Discovery of new nesting beaches for loggerhead turtles (Caretta caretta) at Gnaraloo on the...

Marine Turtle Newsletter No. 140, 2014 -

Issue Number 140 January 2014

ISSN 0839-7708

ArticlesDo Lighthouses Disrupt the Orientation of Sea Turtle Hatchlings? Hypothesis Testing With Arena Assays at Hillsboro Beach, Florida, U.S.A..........................................................................N Reintsma et al.Discovery of New Nesting Beaches for Loggerheads at Gnaraloo, Ningaloo Coast, Western Australia.............K RiskasOccasional Leatherback Nests: First Records in São Paulo State, Southeastern Brazil..........................DP Bezerra et al.Sea Turtle Bycatch off the Western Region of the Ghanaian Coast....................................................................C TannerImplications of Juvenile Green Turtle (Chelonia mydas) Sightings Along the East Coast of India........................N KalePotential Inter-Season Sperm Storage by a Female Hawksbill Turtle.....................................................KP Phillips et al.A Time Apart (Foreward by G Balazs)............................................................................................................Anonymous

AnnouncementRecent Publications

Nesting female hawksbill turtle, Cousine Island, Republic of Seychelles (see pages 13-14). Photo credit: Karl P. Phillips.

Marine Turtle Newsletter

Marine Turtle Newsletter No. 140, 2014 - Page 1© Marine Turtle Newsletter

MTN Online - The Marine Turtle Newsletter is available at the MTN web site: <http://www.seaturtle.org/mtn/>.

Subscriptions and Donations - Subscriptions and donations towards the production of the MTN should be made online at <http://www.seaturtle.org/mtn/> or c/o SEATURTLE.ORG (see inside back cover for details).

Managing Editor:Michael S. CoyneSEATURTLE.ORG

1 Southampton PlaceDurham, NC 27705, USA

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

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

George H. BalazsNational Marine Fisheries Service, Hawaii, USA

Alan B. BoltenUniversity of Florida, USA

Robert P. van DamChelonia, Inc. Puerto Rico, USA

Angela FormiaUniversity of Florence, Italy

Colin LimpusQueensland Turtle Research Project, Australia

Nicolas J. Pilcher Marine Research Foundation, Malaysia

Manjula TiwariNational Marine Fisheries Service, La Jolla, USA

ALan F. ReesUniversity of Exeter in Cornwall, UK

Kartik ShankerIndian Institute of Science, Bangalore, India

Oğuz TürkozanAdnan Menderes University, Turkey

Jeanette WynekenFlorida Atlantic University, USA

Editorial Board:

Produced with assisstance from:

Matthew H. GodfreyNC Sea Turtle Project

NC Wildlife Resources Commission1507 Ann St.

Beaufort, NC 28516 USAE-mail: [email protected]

Kelly R. StewartThe Ocean Foundation

c/o Marine Mammal and Turtle DivisionSouthwest Fisheries Science Center, NOAA-NMFS

8901 La Jolla Shores Dr.La Jolla, California 92037 USA

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

Founding Editor:Nicholas Mrosovsky

University of Toronto, Canada

Editors:

Editorial Assistant:Natalie C. Williams

University of Florida, USA

On-line Assistant:ALan F. Rees

University of Exeter in Cornwall, UK

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

Marine Turtle Newsletter No. 140, 2014 - Page 1

Do Lighthouses Disrupt the Orientation of Sea Turtle Hatchlings? Hypothesis Testing With Arena Assays at Hillsboro Beach, Florida, U.S.A.

Nicole Reintsma, Morgan Young & Michael SalmonDepartment of Biological Sciences, Florida Atlantic University, Boca Raton, Florida, 33431, USA

(E-mail: [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected])

Florida hosts about 90% of all the loggerhead turtle (Caretta caretta) nests deposited on the east coast of the US (NMFS & USFWS 2008). Florida is also home to several working lighthouses, some of which still serve as navigational aids for offshore mariners or mark the location of reefs, islands and inlets along the coast. Some lighthouses in Florida (and elsewhere worldwide) are located in close proximity to marine turtle nesting beaches where their bright illumination, even though usually confined to a brief flash, conceivably might pose an artificial lighting threat to nesting females and their hatchlings. One such location is in the community of Hillsboro Beach, located in northern Broward County, Florida, USA, where an inlet is marked by a tall (41-m high) lighthouse maintained by the US Coast Guard (USCG; Fig. 1). Its 1000 W light is bright enough to be visible 54 km out to sea, where it is used as a navigational aid by mariners as they travel between the Florida peninsula and the Bahamas. The light beam rotates 360° every 20 s; its light beam is brightest to an observer for about 5 s as it passes overhead.

Opposition to the lighthouse’s light was voiced by a volunteer group known as Sea Turtle Oversight Protection, Inc. (STOP), which monitors nesting activity and protects hatchlings in Broward County. Volunteers patrol beaches, advocate for light management solutions where lighting issues are severe, and every summer routinely rescue thousands of hatchlings that crawl inland, particularly in the southern portions of the county that are highly urbanized. The lighthouse, however, is located at the north end of the County (Hillsboro Beach) where the beach is backed largely by single unit private residences and a private residential club with minimal lighting, all behind the primary dune. This northern area is relatively dark and nesting densities there are the highest in the County, with 600-900 nests annually along 7 km of beach (Burney & Wright 2010). Those conditions make protection of this area especially important.

STOP believed that the lighthouse light represented a threat to marine turtles because it reduced nesting attempts by females and interfered with the orientation of hatchlings as they crawled from the nest to the sea. STOP asked the USCG to modify the lighthouse light by either shielding it or modifying its spectral output but the USCG declined to make any changes without evidence of harm. Consequently, STOP sought opinions from experts at the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) and the US Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). The NMFS concluded there was no obvious effect on nesting females while the USFWS said they had insufficient evidence to determine if hatchling orientation was affected. That conclusion with regard to the hatchlings was unsatisfactory, both to STOP and to the USCG.

The question we considered was whether exposure to a lighthouse light that briefly, but brightly, “flashed” across the beach disrupted hatchling orientation. To our knowledge, no similar studies adjacent to any lighthouses have been published. Two laboratory studies, one done on green turtles (Chelonia mydas; Mrosovsky 1978) and another on loggerheads (Fritsches 2012), provided some relevant (though not definitive) information. These investigators compared differences in attraction of hatchlings to two lights presented simultaneously, one flashing and the other continuously on, when equally bright. Flash rates in the two studies varied between 0.1-100 Hz. Fritsches (who presented stimuli with equal light “on” to light “off” periods) found no differences in attraction between the two light sources over a broad range of flicker frequencies as long as the two lights remained equally bright. Mrosovsky found similar results over flicker rates between 1-14 Hz (while keeping flash duration constant). However, when he decreased flash duration (while keeping the flicker rate constant), the flashing light source became less attractive. That finding suggested that the hatchlings integrate

Figure 1. Left, the lighthouse at night. Middle, Florida peninsula showing the location of Hillsboro Beach on the East Coast of Florida, and a view (below) of the beach, inlet, and lighthouse (yellow burst) at the inlet entrance. Right, Hillsboro Beach looking south toward the Inlet. Red arrows show approximate location of the arena experiments (100 m, 330 m and 915 m north of the lighthouse). Aerial photos source: Google Earth.


visual stimulation over time so that to the turtles, it is the ratio of the light “on” to the light “off” period that is most important during sea finding. If that finding applies to lighthouses, then the relatively short “on” (5 s) to longer “off” (15 s) periodicity at Hillsboro might not attract the turtles. STOP personnel, however, claimed that hatchlings from the many nests located north of the lighthouse crawled south toward the lighthouse, rather than east toward the ocean. Clearly, data were needed to resolve the issue.

We conducted arena assays at Hillsboro Beach to determine how accurately loggerhead hatchlings oriented toward the ocean. Arena experiments are simulated nest emergences. To carry out these tests, we collected hatchlings from nearby nests in the late afternoon on the day they were expected to normally emerge. We held them at daytime nest temperatures inside a dark, covered cooler that contained a shallow layer of moist sand. At night, we took the turtles to the beach, exposed them to ambient lighting and naturally cooler temperatures, and then (after the turtles started crawling) released 4-6 turtles within a shallow depression, centered inside a 4 m diameter circle (arena) that had been drawn in the sand (Fig. 2). When we released the turtles, they faced various directions. Observers then immediately assumed a prone position anywhere outside of the arena boundary while the turtles crawled out of the depression, and then out of the arena. After all of the turtles had exited, their orientation angle (as determined by the location of their flipper tracks) was measured using a compass by sighting between the arena center and the location where each turtle’s flipper tracks crossed the arena boundary (Fig. 2).

We did these experiments at night during August 2012, working under a variety of conditions (clear or cloudy skies, different lunar phases, dry or rainy evenings) and times (shortly after dark to midnight). We used three beach sites that differed in proximity to the lighthouse: 100 m, 330 m, and 915 m north of its location (Fig. 1). At each distance, we did one experiment when the lighthouse light was on and rotating normally, and another on a different evening when the lighthouse light was turned off. At 100 m from the lighthouse, we did two replicates (4 evenings of testing). Since the results were statistically identical, we present the data for only one replicate.

Our results were unambiguous (Fig. 3). At all three locations, and under both sets of lighthouse conditions, the hatchlings crawled eastward toward the ocean. Appropriate statistical tests (Zar 1999) revealed that each evening, the turtles were significantly oriented (Rayleigh test p < 0.001) and that there were no statistical differences in performance at the same location when comparisons were made between the tests done in the presence or absence of lighthouse lighting (Watson-Williams test p > 0.29). We conclude that at the Hillsboro Beach site, we were unable to find evidence that the lighthouse disrupted hatchling orientation.

How, then, do we explain the claim that hatchlings were attracted south, toward the lighthouse? We reviewed 75 disorientation reports filed with the state agency (Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission [FWC]) by observers over the previous 3 years. FWC is charged with managing nesting beaches. These observers speculated that most often, disrupted orientation by the hatchlings was caused by light sources other than the lighthouse, such as a lamp or outdoor

Figure 2 (left). Creating an arena on the beach (day-time demo). Top, the arena boundary is drawn in the sand. Middle, hatchlings are released in a depression within the center of the arena. They crawl away, leaving behind their tracks. Bottom, their orientation is measured with a compass by sighting from the arena center to the location where each hatchling crosses the arena boundary.

Figure 3 (right). Arena results: Hatchlings (19 – 21 from different nests) exited the arena (blue dots) by crawling toward the sea (red arrow marks direction). Their average heading (“a”) in all experiments was slightly south of east. In all of the tests, the turtles were significantly oriented (Rayleigh tests). Their crawl direction did not differ statistically at any one location between evenings when the light-house light was on or turned off (Watson-Williams tests).


fixture that someone forgot to extinguish. The lighthouse light was implicated in only a minority of those reports. Hatchling tracks heading south were also described in only a minority of reports. When they were found, the turtles usually crawled parallel to the surf zone until they passed by a suspected light source located behind the beach. The crawl paths then curved to the East so that in most instances, the turtles eventually located the ocean. Those results also implied that the lighthouse light was not involved as if it had been, the turtles should have continued to crawl south.

Several points should be stressed. First, it is always best to resolve management issues by conducting experiments to determine if the initial perception that a problem exists accurately defines that problem. In this instance, a debate lasting for years occurred among the parties (USCG; STOP; those with historical interests who wanted to preserve the lighthouse; others who wanted it dismantled; mariners concerned about boating safety; environmental advocates for management of artificial lighting). There were also debates at city council meetings, letters sent to the editors of local magazines, papers and social media, and petitions were even filed. But, in the absence of any data demonstrating that the lighthouse light interfered with hatchling orientation, the result was a stalemate that persisted for far too long.

Second, the solutions proposed (modifying the light’s spectral properties; shielding the light) were not based upon a thorough understanding of the problem, especially from the turtles’ perspective. Mrosovsky (1978) demonstrated years ago that marine turtle hatchlings during “seafinding” are relatively insensitive to flashing lights, and for good ecological reason - because orientation toward the sea from the nest depends upon “…permanent cues that differentiate the seaward and landward directions…” such as “…the open seaward horizon and the dark landward treeline.” These characteristics, which are in all likelihood innate, make it unlikely that any lighthouse will negatively impact hatchling orientation between the nest and the sea since most lighthouse lights present brief light flashes separated by longer periods of darkness. Nevertheless, where a problem is thought to exist it should be thoroughly investigated by doing an appropriate experiment. If the data suggest that a lighthouse poses a problem for marine turtles, then the most effective solution might be to increase the duration of the “off” period, rather than make more expensive modifications that could reduce the ability of the lighthouse to prevent maritime accidents.

Finally, arena experiments defining orientation responses represent a simple, yet effective assay to determine whether any source of artificial lighting poses a threat to marine turtles (Salmon 2003). These experiments are also ideal procedures for determining if a management strategy designed to improve the quality of a nesting beach (such as creating a dune, plant barrier or using “turtle-friendly” lighting) is effective. Thus, data from these experiments can be used in two ways: to clarify an issue (as we did here) or to determine whether a proposed environmental solution works.Acknowledgements. This research was supported by contributions to the Florida Atlantic University Foundation (Sea Turtles Unlimited fund). We thank Daniel Dodge for access to the Hillsboro Club beach, Louis Fisher (Broward Co. Environmental Resource Department) for the Broward County nesting data, and Karen Schanzle (FWC) for copies of the disorientation reports. John Carleson (STOP) kindly permitted us to do arena assays on the beach fronting his home. Kirt Rusenko allowed us access to hatchlings from nests at Boca Raton. Joseph Embres (US Coast Guard) provided background information and a list of the lighthouses in Florida. Comments from Jeanette Wyneken and 2 referees improved the clarity of the text. Our study was done under a permit issued by the Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission (TP-173).BURNEY, C. & L.J. WRIGHT. 2010. Sea turtle conservation

program, Broward County, Florida. Unpublished technical report. Environmental Protection Department, Biological Resources Division, Broward County, Fort Lauderdale, Florida, U.S.A.

FRITSCHES, K.A. 2012. Australian loggerhead sea turtle hatchlings do not avoid yellow. Marine and Freshwater Behaviour and Physiology 45: 79-89.

MROSOVSKY, N. 1978. Effects of flashing lights on sea-finding behavior of green turtles. Behavioral Biology 22: 85-91.

NATIONAL MARINE FISHERIES SERVICE & U.S. FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE. 2008. Recovery plan for the Northwest Atlantic population of the loggerhead sea turtle (Caretta caretta), second revision. National Marine Fisheries Service, Silver Spring, Maryland, U.S.A.

SALMON, M. 2003. Artificial night lighting and sea turtles. The Biologist 50: 163-168.

ZAR, J.H. 1999. Biostatistical Analysis, 4th edition. Prentice-Hall, New Jersey. 663pp.


Figure 1. Map of the Gnaraloo coastline and geographical context within Western Australia.

Discovery of New Nesting Beaches for Loggerhead Turtles (Caretta caretta) at Gnaraloo on the Ningaloo Coast, Western Australia

Kimberly RiskasSchool of Earth and Environmental Sciences, James Cook University, Townsville, 4811, Australia

(E-mail: [email protected])

Western Australia is believed to support the third largest population of loggerhead turtles (Caretta caretta) in the world (Limpus 2008). It holds all known nesting sites for loggerheads in the southeast Indian Ocean (Conant et al. 2009; Dodd 1988). Nesting sites span from the Shark Bay World Heritage Area northward through the Ningaloo Marine Park to the Muiron Islands (Baldwin et al. 2003; Conant et al. 2009). In Australia, nesting loggerheads are divided into two populations (or stocks) based on genetic analysis: the population of loggerheads nesting in Western Australia is the larger of the two stocks, eclipsing the other Australian loggerhead population, which nests primarily in eastern Australia and the south Pacific (Boyle et al. 2009; Conant et al. 2009). There is currently no genetic evidence to suggest that the two populations interbreed (Bowen 2003), making each more vulnerable to decline should their respective nesting habitats be disturbed. Describing and managing the full extent of loggerhead habitat in Western Australia is therefore a priority of national and international conservation significance.

