A Newsletter for the Conservation and Management of Sea Turtles and Their Habitats in South Asia and...

7/30/2019 A Newsletter for the Conservation and Management of Sea Turtles and Their Habitats in South Asia and the Indian Ocean-No. 17 JANUARY 2013

1/39


2/39

The Indian Ocean Turtle Newsletter was initiated to provide a orum or exchange o inormation on sea turtle biology and

conservation, management and education and awareness activities in the Indian subcontinent, Indian Ocean region, and

south/southeast Asia. The newsletter also intends to cover related aspects such as coastal zone management, fsheries and

marine biology.

The newsletter is distributed ree o cost to a network o government and non-government organisations and individuals

in the region. All articles are also reely available in PDF and HTML ormats on the website. Readers can submit names and

addresses o individuals, NGOs, research institutions, schools and colleges, etc. or inclusion in the mailing list.

SUBMISSION OF MANUSCRIPTS

IOTN articles are peer reviewed by a member o the editorial board and an external reviewer. In addition to invited and

submitted articles, IOTN also publishes notes, letters, announcements, casual notes and anecdotal accounts. We also

welcome photographs (broadly based on the theme o sea turtles/sea turtle habitats - see specifcations below).

Manuscripts should be submitted by email to: [email protected]

Manuscripts should be submitted in standard word processor ormats or saved as rich text ormat (RTF). Figures should not

be embedded in the text; they may be stored in EXCEL, JPG, TIFF or BMP ormats. High resolution fgures may be requested

ater acceptance o the article. Please reer to previous IOTN issues or to the Guide to Authors on the website (www.iotn.org/

submission) or ormatting guidelines. Authors should provide complete contact inormation including an email address,

phone and ax numbers.

Photographs (including contributions or the cover):Individual photographs should be submitted as JPG or TIFF ormats,

with an accompanying caption and photo credit. High resolution images may be requested ater acceptance o the

photograph. Final fles should have a minimum resolution o 1200 px or >250 dpi.

This issue was produced with support from:

Cover photograph: Nests in a sea turtle hatchery

Photo Courtesy: B. C. Choudhury

IOTN is available online at www.iotn.org


3/39

J a n u a r y 2 0 1 3

1

ION Issue 17 (January 2013) includes reports on sea

turtle biology and conservation rom all reaches o the

Indian Ocean, with a breadth o topics that include

community initiatives and conservation programmes, sea

turtle interactions with sheries, strandings, hatcheries,

nesting reports, project proles, and photographic

identication o individual turtles. Te ION ResearchSummaries return in 2013, as Je Semino updates us

on new technology, including solar tags and miniature

satellite transmitters, stable isotope tracking and skeleto-

chronology, used to determine turtle movement at sea.

Our opening report examines the activities o sea turtle

hatcheries in Sri Lanka, and their potential contribution

to sea turtle conservation. In situ incubation o sea

turtle nests is the most desirable scenario or most

nesting beaches, but eggs in the Indian Ocean and

South East Asia are oen collected or incubation in a

CALL FOR SUBMISSIONS

EDITORIAL

hatchery to reduce natural and human threats to nests,

including poaching, predation, and beach erosion. While

a number o hatcheries in the region are maintained

by governmental and non-governmental agencies

or protection and/or education and outreach, some

also provide income to local communities through

ecotourism. However, the industry is oen unregulatedand hatchery management practices (including

those by government and NGOs) ail to consider the

environmental and natural biology o hatchlings.

ION would be interested in publishing similar

studies rom other countries in this region and

recommends a wider conversation with regional

hatchery managers, NGOs and enorcement agencies

to ensure responsible collection and incubation o

eggs, immediate release o the majority o hatchlings,

and accurate record keeping and reporting.

EDITORIAL

ANDREA D. PHILLOTT1,2

1

Coeditor, Indian Ocean Turtle Newsletter2Asian University or Women, Chittagong, Bangladesh

[email protected]

I you would like to submit a guest editorial, photo, research article, project prole, or note or Issue 18 o ION, pleasesubmit material to [email protected] beore 1st May 2013. Guidelines or submission can be ound at http://www.iotn.org/submission.php.


4/39

I n d i a n Ocean Tu r t l e News l e t t e r No . 17

2

SEA TURTLE HATCHERIES IN SRI LANKA: THEIR ACTIVITIES

AND POTENTIAL CONTRIBUTION TO SEA TURTLE

CONSERVATION

RUPIKA S. RAJAKARUNA1#, E.M. LALITH EKANAYAKE2,3, THUSHAN KAPURUSINGHE2

& K.B. RANAWANA1

1Department o Zoology, University o Peradeniya, Peradeniya, Sri Lanka2Turtle Conservation Project, Madakumbura, Panadura, Sri Lanka3Postgraduate Institute o Science, University o Peradeniya, Peradeniya, Sri Lanka

#[email protected]

ARTICLES

ABSTRACT

Hatcheries can be used as an ex situ conservation tool,however their contribution to the eective managemento sea turtles is highly debated. A questionnaire surveywas used to assess the activities o the seven hatcheriescurrently in operation in Sri Lanka. All the hatcherieswere operated by private owners, and the primarymotive was prot rom ecotourism. During the 1990s,hatcheries only operated during the tourist season,but recently remained open throughout the year. Itwas a common practice to buy sea turtle eggs rom eggcollectors at a rate o about 8-15 LKR (< 0.15 USD) eachand bury them in an incubation enclosure within thehatchery. Headstarting occured at all hatcheries. Mosto the rearing tanks were regularly cleaned, but crowdedduring the turtle nesting season. Juvenile and sub-adultturtles that had been kept or display were oen releasedto the sea when eeding became costly. None o thehatcheries were involved in any collaborative researchor provided visitor education contributing to sea turtleconservation; operations were an attraction or touristsand provided nancial income or the local community.

INTRODUCTION

Sea turtle hatcheries exist as an ex situ conservation toolin many countries (Shanker, 1994; Upm & Perhilitan,1996; Chan, 2001; Shanker, 2003), including thesoutheastern coast o Sri Lanka (Hewavisenthi, 1993;isdell and Wilson, 2005a). However, doubts have beenraised about the eective contribution o hatcheriesto the conservation o sea turtles (Hewavisenthi,1993; Shanker & Pilcher, 2003). isdell and Wilson(2005a) modeled the role o tourism-based sea turtle

hatcheries by combining economical and ecologicalparameters, and demonstrated that hatcheries canmake a positive contribution to sea turtle conservation,but their eectiveness depends on their management.

O the seven sea turtles species in the world, ve (thegreen, Chelonia mydas; leatherback, Dermochelyscoriacea; loggerhead, Caretta caretta; hawksbill,Eretmochelys imbricata; and, olive ridley, Lepidochelysolivacea) nest in Sri Lanka (Deraniyagala, 1953).Nesting occurs throughout the year, but March toMay is considered as the nesting season with a peakin April (Ekanayake et al., 2002; 2010). Te south andsoutheast coastlines, encompassing suitable beachesand vast areas o seagrass beds and coral rees, provideimportant nesting and oraging grounds (Deraniyagala,1939; Amarasooriya, 2000). Tis area has a high humanpopulation and tourism is also largely concentratedalong these coasts. A study conducted in 2007 indicatedthat many villagers rom the nesting areas had eatenturtle eggs, but most o the consumption occurredduring the 1990s or earlier (Rajakaruna et al., 2009).

Te rst Sri Lankan sea turtle hatchery was establishedin 1956 at Yala National Park by the Wildlie and Nature

Protection Society o Sri Lanka, a non-governmentalorganization or nature conservation. A second hatcherywas established at Palatupana in 1969. Both hatcherieswere opened with conservation, restoration andmanagement o the sea turtles and their habitats in SriLanka as the main objectives. Te number o hatcheriesincreased rapidly in the 1970s, with as many as 23additional hatcheries opening (Fernando, 1977). Tenumber o hatcheries has since varied: 16 hatcheries wererecorded in 1994 (Richardson, 1995) and 25 hatcheries


5/39

J a n u a r y 2 0 1 3

3

were listed in the proposed action plan or conservationrestoration and management o turtles and their habitatsin Sri Lanka in 1996 (de Silva, 1996). However, a surveyconducted in 1996 recorded only seven hatcheries(Amarasooriya & Dayaratne, 1997). Wickremasinghe(1982) estimated that during 1981 and 1982 three

hatcheries used 48,934 turtle eggs; IUCN (2005) estimatedthat nine hatcheries used ~300,000 turtle eggs in 2000.

During the 1990s, only two hatcheries in operationdened conservation as their main objective, and theremainder operated primarily or commercial gain(IUCN, 2005). Te long-term success o these programscannot be evaluated, as hatcheries rarely kept recordso hatching success or tracked hatchlings once theyle the beach (Hewavisenthi, 1993; Hewavisenthi &Kotagama, 1990). While the contribution o turtlehatcheries to the conservation o sea turtles was highlydebated, the Department o Wildlie Conservation

(DWC) in Sri Lanka considered that managementtechniques in operation at the majority o hatcherieswere not conducive to the conservation o sea turtles(IUCN, 2005). We conducted a survey to assess theactivities o current hatcheries in Sri Lanka, and thepotential contribution to sea turtle conservation.

METHODS

All existing sea turtle hatcheries were included in thisstudy. Hatcheries were visited once during the nestingo-season (02 October 2010) and again during thenesting season (28 March 2011). We interviewed the

owner, or the hatchery keeper present, at the time oour visit. Verbal consent was rst sought rom theinterviewee, aer explaining the objectives o thestudy and presenting a permission letter issued by theDWC, Sri Lanka. Each interview lasted between 3040mins, and collected inormation about the hatcheryand hatchery keeper/owner, hatchery managementpractices, compliance with the Fauna and FloraProtection Ordinance (FFPO, 1938 amended in 1972),and potential contribution to conservation o sea turtles.

