Leatherback Season Report 2016 - Canadian Organization for ... ·...

COTERC Marine Turtle Monitoring & Tagging Program, Caño Palma Biological Station Leatherback Season Report 2016

1

Leatherback Season Report

July 2016

Caño Palma Biological Station Canadian Organisation for Tropical Education and Rainforest

Conservation Playa Norte, Costa Rica

Molly McCargar – [email protected] Nick Humphreys – [email protected]


2

COTERC Marine Turtle Monitoring & Tagging Program, Caño Palma Biological Station Barra del Colorado Wildlife Refuge, Costa Rica.

Leatherback (Dermochelys coriacea) 2015 Season Report.

Submitted to: MINAE: Ministerio de Ambiente y Energía (Costa Rican Ministry of Environment and Energy) COTERC: Canadian Organization for Tropical Education and Rainforest Conservation. Authors: Molly McCargar (M.A.) Nicholas Humphreys (BSc.) Contact: Estación Biológica Caño Palma, Tortuguero, Costa Rica. Tel: (+506) 2709 8052 URL: www.coterc.org COTERC P.O. Box 335, Pickering, Ontario. L1V 2R6. Canada.


3

Acknowledgements We would like to thank: COTERC board members for the support, feedback and encouragement we received throughout the season. Institutional support The Marine Turtle Monitoring & Tagging Program was conducted under a permit (RESOLUCIÓN SINAC-‐ACTO-‐D-‐RES-‐014-‐2016. EXPEDIENTE ACTO-‐PIN-‐007-‐2016) from SINAC (Sistema Nacional de Áreas de Conservacíon), ACTo (Área de Conservacíon Tortuguero) and MINAE (Ministerio de Ambiente y Energía). We are especially grateful for MINAE’s continued support. In particular we would like to thank Victor Hugo Montero, Ana María Monge and Elena Vargas from MINAE for their continued collaboration and interest in our projects. We very much appreciate the collaboration with Hotel Vista al Mar in terms of giving us access to the beach via their property. Thanks to Turtle Beach Lodge for letting our Morning and Night Patrols fill up their water bottles, and take shelter during thunderstorms. Special thanks to the night guards Moisés and Wilson for their friendly support. Thanks to the Sea Turtle Conservancy (STC) for our continued collaboration and opportunities for our volunteers and interns to network with other turtle conservationists. Personal support We would like to express our appreciation for all the help, advice, information, hospitality and friendship we received from many people living along Playa Norte. We would especially like to thank Macho Díaz, Óscar, Beto and Fran and Mariví. A colossal and heartfelt thank you to every volunteer, intern, visiting researcher and student group who have given their time, hard work and dedication to support the Marine Turtle Project this year. All photos, unless otherwise stated, in this report are courtesy of Caño Palma Biological Station staff and volunteers. Particular thanks to our Patrol Leaders: Sebastiaan Wattel, Jeroen Snijders, Robin van Iersel, and Jess Hedgpeth. In addition, we would like to acknowledge the work of turtle intern Chloe Early, who produced GIS maps for this report, as a part of her internship.


4

Contents

Acknowledgements ................................................................................................................... 3 Institutional Support .......................................................................................................................... 3

Personal Support .................................................................................................................................. 3 List of Figures .............................................................................................................................. 6

List of Tables ............................................................................................................................... 7

List of Acronyms ......................................................................................................................... 7 Summary ....................................................................................................................................... 8

Survey Effort ........................................................................................................................................... 8

Nesting Activity ...................................................................................................................................... 8 Nest Success ............................................................................................................................................. 8

Biometrics ................................................................................................................................................ 9 Non-‐Leatherback Nesting Events ................................................................................................ 9

Green ...................................................................................................................................................... 9

Hawksbill ............................................................................................................................................. 9 Introduction .............................................................................................................................. 10

Leatherback (Dermochelys coriacea) ....................................................................................... 10 Anthropogenic Threats ................................................................................................................................. 11 Current Status and Conservation Efforts .............................................................................................. 12 Methods ........................................................................................................................................ 13

Study site ................................................................................................................................. 13 Data Collection ...................................................................................................................... 15 Night Patrol Protocol ...................................................................................................................................... 15 A. Egg Counting and Nest Triangulation ................................................................................................ 17 B. Tag Information ........................................................................................................................................... 18 C. Biometric measurements .......................................................................................................................... 19 D. Body Check ...................................................................................................................................................... 20 E. After Working the Turtle .......................................................................................................................... 21

Human Impact Survey .................................................................................................................................... 21 Light Survey ........................................................................................................................................................ 21 Morning Census Protocol .............................................................................................................................. 21 Excavation Protocol ........................................................................................................................................ 23

Results .......................................................................................................................................... 27 Survey Effort .......................................................................................................................................... 27 Night Patrol ......................................................................................................................................................... 27 Morning Census ................................................................................................................................................ 28 Nesting Activity .................................................................................................................................... 29 Tagging .................................................................................................................................... 33


5

Biometrics .............................................................................................................................. 33

Body Check ............................................................................................................................. 43 Nest Success ........................................................................................................................................... 35 Nest Fate .............................................................................................................................................................. 35 Excavations ......................................................................................................................................................... 35 Nest Check ........................................................................................................................................................... 35 Human Impact ...................................................................................................................................... 36 Light Survey ........................................................................................................................................... 40 Beach Habitat Management ........................................................................................................... 40 Collaboration with MINAE, the Police and Coast Guard ................................................................... 40 Marine Debris ..................................................................................................................................................... 41 Collaboration, Outreach, and Public Education .................................................................. 41 Outreach ................................................................................................................................................................ 41

Conservation Club ............................................................................................................................................. 42

Volunteers and Interns ..................................................................................................................... 42

Discussion ................................................................................................................................... 43

Effort ........................................................................................................................................................... 43 Activity ....................................................................................................................................................... 44

Tagging/Biometrics/Body Check ............................................................................................... 44

Nest Fate/Success/Excavations/Nest Check ........................................................................ 44 Human Impact and Light Survey ................................................................................................ 45

Improvements to the program .................................................................................................... 45 Genetic sampling ................................................................................................................................................ 45

References ................................................................................................................................... 46


6

List of Figures 1. Research Transect. 2. Vertical beach zones. 3. Example of Night Patrol shifts. 4. Triangulation tapes and Nest ID. 5. Nest triangulation. 6. Leatherback tag position and Old Tag Hole (OTH), Old Tag Notch (OTN). 7. Leatherback biometrics. 8. Body Check zones. 9. Depression sticks. 10. Measurement of the egg depth. 11. Nest Contents. 12. Stages of embryo development 1-‐4. 13. Survey Effort-‐ average numbers of patrol teams 14. Survey Effort-‐ night patrol beach presence. 15. Survey Effort-‐ morning census beach presence 16. Nesting Activity-‐ Temporal distribution of nesting activity for all species. 17. Nesting Activity-‐ Temporal distribution of nesting activity for leatherbacks. 18. Nesting Activity-‐ Encounter times for all species. 19. Nesting Activity-‐ Encounter times for leatherbacks 20. Nesting Activity-‐ Spatial distribution of nesting activity for all species. 21. Nesting Activity-‐ Spatial distribution of nesting activity for leatherbacks. 22. Temporal distribution of (illegal) human activity by date. 23. Temporal distribution of (illegal) human activity by hour. 24. Spatial distribution of (illegal) human activity. 25. Light Survey


7

List of Tables 1. Species characteristics. 2. Stages of marine turtle nesting activity and corresponding actions taken by patrol teams. 3. Nest contents. 4. All nesting activity. 5. Leatherback nesting activity. 6. Tag data for leatherbacks. 7. Biometric data for leatherbacks. 8. Body Check observations for leatherbacks. 9. Changing biometric parameters of turtle 08-‐0024. 10. Nest fate of triangulated nests. 11. Contents of excavated nests-‐ yolked eggs. 12. Contents of excavated nests-‐ yolkless eggs. 13. Nest statuses recorded in each trimester of incubation-‐ excavated nests. 14. Human impact observations. 15. Marine debris items by month. 16. Volunteers and interns. 17. Trainings. List of Acronyms CCLmin: Curved Carapace Length (minimum). CCWmax: Curved Carapace Width (maximum). CP: Caño Palma. EBCP: Estacion Biologica Cano Palma Enc.: Encounter. GPS: Global Positioning System. HLF: Halfmoon (false emergence/attempt, when turtle exits the sea but does not lay eggs). NST: Nest. OTH: Old Tag Hole. OTN: Old Tag Notch. REC: New Record -‐ turtle has no previous tags. REM: Re-‐emerging -‐ turtle has previous tag(s). REN: Re-‐nesting -‐ turtle has nested at least once before on Playa Norte within the current season. TN-‐ Triangulation


8

Summary

The official dates of the Leatherback Season are 1st March – 31st May, but as nesting activity continued into June, this report will discuss the time period from March 1st until the last Leatherback activity was detected-‐ June 8th. Night patrols for all species take place from March 1st until October 31st. Morning Census continues beyond the end of Green Season, and all leatherback nests are checked until the end of their incubation period, and will continue to be excavated as necessary. Survey effort § Night Patrol began on the 7th of March and has been carried out every night since. § Total hours spent on Night Patrols: 795.06 hours (795 hours and 4 minutes), with a mean per night of 8.46 hours (8 hours and 28 minutes).

§ Morning Census was carried out daily from March 1st through June 8th. § Total hours spent on Morning Census: 151.44 hours (151 hours and 26 minutes), and the mean number of hours per morning was 1.51 hours (1 hour and 31 minutes).

Nesting activity § The first nest was laid on March 5th and recorded on morning census March 6th. The last nest was laid on June 4th.

§ A total of 15 nests were recorded between 5th March and 4th June. § A total of 27 halfmoons recorded between March 13th and June 8th. § Of the nesting leatherbacks 80% (12 out of 15) were encountered by our teams:

o 12 nests. o five RECs. o five REMs. o one REN. o one unknown.

§ Teams encountered 13 turtles during the 27 halfmoons (48.15%). § Teams encountered 3 of the 15 nests with the turtle absent (20%), and 14 of the 27 halfmoons with the turtle absent (51.85%).