The Gnaraloo coastline (Fig. 1) has been identified as one of the most important mainland nesting areas for loggerheads in Western Australia (Hattingh et al. 2012a,b,c). Gnaraloo Station is situated approximately 150 km north of Carnarvon within and immediately adjacent to the Ningaloo Coast World Heritage Area. Marine turtles are frequently reported in coastal waters by Gnaraloo Station staff and guests. The Gnaraloo Station Trust commenced the Gnaraloo

Turtle Conservation Program (GTCP) in 2005 to identify, monitor and protect key coastal nesting rookeries of endangered marine turtles on Gnaraloo beaches, namely of loggerhead, green (Chelonia mydas) and hawksbill (Eretmochelys imbricata) turtles. (The work of the GTCP followed and formalized prior informal data collection of nesting activities over a five-year period by a community member at Gnaraloo Bay, undertaken independently of the GTCP.)

The GTCP has been monitoring turtle nesting activities at the Gnaraloo beaches on the ground since the 2008/09 nesting season. Of the 65 km of Gnaraloo’s coastline, 7 km are regularly monitored for signs of turtle nesting activity and constitute the Gnaraloo Bay Rookery (GBR) (23.76708°S/113.54584°E, 23.72195°S/113.57750°E). Daily beach patrols are conducted to identify and record all crawls and nests during the nesting season (early November-late February) and they provide the only full season coverage of nesting turtle activity for the population. There is currently no tagging program or collection of morphometric data from nesting females.

The GBR hosts between 350-500 nests (roughly 70-130 females) each season since monitoring began in 2008. The vast majority of these nests (>90%) are laid by loggerheads; the rest belong to green and occasionally hawksbill turtles (7% and ~2% of total nests, respectively, Hattingh et al. in review).

To better understand the spatial extent of the nesting area, aerial surveys of Gnaraloo’s coastline were completed in January 2010 and January 2011. These surveys revealed signs of turtle nesting activity on beaches located approximately 22 km north of the monitored GBR (Fig. 1). Following recommendations of the GTCP 2010/11 report (Hattingh et al. 2011), it was decided to begin reconnaissance monitoring of this northern area during the GTCP season 2011/12. The goal of these excursions was to investigate the significance of additional nesting beaches on the Gnaraloo coastline. Here I summarize and discuss the findings from three monitoring excursions that took place during the GTCP season 2011/12. For more detail regarding the excursions, refer to the individual Gnaraloo Cape Farquhar Rookery reports by the GTCP (Hattingh et al. 2012a,b,c).

We monitored the coastline adjacent to the Cape Farquhar Marine Sanctuary Zone of the Ningaloo Marine Park, located north of the GBR beach and extending from 23.64168°S/113.61544°E to 23.57697°S/113.69830°E. The coastline is approximately 14 km long, with 12.9 km of unobstructed beach and 1.2 km of rocky cliff face. Wave energy is low due to a near-shore coral reef system that extends the length of the sanctuary zone. The beach is characterized by sparse, low-lying vegetation and large dune systems.

A total of three surveys were conducted at the Gnaraloo Cape Farquhar area: from 21-23 December 2011; 21-23 January 2012; and 21-23 February 2012. Surveys were undertaken on foot at dawn each day to document turtle nesting activities from the previous


night. Details such as turtle species, type of activity (e.g., nest, unsuccessful nesting attempt, u-track and unidentified activity), beach position and GPS location were recorded for each activity. There were signs of older nesting activities that had occurred at unknown times prior to our surveys; these were classified as well as possible and recorded separately from the new activities. Regular monitoring of the GBR continued concurrently with the surveys in the Gnaraloo Cape Farquhar area.

The number of nests recorded during each survey of the Gnaraloo Cape Farquhar area was lower but comparable to the number recorded at the GBR during the same time period (Table 1). Likewise, the total number of activities recorded during each survey (including nesting) was also lower than the total number of activities recorded concurrently at the GBR. All of the nesting activities recorded during the Gnaraloo Cape Farquhar surveys were identified as loggerhead activities.

Data collected by the GTCP in the GBR since 2008 has suggested that nesting activities increase rapidly throughout December and peak during January before attenuating in early February. Similarly in the Gnaraloo Cape Farquhar area, a higher number of new activities were recorded during the December and January surveys than in the February survey. This could indicate that the breeding populations at Gnaraloo may utilize beaches at both locations. For example, loggerheads nesting at other rookeries show some movement between adjacent beaches, returning to nest on different beaches within the region where they hatched rather than one specific beach (Bowen et al. 2003; Pfaller et al. 2008). Loggerheads may also nest on different beaches in subsequent nesting events within the same season (Bjorndal et al. 1983). It is possible that females at Gnaraloo nest on the GBR beach as well as the beaches within the Gnaraloo Cape Farquhar area. Should this be the case, the seasonal numbers of nesting marine turtles recorded thus far on the Gnaraloo coastline may be an underestimation and the Gnaraloo rookeries may be more significant than previously known.

While preliminary results are suggestive, the timing and frequency of the Gnaraloo Cape Farquhar surveys provide a limited snapshot of turtle activity over the course of the entire nesting season. The total number of nests dug during the entire nesting season in the Gnaraloo Cape Farquhar area is not known. However, the prevalence of old activities documented during the three surveys indicates that the Gnaraloo Cape Farquhar area supports high levels of activity before and between each short-term survey. As recommended by the three Gnaraloo Cape Farquhar reports (Hattingh et al. 2012a,b.c), longer, more frequent monitoring should continue in order to establish and strengthen baseline trends. The addition of a tagging program would help to gain a better understanding of the temporal dynamics of nesting turtles in this area, as well as to clarify habitat use patterns of turtles nesting at each beach.

December 21-23 2011 January 21-23 2012 February 21-23 2012Nests Total activities

(including nests)Nests Total activities

(including nests)Nests Total activities

(including nests)GBR 15 38 15 30 1 2

Gnaraloo Cape Farquhar area 8 17 10 19 0 0

Table 1. Comparison of turtle activities recorded concurrently at the GBR and the Gnaraloo Cape Farquhar area during Dec. 2011, Jan. 2012 and Feb. 2012 surveys by the GTCP 2011/12.

It is vitally important to document the extent of endangered turtle presence in this area of Western Australia, which is attracting increasing numbers of tourists and development. Considering the global significance of the Western Australian loggerhead population, discoveries of this kind represent important contributions to research and conservation, and emphasize the possibility of additional knowledge gaps.Acknowledgements. I wish to thank the Gnaraloo leaseholder, station staff, all previous GTCP field research teams and the GTCP Project Manager, Karen Hattingh, for their invaluable ongoing work under the GTCP; Dr Mark Hamann, for helpful comments on the working draft; the Maptool program for the graphic used in this paper (Maptool is a product of SEATURTLE.ORG - information is available at www.seaturtle.org); and Robert Edman and Fiona Morgan, two outstanding team members of the GTCP field research team 2011/12. BALDWIN, R., G. HUGHES & R. PRINCE. 2003. Loggerhead

turtles in the Indian Ocean. In: Bolten, A.B. & B.E. Witherington (Eds.). Loggerhead Sea Turtles. Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington D.C. pp. 218-232.

BJORNDAL, K.A., A.B. MEYLAN & B.J. TURNER. 1983. Sea turtles nesting at Melbourne Beach, Florida. I. Size, growth, and reproductive biology. Biological Conservation 26: 65-77.

BOWEN, B.W. 2003. What is a loggerhead turtle? The genetic perspective. In: Bolten, A.B. & B.E. Witherington (Eds.). Loggerhead Sea Turtles. Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington D.C. pp. 7-27.

BOYLE, M.C., N.N. FITZSIMMONS, C.J. LIMPUS, S. KELEZ, X. VELEZ-ZUAZO & M. WAYCOTT. 2009. Evidence for transoceanic migrations by loggerhead sea turtles in the southern Pacific Ocean. Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences 276: 1993-1999.

CONANT, T.A., P.H. DUTTON, T. EGUCHI, S.P. EPPERLY, C.C. FAHY, M.H. GODFREY, S.L. MACPHERSON, E.E. POSSARDT, B.A. SCHROEDER, J.A. SEMINOFF, M.L. SNOVER, C.M. UPITE & B.E. WITHERINGTON. 2009. Loggerhead sea turtle (Caretta caretta) 2009 status review under the U.S. Endangered Species Act. Report of the Loggerhead Biological Review Team to NMFS. 222pp.

DODD, C.K. 1988. Synopsis of the biological data on the loggerhead sea turtle Caretta caretta (Linnaeus 1758). U.S. Fish Wildlife Service Biological Report 88(14). 110pp.

LIMPUS, C. 2008. 1. Loggerhead turtle, Caretta caretta (Linnaeus). In: Fien, L. (Editor). A Biological Review of Australian Marine Turtle Species. State of Queensland, Environmental Protection Agency, Brisbane, Australia. 66pp.


Occasional Leatherback Turtle (Dermochelys coriacea) Nests: First Records in São Paulo State, Southeastern Brazil

Daiana P. Bezerra1,2, Ana Cristina V. Bondioli1, Ana Paula S. Maistro1 & Mariana B. Ebert1

1Instituto de Pesquisas Cananéia (IPeC), R. Tristão Lobo, 199, Centro, Cananeia, São Paulo, 11990-000, Brazil (E-mail: [email protected]); 2Universidade Federal do Paraná (UFPR) - Programa Pós-Graduação

em Ecologia e Conservação - Centro Politécnico, Curitiba, Paraná, Brazil

HATTINGH, K., M. BOUREAU, M. DUFFY & M. WALL. 2011. Gnaraloo Bay Rookery, Final Report, Program 2010/11. Day monitoring program with night checks and crab burrow surveys. Gnaraloo Turtle Conservation Program. Gnaraloo Station Trust, Western Australia.

HATTINGH, K., R. EDMAN, F. MORGAN & K. RISKAS. 2012a. Gnaraloo Cape Farquhar Rookery, Report on first reconnaissance survey (21-23 December 2011), Season 2011/12. Day monitoring program. Gnaraloo Turtle Conservation Program. Gnaraloo Station Trust, Western Australia.

HATTINGH, K., R. EDMAN, F. MORGAN & K. RISKAS. 2012b. Gnaraloo Cape Farquhar Rookery, Report on second reconnaissance survey (21-23 January 2012), Season 2011/12. Day monitoring program. Gnaraloo Turtle Conservation Program. Gnaraloo Station Trust, Western Australia.

HATTINGH, K., R. EDMAN, F. MORGAN & K. RISKAS. 2012c. Gnaraloo Cape Farquhar Rookery, Report on final reconnaissance survey (21-23 February 2012), Season 2011/12. Day monitoring program. Gnaraloo Turtle Conservation Program. Gnaraloo Station Trust, Western Australia.

HATTINGH, K., R. EDMAN, F. MORGAN & K. RISKAS. (In review) Gnaraloo Bay Rookery and Gnaraloo Cape Farquhar Rookery, Final Report, Season 2011/12. Day monitoring program with night verification, sampled nest survey, crab burrow study and community engagement. Gnaraloo Turtle Conservation Program. Gnaraloo Station Trust, Western Australia.

PFALLER, J.B., C.J. LIMPUS & K.A. BJORNDAL. 2008. Nest-site selection in individual loggerhead turtles and consequences for doomed-egg relocation. Conservation Biology 23: 72-80.

The leatherback turtle (Dermochelys coriacea), the largest species of turtle, is the only current member of the family Dermochelyidae residing in the world’s oceans (Pritchard 1996). These animals were formally classified globally as Critically Endangered and some populations have suffered drastic declines (IUCN 2012), due to factors such as illegal egg collection and incidental capture by industrial fisheries (Fiedler et al. 2012; Giffoni et al. 2008; Wallace et al. 2004). In the 1980s, the global leatherback population estimate was 115,000 adult females with the Mexican population comprising 60% of this total (Spotila et al. 1996). Martinez et al. (2007) provided a new estimate of 30,000 adult individuals, nearly a 78% reduction from the previous estimate in less than a generation. However, the current status is Vulnerable (IUCN 2013) with the current global populations size estimate at 23,255 - 32,557 adult females, which is a conservative value as the largest populations could not be included in the assessment.

In Brazil, the regular nesting sites for leatherback turtles are located on the northern coast of the state of Espírito Santo (19°33.340'S; 39°46.312'W). This population has increased in the number of nests, from six nests recorded in 1992/93, to 92 nests observed in the 2003/04 season (Thomé et al. 2007).

Here we report on a single nesting occurrence of Dermochelys coriacea in Ilha Comprida, along the southern coast of the state of São Paulo (24°52.018’S; 47°45.420’W). In this region, Projeto Tartarugas of the Instituto de Pesquisas Cananéia (IPeC) has been in operation since 2003, with the purpose of the research and conservation of the five sea turtle species that occur along the Brazilian coast.

Between December 2012 and January 2013, the local community and tourists reported to Projeto Tartarugas that a leatherback

turtle was observed possibly nesting on Ilha Comprida´s beaches. According to the reports, the female was seen crawling out of the ocean four times. The first two records occurred on 19 December (only the date was given by the local community and fishermen) and 31 December 2012 (information and photographs were given by the local community and tourists) at Barra Nova and Ubatuba beaches, respectively. Despite our attempts, we could not confirm the presence of eggs where the nesting events were reported. The other two records occurred on 5 January at Ancoradouro Beach (nest I: 24o52.965’S, 47°44.125’W) and 12 January at Ubatuba Beach (nest II: 24°59.290’S, 47°51.258’W). These nests were confirmed by photographs of the animal, and we successfully located the clutches of incubating eggs (Fig.1A and 1B). Plastic mesh was placed above the nests to deter predators, according to Ficetola (2008). After 45 days of incubation, weekly monitoring surveys were conducted. The nesting season of D. coriacea in Brazil typically occurs between October and February, with an incubation period ranging from 60 to 78 days with each nest having an average of 87 eggs (Thomé et al. 2007). In nest I, 125 eggs were recorded and there were 106 eggs in nest II (including yolkless eggs - see below). The average depth of a leatherback egg chamber is 0.7 m - 1.0 m (Wallace et al. 2004), but the nests in this instance were 0.50 m (nest I) and 0.62 m (nest II) deep, with an average depth of 0.56 m.

No evidence of hatching emergence was observed through incubation days 82 and 75 for nests I and II respectively, so the nests were excavated to examine the eggs. We verified that the egg shells were intact, however internally the embryos were already decomposing. We observed that nest I had been inundated and the eggs were soaked in salt water (Fig. 1C). There were no signs of disturbance by animal or humans at the nest sites.


Figure 1. Leatherback turtle nest in southeastern Brazil: A) leatherback turtle returning to the ocean after nesting; B) opening of the nest II; C) nest I flooded in salt water; D) yolked and yolkless eggs found in nest I.

The majority of the eggs (nest I - 94.3%; nest II – 96.2%) had an average diameter of 6 cm, but some eggs were smaller, being approximately 2 - 3 cm in diameter (Fig. 1D). Dermochelys coriacea presents a number of yolkless eggs among normal eggs in the nests (Frazier & Salas 1984; Pritchard 1971). Thomé et al. (2007) indicated that 19.6% of the eggs inside nests were yolkless eggs. We found a smaller percentage of yolkless eggs: 5.7% in nest I and 3.8% in nest II.

The southern coast of the state of São Paulo is part of a migratory corridor used by leatherbacks to move between feeding and mating grounds (Fallabrino et al. 2010). Occasional nests have also been recorded in the states of Rio de Janeiro, Paraná, Santa Catarina and Rio Grande do Sul (Barata & Fabiano 2002; Soto et al. 1997). Occasional nests, as described in this study, are laid for unknown reasons. Some potential explanations may include physiological and/or environmental conditions, or they may simply be the result of a lapse in navigational skills of female leatherbacks that leads them to randomly choose a beach along their migratory route (Barata & Fabiano 2002).