Hatchery profle

Te name, district, location, age, distance rom thesea, reasons or site selection, number o current

employees, number o volunteers (i any), numbero incubation enclosures, number o tanks and

their capacity were recorded. Inormation aboutthe efect o the tsunami in December 2004 and theextent o damage to the hatchery was also collected.

Hatchery keeper/owner profle

Eight questions were asked to gather personal

inormation about the hatchery keeper/owner to gatherinormation about their experience as a hatchery keeper/

owner and ormal training in hatchery management.

Management practices o the hatchery

wenty-seven questions were asked to assess the

management practices o the hatchery: egg collectionmethods, number o suppliers (i relevant), site/s oegg collection, requency o egg collection, number o

eggs collected (during peak season and of-season),proportion o eggs originating rom suppliers, method

o transport o eggs to the hatchery, price o an egg,how the eggs are buried, number o eggs in onearticial nest, distance between nests, hatch success,

turtle species currently in the hatchery (includingadults and hatchlings), percentage o hatchlings that

are kept in the hatchery, method o releasing thehatchlings, diet o hatchlings and adults, duration o

hatchling holding time in tanks, method o hatchling

release, and requency o cleaning the tanks. Furtherquestions were asked about visitor entry (and the entry

price i applicable), souvenir sales, number o visitors

Figure 1. Hatcheries along the southwestern coast in the Galle district

o Sri Lanka


6/39


7/39

J a n u a r y 2 0 1 3

5

visitor contributions towards sea turtle conservation.Souvenirs, clothes and other items were sold to createadditional income. None o the hatcheries had volunteers,local or oreign, working during our visits, althoughsome owners said that there had been many in the past.

Hatchery keeper/owner profleTe hatchery owner, or a amily member (wie/son), whowas present at the time o visit was interviewed at all theoperations except one (Wunder Bar in Bentota), where anemployee (hatchery keeper) participated in the interview.Six o the interviewees were males and one was emale; allwere between 23 to 50 years o age. Most had completededucation at least up to junior secondary level (until ~16years o age). A hatchery owner with only primary schooleducation had 33 years o experience and had undergoneormal training in hatchery management rom theprogrammes conducted by K.D. Amarasooriya o theNational Aquatic Resources Research and Development

Agency (NARA), Sri Lanka, and Pro. S. Kottama,University o Colombo, in the 1990s. Tree hatcheryowners claimed that they had participated in trainingprograms on hatchery maintenance while others did not

have any ormal training but claimed that they learnedeither rom the employer or rom his/her ather (able 2).

Hatchery management practicesAll hatcheries purchased eggs that were collected at night,rom nearby nesting beaches, by shermen or villagers;

there were between our and 50 designated egg suppliersin some areas. Hatcheries paid 8 to 15 LKR (0.07 0.12USD) or an egg, depending on the nesting season andarea (able 3). With the exception o one hatchery (Seaurtle Conservation Research Project in Bentota), allclaimed that they purchased all the eggs brought by asupplier, even during the tourist o-season. Sea urtleConservation Research Project reported they did notpurchase all olive ridley turtle eggs as the hatch successwas lower than other species. It was unknown whetherthe suppliers brought the eggs to hatcheries due todemand, or would stop doing so i there was no market,but isdell and Wilson (2005a) reported that purchasing

eggs rom suppliers established a market value. Onehatchery owner reported that police had donated eggsconscated rom poachers in the area. Some hatcherymanagers themselves collected eggs rom the beach.

Table 2. Profle o interviewees rom sea turtle hatcheries in Sri Lanka.

Hatchery Name Status Age

(Yrs)

Sex Education Hatchery

Experience

(Yrs)

Formal Training

in Hatchery

Management

Wunder Bar Keeper 23 Male O Levels 3 No

Sea Turtle Conservation Project Owner 50 Male A Levels 30 Yes

Turtle Conservation Research Centre Owner 49 Male Secondary 33 Yes

Sea Turtle Hatchery Owners Son 32 Male O Levels 20 No

Kosgoda Sea Turtle Conservation Project Owner 40 Female A Levels 11 No

Sea Turtle Farm and Hatchery Owner 35 Male A Levels 5 No

Habaraduwa Turtle Hatchery Owner 36 Male A Levels 15 Yes

Hatchery Name

Egg

Price

(USD)

#

Egg

Suppliers

Status o

Incubating

Enclosures*

%

Hatchlings

Released

Hatchling

Holding

Period

Rearing

Conditions

or Adults*

Water

Quality*

Overall

Hatchery

Standard*

Wunder Bar 0.10-0.15 9 3 99 1 day 2 3 3

Sea Turtle Conservation Project 0.10 5 4 95 1-3 days 2 2 2

Turtle Conservation Research Centre 0.10-0.12 50 3 80 1-3 days 2 2 2

Sea Turtle Hatchery 0.10-0.20 30 5 75 >2 weeks 5 5 5

Kosgoda Sea Turtle Conservation

Project

0.10 4 3 95 1 day 2 2 2

Sea Turtle Farm and Hatchery 0.10 4 3 95 1 week 3 4 4

Habaraduwa Turtle Hatchery 0.08-0.09 25 2 80 1-7 days 4 2 3

Table 3. Management practices o the seven turtle hatcheries in southwestern Sri Lanka.


8/39


6

Despite the collection o turtle eggs rom the wild beingillegal, beaches were not declared as protected areas orreserves and were, thereore, open access resources.isdell and Wilson (2005a) argued that once eggs werecollected and sold to hatcheries, they became privateproperty and could be protected by the hatchery owners.

Supporting this argument, some suggested that privateownership o wildlie might be an eective means orconservation (Swanson, 1994; Skonho, 1999) and thisconcept could also be applied to sea turtles i there wasspecic ownership and clear legal responsibilities (Eckert,1991; Crowder, 2000; Witherington & Frazer, 2003).

Suppliers transported turtle eggs in plastic bags orcardboard boxes. Hatchery practice guidelines (IUCN,2005) recommend a special container, such as a bucketor a box, be placed inside a larger polystyrene box duringtransport and there be minimum rotation o the eggs. Eggsuppliers in Sri Lanka were not educated on how to collect,

transport or handle eggs, and most o the hatchery keeperswere unaware o the location o egg collection, when theeggs had been laid and when they were collected. Purchaseo eggs transported in plastic bags, and rom ar locations,should be discouraged; eggs should be collected withinthree hours o oviposition and re-buried beore whitespots appear on the surace o the eggshell (IUCN, 2005).

Egg incubation enclosuresEggs were buried in hand-dug nest chambers insideincubation enclosures (Figures 2A & 2B). Te enclosureswere well protected rom predators (Figure 2C) andlocated several meters above the highest water mark

o the diurnal tide. All hatcheries possessed two eggincubation enclosures, except Habaraduwa urtleHatchery which had only one (able 1). IUCN (2005)hatchery guidelines recommended at least two enclosureswithin a hatchery, used alternately every six months. Inorder to prevent inection by ungi and bacteria, the same

Figure 2A. Structure and location o nests in hatchery

Photo credit: Lalith Ekanayake

incubation site should not be used over two consecutivenesting seasons (IUCN, 2005). Interviewees claimed thatthe eggshell and unhatched egg debris were removed byhand, and the sand in the pen was changed completelyor washed beore re-use in a subsequent season.

Most hatcheries marked nest locations with a agpole(Figures 2B & 2C), a label on which showed the speciesand the date the clutch was buried. Piling sand on top othe nest was a common practice at all hatcheries (Figure2B) except Habaraduwa urtle Hatchery. Te sand pilewas created when the egg chamber was not deep enough toaccommodate the entire clutch. Te average natural nestdepth or each turtle species is: leatherback 90cm, green

turtle 70cm, loggerhead 65cm, hawksbill 55-65cm, and

olive ridley 31-45cm (IUCN, 2005); the average depth othe nests in the hatcheries was not determined. Hatcherynest depth inuences nest temperature (Van De Merwe etal. 2006) and piling sand on the nest may also have an eecton nest temperature and subsequent hatchling sex ratios.

Figure 2B. Mounds o sand on hatchery nests


Figure 2C. Egg incubation enclosures



9/39

J a n u a r y 2 0 1 3

7

the nest to the sea ollowing emergence (usually at night)and immediately enter a swimming renzy that may lastup to 24 hrs, during which they distance themselves romshore and shore-based predators (Wyneken & Salmon,1992; Wyneken & Salmon, 1994). None o the hatcheryenclosures allowed ree migration o the hatchlings to

the sea aer emergence rom the nest; hatchlings weretrapped within the enclosures overnight. Sta recoveredhatchlings the ollowing morning and placed them intanks. A varying proportion (75%-95%, dependingon the hatchery) were released to the sea the ollowingnight, and the remainder were kept in tanks or display(able 3). Tis practice does not ollow hatcheryguidelines (IUCN, 2005) which speciy that only 5%o the total clutch o hawksbill turtles, and less than10% o other species, should be retained in hatcheries.