§ Of the 15 nests, eight (53.55%) were triangulated. This means that we were able to triangulate two thirds of the encountered nesting turtles (n=12).

§ No adult leatherback turtles were poached, and no leatherback nests showed signs of suspected poaching.

Nest success § Mean number of yolked eggs: 68.88 ± 18.12 (Mean ± SD; Range: 39 – 85). § Mean number of yolkless eggs: 22.13 ± 12.19 (Mean ± SD; Range: 4 – 44). Of the eight triangulated nests:

o Three were recorded as wet or flooded at least once during incubation. o Four were recorded as unknown at least once during incubation. o One was lost to erosion.


9

o One was lost when all flagging tapes were removed at the same time (by unknown persons).

o Two have not yet completed incubation, but will be excavated (at the latest) by August 5th and August 18th.

Biometrics § Mean minimum Curved Carapace Length (CCLmin): 150.26 ± 8.94cm (Mean ± SD; Range: 136.8cm – 160.2cm) (n=11).

§ Mean maximum Curved Carapace Width (CCWmax): 109.29 ± 7.59cm (Mean ± SD; Range: 98.3cm – 123.2cm) (n=11).

Non-‐leatherback nesting events between March 1st and June 8th Green: § One green nest was recorded, and encountered on the way back to sea. § There were five green halfmoons. Our teams did not encounter the turtles during these events.

Hawksbill § Six hawksbills nests were recorded, and three of these were encountered by one of our teams. All three of the encountered nesting hawksbills were successfully triangulated.

§ There were nine hawksbill halfmoons recorded, just three of which were encountered by our teams.


10

Introduction This report focuses primarily on the leatherback turtle (Dermochelys coriacea),

for detailed information on the nesting activity of green, hawksbill and loggerhead turtles please refer to the Green Turtle Season Report 2016.

Caño Palma Biological Station was founded in 1991 and the Canadian

Organization for Tropical Education and Rainforest Conservation (COTERC) was established shortly afterwards as a registered non-‐profit organization in Canada. Caño Palma invites volunteers, interns and researches to study different taxonomic groups. This report focuses on the results from the 2016 Marine Turtle Monitoring & Tagging Program.

Four species of marine turtles nest on the Caribbean coast of Costa Rica: leatherback (Dermochelys coriacea), green (Chelonia mydas), hawksbill (Eretmochelys imbricata) and, in significantly lower numbers, loggerhead (Caretta caretta) (Ernst & Barbour, 1989). These species have all been documented on our study site Playa Norte.

The Marine Turtle Monitoring & Tagging Program at the Caño Palma Biological Station has been in operation since 2006. By conducting daily morning and night patrols, we aim to fulfill the following goals:

1. Conduct research and collect data on nesting sea turtles on Playa Norte. 2. Assess the health status of nesting females. 3. Educate the public (local community and tourists) about sea turtle biology

and conservation. 4. Deter poaching by maintaining a presence on the beach.

Data are collected following standardised protocols. This report provides

detailed information on the standardised methods used and the results obtained from data collection in the 2016 Leatherback nesting season. Protocols were utilised for their comparability to past year’s data and data of other projects. This enables a greater understanding though the identification of trends and places the data collected at Playa Norte in a wider context.

Leatherback (Dermochelys coriacea)

Leatherbacks are the largest extant species of marine turtle, belonging to an ancient lineage estimated to have diverged from their common ancestor with Cheloniidae between 100 and 150 million years ago (Dutton et al., 1999), and is the only remaining species belonging to the family Dermochelyidae (Spotila, 2004; Safina, 2007). Leatherbacks feed almost exclusively on jellyfish (Houghton et al., 2006) and to meet its energy requirements it migrates from tropical breeding grounds to high latitude feeding areas (Heaslip et al., 2012). Its distribution therefore spans the globe and its great size and heat generation ability (Davenport et al., 2015), allow it to inhabit open and coastal areas from sub-‐polar to tropical waters (Eckert & Abreu


11

Grobois, 2001; Spotila, 2004; Wallace et al., 2005). See Table 1 for characteristics of this species nesting in Costa Rica. Table 1: Characteristics of Leatherback Populations Nesting in Costa Rica Scientific name: Dermochelys coriacea Common names: Leatherback sea turtle, Baula, Tortuga

Laud Average length (CCL) 148.7 cm (Pacific population), 152 cm (Caribbean

population).

Nesting frequency 5 times/season.

Nesting interval 9 days.

Remigration 2-‐3 years.

Average clutch size 82 yolked eggs. A total of 112 eggs/nest (Caribbean).

Size of tracks 150-‐230cm.

Track shape Symmetrical.

Depth and width of nest Approx. 70/40cm.

Nesting period on the Caribbean Coast February to August: Barra del Colorado, Tortuguero, Parismina, Pacuare, Matina, 12 millas, Negra, Cahuita, Gandoca.

Nesting period on the Pacific Coast September to March: Grande, Ventanas, Langosta, Ostional, Nancite, Osa, Junquillal, Matapalo, Naranjo.

Pivotal temperature 29-‐29.95 °C.

General characteristics Skin covered carapace absent of scutes or scales. This carapace is not hard, but composed of small bones with 7 dorsal ridges or “keels”. Black with white spots and some pink on the body. Pink spot on the top of the head. Cusp shaped jaw.

This is the largest of all sea turtle species; males can grow up to 3m in length and weigh around 1000Kg. There is some size variation between the Caribbean and the Pacific population; individuals of the Pacific being slightly smaller.

Incubation period 50-‐70 days.

(Adapted from Chacón et al., 2007).

Anthropogenic Threats

Aside from natural threats such as predation, tidal inundation of nests and a naturally low hatchling success rate (19.8 – 54.2%, Bell et al., 2003), leatherbacks, like


12

all species of marine turtle, are subject to anthropogenic threats in both the marine and terrestrial environment (Troëng & Rankin 2005, Mrosovsky et al., 2009). Undertaking long distance migrations increases the risk of encountering anthropogenic hazards at sea. Pelagic long-‐line fisheries, entanglement in fishing gear, marine debris and propeller strikes are common causes of leatherback mortality and injury (Troëng, 1998; James et al., 2005). Ingestion of plastic bags, mistaken for jellyfish, is one of the leading causes of fatality in leatherback turtles (Bugoni et al., 2001; Mrosovsky et al., 2009; Vélez-‐Rubio et al., 2013).

In the past nesting females were vulnerable to poaching for their meat and oil, however in many areas this is now in decline thanks to conservation efforts and tagging programmes (Eckert & Abreu Grobois, 2001; Safina, 2007). Illegal egg harvesting remains a problem and poaching rates nearing 100% have been reported outside of protected areas in Costa Rica (Eckert & Abreu Grobois, 2001). All species of marine turtle suffer from domestic dog predation of nests, including within protected areas (Choi & Eckert, 2009). Hatchlings that successfully emerge are vulnerable to disorientation caused by artificial light pollution, entanglement in marine debris and predation (Witherington & Martin, 2003; Bourgeois et al., 2009; Triessnig et al., 2012; Berry et al., 2013). While data are limited, only a 1:1000 egg to adulthood ratio is estimated (Frazer, 1986).

Current Status and Conservation Efforts

Due to the rapid decline in leatherback numbers (Tapilatu et al., 2013; Spotila et al., 2000; Troeng et al., 2004) the species has been afforded international protection. The species is listed under several international conventions including Appendix I of the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species (CITES). This prevents all international commercial trade in the species or its derivatives. It is also listed under Appendix I and II of the Convention on Migratory Species of Wild Animals (CMS) and the Inter-‐American Convention for the Protection and Conservation of Sea Turtles (IAC) (Wallace et al., 2013).

Undertaking accurate population assessments of a migratory marine species that comprises seven distinct sub-‐populations is extremely challenging. Since 1982 it has been listed as Endangered (Wallace et al., 2013), then Critically Endangered (Sarti Martinez, 2000) and most recently, downgraded to Vulnerable (Wallace et al., 2013) on the IUCN Red List of Threatened Species. While this may appear encouraging, it should be understood that the assessment is for the species as a whole and certain subpopulations – the Pacific populations in particular -‐ are still considered to be Critically Endangered (Tiwari et al., 2013; Wallace et al., 2013a). Although the Atlantic population is listed as Vulnerable and in decline (Troëng et al., 2004; Wallace et al., 2013), the Northwest Atlantic Ocean subpopulation, the subject of this report, is listed as Least Concern and the population is considered be increasing (Tiwari et al., 2013a).

Ex-‐situ conservation efforts for marine turtles, including relocating nests to hatcheries, head-‐starting programmes and conservation medicine & rehabilitation, are beyond the scope of this report (see: Chacón et al., 2007; Phelan & Eckert, 2006). Measures to protect marine turtles at sea, such as the introduction Turtle Excluder


13

Devices (TEDs) to trawl nets, which act as a trap-‐door enabling turtles caught in gill nests to escape (Safina, 2007), are similarly beyond the scope of this report. Common in-‐situ conservation practices include: patrolling beaches to prevent poaching, the relocation of nests laid below the high tide line, and undertaking tagging and monitoring programs to assess population trends and demographics of marine turtle populations. The increase of the nesting population in the Caribbean has been attributed to these methods, and are methods employed by multiple conservation projects in Costa Rica (Dutton et al., 2005; Gordon & Harrison, 2011).

The COTERC Marine Turtle Tagging and Monitoring Program is one of these projects and works on Playa Norte, 8km north of Tortuguero (Fig. 1). According to Costa Rican law N° 8586 (conservation of migratory species and wild animals) articles 1° and 3° (including endangered marine species and habitats part of the distribution of migratory species), public access to Playa Norte beach is prohibited between 18.00 and 05.00 during the official sea turtle nesting season. This legally corresponds to the period from March 1st until October 31st. The Marine Turtle Monitoring and Tagging Program focuses on in-‐situ conservation, through the protection of nests, beach cleans to remove marine debris, working to reduce artificial lights on the beach, and promoting environmental education.