Despite the increase in nesting in Brazil, the situation of this species remains severe in the region. Successful conservation efforts for leatherback turtles must include protection of the nesting beaches and mitigation of threats in foraging areas and along migratory routes. The record of an unusual leatherback turtle nesting is important for expanding our knowledge of species biology thus contributing to leatherback conservation. Monitoring of this region will continue during the next breeding season to record the presence nesting females that may be using this region.BARATA, P.C.R. & F.F.C. FABIANO. 2002. Evidence for

leatherback sea turtle (Dermochelys coriacea) nesting in Arraial do Cabo, state of Rio de Janeiro, and a review of occasional leatherback nests in Brazil. Marine Turtle Newsletter 96: 13-16.

FALLABRINO, A., V. GONZALES-CARMAN, H.J. BECKER, A.C.V. BONDIOLI & S.C. ESTIMA. 2010. Corredor Azul: Marine protected areas and sea turtles in the SW Atlantic. In: Blumenthal, J., A. Panagopoulou & A.F. Rees (Comps.). Proceedings of the 30th Annual Symposium on Sea Turtle Biology and Conservation. NOAA Tech Memo NMFS-SEFSC-640. pp. 7.

FICETOLA, G.F. 2008. Impacts of human activities and predators on the nest success of the hawksbill turtle, Eretmochelys imbricata, in the Arabian Gulf. Chelonian Conservation & Biology 7: 255-257.

FIEDLER, F.N., G. SALES, B.B. GIFFONI, E.L.A. MONTEIRO-FILHO, E.R. SECCHI & L. BUGONI. 2012. Driftnet fishery threats sea turtles in the Atlantic Ocean. Biodiversity and Conservation 21: 915–931.

FRAZIER, J. & S. SALAS. 1984. Tortugas Marinas en Chile. Boletín - Museo Nacional de Historia Natural (Santiago) 39: 63-73.

GIFFONI, B., A. DOMINGO, G. SALES, F.N. FIEDLER & P. MILLER. 2008. Interacción de tortugas marinas (Caretta caretta y Dermochelys

coriacea) con la pesca de palangre pelágico en el Atlantico Sudoccidental: una perspectiva regional para conservacion. Collective Volumes of Scientific Papers, ICCAT 62: 1861-1870.

INTERNATIONAL UNION FOR CONSERVATION OF NATURE - IUCN. 2012. IUCN Red List of Threatened Species. http://www.iucnredlist.org/

INTERNATIONAL UNION FOR CONSERVATION OF NATURE - IUCN. 2013. IUCN Red List of Threatened Species. http://www.iucnredlist.org/

MARTÍNEZ, L.S., A.R. BARRAGÁN, D.G. MUÑOZ, N. GARCÍA, P. HUERTA & F. VARGAS. 2007. Conservation and biology of the leatherback turtle in the Mexican Pacific. Chelonian Conservation & Biology 6: 70-78.

PRITCHARD, P.C.H. 1971. The leatherback or leathery turtle: Dermochelys coriacea. International Union for Conservation of Nature and Natural Resources. Morges. Switzerland. 39pp.

PRITCHARD, P.C.H. 1996. Evolution, phylogeny, and current status. In: P.L. Lutz and J. Musick (Eds). The Biology of Sea Turtles. Volume II. CRC Press, Boca Raton, Florida. pp. 1-28.

SOTO, J.M.R., R.C.P BEHEREGARAY & R.A.R.P REBELLO. 1997. Range extension: nesting by Dermochelys and Caretta in southern Brazil. Marine Turtle Newsletter 77: 6-7.

SPOTILA, J .R. , A.E. DUNHAM, A.J. LESLIE, A.C. STEYERMARK, P.T. PLOTKIN, & F.V. PALADINO. 1996. Worldwide population decline of Dermochelys coriacea: are leatherback turtles going extinct? Chelonian Conservation & Biology 2: 209-222.

THOMÉ, J.C.A., C. BAPTISTOTTE, L.M.P. MOREIRA, J.T. SCALFONI, A.P. ALMEIDA, D.B. RIETH & P.C.R. BARATA. 2007. Nesting biology and conservation of the leatherback sea


turtle (Dermochelys coriacea) in the state of Espírito Santo, Brazil, 1988-1989 to 2003-2004. Chelonian Conservation & Biology 6: 15-27.

WALLACE, B.P., P.R. SOTHERLAND, J.R. SPOTILA, R.D. REINA, B.F. FRANKS & F.V. PALADINO. 2004. Biotic and abiotic factors affect the nest environment of embryonic leatherback turtles, Dermochelys coriacea. Physiological and Biochemical Zoology 77: 423-432.

Sea Turtle Bycatch off the Western Region of the Ghanaian Coast

Claire TannerHampshire, SO31 6TH, United Kingdom (E-mail: [email protected])

Relatively little is known about the migration patterns, genetic variation or nesting behavior of sea turtles along the approximate 560-km long coast of Ghana, in West Africa (Tanner 2013). Currently, olive ridley (Lepidochelys olivacea), green (Chelonia mydas) and leatherback (Dermochelys coriacea) sea turtles are known to nest in Ghana, and hawksbills (Eretmochelys imbricata) are thought to have nested historically along the coast (Doak 2009). Ghanaian people in the Western Region have two words for sea turtle. “Anwa” is used specifically for leatherbacks, and “Kawula” refers to all hard-shelled sea turtles. This misinterpretation among local people that all hard-shelled sea turtles are the same species typically results in vague and unreliable documentation of sea turtle sightings. Elders of coastal villages described the beaches as being full of turtles every night during the nesting seasons in past decades (Nana Kwesi Bin 2012). Due to hunting of marine species, and coinciding with bush meat hunting, the occurrence of nesting sea turtles has declined; this has been observed by local people (Nana Kwesi Bin 2012).

Although monitoring of the nesting beaches may help clarify which species use Ghanaian beaches to reproduce, it does not capture the occurrence of all sea turtles in the country’s waters. It is assumed that the four principle sea turtle species that occur in West Africa, namely the leatherback, olive ridley, green and hawksbill (Barnett et al. 2004), also frequent the waters of the Ghanaian coast due to their presence in nearby countries, although this has not been demonstrated to date.

Fishermen in Ghana fish for subsistence and/or commercial purposes with most fishing done by canoe boats that travel <10 km from shore (Nana Kwesi Bin 2012). This project sought to investigate bycatch of sea turtles by Ghana’s fishers not only to clarify which species occur in Ghana’s waters but also as an opportunity to raise awareness of sea turtle conservation within the fishing community, with the ultimate goal of reducing the likelihood of poaching.

This study was concentrated in Axim, which is a large fishing port in the centre of Ellembelle, in the Western Region (Fig. 1). With 800-1000 fishing canoes in the town, fishermen operate in the waters along the whole of the region’s coast from Takoradi to the Ivory Coast border (Fig. 1). From 15 November to 19 December 2012 (34 days), 25 fishing teams were asked to report sea turtles encountered as bycatch in their nets. The fishermen used a mixture of gillnets, including set-round nets (which are soaked for up to 24 hours) and linear nets that are constantly attended by fishermen. This study focused on the linear nets because of the increased likelihood that the turtles encountered would still be alive. As well, it was hoped that

this might encourage conservation projects in the area that are trying to reduce the use of round-nets as a way of reducing turtle deaths as bycatch. The participating fishermen were individually trained on sea turtle handling, identification and biometric data collection, including measures of curved carapace length (CCL) and curved carapace width (CCW). They were given illustrated data sheets to record location, time, species, injuries, and measurements of any sea turtles encountered as bycatch. Those fishermen with camera phones were asked to photograph the turtles before release. The use of illustrated data sheets enabled illiterate fishermen to take part in the study. As every boat must remain in the harbor for at least one day every week for cultural reasons and because effort varied widely by boat, the catch per unit effort was calculated using the amount of sea turtles caught per boat over the entire study period of 34 days.

Olive ridleys were the most common sea turtles reported as bycatch. With 2.96 CPUE (using sea turtles caught per boat, Table 1), olive ridleys were numerous throughout the study, being consistently caught every week. Loggerheads were also recorded, although in

Figure 1. The study site in Ghana’s Western Region. Fishing range is shown by black lines on the main map, with the town of Axim circled. The color gradient of the ocean shows the bathymetry (in meters).

-10000 -7500 -5000 -2500 0

-3.00° -2.67° -2.33° -2.00° -1.67°

4.00°

4.33°

4.67°

5.00°

5.33°

GHANA

Atlantic Ocean

AximTakoradi


relatively low numbers compared to olive ridleys, and all captures occurred within the first nine days of the study. One hawksbill, one leatherback and one green turtle were also captured (Table 1).

The average size of the olive ridleys captured was 61.8 ± 5.6SD cm CCL (Table 1), which roughly corresponds with the estimated global reproductive average of 66.0 cm CCL (Spotila 2004). The smallest olive ridley captured (45.7 cm CCL and 47.0 cm CCW; Fig. 2), was likely an immature turtle. There was also an olive ridley reported with measurements of 90.2 cm CCL and 91.4 cm CCW, which suggests it was an unusually large olive ridley. The photograph for this turtle showed that it had olive ridley characteristics, but species could not be conclusively determined. Therefore, data for this animal are not included in the summary tables or figure. The single hawksbill captured was 34.3 cm CCL and 25.4 cm CCW, while the one green turtle captured was 33.0 cm CCL and 35.6 cm CCW. Both these turtles are smaller than the average reproductive size for the species in the Atlantic (Chaloupka & Limpus 1997; Luke et al. 2004; Spotila 2004). Unfortunately, due to the large size of the leatherback, fishermen were unable to bring it aboard their canoe boats to collect measurements (Table 1). The larger values for CCW in comparison to the CCL values are surprising, as in other studies these species of turtles has been measured with CCL values greater than CCW (e.g. Shanker et al. 2003). This may reflect issues in the data collection, rather than abnormalities in the turtle population.

For the captures with known locations, half were from the coast west of Axim between the town and the border with the Ivory Coast (Table 2). No captures were recorded from the coast east of Axim. This may be because more fishing boats travel to the west than to the east. To the east of Axim is the large town of Takoradi where large commercial fishing vessels are located; these vessels reportedly use illegal means of fishing such as light and explosives. These fishing methods disrupt fishing activities for the canoes of Axim, so the fishermen tend to avoid commercial boats, and Takoradi. To the west of Axim there are no large towns and thus there is less competition for fish. More information would be needed to confirm whether this is the actual reason for the lack of sea turtle captures in this area, or whether sea turtles are absent from the waters surrounding Takoradi.

Olive ridleys are the most abundant turtle species in the region, nesting throughout West African countries, and some are occasionally resident in the Gulf of Guinea (Barnett et al. 2004; Formia et al. 2003, 2007; Fretey & Malaussena 1991; Fretey et al. 2007; Tomas et al. 2010; Weir et al. 2007). The Gulf of Guinea does occasionally support immature olive ridleys (Formia et al.

2003, 2007), although most stay in pelagic areas for their entire development (Luschi et al. 2003). With these preliminary data on bycatch, it cannot be confirmed if the individuals we observed were feeding, reproducing, residing, or simply migrating through the area. The CPUE data are based on the number of boats participating in the study, and suggest that the interaction between an individual canoe and sea turtles is relatively low. However, if these bycatch rates from Axim are extrapolated to all the fishing communities along the entire coast, the severity of the problem becomes more apparent.

Interestingly, loggerheads were found more frequently than expected (Table 1). Unfortunately, it was not possible to place metal flipper tags or PIT tags on captured and released animals, meaning some loggerheads may have been recaptured in this study. However, four loggerheads were captured on one boat at one time, confirming that they do have a presence in Ghanaian waters. Although loggerheads are abundant in some countries in Atlantic Africa (Formia et al. 2003; Tomas et al. 2010; Weir et al. 2007), both for nesting and for feeding, relatively little is known about their feeding area in the region (see Monzón-Argüello et al. 2010). Currently, there are few records of any sea turtle activities in the Ivory Coast and Liberia due to political instability, which limits the research that can be undertaken by conservation organizations (Formia et al. 2003). It is possible that there are greater numbers of loggerheads feeding along the coast of Central Western African countries than previously thought, which would be an important area to establish conservation efforts, especially with the oil construction escalating in the region. There are known loggerhead foraging areas from Mauritania to Sierra Leone, including within coastal reefs (Monzón-Argüello et al. 2010), and there is an offshore reef about 10 km from the Ghanaian coast. Many fishermen prefer to fish in that area, especially in calm weather, presumably because it has a greater abundance of fish. According to boat owners, this reef extends to where oil rig construction is underway, and where the water depth increases substantially (Nana Kwesi Bin 2012). It would be useful to investigate unmonitored beaches using GPS to confirm whether loggerheads are nesting or whether they are simply residing offshore. A tagging program would also be useful to investigate how many individuals of each species are present, although this would require constant communication among amateur conservationists, small conservation groups and the government to extend tagging across the Western Region’s coastline (nesting and in-water).

The low rate of leatherback bycatch is interesting (Table 1). The nesting season for leatherbacks in Bioko, in the Gulf of Guinea, runs from November-February, with a peak from December-

SpeciesNumber caught CPUE CCL (cm) CCW (cm)

Olive ridley 71 2.96 61.8 ±5.6 63.8 ±4.8Loggerhead 7 0.29 68.6 ±7.2 69.2 ±2.7Leatherback 1 0.04 N/A N/AHawksbill 1 0.04 34.3 25.4

Green 1 0.04 33.0 35.6Unknown 3 0.13 66.5 ±2.7 64.8 ±3.1

Table 1. Number and average curved carapace length (CCL) and width (CCW) ±SD of sea turtles incidentally captured in Ghana. CPUE = average captures of turtles per boat.

SpeciesWest of Axim

Outside Axim

East of Axim

Unknown location

Olive ridley 21 23 0 27Loggerhead 1 1 0 5Leatherback 0 0 0 1Hawksbill 1 0 0 0

Green 1 0 0 0Unknown 0 0 0 3

Total 24 24 0 36Table 2. Reported capture locales for sea turtles in Ghana.


January (Tomas et al. 2010). It is likely that the leatherback nesting season is similar in Ghana, thus there should have been reproductive leatherback females in the coastal area during the study period. Indeed, leatherbacks were observed nesting every week during the study period on the coast west of Axim (J. Flynn unpubl. data). As there were some turtles traveling close to shore for nesting, we expected to see them caught by the canoe fishermen (Luschi et al. 2003; Spotila 2004). A possible reason for the lack of documented leatherbacks is that fishermen were fearful of reporting leatherback information due to the greater enforcement of laws against leatherback poaching in Ghana. Although the take of any marine turtle is illegal under the Ghana Wildlife Regulations Act of 1974 (Doak 2009) and illegal poaching continues (Tanner 2013), the protection of leatherbacks is enforced more regularly than the protection for hard-shelled sea turtle species (Nana Kwesi Bin 2012).

The hawksbill and green turtles captured were juvenile-sized animals. The Gulf of Guinea, in the waters surrounding Ghana, is an important habitat for both adult and immature sea turtles, with juvenile greens and hawksbills foraging in the area throughout the year (Formia et al. 2003, 2007). The coastal habitats off Cameroon and Equatorial Guinea are significant developmental habitats for hawksbill juveniles (Monzón-Argüello et al. 2011). It is likely that the individuals caught were residents in feeding or developmental habitats in and around the Gulf of Guinea. The local fishermen claim to catch many juvenile sea turtles (Nana Kwesi Bin 2012), further supporting the importance of the Gulf of Guinea as a foraging habitat.