All the hatcheries held their hatchlings in tanks or24hrs or more (Figure 3B & 3C). One owner kept all

hatchlings or many days, until the yolk sac was ullyabsorbed, as he believed the hatchlings were easy preyi they entered the sea with the yolk sac in its naturalstate at emergence. During this time, hatchlings swamcontinuously and missed valuable hours o darknessduring which they would normally distance themselvesrom shore (Pilcher & Enderby, 2001). Te disturbanceto normal post-emergence behavior likely aectedtheir chances o survival, by depleting limited energysupplies and altering their programmed swimmingbehavior and timing. Although newly emerged turtlesdisplayed vigorous swimming behaviour, those heldor more than 24 hrs appeared less active (personal

observations). Pilcher et al. (2000) ound that up to 50%o hatchlings rom hatcheries may be lost in the rst hourat sea in Sabah, Malaysia. Hatchlings demonstrated a12% decrease in swimming speed aer just six hours oretention in a hatchery. Swimming style is also knownto vary with prolonged retention; hatchlings requentlyused a dog-paddle swimming style with alternateipper movements rather than the more efcientpower stroke with simultaneous ipper movementsaer several hours o retention (Pilcher et al., 2000).Tis deviation rom usual swimming style, combinedwith decreased swimming speed, likely hinderedhatchling oshore migration and reduces survival rates.

urtles show a high degree o nest site delity, althoughthe level o site delity varied between species (Miller,1997). Nesting emale turtles usually return to their natalarea to nest. Tis indicates that some orm o magneticimprinting may occur (Pritchard, 1980) which couldbe impeded i hatchlings were held in tanks (Pilcher etal., 2000; isdel & Wilson, 2002). Tereore, the reemigration o hatchlings rom the nest to the sea soon aer

Te Sea urtle Conservation Research Project inBentota did not purchase all available olive ridley eggsas the hatch success was lower than or other species.Te egg incubation enclosures in this hatchery werelocated in an area surrounded by tall beach vegetationand received less sunlight than the other hatcheries.

Olive ridley turtle nests are much shallower (31-45cm)than nests dug by other species, and are usually laidon open beaches (IUCN, 2005). A possible reasonor lower hatching success in olive ridley nests inSea urtle Conservation Research Project in Bentotamay be the eect o burying these eggs in deeper andshaded nests, creating nest temperatures below thelower threshold o tolerance or developing embryos.Te proximity o vegetation and degree o shadingin egg incubation enclosures should be an importantconsideration when choosing a hatchery location.

Variability in the thermal environment o nests can

result in hatchling sex ratios dierent to those innatural nests (Standora & Spotila, 1985; Spotila et al.,1987). Research should be conducted to determinethe pivotal temperature at Sri Lankan nesting beaches,rom which eggs were collected, then sufcientshade and light exposure provided at the hatcheryto match this temperature as closely as possible.

At one hatchery, nests were located less than one oot apart(Figure 2B). Te recommended distance between two nestsis at least 2, to minimize their impact upon one anotherand to allow room or hatchery workers to move (IUCN,2005). However, overcrowding o small enclosures with

a large number o nests during the nesting season wascommon in most hatcheries. In one hatchery (Sea urtleHatchery in Kosgoda) some viable eggs were incubatedor display in partially buried, open buckets (Figure 4A).

Hatchling emergence and migrationTe emergence o hatchlings rom the nests occurredunaided but headstarting (the captive rearing oturtles through an early part o their liecycle) waspracticed at all hatcheries. Aer a certain time (usuallyone day to two weeks depending on the hatchery andseason) or size (once the yolk sac was ully absorbed),headstarted neonates were released into the sea wherethey were assumed to have improved survivorship(Heppell & Crowder, 1996; Pilcher & Enderby, 2001).Some hatchery owners believed headstarting raiseshatchlings through their most vulnerable period, whenthey may be subject to intense predation. Headstarting oKemps ridley turtles in Galveston, exas, has yielded noconclusive evidence o long-term success (Byles 1993).

Under natural conditions, hatchlings crawl rapidly rom


10/39


8

emergence is important. According to the best practiceguidelines (IUCN, 2005), at least 90% o hatchlingsrom each nest should be allowed to immediately crawl

to the sea, to promote natural imprinting. Moreover,hatchlings should not be held in tanks prior to release,and should be released within 24hrs o emerging between7pm to 5am. Holding hatchlings or more than 24hrsshould be avoided or any reason during the peak-nestingseason. However, they may be kept or a maximum oseven days during the o-season (IUCN, 2005). Noneo the existing hatcheries ollowed these best practices.

Rearing o hatchlingsHatchling should be provided with a minimum area oone square oot surace area, with a maximum stockingdensity o 50 hatchlings per tank; the maximum number

o hatchling tanks recommended or a hatchery is ve(IUCN, 2005). Most o the rearing tanks observed duringour study were clean and the tank size was sufcientor the hatchlings (able 3). However, crowdedhatchling tanks were common during the nesting season(Figure 3B). Hatchlings were transerred to a separate

tank or eeding (Figure 3C) at all the hatcheries.Green, loggerhead, hawksbill and olive ridley hatchlingswere held in tanks, but not leatherback turtle hatchlings.

Te DWC does not permit rearing o leatherback turtlesin a hatchery, as the species eeds on jellysh, whichare not easily accessible (DWC pers.comm.). Althoughthe hatcheries displayed sign boards that prohibitiedtouching and eeding, eggs, hatchlings, juveniles andsub-adults were touched and photographed by visitorsto most hatcheries. None o the hatcheries allowed

visitors to eed the hatchlings, but some hatcheriesallowed visitors into the incubation enclosures.

Stocking and rearing o juveniles and sub-adultsAlthough it is recommended that only one adult turtlebe held in a single tank (IUCN, 2005), two or more

juveniles or sub-adults were requently housed in onetank at all the hatcheries surveyed (Figures 4B). Sinceeeding bigger individuals was costly, some hatcheriesreleased turtles at about 3-4 years old (about a ootlong). Tese turtles probably lacked the behaviouraladaptations to avoid predators and the oraging abilities

Figure 3A. Hatchling rearing tanks


Figure 3B. Crowding in hatchling rearing tanks


Figure 3C. Feeding tank


Figure 3D. Hatchery educational material



11/39

J a n u a r y 2 0 1 3

9

which would allow them to survive in the wild (Pilcher& Enderby, 2001). Sea turtles can return to their wildaer long periods o captivity, and many long-termcaptive animals have successully re-entered theirnatural habitat, chosen traditional migration routes, andsurvived (Bell et al., 2005). Satellite telemetry suggests

that rehabilitated turtles were able to adapt quicklyand returned to normal oraging areas and behaviorollowing extended periods in captivity. However,there was signicant intererence in the lie cycle o theturtles born and raised in hatcheries and their survivalin the wild is highly unlikely (Pilcher & Enderby, 2001).

At all the Sri Lankan hatcheries, turtles were ed witheasily available sh, including the herbivorous, adultgreen turtles. Some hatchery owners claimed theyprovided a mixed diet o sea grass and sh to greenturtles and keep sea grass in tanks to eed the turtles.

Compliance with ordinance and contribution toconservationDuring the 1990s, some hatcheries operated onlyduring the tourist season, indicating the prime motiveo the hatcheries was prot rather than conservation(Hewavisenthi, 1993). Current hatcheries operatedyear-round, although the number o visitors was lessduring the tourist o-season. Some hatcheries recentlychanged their name rom turtle hatchery to turtleconservation and research project, suggesting theprimary goal o the name change was or commercialgain but with an understanding about the need orhatcheries to contribute to sea turtle conservation. Some

displayed educational material or visitors (Figure 3D).

All Sri Lankan hatcheries should be licensed annually,based on the recommendations o a National SteeringCommittee on Marine urtle Conservation (IUCN,2005). During the current study, all hatcheries agreedto obtain a license, i required. Records o species, dateand number o eggs buried, the date hatched and the datereleased to sea were previously kept by some hatcheries.However, this practice was not continued aer the tsunamiin December 2004 when all records were lost. Intervieweesacknowledged that the lack o monitoring o hatcherypractices did not motivate them to keep the records.

All interviewees were aware that possessing sea turtlesor turtle products was illegal, but they were unawarethat hatcheries were illegal to operate without a permit.Te DWC can authorize establishment o hatcheriesunder section 55 o the FFPO, with special emphasison conservation and scientic studies. A nationalsteering committee on marine turtle conservation,with members rom DWC, NARA, and CCD, should

Figure 4C. Removing hatchlings rom nest


Figure 4A. Eggs on display


Figure 4B. Crowded juvenile turtles



12/39


10

be ormed to evaluate and approve the hatcheryperormance and give permission to issue/renew alicense. However, the practices o existing hatcheriesmight not qualiy to grant permission to operate.Te primary aim in maintaining a sea turtle hatchery inSri Lanka was as a prot oriented venture, and may not

provide positive conservation benets. Poor practiceswere employed at most hatcheries. However, hatcheryowners and/or managers were aware o the need or seaturtle conservation. Hatcheries were oen expensiveto establish and maintain, and were usually locatedin or adjacent to villages with low socio-economicstanding. Tey provided nancial income or thecommunity involved. Closure o existing hatcherieswould be impractical, but hatchery operations shouldbe conducted by well trained personnel under constantguidance by conservation biologists and closelymonitoring by DWC. Hatchery practices should ollowthose o the IUCN (2005). Permission to start new

hatcheries should not be granted by the DWC under anycircumstances. Although establishment and operationo hatcheries was prohibited under section 30 o theFFPO, the Director o the DWC can, under section 55 othe Ordinance, authorize such activities or the purposeo protection, preservation and or scientic studiesand investigations. However, sea turtle hatcherieswere recommended as a last resort where in situconservation is not possible or impractical (IUCN, 2005).

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

We would like to express our appreciation to the

hatchery owners and employees who agreed toparticipate in the survey. Assistance rom Anura deSilva and Saman Rathnakumara at CP is acknowledged.We thank DWC, Sri Lanka or providing permissionto carry out this survey. Tis survey received nancialsupport rom the International Foundation orScience (IFS) Sweden (Grant number A/3863-1).

Literature cited

Amarasooriya, K.D. 2000. Classication o sea turtlenesting beaches o southern Sri Lanka. In: Sea urtleso the Indo-Pacic: Research, Management andConservation. Edited by Pilcher, N. & G. Ismail. Pp. 228-237. London: ASEAN Academic Press.

Amarasooriya, K.D. & P. Dayaratne. 1997. A Surveyon the Existing urtle Hatcheries and Mapping o theExisting Beaches o urtles along the Northeast, West,Southwest, South and Southeastern coasts o Sri Lanka.Report to the National Science Foundation o Sri Lanka,

Colombo, Sri Lanka. Pp. 27-48.