Methods

Study site

Data collection was carried out along a 3 1/8 mile (approximately 5km) beach transect on Playa Norte (Fig. 1), stretching from the river mouth of Laguna Tortuguero (Datum WGS84 552224.9E 1170322N) to Laguna Cuatro (Datum WGS84 550043.7E 1175989N). Playa Norte is part of the Barra del Colorado Wildlife Refuge, bordering Tortuguero National Park to the south. The area is managed by the Tortuguero Conservation Area (Área de Conservación Tortuguero, ACTo) and is regulated by Ministerio de Ambiente y Energía (MINAE) -‐ the Costa Rican Ministry of Environment and Energy.


14

Figure 1: Research transect (adapted from Grant & Lewis, 2010).

Posts placed every 1/8 of a mile facilitate orientation along the beach transect

and allow for spatial distribution analyses. Mile markers are re-‐painted and replaced as necessary throughout the season. G.P.S coordinates were taken at each mile marker and saved as fixed points in the G.P.S. map function (Garmin GPSMAP 62S) for future spatial analysis.

A semi-‐illuminated path runs parallel to the beach. There are two hotels (Hotel Vista al Mar and Turtle Beach Lodge) and several private residencies along the beach transect. The public lights on the path and the private lights from hotels and houses can cause artificial light pollution in the vegetation along the beach, and sometimes directly on the beach itself, which poses a threat to the orientation of nesting turtles and emerging hatchlings (Witherington & Martin, 2003; Bourgeois et al., 2009; Berry et al., 2013).

Beaches and wetlands in Costa Rica are legally protected under Resolución ACTo-‐Dirección-‐04-‐2013, and as such the use of motorised vehicles is prohibited in the area anywhere within 200 meters inland of the high tide line. This would include the public path parallel to Playa Norte. Nonetheless, vehicles including motorbikes, four-‐wheel quads, and occasional trucks are observed.

For analysis purposes the beach is divided vertically into three sections: open, border and vegetation. These categories are defined according to the maximum amount of shade they receive in a day (Fig. 2). Less than 50% shade is considered open, over 50% shade is considered border, and 100% shade is considered vegetation.


15

Figure 2: Vertical beach zones

Data Collection

Night Patrol Protocol

Patrols were carried out nightly from March 1st – June 30th. Nights when less than three teams were available to patrol, night patrol teams covered the beach in six-‐hour shifts. When three or more teams were available, night patrol teams covered the beach in five-‐hour shifts. Teams consisted of a minimum of three people. Teams were scheduled in overlapping shifts in an effort to maximise presence on the beach, while covering as many hours and as much distance as possible (Fig. 3). Time 20.00 21.00 22.00 23.00 00.00 01.00 02.00 03.00 04.00 PM1 PM2

Figure 3: Example of Night Patrol shifts In order to ensure the safety of our teams, minimize the impact on turtles and be as

discrete as possible in the beach, Night Patrols have the following rules:

§ Dark clothing must be worn. § No alcohol before or during Night Patrol. § No smoking during Night Patrol. § Limit light usage and only use red light. § Do not apply insect repellent before or during patrol. § Stay behind or next to patrol leader (PL) at all times. § If you see poachers tell the PL, never approach poachers. § Walk on or below the most recent high tide line when possible. § Keep quiet when walking the beach and when encountering a turtle. § Never walk in front of the turtle or shine light near its head.


16

§ Patrol is cancelled or delayed if there is a lack of appropriate personnel or during extreme lightning storms when there is a risk of injury.

Night Patrols collected data on: 1. Tracks and nests (when the turtle is absent): For each encounter the species

and location data (northern mile marker, vertical beach zone, G.P.S. co-‐ordinates and G.P.S. accuracy -‐hereafter referred to as Location Data) were recorded. The vertical beach zone and the G.P.S. coordinates of halfmoons were taken at the furthest point from the tide line that the turtle had reached. The encounter was recorded either as NST (nest) or HLF (halfmoon).

2. Nesting sea turtles: For all turtles encountered the following was recorded: species, encounter time, encounter activity (nesting stage/halfmoon) and location data. If encountered before oviposition, it was possible to count the eggs. The nest was triangulated if encountered before oviposition, or during oviposition, provided eggs were still visible. For all nesting turtles encountered, the flippers were checked for pre-‐existing tags and evidence of old tags (indicated by holes or notches in areas commonly used for tag placement). If no tags were found, the turtle was given new tags. Once collection of tag data/tagging occurred, morphological measurements were taken and an external health-‐check conducted. If a nesting sea turtle was encountered on her way back to sea, she was checked for the pre-‐existing tags if possible. If tags were present, tag data was recorded, and morphological data taken and health check performed, again, if possible. If the turtle did not have tags, administering new tags was not attempted, due to risk of injury to the turtle. A turtle facing the sea and located halfway between the sea and the vegetation zone was assumed to be returning to the sea. Turtles may have been stopped by the Patrol Leader to read tags in these circumstances. An overview of the different nesting stages and appropriate action to be taken by the team is provided in Table 2.

Table 2: Stages of marine turtle nesting activity and corresponding actions taken by patrol teams Nesting stage Action 1) Emerging. Wait. 2) Selecting nest site. Wait -‐ Patrol Leader checks on progress. 3) Cleaning. Wait -‐ Patrol Leader checks on progress. 4) Digging egg chamber. Wait -‐ Patrol Leader checks on progress. 5) Oviposition. Egg counting & nest triangulation. 6) Covering egg chamber. Egg depth, tag data, minimum Curved Carapace Length (CCLmin) &

maximum Curved Carapace Width (CCWmax), and body check. 7) Disguising the nest. Tag data, minimum Curved Carapace Length (CCLmin) & maximum

Curved Carapace Width (CCWmax), and body check. 8) Returning to sea.

Check for tags, and if present: tag data, minimum Curved Carapace Length (CCLmin), maximum Curved Carapace Width (CCWmax), and body check (at the patrol leader’s discretion).


17

A. Egg Counting and Nest Triangulation

Eggs were counted during oviposition by placing a hand below the cloaca and counting each egg as it passed over the hand into the egg chamber. While the turtle was digging the egg chamber the patrol leader created a shallow channel to the mouth of the egg chamber. This channel allowed the person counting eggs to position one hand underneath the cloaca, while reducing the risk of touching it. A medical latex glove was worn when counting eggs. The Nest ID (a piece of flagging tape containing the nest identification number; Fig. 4) was dropped into the nest at the beginning of oviposition, after which egg counting and triangulation of the nest began. The yolked eggs were counted using the counter, and the number of yolkless eggs was counted mentally. At the end of oviposition, when the turtle began covering the egg chamber with her rear flippers, the distance from the uppermost egg to the top of the egg chamber (egg depth) was measured (cm) with a flexible 3m measuring tape.

Egg counting and triangulation were conducted simultaneously. The end of a 50m tape measure was held directly over the egg chamber, taking care to avoid contact with the turtle. The triangulation team tied the appropriately labelled (center, north and south) flagging tape on three sturdy pieces of vegetation with at least 45 degree angles from one another (Fig. 4), and recorded the distances from the nest to these pieces of vegetation using the 50m measuring tape.

Figure. 4: Triangulation (flagging) tapes and Nest ID -‐ Flagging Tapes (top) & Nest ID (bottom).

Triangulation always started with center and then moved to north and south, measuring the distances from the nest from to the knot on the flagging tape (Fig. 5). The distance from the egg chamber to the most recent high tide line was then recorded. The knot was always tied facing the direction of the nest and the person(s) not measuring made sure that the tape was tight and not caught on anything between the turtle and triangulation point.


18

Figure 5: Nest triangulation

B. Tag Information

Tagging enables the identification of individual turtles, which in turn allows us to build up an historical record of that individual. This includes morphometric data, nesting events, and health status. Leatherbacks are tagged in the membrane between the tail and the rear flipper (Fig. 6a). On completion of oviposition the patrol leader checked the rear flippers for existing tags and evidence of previous tags. The right rear flipper was always checked and recorded before the left. If tags were present, the numbers were recorded (numbers repeated twice by the person checking the tag and the data recorder). Old tag evidence was recorded as either an Old Tag Hole (OTH) (Fig. 6b) or Old Tag Notch (OTN) (Fig. 6c). Illegible tags, tags causing damage (e.g. ingrown) or tags that were likely cause damage or fall out in the near future (e.g. tag placed too far in with a risk of becoming ingrown, or tag placed too far out with the risk of catching on something and ripping out) were removed and replaced. If no tags were present, the Patrol Leader administered new ones.

A correctly placed tag is positioned so that one third (or two numbers) of the tag is off of the flipper and two thirds (or four digits) are over the flipper. This prevents friction and allows space for possible swelling. The lower tag number is always placed on the right flipper and the higher on the left. Removing tags only takes place after the tag data from the other flipper are recorded. Two tags are never placed in one flipper; an old tag would always be removed before a new tag is placed in the same flipper.


19

a) b) c)

Figure 6: Leatherback tag position (a), Old Tag Hole (OTH) (b) and Old Tag Notch (OTN) (c).

C. Biometric measurements

Once the turtle had been tagged, or existing tag data recorded, the length and width of the carapace was measured with a 3m flexible measuring tape. The Curved Carapace Width maximum (CCWmax) and Curved Carapace Length minimum (CCLmin) were measured (Fig. 7a & 7b). The CCLmin starts at the point where the skin meets the carapace at the neck and ends at the tip of the caudal projection (Fig. 7c). The CCLmin is always taken on the right side of the central ridge and, for standardisation of data collection, always to the end of the caudal projection regardless of whether an injury/abnormality results in the projection being longer on the left. The CCWmax is taken at the widest point of the carapace and where the carapace meets the plastron. For quality control purposes each measurement was taken at least three times, more if the measurements varied by more than 1cm. If something affected the measurements (e.g. barnacles) it was recorded in the body check.

a) b) c)

Figure 7: Leatherback biometrics -‐ Maximum Curved Carapace Width (CCWmax) (a), Minimum Curved Carapace Length (CCLmin) (b) and leatherback Dorsal Ridges and Caudal Projection (c).


20

D. Body Check

A general health assessment was performed after the measurements were recorded. Injuries (scars, holes, notches, missing parts of flippers, bite marks), barnacles, tumors, parasites and any other abnormalities were recorded. Evidence of previous tags was not recorded during the body check, as this was recorded when checking for tags.