There were a few shortcomings in this study, which could be improved in future work, by positively identifying species, reducing transcript errors, and by using a longer period of study, with more detailed information collected on fishing effort per boat. Preferably, future studies should run for a whole year, to account for any potential seasonality of species occurrence in the area. A concomitant comprehensive beach survey would be useful for identifying which species are nesting in the area and when nesting is most common. Although all fishermen were trained sufficiently, there were 25 different canoe crews taking measurements, and all were new to this type of data collection. However, without their

participation, these important data would not have been collected. By comparing photographs to the species recorded by the fishermen, it was noted that only a minority of fishermen were consistent in positive identification, so any turtles without photographs had to be labelled as “unknown.” The data recorded over the study period suggest that five sea turtle species (leatherback, olive ridley, loggerhead, green and hawksbill) occur in the coastal waters of Ghana, with olive ridleys being the most common.

Ghana is a country previously overlooked in its conservation potential due to lack of information about sea turtle distribution and abundance. This study shows that Ghana may host significant numbers and diversity of sea turtle species. The country is currently investing in the oil industry, creating large oil rigs off the coast, with pipes to the refineries on the shore. As well large commercial docks are being built for oil transportation (J. Flynn unpubl. data). These practices may damage the offshore reefs and they may also limit nesting habitat on beaches that are being removed to make way for dock construction. These large scale offshore construction projects may have a large impact on sea turtles if the Ghanaian coastal waters are found to be an important forging habitat for various species within the larger Gulf of Guinea area. Continuing research in Ghana has the potential to document these effects and to improve conservation measures for sea turtles in the region.Acknowledgements. The author wishes to acknowledge the Maptool program for analysis and graphics in this paper. Maptool is a product of SEATURTLE.ORG. (Information is available at www.seaturtle.org). This study would not have been possible without the cooperation of the Ghanaian Wildlife Division who provided the licences, the Environmental Justice Foundation who aided in liaising with local people, Wildseas local staff members who facilitated the data collection by helping to train local fishermen and acting as translators during meetings, and the village chiefs and district paramount chiefs who aided and cooperated throughout the study and have continued their conservation actions to date.BARNETT, L.K., C. EMMS, A. JALLOW, A.M. CHAM & J.A.

MORTIMER. 2004. The distribution and conservation status of marine turtle in The Gambia, West Africa: a first assessment. Oryx 38: 203-208.

CHALOUPKA, M.Y. & C.J. LIMPUS. 1997. Robust statistical modelling of hawksbill sea turtle growth rates (Southern Great Barrier Reef). Marine Ecology Progress Series 146: 1-8.

DOAK, K. 2009. Sea turtle conservation on the west coast of Ghana: a background report. Nature Conservation Research Centre. Beyin pp. 7-27.

FORMIA, A., M. TIWARI, J. FRETEY & A. BILLES. 2003. Sea turtle conservation along the Atlantic coast of Africa. Marine Turtle Newsletter 100: 33-37.

FORMIA, A., S. DEEM, A. BILLES, S. NGOUESSONO, R. PARNELL, T. COLLINS, G.P. SOUNGUET, A. GIBUDI, A. VILLARUBIA, G.H. BALAZS & T.R. SPRAKER. 2007. Fibropapillomatosis confirmed in Chelonia mydas in the Gulf of Guinea, West Africa. Marine Turtle Newsletter 116: 20-22.

FRETEY, J. & J.P. MALAUSSENA. 1991. Sea turtle nesting in Sierra Leone, West Africa. Marine Turtle Newsletter 54: 10-12.

FRETEY, J., A. BILLES & M. TIWARI. 2007. Leatherbacks, Dermochelys coriacea, nesting along the Atlantic coast of Africa.

Figure 2. Curved carapace length (CCL) and curved carapace width (CCW) of olive ridleys captured. Data from 54 turtles with biometric data are plotted; note that some points overlap and are indiscernable.

CC

W (c

m)

CCL (cm)


Chelonian Conservation & Biology 6: 126-129.LUKE, K., J.A. HORROCKS, R.A. LEROUX & P.H. DUTTON.

2004. Origins of green turtle (Chelonia mydas) feeding aggregations around Barbados, West Indies. Marine Biology 144: 799-805.

LUSCHI, P., G.C. HAYS & F. PAPI. 2003. A review of long-distance movements by marine turtles, and the possible role of ocean currents. Oikos 103: 293-302.

MONZÓN-ARGÜELLO, C., N.S. LOUREIRO, C. DELGADO, A. MARCO, J.M. LOPES, M.G. GOMES & F.A. ABREU-GROBOIS. 2011. Principe Island hawksbills: genetic isolation of an Eastern Atlantic stock. Journal of Experimental Marine Biology 407: 345-354.

MONZÓN-ARGÜELLO, C., C. RICO, E. NARO-MACIEL, N. VARO-CRUZ, P. LOPEZ, A. MARCO & L.F. LOPEZ-JUARDO. 2010. Population structure and conservation implications for the loggerhead sea turtle of the Cape Verde Islands. Conservation Genetics 11: 1871-1884.

NANA KWESI BIN, CHIEF FISHERMAN. 2012. Axim fishermen meeting. Wildseas & Environmental Justice Foundation, Interviewers.

SHANKER, K., B. PANDAV & B.C. CHOUDHURY. 2003. An assessment of the olive ridley turtle (Lepidochelys olivacea) nesting population in Orissa, India. Biological Conservation 115: 149-160.

SPOTILA, J.R. 2004. Sea Turtles: A Complete Guide To Their Biology, Behavior, And Conservation. The John Hopkins University Press. Baltimore and London. 240 pp.

TANNER, C. 2013. Sea turtle conservation in Ghana’s Western Region: the bigger picture. Marine Turtle Newsletter 136: 9-12.

TOMAS, J., B.J. GODLEY, J. CASTROVIEJO & J.A. RAGA, 2010. Bioko: critically important nesting habitat for sea turtles of West Africa. Biodiversity Conservation 19: 2699-2714.

WEIR, C.R., T. RON, M. MORAIS & A.D.C. DUARTE. 2007. Nesting and at-sea distribution of marine turtles in Angola, West Africa, 2000-2006: occurrence, threats and conservation implications. Oryx 41: 224-231.

Information on sea turtles is generally limited to breeding individuals and hatchlings monitored on nesting beaches. The life stages between hatchling and adult are difficult to observe and are referred to as the “lost years” (Carr et al. 1978). However, research regarding diet, population density and population viability has been conducted to better understand juvenile life stages (Maffucci et al. 2013; Witherington et al. 2012) and so, no more are those years as “lost” to knowledge as they were before. Any information on individuals at these stages is valuable and contributes to our knowledge of the ecology and life history of these charismatic marine species.

Green turtles (Chelonia mydas) are a cosmopolitan species (Godley et al. 2001; Pritchard 1996). Molecular studies have shown that the Indo-Pacific population is phylogenetically different from that of the Atlantic-Mediterranean where the haplotypes were grouped into separate clusters corresponding to the two oceanic basins (Bowen et al. 1992). In the Indian sub-continent, green turtles nest in Sri Lanka, Pakistan, Myanmar and along the west coast of India (Gujarat) as well as the Lakshadweep and Andaman Island groups. The east coast of India (specifically Odisha) is particularly famous for olive ridley (Lepidochelys olivacea) nesting (Pandav et al. 1998). In Odisha, olive ridleys nest throughout the year with the peak season lasting from December to April. However, there are no reports of green turtles nesting along the Odisha coast, or in fact anywhere along the east coast of India.

Implications of Juvenile Green Turtle (Chelonia mydas) Sightings Along the East Coast of India

Nupur Kale

Dakshin Foundation, Samvriddhi Gardenia Apartments, Sahakara Nagar Bangalore 560 092, India (E-mail: [email protected])

On the night of 11 March, 2013, a stranded juvenile green turtle was found on the Rushikulya beach in Odisha, India (Fig. 1). The turtle showed signs of predation by feral dogs and was at an advanced stage of decomposition. Morphometric data were collected but the sex of the juvenile could not be determined because it is not possible to determine the sex of an immature turtle by its external characteristics (Bolten et al. 1992).

The next day, a fisherman notified our staff of what he called a ‘red’ turtle, which caught his attention due to his lack of familiarity with its color and shape (Fig. 1). The turtle had been caught in a sardine net (locally the net is called kabala jaal) about 3 km from the shore near Gokhurkuda, a fishing village north of the mouth of the Rushikulya River. The turtle was captured and identified as a juvenile green turtle. The turtle was released after morphometric data were collected (Table 1). The fisherman and his crew were surveyed to determine if other villagers had seen any species of sea turtle other than olive ridleys.

A few juvenile green turtles have been reported along the Odisha coast. One juvenile green was caught in a monofilament gillnet (Pandav & Choudhury 2000) while another was caught in a seine net near the Rushikulya olive ridley rookery (John et al. 2010). Additionally, a sub-adult green was reported approximately 200 km south of Rushikulya near Vishakhapatnam, Andhra Pradesh (Tripathy & Choudhury 2002) and a juvenile green turtle was


Figure 1. Juvenile green turtles near the mouth of the Rushikulya River: (top) Live juvenile caught near Gokhurkuda village, Odisha, India. (bottom) Stranded juvenile on the Rushikulya mass-nesting sandbar.

found entangled in a fishing net at Basavan Kuppam fishing village in Tamil Nadu (http://www.seaturtle.org/tracking/index.shtml?tag_id=99758b).

Upon further discussion with the fishermen, one of them mentioned seeing a green turtle nest along with olive ridleys during an arribada (mass nesting). However, there is no evidence to support his claim. Since the discovery of the Rushikulya mass-nesting beach in 1994 (Pandav et al. 1994), there has been constant monitoring of the nesting beach and the nesting population, and there have been no reports of green turtles nesting there.

It is difficult to ascertain the exact reason for the sighting of green turtles in the recent past along the Odisha coast. One possible explanation could be increased nearshore fishing activity by traditional fishers. Smaller crafts tend to use gillnets that could lead to easy trapping of turtles and hence, increased detection.

Another possible reason for green turtle presence in nearshore waters could be due to a potential foraging area: the Chilika lagoon. Green turtles are herbivorous and the Chilika lagoon, 55 km north of Rushikulya, supports a large diversity of sea grasses and weeds such as Halophila ovalis, Halophila minor and Gracillaria lichenoids (http://www.bsienvis.nic.in), which form a part of the green turtle diet (Agastheesapillai & Thiagarajan 1979; Arthur et al. 2006). It is likely that both of these factors play a role in the observed increase in green turtle sightings.

While these observations indicate the occasional occurrence of juvenile turtles in the Bay of Bengal, the incidental capture in fishing net and a dead stranded juvenile indicate that fishing activity continues to be a threat to turtles. The use of gillnets by mechanized fishing boats is known to be a primary cause of olive ridley mortality in Odisha (Pandav & Choudhury 2000). In many cases, as observed in all the recorded juvenile encounters in this region, turtles caught by traditional minimally intensive fishing methods have been rescued with little trauma and later, released into the sea.

In conclusion, further investigation to understand whether green turtles are foraging in the Bay of Bengal, and particularly within the Chilika lagoon, could yield important information about the more elusive life stages of green turtles in the Indian Ocean. Additionally, there is a need to implement effective monitoring programs to ascertain the number of juvenile green turtle sightings along the east coast. In addition, co-ordination with local fishing communities during the peak nesting season may help to minimize mortality of sea turtles in the Bay of Bengal.AGASTHEESAPILLAI, A. & R. THIAGARAJAN. 1979. Biology

of the green turtle Chelonia mydas (Linnaeus) in the Gulf of Mannar and Palk Bay. Journal of Marine Biological Association of India. 21: 45-60.

ARTHUR, K.E., C.J. LIMPUS, C.M. ROELFSEMA, J.W. UDY & G.R. SHAW. 2006. A bloom of Lyngbya majuscula in Shoalwater

Bay, Queensland, Australia: an important feeding ground for the green turtle (Chelonia mydas). Harmful Algae 5: 251-265.

BOLTEN, A.B., K.A. BJORNDAL, J.S. GRUMBLES & D.W. OWENS. 1992. Sex ratio and sex-specific growth rates of immature green turtles, Chelonia mydas, in the Southern Bahamas. Copeia 4: 1099-1103.

BOWEN, B.W., A.B. MEYLAN, J.P. ROSS, C.J. LIMPUS, G.H. BALAZS & J.C. AVISE. 1992. Global population structure and natural history of the green turtle (Chelonia mydas) in terms of maternal phylogeny. Evolution 46: 865-881.

CARR, A., M.H. CARR, A.B. MEYLAN. 1978. The ecology and migrations of sea turtles. 7. The West Caribbean green turtle colony. Bulletin of the American Museum of Natural History 162: 1-46.

GODLEY, B.J., A.C. BRODERICK & G.C. HAYS. 2001. Nesting of green turtles (Chelonia mydas) at Ascension Island, South Atlantic. Biological Conservation 97: 151-158.

JOHN, S., S.R. KUMAR, B.C. CHOUDHURY & K. SIVAKUMAR. 2010. Observations of juvenile green and hawksbill turtles along the Southern Orissa coast, India. Indian Ocean Turtle Newsletter 12: 9-12.

Morphometrics Live Juvenile Dead JuvenileCCL (cm) 41.0 30.0CCW (cm) 38.0 30.4

Front flipper length (cm) 25.0 24.0Table 1. Morphometric measurements of the juvenile green turtles found in Rushikulya.


MAFFUCCI, F., I. D’ANGELO, S. HOCHSCHEID, M. CIAMPA, G. DE MARTINO, A. TRAVAGLINI, G. TREGLIA & F. BENTIVEGNA. 2013. Sex ratio of juvenile loggerhead turtles in the Mediterranean Sea: is it really 1:1? Marine Biology 160: 1097-1107.

PANDAV, B., B.C. CHOUDHURY & C.S. KAR. 1994. Discovery of a new sea turtle rookery in Orissa, India. Marine Turtle Newsletter 67: 15-16.

PANDAV, B., B.C. CHOUDHURY & K. SHANKER. 1998. The olive ridley sea turtle (Lepidochelys olivacea) in Orissa: an urgent call for an intensive and integrated conservation programme. Current Science 75: 1323-1328.

PANDAV, B. & B.C. CHOUDHURY. 2000. Conservation and management of olive ridley sea turtle (Lepidochelys olivacea) in Orissa. Final report. Wildlife Institute of India, Dehradun. 26pp.

PRITCHARD, P.C.H. 1996. Evolution, phylogeny and status. In: Lutz, P.L. & J.A. Musick (Eds.). The Biology of Sea Turtles. CRC Press, Boca Raton. pp. 1-28.

TRIPATHY, B. & B.C. CHOUDHURY. 2002. Recent sighting of the green turtle Chelonia mydas on the coast of Andhra Pradesh, India. Marine Turtle Newsletter 98: 3-4.

WITHERINGTON, B., S. HIRAMA & R. HARDY. 2012. Young sea turtles of the pelagic Sargassum-dominated drift community: habitat use, population density, and threats. Marine Ecology Progress Series 463: 1-22.

Potential Inter-Season Sperm Storage by a Female Hawksbill Turtle

Karl P. Phillips1,2, Tove H. Jorgensen1,3, Kevin G. Jolliffe4 & David S. Richardson1

1School of Biological Sciences, University of East Anglia, Norwich Research Park, Norwich, NR4 7TJ, UK (E-mail: [email protected]; [email protected]); 2NERC Biomolecular Analysis Facility (NBAF), Department of Animal and Plant Sciences, University of Sheffield, Western Bank, Sheffield, S10 2TN, UK; 3Department of Bioscience, Aarhus

University, DK-8000, Aarhus, Denmark; 4Cousine Island, P.O. Box 977, Victoria, Mahé, Republic of Seychelles

Female Testudines can store viable sperm for a long time. Among marine species, a single insemination is often enough to sire a female’s entire reproductive output for a nesting season, extending to hundreds of offspring laid over a period exceeding two months (e.g., Phillips et al. 2013). For some terrestrial species, the standard reproductive tactic is for females to mate prior to hibernation, store sperm over the winter, and then use this sperm to fertilize their eggs in the spring (e.g., Gist et al. 1990; Johnston et al. 2006; Loy & Cianfrani 2010). However, several terrestrial and freshwater species in captivity have been recorded laying viable eggs after periods of isolation from males extending well beyond a single breeding season (e.g., Ewing 1943 (3-4 years); Murphy et al. 2007 (15 years); Whitaker 2006 (15 years)), raising the question as to whether longer-term sperm storage, spanning more than one breeding episode, occurs in wild populations.

