Marine Turtle Newsletter - Seaturtle.org

Marine Turtle Newsletter Issue Number 134

July 2012

Wann family clearing the fish trap at low tide, with reef flat and mangrove habitat in the background, during an extended cooperative research project on sea turtles in Exmouth Gulf, Western Australia, see pages 3-8 (photo: Jo Wann).

Articles Editorial: Do Male-Producing Kemp’s Ridley Nesting Beaches Exist North of Tamaulipas, Mexico?.....CW Caillouet, Jr. Species, Size Classes, and Apparent Growth Rates of Sea Turtles Recorded Associating with a Net and Trap Fishery in Exmouth Gulf, Western Australia: December 1990 - June 1998 ...................................................RIT Prince et al. Tortoiseshell Trade in Sri Lanka: Is Centuries-old Trade Now History?.........................................RS Rajakaruna et al. Quantification and Recommended Management of Man-Made Debris Along the Sea Turtle Nesting Beach at Playa Caletas, Guanacaste, Costa Rica...............................................................................................J Ramos et al. Anti-fungal Properties of Sea Turtle Cloacal Mucus and Egg Albumen............................AD Phillott & CJ Parmenter Natal Homing by an Adult Male Green Turtle at Tortuguero, Costa Rica..........................................BM Shamblin et al. Perspective Meeting Reports Announcement Recent Publications

Marine Turtle Newsletter No. 134, 2012 - Page 1

ISSN 0839-7708

Editors:

Managing Editor:

Kelly R. Stewart NOAA-National Marine Fisheries Service Southwest Fisheries Science Center 3333 N. Torrey Pines Ct. La Jolla, California 92037 USA

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

Michael S. Coyne SEATURTLE.ORG 1 Southampton Place Durham, NC 27705, USA

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

E-mail: [email protected]

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

Founding Editor: Nicholas Mrosovsky University of Toronto, Canada

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

Nicolas J. Pilcher Marine Research Foundation, Malaysia

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

Manjula Tiwari National Marine Fisheries Service, La Jolla, USA

Alan B. Bolten University of Florida, USA

ALan F. Rees University of Exeter in Cornwall, UK

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

Kartik Shanker Indian Institute of Science, Bangalore, India

Angela Formia University of Florence, Italy

Oğuz Türkozan Adnan Menderes University, Turkey

Colin Limpus Queensland Turtle Research Project, Australia

Jeanette Wyneken Florida Atlantic University, USA

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

We are grateful to our major donors:


© Marine Turtle Newsletter

Editorial: Do Male-Producing Kemp’s Ridley Nesting Beaches Exist North of Tamaulipas, Mexico? Charles W. Caillouet, Jr.

119 Victoria Drive West, Montgomery, Texas 77356-8446 USA (E-mail: [email protected]) Mrosovsky & Godfrey (2010) recommended a search for and characterization of male-producing sea turtle nesting beaches, as part of a multifaceted plan to boost sea turtle survival prospects in a warmer world. They based this recommendation on an expectation that global warming might lead to “a massive feminizing bias” in sea turtle populations (Mrosovsky 1984). Kemp’s ridley (Lepidochelys kempii) clutches left in situ where laid on beaches north of Tamaulipas, Mexico may be good candidates for such a search and characterization, assuming these beaches are cooler than those in Tamaulipas. During incubation of Kemp’s ridley clutches, differences in temperature that lead to female-biased versus malebiased hatchling sex ratios are relatively small (Wibbels 2007). Pivotal temperature is 30.2° C (Shaver et al. 1988; Wibbels 2007). Most sample sex ratios for Kemp’s ridley life stages are femalebiased (Coyne & Landry 2007; Shaver & Wibbels 2007; Wibbels 2007). Manipulative conservation methods no doubt contributed to these female-biased sex ratios. The epicenter of Kemp’s ridley nesting, discovered in 1947, is a stretch of beach near Rancho Nuevo, Tamaulipas, in the western Gulf of Mexico (Hildebrand 1963; Heppell et al. 2007). Prior to 1963, nestings in small numbers were documented elsewhere on the Gulf of Mexico coast of Mexico and on Padre Island, Texas (Hildebrand 1963). Based on simulations of Kemp’s ridley hatchling dispersal, Putman et al. (2010) concluded that Rancho Nuevo is the most favorable region of the Gulf of Mexico with regard to conditions that facilitate hatchling migration to foraging grounds. However, as the Kemp’s ridley population increased, nestings also increased to the south and north of Rancho Nuevo (Caillouet 1999; NMFS et al. 2011). Beginning in 1966, the Mexican government’s Kemp’s ridley conservation efforts restored annual hatchling production at Rancho Nuevo by protecting nesters and relocating clutches to artificial nest cavities within fenced corrals (Heppell et al. 2007; NMFS et al. 2011). Using similar methods, annual hatchling production at Rancho Nuevo was increased through a cooperative Mexico-U.S. program which began in 1978 and continues to this day. This cooperative program also led to reintroduction of Kemp’s ridley nesting to Padre Island National Seashore (PAIS) near Corpus Christi, Texas (Shaver & Wibbels 2007; http://www.nps.gov/pais/ naturescience/kridley.htm). During the late 1980s and early 1990s, U.S. regulations were implemented requiring turtle excluder devices (TEDs) in shrimp trawls, and use of TEDs reduced mortality in neritic life stages (Yaninek 1995; Epperly 2003; NMFS et al. 2011). All of these conservation efforts, coupled with declining shrimping effort in the Gulf of Mexico (TEWG 1998, 2000; Caillouet et al. 2008; Caillouet 2010; Nance et al. 2010; NMFS et al. 2011), contributed to the post-1985 exponential increase in the Kemp’s ridley population (Heppell et al. 2007; Caillouet 2010). Conservation efforts on beaches in Tamaulipas and Padre Island National Seashore were carried out in ways that deliberately favored production of female-biased hatchling sex ratios (Coyne & Landry

2007; Shaver & Wibbels 2007; Wibbels 2007). However, this should not predispose clutches left in situ where laid to be female-biased. Determining sex ratios of newly emerged hatchlings is essential to any search for male-producing nesting beaches. The natural sex ratios of hatchlings produced from clutches left in situ at Rancho Nuevo appear to be female-biased (Wibbels 2007); this provides a baseline for comparison with sex ratios of hatchlings produced in clutches left in situ on beaches north of Tamaulipas. Mrosovsky & Godfrey (2010) emphasized that the most reliable method for determining sex of hatchlings is histology of gonads, which requires sacrificing hatchlings. The U.S. Endangered Species Act of 1973 as amended (ESA; http://www.fws.gov/endangered/esa-library/pdf/ ESAall.pdf) prohibits killing of threatened or endangered species, but allows exceptions for purposes of scientific research. However, as long as Kemp’s ridley remains endangered, it may be unlikely that permits will be issued to allow sacrifice of large numbers of hatchlings for histological examination of gonads. Currently federal government policy requires translocation of all clutches laid and found on the upper Texas coast to PAIS for incubation; this precludes leaving these clutches in situ. To determine whether Kemp’s ridley nesting beaches north of Tamaulipas naturally produce male-dominated hatchling sex ratios, some clutches could be left in situ where laid, and conditions could be monitored to determine incubation temperatures to which they were exposed. This could provide valuable hatchling sex-ratio and temperature data. However, if such a study is objectionable, reasonable alternatives might suffice. Researchers could wait until Kemp’s ridley is delisted (NMFS et al. 2011) before conducting such studies. By then, annual nestings of Kemp’s ridleys to the north of Tamaulipas probably will have increased considerably, providing larger samples of clutches and hatchlings. It is highly likely that the Kemp’s ridley population will recover and be delisted before global warming and accompanying sea level rise become serious threats to existing nesting beaches, thus providing ample time to conduct the research. In the interim, given that pivotal temperature is known for Kemp’s ridley (Shaver et al. 1988; Shaver & Wibbels 2007; Wibbels 2007), researchers could monitor physical characteristics (including sand temperatures) of beaches north of Tamaulipas, and use them to predict Kemp’s ridley hatchling sex ratios. CAILLOUET, c.w., jR. 1999. Marine Turtle Newsletter articles on status of the Kemp’s ridley population and actions taken toward its recovery. Marine Turtle Newsletter Archives. 133 pp. http:// www.seaturtle.org/mtn/special/MTN_Kemps.pdf CAILLOUET, C.W., jR. 2010. Editorial: Demographic modeling & threats analysis in the draft 2nd revision of the bi-national recovery plan for the Kemp’s ridley sea turtle (Lepidochelys kempii). Marine Turtle Newsletter 128: 1-6. Caillouet, C.W., Jr., R.A. Hart & J.M. Nance. 2008. Growth overfishing in the brown shrimp fishery of Texas,


Louisiana, and adjoining Gulf of Mexico EEZ. Fisheries Research 92:289–302. COYNE, M. & A.M. LANDRY, JR. 2007. Population sex ratio and its impact on population models. In: P.T. Plotkin (Ed.). Biology and Conservation of Ridley Sea Turtles. Baltimore: The John’s Hopkins University Press. pp. 191-211. Epperly, S.P. 2003. Fisheries-related mortality and turtle excluder devices (TEDs). In: P.L. Lutz, J.A. Musick & J. Wyneken (Eds.). The Biology of Sea Turtles, Volume II. CRC Press, Boca Raton, Florida. pp. 339-353. Heppell, S.S., P.M. Burchfield & L.J. Peña. 2007. Kemp’s ridley recovery: how far have we come, and where are we headed? In: In: P.T. Plotkin (Ed.). Biology and Conservation of Ridley Sea Turtles. Baltimore: The John’s Hopkins University Press. pp. 325-335. HILDEBRAND, H.H. 1963. Hallazgo del area de anidacion de la Tortuga marina, “lora”, Lepidochelys kempi (Garman) en la costa occidental del Golfo de Mexico. Ciencia, Méx. 22:105-112. http://www.seaturtle.org/PDF/CaillouetCW_2010_ Hildebrand1963ATranscriptionandTran.pdf Meylan, A.B. & D. Ehrenfeld. 2000. Conservation of marine turtles. In: M.W. Klemens (Ed.). Turtle Conservation. Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington, D.C., pp. 96-125. MROSOVSKY, N. 1984. Editorial: Marine Turtle Newsletter 28:1-2. MROSOVSKY, N. & M.H. GODFREY. 2010. Editorial: Thoughts on climate change and sex ratio of sea turtles. Marine Turtle Newsletter 128:7-11. Nance, J.M., C.W. Caillouet, Jr. & R.A. Hart. 2010. Sizecomposition of annual landings in the white shrimp fishery of the northern Gulf of Mexico, 1960-2006: its trend and relationships with other fishery-dependent variables. Marine Fisheries Review 72:1-13. National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service (USFWS) & Secretariat of

Environment & Natural Resources (SEMARNAT). 2011. Bi-National Recovery Plan for the Kemp’s Ridley Sea Turtle (Lepidochelys kempii), Second Revision. NMFS. Silver Spring, Maryland.156 pp. + appendices. http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/ pdfs/recovery/kempsridley_revision2.pdf PUTMAN, N.F., T.J. Shay & K.J. Lohmann. 2010. Is the geographic distribution of nesting in the Kemp’s ridley turtle shaped by the migratory needs of offspring? Integrative & Comparative Biology 50: 305-314. Shaver, D.J., D.W. Owens, A.H. Chaney, C.W. Caillouet, Jr., P.B. Burchfield & R. Marquez. 1988. Styrofoam box and beach temperatures in relation to incubation and sex ratios of Kemp's ridley sea turtles. In: B.A. Schroeder (Comp.), Proceedings of the Eighth Annual Workshop on Sea Turtle Conservation & Biology. NOAA Tech. Memo. NMFS-SEFC-214. pp.103-108. SHAVER, D.J. & T. WIBBELS. 2007. Head-starting the Kemp’s ridley sea turtle. In: P.T. Plotkin (Ed.). Biology & Conservation of Ridley Sea Turtles. Baltimore: The John’s Hopkins University Press. pp. 297-323. Turtle Expert Working Group (TEWG). 1998. An assessment of the Kemp’s ridley (Lepidochelys kempii) and loggerhead (Caretta caretta) sea turtle populations in the western north Atlantic. NOAA Tech. Memo. NMFS-SEFSC-409. 96 p. Turtle Expert Working Group (TEWG). 2000. Assessment update for the Kemp’s ridley and loggerhead sea turtle populations in the western north Atlantic. NOAA Tech. Memo. NMFS-SEFSC-444. 115 p. WIBBELS, T. 2007. Sex determination and sex ratios in ridley turtles. In: P.T. Plotkin (Ed.). Biology & Conservation of Ridley Sea Turtles. Baltimore: The John’s Hopkins University Press. pp. 167-189. Yaninek, K.D. 1995. Turtle excluder device regulations: laws sea turtles can live with. North Carolina Central University School of Law. North Carolina Central Law Journal 265. 40 p.


Species, Size Classes, and Apparent Growth Rates of Sea Turtles Recorded Associating with a Net and Trap Fishery in Exmouth Gulf, Western Australia: December 1990 - June 1998 Robert I. T. Prince1,3, Ray H. Wann2#, Jo P. Wann2 & Andrew A. E. Williams1*

Wildlife Research Centre, Dept of Environment & Conservation, PO Box 51, Wanneroo, Western Australia 6946 (E-mail: [email protected]); 2Unit 36, Donovan Village, 138 Lewis Road, Forrestfield, Western Australia 6946; 3 Now: Marine Science Programme, Science Division, Department of Environment and Conservation, Locked Bag 104, Bentley Delivery Centre, Western Australia, 6983; # Deceased 25 March 2011; *Ningaloo team leader, WAMTProject: 1988 - 1993 1

In-water sampling of sea turtle populations is a necessary part of sea turtle conservation and management. This work can provide valuable insight into the structure and species composition of populations frequenting different habitats or locations, provide a foundation for studies of growth and development, and other aspects of turtle biology (Bjorndal & Bolten 1988; Brand-Gardner et al. 1999; Chaloupka et al. 2004; Heithaus et al. 2005; Mortimer 1981). Our paper reports on the turtles recorded principally from within the inter-tidal zone (shallow waters of 1 year to a maximum of ~6 years. The initial CCL range for these turtles was 68 - 103 cm, although most turtles fell within the initial 70 - 79.9 cm CCL band (Fig. 3). The small number precludes any realistic attempt to examine possible year and seasonality effects, two point data sets are not ideal, and measurement error/variation must be considered. Only one of these sub-adult size turtles (#2891), originally recorded as of indeterminate sex (CCL 79 cm), was found at recapture ~6 years later to have developed the long tail typical of a male, so could then be confidently assigned to the correct sex. CCL had increased to 95.4 cm in that period. Noting the foregoing, several comments are relevant: (i) generally, multiple measures obtained within periods of ~12 -18

months from first record suggest negligible change in size of any of these turtles; (ii) several of the turtles, still with short tails, and with extended time series observations, (unlike #2891), showed no change in size over periods of >2 years to a maximum ~6 years; (iii) the single turtle of CCL >100 cm at first record (larger than the mean for all adult nesting females from the western Australian regional population) within the group could possibly have been assumed to be an adult, with further substantial growth not to be expected; but the single recapture record almost 4 years later suggests otherwise. The largest female loggerhead turtles within the Western Australian nesting populations are ~115 cm CCL. So, with this individual appearing to grow further, it may be assumed we recorded a likely still immature turtle expected to approach that maximum adult size some time in the future; (iv) short-tailed turtles much smaller than noted above could include individuals maturing at the lower end of the observed size range of adult female loggerheads of the Western Australian nesting populations (see Table 1; but one has since been recorded at 77.5 cm); however, minimal change in size with time might equally indicate prolonged growth stasis of individuals able to survive but not realize their latent growth potential over the relevant periods of observation. The discussion above highlights the problems inherent in the study of development and recruitment to maturity of turtles in water, even within what might loosely be considered a single habitat. Several loggerhead turtles did however present clear sustained growth records: Turtle #2891 went unrecorded for ~6 years between captures. CCL increased from 79 cm to 95.4 cm in that period at an average CCL increment = 2.7 cm/yr; Turtle #2943, with the same ~6 years length of record as #2891, appeared to have reached near maximum size (~96 cm CCL) in ~4 years from first capture at CCL of 75 cm (CCL increment = 4.0 cm/ yr), and thence changed little over the next 2 years. Turtle #8589 provided a better spread of sample points above 18 months from first capture at CCL of 76 cm cf #2943, but showed a similar general growth trajectory to ~96 cm CCL over ~4 years ( CCL increment = 4.6 cm/yr). Noting the probable difference in asymptotic adult size for adult male and female loggerheads, the expected range of mature adult size, and the data available, the three cases above show that average growth rates of up to ~4 - 5 cm CCL/year were achieved by some Exmouth Gulf resident loggerhead turtles likely freed from environmental constraint when making the transition from large sub-adult to probable mature size (Bjorndal et al. 2000b; BraunMcNeill et al. 2008). Similar to the findings of Kubis et al. (2009), our green turtle group was dominated by turtles with single records only (86.8% of total). The turtles with two or more capture records were not always measured, and few of the 57 turtles with two or more measurements available had recapture histories exceeding 12-18 months duration. The limited usable data included a greater spread of initial CCL classes than that for the loggerheads (Fig. 3), but, unfortunately, most cases fall within the group of small to large juveniles only (initial CCL range 40 - 65 cm). Remeasurement data for the larger juvenile to sub-adult size turtles (initial CCL >65 – 80 cm) with long term multiple recapture records were infrequently obtained. None were for turtles in the initial CCL band 70 - 90 cm. With post-hatchling green turtles entering an initial pelagic


life phase whence they appear to grow in carapace length from ~5 cm SCL to ~35 - 40 cm CCL over the next ~4 - 6 years, actual carapace growth rates of ~6 - 7 cm/year over this life phase in the wild may be deduced. Bjorndal & Bolten (1988) have reported growth increments of that magnitude or greater for the smallest neritic juvenile green turtles. These small juveniles making the transition from the pelagic into coastal neritic habitat coincidentally make a change from their former predominantly carnivorous diet to the more usual, but not exclusively herbivorous feeding mode (Bjorndal 1997; Nakamura 1980). This habitat transition and diet change certainly imposes challenges for the small juvenile green turtle, and may be anticipated to impact growth rates at least in the short term, before the survivors may proceed to grow and develop toward the next major life change expected at the time of sexual maturity (Miller & Limpus 2003) and beyond. Being ectotherms, and with growth in the field being extended over multiple years and seasons, realized individual growth trajectories of the juvenile and sub-adult turtles are expected to vary widely while also generally conforming to underlying intrinsic patterns. Differences between the sexes might also apply. Accepting the case above, the limited growth data we acquired for the Exmouth Gulf neritic juvenile green turtles of indeterminate sex suggest a convex pattern of increase in carapace length across the range of initial 40 - 65 cm CCLs, but with a wide possible range of rates for different individuals starting at similar CCLs. The peak of growth rates (Y) within this small sample group appears to be reached between 55 - 60 cm when the individual mean CCL is used as the base X value, and to decline towards 70 cm. The suggested average CCL growth rates for turtles around 42 cm CCL are ~1 cm/ year, for turtles around 59 cm CCL, ~2.5 cm/year, and down to ~1 cm/year again for 72 cm CCL. This is similar to size specific growth patterns for juveniles green turtles reported from more extensive data sets from other populations (e.g., Balazs & Chaloupka 2004; Chaloupka et al. 2004; Kubis et al. 2009; Watson 2006). Kubis et al. (2009) also showed growth rates for juvenile green turtles from different habitats within a relatively restricted geographic range may differ appreciably, although size specific patterns might show similarities. Their results were derived from analysis of a more substantial data set than ours, and one that also allowed exploration of factors affecting realized patterns of growth. Being unable to carry our Exmouth Gulf population work forward in that way, we have not attempted any more formal analysis of our dataset. We however note that some individuals in the 50-60 cm CCL range achieved shorter term growth rates of ~3-4 cm/yr, while others appeared to be in growth stasis for similar periods. Such individual differences in growth patterns may readily be accommodated by juvenile green turtles where environmental resources and/or population density may vary (e.g., Bjorndal et al. 2000a). Disease. Fibropapillomatosis (FP) disease has been reported from Western Australia (Raidal & Prince 1996). External soft tissue growths were noted on 25 of the Exmouth Gulf juvenile or sub-adult sized green turtles. The field notes recorded, including the locations and combination of areas affected and the types of lesions seen affecting some of these turtles were consistent with cases of severe FP. Further detailed investigation was not then practicable. Apparently diseased turtles were generally of 45 - 55 cm CCL, consistent with the view that FP is acquired after the juvenile turtles settle into neritic habitat (Ene et al. 2005). This