The body check was carried out following a standardised protocol in which each predefined body zone is given a number from one to eight (Fig. 8). A diagram of the zones was available in the front page of every field book, as a guide. The person performing the body check started with zone two (right front flipper) and moved around the body in a clockwise direction. Since zone one (the neck and head) is the most sensitive part of the turtle, and checking it bears the greatest risk of disturbing the turtle, it was done last and with great care. To check zone one, the red light was shielded with one hand and moved slowly from the top of the carapace over to the neck and head while always avoiding light anywhere near the turtle’s eyes.

Figure 8: Body check zones (adapted from STC, 2014).

An assessment of the caudal projection (zone 5) was recorded as this may affect the CCLmin measurements. Damage to the caudal projection might also indicate partial injuries sustained by the turtle. It was recorded as either complete or incomplete. Barnacles that may affect measurements were also noted.

During the body check the light was orientated away from the turtle’s head and turned off at any break in the assessment in order to minimise potential disturbance. All abnormalities were recorded per zone, with any estimated measurements and name of the surveyor noted. A circle was drawn around the zone number in order to prevent later confusion between zone numbers and measurements. If no abnormalities were found “BODY CHECK: ALL GOOD” was recorded to confirm the body check has been completed.


21

E. After Working the Turtle

Once the data collection was completed and checked by at least one other team member, the team waited until the turtle returned to the sea and recorded the GPS point of the nest. The tracks and nest were disguised. When disguising nests, the objective was to flatten the sand as much as possible in order to allow the sand to dry quicker and make it harder for potential poachers to find the egg chamber. In order to prevent affecting incubation, great care was taken not to cover the egg chamber with anything. Seaweed may have been placed around the nest area it in order to make it blend into the surroundings better.

Human Impact Survey

Public access to Playa Norte is prohibited between 18.00h and 05.00h from March 1st to October 31st. However, due to the low level of law enforcement on Playa Norte, illegal human activity is frequently observed. In collaboration with MINAE, a standardised Human Impact Survey was carried out as part of the nightly patrols throughout the season. Human Impact was divided into six categories: white light (W), red light (R), fire (F), local (L), tourist (T) and dogs (D). Temporal and spatial distribution was also recorded for each impact category.

Light Survey

In addition to the Human Impact Survey, a monthly Light Survey was conducted on the night of the new moon. This survey was always conducted by first patrol, and recorded the permanent artificial lights that were illuminated along the beach transect at the time of the survey. Lights were only recoded if it was possible to see the bulb, and were counted when the surveyors walked past to prevent double counting. Team members individually noted the number of bulbs they observed in each mile marker and the average of these counts were taken and rounded to the nearest whole number. Distinctions were made between white and yellow lights and it was also recoded if they were public lights or private.

Morning Census Protocol Morning Census was carried out daily from March 1st through June 9th 2016.

Patrols began at 05:30h and the beach transect was surveyed from 0 – 3 1/8 seven days a week. Data were collected on: 1. Nest and track information: Morning Census recorded any additional tracks and nests on the beach that had not been encountered by the previous night’s patrol teams. To prevent double counting, a copy of the activity data from the previous night was recorded in the Morning Census book for reference during the survey.

2. Check of all triangulated nests: all triangulated nests were checked daily from the day after they were laid to the day of their excavation. The accuracy of the


22

nest’s triangulation was checked by morning census the morning immediately after the nest was triangulated. In the event that the lines of the triangle were over 50cm, or the lines did not make a triangle, the night patrol team returned to the nest to correct the triangulation. The status of the nest itself was assessed and any signs of abnormality recorded. Condition classifications were as follows:

§ Natural (NAT): nest is in a natural state with no disturbance. § Wet (WET): nest is below the most recent high tide line. § Flooded (FLO): nest is completely covered by water from the tide. § Poached (POA). § Predated (PRE). § Partial Predation (PART/PRE) § Predation Attempt (PRE/ATT) § Unknown (UNK): status undetermined or it was not possible to access

the nest. § Eroded (ERO) a cliff has been created by the tide and the nest is now

below this cliff, eggs may also be visible. § Hatching evidence (HAT): hatchling(s) or hatchling tracks from nest

are present. § Depression (DEP): there is a depression on the surface of the nest.* § No Depression (No DEP): there is no depression on the surface of the

nest.* *Recorded after the depression sticks have been erected (see below).

Leatherback incubation periods range from 50-‐70 days (Chacón et al., 2007). On Playa Norte the 2013 mean was 63 days (±3.4) (Christen & García, 2013)1. On day 60 the nests were re-‐triangulated and depression sticks erected to ease checking for signs of hatching (depressions or hatchling tracks). These sticks (Fig. 9) facilitate the assessment of signs of hatching. Indications of hatching include a physical depression in the sand around the nest area caused by hatchlings digging their way to the surface inside the nest, very soft sand in the top 10cm of the nest area or a small cave-‐like hole where hatchlings have emerged. Hatchling tracks leading away from the nest may also be present. Possible depressions are confirmed with the help of the eraser end of a pencil that is gently pushed into the depression area. If the sand underneath gives way very easily it is considered a depression. The careful distinction between a depression or cave and hole dug by a crab is important. Crab holes run diagonally into the sand and have very smooth and even walls; depressions usually run more vertically into the sand, are wider and with walls that are not as well defined.

1 2013 data provided due to higher sample size than 2014. No data available from 2015 due to erosion.


23

Figure 9: Depression sticks.

Assessments of the nest status each day allowed for detailed conclusions of the

nests’ fate, as well as temporal analyses of any disturbance. Daily assessments of the intactness of triangulation flagging tapes were essential in order to avoid data loss, as termites, ants or people regularly destroyed tapes.

3. Nest excavations: when the incubation period was complete (see excavation protocol), nests were excavated by the Morning Census team or addition teams during busy periods.

Excavation Protocol

Nest excavations are conducted to determine the nest success of triangulated nests. Nest success is divided into hatching and emerging success. Hatching success is the total number of hatchlings that exited the egg. The total number of hatchlings that emerged from the nest is referred to as the emerging success. A number of abiotic and biotic variables can cause partial or complete nest failure, including: temperature, moisture, root invasion, flooding, erosion, predation and poaching (Kamel & Mrosovsky, 2004). Nests were checked daily and were excavated under the following circumstances:

1. If hatchling tracks present – excavate two days later. 2. If five consecutive days of depression – excavate on the following (sixth) day. 3. If no signs of hatching were present by 75 days – excavate on 75th day.

The first stage of excavations was to locate the egg chamber by re-‐triangulating the nest. Sand was then carefully removed using a cupped hand until the first signs of the nest appeared (e.g. eggs, empty eggshells or hatchlings). The egg depth was taken from the top of the nest using the bottom flat part of a stick lying over the entrance (Fig. 10). The nest contents were removed and sorted into different categories (Table 3 and Fig 11). Finally, nest depth was measured from the bottom of the nest to the surface of the beach again using a horizontal stick over the egg chamber for reference.


24

Figure 10: Measurement of the egg depth.

Table 3: Nest contents Nest content Definition Pipped eggs (PE) Egg is intact apart from a small triangular hole caused by the hatchling’s

egg tooth. The hatchling is dead inside the egg and the head is near the hole.

Hatched eggs: Empty egg shells (EES) Only shells >50% intact were considered. Pieces of shell <50% could not

be counted, as it cannot be determined from how many different eggs they originated.

Dead Hatchlings (DH) Hatchlings that exited the egg, but died inside the nest. Live Hatchlings (LH) Hatchlings that exited the egg, but have not emerged from the nest (yet). Unhatched eggs: Complete eggs, not pipped or showing evidence of predation by

microorganisms or animals. Yolkless eggs (Y) Non-‐fertilised eggs that range from 1cm diameter to a diameter similar

to yolked eggs. Leatherback nests usually contain ~10-‐40 yolkless eggs. No Embryo (NE) Yolk present with no embryo. Embryo Stage 1-‐4 (E1-‐4)

Eggs that did not develop or died during development. Stage 1 (E1): embryo occupies ≤ 25% of the egg; can be as small as a spot of blood within the yolk. Stage 2 (E2): embryo occupies 26-‐50% of the egg. Stage 3 (E3): embryo occupies 51-‐75% of the egg. Stage 4 (E4): embryo occupies > 75% of the egg (Fig. 12).

Predated (P) Predated eggs are categorised as follows: • Dogs (or other mammals). • Microorganisms (fungi or bacteria) – established by smell and

colour. • Holes caused by crabs. • Other/unknown.

The presence/absence of ants and maggots in the nest was also recorded.

Deformed Embryos (DE) Common deformities include abnormal numbers of scutes, no-‐eyes (eyes overgrown with skin), albino, twins, and injuries or tumour-‐like growth on head.


25

Figure 11: Nest contents.

Figure 12: Stages of embryo development 1-‐4 (left to right).

Excavations were stopped and postponed for seven days if more than five live

hatchlings were present in the nest or if the eggs appeared to still be developing (white and firm). If fewer than five live hatchlings were present in the nest, the condition of the hatchlings was assessed using the completeness of the plastron and the level of activity as indicators. If the plastron was still open and/or the hatchling was lethargic, they were reburied next to the original nest at the same depth at which they were found. If the plastron was closed and they were very active, the hatchlings were allowed to make their way to sea naturally. Assistance was only given to the hatchlings if the air or sand temperature was dangerously hot, at which point they were given shade en route to the sea or moved to an area of wet sand Hatchlings were never put in the sea. If able to make their own way into the water, it can be assumed that the hatchlings are active enough to swim and keep their heads above water. Hatchlings always walk into the surf without assistance and from a reasonable distance, so they can prepare their muscles and lungs for swimming.

Hatching Success and Emerging Success are calculated for each excavated nest using the following formulas: Hatching Success = (Empty Shells/(Empty Shells + No Embryo + Stage 1+ Stage 2 +

Stage 3 + Stage 4 + Deformed Embryos + Predated Eggs)) x 100 Emerging Success = ((Empty Shells – (Live Hatchlings + Dead Hatchlings))/ (Empty Shells + No Embryo + Stage 1+ Stage 2 + Stage 3 + Stage 4 + Deformed Embryos +

Predated Eggs)) x 100


26

Un-‐triangulated nests were not excavated, as exact locations of un-‐triangulated

nests were unknown. However, if a non-‐triangulated nest was encountered while hatchlings were emerging, efforts were made to ensure that the hatchlings reached the sea safely and unharmed. The nest was also investigated to deduce if more hatchlings could be saved.