As part of a study into paternity patterns in hawksbill turtles (Eretmochelys imbricata), we sampled tissue from nesting females and emerging hatchlings on Cousine Island, Republic of Seychelles, in the 2007/08 and 2008/09 nesting seasons. We generated DNA profiles of these samples using an extremely powerful array of 32 variable microsatellite loci (probability of two randomly-chosen individuals having identical genotypes = 9.95 ×10-31), and used mother and offspring data to reconstruct the paternal genotypes in the paternity analysis software COLONY 2.0 (Wang & Santure 2009). For a full description of the molecular methodology and paternal genotype reconstruction, see Phillips et al. (2013). Over the following two seasons (2009/10 and 2010/11), 12 of these females

were observed returning to nest on Cousine (re-migration intervals of 2-3 years), and we again sampled their offspring and reconstructed the paternal genotypes. The fathers of the offspring of 11 of these returning females were new males. However, the offspring of the twelfth female were all sired by the exact same male as in her previous visit two years earlier. We genotyped 79 of this female’s offspring in her first year and 32 in her second.

However one interprets this finding, it is remarkable. A chance re-encounter with the same male is possible but seems unlikely, given the rarity of male re-sightings in our study (three other males in this data set were seen in two separate years of the study) and the conclusion from this is that the number of available male mates is likely very large and/or highly mobile (see Phillips et al. 2013). A repeat encounter may be more likely if individuals use the same, idiosyncratic migration routes across years, but testing this hypothesis would require tracking individuals of both sexes over several remigration periods (e.g., Broderick et al. 2007). Another possibility is that the encounter has resulted from some form of pre-copulatory mate choice, but this seems even less likely – studies on sexual selection in marine turtles have yet to demonstrate biases in paternity patterns (e.g., Phillips et al. 2013) or benefits to females from given mating strategies (e.g., Wright et al. 2013).

A third explanation is that this single female stored viable sperm over two years. This raises the possibility that all females store unused sperm from one season as a means of ensuring fertility, utilizing it if they don’t manage to mate successfully during their next fertile period. Should they re-mate, females would presumably


eject their store from the previous season at some point during the courtship/copulation process (selective control of sperm stores by females is well known in other taxa, e.g., Bretman et al. 2009; Løvlie et al. 2013), as otherwise we might expect to see a higher rate of multiple paternity resulting from stored sperm mixing with new sperm. We saw relatively few cases of multiple paternity (< 10% of females), and in the one case of multiple paternity in our 12 re-migrant females, neither male was the father of that female’s offspring in the previous season. Interestingly, if our focal female has stored sperm for two years, her reproductive output has not significantly changed between seasons (number of hatchlings per nest (mean ± SE) = 163.5 ± 13.8 vs. 146.4 ± 24.4, nnests = 4 and 5; t = 0.61, df = 6.12, P = 0.56), suggesting that the viability of the sperm has remained high between seasons. However, 66% of eggs in her final observed nest in her second season failed to develop, compared with an average of 1-9% over her previous eight nests, which may indicate an eventual depletion of sperm number or quality.

Our inferences are necessarily speculative, but the basic finding should be of interest to marine (and non-marine) turtle biologists however they choose to interpret it. We urge other researchers to keep a look out for such patterns that may indicate long-term sperm storage. However, if one does choose to interpret this case as an incidence of inter-season sperm storage, we should not get too carried away: in social insects, such as ants, a single mating will often supply a queen with sufficient sperm to last decades, fertilizing literally millions of offspring.Acknowledgements. We thank the staff and management of Cousine Island, especially J. Henwood, S.-M. Jolliffe, and the island’s owner F. Keeley, for initiating this turtle paternity project, for logistic support in the field, and for collecting so many of the samples; J. Mortimer for feedback on the initial research proposal; A. Krupa, D. Dawson, G. Horsburgh, A. Frantz and T. Burke for help with molecular and statistical work; and the University of East Anglia (UEA) Research Computing Service for supporting data analysis software. Genotyping was performed at the Natural Environment Research Council (NERC) Biomolecular Analysis Facility at Sheffield, UK. The project was funded by a UEA Dean of Science Studentship, NERC, and considerable in-kind support from Cousine Island. Turtle tissue samples were collected under a Seychelles Bureau of Standards permit (NRDC/0266 to D.S. Richardson; last updated in 2011) and exported in accordance with the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species (permits SC9117736A602 to K.G. Jolliffe and 475521/01 to D.S. Richardson, 2011).

EWING, H.E. 1943. Continued fertility in female box turtles following mating. Copeia 1943: 112-114.

BRETMAN, A., D. NEWCOMBE & T. TREGENZA. 2009. Promiscuous females avoid inbreeding by controlling sperm storage. Molecular Ecology 18: 3340-3345.

BRODERICK, A.C., M.S. COYNE, W.J. FULLER, F. GLEN & B.J. GODLEY. 2007. Fidelity and over-wintering of sea turtles. Proceedings of the Royal Society B-Biological Sciences 274: 1533-1538.

GIST, D.H., J.A. MICHAELSON & J.M. JONES. 1990. Autumn mating in the painted turtle, Chrysemys picta. Herpetologica 46: 331-336.

JOHNSTON, E.E., M.S. RAND & S.G. ZWEIFEL. 2006. Detection of multiple paternity and sperm storage in a captive colony of the central Asian tortoise, Testudo horsfieldii. Canadian Journal of Zoology 84: 520-526.

LOY, A. & C. CIANFRANI. 2010. The ecology of Eurotestudo h. hermanni in a mesic area of southern Italy: first evidence of sperm storage. Ethology Ecology & Evolution 22: 1-16.

LØVLIE, H., M.A.F. GILLINGHAM, K. WORLEY, T. PIZZARI & D.S. RICHARDSON. 2013. Cryptic female choice favours sperm from major histocompatibility complex-dissimilar males. Proceedings of the Royal Society B-Biological Sciences 280: 20131296.

MURPHY, R.W., K.H. BERRY, T. EDWARDS & A.M. MCLUCKIE. 2007. A genetic assessment of the recovery units for the Mojave population of the desert tortoise, Gopherus agassizii. Chelonian Conservation & Biology 6: 229-251.

PHILLIPS, K.P., T.H. JORGENSEN, K.G. JOLLIFFE, S.-M. JOLLIFFE, J. HENWOOD & D.S. RICHARDSON. 2013. Reconstructing paternal genotypes to infer patterns of sperm storage and sexual selection in the hawksbill turtle. Molecular Ecology 22: 2301-2312.

WANG, J. & A.W. SANTURE. 2009. Parentage and sibship inference from multilocus genotype data under polygamy. Genetics 181: 1579-1594.

WHITAKER, N. 2006. Immaculate conception, incubation protocols, and egg characteristics of the Ganges softshell turtle (Aspideretes gangeticus). Contemporary Herpetology 2006: 1-6.

WRIGHT, L.I., W.J. FULLER, B.J. GODLEY, A. McGOWAN, T. TREGENZA & A.C. BRODERICK. 2013. No benefits of polyandry to female green turtles. Behavioral Ecology 24: 1022-1029.


Foreward for “A Time Apart”

George Balazs992-A Awaawaanoa Place, Honolulu, Hawaii 96825 USA (E-mail: [email protected])

With admiration and respect for local island communities, I am honored to recommend "A Time Apart" to the readers of Marine Turtle Newsletter. The author of the article, who wishes to remain anonymous, is a native Hawaiian that has been my close friend for the past 32 years. The story he presents here offers a perspective not previously expressed in the pages of the Marine Turtle Newsletter. Indeed, not all readers will agree with the author's views. But all will, I hope, be inspired to give thoughtful consideration to his cultural insights and conviction. Questions that one might ponder include: How much research and information is really needed and enough to conserve sea turtles on a sustainable basis? In our seemingly

never ending curious quest for data and detail, is something being forsaken of our fundamental human acceptance of nature for the gift it really is?

These brief introductory comments have been written in my personal capacity as Regional Vice Co-Chair of the Oceania Region, IUCN Marine Turtle Specialist Group. I thank the Editors of Marine Turtle Newsletter for their continuing robust commitment to provide a forum for the exchange of diverse views.

"Sea turtles return in the dark of the night to escape notice. Ambiguity is their hallmark, and so should it be for those who are privileged with serendipitous rendezvous."- Author of A Time Apart.

A Time Apart

Anonymous

Ua ‘ea aʻe ke loaʻa ‘ole

“The ʻea lives when it is not gotten.” (Anonymous)

We had never met, but our paths crossed many times before. Each year during the time known as kau wela to native Hawaiians she would announce her arrival with subtle imprints in the sand. Each year she would steal up from the night to lay her eggs amidst the dangling pōhuehue vines that outlined the crescent-shaped bay. And each year, for the past twenty years, I would make the long trip to the same remote beach for our annual rendezvous.

She was certainly not bashful when it came to saying hello. Again and again she would crawl from the bosom of the sea to deposit her clutches. Each day thereafter under the blazing sun, I would trace her meandering tracks to locate and count her nocturnal excavations. Some years our footprints would mingle as many as six or seven times. Her tracks, easily discernable in the morning sun, became less distinct as the day wore on. Each gust of wind softened her footprints with drifting sand. By day’s end only a concerted effort by knowing eyes could distinguish the traces of her nightly visits. Soon enough the relentless tradewinds and undulating tides would cover her tracks, leaving the beach a blank canvas ready to paint her next appearance.

Dutifully, we each would revisit the secluded beach over and over again. For three months at a time, our footprints would merge every 14 to 18 days until she was completely spent and returned no more. Her arduous mission completed, she would vanish to parts unknown until the next summer. My reprieve was never that long. Within weeks the leathery eggs she left behind transformed into miniature replicas of herself. At a predetermined time they would erupt en masse from their sandy cradles and dash frantically to the beckoning sea. At the water’s edge, the unremitting waves pummeled them relentlessly. Paddling fiercely, the stronger ones make their way

past the shore breaks to relative safety. Their weaker siblings would not be so fortunate. They would be carried backwards and tossed onto a rocky promontory only to become wedged between boulders. If the tide was rising, there was still hope. A friendly wave might still carry them back out to sea. If the tide was ebbing, they were doomed. Not many stragglers would survive the blistering sun until the next swelling tide.

Those fateful strandings enabled me to identify their secretive mother as ka ‘ea, known to westerners as the hawksbill turtle because of the shape of its beaklike mouth. Revered throughout the Pacific, ka ‘ea is deeply embedded in our Hawaiian culture. For millennia its dark red meat provided much needed protein for our ancestors. Various other internal parts became essential medicinal ingredients for lapaʻau rituals. Numerous useful utensils such as combs, spoons, and dishes were commonly fashioned from its thick shell. Native fishermen found its carapace indispensable in making net needles, mesh gauges, and fishhooks. Its colorful serrated shell was also fabricated into ceremonial adornments such as bracelets and pendants. The role of ka ‘ea extended beyond the visceral and utilitarian needs of native Hawaiians. It also fulfilled a spiritual connection for the first people of these islands. In the ancient creation chant of the Hawaiian Islands the Kumulipo, it is ka ʻea that was “born from the darkness of the night.” It was upon the back of ka ‘ea that mortals were transported from the “lower islands” to the “upper outer kingdom.” And it was ka ‘ea that guarded the ocean passage to the “kingdom of Kuaihelani,” the residence of our supernatural gods. So intimately linked are we that ka ‘ea is forever ingrained within our spiritual psyche, our genetic memory.

The hawksbill is one of several extant species of sea turtles found in the Hawaiian Islands. Markedly distinct from its larger cousin ke honu, the green sea turtle, they are nowhere as common. While green sea turtles abound in the shallow reefs around our Islands, hawksbills are seldom encountered. Twenty years of research as


a biologist have given me the opportunity to identify more than several thousand Hawaiian sea turtles with numbered tags. Of these encounters, only two were hawksbills. This rarity tugged at my curiosity and begged to be explored. To start, I considered that perhaps a satellite transmitter could be attached to my enigmatic partner. Linked with such a device I would be able to determine her whereabouts after leaving me to care for her offspring each year. My ploy determined, I readied myself for our annual rendezvous.

Counting the days between nesting episodes enabled me to predict subsequent visits with amazing accuracy. For several months as if on a schedule she arrived to perform her time-honored ritual. Each night she would plow across the beach until locating a suitable spot before carefully excavating a pit with her rear flippers. Painstakingly, she would deposit as many as 120 golf ball-sized spheres into a well-formed cavity. And then, as if following a prescribed script, she would inch forward and use her front flippers to disguise her nest by flailing sand backwards across her back. Once satisfied with her ruse, she would crawl back into the embracing sea from which she emerged an hour or so earlier. At last, after months of clandestine meetings she was almost completely spent. The time had come to execute my scheme. I carefully counted the last remaining days until her next visit and assembled my gear. After all these many years I would get to meet her face to face. Finally I’ll get to know where she went after leaving me so abruptly each summer.

The kulu moon slipped in and out between dismal clouds. Distant flashes in the sky bode ominously. Through the drizzle I saw a dark break in the white ribbon of foam lapping the shoreline. Slowly at first, but with firm and decided motion she crawled onto the beach. With each ponderous stroke she moved farther and farther away from the protecting sea, the lambent moonlight imparting a glimmer off her still wet carapace. Only the occasional sound of flailing sand synchronized with laborious sighs interrupted the primordial stillness of the hilu night. It was as if time stopped and I had stepped back into another world.

She was beautiful! Vigorous and full of fight when I tried to stop her from returning to the sea. It didn’t take long to realize that holding her in the box was not going to work. Reinforcement with ropes and rocks, stakes and tree branches, had all proved futile. She was too strong and too determined. Not to be outdone, I secured an old cargo net from some nearby flotsam. Weaving several pieces of tattered rope through the webbing, I created a bag. Another fierce struggle ensued, but I managed to guide her into my hastily improvised net. As an added measure I hung my pugnacious prize from a hao tree. Suspended several inches above the sandy beach her powerful flippers were completely neutralized. Decades of anonymity ended, we stared at each other in the silence of the night: I in wonderment, and she in anger for having her life’s journey interrupted so unceremoniously.

After watching her dangle and being satisfied she was safely ensnared, I returned to camp to retrieve the transmitter. Barely fifteen minutes had passed, but I could not overcome the apprehension welling deep within my naʻau as I hurried back to the beach. My heart sank as I saw my makeshift sack hanging limply in the air. She had dismantled several weathered strands, and that was enough for her to slip away. Thinking there was still enough time, I quickly located her tracks and followed them to the shore, but to my dismay I saw them disappearing into the surf. Too late!

In disbelief I stood there stunned, staring hopelessly at her truncated prints. Gradually the rain dripping on my face awakened my senses and made me realize she was actually safe and well. Eschewing my snare, she now swam unhindered in the sea where she belonged. Oddly enough, my disappointment was replaced with a sense of relief. It was as if a large weight had been lifted off my shoulders. Slowly but surely, the sound of lapping waves began to register in my mind. And then, just as surely, I heard my tutu wahine’s voice (grandmother) speaking to me in the darkness of the night. “ʻO ̒ oe no ka mahaʻoi!” she admonished me. Her words exactly from many years ago when I peppered her with questions about her life. “You are too nosey!” In the gloomy night, her stern voice rang clear and strong again. “ʻAʻohe ou kuleana.” she said. “You need not concern yourself of those things.” The difference this time I understood exactly what she was trying to tell me those many years ago. She had wanted me to accept her as she was. There was no need for me to know every single nuance of her life. Such things were not necessary. I should have been satisfied knowing she was alive and well, and grateful for the opportunity to share some time with her. After all, shouldn’t that be what matters most?