conclusion is further supported by observations on four individuals with extended capture histories where FP apparently developed at periods of 18 months or more after first record. Unusual numbers of sick and dying turtles not included within our tagged group were noted on a number of other occasions, without any obvious causes. Other tagged turtles were known to have died on dispersal away from Sandalwood Peninsula waters, but could not be accessed for necropsy. Debilitated juvenile green turtles afflicted with the “floating syndrome”/buoyancy disorder (Norton 2005) collected from other Western Australian locations were examined by Raidal et al. (1998), who concluded that infections caused by salmonellae, E. coli and other Gram-negative bacteria should be considered as causes of systemic illness and death in wild green sea turtles infected with spirorchid cardiovascular flukes and other internal parasites. There is scope for more focused investigations of health and wellbeing of sea turtles in Western Australia. Postscript. Tropical Cyclone Vance (Category 5) devastated the Exmouth Gulf region on 22 March 1999. A c.5 m storm surge associated with the cyclone passage could have driven turtles and other animals inland to strand and die. The magnitude of such possible loss of animals could not be investigated, but that event effectively terminated the possible onward carriage of this field program at that time. Conclusion. Application of knowledge of sea turtle populations toward better management in the real world requires engagement of the public. Developing that necessary knowledge is not easy, given the common scarcity of funding for research, the labor-intensive nature of in-water sampling in particular, and the need for sustained focus in the field due to the slow growing long lived life history characteristics of these turtles. One of the groups of people that needs to be engaged in seeking these better outcomes for sea turtles are the commercial fishers. Establishing common ground for discourse and learning requires patience and understanding. Our report is a result of following on that path of cooperation. It is unfortunate that support needed for further study of this large group of marked turtles with minimal fuss at low cost could not be secured. Thus, our current goal is to summarize and present the information that can be extracted from records obtained. We have shown that commercial fishing is not necessarily detrimental to sea turtle conservation, and may contribute positively to addressing data needs. With the passage of time since our marked turtles were last accessed, and given the likelihood of tag losses from the growing juvenile turtles (Prince 1996) over the past decade, it might not be possible to easily reconnect to that population if resources could be secured. However, we still lack necessary demographic data for juvenile turtles of all species known breeding in the western Australian region. These populations include the major portion of the SE Indian Ocean sea turtle stocks (Baldwin et al. 2003; Dethmers et al. 2006). Correcting that data deficiency should be a priority. Engagement of commercial fishers and other industry and public interest groups, including indigenous hunting communities in that work should be integral to any such enterprise. Acknowledgments. We thank the anonymous referees who commented on the draft that was circulated for their suggestions; and colleagues who checked some references that were proving difficult to recall. Anthony Hart’s contribution of unpublished data in Figure 2 is appreciated. We thank the MTN editors and Michael Coyne for help in getting this into final copy.


Atlas of Australian Resources. 1986. Third series; Vol. 4. Climate. Australia. Bureau of Meteorology. 2010. Climate Data Online: www.bom.gov.au/climate/data; Air temperatures from Site number 5007 –Learmonth Airport; Rainfall from Site number 5045 – Giralia. [Accessed Tue 21 Sep 2010]. Baldwin, R., G.R. Hughes & R.I.T. Prince. 2003 Turtles in the Indian Ocean. In: A.B. Bolten & B.E. Witherington (Eds.). Loggerhead Sea Turtles. Washington, DC, Smithsonian Books. pp. 218-232. Braun-McNeill, J., S.P. Epperly, L. Avens, M.L. Snover & J.C. Taylor. 2008. Growth rates of loggerhead sea turtles (Caretta caretta) from the western North Atlantic. Herpetological Conservation and Biology 3: 273-281. Balazs, G.H. & M. Chaloupka. 2004. Spatial and temporal variability in somatic growth of green sea turtles (Chelonia mydas) resident in the Hawaiian Archipelago. Marine Biology 145: 1043-1059. Bjorndal, K.A. 1997. Foraging ecology and nutrition of sea turtles. In: P.L. Lutz & J.A. Musick (Eds.). The Biology of Sea Turtles, Vol. I. CRC Press, Boca Raton. pp. 199-231. Bjorndal, K.A. & A.B. Bolten. 1988. Growth rates of immature green turtles, Chelonia mydas, on feeding grounds in the Southern Bahamas. Copeia 1988: 555-564. Bjorndal, K.A., A.B. Bolten & M.Y. Chaloupka. 2000a. Green turtle somatic growth model: evidence for density dependence. Ecological Applications 10: 269–282. Bjorndal, K.A., A.B. Bolten & H.R. Martins. 2000b. Somatic growth model of juvenile loggerhead sea turtles Caretta caretta: duration of pelagic stage. Marine Ecology Progress Series 202: 265-272. Boulon, R.H. Jr. 1994. Growth rates of wild juvenile hawksbill turtles, Eretmochelys imbricata, in St. Thomas, United States Virgin Islands. Copeia 1994: 811-814. Brand-Gardner, S.J., J.M. Lanyon & C.J. Limpus. 1999. Diet selection by immature green turtles, Chelonia mydas, in subtropical Moreton Bay, South-east Queensland. Australian Journal of Zoology 47: 181-191. Chaloupka, M., C. Limpus & J. Miller. 2004. Green turtle somatic growth dynamics in a spatially disjunct Great Barrier Reef metapopulation. Coral Reefs 23: 325-335. Dethmers, K.E.M., D. Broderick, C. Moritz, N.N. FitzSimmons, C.J. Limpus, S. Lavery, S. Whiting, M. Guinea, R.I.T. Prince & R. Kennett. 2006. The genetic structure of Australasian green turtles (Chelonia mydas): exploring the geographical scale of genetic exchange. Molecular Ecology 15: 3931-3946. Ene, A., M. Su, S. Lemaire, C. Rose, S. Schaff, R. Moretti, J. Lenz & L.H. Herbst. 2005. Distribution of chelonid fibropapillomatosis-associated herpesvirus variants in Florida: Molecular genetic evidence for infection of turtles following recruitment to neritic developmental habitats. Journal of Wildlife Diseases 41: 489–497. FAO. 2006-2012. Fisheries Department publications. Publications pages. In: FAO Fisheries and Aquaculture Department [online].

Rome. Updated. [Cited 14 May 2012]. http://www.fao.org/fishery/ geartype/246/en; http://www.fao.org/fishery/geartype/102/en Godley, B.J., E.H.S.M. Lima, S. Akesson, A.C. Broderick, F. Glen, M.H. Godfrey, P. Luschi & G.C. Hays. 2003. Movement patterns of green turtles in Brazilian coastal waters described by satellite tracking and flipper tagging. Marine Ecology Progress Series 253: 279–288. Heithaus, M.R., A. Frid, A.J. Wirsing, L. Bejder & L.M. Dill. 2005. Biology of sea turtles under risk from tiger sharks at a foraging ground. Marine Ecology Progress Series 288: 285-294. Kubis, S., M. Chaloupka, L. Ehrhart & M. Bresette. 2009. Growth rates of juvenile green turtles Chelonia mydas from three ecologically distinct foraging habitats along the east central coast of Florida, USA. Marine Ecology Progress Series 389: 257-269. Miller, J.D. & C.J. Limpus. 2003. Ontogeny of marine turtle gonads. In: P.L. Lutz, J.A. Musick & J. Wyneken (Eds.). The Biology of Sea Turtles, Vol. II. CRC Press, Boca Raton. pp. 199-224. Mortimer, J.A. 1981. The feeding ecology of the West Caribbean green turtle (Chelonia mydas) in Nicaragua. Biotropica 13: 49-58. Nakamura, K. 1980. Carotenoids in serum of Pacific green turtle, Chelonia mydas. Bulletin of the Japanese Society of Scientific Fisheries 46: 909-910. Norton, T.M. 2005. Chelonian emergency and critical care. Seminars in avian and exotic pet medicine 14: 106–130. Prince, R.I.T. 1993. Western Australian marine turtle conservation project: An outline of scope and an invitation to Participate. Marine Turtle Newsletter 60: 8-14. Prince, R.I.T. 1996. Loss of tags from growing juvenile loggerhead turtles in captivity. Marine Turtle Newsletter 72: 8-10. Prince, R.I.T., M.P. Jensen, D. Oades & the Bardi Jawi Rangers. 2011. Olive ridley turtle presence and nesting records for Western Australia. Marine Turtle Newsletter 129: 9-11. Raidal, S.R. & R.I.T. Prince. 1996. First confirmation of multiple fibropapillomas in a Western Australian green turtle (Chelonia mydas). Marine Turtle Newsletter 74: 7-9. Raidal, S.R., M. O'Hara, R.P. Hobbs & R.I.T. Prince. 1998. Gram-negative bacterial infections and cardiovascular parasitism in green sea turtles (Chelonia mydas). Australian Veterinary Journal 76: 415-417. Seminoff, J.A., A. Resendiz, W.J. Nichols & T.T. Jones. 2002. Growth rates of wild green turtles (Chelonia mydas) at a temperate foraging area in the Gulf of California, Mexico. Copeia 2002: 610-617. Senko, J., M.C. Lopez-Castro, V. Koch & W.J. Nichols. 2010. Immature East Pacific green turtles (Chelonia mydas) use multiple foraging areas off the Pacific coast of Baja California Sur, Mexico: First evidence from mark-recapture data. Pacific Science 64: 125-130. Watson, D.M. 2006. Growth rates of sea turtles in Watamu, Kenya. Earth & Environment 2: 29-53. http://homepages.see. leeds.ac.uk/~lecmsr/ejournal/2,29-53.pdf


Tortoiseshell Trade in Sri Lanka: Is Centuries-old Trade Now History? Rupika S. Rajakaruna1, Nayana Wijayatilaka1, E.M. Lalith Ekanayake1,2,3 & K.B. Ranawana1

Department of Zoology, Faculty of Science, University of Peradeniya 20400 Sri Lanka (E-mail: [email protected]); Postgraduate Institute of Science, University of Peradeniya 20400 Sri Lanka; 3Turtle Conservation Project (TCP), No.11, Perera Mawatha, Panadura, Sri Lanka 1

2

Authentic tortoiseshell comes from the hawksbill turtle. Among hawksbill scutes, “V” shaped marginals were the most prized by Sri Lankan jewelers (Deraniyagala 1939). Some of the popular tortoiseshell items sold in Sri Lanka included snuff boxes, cigar cases, combs, jewelry, jewelry boxes, writing tables, and beetle boxes; these were among the finest tortoiseshell trinkets in the world (Bennett 1843). Tortoiseshell was a luxury item used by ancient wealthy Romans and Sri Lanka was one of their major exporters (Deraniyagala 1939; Nicholas & Paranavitana 1961). All seven species of sea turtles are included in the IUCN Red List of Threatened Animals with Kemp’s ridleys (Lepidochelys kempii), hawksbills and leatherbacks (Dermochelys coriacea) listed as Critically Endangered, loggerheads (Caretta caretta) and green turtles (Chelonia mydas) are Endangered, olive ridleys (Lepidochelys olivacea) are considered Vulnerable while the flatback (Natator depressus) is considered Data Deficient (www.redlist. org). Loss of nesting and foraging habitats, human consumption of eggs and meat, accidental capture in fisheries and marine pollution have been listed as the major contributors (IUCN 1995). Hawksbill populations have been further threatened because of slaughter for scutes; this has occurred in almost all civilizations since ancient times. This excessive exploitation has had an enduring effect on the global hawksbill population and has likely contributed to hawksbills being listed as Critically Endangered (IUCN 2007). In 1977, the tortoiseshell trade was banned by the conservation treaty CITES (Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora). As major trading countries joined CITES, the volume of trade began to decline. In 1979, Sri Lanka became a member of the CITES prohibiting the import or export of sea turtles and their products. According to the Fauna and Flora

City/Town Shops surveyed Negambo 14 Kandy 5 Ahungalla 2 Ambalangoda 1 Kaluamodara 3 Aluthgama 5 Bentota 4 Galle 10 Hikkaduwa 11 Kosgoda 5 Tangalle 5 Total 65 Table 1. Number of shops surveyed in each city/ town for tortoiseshell products.

Protection Ordinance of Sri Lanka (FFPO, 1938, amended in 1972), it is an offence to capture, kill, injure or possess sea turtles or their eggs. Despite a complete ban on turtle products, there was a thriving and open market for tortoiseshell in Sri Lanka until the mid-1990s (de Silva 1996; Frazier 1980). A survey of illegal tortoiseshell trade carried out in 1994, recorded 112 retailers openly selling tortoiseshell products in six towns (Richardson 1997). A subsequent survey in 1996 recorded 83 shops selling tortoiseshells in 14 towns including government-run tourist shops such as “Laksala” in the largest and former capital city, Colombo (Richardson 1997). The demand for tortoiseshell came mostly from foreign tourists. During the 1990s there were campaigns for tour operators in the European Union to boycott hotels and resorts where tortoiseshell was available and in 1993 the punishment to the offenders of FFPO was increased (IUCN 2005). The original punishment was introduced in 1972 and a person who possessed a tortoiseshell item or sold or exposed to sale such an item was subject to a fine of LKR 500.00 and/or six months imprisonment. This was increased in 1993 to LKR 10,000 to 30,000 fine and /or imprisonment for 2-5 years (IUCN 2005). The fine had been further increased in 2009 to LKR 30,000 -100,000 (~10,000 US$). A recent survey carried out in 2007 showed that killing of local sea turtles for their scutes had decreased gradually since 2000 mainly due to public awareness and education programs conducted by the government and non-government organizations as well as increased punishment given to the offenders and the publicity received for such acts (Rajakaruna et al. 2009). According to Curry & Mathew (1995) the majority of hawksbill scutes utilized

District Gampaha Kandy Galle Galle Galle Galle Galle Galle Galle Galle Hambantota

Figure 1. Map of southern Sri Lanka showing the location and number of shops surveyed.


by the tortoiseshell industry in Sri Lanka were smuggled in from the Maldives in consignments of dried fish. Therefore, despite the progress in reducing the killing of local sea turtles for scutes in Sri Lanka, it is important to investigate whether the shell trade still remains operational and significant. A survey was carried out in major tourist locations to assess the current status of the tortoiseshell trade in Sri Lanka. Study area- Eleven locations in five major tourist cities including Kandy, Negambo, Hikkaduwa, Tangalle, and Galle and six towns including Ahungalla, Ambalangoda, Kaluamodara, Aluthgama, Kosgoda and Bentota were selected (Table 1). Eight of these locations had been included in the previous survey of Richardson (1997) and three new locations, Ahungalle, Ambalangoda and Kaluamodara were added to the present survey. With the exception of Kandy, all others are located along the western, southwestern or southern coastline where turtle nesting occurs (Fig. 1). Kandy is located in the mountains in the middle of the island but is a major tourist destination. According to Richardson (1997), Colombo had a high reduction (64.7%) of shell trade from 1994 to 1996 and hence it was not considered in the present survey. Data collection- In each location, tourist shops were identified and visited over a period of four months from September to December 2007. A verbal consent was sought from the participants after explaining the objectives of the study. Structured interviews were conducted with sales associates or store owners. First, information about the respondent such as age, sex, educational background and employment status was collected after informed consent. Then specific questions were asked to collect information about tortoiseshell products in four areas. a) Details of the outlet such as the age of the shop, whether they sell any shell products in the shop, if yes, the types of products and their prices, or if they do not have shell products currently available for sale in the shop, questions were asked to collect information about whether they used to sell them in the past and if yes, when and what types of products. Questions were also asked to gather information about where items were obtained, b) Knowledge of the interviewee about shell products and ordinance was gathered by questioning whether they were aware that selling

Respondent and outlet information Age of the respondent 30 Sex Male Female Interviewee’s status Owner Sales Associate Manager Age of the shop < 2 yrs 2-10 yrs 10 - 35 yrs >35

Percentage 8% 57% 35% 68% 32% 51% 38% 11% 11% 38% 46% 5%

Table 2. Information on respondents and outlets regarding tortoiseshell trade.

or possessing tortoise shell products is illegal, how they came to know that selling/ possessing turtle products was illegal and the law and penalties. c) Finally, questions were asked to find out whether the customers/tourists were still interested in buying shell products and ask for them, if yes how often, what type of products were they interested in, whether the customers were foreign or local tourists and also how the shop owner/sales associate responded and dealt with such requests. An observation check list gathered information about the shell products that had been displayed in the store. Of the 65 shops visited (Table 1), none of the retailers claimed that they currently sell any tortoiseshell products. About one-third of shops (24) had been involved in the shell trade until the late 1990s. About half of the respondents were the owners of the shop (51%) and half of the shops visited were 10 years or older (51%; Table 2). A maximum of one or two types of items such as bangles, bracelets, pendants or hairpins were seen on display in some of the older shops (Fig. 2). When questioned about these items, retailers said that they still carry some of the previously stocked, unsold items but they no longer buy new tortoiseshell products from suppliers. Some of the items available in shops included a silver engraved bracelet priced at US$ 12.00 (Fig. 2A), pendants (Fig. 2B), a hair pin (Fig. 2C),

A

B

C

D

E

F

G

Figure 2. Some tortoiseshell items from unsold stocks found in retail shops during the survey. A) Silver engraved bracelet B) Pendants C) Hair pin D) & E) Bangles from different stores, F) Hand mirror and G) Silver elephant engraved bracelet.