27

Results

Survey Effort

Night Patrol

Night Patrols began on March 7th and Morning Census on March 1st. For much of March we were only able to field one patrol team, but on at least 10 occasions we were able to field two patrol teams. When one team went out they patrolled for six hours: 21.00h to 3.00h. When two teams were available, each patrol lasted for six hours: from 20.00h to 2.00h, and from 22.00h to 4.00h. In April and May we were able to send out two teams a night more often (n=12 and 15, respectively). On all eight nights of June that are included in this report, we were able to have two patrol teams.

For the duration of the season, since beginning night patrols on March 7th there has not been a night that the beach was not patrolled. Mean hours spent patrolling per night each week varied from .51 hours (31 minutes) to 11.5 hours (11 hours and 30 minutes) (Fig. 14). Beach presence was kept at a maximum, according to the number of personnel available (Fig. 13). The total number of hours spent on Night Patrol was 795.06 hours (795 hours, 4 minutes) and the mean per night was 8.46 hours (8 hours, 28 minutes) (Fig. 14). For analysis, all dates 29 and over in a month are included in week 4 of the same month. The 8th of June is included in the 1st week of June.

Figure 13: Survey effort -‐ Bars indicate the weekly average of patrol teams per night from March 1st – June 8th.

0

0.5

1

1.5

2

2.5

1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 1

March April May June

Num

ber of Teams per Night

Month (Weeks 1-‐4)


28

Figure 14: Beach presence -‐ Bars indicate the weekly average that the beach was covered per night from March 1st to June 8th.

Morning Census

Morning Census was carried out every morning from March 1st through June 8h. The total time spent on Morning Census was 151.44 hours (151 hours and 26 minutes), and the daily mean was 1.51 hours (1 hour and 31 minutes) (Fig. 15).

Figure 15: Morning Census effort: bars indicate weekly average of hours spent per morning census each morning from March 1st – June 8h.

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 1


Hours Spent Each Night


0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1

1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8 2

1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 1


Hours Spent Each Morning Census



29

Nesting Activity

A total of 15 leatherback nests were recorded between mile 0 and 3 1/8 on Playa Norte between March 5th and June 4th (Table 5). An additional 7 nests were laid by other species between April 24th and June 8th, giving us 22 total nests from March 5th to June 8th (Table 4). Overall, teams encountered the turtle for 16 of these 22 events (72.73%), and encountered leatherbacks for 12 of 15 nesting events (80%). It was possible to triangulate 11 of all 22 nesting events (50%), and eight of 15 leatherback nesting events (53.33%, Table 5). A total of 41 halfmoons were recorded for all species between March 1st and June 8th, 16 of which were encountered by night patrol teams (39.02%), and a total of 27 halfmoons were recorded for leatherbacks, 13 of which were encountered (48.15%).

Table 4: All nesting activity -‐ Total number of nests recorded March 5th– June 7th. Total nests Nests turtle

present Nests turtle absent

Triangulated nests

Halfmoons

30 16 (72.73%) 6 (27.27%) 11 (50%) 41

Table 5: Leatherback nesting activity -‐ Total number of nests recorded March 5th– June 4th. Total nests Nests turtle

present Nests turtle absent

Triangulated nests

Halfmoons

15 12 (80%) 3 (20%) 8 (53.33%) 27

A total of 12 leatherbacks were encountered while nesting; five were RECs, five REMs and one REN. On one occasion a leatherback turtle without tags was encountered at the end of her disguising stage, and returned to sea before tags could be administered. The one known re-‐nesting leatherback this season had a re-‐nesting interval of 10 days. Nesting activity overall was most concentrated in week 4 of both April and May, each of which had four nests, the maximum observed amount in a week (Fig. 16). Leatherback nesting activity was concentrated in week 4 of March and week 1 of April, which both had three nests each, the maximum amount observed in a week for leatherbacks (Fig. 17). There were three weeks where no nests at all were recorded for any species: the second week of March, the third week of April, and the third week of May (Fig. 16). For all graphs, Week 4 includes dates 29+ in each month and week 1 of June includes June 8th.


30

Figure 16: Temporal distribution of nesting activity for all species.

Figure 17: Temporal distribution of nesting activity for Leatherbacks

From March 7th to June 8th, the hours most likely to encounter a turtle was between 23.00h and 00.00h (Fig. 18), and the hours most likely to encounter a leatherback was also between 23.00h and 00.00h (Fig. 19). The latest any turtle was encountered was 2.50h, and it was a leatherback. The earliest any turtle was encountered was 20.20h, and the earliest a leatherback was encountered was 20.45h.

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 1


Num

ber of Nests and Halfmoons


Halfmoons

Nests

0

0.5

1

1.5

2

2.5

3

3.5

4

4.5

1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 1


Num

ber of Leatherback Nests and

Halfmoons


Halfmoons

Nests


31

Figure 18: Encounter times -‐ Bars represent the total number of turtles-‐ all species-‐ encountered within a given hour from March 13th – June 8th. Each hour represented includes the minutes 00–59 within the given hour.

Figure 19: Encounter times -‐ Bars represent the total number of leatherback turtles encountered within a given hour from March 13th – June 8th. Each hour represented includes the minutes 00–59 within the given hour. Activity for all species was fairly evenly distributed throughout the beach transect for all species, with the exception of no activity occurring in three sections (miles 1/8, 4/8, and 2 5/8 Fig. 20). For leatherback turtles specifically, a further two sections (2, and 2 7/8) saw no activity (Fig. 21). The only sections nested in by green or hawksbills, that weren’t nested in by leatherbacks are miles 6/8 and 7/8 (Figs. 20 & 21).

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

20:00 21:00 22:00 23:00 0:00 1:00 2:00 3:00 4:00 5:00

Encounters

Hour

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

20:00 21:00 22:00 23:00 0:00 1:00 2:00 3:00 4:00 5:00

Encounters

Hours


32

Figure 20: Locations of Activity: Bars represent activity of all species along the beach transect

from March 5th – June 8th.

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

0

1/8

2/8

3/8

4/8

5/8

6/8

7/8

1

1 1/8

1 2/8

1 3/8

1 4/8

1 5/8

1 6/8

1 7/8

2

2 1/8

2 2/8

2 3/8

2 4/8

2 5/8

2 6/8

2 7/8

3

3 1/8

Num


Mile

Halfmoons

Nests

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

0

1/8

2/8

3/8

4/8

5/8

6/8

7/8

1

1 1/8

1 2/8

1 3/8

1 4/8

1 5/8

1 6/8

1 7/8

2

2 1/8

2 2/8

2 3/8

2 4/8

2 5/8

2 6/8

2 7/8

3

3 1/8

Num


Mile

Halfmoons

Nests


33

Figure 21: Location of Activity-‐ Bars represent the leatherback turtle activity along the beach transect from March 5th – June 8th. Tagging

Of 12 encountered nesting leatherbacks, we were able to successfully collect tag data from 10 individuals, on 11 occasions. Of these 11 occasions, there were five RECs (newly tagged records), five REMs (re-‐emerged turtle, already with tags), and one REN (a turtle re-‐nesting within the same season) (Table 6). The re-‐nesting individual had a re-‐nesting interval of 10 days (Table 6). Only one of the five REMs had previously emerged on Playa Norte, having originally being recorded in nesting once in 2008 as a REM. Although body check data is not available from 2008, please see Table 9, below, for details on how her biometrics have changed from 2008 to 2016. Of the five REMs, it was only necessary to remove old tags on one occasion, as the tag was loose and likely to cause injury. Additionally, of the five REMs encountered, only one had experienced tag loss (only one tag still present). Of the five RECs, only two had evidence of old tags (old tag holes or notches). Table 6: Tag Data for Leatherbacks in 2016 Laying Date Mile Tag Data New Individual Y/N Triangulated Y/N 22-‐March 2016 1 2/8 REC Y Y 24-‐March 2016 1 6/8 REM Y N 25-‐March 2016 2/8 REC Y Y 3-‐April 2016 2 4/8 REN N Y 4-‐April 2016 1 REC Y Y 8-‐April 2016 2 2/8 REC Y Y 27-‐April 2016 5/8 REM Y N 6-‐May 2016 1 4/8 REC Y N 13-‐May 2016 1 5/8 REM Y Y

0

0.5

1

1.5

2

2.5

3

3.5

0

1/8

2/8

3/8

4/8

5/8

6/8

7/8

1

1 1/8

1 2/8

1 3/8

1 4/8

1 5/8

1 6/8

1 7/8

2

2 1/8

2 2/8

2 3/8

2 4/8

2 5/8

2 6/8

2 7/8

3

3 1/8

Num

ber of Leatherback Nests and

Halfmoons

Mile

Halfmoons

Nests


34

22-‐May 2016 3 1/8 REM N Y 4-‐Jun 2016 1 6/8 REM Y Y Biometrics The Curved Carapace Length, minimum (CCLmin) and Curved Carapace Width, maximum (CCWmax), were successfully taken on all 11 occasions that tag data was recorded. The individual with the largest CCLmin was 160.2cm long, and the individual with the smallest CCLmin was 136.8cm long (Table 7). The individual with the largest CCWmax was 123.2cm wide, and the individual with the smallest CCWmax was 98.3cm wide (Table 7). Clutch size of yolked eggs carried from 39 to 85 eggs, and yolkless eggs varied from 4 to 44 (Table 7). Table 7: Biometric Data for Leatherbacks in 2016 Individual CCLmin (cm) CCWmax (cm) Yolked eggs Yolkless eggs 16-‐0001 136.8 104.9 58 15 16-‐0002 148.4 109.4 N/A N/A 16-‐0003 154.5 123.2 81 27 16-‐0002 147.7 110.3 81 29 16-‐0004 160.2 119.4 79 4 16-‐0005 153.7 107.1 47 12 16-‐0007 159.4 102.7 N/A N/A 16-‐0008 138.6 101.3 N/A N/A 16-‐0009 159.1 114.0 85 25 08-‐0024 156.3 111.6 82 21 16-‐0011 138.2 98.3 39 44