I had that turtle bundled up tighter than a drum and still she managed to escape. A clearer omen there could not have been. It was as if tutu was again reminding me not to be so meddlesome and to appreciate things for what they were. Ka ‘ea was full of life, going about her business as she had done for so many years. I should had been satisfied knowing she was healthy and robust, and successful in fulfilling her life’s destiny. Moreover, I should had been appreciative that she had allowed me to share a moment in time with her. In return, she asked only for respect and privacy. It seems now only fair to permit her this remaining shred of dignity as the modern world encroaches upon her very existence. During our brief encounter on that remote beach that night, she reminded me that she was my contemporary and not an amusing scientific curiosity. With renewed appreciation, I wiped the blended rain and tears from my face. Slowly I turned my back to the sea and walked silently to camp. If ka ‘ea needs to be burdened with some haole contraption, it will have to be done without my participation. I will honor her wishes and bother her no more. I owe at least that much to my tutu.


ANNOUNCEMENT:ISTS 34 Student Committee Announcement and Request for Volunteers/Information

Itzel Sifuentes1 & Alexander Gaos2

1School Centro de Investigación en Alimentación y Desarrollo (CIAD), Unidad Mazatlán, Laboratorio de Biología Molecular, Av. Sabalo Cerritos s/n Estero del Yugo, CP 82000; AP 711 Mazatlán, Sinaloa, México (E-mail: [email protected])

2ICAPO, 3193 B Street San Diego, CA 92102, USA (E-mail: [email protected])

ISTS 34 represents the fourth consecutive ISTS at which the student committee will be in service. Below we provide details on the background, goals and objectives of the student committee. However, prior to doing so we encourage all ISTS members to participate and strengthen the student committees’ presence/activities this year by either volunteering as an evaluator or providing information. As in previous years, the Student Committee will be organizing three primary activities:

1) presentation feedback2) a student workshop (addressing the topic "From science to

conservation policies: taking research to the real world")3) the student mixer

This year we will also be compiling a list of opportunities for students.CALL FOR VOLUNTEERS: We kindly solicit the support of all potential evaluators to sign up and enable us to provide at least two evaluators for each presentation, thus maximizing feedback. If you have yet to register, please volunteer to be an evaluator by checking the appropriate box on the registration website. If you have already registered and did not check the box, but would like to volunteer as an evaluator, please contact us and let us know!JOB BOARD AND STUDENT OPPORTUNITIES: A new activity we are going to introduce during ISTS 34 is a database highlighting different positions available for students, including graduate opportunities, postdoctoral fellowships, jobs, internships, volunteer positions, etc. In order to compile this list, we ask all ISTS members to provide us with information on these opportunities, including opportunity title and a (very) brief description, contact data, and any other relevant information. We will compile a list of these opportunities for discussion and distribution to students. PLEASE CONTACT US: We would appreciate your suggestions, ideas, proposals and volunteer time to make the student committee a helpful platform to connect and share knowledge among students and researchers from around the world. Please do not hesitate to contact us if you have any questions. Primary contact: Itzel Sifuentes (E-mail: [email protected]). Secondary contact: Alexander Gaos (E-mail: [email protected]).Background on the ISTS Student Committee: As a group of students, in 2010 we proposed an ISTS student committee to promote knowledge exchange, enhance students' professional development, and provide a centralized communication base for students studying marine turtles worldwide, including traditional and non-traditional students. From 2010-2013, more than 100 students from over 15 countries have participated in ISTS student committee activities. We strongly encourage all students and non-students interested in connecting and sharing their experiences and knowledge to get involved and help continually improve student

committee activities for the 34 ISTS in New Orleans.Goals and objectives: Our goal is to make the student committee a formal component of ISTS, thus establishing this highly valuable aspect of the sea turtle community as a permanent group, allowing it to grow and adapt to meet the needs of the ISTS student community in the future. We want to create a global network of students and become a platform to discuss students’ needs and concerns. Achievements to date: The Annual symposium of sea turtle biology and conservation has been the perfect platform to develop various activities to benefit students would. We have developed three primary activities over the past three years, which have received overwhelmingly positive feedback, including: 1) Oral/poster Presentation feedback: Students travel from around the globe to present their research at the ISTS annual symposium. Receiving constructive feedback on presentations helps students maximize the benefits of attending the symposium. Evaluations provide insight on how to improve research and presentation skills, ultimately enhancing the professional strength of the overall sea turtle community. Over the years we have been optimizing the feedback dynamic. Now we have a check box in the symposium registration page to encourage both students to request feedback and researchers to volunteer as an evaluator. Students can also sign-up to be evaluators, thus promoting peer-to-peer development. We have had large numbers of students requesting feedback, yet we have had difficulties finding enough evaluators and we strongly urge all ISTS attendees with well-defined area(s) of expertise to volunteer for this activity. 2) Workshop: Each year we have organized a two-hour workshop addressing different topics of interest. Initially we, as students ourselves, came up with these topics. However, more recently we ask student attendees to identify topics of interest for the subsequent symposium. The idea is to provide tools that would benefit students as researchers and conservation professionals. With this in mind, each year we invite experts to speak of their personal experience in the “real world,” thus passing on their accumulated wealth of knowledge to the next generation of experts. During ISTS 33 we addressed the topic “Grant writing: how to get funds.” We were pleased by the enthusiasm of all the speakers, who prepared excellent oral presentations and passed on invaluable experience and information. See information on the workshop activities planned for this year’s ISTS above. 3) Student Mixer. The aim of this social mixer is to promote networking and communication among students and ISTS participants in general. Our purpose is to promote the interaction among all of us and allow us get to know each other in an informal setting. After all, we all share similar goals and as a large research/conservation community we provide unprecedented opportunities to learn from one another…and make lifelong friendships! Having the


RECENT PUBLICATIONSThis section is compiled by the Archie Carr Center for Sea Turtle Research (ACCSTR), University of Florida. The ACCSTR maintains the Sea Turtle On-line Bibliography: (http://st.cits.fcla.edu/st.jsp). It is requested that a copy of all publications (including technical reports and non-refereed journal articles) be sent to both:

The ACCSTR for inclusion in both the on-line bibliography and the MTN. Address: Archie Carr Center for Sea Turtle Research, University of Florida, PO Box 118525, Gainesville, FL 32611, USA.The Editors of the Marine Turtle Newsletter to facilitate the transmission of information to colleagues submitting articles who may not have access to on-line literature reviewing services.

opportunity to approach colleagues and researches in an informal setting greatly facilitates networking, particularly for young, up-and-coming students that might otherwise be intimidated. The mixer is

also a chance for us to hear and discuss student concerns, receive feedback, recruit student leaders for subsequent symposiums and generally improve the overall effectiveness of the student committee.

RECENT PAPERSABECASSIS, M., I. SENINA, P. LEHODEY, P. GASPAR, D.

PARKER, G. BALAZS & J. POLOVINA. 2013. A model of loggerhead sea turtle (Caretta caretta) habitat and movement in the oceanic North Pacific. PLoS One 8, no. 9: e73274. M. Abecassis, Univ. Hawaii, Joint Inst Marine & Atm. Res, Honolulu, HI 96822, USA. (E-mail: [email protected])

ANDERSON, J.D., D.J. SHAVER & W.J. KAREL. 2013. Genetic diversity and natal origins of green turtles (Chelonia mydas) in the western Gulf of Mexico. Journal of Herpetology 47: 251-257. J. D. Anderson, Perry R. Bass Fisheries Research Station, Texas Parks and Wildlife, Palacios, TX 77465, USA. (E-mail: [email protected])

ARENA, P.C., C. WARWICK & C. STEEDMAN. 2013. Welfare and environmental implications of farmed sea turtles. Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics (DOI: 10.1007/S10806-013-9465-8). C. Warwick, Emergent Disease Foundation, Riverside House, River Lawn Road, Tonbridge, Kent TN9 1EP, UK. (E-mail: [email protected])

AUREGGI, M. & A. DE LUCIA. 2013. Conservation actions in a small sea turtle feeding area at Phra Thong Island, Thailand. Proceedings of the Design Symposium on Conservation of Ecosystem (The 12th SEASTAR2000 Workshop): 1-7. M. Aureggi, Naucrates, Onlus, Via Corbetta 11, 22063 Cantu (CO), Italy. (E-mail: [email protected])

AVENS, L., L.R. GOSHE, M. PAJUELO, K.A. BJORNDAL, B.D. MACDONALD, G.E. LEMONS, A.B. BOLTEN & J.A. SEMINOFF. 2013. Complementary skeletochronology and stable isotope analyses offer new insight into juvenile loggerhead sea turtle oceanic stage duration and growth dynamics. Marine Ecology Progress Series 491: 235-251. L. Avens, NOAA Fisheries, Southeast Fisheries Science Center, Beaufort Laboratory, 101

Pivers Island Road, Beaufort, NC 28516, USA. (E-mail: [email protected])

BARDET, N., N-E. JALIL, F. DE L. DE BROIN, D. GERMAIN, O. LAMBERT & M. AMAGHZAZ. 2013. A giant Chelonioid turtle from the Late Cretaceous of Morocco with a suction feeding apparatus unique among tetrapods. PLoS One 8, no. 7: e63586. N. Bardet, Museum Natl Hist Nat, CNRS UMR 7207, Dept Hist Terre, F-75231 Paris, France. (E-mail: [email protected])

BJORNDAL, K.A., B.A. SCHROEDER, A.M. FOLEY, B.E. WITHERINGTON, M. BRESETTE, D. CLARK, R.M. HERREN, M.D. ARENDT, J.R. SCHMID, A.B. MEYLAN, P.A. MEYLAN, J.A. PROVANCHA, K.M. HART, M.M. LAMONT, R.R. CARTHY & A.B. BOLTEN. 2013. Temporal, spatial, and body size effects on growth rates of loggerhead sea turtles (Caretta caretta) in the Northwest Atlantic. Marine Biology 160: 2711-2721. K.A. Bjorndal, Archie Carr Center for Sea Turtle Research and Dept. of Biology, Box 118525, University of Florida, Gainesville, FL 32611, USA. (E-mail: [email protected])

BUGONI, L. 2014. Book review: The Biology of Sea Turtles, Vol. 3. Marine Biology Research 10: 94-95. L. Bugoni, Fundacao Univ Fed Rio Grande, Rio Grande, RS, Brazil. (E-mail: [email protected])

BURGER, J. & M. GOCHFELD. 2013. Wood storks (Mycteria americana) prey on eggs and hatchlings of olive ridley sea turtles (Lepidochelys olivacea) at Ostional, Costa Rica. Waterbirds 36: 358-363. J. Burger, Rutgers State Univ, Div Life Sci, 604 Allison Rd, Piscataway, NJ 08854 USA. (E-mail: [email protected])

BURKHOLDER, D.A., M.R. HEITHAUS, J.W. FOURQUREAN, A.WIRSING & L.M. DILL. 2013. Patterns of top-down control in a seagrass ecosystem: could a roving apex predator induce a behaviour-mediated trophic cascade? Journal of Animal Ecology


82: 1192-1202. M.R. Heithaus, Florida International Univ, Marine Science Program, Dept Biological Sciences, North Miami, FL 33181 USA. (E-mail: [email protected])

CAMACHO, M., L.D. BOADA, J. OROS, P. LOPEZ, M. ZUMBADO, M. ALMEIDA-GONZALEZ & O. P. LUZARDO. 2013. Comparative study of organohalogen contamination between two populations of eastern Atlantic loggerhead sea turtles (Caretta caretta). Bulletin of Environmental Contamination & Toxicology 91: 678-683. O.P. Luzardo, Toxicology Unit, Dept. of Clinical Sciences, University of Las Palmas de Gran Canaria, Plaza Dr. Pasteur s/n, 35016 Las Palmas de Gran Canaria, Spain. (E-mail: [email protected])

CAMACHO, M., J. OROS, L.D. BOADA, A. ZACCARONI, M. SILVI, C. FORMIGARO, P. LOPEZ, M. ZUMBADO & O.P. LUZARDO. 2013. Potential adverse effects of inorganic pollutants on clinical parameters of loggerhead sea turtles (Caretta caretta): Results from a nesting colony from Cape Verde, West Africa. Marine Environmental Research 92: 15-22. M. Camacho, Veterinary Faculty, University of Las Palmas de Gran Canaria, Trasmontana s/n, 35416 Arucas, Las Palmas, Spain

CAMPANI, T., M. BAINI, M. GIANNETTI, F. CANCELLI, C. MANCUSI, F. SERENA, L. MARSILI, S. CASINI & M. C. FOSSI. 2013. Presence of plastic debris in loggerhead turtle stranded along the Tuscany coasts of the Pelagos Sanctuary for Mediterranean Marine Mammals (Italy). Marine Pollution Bulletin 74: 225-230. M. Baini, Univ Siena, Dept Phys Earth & Environm Sci, Via PA Mattioli 4, I-53100 Siena, Italy. (E-mail: [email protected])

COELHO, R., J. FERNANDEZ-CARVALHO & M.N. SANTOS. 2013. A review of sea turtle mitigation measures across the five tuna RFMO and other fisheries management organizations. Collected Volume of Scientific Papers, ICCAT 69: 1860-1866. R. Coelho, Inst Nacl Recursos Biol INRB IP IPIMAR, Ave 5 Outubro S-N, P-8700305 Olhao, Portugal. (E-mail: [email protected])

CORSINI-FOKA, M., G. KONDYLATOS & E. SANTORINIOS. 2013. Increase of sea turtles stranding records in Rhodes Island (eastern Mediterranean Sea): update of a long-term survey. Journal of the Marine Biological Association of the United Kingdom 93: 1991-2002. M. Corsini-Foka, Hellen Ctr Marine Res, Hydrobiol Stn Rhodes, Cos St, GR-85100 Rhodes, Greece. (E-mail: [email protected])

CRESPO, J.L., D. GARCIA-PARRAGA, I. GIMENEZ, C. RUBIO-GUERRI, M. MELERO, J.M. SANCHEZ-VIZCAINO, A. MARCO, J.A. CUESTA & M.J. MUNOZ. 2013. Two cases of pseudohermaphroditism in loggerhead sea turtles Caretta caretta. Diseases of Aquatic Organisms 105: 183-191. J. Luis Crespo, Veterinary Services, Oceanografic, Ciudad de las Artes y las Ciencias, C/ Eduardo Primo Yufera (Cientific), 46013 Valencia, Spain. (E-mail: [email protected])

DA SILVA, C.C., A.S. VARELA JR., I.F. BARCAROLLI & A. BIANCHINI. 2014. Concentrations and distributions of metals in tissues of stranded green sea turtles (Chelonia mydas) from the southern Atlantic coast of Brazil. The Science of the Total Environment 466-467: 109-118. C.C. da Silva, Programa de Pos-Graduacao em Ciencias Fisiologicas - Fisiologia Animal Comparada, Instituto de Ciencias Biologicas, Universidade

Federal do Rio Grande, Av. Italia km 8, 96203-900, Rio Grande, Rio Grande do Sul, Brazil.

