered Species Research 7: 87-99. R.A. Robinson, British Trust for Ornithology, The Nunnery, Thetford, Norfolk IP24 2PU, UK. (E-mail: [email protected]) RODEN, S.E., P.H. DUTTON & P.A. MORIN. 2009. AFLP Fragment Isolation Technique as a method to produce random sequences for single nucleotide polymorphism discovery in the green turtle, Chelonia mydas. Journal of Heredity 100: 390-393. S.E. Roden, NOAA Fisheries, SW Fisheries Science Center, 8604 La Jolla Shores Dr, La Jolla, CA 92037, USA. (E-mail: suzanne. [email protected]) RODEN, S.E., P.H. DUTTON & P.A. MORIN. 2009. Characterization of single nucleotide polymorphism markers for the green sea turtle (Chelonia mydas). Molecular Ecology Resources 9: 1055-1060. (Address same as above) RUDD, M.A. 2009. National values for regional aquatic species at risk in Canada. Endangered Species Research 6: 239-249. M.A. Rudd, Mem Univ Newfoundland, Sir Wilfred Grenfell Coll, Corner Brook, NF A2H 6PN, Canada. (E-mail: mrudd@swgc. mun.ca) SANTORO, M., P. BRANDMAYR, E.C. GREINER, J.A. MORALES & B. RODRIGUEZ-ORTIZ. 2009. Redescription of Charaxicephaloides polyorchis Groschaft and Tenora 1978 (Digenea: Pronocephalidae) from the green turtle Chelonia mydas in Costa Rica. Helminthologia 46: 97-99. M. Santoro, Univ Calabria, Dipartimento Ecol, I-87036 Cosenza, Italy. (E-mail: [email protected]) SCHNEIDER, M. 2009. [Research and protection of turtles on Kuroshima Island, Japan.] Erforschung und Schutz von Meeresschildkroeten auf der Insel Kuroshima, Japan. Radiata 18: 61-64. German. M. Schneider, Tamagawa-Denenchofu, Setagayaku, 158-0085 Tokyo, Japan. (E-mail: [email protected]) SHAMBLIN, B.M., B.C. FAIRCLOTH, M.G. DODD, D.A. BAGLEY, L.M. EHRHART, P.H. DUTTON, A. FREY & C.J. NAIRN. 2009. Tetranucleotide markers from the loggerhead sea turtle (Caretta caretta) and their cross-amplification in other marine turtle species. Conservation Genetics 10: 577-580. C.J. Nairn, D.B. Warnell School of Forestry & Natural Resources, Univ. of Georgia, Athens, GA 30602, USA. (E-mail: jnairn@ warnell.uga.edu) SHIGA, M., D. SHIODE, Y. MIYAMOTO, K. UCHIDA, F. HUI & T. TOKAI. 2009. Effect of water flow on 3-dimensional underwater shape of pelagic longline with midwater float. Nippon Suisan Gakkaishi 75: 179-190. Japanese. M. Shiga, Tokyo Univ Marine Sci & Technol, Dept Marine Biosci, Fac Marine Sci, Minato Ku, Tokyo 1088477, Japan. (E-mail: shiode@kaiyodai. ac.jp) SHOEMAKER, C.M. & D. CREWS. 2009. Analyzing the coordinated gene network underlying temperature-dependent sex determination in reptiles. Seminars in Cell & Developmental Biology 20: 293-303. D. Crews, Patterson Labs, W 24th &