Bell, C.D.L., J. Parsons, .J. Austin, A.C. Broderick, G.Ebanks-Petrie & B.J. Godley. 2005. Some o them camehome: the Cayman urtle Farm headstarting project orthe green turtle Chelonia mydas. Oryx39: 137-148.

Byles, R. 1993. Head-start experiment no longer rearingKemps ridleys.Marine Turtle Newsletter63: 1-3.

Chan, E.H. 2001. Status o marine turtle conservationand research in southeast Asia. Proceedings o VietNamsFirst National Workshop on Marine urtle Conservation.Edited by Schauble, C.& B... Hion. IUCN-Te WorldConservation, Vietnam Ofce and Te Ministry oFisheries. Pp. 149-154.

Crowder, L. 2000. Leatherback survival will depend oninternational eort. Nature 408: 881.

de Silva, A. 1996. Proposed Action Plan: Conservation,Restoration and Management o the estudines andtheir Habitats in Sri Lanka. Department o WildlieConservation and Global Environmental FacilityProgramme. Pp. 28

Deraniyagala, P.E.P. 1939. Te etrapod Reptiles oCeylon. Vol. 1 estudinates and Crocodilians. London:Colombo Museum. Pp. 412.

Deraniyagala, P.E.P. 1953. A Coloured Atlas o SomeVertebrates rom Ceylon. Vol.2 etrapod Reptiles

Colombo: Colombo Museum. Pp. 101.

Eckert, K.L. 1991. Leatherback sea turtles: A decliningspecies o the global commons. In: Ocean Yearbook, 9.(eds. Borgese, E.M., N. Ginsburg & J.R. Morgan). Pp. 73-90. Chicago: University o Chicago Press.

Ekanayake, E.M.L., K.B. Ranawana, . Kapurusinghe,M.G.C. Premakumara & M.M. Saman. 2002. Marineturtle conservation in Rekawa urtle Rookery in southernSri Lanka. Ceylon Journal o Science (Biological Science)30: 79-88.

Ekanayake E.M.L. R.S. Rajakaruna, . Kapurusinghe,M.M. Saman, P. Samaraweera & K.B. Ranawana. 2010.Nesting behaviour o the green turtle at Kosgoda rookery,Sri Lanka. Ceylon Journal o Science. 39: 109-120.

Fernando, R. 1977. urtle hatcheries in Sri Lanka.MarineTurtle Newsletter3: 8.

Frazer, N. B. 1992. Sea turtle conservation and halway


13/39

J a n u a r y 2 0 1 3

11

technology. Conservation Biology6: 179-184.

Heppell, S.S. & L.B. Crowder. 1996. Models to evaluateheadstarting as a management tool or long-lived turtles.Ecological Application 6: 556-565.

Hewavisenthi, S. 1993. urtle hatcheries in Sri Lanka:Boon or bane?Marine Turtle Newsletter60: 19-22.

Hewavisenthi, S. & S.W. Kotagama 1990. Te eect oretaining turtle hatchlings in tanks beore their release.Proceedings o the Sri Lanka Association or theAdvancement o Science. 46: 92.

IUCN. 2005. Marine urtle Conservation Strategy andAction Plan or Sri Lanka. Colombo: Department oWildlie Conservation. Pp. 79

Miller, J.D. 1997. Reproduction in marine turtles. In: Te

Biology o Marine urtles. (eds. Lutz, P.L. & J.A. Musick).Pp.51-81. Washington DC: CRC Press.

Pilcher, N.J., S. Enderby, . Stringell & L. Bateman. 2000.Nearshore turtle hatchling distribution and predation. In:Sea urtles o the Indo-Pacic: Research, Managementand Conservation. Edited by Pilcher, N. & G. Ismail. Pp.151-166. London: ASEAN Academic Press.

Pilcher, N.J. & J.S. Enderby. 2001. Eects o prolongedretention in hatcheries on Green urtle (Cheloniamydas) hatchling swimming speed and survival. Journalo Herpetology35: 633-638.

Pritchard, P.C.H. 1980. Te conservation o sea turtles:Practices and problems.American Zoologist20: 609-617.

Rajakaruna, R.S., D.M.N.J. Dissanayake, E.M.L.Ekanayake & K.B. Ranawana. 2009. Sea turtleconservation in Sri Lanka: assessment o knowledge,attitude and prevalence o consumptive use o turtleproducts among coastal communities. Indian OceanTurtle Newsletter10: 1-13.

Richardson, P. 1995. Te status o marine turtles andtheir conservation in Sri Lanka. Lyriocephalus. 2: 81.

Salmon, M. & J. Wyneken 1994. Orientation by seaturtles: Implications and speculations. HerpetologicalNatural History2: 13-26.

Shanker, K. 1994. Conservation o sea turtles on theMadras coast.Marine Turtle Newsletter64: 3-6.

Shanker, K. 2003. Tirty years o sea turtle conservation

on the Madras coast: A review. Kachhapa 8: 16-19.

Shanker, K. & N. Pilcher. 2003. Marine turtle conservationin south and southeast Asia: Hopeless cause or cause orhope?Marine Turtle Newsletter100: 43-51.

Skonho, A. 1999. On the optimal exploitation oterrestrial animal species. Environmental and ResourceEconomics 13: 45-77.

Spotila, J.R., E.A. Standora, S.J. Morreale & G.J. RuIz.1987. emperature dependent sex determination in thegreen turtle (Chelonia mydas): Eects on the sex ratio ona natural nesting beach. Herpetologica 43: 74-81.

Standora, E.A. & J.R. Spotila. 1985. emperaturedependent sex determination in sea turtles. Copeia 1985:711-722.

Swanson, .M. 1994. Te economics o extinctionrevisited and revised: a generalised ramework or theanalysis o the problems o endangered species andbiodiversity losses. Oxord Economic Papers 46: 800-821.

isdell, C.A. & C. Wilson. 2002. Open-Cycle Hatcheries,ourism and Conservation o Sea urtles: Economicand Ecological Analysis. Economics, Ecology and theEnvironment, Working Paper No. 78. Pp. 28. Brisbane:Te University o Queensland.

isdell, C.A. & C. Wilson. 2005a. Do open-cycle hatcheriesrelying on tourism conserve sea turtles? Sri Lankan

developments and economic-ecological considerations.Environmental Management35: 441-452.

isdell, C. & C. Wilson. 2005b. Does ourism Contributeo Sea urtle Conservation? Is the Flagship Status ourtles Advantageous? Economic and Ecological Analysis.Economics, Ecology and the Environment, Working PaperNo. 90. Pp. 37. Brisbane: Te University o Queensland.

iwol, C.W. & A.S. Cabanban. 2000. All emale hatchlingsrom the open-beach hatchery at Gulisaan Island, urtleIslands Park, Sabah. In: Sea urtles o the Indo-Pacic:Research, Management and Conservation. Edited byPilcher, N. & G. Ismail. Pp. 218-227. London: ASEANAcademic Press.

Upm, U. M. S. & J. Perhilitan. 1996. Development andmanagement plan: urtle Islands Park. Sabah Parks,Sabah, Malaysia.

Van De Merwe, J. K. Ibrahim & J. Whittier 2006.Eects o nest depth, shading and metabolic heating on


14/39


12

GREEN TURTLE NESTING ACTIVITY AT JUANI ISLAND,

TANZANIA, DURING THE 2012 PEAK NESTING SEASON

LINDSEY WEST, BONIVENTURE MCHOMVU, OMARI ABDULLAH

& SALUM MAPOY

Sea Sense, Dar es Salaam, Tanzania

[email protected]

INTRODUCTION

Juani Island (Figure 1) is a small island (9km longand 3.5km wide) located in the south eastern cornero Maa Island Marine Park (MIMP) o the coast oanzania. Gazetted in 1995, MIMP covers 822km2 andmore than 75% o the park is below the high water mark.Te marine park supports a diverse range o tropicalhabitats including coral rees, seagrass beds, mangroves,intertidal ats and a strip o lowland coastal orest. Te

area is recognised internationally as a critical site orbiodiversity (MIMP General Management Plan, 2000).Tere are eight turtle nesting beaches on the easternside o Juani Island that support the largest green turtle(Chelonia mydas) rookery in anzania (Sea Sense,unpublished data). More than hal (60%) o all green turtlenests in MIMP are laid on Juani Island (West, 2010a) withan average o 124 45 nests per year. Te beaches rangerom 109m to 330m in length. Tere are also a numbero small sandy inlets, but most are submerged at hightide. Nesting activity is concentrated on our beaches(West, 2011) and occurs year round with a noticeablepeak in April and May (Muir, 2005). Hawksbill turtles

(Eretmochelys imbricata) also nest in small numberson the southern tip o the island (L. West, pers.obs).

METHODS

In 2001, a community based nest monitoring programmewas established at Juani Island. Te eight nesting beachesare monitored by a Community Conservation Ofcer, whoreceived training in sea turtle biology and conservation

rom Sea Sense, a anzanian registered NGO. Earlymorning oot patrols are conducted on a daily basisthroughout the year, and the number and species o nestingturt les are recorded based on track counts (West, 2010b).

Opportunistic ipper tagging has occurred since 2004,most oen when a nesting turtle was encountered duringearly morning patrols. In 2012, the rst saturationipper tagging programme was undertaken during thepeak nesting months o April and May. Four teams

o two surveyors conducted night time oot patrolsbetween 19:00 and 06:00 hours every night, rom 3rdApril to 3rd June 2012 (62 nights), on the our beacheswhere most nesting is concentrated. Each emale turtleencountered was measured (curved carapace length andwidth) and examined or the presence o existing tags. Inot already tagged, individually numbered titanium tags(Z series) were applied between the rst and secondscale along the posterior edges o the ront ippers.ags were applied aer oviposition was complete, tominimise disturbance. Any nest under threat rompoaching, predation or tidal inundation was relocated toa saer area above the spring high water mark (Boulon,

1999). All other nests were le to incubate in situ. Allnests are monitored until hatching and then excavated todetermine clutch size and hatching success (Miller, 1999).