Although body check data is not available from 2008, please see Table 17,

below, for details on how her biometrics have changed from 2008 to 2016. The increase in size and reproductive output is consistent with expectations for Body Check Of the 11 occasions that the body check was performed on leatherbacks, the caudal projection was recorded as incomplete eight times (72.73%, Table 8). No tumors were recorded for leatherbacks this season, and three body checks revealed no injuries or abnormalities at all. Over the eleven body checks performed, no injuries to the head (zone one), or upper carapace (zones three and seven) were recorded. Zone four, the right rear flipper, was the area where the most injuries or abnormalities were observed. For more detailed information on body check observations, refer to Table 8. Table 8: Body Check Observations for Leatherbacks in 2016 Individual 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Caudal

Projection 16-‐0001 0 barnacles,

cut 0 cut barnacles 0 0 barnacles Incomplete

16-‐0002 0 notch 0 0 0 0 0 0 Incomplete 16-‐0003 0 0 0 notch dent notch 0 notch Incomplete 16-‐0002 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Incomplete


35

16-‐0004 0 bite 0 0 0 hole 0 0 Complete 16-‐0005 0 0 0 notches 0 0 0 0 Complete 16-‐0007 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Incomplete 16-‐0008 0 0 0 0 0 notch 0 0 Incomplete 16-‐0009 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 scar Incomplete 08-‐0024 0 0 0 notches,

scar 0 0 0 0 Complete

16-‐0011 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Incomplete Year CCLmin CCWmax Eggs YL eggs Enc. Time Enc. Act. Mile Zone 2008 152.4 cm 106.5 cm 55 22 22:00 Digging E.C. 1 2/8 O 2016 156.3 cm 111.6 cm 82 21 00:10 Cleaning 3 1/8 O

Table 9: changing biometric values of turtle 08-‐0024.

Nest success

Nest fate

While two triangulated leatherback nests are still incubating, with excavations expected in early August 2016, five other triangulated nests completed incubation by the end of June. One other triangulated nest was lost when all three triangulation tapes were torn down by an unknown person/persons (Table 10). Of the five triangulated nests that completed incubation, one was believed to have been eroded, and was impossible to find during excavations (Table 10). Four others were successfully excavated (Table 10). One of the successfully excavated nests, CP02, had been relocated at the time of triangulation due to the tide entering the egg chamber during oviposition. Table 10: Nest fate of triangulated nests (n=8) as of July 1st 2016 Fate Total number Percentage % Eroded 1 12.5% Tapes Removed Excavated Incubating

1 4 2

12.5% 50% 25%

Excavations Of the four successfully excavated triangulated nests, all nest I.D.s were recovered. Hatching and emerging success was 0% in all four nests. Egg count of yolked eggs in excavations differed from egg count in triangulation by a range of 1 to 12 (Table 11). Count of yolkless eggs differed between triangulation and excavation by 11 to 30 eggs (Table 12). Only one nest, CP02, showed no embryonic development (Table 11). Of all four nests, only one embryonic deformity was recorded: a set of twins in CP 08, (both of which were in stage one of embryonic development. See tables 11 and 12 for further detailed info on nest contents of the four excavated nests.


36

Table 11: Contents of Excavated Nests-‐ Yolked Eggs Nest ID

No Embryo

Stage 1

Stage 2

Stage 3

Stage 4

PRE-‐ micro

PRE-‐ crabs

Deformities Total Difference from TN

CP02 41 0 0 0 0 39 0 0 80 -‐1 CP01 53 17 2 0 0 1 1 0 74 -‐7 CP06 45 5 1 13 3 2 1 0 70 -‐9 CP08 14 1 11 4 0 4 0 1 35 -‐12 Table 12: Contents of Excavated Nests-‐ Yolkless Eggs Nest ID Hydrated Dehydrated Predated Total Difference

from TN CP02 30 2 6 38 +11 CP01 48 0 0 48 +19 CP06 28 5 1 34 +30 CP08 22 1 0 23 +11 Nest Check Of the eight triangulated leatherbacks, one was lost due to all three tapes being taken down. Of the week that the tapes stayed, the nest status was recorded as natural every morning. One other nest was eroded three days after triangulation. For these three days it was recorded as natural, flooded and unknown. Two nests are still incubating, and as such will not be discussed in this report. Of the remaining four nests that underwent daily nest checks and completed incubation, three nests were recorded as wet (below high tide) at least once, and two nests were recorded as wet multiple times (Table 13). Three nests were also recorded as unknown at least once (Table 13).

Table 13: Statuses recorded in each trimester of incubation 1st third 2nd third 3rd Third Nest ID

Natural Wet Natural Wet Natural Wet Unknown

CP02 20 (80%) 5 (20%) 24 (96%) 1 (4%) 16 (64%) 9 (36%) 0 (0%) CP01 25 (100%) 0 (0%) 25 (100%) 0 (0%) 24 (96%) 0 (0%) 1 (4%) CP06 25 (100%) 0 (0%) 24 (96%) 1 (4%) 24 (96%) 0 (0%) 1 (4%) CP08 25 (100%) (0%) 23 (92%) 4 (16%) 23 (92%) (0%) 2 (8%)

Human Impact

Human Impact was recorded every night in order to gain a better understanding of the illegal activity on the beach during turtle nesting season. This season, white lights were the most frequent human impact, representing 37.84% of the illegal activity (Table 14). The majority of these impacts occurred at mile 2 4/8, and between the hours of 21.00h and 22.00h (Figs. 23a, 24b). Other major sources of illegal activity were dogs (29.48%, Table 14), which were concentrated in front of the house at 6/8, and between 23.00h and 0.00h (Figs. 23b, 24b). For analysis, week four of each month contains dates 29 on, and week one of June contains June 8th.


37

Table 14: Human Impact observations

White lights

Red lights

Fires Locals Tourists Dogs Total

Total number of observations Percentage of illegal activity

249

37.84%

3

.46%

54

8.21%

110

16.72%

48

7.29%

194

29.48%

658

A.

B.

Figure 22: Temporal distribution of (illegal) human activity by date -‐ Bars indicate the total number of impacts encountered in each week (1-‐4) of a given month for (a) white lights, red lights, and fires, (b) locals, tourists, and dogs.

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50

1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 1


Amount of Hum

an Activity


White Lights

Red Lights

Fires

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45

1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 1


Amount of Hum

an Activity


Locals

Tourists

Dogs


38

A.

B.

Figure 23: Temporal distribution of (illegal) human activity by hour -‐ Bars indicate the total number of impacts encountered from minute 00-‐59 for each hour for (a) white lights, red lights, and fires, (b) locals, tourists, and dogs.

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

19:00 20:00 21:00 22:00 23:00 0:00 1:00 2:00 3:00 4:00

Amount of Hum

an Activity

Hour

White Lights

Red Lights

Fires

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

19:00 20:00 21:00 22:00 23:00 0:00 1:00 2:00 3:00 4:00

Amount of Hum

an Activity

Hour

Locals

Tourists

Dogs


39

A.

B.

Figure 24: Spatial distribution of (illegal) human activity -‐ Bars indicate the total number of impacts encountered from March 1st – June 8th within the section of a given mile marker for (a) white lights, red lights and fires, (b) locals, tourists, and dogs.

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

1/8

2/8

3/8

4/8

5/8

6/8

7/8

1

1 1/8

1 2/8

1 3/8

1 4/8

1 5/8

1 6/8

1 7/8

2

2 1/8

2 2/8

2 3/8

2 4/8

2 5/8

2 6/8

2 7/8

3

3 1/8

Amount of Hum

an Activity

Mile

White Lights

Red Lights

Fires

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

1/8

2/8

3/8

4/8

5/8

6/8

7/8

1

1 1/8

1 2/8

1 3/8

1 4/8

1 5/8

1 6/8

1 7/8

2

2 1/8

2 2/8

2 3/8

2 4/8

2 5/8

2 6/8

2 7/8

3

3 1/8

Amount of Hum

an Activity

Mile

Locals

Tourists

Dogs


40

Light Survey

In order to gain a clearer understanding of artificial light use along the beach transect, monthly Light Surveys were conducted. These surveys will provide data for mitigation strategies to reduce light on the beach that could negatively affect the nesting behaviour of marine turtles. The hotel Turtle Beach Lodge consistently had the highest white and yellow bulb count. The public lights at 6/8 and 1 4/8 were also clearly visible from the beach (Fig. 25).

Figure 25: Light Survey -‐ Bars indicate the total number of permanent white and yellow lights located along the beach transect per month.

Beach Habitat Management

Collaboration with MINAE, the police and coast guard

Although we continue to cooperate with authorities from MINAE and the Coast Guard, there has not yet been any need for MINAE or coast guard to patrol the beach so far this season. No poaching activity was detected on the beach by our teams between March 1st and June 8th. We continue to send MINAE weekly reports on illegal human activity on the beach, and they have always been enthusiastically received. Between March 1st and June 8th there was just one attempted predation by dogs on a leatherback nest, one attempt on a hawksbill nest, and one partial predation of a hawksbill nest.

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

0

1/8

2/8

3/8

4/8

5/8

6/8

7/8

1

1 1/8

1 2/8

1 3/8

1 4/8

1 5/8

1 6/8

1 7/8

2 1/8

2 2/8

2 3/8

2 4/8

2 5/8

2 6/8

2 7/8

3

3 1/8

Total Num

ber of White and Yellow Lights

Mile Marker



41

Marine Debris

This year we began a standardized survey for marine debris, according to NOAA protocols (Lippiat et al., 2013). This is to ensure comparability with other marine debris monitoring projects around the world following the same protocols. We have a 100m transect, which continues to the most recent high tide line (usually approx. 50m), just south of the river mouth of Laguna Tortuguero. Each month the debris transect is completely cleaned of all meso, macro, and mega debris (essentially, all debris larger than 2.5cm on any one side) each month, in order to examine the flux of land based and sea-‐based debris. As marine debris, and plastics in particular have been a documented hazard to all species of sea turtles, in all life stages, the information gathered from this study will likely prove an invaluable companion dataset to compare to nesting activity and nest success throughout the season. This survey will run for a minimum of one year. A summary of the findings through the first four months can be viewed below.