DAPP, D., R. ARAUZ, J.R. SPOTILA & M.P. O'CONNOR. 2013. Impact of Costa Rican longline fishery on its bycatch of sharks, stingrays, bony fish and olive ridley turtles (Lepidochelys olivacea). Journal of Experimental Marine Biology and Ecology 448: 228-239. J.R. Spotila, Drexel Univ, Dept Biodivers Earth & Environm Science, Philadelphia, PA 19104 USA. (E-mail: [email protected])

DI BELLO, A., C. VALASTRO, D. FREGGI, O.R. LAI, G. CRESCENZO & D. FRANCHINI. 2013. Surgical treatment of injuries caused by fishing gear in the intracoelomic digestive tract of sea turtles. Diseases of Aquatic Organisms 106: 93-102. A. Di Bello, Dept. of Veterinary Public Health, Faculty of Veterinary Medicine, Bari University, Strada Provinciale per Casamassima km. 3, 70010 Valenzano (Ba), Italy. (E-mail: [email protected])

DUTTON, C.S., F. REVAN, C. WANG, C. XU, T.M. NORTON, K.M. STEWART, B. KALTENBOECK & E. SOTO. 2013. Salmonella enterica prevalence in leatherback sea turtles (Dermochelys coriacea) in St. Kitts, West Indies. Journal of Zoo and Wildlife Medicine 44: 765-768. C.S. Dutton, Dept. of Pathobiology, Ross University School of Veterinary Medicine, Island Main Rd., West Farm, St. Kitts, West Indies.

EDUARDO, S.L. & J.L. DIAZ. 2013. New records of four Digenean (Platyhelminthes) species parasitic in sea turtles (Reptilia: Chelonia) in the Philippines. Philippine Journal of Veterinary Medicine 50: 112-115. S.L. Eduardo, Univ Philippines, Coll Vet Med, Dept Vet Paraclin Sci, Los Banos 4031, Laguna, Philippines. (E-mail: [email protected])

ENDRES, C.S. & K.J. LOHMANN. 2013. Detection of coastal mud odors by loggerhead sea turtles: a possible mechanism for sensing nearby land. Marine Biology 160: 2951-2956. C.S. Endres, Univ North Carolina, Dept Biology, CB 3280, Chapel Hill, NC 27599 USA. (E-mail: [email protected])

FECK, A.D. & M. HAMANN. 2013. Effect of sea turtle rehabilitation centres in Queensland, Australia, on people's perceptions of conservation. Endangered Species Research 20: 153-165. A.D. Feck, School of Marine and Tropical Biology, James Cook University, Townsville, Queensland 4811, Australia. (E-mail: [email protected])

FRICK, M.G. 2013. Clarification on the nomenclatural availability of the turtle barnacle genus Chelolepas (Cirripedia: Balanomorpha: Coronuloidea), a corrigendum to Hayashi (2012). Journal of the Marine Biological Association of the United Kingdom 93: 1579-1580. Archie Carr Center for Sea Turtle Research and Dept. of Biology, P.O. Box 118525, Univ. of Florida, Gainesville, FL 32611-8525, USA. (E-mail: [email protected])

FRICK, M.G. & J.B. PFALLER. 2013. Sea turtle epibiosis. In: Wyneken, J., K.J. Lohmann & J.A. Musick (Eds.). Biology of Sea Turtles. Volume III. CRC Press, Boca Raton. pp. 399-426.

FRITSCHES, K. A. & E. J. WARRANT. 2013. Vision. In: Wyneken, J., K.J. Lohmann & J.A. Musick (Eds.). Biology of Sea Turtles. Volume III. CRC Press, Boca Raton. pp. 31-58.

FULLER, W.J., B.J. GODLEY, D.J. HODGSON, S.E. REECE, M.J. WITT & A.C. BRODERICK. 2013. Importance of spatio-


temporal data for predicting the effects of climate change on marine turtle sex ratios. Marine Ecology Progress Series 488: 267-274. A.C. Broderick, Centre for Ecology & Conservation, Coll. Life & Environmental Sciences, Univ. of Exeter, Cornwall Campus, Penryn TR10 9EZ, UK. (E-mail: [email protected])

GASTON, K.J., J. BENNIE, T.W. DAVIES & J. HOPKINS. 2013. The ecological impacts of nighttime light pollution: a mechanistic appraisal. Biological Reviews 88: 912-927. K.J. Gaston, Univ Exeter, Environm & Sustainabil Inst, Penryn TR10 9EZ, Cornwall, England, UK. (E-mail: [email protected])

GILMAN, E., P. SUURONEN, M. HALL & S. KENNELLY. 2013. Causes and methods to estimate cryptic sources of fishing mortality. Journal of Fish Biology 83: 766-803. E. Gilman, Hawaii Pacific Univ, Coll Nat Sci, 3661 Loulu St, Honolulu, HI 96822 USA. (E-mail: [email protected])

GODFREY, M. H. 2013. Ongoing critiques of conservation. Current Conservation 6: 34-35. NC Wildlife Resources Commission, 1507 Ann St., Beaufort, NC 28516, USA. (E-mail: [email protected])

GODFREY, M. H. 2013. Turtles left out in the cold. Current Conservation 6: 31-33. (Address as above)

GONZALEZ CARMAN, V., F. BOTTO, E. GAITAN, D. ALBAREDA, C. CAMPAGNA & H. MIANZAN. 2013. A jellyfish diet for the herbivorous green turtle Chelonia mydas in the temperate SW Atlantic. Marine Biology (DOI 10.1007/S00227-013-2339-9. V. Gonzalez Carman, Instituto Nacional de Investigacion y Desarrollo Pesquero (INIDEP), Paseo Victoria Ocampo s/n, B7602HSA Mar del Plata, Buenos Aires, Argentina. (E-mail: [email protected])

GREINER, E. C. 2013. Parasites of marine turtles. In: Wyneken, J., K.J. Lohmann & J.A. Musick (Eds.).Biology of Sea Turtles. Volume III. CRC Press, Boca Raton. pp. 427-46.

HACKRADT, C.W., F.C. FELIX-HACKRADT, J.L. FEITOSA & D.V. MEDEIROS. 2013. First record of a grouper (Epinephelus costae) acting as a cleaner of sea turtle (Caretta caretta): an unusual interaction on Mediterranean reefs. Marine Biodiversity 43: 253-254. F.C. Felix-Hackradt, Univ Murcia, Dept Ecol & Hydrol, Murcia, Spain. (E-mail: [email protected])

HAMANN, M., M.M.P.B. FUENTES, N.C. BAN & V.J.L. MOCELLIN. 2013. Climate change and marine turtles. In: Wyneken, J., K.J. Lohmann & J.A. Musick (Eds.). Biology of Sea Turtles. Volume III. CRC Press, Boca Raton. pp. 353-78.

HART, K.M., A.R. SARTAIN, Z.-M. HILLIS-STARR, B. PHILLIPS, P.A. MAYOR, K. ROBERSON, R.A. PEMBERTON JR., J.B. ALLEN, I. LUNDGREN & S. MUSICK. 2013. Ecology of juvenile hawksbills (Eretmochelys imbricata) at Buck Island Reef National Monument, US Virgin Islands. Marine Biology 160: 2567-2580. K.M. Hart, US Geol Survey, Southeast Ecology Science Center, Davie, FL USA. (E-mail: [email protected])

HEALY, K., L. MCNALLY, G.D. RUXTON, N. COOPER & A.L. JACKSON. 2013. Metabolic rate and body size are linked with perception of temporal information. Animal Behaviour 86: 685-696. K. Healy, Univ Dublin Trinity Coll, Sch Nat Sci, Zool Bldg, Dublin 2, Ireland. (E-mail: [email protected])

JENSEN, M.P., N.N. FITZSIMMONS & P.H. DUTTON. 2013. Molecular genetics of sea turtles. In: Wyneken, J., K.J. Lohmann & J.A. Musick (Eds.). Biology of Sea Turtles. Volume III. CRC Press, Boca Raton. pp. 135-61.

JONES, T.T., K.S. VAN HOUTAN, B.L. BOSTROM, P. OSTAFICHUK, J. MIKKELSEN, E. TEZCAN, M. CAREY, B. IMLACH & J.A. SEMINOFF. 2013. Calculating the ecological impacts of animal-borne instruments on aquatic organisms. Methods in Ecology and Evolution (Doi: 10.1111/2041-210X.12109). T.T. Jones, Dept. of Zoology, Univ. of British Columbia, 6270 University Blvd., Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada V6T 1Z4. (E-mail: [email protected])

KATSELIDIS, K.A., G. SCHOFIELD, G. STAMOU, P. DIMOPOULOS & J.D. PANTIS. 2013. Evidence-based management to regulate the impact of tourism at a key marine turtle rookery on Zakynthos Island, Greece. Oryx 47: 584-594. K.A. Katselidis, Univ Ioannina, Dept Environm & Nat Resources Management, G Seferi 2, GR-30100 Agrinion, Greece. (E-mail: [email protected])

KAWAZU, I., K. MAEDA, M. KINO & S. OKA. 2013. Structure of the loggerhead turtle assemblage in Okinawan waters estimated from variation in body size and blood profile. Current Herpetology 32: 190-196. I. Kawazu, Okinawa Churashima Fdn, 888 Ishikawa, Motobu, Okinawa 9050206, Japan. (E-mail: [email protected])

KELKAR, N., R. ARTHUR, N. MARBA & T. ALCOVERRO. 2013. Greener pastures? High-density feeding aggregations of green turtles precipitate species shifts in seagrass meadows. Journal of Ecology 101: 1158-1168. N. Kelkar, Nat Conservat Fdn, Oceans & Coasts Program, 4 Cross, 3076-5,Gokulam Park, Mysore 570002, Karnataka, India. (E-mail: [email protected])

KINASTON, R.L., H.R. BUCKLEY & A. GRAY. 2013. Diet and social status on Taumako, a Polynesian outlier in the Southeastern Solomon Islands. American Journal of Physical Anthropology 151: 589-603. R.L. Kinaston, Univ Otago, Dept Anat, POB 913, Dunedin 9054, New Zealand. (E-mail: [email protected])

LASALA, J.A., J.S. HARRISON, K.L. WILLIAMS & D.C. ROSTAL. 2013. Strong male-biased operational sex ratio in a breeding population of loggerhead turtles (Caretta caretta) inferred by paternal genotype reconstruction analysis. Ecology and Evolution (Doi: 10.1002/Ece3.761). J.A. Lasala, Dept. of Biology, Florida Atlantic Univ., 777 Glades Road, Boca Raton, FL 33431, USA. (E-mail: [email protected])

LEBLANC, A.M., T. WIBBELS, D. SHAVER & J.S. WALKER. 2012. Temperature-dependent sex determination in the Kemp's ridley sea turtle: effects of incubation temperatures on sex ratios. Endangered Species Research 19: 123-128. A.M. LeBlanc, Univ. Alabama at Birmingham, Dept Biology, 1300 Univ Blvd, Birmingham, AL 35294 USA. (E-mail: [email protected])

LEY-QUINONEZ, C.P., A.A. ZAVALA-NORZAGARAY, J.G. RENDON-MALDONADO, T.L. ESPINOSA-CARREON, A. CANIZALES-ROMAN, D.C. ESCOBEDO-URIAS, M.L. LEAL-ACOSTA, C.E. HART & A.A. AGUIRRE. 2013. Selected heavy metals and selenium in the blood of black sea turtle (Chelonia mydas agassizii) from Sonora, Mexico. Bulletin of Environmental


Contamination and Toxicology 91: 645-651. C.P. Ley-Quinonez, Programa para el Doctorado en Biotecnologia, Facultad de Ciencias Quimico-Biologicas, Universidad Autonoma de Sinaloa, Culiacan, Sinaloa, Mexico. (E-mail: [email protected])

LOHMANN, K., C.M.F. LOHMANN, J.R. BROTHERS & N.F. PUTMAN. 2013. Natal Homing and imprinting in sea turtles. In: Wyneken, J., K.J. Lohmann & J.A. Musick (Eds.). Biology of Sea Turtles. Volume III. CRC Press, Boca Raton. pp. 59-77.

MAFFUCCI, F., G. ANNONA, P. DE GIROLAMO, M.A. BOLOGNA, L. MEOMARTINO, A. MONTESANO, F. BENTIVEGNA & S. HOCHSCHEID. 2013. Bone density in the loggerhead turtle: functional implications for stage specific aquatic habits. Journal of Zoology (Doi:10.1111/Jzo.12060). F. Maffucci, Stazione Zoologica "A. Dohrn", Villa Comunale I, 80121 Naples, Italy. (email: [email protected])

MANSFIELD, J.A. & N.F. PUTMAN. 2013. Oceanic habits and habitats: Caretta caretta. In: Wyneken, J., K.J. Lohmann & J.A. Musick (Eds.). Biology of Sea Turtles. Volume III. CRC Press, Boca Raton. pp. 189-210.

MARTIN, J.M. 2013. Marine debris removal: one year of effort by the Georgia Sea Turtle-Center-Marine Debris Initiative. Marine Pollution Bulletin 74: 165-169. J.M. Martin, Georgia Sea Turtle Ctr, 214 Stable Rd, Jekyll Isl, GA 31527 USA. (E-mail: [email protected])

MAZOUCHOVA, N., P.B. UMBANHOWAR & D.I. GOLDMAN. 2013. Flipper-driven terrestrial locomotion of a sea turtle-inspired robot. Bioinspiration & Biomimetics 8: 026007. D.I. Goldman, School of Physics, Georgia Institute of Technology, Atlanta, GA, USA. (E-mail: [email protected])

MCGUIRE-TURCOTTE, C.A. 1991. How Honu the turtle got his shell. Raintree Publishers: 32 pp.

NERO, R.W., M. COOK, A.T. COLEMAN, M. SOLANGI & R. HARDY. 2013. Using an ocean model to predict likely drift tracks of sea turtle carcasses in the north central Gulf of Mexico. Endangered Species Research 21: 191-203. R. W. Nero, NOAA Fisheries, SEFSC, Bldg. 1021, Stennis Space Center, MS 39520, USA. (E-mail: [email protected])

PEREIRA, C.M., D.T. BOOTH & C.J. LIMPUS. 2012. Swimming performance and metabolic rate of flatback Natator depressus and loggerhead Caretta caretta sea turtle hatchlings during the swimming frenzy. Endangered Species Research 17: 43-51. C. M. Pereira, University of Queensland, Physiological Ecology Group, School of Biological Sciences, Queensland 4072, Australia. (E-mail: [email protected])

PIKE, D.A. 2013. Forecasting the viability of sea turtles eggs in a warming world. Global Change Biology (DOI : 10.1111-Gcb.12397). School of Marine and Tropical Biology, James Cook University, Townsville, QLD 4811, Australia. (E-mail: [email protected])

PIKE, D.A. 2013. Forecasting range expansion into ecological traps: climate-mediated shifts in sea turtle nesting beaches and human development. Global Change Biology 19: 3082-3092. (Address same as above)

PILAR CABEZAS, M., C. NAVARRO-BARRANCO, M. ROS & J. MANUEL GUERRA-GARCIA. 2013. Long-distance dispersal,

low connectivity and molecular evidence of a new cryptic species in the obligate rafter Caprella andreae Mayer, 1890 (Crustacea: Amphipoda: Caprellidae). Helgoland Marine Research 67: 483-497. M. Pilar Cabezas, Univ Seville, Dept Zool, Lab Biol Marina, Fac Biol, Avda Reina Mercedes 6, E-41012 Seville, Spain. (E-mail: [email protected])

PINOU, T., E. A. LAZO-WASEM, K. DION & J. D. ZARDUS. 2013. Six degrees of separation in barnacles? Assessing genetic variability in the sea-turtle epibiont Stomatolepas elegans (Costa) among turtles, beaches and oceans. Journal of Natural History 47: 2193-2212. T. Pinou, West. Conn. State Univ, Dept Biol & Environm Science, Danbury, CT 06810, USA. (E-mail: [email protected])

PLUMEL, M.I., T. WASSELIN, V. PLOT, J-M. STRUB, A. VAN DORSSELAER, C. CARAPITO, J-Y. GEORGES & F. BERTILE. 2013. Mass spectrometry-based sequencing and SRM-based quantitation of two novel vitellogenin isoforms in the leatherback sea turtle (Dermochelys coriacea). Journal of Proteome Research 12: 4122-4135. M.I. Plumel, Dept Sciences Analytiques, Universite de Strasbourg, IPHC, 25 rue Becquerel, 67087 Strasbourg, France.