RESULTS

Sixty nesting attempts were recorded, 50 (83%) o whichwere successul. For the purposes o comparison, able1 shows the number o nesting events recorded through

economic aspects o sea turtle conservation. In: TeBiology o Sea urtles, Vol. II. (eds. Lutz, P., J. A. Musick& J. Wyneken). Pp. 355384. Boca Raton: CRC Press.

Wyneken, J. & M. Salmon. 1992. Frenzy and post-renzyswimming activity in loggerhead, green, and leatherback

hatchling sea turtles. Copeia 1992: 478-484.

nest temperatures in sea turtle hatcheries. ChelonianConservation and Biology. 5: 210-215.

Wickremasinghe, S. 1982. urtle Hatcheries in Sri Lanka.Marine Turtle Newsletter22: 3-4.

Witherington, B. E. & N.B. Frazer. 2003. Social and


15/39

J a n u a r y 2 0 1 3

13

Figure 1. Mafa Island Marine Park and location o Juani Island,

Tanzania.

track counts during previous years o monitoring at thesame sites, with the same level o observation eort.Eighteen individual emales nested during the survey

period. Females were encountered during 46 (92%) o thenesting events. Six emales that did not nest successullywere also encountered. CCLs ranged rom 101118cmwith a meanstandard deviation o 107.24.7cm (n=18).CCWs ranged rom 90113cm with a meanstandarddeviation o 99.74.8cm. Tree o the turtles hadbeen tagged in previous years. One was rst tagged in2006, and was observed again in 2009 then during thissurvey. Te second emale was tagged in 2006, and thethird was tagged in 2009. Hal o the nesting emalesencountered (n=9) nested at least three times during

the survey period; two emales nested at least vetimes. Inter-nesting intervals were calculated accordingto Alvarado & Murphy (1999) and ranged rom 9 to20 days (n=31) with a meanstandard deviation o13.22.3 days. Te observed clutch requency (OCF)

value (Johnson & Ehrhart, 1996) was calculated or

each turtle encountered nesting at least once within thesurvey period as a meanstandard deviation o 2.51.2.O the nine individuals nesting at least three times,ve turtles used the same beach or each clutch.Tree emales used two dierent beaches and oneindividual used three dierent beaches. Fourteennests (28%) were relocated. Te mean clutch sizewas 13414 eggs, with a hatch success o 71%.

CONCLUSION

Prior to the saturation ipper tagging programme in2012, estimates o the number o green turtles nesting

in Juani Island had been calculated using track countsrom daily patrols and breeding requencies quotedin published literature. While track counts are a veryuseul method o estimating nesting population size,detailed observation o nesting behaviour was essentialto begin to build a more accurate and nuanced picture.Te survey not only provided accurate inormation onnest numbers and the number o individual emales, butalso the rst data on clutch requencies and inter-nestingintervals or any turtle nesting population in anzania.

Due to high levels o natural interannual variability ingreen turtle nesting numbers (Broderick et al., 2001),

annual monitoring programmes are critical to detecttrends in populations. It takes many years or sea turtlesto mature and reproduce so populations are slow torecover rom population losses. Hence it is critical todetermine population trends at the earliest opportunity.

Funding or a repeat saturation tagging programme in2013 has already been secured. Eorts will be madeto secure additional unding or uture years to buildunderstanding o remigration intervals,which can provide crucial inormation on

YEAR

2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011

No. nests in peak season (Apr May) 33 34 58 29 42 41 84 76

Total no. nests per year 70 75 120 54 143 141 173 141

No. nests in peak season as % o whole year 47 45 48 54 29 29 49 54

Table 1. Chelonia mydasnesting activity at our key nesting beaches, Juani Island, 2004 to 2011.


16/39


14

urtles (eds. Eckert, K., K. Bjorndal, F. Abreu-Grobois& M. Donnelly). IUCN/SSC Marine urtle SpecialistGroup Publication No 4. Pp 169-174.

Broderick, A.C., B.J. Godley & G.C. Hays. 2001. rophicstatus drives inter-annual variability in nesting numbers

o marine turtles. Proceedings o the Royal Society LondonB 268: 14811487.

Broderick, A.C., F. Glen, B.J. Godley & G.C. Hays. 2002.Estimating the number o green and loggerhead turtlesnesting annually in the Mediterranean. Oryx36: 227-236.

Johnson, S.A. & L.M. Ehrhart. 1996. Reproductiveecology o the Florida green turtle: clutch requency.

Journal o Herpetology30: 407410.

Maa Island Marine Park (MIMP) General ManagementPlan, 2000. Te United Republic o anzania Ministry o

Natural Resources and ourism. Pp68.

Miller, J. D. 1999. Determining clutch size and hatchingsuccess. In: Research and Management echniquesor the Conservation o Sea urtles (eds. Eckert, K., K.Bjorndal, F. Abreu-Grobois & M. Donnelly). IUCN/SSCMarine urtle Specialist Group Publication No 4. Pp.124-129.

Muir, C.E. 2005. Te Status o Marine urtles in theUnited Republic o anzania, East Arica. ReportCommissioned by the National anzania urtleCommittee. Unpublished. Pp35.

West, L. 2010a. owards a sel nancing sea turtleconservation programme in Maa Island, anzania. In:Jones, .. & B.P. Wallace, compilers. 2012 Proceedingso the Tirty-rst Annual Symposium on Sea urtleBiology and Conservation. NOAA NMFS-SEFSC-631.Pp306.

West, L. 2010b. A multi-stakeholder approach to thechallenges o turtle conservation in the United Republico anzania. Indian Ocean Turtle Newsletter11: 4450.

West, L. 2011. Community-based Endangered MarineSpecies Conservation in anzania. Sea Sense AnnualReport 2011. Pp58. Accessed at www.seasense.org on23rd August 2012.

recruitment, longevity and survivorshipwithin the population (Broderick et al., 2002).

Tere remains a paucity o data on post-nestingmigratory patterns and the location o importantoraging grounds used by green turtles with natal

origins in anzania. o help acquire this inormation,satellite tags were attached to our nesting emalesat the end o the ipper tagging programme in 2012.Preliminary results indicate a marked dierencein the migratory behaviour o the our individuals.wo o the turtles undertook short distancemigrations to oraging grounds less than 120km romtheir nesting beaches. In contrast, the other twoindividuals proceeded north along the east Aricancoastline to oraging grounds in Kenya and Somalia,a distance o up to 2,000km rom the nesting beaches.Daily beach patrols, ipper tagging and satellitetelemetry studies are contributing to a greater

understanding o green turtle nesting populations inanzania. More than hal o all recorded green turtlenests in anzania are laid at Juani Island (West, 2010a)so data rom a continuous and ocused monitoringprogramme can also be used to determine populationsizes at other nesting sites in anzania where onlytrack counts are available (Alvarado & Murphy, 1999).

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

Tanks to Sea Sense Conservation Ofcers andto members o Juani village or their eorts inmonitoring the green turtle population during the

peak season. Tanks also to WWF or unding theipper tagging and satellite telemetry programme.

Literature cited

Alvarado, J., & . Murphy. 1999. Nesting periodicity andinter-nesting behaviour. In: Research and Managementechniques or the Conservation o Sea urtles (eds.Eckert, K., K. Bjorndal, F. Abreu-Grobois & M. Donnelly).IUCN/SSC Marine urtle Specialist Group PublicationNo 4. Pp 115118.

Boulon Jr, R.H. 1999. Reducing threats to eggsand hatchlings: in situ protection. In: Research andManagement echniques or the Conservation o Sea


17/39

J a n u a r y 2 0 1 3

15

Leatherback records have been ew and ar between

on the mainland coast o India. Interviews with

shermen over the years suggest that leatherbacks

do, or did, nest along much o the Indian coast, but

the numbers have not been large, at least not in the

last century (see Shanker and Choudhury, 2006). In

act, in his guide to the Marine Aquarium in Madras,

Henderson (1913) writes that the leathery turtle israre on the South Indian coast (see Frazier, 2011). He

notes that a specimen was captured on the Guntur coast

in April 2011, but was not brought to the aquarium.

However, local shermen in Kerala had inormed .H.

Cameron, an English ofcer stationed in Quilon, that a

large number o leatherbacks were caught at the turn o the

century but the numbers had already declined (Cameron,

1923). According to them, about 40 turtles were caught

annually either while coming ashore or with nets at sea.

Tey were oen seen in the vicinity o angacheri Ree.Cameron attempted to obtain a leatherback specimen

and nally located one, but it was sold while being

transported rom his ofce, probably or consumption.

Most o the shing net capture and stranding records

are rom the Gul o Mannar in amil Nadu, Kerala,

and Maharashtra. While the records may not reect

actual distribution, the higher requency o occurrence

in southern India may not be surprising given that

the nearest extant rookery is in southern Sri Lanka

(Ekanayake et al., 2002). While most records havebeen o captured or stranded turtles, Jones (1959)

recorded a nesting event at Calicut, Kerala, in July 1956.

Southern Kerala is one o the ew places in the world

where leatherback meat is consumed. As recently

as 2002, a leatherback turtle caught in a gill net at

Vizhinjam was butchered and the meat transported to a

LEATHERBACK TURTLES ON THE MAINLAND

COAST OF INDIA

KARTIK SHANKER

Centre or Ecological Sciences, Indian Institute o Science, Bangalore, India

[email protected]

nearby market or sale at Rs. 20 per kg (Krishna Pillai,

2003a, b). On another occasion, a captured leatherback

was released due to the eorts o a oreign tourist who

was present at the harbour (Krishna Pillai et al., 2003a).