Speedway, Austin, TX 78705, USA. (E-mail: crews@mail. utexas.edu) STAMPER, M.A., C.W. SPICER, D.L. NEIFFER, K.S. MATHEWS & G.J. FLEMING. 2009. Morbidity in a juvenile green sea turtle (Chelonia mydas) due to ocean-borne plastic. Journal of Zoo and Wildlife Medicine 40: 196-198. M. A. Stamper, Disney’s Animal Programs, Walt Disney World Resort, EC Trl. W-251, 2016 North Avenue of the Stars, Lake Buena Vista, FL 32830-1000, USA. (E-mail: [email protected]) TANAKA, E. 2009. Estimation of temporal changes in the growth of green turtles Chelonia mydas in waters around the Ogasawara Islands. Fisheries Science 75: 629-639. E. Tanaka, Tokyo Univ Marine Sci & Technol, Dept Marine Biosci, Minato Ku, 4-5-7 Konan, Tokyo 1088477, Japan. (E-mail: [email protected]) THOMSON, J.A., D. BURKHOLDER, M.R. HEITHAUS & L.M. DILL. 2009. Validation of a rapid visual-assessment technique for categorizing the body condition of green turtles (Chelonia mydas) in the field. Copeia 2009: 251-255. J.A. Thomson, Simon Fraser Univ, Dept Biol Sci, Behav Ecol Res Group, Burnaby, BC V5A 1S6 Canada. (E-mail: [email protected]) WARD, P., S. EPE, D. KREUTZ, E. LAWRENCE, C. ROBINS & A. SANDS. 2009. The effects of circle hooks on bycatch and target catches in Australia’s pelagic longline fishery. Fisheries Research 97: 253-262. P. Ward, Bur Rural Sci, Fisheries & Marine Sci Program, GPO Box 858, Canberra, ACT 2601 Australia. (E-mail: [email protected]) WHITE, M., I. HAXHIU, E. SACDANAKU, L. PETRITAJ, M. RUMANO, F. OSMANI, B. VRENOZI, P. ROBINSON, S. KOURIS & L. VENIZELOS. 2008. Monitoring Stavnike fishtraps and sea turtle bycatch at Patoku, Albania. International Conference on Biological and Environmental Sciences, Faculty of Natural Sciences, Tirana University, Tirana, Albania: 404-409. M. White, Centro Recupero Tartarughe Marine, Lampedusa, Sicily (AG) 92010, Italy. (E-mail: [email protected]) WITT, M.J., B. BAERT, A.C. BRODERICK, A. FORMIA, J. FRETEY, A. GIBUDI, G.A. MOUNGUENGUI, C. MOUSSOUNDA, S. NGOUESSONO, R.J. PARNELL, D. ROUMET, G.-P. SOUNGUET, B. VERHAGE, A. ZOGO & B.J. GODLEY. 2009. Aerial surveying of the world’s largest leatherback turtle rookery: A more effective methodology for large-scale monitoring. Biological Conservation 142: 17191727. B.J. Godley, Univ Exeter, Centre Ecology & Conservation, Cornwall Campus, Penryn TR10 9EZ, Cornwall, England, UK. (E-mail: [email protected]) YOKOTA, K., M. KIYOTA & H. OKAMURA. 2009. Effect of bait species and color on sea turtle bycatch and fish catch in a pelagic longline fishery. Fisheries Research 97: 53-58. K. Yokota, Fisheries Res Agcy, Natl Res Inst Far Seas Fisheries, 5-7-1 Orido, Shizuoka 4248633, Japan. (E-mail: [email protected]) ZEPPE, H. & S. MULOIN. 2009. Conservation and education benefits of interpretation on marine wildlife tours. Tourism in Marine Environments 5: 215-227. H. Zeppe, Centre for Tropical Tourism and Hospitality, James Cook University Cairns, P.O. Box 6811, Cairns Mall Centre, Cairns, 4870, Queensland, Australia. (E-mail: [email protected])


ZYDELIS, R., B.P. WALLACE, E.L. GILMAN & T.B. WERNER. 2009. Conservation of marine megafauna through minimization of fisheries bycatch. Conservation Biology 23: 608-616. R. Zydelis,

Duke Univ, Marine Lab, Center Marine Conservation, Nicholas School Environment, 135 Duke Marine Lab Rd, Beaufort, NC 28516 USA. (E-mail: [email protected])

THESES & DISSERTATIONS AMOROCHO, D.F. 2009. Foraging ecology and population structure of the green sea turtle (Chelonia mydas) in the eastern Pacific coast of Colombia. Ph.D. Dissertation. Monash University, Australia. ARCHBOLD, M. 2008. Conservation of green turtles on the Caribbean coast of Nicaragua - a governance approach. M.S. Thesis. University of Tromso, Norway: 122 pp. AYLESWORTH, L. 2009. Pacific island fisheries and interactions with marine mammals, seabirds and sea turtles. M.E.M. Thesis. Duke University. BLUVIAS, J. E. 2008. Marine turtle trauma response procedures: a husbandry manual.M.E.M. Thesis. Duke University. BUONANTONY, D. 2008. An analysis of utilizing the leatherback’s pineal spot for photo-identification. M.E.M. Thesis. Duke University: 50 pp. FINKBEINER, E. M. 2009. Establishing a socio-economic baseline of sea turtle ecotourism in Baja California Sur, Mexico. M.E.M. Thesis. Duke University. IKEDA, T. 2008. Seasonal distribution and behavior of loggerhead sea turtles in the North Pacific - statistical analysis in relation to environmental oceanographic parameters. Ph.D. Dissertation. Hokkaido University, Japan: 110 pp. LAKE, K. N. 2008. Mitigating anthropogenic lighting on sea turtle nesting beaches in Anguilla: recommendations for a lighting ordinance in a tourism-based economy. M.E.M.Thesis. Duke University.