bangles of various sizes (Figs. 2D and 2E), a hand mirror priced at US$ 30.00 (Fig. 2F) and a silver engraved large bracelet priced at US$13.00 (Fig. 2G). Pendants, bangles and hair pins were priced at less than US$ 5.00 each. All items were vintage or older than 10 years and most were damaged. Retailers claimed that they received these items from suppliers during the early 1990s. None of the shops operating for less than 10 years had any shell products. Results of the survey showed that there has been significant progress in reducing open market tortoiseshell trade in Sri Lanka and it seems that the efforts of the government and non-government agencies to stop the shell trade has been successful to some extent. Up until the early 1990s, even the shops that were approved by the tourist board sold tortoiseshell items (Richardson 1997), but we found that they no longer sell or have previous stocks of such items. Richardson (1997) pointed out that since the tourism industry had suffered during the 1980s and 1990s due to the civil war in the country, retailers may have believed that there was no longer a market for tortoiseshells in Sri Lanka. However, with a sharp increase in tourism after the armed conflict was over, there may have been an increase in the demand for tortoiseshell articles and so it was important to investigate whether tortoiseshell products were sold from hidden stocks. As Witherington & Frazer (2003) point out when an economically valuable biological resource is subject to open access it inevitably leads to conservation failures. Few retailers (14%) said that some customers, mostly foreign tourists, still ask for tortoiseshell products. Some respondents said that they tell these customers that tortoiseshells are banned in Sri Lanka and that they are not responsible for any violations of customs regulations if they are willing to buy the left over items. It is important to educate tourists about the implications of buying tortoiseshell products and to give wide publicity to the punishments given for offences against turtles to eliminate the shell trade completely. Three retailers from Tangalle and one from Kaluamodara claimed that they had been involved in selling tortoiseshells during early 2000. One retailer from Tangalle said he had been punished for carrying items made out of tortoiseshell in his shop but he refused to provide further information. In addition to the prosecutions brought against retailers, Richardson (1997) suggested that the decrease in the shell trade may also have been attributed to the publicity received in the national media. All of the retailers interviewed were aware that selling of tortoiseshell products is illegal and that sea turtles are protected animals. Most of them had learned about the law through newspapers (51%) and/or television (53%). Respondents were not aware of or didn’t want to disclose details about the previous suppliers of tortoiseshell products. The above information was based on the responses received during the interview from the retailers after explaining the objective of the study. The two previous surveys of Richardson (1997) were carried out by a team posing as tourists or tourist guides looking for suitable gifts for their clients, where they reported some shops carrying hidden stocks, specifically in large cities. When some of these shops were later visited as customers, the responses received

from the retailers did not change the current conclusion drastically. Although some retailers tried to sell the left over items at least for a reduced price, some warned about purchasing tortoiseshell items as they are prohibited. It appears that tortoiseshell trade may no longer be considered an ongoing and pervasive threat to hawksbill recovery efforts in Sri Lanka. However, continued vigilance is required because of the considerable increase in tourism and the possibility of shells still being smuggled into Sri Lanka from the Maldives. Acknowledgements. The authors thank Sampath Jayarathna for photographing the shell products. Financial support was provided by the International Foundation for Science, Sweden (IFS A/3863-1). BENNET, J.W. 1843. Ceylon and its capabilities. Trumpet Publishers Ltd. (Reprinted in 1984) Rajagiriya, Sri Lanka. pp. 273-276. CURRY, D. & E. MATTHEW. 1995. Report on investigation into threats to marine turtles in Sri Lanka and the Maldives. Environmental Investigator Agency Report. DE SILVA, A. 1996. Proposed Action Plan: Conservation, restoration and management of the Testudines and their habitats in Sri Lanka, Department of Wildlife Conservation and Global Environmental Facility Programme. pp. 28. DERANIYAGALA, P.E.P. 1939. The Tetrapod Reptiles of Ceylon. Vol. 1 Testudinates and Crocodilians. Dulau and Co., Ltd. London, UK. pp. 412. FISHER, S. 1995. Illegal turtle trade in Sri Lanka and the Maldives –an encouraging note of progress. Marine Turtle Newsletter 71: 10-11. FRAZIER, J. 1980. Sri Lanka: exploitation of marine turtles in the Indian Ocean. Human Ecology 8: 355-356. IUCN 1995. A global strategy for the conservation of Marine Turtles, IUCN/SSC Marine Turtle Specialist Group pp. 24. IUCN 2005. Marine turtle conservation strategy and action plan for Sri Lanka. Department of Wildlife Conservation, Colombo. IUCN 2007. The 2007 Red List of threatened fauna of Sri Lanka. The World Conservation Union (IUCN) Sri Lanka and Ministry of Environment and Natural Resources Colombo Sri Lanka. pp. 50. NICHOLAS, C.W. & S. PARANAVITANA. 1961. A concise history of Ceylon. University of Ceylon Press, Colombo. RAJAKARUNA, R.S., D.M.N.J. DSSANAYAKE, E.M.L. EKANAYAKE, K.B. RANAWANA. 2009. Sea turtle conservation in Sri Lanka: assessment of knowledge, attitude and prevalence of consumptive use of turtle products among coastal community. Indian Ocean Turtle Newsletter 10: 1-13. RICHARDSON, P. 1997. Tortoiseshell industry in Sri Lanka: a survey report 1996. Lyriocephalus 3: 6-24. WITHERINGTON, B.E. & N.B. FRAZIER. 2003. Social and economic aspects of sea turtle conservation. In: P.L. Lutz, J.A. Musick & J. Wyneken (Eds.). The Biology of Sea Turtles Vol. 2. Boca Raton, Florida, CRC Press, USA. pp. 355-384.


Quantification and Recommended Management of Man-Made Debris Along the Sea Turtle Nesting Beach at Playa Caletas, Guanacaste, Costa Rica Julia Ramos1,2, Christopher Pincetich3, Lotti Adams4, Katherine Comer Santos1, Joël Hage2 & Randall Arauz4 The Science Exchange, San Diego, CA, USA (E-mail: [email protected]; [email protected]); 2University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, North Carolina, USA (E-mail: [email protected]); 3Sea Turtle Restoration Project, Forest Knolls, CA, USA (E-mail: [email protected]); 4Pretoma, San José, Costa Rica (E-mail: [email protected]) 1

Sea turtle nesting activity in Playa Caletas has been monitored since 2002 by the Association for the Restoration of Sea Turtles, or Pretoma (www.pretoma.org), a Costa Rican grassroots conservation organization, in close collaboration with its sister organization Turtle Island Restoration Network of the United States (www.seaturtles. org) and the authorities of the Tempisque Conservation Area (ACT) of the Ministry of Environment. The Pretoma hatchery project was launched in 2001, and following this, the Playa Caletas-Ario National Wildlife Refuge was established in 2003 and later nationally recognized by the government in 2006. In 2008, Pretoma began hosting student interns to conduct scientific studies through The Science Exchange Sea Turtle Internship Program (www.thescienceexchange.com). Since the Caletas’s camp and hatchery was established, a decline in nest predation rates from 90% to 20% has been achieved through the relocation of over 6,000 nests to the protected hatchery site. A total of 235,000 hatchlings have been released since 2001 (Pretoma 2011). Four out of the seven sea turtle species nest at Playa Caletas, however, it is primarily an olive ridley (Lepidochelys olivacea) sea turtle nesting site. Here, this species mainly exhibits solitary nesting (Gaos et al. 2006) with some 1,000-1,500 nests per season (July – March, annually). The olive ridley is the second smallest of all sea turtle species and although it has the largest extant population size of all sea turtles (Witherington 2006), the olive ridley is classified as a threatened species (Abreu-Grobois & Plotkin 2008). The Eastern Pacific leatherback (Dermochelys coriacea) is listed as a Critically Endangered sea turtle species with its nesting population having been diminished in recent decades (Sarti 2000). Pacific green turtles (Chelonia mydas) and hawksbills (Eretmochelys imbricata), which are classified as Endangered and Critically Endangered, respectively (Mortimer & Donnelly 2008; Seminoff 2004), also nest at Playa Caletas. The predation of sea turtles and nests by coyotes, skunks, raccoons, and crabs is one of the greatest threats at Playa Caletas. Although illegal, poachers also patrol the beach, collecting the eggs for food as well as selling them for a source of income. Another threat to turtles at Caletas is garbage. Plastics are not biodegradable in the marine environment or in the intestinal fluids of sea turtles (Mueller et al. 2011). From causing entanglement, severe lesions, digestive tract obstruction through ingestion, and interference with nesting and hatchling emergence, marine plastic pollution is causing deleterious effects to populations of endangered sea turtles worldwide (Bugoni et al. 2001; Carr 1987; Wabnitz & Nichols 2010). For many years, observations of large amounts of garbage, specifically plastics, have concerned Pretoma workers at Caletas. Local people in San Francisco de Coyote, the nearest town to

Caletas, report that many people dump and burn their trash right next to the Rio Bongo; after storms, it is easy to see the sediment and garbage from the river flowing towards the beach. The heavilyused road behind the beach at Caletas may be another local source of solid waste. Strong ocean currents and winds may also bring in trash from other areas. Caletas is not unique. Worldwide generation of plastic waste reached 31 million tons in 2010, and only 8% was recycled (EPA 2012). The remaining plastic waste may easily wash into the waterways and water bodies if not properly disposed of or recycled. Up to 80% of the waste that ends up in the ocean to become marine debris consists of short-lived plastic products permanently discarded within one year of manufacture (Wabnitz & Nichols 2010). This was the first shoreline man-made debris survey for Playa Caletas. In several marine debris studies within the past few years, plastic has been ranked as the most abundant material found on beaches within sea turtle nesting regions (Bravo et al. 2009; Claereboudt 2004; Nakashima et al. 2011; Zhou et al. 2011). Although aerial photography has become an innovative marine debris survey tool (Nakashima et al. 2011), most surveys are performed on the ground, within previously selected transects (Bravo et al. 2009; Claereboudt 2004). In one study done on several Chilean beaches, plastic debris was found most commonly (2 pieces/m) from the wrack line to the back beach barrier (Bravo et al. 2009). On the shores of the South China Sea, one study concluded that 95% of all beached marine debris observed came from landbased sources, with 42% of it being plastics (Zhou et al. 2011). Due to the heightened concern of the effects of man-made marine debris pollution on turtle nesting at Playa Caletas, we addressed several research questions: (1) what are the characteristics of the garbage in terms of size (micro, macro, large) and type (bottles, wrappers, etc.), (2) how does the density of man-made debris relate to precipitation events, (3) how is the density of trash distributed spatially and (4) how can managers use this information to improve sea turtle habitat? Location. Playa Caletas is an isolated, dark-sand beach 7 km away from the nearest town, San Francisco de Coyote. The beach is located on the Nicoya Peninsula in the Guanacaste region of Costa Rica (Fig. 1). Transect Surveys: man-made debris sampling and weather recording. We conducted surveys at low tide over 22 days between July 17 through August 29 during a portion of the 2011 olive ridley/ green turtle nesting season when weather and tides permitted. For Pretoma’s monitoring program, the beach is divided into 55 sectors identified by permanent marked signs approximately 50 - 100 m apart; beach width also varies (see Fig. 2). We sampled each of the 55 sectors with no repeats (Fig. 2), for a total coverage of 1,100 m


Figure 1. The sea turtle nesting beach at Playa Caletas, Guanacaste, Costa Rica. of the 5,500 m shoreline. Each of the 55 sectors had 20 predefined transects 5-meters wide varying in length from the water’s edge to the first barrier (i.e., heavy vegetation, tree, or road). We chose four transects within each sector to survey from a random number table containing numbers 1-20. Between four and 52 transects were assessed each day of observation, resulting in total beach coverage of 20% (n = 220). The beach was divided into geographic areas by land use - north (sectors 1-17), middle (sectors 18-29), and south (sectors 30-55). The north zone consisted of a point and entrance to the beach, the middle zone was in front of the camp with the heaviest human traffic, and the south was a marshy area leading to the river mouth. In total we sampled 68 transects in the north,

48 in the middle, and 104 in the south zones of the beach. For each transect, we recorded garbage quantity, length at the longest dimension (cm), type, transect distance from the water’s edge to the first barrier, substrate type, land use, time, current weather, and description of the weather within the 12 hours prior to sampling. Large trash was defined as any item longer than 30 cm. Man-made items longer than 30 cm were recorded on a separate sheet along with the status (sunken, stranded, etc.). Man-made macro debris was considered to be smaller or equal to 30 cm but greater than 1.0 cm in size. Finally, man-made micro debris items were defined as being from 5.0 mm up to 1.0 cm in length. A blind coin toss determined the locations of micro sampling within the same random transects used for macro and large sampling. We placed a 0.0625 m2 quadrat where the coin landed and after removing macro and large debris items, the top ~3 cm of sand was scooped up and then sieved through a screen with 5.0 mm mesh spacing. We then identified micro fragments that remained in the sieve using a magnifying glass and calipers. A lack of micro debris during the initial phase of the study resulted in reducing the frequency from daily to weekly sampling, or 11 sampling events over the study period. Density. Man-made macro and large debris item densities (number of debris items/m2) per transect were calculated according to this formula: Density = N/ (W x L) Where N is the number of debris items observed; L is the recorded transect length, and W is the recorded transect width (5.0 m). Man-made micro debris item densities (number of debris items/ m3) per transect were calculated using:

Figure 2. The 55 sector boundaries of Playa Caletas, Guanacaste, Costa Rica (Google Earth). Marine Turtle Newsletter No. 134, 2012 - Page 13

Figure 3. The total number of macro and large garbage pieces surveyed per category type during the study period.

Density = N/ (A x D) Where A is the quadrat sampling area 0.0625 m2 and D is the sampled sand depth of 0.03 m. Man-made Debris Type Categories. We chose the categories of garbage type based on the NOAA draft Marine Debris Shoreline Survey Field Guide (Opfer et al. 2012) and we added other categories as surveying proceeded. The main debris categories were divided into plastic, metal, rubber, paper/processed lumber, and cloth/fabric. Sea Turtle Activity Observations. Turtle activity observations were recorded nightly by the primary author and Pretoma volunteers by walking the entire beach in pairs during two, two-hour shifts. Each individual turtle encountered was identified, measured, and tagged if needed. Unfortunately, not every emerging turtle could be processed due to the disproportional land-to-patroller ratio; however, for the entire beach all remnant activity observed was classified as a successful nesting event, aborted nest, false crawl, poached nest, or predated nest. All activities represented the

Pollution Category Personal Care Products Toys Hardware Cups Plastic Other Rope/Chord/Tie Tubing Sponges Processed wood/paper Glass Bottles Buoys/floats Cigarette Lighters Utensils Paper/Process Lumber Other Metal Aluminum Cans Fishing lures, net, spool and line

Pieces 67 67 65 57 52 43 38 32 29 27 21 16 15 14 11 9

Table 1. The total number of macro and large garbage pieces surveyed per category type during the study period.

potential for female turtles to encounter trash on the beach, and the successful nests also represented the potential for emerging hatchlings to encounter garbage. For Pretoma’s monitoring program the beach is also informally divided into three “zones” to describe how far the turtles crawl up the slope of the beach. The zones vary in beach width but are defined as being from the shoreline to mid-beach (Zone 1) from mid-beach to the wrack line (Zone 2) and from the wrack line through the vegetation (Zone 3). We recorded the species, tag number, morphometrics, activity, disturbances, zone number, the sector number, date, time, and tide for every turtle, track and nest observed. Precipitation events related to garbage. In order to test the effect of precipitation on the deposition of solid waste, wet and dry samples were statistically compared. The sample was classified as affected by precipitation if there had been rain the night prior to assessment and dry if there was no rain during the previous 12 hours, and the sample was not included in the precipitation analysis if there was a mixture of weather or it was currently raining/drizzling. Statistical Analysis. We used ANOVA tests to test for significant differences in mean garbage densities per geographic area (north, middle, and south). We also tested for differences in the mean frequencies of all sea turtle activities (i.e., false crawl, aborted nest, successful nest observances, etc.) and the mean frequencies of sea turtle nesting success per geographic area (http://www.physics. csbsju.edu/stats/anova.php). A two-tailed, unpaired Student’s T-test was run in Excel to test whether there was a significant difference between trash densities collected during dry and wet weather. Average density of garbage in each size category. During our surveys, we found 6,116 pieces of trash comprised of 5,906 pieces of macro man-made debris, 209 pieces of large man-made debris, and only one piece of micro man-made debris. The mean macro debris density was 0.14 pieces/m2 and large debris density was 0.01 pieces/m2. Frequency of garbage in each type category. Of all marine garbage assessed, 98.2% was classified as plastic. Combining the macro and large size categories, the top seven types most frequently found were: 1) plastic bottles, 2) plastic fragments, 3) Styrofoam/foam fragments, 4) plastic caps, 5) wrappers, 6) shoe/ shoe parts, and 7) bowls, containers and buckets (Fig. 3). Other notable categories with less than 100 pieces found are listed in Table 1.


geographic area. From this we extracted mean observed successful nests for each geographic area. We combined the macro and large item densities per transect, and calculated the mean garbage density per geographic area (Table 2). The first ANOVA test suggests that the frequency of all sea turtle activities (indicating female presence on the beach) Figure 4. Combined macro and large garbage densities per sector. in the north area was significantly lower Precipitation events related to garbage. There were 11 days than both the middle and south areas (p < 0.05). However, the noted as being affected by precipitation and 9 were considered dry. frequency of sea turtle activities was not significantly lower in the There was an observed trend of increased density of solid waste middle when compared to the south. We also extracted the “successful nest” data (or potential on days affected by precipitation with a mean of 0.257 pieces/m2, compared to the density of 0.169 pieces/m2 observed during dry hatchling presence on the beach) from all turtle activities and the weather. One major storm resulted in the deposition of 853 pieces frequency in the north area was again significantly lower than of macro man-made debris onto one transect alone, and the highest both the middle and the south areas (p < 0.05). The successful density transect observed (4.574/m2) occurred after a rain event. nest frequency, however, was not significantly lower in the north We expected that precipitation would have an effect on the density region when compared to the middle region. A separate ANOVA test showed the density of man-made debris of garbage, but we did not find a significant increase in debris with (macro and large combined) in the south area was significantly wet weather (p = 0.431). Spatial distribution of garbage. Trash density slightly decreased lower than the other two areas (p < 0.01). However, the garbage from north to south with a steady decline starting at sector 29, density in the north area was not significantly lower than density which corresponded with the beginning of a fence along the back in the middle area. Conclusions. The south area of Playa Caletas had significantly of the beach to the river mouth (Fig. 4). Transect PC-Z_12-8_15 in Sector 26 had the largest macro garbage density at 4.574/m2. less trash than either the middle or north areas. Significantly more Transect PC-F_13-8_19 in Sector 6 had the highest density of sea turtle activity occurred in the middle area, near the Pretoma camp, and in the south area, near the river mouth, when compared large solid waste with a density of 0.076 pieces/m2. Distribution of sea turtle activity. During the study, the greatest to the north area. However, the middle area had both the greatest female sea turtle activity (successful nests, aborted nests, false number of successful turtle nests and the highest mean garbage crawls, poached, predated) occurred in sectors 26 - 43 (in the density. We cannot directly correlate the sea turtle activity to manmiddle to south regions) as well as at the mouth of the river in made debris presence because the sampling areas and methods sectors 52 - 55 (in the south region) (Fig. 5). In terms of distance were not the same. In the future, measuring the areas of the turtle from the shoreline, 74% of nests (during the study period) were sectors that Pretoma monitors for sea turtle activity/nesting and found in zone 3 above the wrack line. Unfortunately, the sectors analyzing sea turtle and solid waste patterns over several years and zones were not measured for area so a density comparison is would give a better picture of any physical or behavioral impacts to nesting sea turtles from garbage. not possible. The abundance of bottles, caps, wrappers, etc. found in this Spatial analysis of observed turtle activity and garbage density between zones. We looked at the variability of mean trash study indicates that most beach trash at Playa Caletas is disposable density and mean turtle activity frequency between geographic plastic products. The most common size of the trash was 17.8 - 25.5 areas (north, middle, and south). First we summed the number cm, which matches the most abundant trash category - personal of observed turtle activities in each sector over the study period beverage bottles. There is an urgent need worldwide to decrease (frequency) and calculated the mean activity per sector for each the use of disposable plastic bottles for beverages, to increase the