Additional leatherbacks have been released through

the eorts o the community or orest ofcials (Krishna

Pillai et al., 2003b; Balachandran et al., 2009). Temost recent records o leatherback strandings are

rom the Gul o Mannar (Balachandran et al.,

2009) and Vizhinjam (Anil et al., 2009), both in

2008. In both cases, the turtles were rescued rom

shermen with the help o orest ofcials and released.

Krishna Pillai has compiled lists o leatherback records

on the Indian mainland (Krishna Pillai and Tiagarajan,

2000; Krishna Pillai et al., 2003a). able 1 contains

an updated record o all leatherback sightings and

strandings on the mainland coast over the last century.

Literature cited

Anil, M.K., H.J. Kingsly, B. Raju, K.K. Suresh &

R.M. George. 2009. A note on the leatherback turtle

Dermochelys coriacea (Vandelli 1761) rescued at

Vizhinjam, Kerala. Marine Fisheries Inormation Service,

&E Series 200: 23.

Anonymous. 1982. Leatherback turtle washed ashore onMadras coast. Hamadryad7: 3. (Credited to Ms. Reliable

Ferret).

Balachandran, S., P. Sathiyaselvam & P.

Dhakshinamoorthy. 2009. Rescue o a leatherback

turtle (Dermochelys coriacea) at Manakudi beach,

Kanniyakumari District, amil Nadu and the need


18/39


16

or an awareness campaign. Indian Ocean Turtle

Newsletter10: 19-20.

Cameron, .H. 1923. Notes on turtles. Journal o the

Bombay Natural History Society29: 299-300.

Dutt, S. 1976. he leatherback turtle. Sea Food Export

Journal8: 35-36.

Ebenezer, I.P. & J.J. Joel. 1992. On the landing o

leatherback turtle. Marine Fisheries Inormation

Service, T&E Series 118: 20.

Ekanayake, E.M.L., . Kapurusinghe, M.M. Saman

& M.G.C. Premakumara. 2002. Estimation o the

number o leatherback (Dermochelys coriacea) nesting

at the Godavaya turtle rookery in southern Sri Lankaduring the nesting season in the year 2001. Kachhapa

6: 13-14.

Frazier, J.G. 2011. Early accounts o marine turtles

rom India and neighbouring waters. Indian Ocean

Turtle Newsletter14: 1-4.

Henderson, J.R. 1913. Guide to the Marine Aquarium.

Madras: Government Press.

Jones, S. 1959. A leathery turtle Dermochelys coriacea(Linnaeus) coming shore or laying eggs during the

day.Journal o the Bombay Natural History Society56:

137 - 139.

Karbhari, J.P. 1985. Leatherback turtle caught o

Devbag. near Malvan. Marine Fisheries Inormation

Service, T&E Series 64: 23.

Karbhari, J.P., A. Prosper, C.J. Josekutty & J.R. Dias.

1986. Some observations on marine turtles landed

along the Maharashtra coast. Marine FisheriesInormation Service, T&E Series 70: 20.

Krishna Pillai, S. 2003a. Instance o meat o leatherback

turtle (Dermochelys coriacea) used as ood. Fishing

Chimes 23: 46-47.

Krishna Pillai, S. 2003b. Leatherback turtle used as ood

in south Kerala. Kachhapa 9: 23.

Krishna Pillai, S., M. Badrudeen & Bose. 1995. On

a leatherback turtle Dermochelys coriacea landed at

Rameswaram.Marine Fisheries Inormation Service, T&E

Series 140: 10-11.

Krishna Pillai, S. & C. Kasinathan. 1989. On two species

o marine turtles caught o Dhanuskodi Gul o Mannar.

Marine Fisheries Inormation Service, T&E Series 102: 17-

18.

Krishna Pillai, S., K.K. Suresh & P. Kannan. 2003a.Leatherback turtle released into the sea at Vizhinjam in

Kerala, India. Kachhapa 9: 5-6

Krishna Pillai, S. & R. Tiagarajan. 2000. An updated

report o incidental catches o leatherback turtle

(Dermochelys coriacea) in India. Abstract No.108. 4th

International & 16th National Symposium. Organised by

Dept. o Aquatic Biology, rivandrum.

Krishna Pillai, S., C. Unnikrishnan, K.K. Velayudhan &

Ajith Kumar. 2003b. Community participation in therelease o a leatherback turtle in south Kerala. Kachhapa

9: 23.

Rajagopalan, M. 1983. Leatherback turtle Dermochelys

coriacea washed ashore at Kovalam, Madras. Marine

Fisheries Inormation Service, T&E Series 50: 35-36.

Rao, P.V., A.A. Jayaprakash & M. Ramamoorthy.

1989. On a leatherback turtle caught rom Palk Bay,

Mandapam. Marine Fisheries Inormation Service, T&E

Series 95: 9.

Shanker, K. & B.C. Choudhury. 2006. Marine urtles o

the Indian Subcontinent. Hyderabad: Universities Press.


19/39

J a n u a r y 2 0 1 3

17

Table 1. Leatherback records on the mainland coast o India rom 1923 to 2012.

Carapace Plastron Flipper length

Date

&

Year

Location Length

(cm)

Width

(cm)

Length

(cm)

Width

(cm)

Fore

(cm)

Hind

(cm)

Head

length

(cm)

Sex Weight

(kg)

Stranded/

Caught

(gear)

Reerence

1923 Off Quilon - - - - - - - F - - Cameron, 1923

1959 Calicut 190.5 - 116.8 - - - - F - - Jones, 1959

1976 Visakhapatnam - - - - - - - - - - Dutt, 1976

1982 Kovalam

Madras

195 119 162 102 110 85 - F - Stranded Anonymous,1982;

Rajagopalan,1983

1985 Devbag,

Malavan

149.8 109 142.5 72.5 - - - F - Stranded Karbhari, 1985;

Karbhari et al.,

1986

1988 Mandapam 152 81 144.5 83 96 58 - M 260 Gillnet Rao et al., 1989

1989 Pamban 162 86 150 87 102 78 37 F 300 Trawl net Krishna Pillai &

Kasinathan, 1989

1991 Rameswaram 174 120 - - 180 - 34 F 350 Trawl net Krishna Pillai

et al., 1995

1991 Colachel,

Kanyakumari

173.2 132.4 154.7 86 106.7 68.8 39.1 F 250 Boat seine Ebenezer & Joel,

1992

1998 Vizhinijam 150 - 108 78 100 78 39 M 250 Gillnet Krishna Pillai &

Thiagarajan, 2000

2001 Kovalam 93 68 - - - - - M 110 Shore

seine

Krishna Pillai

et al., 2003a

2002 Vizhinjam,

Kerala

141 106 - - - - 24 F - Gillnet Krishna Pillai,

2003a

2002 Pallithura,

Kerala

- - - - - - - F - Shore

seine

Krishna Pillai,

2003b

2009 Manakudi - - - - - - - - - Tied to

pillar

Balachandran

et al., 2009

2009 Vizhinjam 170 80 - - 89 - 25 - - Gill net Anil et al., 2009


20/39


18

INTRODUCTION

In 1998, Watamu urtle Watch (WW) launcheda compensatory release programme or sea turtlesincidentally caught as by-catch by artisanalsherman, in the Watamu area. Te programme wasrst established in response to the high number osea turtles being captured and consumed by local

communities and has gone rom strength to strengthsince it began.However, compensating shers orturtle release is not without opponents withinthe turtle research and conservation community.

WWs programme does not promote the deliberatecapture or selling o sea turtles. A nominal ee (approx.$3.50 US Dollars, dependent on size) is oered in exchangeor the sae release o any sea turtle accidentally capturedby shermen. Tis amount is signicantly less than the

THE LOCAL OCEAN TRUST: WATAMU TURTLE WATCH

BY-CATCH NET RELEASE PROGRAMME

RACHAEL OMAN

Local Ocean Trust: Watamu Turtle Watch, Watamu, Kenya

[email protected]

high price turtles command on the lucrative illegalmarket or meat, oil and carapace, as there is still highlocal demand or these products some shermen continueto harvest turtles. Te By-catch Net Release Programmeoperates along 25km o coastline incorporating itacross the 11km Mida Creek with its many channels.

Mida Creek (Figure 1) is a saltwater inlet surrounded by a

mangrove orest, within the Watamu area. Te creek andassociated lagoons, where coral, sea grass and mangrovehabitats are ound, provides ideal oraging areas or

juvenile green and hawksbill sea turt les a ll year round.

Local shermen rely on the creek as their main sourceo income. With the inux o people to the coastalregions, the area is now quite heavily shed, leading tolower catch rates. Te mangroves also play an importantrole as nurseries to a number o other marine species.

Figure 1. Mida Creek oraging habitat or juvenile green and hawksbill sea turtles.

Photo credit: Rachael Oman


21/39

J a n u a r y 2 0 1 3

19

Figure 2. Fisherman assisting in weighing large green turtle


Te By-catch Release ProgrammeTere are strict protocols that must be adhered towhen dealing with sea turtles within this programme.Tis is essential to ensure our procedures arestandardized and the LO eam is able to deal with awide variety o situations as and when they may arise.

When a turtle is caught in a shing gear, the shermanextricates it, calls the by-catch hotline number and thenreturns with the turtle to his landing site. Althoughshermen were made aware o how best to minimisestress to the animal while awaiting the arrival o theWW team, sea turtles were still being ipped ontotheir backs in order to immobilize them. In response tothis, holding boxes were constructed and made availableat each o the landing sites to contain turtles awaitingrelease. A WW team member attends each release,assesses the sea turtle or any signs o injury, diseaseor parasites, collects biometric data (Figure 2) and tags

the turtle. Te sherman is then compensated or theirtime and eort with the amount being determinedby the size o turtle. Te turtle is then transportedto a sae point on the beach and released (Figure 3).I the turtle has external parasite inestation, e.g. barnaclesor leeches, they are removed in the eld i possible; i theinestation is extensive, or the turtle is sick or injured,it is brought back to LO: WWs rehabilitation centreor urther assessment by the veterinarian, who adviseson treatment and ollow up care where necessary.