MCCLELLAN, C.M. 2009. Behavior, ecology, and conservation of sea turtles in the North Atlantic Ocean. Ph.D. Dissertation. Duke University, Durham, NC: 161 pp. MELETIS, Z.A. 2008. Wasted visits? Ecotourism in theory vs. practice at Tortuguero, Costa Rica. Ph.D. Dissertation. Duke University, Durham, NC. SENEY, E.E. 2008. Population dynamics and movements of the Kemp’s ridley sea turtle, Lepidochelys kempii, in the northwestern Gulf of Mexico. Ph.D. Dissertation, Texas A&M University, College Station, Texas, USA: 168 pp. available at http://www. seaturtle.org/PDF/SeneyEE_2008_PhD.pdf. SOBIN, J.M. 2008. Diving behavior of female loggerhead turtles (Caretta caretta) during their internesting interval and an evaluation of the risk of boat strikes. M.E.M. Thesis. Duke University. TAYLOR, K.L. 2008. Loggerhead sea turtle (Caretta caretta) interactions in pelagic longline swordfish fisheries: a comparison of the North Pacific and North Atlantic transition zones. M.E.M. Thesis. Duke University. VARELA-ACEVEDO, E. 2009. Examining the effects of changing coastline processes on hawksbill sea turtle (Eretmochelys imbricata) nesting habitat. M.S. Thesis. Duke University: 91 pp. VASQUEZ, M.S. 2008. A case study analysis of a participatory process in fisheries management. M.S. Thesis. Duke University: 39 pp.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS Publication of this issue was made possible by donations from the following individuals: Anita Gordon, Sara Maxwell, Paulo Barata, Pierter Borkent, Michael Salmon & Jeanette Wyneken, Arthur Kopelman and organizations: Conservation International, International Sea Turtle Society, IUCN - Marine Turtle Specialist Group, Sirtrack Ltd., US National Marine Fisheries Service-Office of Protected Resources, Western Pacific Regional Fishery Management Council. 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, Duke University, NC Wildlife Resources Commission, or any individuals or organizations providing financial support.


INSTRUCTIONS FOR AUTHORS The remit of the Marine Turtle Newsletter (MTN) is to provide current information on marine turtle research, biology, conservation and status. A wide range of material will be considered for publication including editorials, articles, notes, letters and announcements. The aim of the MTN is to provide a forum for the exchange of ideas with a fast turn around to ensure that urgent matters are promptly brought to the attention of turtle biologists and conservationists world-wide. The MTN will be published quarterly in January, April, July, and October of each year. Articles, notes and editorials will be peer-reviewed. Announcements may be edited but will be included in the forthcoming issue if submitted prior to the 15th of February, May, August and November respectively. All submissions should be sent to the editors and not the members of the editorial board. A contact address should be given for all authors together with an e-mail or fax number for correspondence regarding the article. Text To ensure a swift turnaround of articles, we ask that, where possible, all submissions be in electronic format either as an attached file in e-mail or on compact disc in Word for Windows or saved as a text file in another word-processing package. Should these formats not be suitable, authors should contact the editors to seek alternative arrangements. If internet access or compatible computer facilities are not available, hard copies of the article can be sent to the editors by mail or fax. Scientific names should be italicised and given in full in their first appearance. Citations in the text should be in alphabetical order and take the form of: (Carr et al. 1974; Hailman & Elowson 1992; Lagueux 1997). Please keep the number of references to a minimum.

Tables/Figures/Illustrations All figures should be stored as separate files: .tif or .jpeg format. The editors will scan figures, slides or photos for authors who do not have access to such facilities. Tables and figures should be given in Arabic numerals. Photographs will be considered for inclusion. References The literature cited should include only references cited in the text. All journal titles should be given in full. Please use the following formats: For an article in a journal: HENDRICKSON, J. 1958. The green sea turtle, Chelonia mydas (Linn.), in Malaya and Sarawak. Proceedings of the Royal Zoological Society of London 130:455-535. For a book: MROSOVSKY, N. 1983. Conserving Sea Turtles. British Herpetological Society, London. 177pp. For an article in an edited volume; GELDIAY, R., T. KORAY & S. BALIK. 1982. Status of sea turtle populations (Caretta caretta and Chelonia mydas) in the northern Mediterranean Sea, Turkey. In: K.A. Bjorndal (Ed.). Biology and Conservation of Sea Turtles. Smithsonian Institute Press, Washington D.C. pp. 425-434. Where there are multiple authors the initials should precede the last name except in the case of the first author: BJORNDAL, K.A., A.B. BOLTEN, C.J. LAGUEUX & A. CHAVES. 1996. Probability of tag loss in green turtles nesting at Tortuguero, Costa Rica. Journal of Herpetology 30:567-571.

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 to colleagues throughout the world, the MTN must receive $30,000 annually in 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]