Items February March April May Plastics 49728 14626 7273 10117 Plastic fragments 34221 9671 4781 6472 Metal 43 2 7 19 Glass 29 3 4 5 Rubber 38 4 2 7 Processed lumber 311 98 96 137 Clothes/Fabric 201 82 13 22 Others 280 2 0 0 Total items 50630 14817 7395 10307

Table 15: Total number of marine debris items by month

Collaboration, outreach, and public education

Working with stakeholders and the local community is crucial to the success of the program. In early June, representatives from Cano Palma, the STC, and GVI gave a presentation at the Tortuguero National Park headquarters as a part of a workshop for students studying to become nature tour guides. We continue to collaborate with the STC and the Archie Carr Center for Sea Turtle Research (the ACCSTR) on sharing tag data.

Outreach

On March 7th and 8th we welcomed a group of approximately 20 geology

students and professors from Westchester University (Pennsylvania). Due to the short time of their stay (3 days) they were not trained for morning census or night patrol, but there was a large amount of enthusiasm in the group about all of our current surveys and projects, so much so that a few students expressed their interest in returning to carry out geological internships here at Cano Palma. The possible


42

collaboration with these students and professors is promising, and we hope to see some of them again in the future to carry out their research. This association has already lead to contact with in-‐country facilities such as Stroud Water Research Center that have expressed interest in collaboration.

Additionally, the new marine debris survey, detailed above in Beach Habitat Management, is not only a way to collect meaningful data on the amount of debris on the beach, but also a wonderful outlet to get children from the community involved in conservation activities. Six children helped us as a part of a school project in the month of March. They were both interested and engaged in the project, and the sheer amount of plastic pieces seemed to be eye opening to them.

Conservation Club

Conservation club is an extracurricular activity available to students of Escuela Laguna Tortuguero, held twice a week at the COTERC community library in the village of San Francisco. Activities include discussion topic sessions, bird counts, and geocaching, with a focus on sea turtle conservation and ecology. The goal is to encourage environmentally friendly attitudes in the youth of San Francisco.

Volunteers and interns

Between March 1st and June 8th, a total of 19 interns and 18 volunteers were trained in how to work a turtle using our protocols (Table 16). In total, nine people qualified for patrol leader training by test score (over 95%), and a further four interns (three EURIs and one Turtle Intern) demonstrated the practical skills as well to become patrol leaders and took teams out on the beach at night. Eight of the interns trained arrived in the last week of May, or the first week of June, and thus didn’t have the time to qualify for patrol leadership before the 8th of June (the time scope of this report). Table 16: Volunteers and Interns. Capacity Country Association Number Volunteer Canada -‐ 8 Volunteer U.K. -‐ 3 Volunteer U.K. Concordia College 3 Volunteer USA -‐ 1 Volunteer Germany -‐ 1 Volunteer The Netherlands -‐ 1 Intern (Community) USA -‐ 1 Intern (Community) France -‐ 1 Intern (EURI) The Netherlands HAS University 5 Intern (EURI) France Université Montpellier 1 Intern (Turtle) USA -‐ 3 Intern (Turtle) Canada York University 2 Intern (Turtle) Canada -‐ 1 Intern (Mixed) Canada York University 2 Intern (Mixed) USA -‐ 1 Intern (Mixed) U.K. -‐ 1


43

Intern (Mixed) Lithuania -‐ 1 Staff Spain -‐ 1

Prior to working on the beach at night all volunteers received standardised training in our protocols. Training 1 is a Morning Census PowerPoint and Training 2 is a PowerPoint on Night Patrol followed by a simulation exercise of working a turtle on the beach. All visitors staying longer than two weeks were then required to sit an exam in which they needed to score 80%. Potential patrol leaders were required to achieve 95% in this exam, although a score of 90% would lead to an oral re-‐sit.

Passing with this grade lead to practice patrol leading with a qualified patrol leader (a staff member) until they were deemed sufficiently experienced to received tagging training – using cardboard to simulate flippers. Where possible practice patrol leaders were supervised the first time they tagged a turtle and were then able to take out their own teams at night. Once excavations begin occurring, all interns and volunteers are also required to undergo additional training for excavations: a PowerPoint and a practical demonstration by a staff member on how to conduct excavations. During weekly turtle meetings, additional training in Emergency Action Planning (EAP) was given by discussing various scenarios that require practical and critical thinking. At least five scenarios were discussed per meeting. Further safety training in lightning protocols was also given to all volunteers and interns participating in turtle related activities. See Table 17 for more details on each training. Table 17: Trainings Morning Census presentation (Training 1) – Classroom. Training presentation on the biology of the species and the threats and the conservation actions in place for marine turtles, the methodology and protocols for Morning Census. Night Patrol training (Training 2) –Classroom and Beach. Training presentation on our Night Patrol protocols, and a simulation of working a turtle on the beach. The simulation is undertaken in the order of events from encountering the tracks, triangulating the nest, taking the biometric data, through to correctly completing the data book and protocols for once the turtle has returned to sea. Locating the nest by reverse triangulation. Excavation presentation – Classroom and practical demonstration – Beach. Theoretical and practical training in conducing nest excavations and recoding the data. Tagging training – Classroom (Potential patrol leaders only). Practical simulation training in flipper tagging using cardboard “flippers”. Emergency Action Planning – Classroom. Discussion session covering emergency scenarios and tricky situations that have happened in the past and ways of dealing with them. Lightning Safety Training – Classroom. Practical session on how to assess the dangers of being on the beach in a lightning storm, how to monitor the storm, when to leave the beach and where/where not to shelter. Includes scenarios for discussion at the end.

Discussion Effort

Although night patrol effort looks disproportionately small in the first week of the season, this is because night patrol teams didn’t start going out until the 7th of


44

March, which is the last day of the first week of the leatherback season. Since then, the beach has been patrolled by at least one team every night. The primary reason for only one team going out for much of March, April and May was due to low overall personnel, not a lack of patrol leaders. By the beginning of April we were in the process of training our first patrol leaders, other than the project coordinators. The first was qualified by mid-‐April, and two more were qualified by late April. This allowed us to have two patrols a night more often (n=12) than was previously possible when only project coordinators were available to lead patrols. In May we saw our numbers drop again, so although we had enough patrol leaders to field multiple teams a night, number of overall personnel meant that we were only able to have two teams on 15 occasions, and one team the other 16 nights.

Activity Leatherbacks represented the majority of nesting events through early June (68.18%), however, the total number of nests (n=15), was still less than half of the nests recorded last season (n=34, Fernandez and Pheasey 2015). While the peak of leatherback season is typically mid-‐April, this season nesting activity peaked in late March and early April. Trends for leatherback encounter times vaguely followed trends for overall encounters, and spatial distribution revealed no bias either. While nearby conservation project, the Sea Turtle Conservancy have reported similar patterns of declining leatherback activity this season (personal communications), other projects in North Eastern Costa Rica, such as Save the Turtles Parismina, have not experienced the same decline in nesting numbers of leatherbacks (personal communications). Some of the most recent population modelling in the area has revealed, has shown that population trends for the Northwest Atlantic sub-‐population of leatherbacks has actually been steadily increasing (Tiwari et al., 2013, Stewart et al., 2011). It is unknown why the nesting numbers on our beach have not necessarily reflected this trend as of late, however the fact that the next closest project has been experiencing the same trend 8km away, but that 38km away in Parismina the nesting population has been in line with expectations, suggests that whatever is causing this are extremely localized factors. Tagging/Biometrics/Body Check We had just one confirmed re-‐nesting leatherback (within this season) event this season, and just one nesting leatherback that had previously been recorded on our beach (in 2008). As this is an interval of eight years, and leatherbacks typically nest on two or three year cycles (Chacon et al., 2007), it is likely that this individual has nested on other beaches, or undetected on our beach, at least once since her first encounter. As she was originally a REM when first encountered in 2008, we know that Playa Norte is not the only nesting site she frequents. Nest Success/Fate/Excavations/Nest Check Relocations are undertaken only when water is entering the egg chamber during oviposition, and great care is taken to preserve the original parameters of the nest selected by the female (such as vertical zone, mile marker, nest depth and nest


45

width), as long as it doesn’t compromise the susceptibility of the nest to further inundation. Unfortunately, the dynamics of Playa Norte can be quite unpredictable, and despite best efforts, CP02 was noted as “wet” for the first three days of its incubation. This is the most likely reason for the lack of embryonic development (Whitmore & Dutton, 1985). While two of the other nests were also marked as “wet” during incubation and showed embryonic development, these nests (CP06 and CP08) were not observed as “wet” until the second third of incubation (Table 12). Although CP01 was not marked as “wet” at any point in incubation, leatherbacks have a naturally low nest success rate (around 50%, Rafferty et al., 2011). Furthermore, one of our nests (CP06) was laid next to a frequently used fire pit. This may have had an impact on nest success. Human Impact and Light Survey As the last week of March (week 4) was Easter week this year, this is the most likely cause of the increase in illegal human activity (tourists and white lights in particular) that week (Figs. 22a, 22b). The high amount of white light seen at mile 2 4/8 is most likely attributable to both the turtle beach lodge security guard, who often ventures onto the beach, and the fact that many staff and guests venture onto the beach to get cellphone reception, which creates white light. Light survey data was fairly consistent throughout the season, showing that there had not been much change in the amount of fixed lights on the path along the beach transect. This indicates both that there has not been the establishment of new light fixtures, and that current resident’s light usage has not fluctuated much.

Improvements to the program Genetic Sampling While this program was first introduced for greens at the end of next season, this season we also have permits to collect embryonic tissue and eggshells from leatherback and hawksbill nests as well. We hope that using these non-‐invasive methods will prove successful, so that we can explore the potential of addressing the decreasing leatherback nesting trends on Playa Norte with molecular data. Comparing mitochondrial lineages and haplotype diversity to either previously published data on other nesting sites, or to new potential collaborators working in other nesting sites, can help us gain an idea of whether leatherbacks turtles once nesting in our area have shifted to using other nesting areas. A tag return from Colombia this year of a leatherback turtle tagged on Playa Norte in 2013 is one indication that these emigrations could indeed be occurring.


46

References Bell, A. B.; Spotila, J. R.; Paladino, F. V. & Reina, R. D. 2003. Low reproductive success of

leatherback turtles, Dermochelys coriacea, is due to high embryonic mortality. Biological Conservation, 115: 131–138.