Te turtles that exhibit symptoms o ill health such asdehydration, atigue, bropapillomatosis, malnutrition

or injury are admitted to the Local Ocean rustsSea urtle Rehabilitation Centre or diagnosis andtreatment, aer which they are released. o ourknowledge, the centre is the only such acility inEastern Arica and has treated over 170 turtles, out o

which more than 70% have been successully released.

Jiwe, a large male green turtle, was admitted to therehabilitation acility aer being severely injured (Figure4) by shermen who had caught him in nets at sea.he turtle was dragged on to the beach rom their boatwhere he was beaten with a rock until local residentsstepped in and brought him to the LO rehabilitationacility. Unortunately the injuries this turtle sustainedwere too severe and it died. Tis tragic outcome clearlydemonstrates the need or LO: WW and or sustainededucation and awareness within the community.

During releases it is sometimes necessary to break theshermans hooks or nets in order to release a sea turtlesaely. I this is necessary and is carried out by a membero the LO team, hooks are replaced. Te LO team alsocarries string to repair shing nets where necessary. Wedo not, however, ully compensate shers or the damagea turtle may cause to shing gears as this can vary incost.Te programme does not amend or increase thecompensation amount as this sets a precedent or peopleto demand increased compensation on a regular basis.

Figure 3. Green turtle release



22/39


20

turtles had been tagged. In the last 5 years 2006-2011), atotal o 2,602 turtles have been tagged compared to 458tagged over the rst 5 years the program ran (1998-2002).Te total amount o compensation that has gone intothe shing community between 1998 and 2011 isKES2,764,850 (approx. $33,000 USD). Te project eels the

relatively high cost o the programme does not outweighthe benets o having such an initiative in place. Inaddition to the obvious economic benets to the localcommunity, the data collected through this programmehas also enabled LO:WW to estimate populationsizes within Mida creek and recent analysis suggeststhat this population has been steadily increasing. In2006/2007 we estimated a sea turtle populationo 1,579,which rose to 3,993 by 2010/2011, perhaps suggestingthat this programme is having a positive impact onthe number o protected sea turtles in local waters.All data gathered is now efciently stored in a bespokedatabase where dates, species, tag IDs, catch sites,

shermens details, payment etc. are all recorded. Tissystem allows project sta to check tag numbers, trackcapture sites o specic turtles, identiy key oraging areaswithin Mida creek and hot spots or bropapillomatosis.

SUMMARY

Many people have asked the ollowing questions, Iyou have been conducting successul education and

LO team members have recently been given inormationby a number o shermen who have been approachedand asked or live sea turtles to be shipped to Mombasarom the Watamu area, in order to be killed in a specicway to be sold to Muslim and ar eastern markets,where the demand is high. Tere is indication that the

demand or sea turtle meat and artiacts is on the risein many cities around the world, including countries inthe Far East. As this local inormation is anecdotal, theLO team continues to explore ways to gather evidenceo emerging markets or turtle products in the area.

How Far Have We Come?Te By-catch Net Release Programme has come a longway since its inception in 1998. Emerging against abackdrop o limited unding and support, the programconducted 16 turtle releases in 1998 with participationrom 14 shermen. By 2011 the project had grownexponentially with 1,365 turtle releases conducted in

cooperation with over 300 shermen. With 1,638 turtlereleases conducted by the 31st December 2012 hasregistered the highest annual total o turtle releases todate. Since the programme began, a total o 9,015 seaturtle releases have been conducted in total (Figure 5).All healthy turtles are ipper tagged prior to release. Tisis essential as it allows the LO team to monitor individualturtles and turtle population dynamics in the Watamu area.Between 1998 and 31st December 2012, a total o 4,387

Figure 4. Jiwe, a large male green turtle admitted to the rehabilitation acility



23/39


24/39


22

Figure 7. Gona Kazungu, Uyombo fsherman involved in Watamu turtle

by-catch net release programme since 2008.


a meal or themselves and their amily or lose a daysshing or the sake o conservation. Not only that, butwith the cost o living increasing, the economic pressureon households is now more intense than it was10 yearsago. Te meat rom a single green sea turtle, measuring1 metre, can etch over 10,000 shillings (over $115 USD)

when traded illegally. A sea turtle o this size can also yieldup to 8 litres o oil, each litre being sold at 3000 shillings($35 USD). Even i a turtle is not sold, it represents a mealthat can eed a amily, in a time where over shing is seeingcatch levels all and competition between shermen high.

Despite these pressures and the potential economicbenets o trading illegally in turtle products, manylocal shing communities embrace the LO: WWconservation initiatives and the LO team believethat this is why they are seeing a steady increase inthe number o shermen joining the programme andthe number o turtles being released. Te project has

not raised the level o compensation even though theprice o turtle meat and other products continues torise. Keeping the level o compensation low avoids therisk o encouraging people to actively catch sea turtles.

However, LO: WW believes that, without anincentive, sea turtles would not be released. Ongoingeducation and awareness is vital to the success o theby-catch programme. Te project continues to workclosely with shing communities and is currentlyengaged with 26 local schools based around the shlanding sites. Te children learn about the importanceo the marine environment and seaturtle conservation.

Maintaining a good relationship with local shingcommunities is the key to success o the programme.

A quote

I have been fshing all my lie, fshing is in my blood. I

have seen with my own eyes that there are less fsh to catchand there are less turtles than when I was a boy. I survivebecause o the ocean. I joined the by-catch programme asa way o giving back to the ocean or all it has provided

or me.~ Gona Kazungu


25/39


26/39


24

Figure 1. Adult male hawksbill turtle seen at Qaru Island, Kuwait.

a) July 2009. Photo: ALan F. Rees.

b) October 2011. Photo: Mohammad Alsabah.

c) 1997. Photo: Peter L. Harrison; in Carpenter et al. (1997).

marine turtle at Qaro ree. Tis was the same photoused by Alsaar & Al-amimi (2006). Te bookspublication date o 1997 extends the males associationwith Qaru back a urther nine years with photographicrecords o him in the area totalling 14 years.

DISCUSSION

Tese results conrm the utility o photo ID techniquesor long-term sea turtle monitoring, where everyphotograph, taken or research or pleasure, cancontribute to our understanding o their movementsand residency. Further, it is poignant that only oneadult male hawksbill turtle appears to have beenphotographed around Qaru Island in over a decade,which may indicate he is the sole male contributingto the Islands small breeding population. A geneticinvestigation o nesting hawksbills and their ospring,combined with genetic characterisation o this male,

could support or reuse this hypothesis. I true, thisindividual is key to the current viability o the populationand highlights the importance o protecting the habitatin which he has been ound over the past 14 years.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

Te project was carried out under the auspices o HHSheikha Amthal Al-Sabah and the Voluntary WorkCentre o Kuwait. Te project was sponsored by otalFoundation and otal Kuwait and was carried outin collaboration with the Scientic Centre o Kuwaitand the Kuwait Coast Guard. We wish to thank

Mohammad Alsabah or his photo and the anonymousreviewer who helped improve the manuscript.

Literature cited

Alsaar, A.H. and H. Al-amimi. 2006. Conservation ocoral rees in Kuwait: Arabian Gul Marine ConservationForum, Abu Dhabi, United Arab Emirates 11-14September 2006. http://assets.panda.org/downloads/coral_rees_kuwait_adel_alsaar_and_hani_al_tamimi.ppt

Alsabah, M. 2011. http://www.ickr.com/photos/61209125@N03/6257159812/

Balazs, G.H. 1999. Factors to consider in the tagging osea turtles. In: Research and Management echniques orthe Conservation o Sea urtles (eds. Eckert, K.L., K.A.Bjorndal, F.A. Abreu-Grobois & M. Donnelly). IUCN/SSC Marine urtle Specialist Group Publication No. 4.101-109.


27/39

J a n u a r y 2 0 1 3

25

Buonantony, D. 2008. An Analysis o Utilizing theLeatherbacks Pineal Spot or Photo-identication.Masters Tesis, Duke University, USA.

Carpenter, K.E., P.L. Harrison, G. Hodgson, A.H.Alsaar & S.H Alhazeem. 1997. he Corals and

Coral Ree Fishes o Kuwait. Kuwait Institute oScientiic Research: Kuwait.

Chaloupka, M.Y. & J.A. Musick. 1997. Age, growthand population dynamics. In: Biology o Seaurtles (eds. Lutz, P.L. & J.A. Musick). Pp. 233-276. CRC Press: Boca Raton.

Godley, B.J., J.M. Blumenthal, A.C. Broderick,M.S. Coyne, M.H. Godrey, L.A. Hawkes & M.J.Witt. 2008. Satellite tracking o sea turtles: wherehave we been and where do we go next. EndangeredSpecies Research 3: 1-20.

KCP (Kuwait urtle Conservation Project).2011.Proposal or a management plan. Islands Qaru,Kubbar and Umm Al-Maradim, State o Kuwait.Unpublished Report. Pp. 75.

Lloyd, J.R., M.A. Maldonado, & R. Staord. 2012.

Methods o developing user-riendly keys toidentiy green sea turtles (Chelonia mydas L.) romphotographs. International Journal o Zoology.Vol. 2012, A rt icle ID 317568, 7.

Plotkin, P. 2003. Adult migrations and habitat use.

In: Biology o Sea urtles, Volume 2 eds. Lutz, P.L.,J.A.Musick & J.A. Wyneken). Pp. 225-241. CRCPress: Boca Raton.

Rees, A.F., A. Al Haez, J.R. Lloyd, N.Papathanasopoulou & B.J. Godley. In Press. Greenturtles, Chelonia mydas, in Kuwait: nesting andmovements. Chelonian Conservation Biology.