PUTMAN, N.F., K.L. MANSFIELD, R. HE, D.J. SHAVER & P. VERLEY. 2013. Predicting the distribution of oceanic-stage Kemp's ridley sea turtles. Biology Letters 9: 20130345. N. F. Putman, Dept. of Fisheries and Wildlife, Oregon State Univ., Corvallis, OR 97331, USA. (E-mail: [email protected])

RODRIGUES AWABDI, D., S. SICILIANO & A. P. MADEIRA DI BENEDITTO. 2013. Ingestao de residuos solidos por tartarugas-verde juvenis, xi (L. 1758) na costa leste do estado do Rio de Janeiro, Brasil. Biotemas 26: 197-200.

RODRIGUEZ-ZARATE, C.J., A. ROCHA-OLIVARES & L.B. BEHEREGARAY. 2013. Genetic signature of a recent metapopulation bottleneck in the olive ridley turtle (Lepidochelys olivacea) after intensive commercial exploitation in Mexico. Biological Conservation 168: 10-18. C.J. Rodriguez-Zarate, Molecular Ecology Laboratory, School of Biological Sciences, Flinders University, Adelaide, SA 5001, Australia. (E-mail: [email protected])

ROUSSELET, E., M. LEVINE, E. GEBHARD, B.M. HIGGINS, S. DEGUISE & C.A.J. GODARD-CODDING. 2013. Evaluation of immune functions in captive immature loggerhead sea turtles (Caretta caretta). Veterinary Immunology and Immunopathology 156: 43-53. E. Rousselet, Dept of Environmental Toxicology, Institute of Environmental and Human Health, Texas Tech University, 1207 Gilbert Drive, Lubbock, TX 79416, USA. (E-mail: [email protected])

SABA, V. S. 2013. Ocean habits and habitats: Dermochelys coriacea. In: Wyneken, J., K.J. Lohmann & J.A. Musick (Eds.). Biology of Sea Turtles. Volume III. CRC Press, Boca Raton. pp. 163-88.

SANTOS, MIGUEL N., R. COELHO, J. FERNANDEZ-CARVALHO & S. AMORIM. 2013. Effects of 17/0 circle hooks and bait on sea turtles bycatch in a Southern Atlantic swordfish longline fishery. Aquatic Conservation-Marine and Freshwater Ecosystems 23: 732-744. M.N. Santos, Inst Portugues Mar & Atmosfera IPMA IP, Ave 5 Outubro S-N, P-8700305 Olhao,


Portugal. (E-mail: [email protected])SARAHAIZAD, M.S., Y. MANSOR & M.S. SHAHRUL ANUAR.

2012. The distribution and conservation status of green turtles (Chelonia mydas) and olive ridley turtles (Lepidochelys olivacea) on Pulau Pinang beaches (Malaysia), 1995-2009. Tropical Life Sciences Research 23: 63-76. M.S. Sarahaizad, Universiti Sains Malaysia, School of Biological Sciences, 11800 USM Pulau Pinang, Malaysia. (E-mail: [email protected])

SCHMITT, T.L., S. MUNNS, L. ADAMS & J. HICKS. 2013. The use of spirometry to evaluate pulmonary function in olive ridley sea turtles (Lepidochelys olivacea) with positive buoyancy disorders. Journal of Zoo and Wildlife Medicine 44: 645-653. T.L. Schmitt, Veterinary Services Dept, SeaWorld of California, 500 SeaWorld Drive, San Diego, CA 92109, USA. (E-mail: [email protected])

SHEIL, C.A. 2013. Development of the skull of the hawksbill seaturtle, Eretmochelys imbricata. Journal of Morphology 274: 1124-1142. C.A. Sheil, John Carroll Univ, Dept Biol, 20700 North Pk Blvd, University Hts, OH 44118 USA. (E-mail: [email protected])

SOUTHWOOD WILLIARD, A. 2013. Physiology as integrated systems In: Wyneken, J., K.J. Lohmann & J.A. Musick (Eds.). Biology of Sea Turtles. Volume III. CRC Press, Boca Raton. pp. 1-30.

SUBRATA, K.B., C.S. KAR, B. SATYARANJAN, J. SAJAN, K. SIVAKUMAR & B.C. CHOUDHURY. 2013. Abundance of olive ridleys along Odisha coast: sources of mortality and relative importance of fisheries impacts. Venkataraman, K., C. Sivaperuman & C. Raghunathan (Eds.). Conservation of Tropical Marine Faunal Communities. Springer-Verlag, Berlin, Heidelberg. pp. 311-321. K.B. Subrata, Wildlife Institute of India, Chandrabani, #18 Dehradun, Uttrakhanda, India. (E-mail: [email protected])

THOMSON, J.A., A.B. COOPER, D.A. BURKHOLDER, M.R. HEITHAUS & L.M. DILL. 2013. Correcting for heterogeneous availability bias in surveys of long-diving marine turtles. Biological Conservation 165: 154-161. J.A. Thomson, Florida International University, Marine Science Bldg, Biscayne Bay Campus, 3000 NE 151st, North Miami, FL 33181, USA. (E-mail: [email protected])

TORRES VILACA, S. & F. RODRIGUES DOS SANTOS. 2013. Molecular data for the sea turtle population in Brazil. Dataset Papers in Science Article ID 196492 (http://Dx.Doi.Org/10.1155/2013/196492). F. Rodrigues dos Santos, LBEM, Instituto de Ciencias Biologicas, Universidade Federal de Minas Gerais, Avenida Antonia Carlos 6627, 31270-010 Belo Horizonte, MG, Brazil. (E-mail: [email protected])

VANDER ZANDEN, H.B., K.A. BJORNDAL & A.B. BOLTEN. 2013. Temporal consistency and individual specialization in resource use by green turtles in successive life stages. Oecologia 173: 767-777. H.B. Vander Zanden, Archie Carr Center for Sea Turtle Research and Dept. of Biology, P.O. Box 118525, Univ Florida, Gainesville, FL 32611, USA. (E-mail: [email protected])

VELEZ-RUBIO, G.M., A. ESTRADES, A. FALLABRINO & J. TOMAS. 2013. Marine turtle threats in Uruguayan waters: insights from 12 years of stranding data. Marine Biology 160:

2797-2811. G.M. Velez-Rubio, Univ Valencia, Marine Zool Unit, Cavanilles Inst Biodivers & Evolutionary Biol, Apdo 22085, Valencia 46071, Spain. (E-mail: [email protected])

WALCOTT, J., S. ECKERT & J.A. HORROCKS. 2013. Diving behaviour of hawksbill turtles during the inter-nesting interval: Strategies to conserve energy. Journal of Experimental Marine Biology and Ecology 448: 171-178. J. Walcott, Univ West Indies, Dept Biol & Chem Sci, Cave Hill Campus,POB 64, BB-11000 Bridgetown, Barbados. (E-mail: [email protected])

WANG, J., J. BARKAN, S. FISLER, C. GODINEZ-REYES & Y. SWIMMER. 2013. Developing ultraviolet illumination of gillnets as a method to reduce sea turtle bycatch. Biology Letters 9: 20130383. J. Wang, Joint Institute for Marine and Atmospheric Research, University of Hawaii, Honolulu, HI 96822, USA. (E-mail: [email protected])

WEBER, N., S.B. WEBER, B.J. GODLEY, J. ELLICK, M. WITT & A.C. BRODERICK. 2013. Telemetry as a tool for improving estimates of marine turtle abundance. Biological Conservation 167: 90-96. A.C. Broderick, Centre for Ecology & Conservation, Coll. Life & Environmental Sciences, Univ. of Exeter, Cornwall Campus, Penryn TR10 9EZ, UK. (E-mail: [email protected])

WERNECK, M., P. BALDASSIN, F. TORRES, A. TRAZI & B. BERGER. 2013. Report of Carettacola stunkardi (Martin & Bamberger, 1952) Dailey, Fast & Balazs, 1991 (Digenea: Spirorchiidae) infecting green turtle Chelonia mydas Linnaeus, 1758 (Testudines, Cheloniidae) in Brazil. Brazilian Journal of Biology 73: 675-676. M. Werneck, BW Consultoria e Laboratorio Veterinario, CEP 11680-000 Ubatuba SP, Brazil. (E-mail: [email protected])

WHITE, M. 2013. The first study of sea turtles at Rarotonga, Southern Cook Islands. Testudo 7: 12-29. M. White, Honu Cook Islands, Omoka, Tongareva Atoll, Northern Cook Islands, South Pacific. (E-mail: [email protected])

WHITE, M. & G. GALBRAITH. 2013. Rakahanga Atoll: sea turtles at a remote site in Oceania. Testudo 7: 30-48. (Address same as above)

WILCOX, C., B.D. HARDESTY, R. SHARPLES, D.A. GRIFFIN, T.J. LAWSON & R. GUNN. 2013. Ghostnet impacts on globally threatened turtles, a spatial risk analysis for northern Australia. Conservation Letters 6: 247-254. B.D. Hardesty, CSIRO, POB 1538, Hobart, Tas 7000, Australia. (E-mail: [email protected])

WOOLGAR, L., S. TROCINI & N. MITCHELL. 2013. Key parameters describing temperature-dependent sex determination in the southernmost population of loggerhead sea turtles. Journal of Experimental Marine Biology and Ecology 449: 77-84. N. Mitchell, School of Animal Biology, University of Western Australia, 35 Stirling Highway, Crawley, WA 6009, Australia. (E-mail: [email protected])

WORK, T.M. & G. H. BALAZS. 2013. Tumors in sea turtles: the insidious menace of fibropapillomatosis. The Wildlife Professional 7: 44-47. T. M. Work, USGS Nat. Wildlife Health Center, Honolulu Field Station, 300 Ala Moana Blvd., Room 5-231, Honolulu, HI 96850, USA. (E-mail: [email protected])


ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

Publication of this issue was made possible by donations from: Michael Salmon.

The MTN-Online is produced and managed by Michael Coyne.

The opinions expressed herein are those of the individual authors and are not necessarily shared by the Editors, the Editorial Board, National Marine Fisheries Service, NC Wildlife Resources Commission, or any individuals or organizations providing financial support.

WYNEKEN, J. 2013. The skeleton: an in vivo view of structure. In: Wyneken, J., K.J. Lohmann & J.A. Musick (Eds.). Biology of Sea Turtles. Volume III. CRC Press, Boca Raton. pp. 79-95.

WYNEKEN, J., K. J. LOHMANN & J. A. MUSICK, Editors. 2013. Biology of Sea Turtles. Volume III. CRC Press, Boca Raton: 475 pp.

ZARATE, P.M., K.A. BJORNDAL, M. PARRA, P.H. DUTTON, J.A. SEMINOFF & A.B. BOLTEN. 2013. Hatching and emergence success in green turtle Chelonia mydas nests in the Galapagos Islands. Aquatic Biology 19: 217-229. P. Zarate, Archie Carr Center for Sea Turtle Research and Dept. of Biology, P.O. Box 118525, University of Florida, Gainesville, FL 32611, USA. (E-mail: [email protected])

ZAVALETA-LIZARRAGA, L. & J.E. MORALES-MAVIL. 2013. Nest site selection by the green turtle (Chelonia mydas) in a beach of the north of Veracruz, Mexico. Revista Mexicana De Biodiversidad 84: 927-937. J.E. Morales-Mavil, Univ. Veracruzana, Inst. Neuroetol., Lab Biol Conducta, Dr Luis Castelazo Ayala S-N,Col Ind Animas, Xalapa 91190, Veracruz, Mexico. (E-mail: [email protected])

REPORTS & PROCEEDINGSBURCHFIELD, P.M. & L.J. PENA. 2013. 2013 Report on the

Mexico/United States of America population restoration project for the Kemp's ridley sea turtle, Lepidochelys kempii, on the coasts of Tamaulipas, Mexico. Programa Binacional de la Tortuga Lora: 44 pp. P. Burchfield, Gladys Porter Zoo, 500 Ringgold St., Brownsville, TX 78520-7998, USA. (E-mail: [email protected])

MCCRACKEN, M.L. 2013. Estimation of incidental interactions with sea turtles and seabirds in the 2012 Hawaii longline deep-set fishery. PIFSC Tech Report IR-13-014: 6 pp. Pacific Islands Fisheries Science Center, NMFS, Honolulu, HI, USA.

PRINCE, R.I.T., S. WHITING, H. RAUDINO, A. VITENBERGS & K. PENDOLEY, Compilers. 2013. Proceedings of the First Western Australian Marine Turtle Symposium 28-29th August 2012. Science Division, Department of Parks and Wildlife, Perth, Western Australia: 65 pp. Available from www.dpaw.wa.gov.au.

THESES & DISSERTATIONSVANDER ZANDEN, H. B. 2012. Interpreting sea turtle

trophic ecology through stable isotope analysis. Ph.D. Dissertation. University of Florida, Gainesville: 155 pp.


AimThe Marine Turtle Newsletter (MTN) provides current information on marine turtle research, biology, conservation and status, in an open-access format. A wide range of material will be considered for publication in the MTN including editorials, articles, notes, letters and announcements. Research articles, notes and editorials published in the MTN are subject to peer-review, with an emphasis on ensuring clarity and transparency of information that is accessible to individuals from a variety of disciplines and organizations world-wide.

Scope of the Marine Turtle Newsletter Material in the MTN may include any aspect of the biology or conservation of sea turtles. Subject areas include, but are not limited to nesting biology, physiology, behavior, sensory biology, population trends, conservation biology, management techniques, policy, human dimensions, stories, poetry, etc.

INSTRUCTIONS FOR AUTHORS

Readership Material published in the MTN is of interest to researchers, conservationists, academics, teachers, naturalists, volunteers, policy makers, planners, resource managers and media professionals. Editorial Policy The MTN publishes submitted and commissioned articles, debates and discussions, editorials, book reviews, comments and notes, and reader feedback. The MTN is published four times a year in PDF and HTML formats, available at seaturtle.org/MTN. All manuscripts submitted to the MTN are processed using a single blind reviewer system, although occasionally reviewers will sign their comments. The editors will work with authors to revise manuscripts as needed to make them publishable in the MTN.

Submission All manuscripts and supporting material must be submitted electronically to [email protected].

SUBSCRIPTIONS AND DONATIONS

The Marine Turtle Newsletter (MTN) is distributed quarterly to more than 2000 recipients in over 100 nations world-wide. In order to maintain our policy of free distribution and free access to colleagues throughout the world, the MTN relies heavily on donations. We appeal to all of you, our readers and contributors, for continued financial support to maintain this venture. All donations are greatly appreciated and will be acknowledged in a future issue of the MTN. Typical personal donations have ranged from $25-100 per annum, with organisations providing significantly more support. Please give what you can. Donations to the MTN are handled under the auspices of SEATURTLE.ORG and are fully tax deductible under US laws governing 501(c)(3) non-profit organisations. Donations are preferable in US dollars as a Credit Card payment (MasterCard, Visa, American Express or Discover) via the MTN website <http://www.seaturtle.org/mtn/>. In addition we are delighted to receive donations in the form of either a Personal Cheque drawn on a US bank, an International Banker’s Cheque drawn on a US bank, a US Money Order, an International Postal Money Order, or by Direct Bank Wire (please contact [email protected] for details). Please do not send non-US currency cheques.

Please make cheques or money orders payable to Marine Turtle Newsletter and send to:

Michael Coyne (Managing Editor)Marine Turtle Newsletter

1 Southampton PlaceDurham, NC 27705, USA

Email: [email protected]

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

Discovery of new nesting beaches for loggerhead turtles (Caretta caretta) at Gnaraloo on the...

Documents

Transcript of Discovery of new nesting beaches for loggerhead turtles (Caretta caretta) at Gnaraloo on the...