Figure 5. The number of turtle activities (successful nests, aborted nests, false crawls, poached, predated) and successful nests only per sector. Marine Turtle Newsletter No. 134, 2012 - Page 15

Area

Sea turtle Successful Garbage activities nests density (freq.) (freq.) (pieces/m2) North 2.61±2.0 0.94±1.0 0.17 ±0.1 Middle 4.17±2.7 2.58±1.7 0.26 ±0.6 South 5.04±3.5 2.08±1.8 0.05 ±0.0 Table 2. Mean frequency of observed turtle activity and nests, and garbage densities in each geographic area during the study period, with standard deviations. use of reusable beverage bottles, and to increase the recycling of plastic beverage bottles to lessen their presence in the environment and reduce the potential negative impacts of these plastic items on humans and wildlife. Additional Observations. Most garbage that we found was located on the surface of the sand and the most common size of the objects was > 1.0 cm in length. The lack of broken down and buried pieces of man-made marine debris provides evidence that Playa Caletas may just be the first of many stops on the journey of these plastics around the oceans. The proximity of the Rio Bongo as well as the strong Pacific Ocean currents (capable of transporting whole trees on and off the beach within one day) are among the reasons that we think that the garbage at Playa Caletas is both new and temporary. Melted man-made macro debris is an indication of trash burning, which is a common practice in places with no trash collection service; this is the situation at Playa Caletas. There were 15 pieces of melted debris found after storm activities compared to five pieces of melted plastic found during dry weather, perhaps indicating that the river brought burned trash to the beach during the storms. We observed that almost all man-made macro debris found was located at or above the wrack line (Pretoma zone 3); this was found in other studies as well (Bravo et al. 2009; Gregory 2009). At Caletas, zone 3 is also the most common olive ridley nesting area. Surveyors in zone 3 observed a high density of garbage at the interface of the beach and the vegetation line. Therefore, shoreline survey protocols should focus on this ‘edge effect,’ where we found both high trash density and turtle activity. Suggestions for improving the survey. There were some challenges presented while surveying Playa Caletas for man-made debris. First, the sampled garbage was not removed from the beach because no system of trash collection exists for Playa Caletas or the community of San Francisco de Coyote. Inevitably, counting previously surveyed trash that may have moved into adjacent transects may have occurred, possibly introducing error. Ideally, the garbage should be removed after being surveyed, but future surveys should be carefully planned to minimize introduced errors from beach clean ups when attempting to accurately quantify the natural densities and accumulation rates of solid waste. We recommend continuing this garbage survey at Playa Caletas following a protocol of repeated, random transect measurements within distinct, 100-meter study zones within different geographic areas along the beach, similar to the methods outlined in the NOAA Draft Marine Debris Shoreline Survey Field Guide (Opfer et al. 2012). Trash surveys over an entire nesting/hatching season and

over several years would allow a comparison between multiple seasons and years, as well as with other beaches. Many studies over the past four to five decades have shown an increased presence of man-made micro debris on shorelines (Barnes et al. 2009), but the irregularity of sampling, lack of stable study sites, and differing protocols (including this study), make accurate quantification of micro debris difficult. Therefore, we suggest doing consistent micro debris surveys coupled with the macro and man-made large debris transects to gain a more accurate assessment of micro debris presence and characteristics at Playa Caletas. Conservation Recommendations. This study demonstrated how a desolate sea turtle beach can be affected by man-made debris, mostly plastics. We found an alarmingly high density of garbage (0.14 pieces per m2), which is similar to densities in heavily populated/tourist areas like Armação dos Búzios, a beach near Rio De Janeiro, Brazil (0.14 pieces per m2) (Oigman-Pszczol & Creed 2007). The large amount of trash at Playa Caletas has the potential to affect sea turtles by causing entanglement of nesting females, blocking nesting areas, increasing sand compaction, entangling emerging hatchlings, and blocking/entangling hatchlings from reaching the sea. If solid waste is blown or washed out to sea it may also become ingested and/or cause further entanglement (Bugoni et al. 2001; Carr 1987; Wabnitz & Nichols 2010). We recommend involving local community members as much as possible in sea turtle and garbage surveys and cleanups for both educational purposes and to increase support for the continuation of the programs. Apart from the opportunity for extensive sampling, community participation in beach cleanups has been considered an important strategy of increasing public awareness and motivating community action (Bravo et al. 2009; Marcovaldi & Marcovaldi 1999). Costa Rica in particular, with an economy that depends on eco-tourism, and a local population that is environmentallyconscious and educated, could become a pioneer in developing solutions to the plastic problem. Acknowledgements. Many thanks to the volunteers at the Pretoma sea turtle camp at Playa Caletas who helped with field data collection, the MTN reviewers, E. Whitman for earlier reviews of the manuscript, and R. Lewison at San Diego State University for issuing undergraduate biology credit for this internship. During this research the author (J. Ramos) was enrolled in The Science Exchange Sea Turtle Research Internship Program (www.thescienceexchange. org) through San Diego State University. Abreu-Grobois, A. & P. Plotkin. 2008. Lepidochelys olivacea. In: IUCN 2011. IUCN Red List of Threatened Species Version 2011.2. Downloaded on 15 October 2011. Barnes, D.K.A., F. Galgani, R.C. Thompson & M. Barlaz. 2009. Accumulation and fragmentation of plastic debris in global environments. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B 364: 1985–1998. Bravo, M., M. Gallardo, G. Luna-Jorquera, P. Núñez, N. Vásquez, & M. Thiel. 2009. Anthropogenic debris on beaches in the SE Pacific (Chile): Results from a national survey supported by volunteers. Marine Pollution Bulletin 58: 1718-1726. Bugoni, L., L. KRAUSE & M.V. Petry. 2001. Marine debris and human impacts on sea turtles in southern Brazil. Marine Pollution Bulletin 42: 1330-1334.


Carr, A. 1987. Impact of nondegradable marine debris on the ecology and survival outlook of sea turtles. Marine Science Bulletin 18: 355. Claereboudt, M.R. 2004. Shore litter along sandy beaches of the Gulf of Oman. Marine Pollution Bulletin 49: 770-777. EPA (United States Environmental Protection Agency). 2012. Wastes. Retrieved: 7 January, 2012, from http://www.epa.gov/ osw/conserve/materials/plastics.htm. Gaos, A.R., I.L. Yañez & R.M. Arauz. 2006. Sea turtle conservation and research on the Pacific coast of Costa Rica. Technical Report. Programa Restauración de Tortugas Marinas. http://www.pretoma.org/downloads/pdf/Beach-Projects-2005eng.pdf. Gregory, M. R. 2009. Environmental implications of plastic debris in marine settings—entanglement, ingestion, smothering, hangers-on, hitch-hiking and alien invasions. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B 364: 2013–2025. Marcovaldi, M.A. & G.G. Marcovaldi. 1999. Marine Turtles of Brazil: the history and structure of Projeto TAMARIBAMA. Biological Conservation 91: 35-41. Mortimer, J.A & M. Donnelly. 2008. Eretmochelys imbricata. In: IUCN 2011. IUCN Red List of Threatened Species Version 2011.2. Downloaded on 15 October 2011. Mueller, C., K. Townsend & J. Matschullat. 2011. Experimental degradation of polymer shopping bags (standard and degradable plastic, and biodegradable) in the gastrointestinal fluids of sea turtles. Science of the Total Environment 416: 464467.

Nakashima, E., A. Isobe, S. Magome, S. Kako & N. Deki. 2011. Using aerial photography and in situ measurements to estimate the quantity of macro-litter on beaches. Marine Pollution Bulletin 62: 762-769. Oigman-Pszczol, S.S. & J. C. Creed. 2007. Quantification and classification of marine litter on beaches along Armação dos Búzios, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil. Journal of Coastal Research 23: 421-428. Opfer, S., C. Arthur & S. Lippiatt. 2012. NOAA marine debris shoreline survey field guide. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Office of Response & Restoration Marine Debris Program Silver Spring, MD. www.MarineDebris. noaa.gov. Pretoma. 2011. Playa Caletas [Internet]. http://www.pretoma. org/volunteers/volunteers-beach-projects/volunteers-playacaletas/. Accessed on 27 May 2011. Sarti Martinez, A.L. 2000. Dermochelys coriacea. In: IUCN 2011. IUCN Red List of Threatened Species Version 2011.2. Downloaded on 11 May 2012. Seminoff, J.A. 2004. Chelonia mydas. In: IUCN 2011. IUCN Red List of Threatened Species Version 2011.2. Downloaded on 15 October 2011. Wabnitz, C. & W.J. Nichols. 2010. Editorial: Plastic pollution: An ocean emergency. Marine Turtle Newsletter 129: 1-4. Witherington, B.E. 2006. Sea turtles: An extraordinary natural history of some uncommon turtles. Voyageur Press, St. Paul. p.100. Zhou, P., C. Huang, H. Fang, W. Cai, D. Li, X. Li & H. Yu. 2011. The abundance, composition and sources of marine debris in coastal seawaters or beaches around the northern South China Sea (China). Marine Pollution Bulletin 62: 1998-2007.

Anti-fungal Properties of Sea Turtle Cloacal Mucus and Egg Albumen Andrea D. Phillott1 & C. John Parmenter2

Asian University for Women, Chittagong 4000, Bangladesh (E-mail: [email protected]) Faculty of Science, Engineering and Health, Central Queensland University, Rockhampton QLD 4702, Australia (E-mail: [email protected]) 1

2

Microbes (bacteria and fungi) have been isolated from the exterior and/or contents of unhatched sea turtle eggs (Acuña-Mesén 1992; Bustard & Greenham 1968; Chan & Solomon 1989; Eckert & Eckert 1990; Elshafie et al. 2007; Mo et al. 1990; Peters et al. 1994; Phillott et al. 2001; Phillott 2004; Phillott et al. 2004; Ragotzkie 1959; Solomon & Baird 1980; Solomon & Tippett 1987; Whitmore & Dutton 1985; Wyneken et al. 1988), and implicated in egg failure (Eckert & Eckert 1990; Elshafie et al. 2007; Phillott & Parmenter 2001b; Solomon & Baird 1980; Solomon & Tippett 1987; Wyneken et al. 1988). Fungi are known to utilize a failed egg as a nutrient focus, and hyphae spread throughout the nest to adjacent viable eggs (Phillott & Parmenter 2001b), but the etiology of bacterial presence in the nest has not been described. Previous studies on fungal and bacteria in sea turtle nests have focused on the effect of microbes on embryo viability and possible causes of mortality. Solomon and Baird (1980) proposed three potential causes of embryo mortality

that have been the subject of further investigation. Embryo mortality may occur after impediment of respiratory surfaces (Phillott & Parmenter 2001a), deprivation of calcium (Phillott et al. 2006) and invasion of embryonic tissue (Phillott 2004). Phillott (2003) further determined that exposure to mycotoxins did not have an effect on embryo development and hatchling fitness. Inter-specific variation in fungal-related egg mortality has been observed between green (Chelonia mydas) and loggerhead (Caretta caretta) sea turtles nesting on Heron Island and Wreck Island, Queensland, Australia (Limpus et al. 1983; Phillott et al. 2004), suggesting the eggs of some species may be more vulnerable to infection than others. In the absence of a developed immune response or maternal antibodies, a developing egg must rely on non-specific defences against microbial invasion. Board & Fuller (1974) suggested avian cleidoic eggs are shielded from microbial colonization by a combination of physical barriers, such as the eggshell and shell


membranes, and chemical defences. The shell and shell membranes of sea turtle eggs are known to act as a physical barrier to microbial invasion (Phillott & Parmenter 2006). Chemical defences, such as mucus and egg albumen, are also likely to play a role in protecting sea turtle eggs against pathogens. A clear mucus, which coats the eggs, is secreted from the cloaca during oviposition by green (Bustard & Greenham 1969), hawksbill (Eretmochelys imbricata) (Carr et al. 1966), loggerhead and flatback (Natator depressus) (Bustard et al. 1975) sea turtles. This glycoprotein secretion is produced by the epithelium of the shell-forming section of the oviduct (Aitken & Solomon 1976). Freshwater turtle eggs washed free of the cloacal mucus succumb to infection more readily than unwashed eggs (Ewert 1985), suggesting that it may have anti-pathogenic properties. Sea turtle albumen is produced in the magnum, or albumenproducing segment of the oviduct. Bacteriocidal and fungicidal properties of steppe tortoise (Testudo horsfieldi) albumen have been reported by Movchan (1964, 1966, 1967), but there have been no equivalent studies on sea turtle albumen. Such reported anti-pathogenic properties of freshwater turtle cloacal mucus and egg albumen led to widespread speculation that similar defences may occur in sea turtles. The aims of this study were to determine a) if sea turtle cloacal mucus and egg albumen inhibited fungi isolated from contaminated, failed eggs, b) if inhibition varied among sea turtle species, and c) if egg albumen inhibited fungal growth throughout the incubation period. Cloacal mucus was collected from 10 randomly selected nesting individuals at each location: loggerheads at Mon Repos (24° 48′S,

Turtle Species Loggerhead

Control Fo+ Fs+ Pb+

Treatment Well Empty with Well Water Fo+ Fo+ Fs+ Fs+ Pb+ Pb+

Well with Mucus FoFsPb-

Green

Fo+ Fs+ Pb+

Fo+ Fs+ Pb+

Fo+ Fs+ Pb+

FoFsPb-

Hawksbill

Fo+ Fs+ Pb+

Fo+ Fs+ Pb+

Fo+ Fs+ Pb+

FoFsPb-

Flatback

Fo+ Fs+ Pb+

Fo+ Fs+ Pb+

Fo+ Fs+ Pb+

FoFsPb-

Table 1. Germination (100% + or 100% -) of F. oxysporum (Fo), F. solani (Fs) and P. boydii (Pb) spores in the presence of sea turtle cloacal mucus after 3 days (n = 10 for each fungus under each treatment).

152° 27′E); green turtles at Heron Island (23° 26′S, 151º 55′E); hawksbills at Milman Island (11° 10′S, 143° 00′E), and flatbacks at Peak Island (23° 20.5′S, 150° 56′E). The egg chamber was widened by hand as the turtle completed digging to allow a sterile 20 ml specimen jar to be held below the cloaca to collect mucus as oviposition began. Samples were kept at -5° C prior to analysis. In addition to mucus sampling, an egg was collected from each female to test the anti-fungal properties of albumen. Eggs were collected by hand from the cloaca, wearing single-use surgical gloves, and were placed in sterile plastic bags. Bags were stored at -5° C prior to analysis. All eggs were thawed to room temperature in a BioHazard cabinet, and albumen was separated from the other egg components and then stored in sterile 20 ml specimen jars. Samples were refrigerated until use. To determine potential temporal variation in the anti-fungal properties of sea turtle albumen throughout incubation, an entire clutch of green turtle eggs was collected directly from the cloaca and temporarily stored in sterile plastic bags. At the completion of oviposition, eggs were incubated in a styrofoam box on 2.5 cm of heat-sterilized sand. Each day, a single egg was transferred from the incubation box directly to a freezer and stored at –5° C. Sampling proceeded until the remainder of the clutch hatched (45 days). The frozen eggs were thawed to room temperature in a BioHazard cabinet, and albumen was separated from the other egg components and then stored in sterile 20 ml specimen jars. Samples were refrigerated until use. To evaluate the anti-pathogenic properties of turtle cloacal mucus and albumen, the fungi F. oxysporum, F. solani and P. boydii,

Turtle Species Loggerhead

Control Fo+ Fs+ Pb+

Treatment Well Empty with Well Water Fo+ Fo+ Fs+ Fs+ Pb+ Pb+

Well with Albumen FoFsPb-

Green

Fo+ Fs+ Pb+

Fo+ Fs+ Pb+

Fo+ Fs+ Pb+

FoFsPb-

Hawksbill

Fo+ Fs+ Pb+

Fo+ Fs+ Pb+

Fo+ Fs+ Pb+

FoFsPb-

Flatback

Fo+ Fs+ Pb+

Fo+ Fs+ Pb+

Fo+ Fs+ Pb+

FoFsPb-

Table 2. Germination (100% + or 100% -) of F. oxysporum (Fo), F. solani (Fs) and P. boydii (Pb) spores in the presence of sea turtle egg albumen after 3 days (n = 10 for each fungus under each treatment).


4.5

A

3.5 2.5 1.5 0.5

Inhibition radius (mm)

previously isolated from failed sea turtle eggs (see Phillott et al. 2001, 2004), were exposed to the mucus and albumen we collected from each sea turtle species. Initial spore suspensions were made by harvesting spores from established monoculture plates of each fungus that had been grown on potato dextrose agar (PDA) at 28ºC for 7 days. A solution of 10 ml of sterile distilled water and 0.1% Tween 20 was poured onto each plate and the spores dislodged by gentle disruption of the colony surface with a sterile microbiology hockey stick (bent glass rod). The spore suspension was poured into a sterile McCartney bottle, its spore concentration adjusted to 103 spores ml-1 with sterile distilled water, and then poured onto sterile PDA plates so it covered the entire surface. Any excess was poured off. This formed axenic lawn plates of Fusarium oxysporum, F. solani and Pseudallescheria boydii spores. A well was punched into the center of each plate with a heatsterilized 10 mm cork-borer. Approximately 1 ml of mucus or albumen, thawed to room temperature, was added to each well. All samples were tested in triplicate for inhibition of F. oxysporum, F. solani and P. boydii spore germination. Plates were held at ambient laboratory temperature for 7 days for observation and compared with spore germination patterns from equal numbers of replicates of plates without wells (control), plates with empty wells, and plates with wells containing sterile distilled water, held simultaneously under the same conditions. Cloacal mucus and egg albumen from all replicates of the 10 individuals of each of the 4 turtle species affected spore germination of all species of fungi. Spores of F. oxysporum, F. solani and P. boydii were inhibited from germinating for 3 days in a zone of up to 5 mm around each well while spores on the remainder of the plate germinated. During this time the mucus and albumen levels in the wells decreased as solutions diffused into the agar. Limited germination commenced in the previously inhibited zone outside the well after Day 3. Lawn plates without wells, or those plates with wells lacking mucus or albumen did not develop a zone of inhibition at any time (Tables 1 and 2). Tests to determine temporal variation in the anti-fungal properties of green turtle albumen during incubation were hampered by bacterial contamination of lawn plates from Days 10 - 29, so our results are incomplete. Albumen sampled at Days 1 - 9 and at Days 30 - 46 inhibited spore germination of F. oxysporum, F. solani and P. boydii (Fig. 1). The magnitude of the zone of inhibition of spore germination varied by day (Fig. 1), and inhibition of fungal growth was greatest at Days 30 - 46. Tests of albumen collected during Days 10 - 29 of the incubation period had to be discarded due to bacterial contamination. Because only 1 clutch of eggs was collected, the experiment could not be repeated. These results show that spore germination of F. oxysporum, F. solani and P. boydii was inhibited by cloacal mucus secreted during oviposition by loggerhead, green, hawksbill and flatback turtles. The mechanism of inhibition has not been determined, but it is likely due to the action of enzymes and other proteins, as this mechanism is present in other oviparous vertebrates (Board & Fuller 1974; Kudo & Teshima 1991). Inhibition of spore germination decreased after 3 days, probably due to simple dilution of the active agents as the mucus in the well slowly leached into the surrounding agar. Alternatively, the mucus proteins may only have a short active life and therefore exhibited reduced effectiveness after 3 days under these conditions.