Reisser, J., M. Proietti, P. Kinas & I. Sazima . 2008.Photographic identiication o sea tur tles: methoddescription and validation, with an estimation otag loss. Endangered Species Research 5: 73-82.

Schoield, G., K.A. Katselidis, P. Dimopoulos &J.D. Pantis. 2008. Investigating the viability ophoto-identiication as an objective tool to studyendangered sea turtle populations. Jour na l oExperimental Marine Biology and Ecology 360:103-108.


28/39


26

INTRODUCTION

Pakistan Wetlands Programme was launched inJuly 2005, with a broader goal o conserving globallysignicant wetlands biodiversity in Pakistan. Te project

embarked upon an ambitious portolio with 10 outputsand 86 sub-outputs to achieve its two objectives o: a)Creation o an enabling environment at the nationallevel through capacity-building and training, awarenessraising, communication and environmental impactassessments; and b) Developing replicable models inthe our wetlands eco-regions o the country includingthe Makran Coastal Wetlands Complex (MCWC),Central Indus Wetlands Complex (CIWC), Salt RangeWetlands Complex (SRWC) and Northern AlpineWetlands Complex (NAWC). Te sub-set o activitiesunder the second objective included conservation omarine turtles at Dharan Beach, one o the marineturtles nesting grounds on Makran Coast in BalochistanProvince (Figure 1). Te conservation eorts on DharranBeach included patrolling the beach, sae release ohatchlings and satellite telemetry o marine turtles.

Five species o marine turtle are recorded rom thecoastal waters o Pakistan. Dominant among them is thegreen turtle (Chelonia mydas), which breeds regularly onbeaches o Sindh and Balochistan provinces. Te otherour species, including olive ridley, loggerhead, hawksbilland leatherback turtles. are rarely observed. Te WWF-Pakistans Pakistan Wetlands Program (PWP) conducted

a study o their biology to identiy threats to turtlepopulations and nesting beaches on the Makran Coastin Balochistan. Satellite telemetry was conducted byPWP to determine what threats nesting green turtles othe Makran Beach may ace elsewhere and to determinetheir migration routes and eeding grounds. Tis articledescribes the eorts o the PWPat Daran Beach toconserve the nesting population o the green turtles.

Makran Coastal Wetlands Complex (MCWC) extends

westwards along Baluchistans Makran Coast romthe Basol River to Jiwani on the border with Iran.Local communities are dependent on shing andport activities that have led to pressures on marinebiodiversity through over-harvesting and pollution.

Tis has impacted the populations o green turtles andolive ridleys nesting along that Coast. Te Programmeworked with the local community o Daran to conservethe nesting beaches o green turtles there by motivatingand raising awareness in the local community, capacitybuilding and training, and by providing incentives toenhance community development and alleviate poverty.

METHODS

o establish a conservation model, the PakistanWetlands Programme (PWP) adopted a multi-pronged approach that included conservation,research and development initiatives.

I. Conservation and research on the nesting beachTe PWP identied key nesting sites o marineturtles, among which Daran is one o the mostsignicant sites on the Makran Coast, and inearly 2007 initiated its marine turtle conservationprogram on the Makran Coast. Te PWP conductedsurveys on previously unsurveyed sections o theMakran Coast and identied six new nesting sites.

In 1999, beore the PWP, WWF Pakistan had initiated

conservation o green turtles in collaboration withthe Daran community. Most o the work was on onebeach o Daran. With inception and launching o theMakran Coastal Wetlands Complex, the PWP tookover the marine turtle conservation program romWWF Pakistan. It later extended its jurisdiction tothree beaches o Daran, which are owned by the DaranCommunity. Green turtles are commonly ound nestingon the sandy beach at the oot o the clis, about 10km south east o Jiwani. Tis area is divided into ve

PAKISTAN WETLANDS PROGRAMMES MARINE TURTLE

CONSERVATION EFFORTS ON DARAN BEACH,

JIWANI, PAKISTAN

AHMAD KHAN

Director Regional Programmes, WWF Pakistan

University o Maryland, College Park, USA

[email protected]


29/39

J a n u a r y 2 0 1 3

27

Figure 1. The Makran Coastline, Balochistan Province, o Pakistan

consecutive parts rom east to west, separated by clis:Daran aak, Shaheed aak, Jangan aak, Deedloaak and Picnic point. Each part extends or around1.5km to 2km. Te PWP conducted its conservationeorts on the beaches o Daran aak, Deedlo aak,and Picnic point. Te Daran village is situated in theeastern side o Jiwani city, which is close to the Iranian/

Pakistani border (Figure 1). It has sandy cum rockybeaches and most land cover is calcareous rocky bed.

Figure 2. Monthly nesting o green turtles on Daran Beach, Pakistan

Te livelihood o the local community is agro-pastoralin nature with shing to subsidize their livelihoods.Te local human population is not more than threehundred and all three beaches stretch on six km.

According to ndings, particularly rom 2010 and 2011,the nesting season on Makran Coast starts in July, peaksin November, and declines aer February (Figure 2). oprotect egg clutches and hatchlings rom their natural


30/39


28

predators which include sea gulls, crows, jackals, oxesand dogs, six turtle watchers were recruited rom the localcommunity. From July 2007 through 2012 the watcherspatrolled the area at night during the breeding seasonrom July until April/May. During their patrols, theturtle watchers monitored emale turtles as they emerged

rom the sea and nested on the beach. On completion onesting, the turtle watchers placed a wire-mesh enclosureon each nest, with nest being labeled with a number,date o nesting and expected hatching date. Tey alsorecorded this inormation in their register (Figure 3).

Around the expected hatching date, the turtle

Figure 3. Enclosures to protect seat urtle nests at Daran Beach, Pakistan

Photo Credits: Ahmad Khan

watchers monitor the nest in the early morning torelease any hatchlings that emerged rom the nestand accumulated in the wire-mesh enclosure. Teusual mortality rate during travel o hatchlings romnest to sea, usually 30% to 40%, was completelyeliminated by the patrolling and monitoring o nests

with subsequent sae release o hatchlings to the sea.In addition, the turtle watchers dug up the contentso the nest aer hatchling emergence and countedhow many eggs hatched successully and how manyailed. Record were maintained on numbers oegg clutches laid, number o unsuccessul nestingattempts, and rates o hatching success at nest sites.

From October 2007 through April 2011, a total o2580 nests were protected, rom which ~26,000hatchlings were saely released to the sea (Figures4 and 5). Te 3368 eggs laid in November 2008 wasthe highest number o eggs laid in a month. Te

number o nests recorded during the study periodwas dierent across the year indicating the act thatthe population o the nesting turtles was uctuating.

II. Satellite tracking o post-nesting emaleso understand the post-nesting migrations o marineturtles nesting at Daran beach, a satellite telemetry studywas conducted. A total o 15 emale green turtles weretagged with elonics A1010 transmitters during 2009-2012. Te transmitters were attached to the second andthird vertebral scutes o the carapace with 3M marine

Figure 4. Successul and unsuccessul nesting o green turtles at Daran Beach, 2007-2011


31/39

J a n u a r y 2 0 1 3

29

Figure 5. The number o hatchlings and unhatched eggs on nesting beaches o Daran Beach, 2007-2011

glue, and were strengthened by putting berglass clothon top with resin solution. Te natural movements o 12o the turtles were successully tracked, but three o theturt les appeared to have been picked by boats, since theirmovements were tracked as straight lines rom Gwadarto Gul States or a ew days. Te three transmittersignals stopped, when an eort to recover the lost/picked three transmitters was launched. Nevertheless,

tracking o 12 o the turtles indicate a successul eort.

Te results o this tracking portray daily movements omarine turtles between the Jiwani and Irani Coast. Temost visited sites were Jiwani and Bandar Abbas, withturtles remaining or about 1.5 to 2 months in theseareas. wo turtles, one tagged on Astola Island and oneat Daran, travelled as ar as UAE and appeared near Um-Alqueen (Figure 6 or the track rom Daran to UAE). Tewestward movements o the turtles were successullytracked to Iran, Iran, Qatar and UAE. No signals romtransmitters were received rom the Oman area, though.Te eastward movements o two tagged turtles

were tracked till east coast o India. Te turtlestraveled along the Makran Coast and reachedthe Sindh Coast in Karachi, rom where thesetravelled to the east coast o India (Figure 7).

III. Community development initiativesDaran is located o-road o Jiwani own andhas limited economic opportunities or the localcommunity clustered in a 20 household hamlet. o

motivate the community o Daran village and ensuretheir support

or turtles conservation on Daran

beach, a ew initiatives were launched in consultationwith them, including a community primary schoolor the children o the community, wind turbine andsolar hybrid system to provide energy or lightingin the village and replace kerosene lamps, and buildtheir skills in improved agriculture and livelihoods.

Tis worked eectively and the communityssupport was ensured or conserving turtles.

DISCUSSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS

Te Pakistan Wetlands Programme used enclosuresmade rom wire mesh, which are subject to corrosionand thus last no longer. Tis approach was adoptedor cost-eectiveness and to utilize local skills.Tere is a need to use material such as berglassthat last longer, can be re-used several times andthus might have a lesser environmental ootprint.

When the Pakistan Wetlands Programme endedin June 2012 the initiatives had to stop. Furtherunding is needed to ensure that the activitiescontinue or the signicant achievements made todate will be wasted. Although WWF Pakistan andthe Balochistan Forest and Wildlie Department aremaking eorts to continue the conservation eortsat Daran, there is a need or resource mobilizationto maintain the activities o the past ew years.

7/30/2019 A Newsletter for the Conservation and Management of Sea Turtles and Their Habitats in South Asia and the Indian Ocean-No. 1

Date post:	14-Apr-2018
Category:	Documents
Upload:	mahmoud-rayan
View:	218 times
Download:	0 times

A Newsletter for the Conservation and Management of Sea Turtles and Their Habitats in South Asia and...

Documents