Berry, M.; Booth, D. T. & Limpus, C. J. 2013. Artificial lighting and disrupted sea-‐finding

behaviour in hatchling loggerhead turtles (Caretta caretta) on the Woongarra coast, southeast Queensland, Australia. Australian Journal of Zoology 61(2): 137-‐145.

Bourgeois, S.; Gilot-‐Fromont, E.; Viallefont, A.; Boussambac, F. & Deem, S.L. 2009.

Influence of artificial lights, logs and erosion on leatherback sea turtle hatchling orientation at Pongara National Park, Gabon. Biological Conservation, 142: 85–93.

Bugoni L.; Krause, L. & Petry, M. V. 2001. Marine debris and human impacts on sea

turtles in Southern Brazil. Marine Pollution Bulletin, 42: 1330 – 1334. Chacón, D.; Sánchez, J.; Calvo, J. & Ash, J. 2007. Manual para el manejo y la conservación

de las tortugas marinas en Costa Rica; con énfasis en la operación de proyectos en playa y viveros. Sistema Nacional de Áreas de Conservación (SINAC), Ministerio de Ambiente y Energía (MINAE). Gobierno de Costa Rica. San José. 103 p.

Choi, G.Y. & Eckert, K. L. 2009. Manual of Best Practices for Safeguarding Sea Turtle

Nesting Beaches. Wider Caribbean Sea Turtle Conservation Network (WIDECAST) Technical Report No. 9. Ballwin, Missouri. 86 pp.

Christen, N. & García, R. 2013. COTERC Marine Turtle Monitoring & Tagging Program,

Caño Palma Biological Station, Leatherback Season Report 2013. Unpublished. Davenport, J.; Jones, T.T.; Work, T.M. & Balazs, G.H. 2015. Topsy-‐turvy: turning the

counter-‐current heat exchange of leatherback turtles upside down. Biology Letters, 11: 20150592. http://dx.doi.org/10.1098/rsbl.2015.0592.

Dutton, P.H.; Bowen, B.W.; Owens, D.W.; Barragan, A. & Davis, S.K. 1999. Global

phylogeography of the leatherback turtle (Dermochelys coriacea). The Zoological Society of London, 248: 397-‐409.

Dutton, D. L.; Dutton, P. H.; Chaloupka, M. & Boulon, R. H. 2005. Increase of a

Caribbean leatherback turtle Dermochelys coriacea nesting population linked to long-‐term nest protection. Biological Conservation, 126: 186–194.


47

Eckert, K.L. & Abreu Grobois, F. A. (eds.) 2001. Proceedings of the Regional Meeting: “Marine Turtle Conservation in the Wider Caribbean Region: A Dialogue for Effective Regional Management,” Santo Domingo, 16-‐18 November 1999. WIDECAST, IUCN-‐MTSG, WWF and UNEP-‐CEP. 154 pp.

Ernst, C. H. & Barbour, R. W. 1989. Turtles of the World. Smithsonian Institute Press,

Washington DC and London. Fernandez, L.M. & Pheasey, H. 2015. COTERC Marine Turtle Monitoring & Tagging

Program, Caño Palma Biological Station, Leatherback Season Report 2015. Unpublished.

Frazer, N. B. 1986. Survival from egg to adulthood in a declining population of

loggerhead turtles, Caretta caretta. Herpetologica, 42:47–55. Gordon, L. G. & Harrison, E. 2011. Report on the 2011 Leatherback Program at

Tortuguero, Costa Rica. Available from http://www.conserveturtles.org/pdf/reports/Tortuguero%20Leatherback%20Report%202011.pdf (accessed 21 November 2014).

Grant, P. B. C. & Lewis, T. R. 2010. High speed boat traffic: a risk to crocodilian

populations. Herpetological Conservation and Biology, 5(3):456–460. Heaslip, S. G.; Iverson, S. J.; Don Bowen, W. & James, M. C. 2012. Jellyfish Support High

Energy Intake of Leatherback Sea Turtles (Dermochelys coriacea): Video Evidence from Animal-‐Borne Cameras. PLoS ONE 7(3): 1-‐7.

Houghton, J.D.R.; Doyle, T.K.; Wilson, M.W.; Davenport, J. & Hays, G.C. 2006. Jellyfish

aggregations and leatherback turtle foraging patterns in a temperate coastal environment. Ecology, 87(8): 1967-‐1972.

James, M. C.; Ottensmyer, C. A. & Myers, R. A. 2005. Identification of high-‐use habitat

and threats to leatherback sea turtles in northern waters: new directions for conservation. Ecology Letters, 8: 195–201.

Kamel, S. J & Mrosovsky, N. 2004. Nest site selection in leatherbacks, Dermochelys

coriacea: individual patterns and their consequences. Animal Behaviour, 68(2): 357–366.

Lippiatt, S.; Opfer, S. & Arthur, C. 2013. Marine debris monitoring and assessment.

NOAA Technical Memorandum, NOS-‐OR&R-‐46. Mrosovsky, N.; Ryan, G. D. & James, M. C. 2009. Leatherback turtles: The menace of

plastic. Marine Pollution Bulletin, 58: 287 – 289. Phelan, S. M. & Eckert, K. L. 2006. Marine Turtle Trauma Response Procedures: A Field

Guide. Wider Caribbean Sea Turtle Conservation Network (WIDECAST) Technical


48

Report No. 4. Beaufort, North Carolina USA. 71 pp.

Rafferty, R.R.; Santidrian Tomillo, P.; Spotila, J.R.; Paladino, F.V.; Reina, R.D. 2011. Embryonic death is linked to maternal identity in the leatherback turtle (Dermochelys coriacea). PLoS ONE 6(6): e21038. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0021038

Safina, C. 2007. Voyage of the turtle: in pursuit of the Earth’s last dinosaur. Holt

Paperbacks, New York. Sarti Martinez, A. L., 2000. Dermochelys coriacea. In: IUCN 2013. The IUCN Red List of

Threatened Species. Version 2013. Available at www.iucnredlist.org. Sea Turtle Conservancy (STC) 2014. Information about sea turtles: classification.

Available from www.conserveturtles.org/sea-‐turtle-‐information.php?page=species_class (accessed 07 May 2014).

Spotila, J.R.; Reina, R.D.; Steyermark, A.C.; Plotkin, P.T. & Paladino, F.V. 2000. Pacific

leatherback turtles face extinction. Nature, 405: 529-‐530. Spotila, J. R. 2004. Sea Turtles: A complete guide to the biology, behaviour and

conservation. John Hopkins University Press, Maryland. Stewart, K.; Sims, M.; Meylan, A.; Witherington, B.; Brost, B.; Crowder, L.B. 2011.

Leatherback nests increasing significantly in Florida, USA; trends assessed over 30 years using multilevel modelling. Ecological applications, 21(1): 263-‐273.

Tapilatu, R.F.; Dutton, P.H.; Tiwari, M.; Wibbels, T.; Ferdinandus, H.V.; Iwanggin, W.G.

& Nugroho, B.H. 2013. Long-‐term decline of the western Pacific leatherback, Dermochelys coriacea: a globally important sea turtle population. Ecosphere, 4(2): 25. http://dx.doi.org/10.1890/ES12-‐00348.1.

Tiwari, M.; Wallace, B. P. & Girondot, M., 2013. Dermochelys coriacea (West Pacific

Ocean subpopulation). The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species. Version 2014.3 www.iucnredlist.org (accessed on 28 November 2014).

Tiwari, M.; Wallace, B. P. & Girondot, M., 2013a. Dermochelys coriacea (Southwest

Atlantic Ocean subpopulation). The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species. Version 2014.3 www.iucnredlist.org (accessed on 28 November 2014).

Triessnig, P.; Roetzer, A. & Stachowitsch, M. 2012. Beach condition and marine debris:

New hurdles for sea turtle hatchling survival. Chelonian Conservation & Biology, 11(1): 68-‐77.

Troëng, S. 1998. Leatherbacks Face Ever Increasing Threats. Velador: Sea Turtle

Conservancy Winter Newsletter


49

http://www.conserveturtles.org/velador.php?page=velart11 (accessed 20 November 2014).

Troëng, S.; Chacón, D. & Dick, B. 2004. Possible decline in leatherback turtle

Dermochelys coriacea nesting along the coast of Caribbean Central America. Oryx, 38(4): 395-‐403.

Troëng, S. & Rankin, E. 2005. Long-‐term conservation efforts contribute to positive

green turtle Chelonia mydas nesting trend at Tortuguero, Costa Rica. Biological Conservation 121: 111-‐116.

Vélez-‐Rubio, G. M.; Estrades, A.; Fallabrino, A. & Tomás, J. 2013. Marine turtle threats

in Uruguayan waters: insights from 12 years. Marine Biology, 160(11): 2797–2811.

Wallace, B.P.; Tiwari, M. & Girondot, M. 2013. Dermochelys coriacea. In: The IUCN Red

List of Threatened Species. Version 2014.3. www.iucnredlist.org (accessed on 28 November 2014).

Wallace, B.P., Tiwari, M. & Girondot, M. 2013. Dermochelys coriacea. The IUCN Red List

of Threatened Species 2013: e.T6494A43526147. http://dx.doi.org/10.2305/IUCN.UK.2013-‐2.RLTS.T6494A43526147.en.

Wallace, B. P.; Williams, C. L.; Paladino, F. V.; Morreale, S. J.; Lindstrom, R. T. & Spotila,

J. R. 2005. Bioenergetics and diving activity of internesting leatherback turtles Dermochelys coriacea at Parque Nacional Marino Las Baulas, Costa Rica. The Journal of Experimental Biology, 208: 3873-‐3884.

Whitmore, C.P. & Dutton, P.H. 1985. Infertility, embryonic mortality and nest-‐site

selection in leatherback and green turtles in Suriname. Biological conservation, 34: 251-‐272.

Witherington, B. E. & Martin, R. E. 2003. Understanding, assessing, and resolving light-‐

pollution problems on sea turtle nesting beaches. 3rd ed., revised. Florida Marine Research.

Date post:	22-May-2020
Category:	Documents
Upload:	others
View:	3 times
Download:	0 times

Leatherback Season Report 2016 - Canadian Organization for ... ·...

Documents