4.5

1

6

11

16

21

26

31

36

41

46

51

6

11

16

21

26

31

36

41

46

51

6

11

16

21

26

31

36

41

46

51

B

3.5 2.5 1.5 0.5 1 4.5

C

3.5 2.5 1.5 0.5 1

Day of Incubation Figure 1. Temporal variation in inhibition of fungus spore germination by green turtle albumen. A = Fusarium oxysporum; B = Fusarium solani; C = Pseudallescheria boydii In the wild, the cloacal mucus that covers the turtle egg at oviposition may prevent F. solani, F. oxysporum and P. boydii spores from germinating and potentially colonizing viable eggs. Cloacal mucus dries on the egg within several days (Phillott personal observation) and it is unknown if the anti-pathogenic properties continue after this time. At oviposition, flatback, green, hawksbill and loggerhead turtle albumen also had anti-fungal properties that inhibited germination of F. oxysporum, F, solani and P. boydii spores. Green turtle albumen inhibited spore germination, with decreasing effectiveness during Days 1 - 9. Its effectiveness between Days 10 - 29 is unknown as bacterial contamination destroyed test plates in the present study. However, the magnitude of its effect at Day 30 suggests that the anti-fungal properties are present and increased at some time between Days 10 - 29. The temporal variation in inhibition of fungus spores during incubation suggests that the anti-fungal properties of green turtle albumen are related to embryo development. However, without data for the missing period of incubation, the role of the embryo in the chemical defences of the egg is speculative. Further quantitative studies are required. The precise anti-fungal mechanism of sea turtle albumen was not investigated. Because egg albumen has a water potential of –900 kPa (Ackerman 1991), and Fusarium spp. spores are not inhibited from germinating until conditions are drier than –1200


kPa (Griffin 1972), osmotic stress is unlikely to play a role. The turtle albumen probably contains proteins with anti-pathogenic properties that are active in avian albumen and the fertilization envelope of fish (Board & Fuller 1974, Kudo & Teshima 1991). As the albumen from all four turtle species inhibited spore germination at oviposition, there is no reason to suspect that the anti-fungal properties of loggerhead, flatback and hawksbill albumen do not continue throughout incubation. Permit restrictions prevented study of loggerhead, flatback and hawksbill turtle eggs to determine temporal variation in their effectiveness, so a comparison of the four species was not possible, but our results indicate that the differential effectiveness of cloacal mucus or egg albumen protection are not likely responsible for the inter-specific variation in fungal colonization of eggs observed at Heron Island and Wreck Island (Limpus et al. 1983; Phillott et al. 2004). A greater understanding of the anti-fungal properties of sea turtle cloacal mucus and egg albumen is required, as we still have limited knowledge of their physical (e.g., viscosity) and chemical (e.g., pH, anti-fungal proteins) properties. The active-life of proteins, and changes in concentration or protein activity related to the stage of embryonic development are topics of considerable interest and thus require further study. Acknowledgements. Sincere thanks to all of the volunteers who assisted in collecting mucus and albumen samples, especially Kerry Gilmore and Christine Cambridge. Peter Beloff and George Beloff translated Movchan 1964, 1966 and 1967. Dr. Keith Harrower and Charmain Elder (CQU) gave advice on microbiological procedures. This study was conducted with approval of the Central Queensland University Animal Ethics Committee and under permit from Dr. C.J. Limpus, Queensland Turtle Research, Queensland Parks and Wildlife Service. Financial support was given by the Centre for Land and Water Resource Management, CQU. Ackerman, R.A. 1991. Physical factors affecting the water exchange of buried reptile eggs. In: D.C. Deeming & M.W.J. Ferguson (Eds.). Egg Incubation: Its effects on embryonic development in birds and reptiles. Cambridge University Press, New York. pp. 193-212. Acuña-Mesén, R.A. 1992. Monosporium apiospermum (Fungi, Deuteromycetes), asociado a los huevos de la tortuga marina Lepidochelys olivacea (Eschscholtz 1829) en Costa Rica. Brenesia 38: 159-162. Aitken, R.N.C. & S.E. Solomon. 1976. Observations on the ultrastructure of the oviduct of the Costa Rican green turtle (Chelonia mydas L.). Journal of Experimental Marine Biology & Ecology 21: 75-90. Board, R.G. & R. Fuller. 1974. Non-specific antimicrobial defences of the avian egg, embryo and neonate. Biological Review 49: 15-49. Bustard, H.R. & P. Greenham. 1968. Physical and chemical factors affecting hatching in the green sea turtle Chelonia mydas (L.). Ecology 49: 269-276. Bustard, H.R. & P. Greenham. 1969. Nesting behavior of the green sea turtle on a Great Barrier Reef island. Herpetologica 25: 93-102. Bustard, H.R., P. Greenham & C. Limpus. 1975. Nesting behavior of loggerhead and flatback turtles in Queensland,

Australia. Koninkl Nederlands Akademie van Wetenschappen Series C. 78: 111-122. Carr, A., H. Hirth & L. Ogren. 1966. The ecology and migrations of sea turtles 6. The hawksbill turtle in the Caribbean Sea. American Museum Novitates 2248: 1-29. Chan, E-H. & S.E. Solomon. 1989. The structure and function of the eggshell of the leatherback turtle (Dermochelys coriacea) from Malaysia, with notes on attached fungal forms. Animal Technology 40: 91-102. Eckert, K.L. & S.A. Eckert. 1990. Embryo mortality and hatch success in in situ and translocated leatherback sea turtle Dermochelys coriacea eggs. Biological Conservation 53: 37-46. Elshafie, A., S.N. Al-Bahry, A.Y. AlKindi, T. Ba-Omar & I. Mahmoud. 2007. Mycoflora and aflatoxins in soil, eggshells, and failed eggs of Chelonia mydas at Ras Al-Jinz, Oman. Chelonian Conservation and Biology 6: 267-270. Ewert, M.A. 1985. Embryology of turtles. In: C. Gans, F. Billett & P.F.A. Maderson (Eds.). Biology of the Reptilia Volume 14. John Wiley and Sons, New York. pp. 76-267. Griffin, D.M. 1972. Ecology of Soil Fungi. Chapman and Hall, London. 193 pp. Kudo, S. & C. Teshima. 1991. Enzyme activities and antifungal action of fertilization envelope extract from fish eggs. Journal of Experimental Zoology 259: 392-398. Limpus, C.J., P. Reed & J.D. Miller. 1983. Islands and turtles. The influence of choice of nesting beach on sex ratio. In: J.T. Baker, R.M. Carter, P.W. Sammarco & K.P. Stark. (Eds.). Proceedings: Inaugural Great Barrier Reef Conference, Townsville, Aug. 28 - Sept. 2. JCU Press, Townsville. pp. 397-402. Mo, C.L., I. Salas & M. Caballero. 1990. Are fungi and bacteria responsible for olive ridley’s egg loss? In: T.H. Richardson, J.I. Richardson & M. Donnelly (Comps.). Proceedings of the 10th Annual Workshop on Sea Turtle Biology and Conservation. NOAA Technical Memorandum NMFS-SEFC-278. pp. 249-252. Movchan, N.A. 1964. Antibiotic properties of the egg albumen of the steppe tortoise (Testudo horsfieldi Grav.). Vestnik Leningradskogo Universiteta. Biologii 15: 18-25. Movchan, N.A. 1966. Fungicidal properties of the albumen of the eggs of the steppe tortoise Testudo horsfieldi. Vestnik Leningradskogo Universiteta. Biologii 3: 59-69. Movchan, N.A. 1967. Bacteria in the egg of the steppe tortoise. Vestnik Leningradskogo Universiteta. Biologii 9: 155-157. Peters, A., K.J.F. Verhoeven & H. Strijbosch. 1994. Hatching and emergence in the Turkish Mediterranean loggerhead turtle, Caretta caretta: natural causes for egg and hatchling failure. Herpetologica 50: 369-373. Phillott, A.D. 2003. Fungal colonisation of sea turtle nests in Eastern Australia. PhD Thesis, Central Queensland University, Australia. Phillott, A.D. 2004. Penetration of the eggshell and invasion of embryonic tissue by fungi colonising sea turtle eggs. Herpetofauna 34: 44-47. Phillott, A.D. & C.J. Parmenter. 2001a. Influence of diminished respiratory surface area on survival of sea turtle


embryos. Journal of Experimental Zoology 289: 317-321. Phillott, A.D. & C.J. Parmenter. 2001b. The distribution of failed eggs and the appearance of fungi in artificial nests of green (Chelonia mydas) and loggerhead (Caretta caretta) sea turtles. Australian Journal of Zoology 49: 713-718. Phillott, A.D. & C.J. Parmenter. 2006. The eggshell ultrastructure of sea turtles does not contribute to interspecies variation in fungal invasion of the egg. Canadian Journal of Zoology 84: 1339-1344. Phillott, A.D., C.J. Parmenter & C.J. Limpus. 2001. Mycoflora identified from failed green (Chelonia mydas) and loggerhead (Caretta caretta) sea turtle eggs at Heron Island, eastern Australia. Chelonian Conservation and Biology 4: 170172. Phillott, A.D., C.J. Parmenter & C.J. Limpus. 2004. The occurrence of mycobiota in eastern Australian sea turtle nests. Memoirs of the Queensland Museum 49: 701-703. Phillott, A.D., C.J. Parmenter & S.C. McKillup. 2006. The potential for calcium depletion of eggshell after fungal

invasion of sea turtle eggs. Chelonian Conservation & Biology 5: 146-149. Ragotzkie, R.A. 1959. Mortality of loggerhead turtle eggs from excessive rainfall. Ecology 40: 303-305. Solomon, S.E. & T. Baird. 1980. The effect of fungal penetration on the eggshell of the green turtle. In: P. Brederoo & W. de Priester. Electron Microscopy 1980 Volume 2 Biology. Proceedings of the Seventh European Congress on Electron Microscopy Foundation. Seventh European Congress on Electron Microscopy Foundation, Leiden. pp. 434-435. Solomon, S.E. & R. Tippett. 1987. The intra-clutch localisation of fungal hyphae in the eggshells of the leatherback turtle, (Dermochelys coriacea). Animal Technology 38: 73-79. Whitmore, C.P. & P.H. Dutton. 1985. Infertility, embryonic mortality and nest-site selection in leatherback and green sea turtles in Suriname. Biological Conservation 34: 251-272. Wyneken, J., T.J. Burke, M. Salmon and D.K. Pederson. 1988. Egg failure in natural and relocated turtle nests. Journal of Herpetology 22: 88-96.

Natal homing by an adult male green turtle at Tortuguero, Costa Rica Brian M. Shamblin1, Karen A. Bjorndal2, Alan B. Bolten2, & Campbell J. Nairn1

Daniel B. Warnell School of Forestry and Natural Resources, University of Georgia, Athens, GA 30602, USA (E-mail: [email protected]); 2Archie Carr Center for Sea Turtle Research and the Department of Biology, University of Florida, PO Box 118525, Gainesville, Florida 32611, USA 1

Despite a proliferation of genetic studies characterizing patterns of population structure shaped by female natal homing behavior (reviewed in Bowen & Karl 2007), genetic tests of male natal philopatry remain rare given the logistical difficulty of intercepting breeding males. A further complication of testing male natal homing to breeding sites is potential lack of resolution of traditional genetic markers to discern among source rookeries. For example, the vast majority of nesting green turtles (Chelonia mydas) sampled in the Greater Caribbean region carries just three common 490-base pair (bp) control region haplotypes (CM-A1, CM-A3, and CM-A5), resulting in extensive sharing of genetic markers among rookeries (Bjorndal et al. 2005; Encalada et al. 1996; Ruiz-Urquiloa et al. 2010). This haplotype sharing is regionally common in all marine turtle species with cosmopolitan distributions (reviewed in Bowen & Karl 2007) and often prevents direct assignment of individual turtles to source rookeries. The most elegant and comprehensive study of male natal philopatry confirmed regional natal homing by breeding male green turtles representing three genetic stocks in Australia via mtDNA frequency comparisons of both sexes at breeding grounds (FitzSimmons et al. 1997); however the extent to which male natal homing occurs at other green turtle rookeries globally has not been tested. On August 14, 2002, an adult male green turtle that had been killed by poachers was found on the beach at mile marker 4 and 2/8 at Tortuguero, Costa Rica, providing an opportunity to collect a tissue sample for genetic analysis. We hypothesize that this male was in the vicinity of the nesting beach at Tortuguero to mate given

that no benthic foraging grounds occur in the immediate vicinity (Troëng et al. 2005) and the turtle was killed during the peak of the breeding season. Sequencing of the standard 490-bp mitochondrial control region fragment by the University of Florida Sequencing Core determined that the male carried haplotype CM-A5. This haplotype is the second most common among Tortuguero nesting green turtles (7.4%, Bjorndal et al. 2005) and is also the dominant haplotype in the eastern Caribbean rookeries of Aves Island and Matapica, Suriname (87.5% and 86.7%, respectively; Encalada et al. 1996) (Fig. 1). CM-A5 has also been reported from rookeries in Mexico (Encalada et al. 1996) and São Tome, western Africa (Formia et al. 2006). Therefore, it was not possible to definitively assign the rookery of origin for this male using only the 490-bp control region haplotype. A recent analysis of the southern Greater Caribbean green turtle rookeries utilizing mitochondrial genome sequencing uncovered four mitogenomic variants of 490-bp CM-A5 that were subdivided among regions (Shamblin et al. 2012) (Fig. 1). The common CM-A5 variant in the Tortuguero rookery was CM-A5.1.2, which occurred in 27 of the 32 sampled nesting females carrying haplotype CMA5. This mitogenomic haplotype was not detected in the eastern Caribbean rookeries of Galibi, Suriname (55 CM-A5 females sampled); Aves Island, Venezuela (62 CM-A5 females sampled); or Buck Island, United States Virgin Islands (45 CM-A5 females sampled) (Shamblin et al. 2012). We re-amplified the control region of the male sample using primers LCM15382 (Abreu-Grobois et al. 2006) and CM16437


Figure 1. Distribution of 490-bp control region haplotypes (histograms) and mitogenomic CM-A5 haplotypes (pie charts) for four rookeries in the southern Caribbean modified from Shamblin et al. 2012: TRT, Tortuguero, Costa Rica; BUC, Buck Island, St. Croix, US Virgin Islands; AVE, Isla Aves, Venezuela; GAL, Galibi, Suriname. (Shamblin et al. 2012). These primers amplify approximately 970bp that fully encompass the alignment produced by LCM15382 and H950 (Abreu-Grobois et al. 2006) and extends the fragment approximately 150 bases downstream. The resulting fragment was sequenced with LCM15382 and internal forward sequencing primer Cm15821 (Shamblin et al. 2012). The 970-bp sequence matched haplotype CM-A5.1, the more common of the two CMA5 control region variants described from the Greater Caribbean region. Following confirmation of haplotype CM-A5.1, the sample was tested at three variable positions in the mitogenome that distinguished among regional variants (see Shamblin et al. 2012 supplemental materials for amplification and sequencing primers for the respective fragments). Sequences of the Costa Rican diagnostic mitogenomic variable positions (10745 and 13388 based on alignments with the complete green turtle mitochondrial genome in Genbank, accession AB012104) confirmed that the poached male carried derived mutations characteristic of haplotype CM-A5.1.2 (T and C, respectively). The presence of the endemic haplotype permitted individual assignment of this male to Tortuguero. When considered along with the Australian dataset, this result suggests that male natal homing may be the rule for green turtle populations globally. In a test of breeding male natal homing in hawksbill turtles, the Mona Island rookery was the most likely source for the majority of breeding male hawksbill turtles captured in the vicinity of Mona Island (Velez-Zuazo et al. 2008). However, significant haplotype frequency differences between the sexes due to the presence of several rare haplotypes among the breeding males but absent among sampled Mona Island nesting females invoked the possibility of low level straying of breeding males to non-natal courting grounds, potentially at great distances from their natal rookeries (Velez-Zuazo et al. 2008). More extensive sampling is required to test the degree and scale of male natal homing among species and across regions. Acknowledgments. We gratefully acknowledge funding from Daniel B. Warnell School of Forestry and Natural Resources. We thank

Sea Turtle Conservancy staff and volunteers for sample collection at Tortuguero, particularly S. Troëng, E. Harrison and C. Reyes. We thank G. Clark at the ICBR Genetic Analysis Laboratory (UF) for DNA isolation and amplification and S. Shankar in the ICBR Genomics Core at the University of Florida for sequencing the sample for the 490-bp fragment. ABREU-GROBOIS, F.A., J. HORROCKS, A. FORMIA, R. LEROUX, X. VELEZ-ZUAZO, P. DUTTON, L. SOARES, P. MEYLAN & D. BROWNE. 2006. New d-loop primers which work for a variety of marine turtle species may increase the resolution capacity of mixed stock analyses. Presentation at the 26th Annual Symposium on Sea Turtle Biology and Conservation, Crete, Greece, 2-8 April, 2006. BJORNDAL, K.A., A.B. BOLTEN & S. TROËNG. 2005. Population structure and genetic diversity in green turtles nesting at Tortuguero, Costa Rica, based on mitochondrial DNA control region sequences. Marine Biology 147: 1449-1457. BOWEN, B.W. & S.A. KARL. 2007. Population genetics and phylogeography of sea turtles. Molecular Ecology 16: 4886-4907. ENCALADA, S.E., P.N. LAHANAS, K.A. BJORNDAL, A.B. BOLTEN, M.M. MIYAMOTO & B.W. BOWEN. 1996. Phylogeography and population structure of the Atlantic and Mediterranean green turtle Chelonia mydas: a mitochondrial DNA control region sequence assessment. Molecular Ecology 5: 473-483. FITZSIMMONS, N.N., C.J., LIMPUS, J.A. NORMAN, A.R. GOLDIZEN, J.D. MILLER & C. MORITZ. 1997. Philopatry of male marine turtles inferred from mitochondrial DNA markers. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, USA 94: 8912-8917. FORMIA, A., B.J. GODLEY, J.-F. DONTAINE & M.W. BRUFORD. 2006. Mitochondrial DNA diversity and phylogeography of endangered green turtle (Chelonia mydas) populations in Africa. Conservation Genetics 7: 353-369. RUIZ-URQUIOLA, A., F.B. RIVERÓN-GIRO, E. PÉREZBERMÚDEZ, F.A. ABREU-GROBOIS, M. GONZÁLEZPUMARIEGA, B.L. JAMES-PETRIC, R. DÍAZ-FERNÁNDEZ, J.M. ÁLVAREZ-CASTRO, M. JAGER, J. AZANZA-RICARDO & G. ESPINOSA-LÓPEZ. 2010. Population genetic structure of Greater Caribbean green turtles (Chelonia mydas) based on mitochondrial DNA sequences, with an emphasis on rookeries form southwestern Cuba. Revista de Investigaciones Marinas 31: 33-52. SHAMBLIN, B.M., K.A. BJORNDAL, A.B. BOLTEN, Z.M. HILLIS-STARR, I. LUNDGREN, E. NARO-MACIEL & C.J. NAIRN. 12. Mitogenomic sequences better resolve stock structure of southern Greater Caribbean green turtle rookeries. Molecular Ecology 21: 2330–2340. TROËNG, S., D.R. EVANS, E. HARRISON & C.J. LAGUEUX. 2005. Migration of green turtles Chelonia mydas from Tortuguero, Costa Rica. Marine Biology 148: 435-447. VELEZ-ZUAZO, X., W.D. RAMOS, R.P. VAN DAM, C.E. DIEZ, F.A. ABREU-GROBOIS & W.O. MCMILLAN. 2008. Dispersal, recruitment and migratory behaviour in a hawksbill sea turtle aggregation. Molecular Ecology 17: 839-853.


PERSPECTIVE The Content and Culture of the International Sea Turtle Symposium Stephen Gaughran

Sackler Institute for Comparative Genomics, American Museum of Natural History, Central Park West at 79th Street New York, NY 10024 USA (E-mail: [email protected]) As I packed my suitcase a few hours before my flight left New York, various worries about the 32nd Annual International Sea Turtle Symposium were flying through my head: Which turtle celebrities would I meet? Had I read the right papers? Would I be able to answer questions about my research? What would I wear? This last question was the first to be answered when I arrived at Las Brisas Hotel Huatulco. The lobby was filled with turtle researchers from all over the world sporting shorts, bathing suits, sundresses, and the classic Hawaiian shirt. Besides immediately realizing that I should have left my dry-clean-only clothing at home, I had my first taste of how this international group functioned. This was a tight-knit community, gathered for an annual reunion. The first day of regional meetings showed how the international aspect of the group functioned. For the ISTS, “international” does not translate to scientists of different nationalities talking at each other. Instead, the world’s sea turtle scientists share their research, weaving a living network of science despite international differences. This year, the symposium made this strategy quite clear in its regional meeting for Mexico. Making a specific session focused on our host country clearly had both practical and cultural significance. Besides being the host of ISTS 2012, Mexico is of vital importance in sea turtle research and conservation. The regional meeting was incredibly successful in allowing Mexican researchers to share research with the international community, as well as bringing foreign specialties to Mexico. Of special note was a workshop on stable isotope analysis led by Dr. Jeff Seminoff, who gave an excellent introduction to this important technique in flawless Spanish (¡enhorabuena!). Anticipating potential language barriers, the ISTS set up an excellent translation service, allowing dialogue between otherwise linguistically isolated individuals. Besides learning plenty about new topics and the state of conservation in Mexico, this regional meeting really showed me the strides the ISTS takes to make turtle research an international affair. The next three days were a blur of diverse topics, innovative research, and new friends and colleagues. I recommend checking the full list of presentations and poster titles available on the 32nd Annual International Sea Turtle Symposium website as it would not be possible in this article to address even a fraction of the amazing presentations I attended. As a general note, although the oral presentations were organized by broad topic, the diverse techniques and specific issues addressed by each presenter allowed a nascent sea turtle biologist like me to get a taste of the wide variety of present research in one sitting. In a morning of talks, I learned about swimming behavior, ecological niches, TEDs, paternity, local conservation status updates, and sex-determination. In the afternoon, I wandered through a maze of posters discussing everything from analysis of parasite loads and natal homing to photo-identification and decades-long conservation reviews. Much of it was foreign to

me, but with careful explanation from very competent presenters, I was able to digest and appreciate most of the research. The overwhelming amount of diverse research showed me how sheltered my sea turtle education had so far been. I have always been focused on conservation genetics, and while I try to read some of the more general turtle literature, I see that I have been missing the vast majority of recent sea turtle research. I admit that the meeting hasn’t persuaded me to switch from genetics to another specialty, but it did show that these other areas of study were far too important for me to continue ignoring. During this time I also learned that sea turtle researchers are fairly social creatures, and walking around during coffee breaks I saw constant mingling despite differences in age, specialty, and occasionally language. At meals and in the evening, this reached a new celebration and community intimacy was clear; the scientists around me were not just colleagues—they were also close friends. My first International Sea Turtle Symposium taught me more than I could absorb at the time, but I was able to leave with three general ideas. First, the symposium does not take a passive approach to creating an international society. Instead of simply providing a convenient meeting for sea turtle researchers from all over the globe, the ISTS actively promotes the exchange of information— both scientific and personal—between international members of the society. This aspect is vital to creating a true global network of scientists, and should remain a key goal of the conference. Second, the ISTS works to build an intimate community. The relationships between attendants clearly transcend the unifying theme of sea turtle research, resulting in a group of embracing, talkative, Teva-wearing friends. Finally, the society as a whole uses these first two aspects to achieve the ultimate goal of successful sea turtle conservation. As the readers of this newsletter know, the cosmopolitan nature of sea turtles requires that all conservation efforts have a basis of international cooperation. By turning international scientists into close friends, this level of cooperation easily becomes second nature. With this intimate foundation, the diverse research presented at the meeting easily spread from specialists to non-specialists, expanding everyone’s working knowledge of sea turtle biology and conservation. By fostering an innovative and brilliant community of sea turtle scientists, the ISTS has designed a strategy by which both turtles and humans win. Repacking my luggage to leave Huatulco at the end of the week, my ironed shirts, slacks, and nice shoes were untouched. My shorts, t-shirts, and sandals, however, were well-worn and full of sand. While reflecting on that, I realized two important things: my love of sea turtles and admiration for the research community was tempting me into a lasting commitment, and I needed to find a Hawaiian shirt by next February.


REPORTS The 4th Mediterranean Conference on Marine Turtles (November 7-10, 2011 Naples, Italy) Flegra Bentivegna

President of the 4th Mediterranean Conference, Stazione Zoologica Anton Dohrn, Naples, Italy (E-mail: [email protected]) The Mediterranean Conference on Marine Turtles takes place every three years in a different Mediterranean country. It is meant to be a sharing moment of knowledge and expertise among researchers and organizations deeply involved in the field and continuously looking for a common strategy towards sea turtles defense. Mediterranean sea turtles are seriously threatened by human activities affecting both the coastline, in nesting and breeding sites, and the marine habitat, with particular reference to sea turtles migratory routes. Therefore, national management and conservation policies as well as common Mediterranean policies are urgently needed. The 4th Mediterranean Conference on Marine Turtles, which Italy was very proud to host, took place in this context with the participation of all the institutions involved in biodiversity and Mediterranean species conservation. The event was promoted and supported by the Secretariats of the three most important International Conventions that are deeply committed to biodiversity conservation and focus heavily on Mediterranean sea turtles and their habitat protection, namely the Barcelona (RAC-SPA), Bern and Bonn (CMS) Conventions. The 4th Mediterranean Conference was held in Naples, Italy, from 7 - 10 November 2011, under the patronage of the Italian Ministry for the Environment, Land and Sea, and in partnership with the Campania Region, Environmental Policy- Ecology Division. It was conducted by the Stazione Zoologica Anton Dohrn of Naples, in collaboration with the Regional Activity Centre for Specially Protected Areas (UNEP/MAP). The Conference was sponsored mainly by the Carpisa Kuvera Ltd Company that I would like to thank once again for its very generous contribution and for providing the Carpisa Conference Centre as the perfect venue for the meeting. Other financial sources also came through the esteemed University of Naples “Federico II”, as the evidence of the strong commitment of the academic world towards the sea turtles cause. The aim of this 4th meeting, that was intentionally conducted under the patronage of the Stazione Zoologica, as one of the most prestigious and ancient research institutes in the world, was to encourage all Mediterranean specialists working on sea turtles to foster scientific research and projects aiming at solving the multiple conservation problems that sea turtles face. The new generation of young researchers was another important target of the meeting. The idea was to encourage all young Mediterranean researchers to develop innovative and effective projects and communicate with the old generation of scientists and conservationists for a fruitful exchange of knowledge, experience and suggestions. Given the incredible number of participants, mainly young students from Universities and research institutes, 30 of whom also received a travel grant, I can proudly state that this goal was definitely achieved.

The Conference had 180 participants. The Mediterranean was represented by 15 Countries as well as by esteemed experts coming from the United States and Asia. I would like to take this opportunity to convey a sincere and whole-hearted thanks to Matthew Godfrey and Bryan Wallace for showing deep and true interest in our cause and for sharing their precious expertise and ideas with all Mediterranean people. Their presence was a highlight of this memorable event. Among the great number of abstracts submitted, the Program Committee selected 30 papers for oral presentations and 63 for poster presentations.The book of Abstracts of the Conference, in which all abstracts and presentations are included, is now available online on the conference website (http://medturtleconf.rac-spa.org). If you wish to have a hard copy, please contact me at [email protected]. As for young researchers, two special awards for the best oral and poster presentations were given. As part of the competition, a special oral session, in which each participant had to present, in front of a plenary session, the most significant findings of his research, was scheduled. The winners of the competition got a one week training course on “Sea Turtle Rescue and Rehabilitation and Marine Turtle Conservation and Beach Management”, which is organized every year by the RAC-SPA in collaboration with the Stazione Zoologica of Naples and the Cyprus Wildlife Society. In addition to the plenary sessions, three thematic workshops were conducted on the following topics: “Nesting beach monitoring data”, moderated by B.P. Wallace & A. Panagopoulou; “Predation on nests and hatchlings: is it a threat in the Mediterranean? Are we applying the right conservation strategies? moderated by M. Aureggi, A. Demetropoulos & M. Hadjichristophorou; “Sea turtle bycatch in the Mediterranean”, moderated by P. Casale, MN. Bradai & B. Lazar. The MTSG regional meeting was convened on 8 November with the participation of Matthew Godfrey and Bryan Wallace, who contributed with their precious expertise to make the debate among the Mediterranean members more fruitful and effective. The urgent need for more communication and international cooperation was clear at the end of the roundtable and definitely a serious challenge faced by both developed and developing Mediterranean Countries. The leading theme of the Conference was the Turtle Odyssey, which was inspired by the long journey of Ulysses across the Mediterranean Sea. In the Homeric poem, Ulysses was forced to overcome several obstacles and dangers and even hide his own identity before finally reaching his home in Ithaca. Similarly, sea turtles constantly “sail” in more and more hazardous waters that seriously threaten their survival.


In terms of the main component of the symposium, the Conference was structured in 5 sessions, each one of them perfectly introduced by a keynote presentation made by an invited speaker. In particular: Breeding Biology and Movements: by M.H. Godfrey (USA); Threats by B.P. Wallace (USA); Anatomy, Physiology, Behaviour and Genetic Session by L. Cardona (Spain); Habitat Management and Conservation Measures by L. Venizelos (Greece); Veterinary Medicine and Turtle Health. by F.C. Origgi (Italy) In addition to the five sessions above, there was also a video session that was dedicated to videos coming from different Mediterranean countries with the aim of raising public awareness on sea turtles, nature and sea conservation and protection. The final night, a farewell banquet with Neapolitan traditional folk music entertained the conference attendees who could strengthen their friendship and arrange future collaborations and partnership. In that occasion, Mrs. Lily Venizelos, President of MEDASSET, Mr. Dimitris Margaritoulis, General Secretary of ARCHELON, and Mr. Andreas Demetropoulos, President of the Cyprus Wildlife Society, were awarded with a special plaque “for pioneering sea turtle conservation in the Mediterranean.” I particularly wish to acknowledge their strong commitment and dedication to the plight of turtle populations. I thank them for their professionalism and sensitivity at the same time. The work showcased at the Conference greatly facilitated increased international understanding on Mediterranean sea turtle conservation and protection. More than 30% of the work presented was the result of international collaborations and the evidence of the widespread awareness among Mediterranean people of the need for

common strategies and action plans for the survival of this seriously threatened species. Bringing together people from different ethnic backgrounds helps overcome potential issues cased by differences in culture, language and tradition; this was the final aim of our work and efforts. Political borders do not matter when talking about sea turtles conservation. The 4th Mediterranean Conference proved to be the right place and context to highlight the extreme importance of constructive dialogue, collaboration, knowledge and exchange of experience. The Mediterranean Conference nominating committee appointed Luis Cardona as the future President of the 5th meeting to be hosted in Spain, in 2014. I am fully confident that Mr. Cardona will do an excellent job and put together a wonderful meeting and I wish him good luck for the future. As President of the 4th Mediterranean Conference I would like to especially acknowledge all the people who made this event such a success through their contribution in time and dedication. As mentioned before, my thanks go especially to the Secretariats of the three International Conventions, represented by Mr. Eladio Fernandez Galiano, Mr. Borja Heredia and Mr. Atef Ouerghi. Without them, it would not have been possible to have such a large and successful meeting. Last but not least, a particular thanks goes to the sea turtles themselves, who made this Conference truly meaningful by proving once again to be the symbol of peace and cohesion among Mediterranean people. Do not forget that sea turtles cannot talk and express their feelings and needs .We have the great responsibility to be their voice and make it work. Let’s not waste it!

President’s Report from the Southeast Regional Sea Turtle Meeting, Jekyll Island, GA, February 1-4, 2012 Kim Sonderman

President, Southeast Regional Sea Turtle Network; University of Georgia, Warnell School of Forestry and Natural Resources, Southeastern Cooperative Wildlife Disease Study, 589 D.W. Brooks Drive, Athens, GA 30602 USA (Email: [email protected])

The inaugural Southeast Regional Sea Turtle Meeting (SERSTM) was held on Jekyll Island, Georgia on February 1–4, 2012. The meeting was a culmination of years of hard-work and planning. The three day event had over 400 registered attendees, with 53 oral presentations and 48 poster presentations. The idea of holding a regional meeting for the southeastern USA came about in 2008 with the idea that scientists and students needed a venue to share sea turtle research that is occurring exclusively in this part of the country. The Southeast Regional Sea Turtle Network (SERSTN) was incorporated as a non-profit organization to support the efforts of holding a biennial regional meeting. SERSTN teamed up with the Georgia Sea Turtle Center and the Jekyll Island Authority to hold the inaugural event. The meeting was held in the beautiful historic downtown area and was housed at the temporary Jekyll Island Convention Campus. Attendees enjoyed the southern, genteel charm of the island and its residents

and frequented the restaurants, bars and quaint shops located on Jekyll. A special thank you to Terry Norton, Jones Hooks, Kevin Udell, Judit Vaczi, and the staff and volunteers of the Georgia Sea Turtle Center for facilitating the first SERSTM. The program presented to the attendees was designed to highlight research that is occurring on the beaches and in the waters of the southeastern United States. Sessions included a special Regionwide Session that focused on research that spanned three or more states in the region. Additional sessions included Foraging and Developmental Habitats, Nesting Beaches and Hatchling Production, Fisheries Interaction and Bycatch Reduction, Success and Failure in Building Beaches for Sea Turtles, Health and Rehabilitation, and Marine Turtle Conservation. A huge thank you to Dean Bagley (Program Chair), Kelly Roberts (Poster Chair) and the program committee for selecting and organizing a strong group of talks and posters.


In addition to the oral and poster presentations, the last day of SERSTM consisted solely of workshops that provided attendees with real-world skills and knowledge that could be directly applied to projects on their home beaches. Workshops included Lessons Learned from the 2010 Sea Turtle Cold-Stunning event in Florida: Terry Norton (Georgia Sea Turtle Center), Brian Stacy (NOAA, University of Florida), Allen Foley (Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission) and Nancy Mettee (Marinelife Center of Juno Beach); An Introduction to Demographic Modeling using Program MARK: Bill Kendall (Colorado State); Epibiont Identification and Ecology: Michael Frick (Caretta Research), and Satellite Telemetry Technical Workshop: Colin Hunter (Sirtrack), Stan Tomkiewicz (Telonics) and Melinda Holland (Wildlife Computers). Keynote presentations were given by Blair Witherington and Llewellyn “Doc” Ehrhart. Their talks were respectively entitled “Seeking the Tao to Conserving Sea Turtles” and “The Archie Carr NWR: One of America’s Best Conservation Ideas.” A special highlight of the meeting was the presentation of the Sinkey Boone Memorial Plaque to the family of the late Sinkey Boone, local Georgia shrimper and designer of the Turtle Excluder Device (TED) that is currently in use by shrimpers around the region. The Georgia Sea Turtle Center chose to honor Mr. Boone by installing a special TED exhibit in their public area, where the memorial plaque will be prominently displayed. Several members of the Boone family were in attendance for the presentation given by Terry Norton, Lisa Liguori, and Lindsey Parker. We are honored that we were able to participate in the heartfelt dedication to such an important figure in the sea turtle community. The Exhibitor/Vendor (E/V) area had 14 organizations displaying their wares and information. E/V’s were set up in the Magnolia Hall, also the site of the Welcome Social and daily coffee breaks, allowing the organizations to have maximum exposure to attendees. Janet Hochella (E/V Chair) did an excellent job coordinating the E/V’s and ensuring that their needs were satisfied on-site. The inaugural meeting introduced the Boyd Lyon Student Awards. These awards were given for Best Student Oral Presentation and Best Student Poster Presentation, along with runners up for each, to those students whose work exemplified the principles, drive, and creativity of the late Boyd Lyon. Thane Wibbels (Student Awards Chair) and the Awards Committee had the difficult task of choosing the award recipients amongst the presenters.

Attendees enjoyed several social events including the live auction. Auctioneer, Larry Wood, entertained with his off-beat and witty humor and was quite successful at encouraging attendees to open their wallets! With Debbie Sobel (Auction Chair) by his side, they successfully pulled in funds to help off-set the costs of SERSTM, both present and future. The silent auction was held throughout the meeting and featured such items as turtle-themed jewelry, beach-ware and artwork. Sponsors provided generous funding for the inaugural SERSTM and I would like to extend a personal thank you to all of them. Support was given by Jekyll Island Authority, Georgia Sea Turtle Center, Inwater Research Group, Florida Power and Light, SeaWorld, Gumbo Limbo Nature Center, Ecological Associates, Aquatic Habitats, National Save the Sea Turtle Foundation, Sea Turtle Conservation League of Singer Island, Disney Animal Kingdom, Audubon Aquarium of the Americas, Loggerhead Marine Life Center, Save-A-Turtle, and Turtle Time, Inc. Additional donations were provided by Latitude 31 Seafood Restaurant, The Rah Bar, and McCormick’s Grill. It should also be pointed out that the volunteers for this event are an amazing group of dedicated people and donated their time and bodies so that attendees could experience a smooth, stress-free meeting. Acknowledgements. I can honestly say that I was unsure if this meeting would ever take place. Without the support of colleagues who also understood the need for a regional meeting and the enormity of making it happen, I can only imagine that we would still be waiting. Therefore, I would be remiss if I didn’t take the time to point out the efforts of everyone involved and thank them for their time. First, I have to thank those who were involved from the very beginning. It is a large group and you know who you are. This meeting would not have been possible without the ingenuity, determination, and support of those on the planning committee. Specifically, I would like to thank Blair Witherington, Dean Bagley, Michael Bresette, Jonathon Gorham, and Rick Herren, who took the idea of organizing a regional meeting and ran with it. Donna Broadbent deserves my undying gratitude for helping to organize SERSTM and for her on-the-ground support. Thank you again to the Chairs that have already been mentioned and also to Whitney Crowder, Matthew Godfrey, Meghan Koperski, Ann Marie Lauritsen, Anne Savage, and Donna Shaver. Thanks to Michael Coyne and SEATURTLE.ORG for facilitating online registration, to Jim Stevenson for taking photos, and to Stewart Sonderman for designing the logo and all print materials. And, of course, thanks to all of the attendees for which SERSTM was designed.


President’s Report from the 32nd Annual Symposium on Sea Turtle Biology & Conservation, 11-16 March 2012 in Huatulco, Oaxaca, Mexico Ana R. Barragán

President, International Sea Turtle Society; Programa Nacional para la Conservación de las Tortugas Marinas, CONANP. Camino al Ajusco 200, Col. Jardines en la Montaña, Mexico DF 14210, Mexico (E-mail: [email protected])

The Annual Symposium on Sea Turtle Biology and Conservation, conducted every year by the International Sea Turtle Society (ISTS) is a unique event that draws participants from around the world, from across disciplines and cultures to a common platform: sea turtle conservation. The symposium encourages debate, discussion and the sharing of knowledge, research techniques and lessons in conservation to address questions in biology and conservation of sea turtles and their habitats. The 2012 Symposium was the third symposium in 32 years to been held in Mexico, home to globally significant sea turtle populations and internationally renowned conservation programs. In addition to hosting two critical index beaches for the dwindling Pacific leatherback population, Oaxaca represents a critically important nesting region for olive ridley sea turtles. Here olive ridleys nest in synchrony by the thousands, a phenomenon referred to as an arribada. This made Huatulco, along the southern coast of Oaxaca, an ideal venue for our meeting. The symposium was held at the Las Brisas Huatulco Resort, the largest Conference Center in the area; it had the best facilities to hold a meeting of this size. The theme of this year’s Symposium was Time of Innovation. Throughout the week, the meeting focused on the many innovative aspects of sea turtle conservation, including new techniques, new approaches, and new actors. We also took a critical approach to analyzing existing methods used in sea turtle research and conservation, in order to learn from past experiences. The meeting had about 500 participants from 52 countries, with a large proportion being from the United States, Mexico and Latin America; this was expected from the emphasis given to this region. Regional Meetings and Workshops. The activities started on 11 March with a variety of pre-symposium Regional meetings and thematic workshops. During the Regional Meetings special focus was given to each region’s conservation issues: Africa, Latin America (RETOMALA), IOSEA and the Mediterranean. Other thematic meetings included the Pacific Leatherback Regional Meeting, the Atlantic Leatherback Regional Meeting, Climate Change Workshop “Train the Trainers,” workshop on Biotelemetry Tags, Students and Teachers Environmental Education Workshop, Sea Turtle Medicine Workshop, Freshwater Turtles and Tortoise meeting, Forum for Sea Turtle Conservation in Oaxaca and the IUCN Marine Turtle Specialist Group Annual General Meeting. All of these contributed to a rich discussion of specific issues and were an important training aspect of the Symposium. Main Symposium Program. The main symposium sessions were held between March 13th and 16th, with parallel sessions running throughout all but the keynote presentations and special sessions: The Sea Turtles of Mexico Mini-symposium, Innovative Tools and Strategies and Mitigation of Turtle Interactions with Fishing Activities. During Tuesday, March 13th the mini-symposium The

Sea Turtles of Mexico was the special session dedicated to sea turtle research and conservation in Mexico, functioning as the forum for stakeholders in the conservation of sea turtles in this country to exchange experiences, update on progress in nesting and population trends along the Pacific and Atlantic coasts, share conservation achievements as well as establish strategic work alliances. This special session was sponsored by SEMARNAT Delegación Oaxaca and Comisión Nacional de Áreas Naturales Protegidas, and it consisted of an inaugural Keynote presentation by M. Sc. Luis Fueyo MacDonald, Commissioner for Natural Protected Areas, entitled Conservation program for species at risk: species and spaces for sea turtles in Mexico; thematic oral presentations highlighting research and conservation results in Mexico and a discussion panel entitled Pros and cons of the tourism with sea turtles, during which the participants shared and discussed different experiences around the world on tourism with sea turtles, their economic benefits to local communities, as well as best practices in these activities to avoid damage to sea turtle populations and their habitats now that turtlerelated tourist activities are growing in the country. The traditional session themes included: 1) Anatomy, Physiology, and Health; 2) Behavior and movements; 3) In-water biology and monitoring; 4) Nesting biology and monitoring; 5) Ecology and Evolutionary Biology; 6) Conservation, Management and Policy; 7) Social Sciences, Environmental Education and Outreach and 8) Threats. The Major Sponsors of these sessions were Comisión Nacional de Áreas Naturales Protegidas, Secretaría de Medio Ambiente y Recursos Naturales and Fomento Ecológico BANAMEX. The main symposium sessions featured keynote addresses by Dr. Larry Crowder, who gave a talk entitled Innovative Approaches to Science and Policy in Sea Turtle Conservation and Dr. Lekelia Jenkins who spoke on Fishermen Selectivity: The Science of How to Best Engage the Right Fishers to Reduce Bycatch. The main symposium sessions concluded on March 16th with a closing keynote presentation by Dr. Jack Frazier entitled Revitalization or Innovating Innovation for Marine Turtle Conservation, and Closing Remarks by 32 ISTS President, Ana Barragán. There was a single poster session that was ongoing for the entire symposium. Located in the Solarium Restaurant, adjacent to the Convention Center, it enabled poster presentations to be in the same space as the vendor booths, cash bar, and Foyer area that was site of several social events. The Meet the Authors sessions gave substantial time for Symposium attendees to interact with the poster authors. Media. One week prior to the Symposium, the media activities started with a nation-wide press conference to announce the event, which was later covered by both local and national level newspapers and television channels. A number of articles in newspapers and online magazines occurred the week of and the week after the Symposium. This coverage helped draw attention to the hot topics


in sea turtle research and conservation that were highlighted at the Symposium. One novelty introduced for this Symposium was a more extensive use of Social Media forums and channels in an attempt to broadcast the ISTS talks, workshops and activities to a broader community of researchers, field turtle activists, volunteers and professionals, as well as people interested in the subject so all participants could network and collaborate on information related to the field and create knowledge repositories. Social Media channels have proven to be an efficient way to share content, ideas, videos, and almost anything. We have a Facebook Fan Page that let people share things related to the symposium as well as interacting in conversations, questions or other invitations. We also set up a YouTube Channel where all the videos related to the event could be uploaded. A Blog was set up and linked to the main Symposium webpage, where periodically information regarding Huatulco, Oaxaca and sea turtles was uploaded. Stream channels were set to show on live streams some of the keynotes, events and activities, letting people outside the event attend and learn without being actually there. These channels also allowed people to ask questions via social networks like Twitter or chat. There is also a photo album with pictures from the symposium; some of these were shared by attendees. Unfortunately, problems with the internet connection at the venue hotel (mainly low bandwidth) prevented us from bringing these activities to their full potential. Because of this, fewer videos were available and many posts were done using audio only. The links to these materials are: Facebook: www.facebook.com/InternationalSeaTurtleSymposium Youtube Channel: www.youtube.com/user/IntlSeaTurtleSympAlbum Picasa: picasaweb.google.com/114001894980314737068 Blog: http://internationalseaturtlesymposium.blogspot.mx/ Ustream channel: http://www.ustream.tv/user/ists32 Spreaker (podcasts): http://www.spreaker.com/user/ists Vendors. This year we made sure that the vendors and exhibitors were right in the middle of the action, setting them up from March 12th to 16th in the Solarium Restaurant, along with the poster presentations and cash bar. Vendors and exhibitors at the 32nd Annual Symposium included Telonics, Inc., Wildlife Computers Inc., Sirtrack Ltd., Collecte Localisation Satellite, Desert Star Systems LLC., Conservation International, Drexel University, The Leatherback Trust, Ayotzintli A.C., NTV MSNBC, WWF International, Sea Turtle Foundation, Kutzari A.C., CONANP, Fomento Ecológico BANAMEX, Hombre Naturaleza A.C., Universidad Autónoma Benito Juárez de Oaxaca. Social Events. It is generally agreed that having all Symposium activities held at one place is better; this time, having the event in an all-inclusive resort allowed us to organize many evening social activities since most of the participants stayed at Las Brisas. For the second year we had Speed Chatting with Turtle Experts, a fundraising event that aimed to provide a means for Symposium newcomers and veterans alike to spend time chatting with a stellar collection of turtle enthusiasts and ISTS Symposium veterans. Students in particular appreciated this activity since they got to know people they always wanted to but had never approached. The farewell banquet was held at a gorgeous tropical setting in the Las Brisas gardens on March 16th, the last day of the main Symposium. The evening commenced with a sampler of world-

renowned Oaxacan cuisine for dinner, and later the distribution of the Archie Carr Student Awards and the ISTS Special Awards. The President’s farewell speech and acknowledgements were followed by the handing over of the Presidential trowel to the incoming ISTS President Raymond Carthy. The Closing Ceremony was followed by 3 hours of animated dance to Salsa, Merengue and other party music by the local band La Maraka, which gave the perfect closure to a fantastic and intense week. Silent and Live Auction. As is a tradition of the ISTS’s fund raising efforts at each year’s Symposium, both silent and live auctions were held. For this year we focused on handcrafts and items from the Latin American region, but of course every contribution was happily accepted. A fantastic range of items including showpieces, artwork, trinkets, items of clothing, etc., brought by participants from around the world were displayed at the silent auction. The live auction was held on 15 March, and as usual, it was lively evening with lots of fun, cheer, and competition. It started with a presentation of La Escobilla Music School, a group of young and enthusiastic performers from a community near the arribada beach, who animated and set the tone for the evening. Later we had a presentation of the history and culture surrounding Mezcal, the famous Oaxacan liquor, followed by a sample of the most representative kinds. After trying Mezcal, everybody was more than ready for bidding! Veteran bidders competed with fresh hands and tried to outbid each other for all shapes and forms of donated collectibles. This has been the crown jewel of ISTS social events for decades and this year did not disappoint. Proceeds from both auctions contribute to the travel grants for the next symposium. Special thanks to Jennifer Homcy, Rod Mast, Marina Zucchini and their dedicated team of volunteers for this outstanding effort. ISTS Awards. Recognition of achievements has been a strong philosophy of the International Sea Turtle Society. A variety of awards were presented this year, including career achievement awards (Life-Time Achievement, ISTS Champions, President's, and Volunteerism) and Symposium presentation awards (Archie Carr Student and Grassroots Conservation). The Career Achievement Awards Committee, comprising elected members of the Society, and chaired by Karen Arthur, worked very hard to consider deserving individuals and organizations that were nominated for the ISTS Awards this year. The Archie Carr Student Awards Committee was co-chaired by Matthew Godfrey and Andrea Phillott, and the Grassroots Conservation Award Committee was co-chaired by J. Nichols, Manjula Tiwari and Ingrid Yañez. All did a great job in identifying those presentations deserving of the presentation awards. Congratulations to all. The ISTS Lifetime Achievement Awards were presented to George Balazs, James Spotila, and Llewellyn Ehrhart for their highly significant impact on sea turtle biology and conservation through the course of their careers. All three are true icons of the Symposium, and heroes of sea turtle research and conservation. The ISTS Champions Awards were presented to George Petro for his contribution to the development of whole networks of sea turtle monitoring and conservation through Vanuatu and Fiji and to Laura Sarti Martinez for her 30 years of conservation efforts and her influence on establishing leatherback conservation and research networks in Pacific Mexico. This was a very emotive award since many of her former students were in Huatulco to congratulate her on this recognition.


The ISTS Ed Drane Award for Volunteerism was given to Gary Buckles, who has tirelessly and selflessly worked with the Georgia Sea Turtle Center since 2007. The ISTS President’s Award was presented during the Welcome Ceremony to Cuauhtemoc Peñaflores, pioneer of sea turtle research in Mexico and the person who helped establish important conservation programs in beaches such as Rancho Nuevo, Escobilla and Barra de la Cruz, among others. There were 135 student presentations eligible for the Archie Carr Student Awards (59 oral presentations and 76 poster presentations). All presentations were viewed and ranked by 15 judges, all recognized sea turtle researchers and project leaders. The awards were given to: Category

Format Prize Winner

Biology

Poster Runner up

Conservation Poster

Biology Experimental Oral

Biology Field-based

Oral

Winner

Winner Runner up Winner Runner up Winner

Conservation Oral

Runner up

Runner up

Student Anahí Martínez Arenas

Institution Universidad Nacional Autonoma de Mexico Ana University of Patricio Puerto Rico, USA Joanna University of Hancock Exeter, UK Daphne Universidad de Goldberg Estado do Rio de Janeiro, Brazil Anthony Monash Rafferty University, Australia Deasy Moss Landing Lontoh Marine Lab, USA Karl University of Phillips East Anglia, UK Monette University of Auman Central Florida, USA LoriKim Florida Gulf Alexander Coast University, USA University of Nick Northern British Ehlers Columbia, Canada

The Grassroots Conservation Award was given to Ever Ernesto Rizo Guardardo, from the community of La Barrona, Guatemala. Travel Grants. The ISTS provided $100,000 for travel grant support this year to help 224 travelers attend the meeting. A total of $32,359 was distributed as cash and the remainder as free accommodations at the Symposium hotel for the entire duration of the symposium, which included meals in the all-inclusive system. The tireless efforts of Alexander Gaos (Travel Chair) and the regional travel chairs made sure that all deserving participants could avail of the travel award. The regional travel committee was comprised of Aliki Panagopoulou (Europe), Angela Formia (Africa), Nicolas Pilcher (Asia/Pacific), Karen Eckert (English-Speaking

Caribbean), Emma Harrison (Mexico, Central America and Spanishspeaking Caribbean), Alejandro Fallabrino (South America), Kartik Shanker (India/South Asia), ALan Rees (Middle East), and Kelly Stewart (USA/Canada). ISTS Student Committee. In 2010, an official ISTS Student Committee was appointed to promote knowledge exchange, enhance students' professional development, and provide a centralized communication base for students worldwide. Since that time, more than 50 students from over 15 countries have become involved in the Student Committee. This is the second year that this Presidentappointed committee was present during the symposium, organizing different activities that we thought students would benefit from. As last year, this year we focused on three main tasks: (1) presentation feedback, (2) student workshop, with the subject “How to create an NGO,” and (3) a student mixer. I gratefully acknowledge co-chairs Lisa Komoroske, Annelisse Barcenas and Itzel Sifuentes for their vision, enthusiasm, and leadership that brought this new Symposium initiative to whole new levels. ISTS Business Meeting and Elections. The ISTS Business Meeting held on the afternoon of 16 March was attended by about 120 members. The opening statement by the President was followed by presentations of the Treasurer’s Report by Terry Meyer, the Travel Committee Report by Ingrid Yañez on behalf of Alexander Gaos, the By-Laws and Constitution amendments by Jack Frazier, the ISTS Media call for proposals by Ana Barragán, The Awards Committee report by David Godfrey and the Nominations Committee report by Frank Paladino. The meeting closed with an introduction to ISTS33 in Baltimore, by President-Elect Ray Carthy. No resolutions were received to be discussed at the Business Meeting this year. The following candidates were announced as winners of the ISTS elections: Roldán Valverde for President Elect, George Balazs and Alejandro Fallabrino for the two Board of Directors positions, Terry Meyer for Treasurer, Manjula Tiwari for Secretary, Mariana Fuentes and Marydele Donnelly for the Nominating Committee, and Dean Bagley, Sally Murphy and Jim Spotila for the Awards Committee. Congratulations to all! Sponsors and Donors. The International Sea Turtle Society and the local organizing committee is very grateful to the support provided by our international donors and sponsors, including many of our annual sponsors who supported us despite difficult economic times. In particular, we are grateful to the lead supporters of the 32nd Annual Symposium: the National Commission for Natural Protected Areas (CONANP) at SEMARNAT, Mexico, National Marine Fisheries Service, the David and Lucile Packard Foundation, USFWS Marine Turtle Conservation Fund and Fomento Ecológico Banamex. We also had much needed support from the Government of the State of Oaxaca, Huatulco Municipality, SEMARNATOaxaca Office, Ocean Foundation, Disney Animals, Science and Environment Program, The Leatherback Trust, Wildlife Computers and Telonics. And for our international travelers, there were several individuals who helped with funding rooms for our travelers, including Nancy FitzSimmons, Karen Frutchey, Peter Richardson, Kellie Pendoley, Eric Koepfler and Laura Sarti. I would like to thank each of these organizations and individuals for making the Huatulco Symposium a reality! Key Members of the Organizing Team. When I engaged in this journey I had but a faint idea of the amount of work and the number of people that needed to be involved. I’m deeply thankful


to the Huatulco Symposium Executive Committee who tirelessly worked to help me develop the vision and theme for the meeting and to make Huatulco an unforgettable experience; wonderful friends and committed conservationists who I wish to fully acknowledge: Laura Sarti, Ninel García, Christiane Aguilar, Manuel Rodríguez, Gonzalo Villalobos, Gabriela Vargas, Shaleyla Kelez, Eduardo Cuevas and Alan Zavala. All logistics details were so efficiently taken care of by Gonzalo Villalobos and the BIOAX team that very few participants were aware of all the fires they had to put out. Also helping substantially with the planning were Terry Meyer, our ISTS Treasurer, Manjula Tiwari, the ISTS Secretary, Michael Coyne, the ISTS Managing Director, Samantha Karam, this year’s Registrar, Karen Lazcano, our Volunteer Coordinator, Gabriela Vargas, our Vendor Coordinator, and Marco Palet, Gabriel Manzanilla and Diana Rangel, our PR team. The Program this year was an exciting blend of traditional and novel, honoring the theme “Time for Innovation,” thanks to the hard work of Program Co-Chairs Shaleyla Kelez and Eduardo Cuevas, and to DuBose Griffin and the rest of the Program Committee. Thanks also to our Poster chairs Melania Lopez and Omar Chassin, and to Alan Zavala, who as Regional Meeting and Workshop Coordinator managed to keep track of the dozen workshops and regional meetings that brought diversity and covered a broad

spectrum of themes… we are so thankful to all those participants! I’d like to thank Alexander Gaos, Travel Committee Chair, and the rest of the Travel team for making the participation of so many grantees possible. Another major aspect was all the volunteer work involved in the organization, and for making this happen I give a huge thank you to our Volunteer Coordinator, Karen Lazcano. The ever-important task of Registration was possible thanks to the vigilant eyes of Samantha Karam. Thanks also to all the people serving on the rest of the ISTS Committees: Awards, chaired by Karen Arthur, Student, led this year by Itzel Sifuentes and Annelisse Barcenas, and Nominations chaired by Pam Plotkin. Of course, I won’t forget to recognize the huge effort done by the judges of the Archie Carr Student Awards, chaired by Matthew Godfrey and Andrea Phillott. Also, I have no words to express my gratitude to our Program Officer, Elena Finkbeiner, who handled the international fund raising. On-site fund raising events are also essential, so I’d like to give a big round of applause to Jennifer Homcy and Marina Zucchini for coordinating the Live and Silent Auctions, to Rod Mast for being our Auctioneer, to Emma Harrison and Zoe Meletis for organizing the Speed-chatting session, and to all the vendors who decided to join us and make Huatulco a fantastic experience.


ANNOUNCEMENT FIRST ANNOUNCEMENT: 33rd Annual Symposium on Sea Turtle Biology and Conservation, February 2-8, 2013 in Baltimore, Maryland, USA Ray Carthy

President International Sea Turtle Society; Florida Cooperative Fish and Wildlife Research Unit and the University of Florida. PO Box 110485, Gainesville, FL 32611-0485 USA (E-mail: [email protected])

Yes, we are going to Baltimore! The Annual Symposium on Sea Turtle Biology and Conservation hosted every year by the International Sea Turtle Society (ISTS) is a unique event that draws participants from around the world, from across disciplines and cultures to a common interest and objective: sea turtle conservation. The Symposium encourages discussion, debate, and the sharing of knowledge, research techniques and lessons in conservation to address questions on the biology and conservation of sea turtles and their habitats. The 33rd Annual Symposium will be held in Baltimore, Maryland, USA, which is within the National Capital Region - a hub for important scientific research, policy and decisionmaking by the nation’s government and many leading conservation organizations. The pioneering 1st World Conference on Sea Turtle Conservation was held in Washington, D.C., 26-30 November 1979 and now, just over 33 years later, a major sea turtle meeting will revisit the National Capital Region. Baltimore is located in the heart of the Mid-Atlantic States, where nearly one-third of the U.S. population lives. The city is well situated for visitors arriving by car (just off I-95); it is only 15 minutes from Baltimore/Washington International Thurgood Marshall Airport (BWI) and it is a major train station stop along Amtrak’s Northeast Corridor. Baltimore offers visitors many great activities in the city and the opportunity to explore its rich cultural history; you can tour the home of the American National Anthem at Fort McHenry, eat world-famous Maryland crabs and seafood, explore the National Aquarium and the Maryland Science Center, or spend time in Baltimore’s Inner Harbor. Although most things you will want to do and see will be within easy walking distance, Baltimore also has a fast, free, and green Charm City Circulator (shuttle buses that travel 3 routes daily in the city, www.charmcitycirculator.com). You can also venture out to explore the natural beauty of the Chesapeake Bay Area, or take an inexpensive train ride to Washington, D.C. to lose yourself in the museums of the Smithsonian Institution. For the 2013 Symposium we expect over 1000 participants from more than 75 countries around the world. The Symposium’s venue will be the Baltimore Marriott Waterfront (http://www.marriott. com/hotels/travel/bwiwf-baltimore-marriott-waterfront/), located in the Inner Harbor, about 12 miles from BWI airport, 52 miles from Washington Dulles International Airport (IAD), 3 miles from Greyhound Bus Lines, and 1 mile from Penn Station-Baltimore (train) and the Baltimore Metro Subway. The Baltimore Marriott Waterfront has luxury guest rooms and suites with great views of the city and the Inner Harbor, and is conveniently located downtown near the National Aquarium, Oriole Park, and many restaurants, shops, and nightclubs. The well-appointed conference facilities and meeting halls, as well as

proximity to urban recreation, will promote interaction with other delegates, networking and catching up with old friends. This year the Symposium will focus on Connections in sea turtle biology, research and conservation: marine turtle ecological interactions, linkages among scientists, coastal communities, turtles, humans, consumptive and non-consumptive use, collaborative research, community-based conservation, policy-makers, and managers, and any other topics that YOU may care to share. From February 2nd to 4th, we will convene and host several regional meetings and special workshops that will enrich our knowledge and complement our capacities for reaching our conservation goals, and have some unique opportunities to interact with the local community. On February 5th through 8th we will have the themed oral and poster sessions, an outstanding group of returning and new Exhibitors and Vendors, traditional Symposium activities, and a few new things as well! Sea turtles have been an integral part of ecosystems for over 60 million years, and have been linked with humans throughout recorded history. In 2013 we hope to explore, discuss, and expand upon these connections. Stay tuned for the Symposium Registration and Reservations website to go live next month, AND, with the meeting coming in early February next year, start preparing for an October 1st, 2012 deadline for poster and presentation abstracts! Let’s CONNECT in Baltimore in February!!!


RECENT PUBLICATIONS This section is compiled by the Archie Carr Center for Sea Turtle Research (ACCSTR), University of Florida. The ACCSTR maintains the Sea Turtle On-line Bibliography: (http://accstr.ufl.edu/biblio.html). It is requested that a copy of all publications (including technical reports and non-refereed journal articles) be sent to both: The ACCSTR for inclusion in both the on-line bibliography and the MTN. Address: Archie Carr Center for Sea Turtle Research, University of Florida, PO Box 118525, Gainesville, FL 32611, USA. The editors of the Marine Turtle Newsletter to facilitate the transmission of information to colleagues submitting articles who may not have access to on-line literature reviewing services.

RECENT PAPERS AL-BAHRY, S.N., M.A. AL-ZADJALI, I.Y. MAHMOUD & A.E. ELSHAFIE. 2012. Biomonitoring marine habitats in reference to antibiotic resistant bacteria and ampicillin resistance determinants from oviductal fluid of the nesting green sea turtle, Chelonia mydas. Chemosphere 87: 1308-1315. S.N. Al-Bahry, Sultan Qaboos Univ, Coll Science, Dept Biology, P.O. Box 36, Muscat 123, Oman. (E-mail: [email protected]) AL-MUKHAINI, N., T. BA-OMAR & I. MAHMOUD. 2012. Ultrastructural study of limb bud development in green turtles Chelonia mydas. Asian Herpetological Research 3: 69-78. T. BaOmar, Sultan Qaboos Univ, Coll Science, Dept Biology, P.O. Box 36, Muscat 123, Oman. (E-mail: [email protected]) ANON. 2012. Turning sea turtles. Naval Architect: 7. BAILEY, H., S.R. BENSON, G.L. SHILLINGER, S.J. BOGRAD, P.H. DUTTON, S.A. ECKERT, S.J. MORREALE, F.V. PALADINO, T. EGUCHI, D.G. FOLEY, B.A. BLOCK, R. PIEDRA, C. HITIPEUW, R.F. TAPILATU & J.R. SPOTILA. 2012. Identification of distinct movement patterns in Pacific leatherback turtle populations influenced by ocean conditions. Ecological Applications 22: 735-747. H. Bailey, Chesapeake Biological Laboratory, Univ of Maryland Center for Environmental Science, Solomons, MD 20688, USA. (E-mail: [email protected]) BAILEY, H., S. FOSSETTE, S.J. BOGRAD, G.L. SHILLINGER, A.M. SWITHENBANK, J-Y. GEORGES, P. GASPAR, K.H.P. STROMBERG, F.V. PALADINO, J.R. SPOTILA, B.A. BLOCK & G.C. HAYS. 2012. Movement patterns for a critically endangered species, the leatherback turtle (Dermochelys coriacea), linked to foraging success and population status. PLoS ONE 7: e36401. (Address same as above). BARRON, M.G. 2012. Ecological impacts of the deepwater horizon oil spill: implications for immunotoxicity. Toxicologic Pathology 40: 315-320. US Environmental Protection Agency, ORD/NHEERL/GED, Gulf Breeze, Florida 32531, USA. (E-mail: [email protected]) BELLIDO, J.J. & J.C. BAEZ. 2012. [Stranded turtles on the Andalusian coast.] Strandende Meeresschildkroeten an der andalusischen Kueste. Marginata 33: 44-51. German. BEZERRA, M.F., L.D. LACERDA, B.G.B. COSTA & E.H.S.M. LIMA. 2012. Mercury in the sea turtle Chelonia mydas (Linnaeus,

1958) from Ceara coast, NE Brazil. Anais Da Academia Brasileira De Ciencias 84: 123-128. L.D. Lacerda, Univ Fed Ceara, Lab Biogeoquim Costeira, Inst Ciencias Mar, Av Abolicao 3207, BR60165081 Fortaleza, CE, Brazil. (E-mail: [email protected]) BISCARDI, B., W. WELSH & A. KENNEDY. 2012. Discrimination of the hard keratins animal horn and chelonian shell using Attenuated Total Reflection-Infrared Spectroscopy. Applied Spectroscopy 66: 606-608. A. Kennedy, East Carolina Univ, 10th St 552, Greenville, NC 27858, USA. (E-mail: kennedyan@ ecu.edu) BLANCO, G.S., S.J. MORREALE, E. VELEZ, R. PIEDRA, W.M. MONTES, F.V. PALADINO & J.R. SPOTILA. 2012. Reproductive output and ultrasonography of an endangered population of East Pacific green turtles. Journal of Wildlife Management 76: 841-846. G.S. Blanco, Drexel Univ, Dept Biol, 3141 Chestnut St, Philadelphia, PA 19104, USA. (E-mail: gsb22@ drexel.edu) BURTON, A. 2012. Glad tidings for green sea turtles. Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment 10: 63. CARDONA, L., I. ALVAREZ DE QUEVEDO, A. BORRELL & A. AGUILAR. 2012. Massive consumption of gelatinous plankton by Mediterranean apex predators. PLoS ONE 7: e31329. I. Alvarez de Quevedo, IRBIO and Dept of Animal Biology, Faculty of Biology, University of Barcelona, Barcelona, Spain. (E-mail: [email protected]) CARDONA, L., G. FERNANDEZ, M. REVELLES & A. AGUILAR. 2012. Readaptation to the wild of rehabilitated loggerhead sea turtles (Caretta caretta) assessed by satellite telemetry. Aquatic Conservation: Marine and Freshwater Ecosystems 22: 104-112. M. Revelles, Dept of Animal Biology, Faculty of Biology, Univ of Barcelona, Avenida Diagonal 643, 08028, Barcelona, Spain. (E-mail: [email protected]) CASALE, P., M. AFFRONTE, D. SCARAVELLI, B. LAZAR, C. VALLINI & P. LUSCHI. 2012. Forging grounds, movement patterns and habitat connectivity of juvenile loggerhead turtles (Caretta caretta) tracked from the Adriatic Sea. Marine Biology (Online Prepublication: DOI 10.1007/S00227-012-1937-2) : 9 pp. P. Casale, Dept of Biology and Biotechnologies 'Charles Darwin', University of Rome "La Sapienza," Viale dell Universita 32, 00185 Rome, Italy. (E-mail: [email protected])


CASALE, P., A.C. BRODERICK, D. FREGGI, R. MENCACCI, W.J. FULLER, B.J. GODLEY & P. LUSCHI. 2012. Long-term residence of juvenile loggerhead turtles to foraging grounds: a potential conservation hotspot in the Mediterranean. Aquatic Conservation: Marine and Freshwater Ecosystems 22: 232-261. (Address above) CASALE, P., M. D'ADDARIO, D. FREGGI & R. ARGANO. 2012. Barnacles (Cirrepdeia, Thoraccica) and associated epibionts from sea turtles in the central Mediterranean. Crustaceana 85: 533-549. (Address above) CHAN, H.L. & M. PAN. 2012. Spillover effects of environmental regulation for sea turtle protection: the case of the Hawaii shallowset longline fishery. NOAA Technical Memorandum NMFSPIFSC 30: i-vi, 1-38, A1-A2, B1-B2, C1-C2, D1-D4. H.L. Chan, Joint Institute for Marine and Atmospheric Research, University of Hawaii, 1000 Pope Road, Honolulu, Hawaii 96822, USA. CHEN, H., R-J. KUO, T-C. CHANG, C-K. HUS, R.A. BRAY & I-J. CHENG. 2012. Fluke (Spirorchiidae) infections in sea turtles stranded on Taiwan: prevalence and pathology. Journal of Parasitology 98: 437-439. I.J. Cheng, Institute of Marine Biology, National Taiwan Ocean University, Keelung, Taiwan 202-24, R.O.C. (E-mail: [email protected]) CLARO, F. & C. BARDONNET. 2011. Les tortues marines et la pollution lumineuse sur le territoire francaise. Rapport GTMFSPN 2. MNHN-SPN, Paris: 40 pp. French. CLARO, F. & P. HUBERT. 2011. Impact des macrodechets sur les tortues marines en France metropolitaine et d'Outre-mer. Rapport GTMF-SPN 1. MNHN-SPN, Paris: 52 pp. French. COLL, M., C. PIRODDI, C. ALBOUY, F. BEN RAIS LASRAM, W.W.L. CHEUNG, V. CHRISTENSEN, V.S. KARPOUZI, F. GUILHAUMON, D. MOUILLOT, M. PALECZNY, M.L. PALOMARES, J. STEENBEEK, P. TRUJILLO, R. WATSON & D. PAULY. 2012. The Mediterranean Sea under siege: spatial overlap between marine biodiversity, cumulative threats and marine reserves. Global Ecology and Biogeography 21: 465-480. M. Coll, CSIC, ICM, Passeig Maritim Barceloneta 37-49, E-08003 Barcelona, Spain. (E-mail: [email protected]) COZENS, J., H. TAYLOR & J. GOUVEIA. 2011(2012). Nesting activity of the loggerhead sea turtle Caretta caretta (Linnaeus, 1758) on Maio, Cape Verde Islands. Zoologia Caboverdiana 2: 62-70. J. Cozens, ADTMA-SOS Tartarugas, Cafe Cultural, Santa Maria, Sal, Cabo Verde, Spain. (E-mail: jacquie@sostartarugas. org) DAVENPORT, J. 2011. High-trophic-level consumers: trophic relationships of reptiles and amphibians of coastal and estuarine ecosystems. E. Wolanski & D.S. McLusky (Eds.). Treatise on Estuarine and Coastal Science 6: 227-249. J. Davenport, School of BEES, Univ College Cork, Distillery Fields, Cork, Ireland. (E-mail: [email protected]) DI SANTI, A. DI, F. BASILE, L. FERRETTI, F. BENTIVEGNA & A. PICA. 2012. Hemoparasitization by Theileria in the loggerheads Caretta caretta of the Mediterranean Sea. Comparative Clinical Pathology 21: 63-71. A. Pica, Dept of Biological Sciences, University of Naples "Federico II", Naples, Italy. (E-mail: [email protected]) DIAZ-URIBE, J.G., F. ARREGUIN-SANCHEZ, D. LERCARI-

BERNIER, V.H. CRUZ-ESCALONA, M.J. ZETINA-REJON, P. DEL-MONTE-LUNA & S. MARTINEZ-AGUILAR. 2012. An integrated ecosystem trophic model for the North and Central Gulf of California: An alternative view for endemic species conservation. Ecological Modelling 230: 73-91. J.G. Diaz-Uribe, Ctr Reg Invest Pesquera La Paz, Inst Nacl Pesca, Carretera Pichinlingue Km 1, La Paz 23020, BCS, Mexico. (E-mail: [email protected]) ECHWIKHI, K., I. JRIBI, M. N. BRADAI & A. BOUAIN. 2012. Interactions of loggerhead turtle with bottom longline fishery in the Gulf of Gabes, Tunisia. Journal of the Marine Biological Association of the United Kingdom 92, no. 4 Special Issue: 85358. K. Echwikhi, Natl Inst Sea Sci & Technol, P.O.Box 1035, Sfax 3018, Tunisia. (E-mail: [email protected]) ECKERT, K.L., B.P. WALLACE, J.G. FRAZIER, S.A. ECKERT & P.C.H. PRITCHARD. 2012. Synopsis of the biological data on the leatherback sea turtle (Dermochelys coriacea). U.S. Dept of Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service, Biological Technical Publication BTP-R4015-2012, Washington, D.C. 158 pp. For copies, contact: Sandra MacPherson, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 7915 Baymeadows Way, Ste 200, Jacksonville, FL 32256, USA. EGUCHI, T., J.A. SEMINOFF, R.A. LEROUX, D. PROSPERI, D.L. DUTTON & P.H. DUTTON. 2012. Morphology and growth rates of the green sea turtle (Chelonia mydas) in a northern-most temperate foraging ground. Herpetologica 68: 76-87. T. Eguchi, NOAA Fisheries, Protected Resources Div, SW Fisheries Science Center, 3333 N Torrey Pines Court, La Jolla, CA 92037, USA. (E-mail: [email protected]) ENGEMAN, R., R.E. MARTIN, J. WOOLARD, M. STAHL, C. PELIZZA, A. DUFFINEY & B. CONSTANTIN. 2012. An ideal combination for marine turtle conservation: exceptional nesting season, with low nest predation resulting from effective low-cost predator management. Oryx 46: 229-235. R. Engeman, National Wildlife Research Center, 4101 LaPorte Ave, Ft. Collins, CO 80521-2154, USA. (E-mail: [email protected]) FARCOMENI, A. 2012. Testing supremacy or inferiority of multinomial cell probabilities with application to biting preferences of loggerhead marine turtles. Communications in Statistics-Theory and Methods 41: 34-45. A. Farcomeni, Univ Roma La Sapienza, Piazzale Aldo Moro 5, I-00186 Rome, Italy. (E-mail: [email protected]) FAZIO, E., A. LIOTTA, P. MEDICA, E. GIACOPPO & A. FERLAZZO. 2012. Effects of different health status on blood haematochemical values of loggerhead sea turtles (Caretta caretta). Comparative Clinical Pathology 21: 105-109. E. Fazio, Dept of Morphology, Biochemistry, Physiology and Animal Production, Unit of Veterinary Physiology, Faculty of Veterinary Medicine, University of Messina, 98168 Messina, Italy. (E-mail: [email protected]) FIEDLER, F.N., G. SALES, B.B. GIFFONI, E.L.A. MONTEIROFILHO, E.R. SECCHI & L. BUGONI. 2012. Driftnet fishery threats sea turtles in the Atlantic Ocean. Biodiversity and Conservation 21: 915-931. F.N. Fiedler, Fundacao Pro TAMAR, Av Ministro Victor Konder 374, BR-88301700 Itajai, SC, Brazil. (E-mail: [email protected])


FISHER, L., D. OWENS & M.H. GODFREY. 2012. Predicting impacts of global climate change on the Northwest Atlantic loggerhead sea turtle (Caretta caretta) population: Locomotor responses of hatchlings to differing incubation temperatures. Integrative and Comparative Biology 52: E245. Meeting Abstract. L. Fisher, College of Charleston, Charleston, SC USA. (E-mail: [email protected]) FOSSETTE, S., G. SCHOFIELD, M.K. S. LILLEY, A.C. GLEISS & G.C. HAYS. 2012. Acceleration data reveal the energy management strategy of a marine ectotherm during reproduction. Functional Ecology 26: 324-333. S. Fossette, Dept of Biosciences, College of Science, Swansea University, Singleton Park, Swansea SA2 8PP, W Glam Wales, UK. (E-mail: sabrina.fossette@gmail. com) FOSSI, M.C., S. CASINI, I. CALIANI, C. PANTI, L. MARSILI, A. VIARENGO, R. GIANGRECO, G. NOTARBARTOLO DI SCIARA, F. SERENA, A. OUERGHI & M.H. DEPLEDGE. 2012. The role of large marine vertebrates in the assessment of the quality of pelagic marine ecosystems. Marine Environmental Research 77: 156-158. M.C. Fossi, Dept of Environmental Sciences, University of Siena, Via P.A. Mattioli 4, 53100 Siena, Italy. GAOS, A.R., R.L. LEWISON, B.P. WALLACE, I.L. YANEZ, M.J. LILES, W.J. NICHOLS, A. BAQUERO, C.R. HASBUN, M. VASQUEZ, J. URTEAGA & J.A. SEMINOFF. 2012. Spatial ecology of critically endangered hawksbill turtles Eretmochelys imbricata: implications for management and conservation. Marine Ecology Progress Series 450: 181-194. A.R. Gaos, San Diego State University, Dept of Biology, 3193 B St, San Diego, CA 92182, USA. (E-mail: [email protected]) GENERAL ACCOUNTING OFFICE (GAO). 2012. Endangered Sea Turtles: better coordination, data collection & planning could improve federal protection and recovery efforts. GAO, Washington, D.C. GAO-12-242. GUZMAN, M.M. & S.J. RODRIGUEZ. 2012. Accumulation and tissue distribution of metals and other elements in sea turtles from all over the world. M.J. Cosgrove & S.A. Roe (Eds.). Turtles: Anatomy, Ecology and Conservation. Nova Science Publishers, Inc; New York. ISBN: 978-1-61470-554-3. 196 pp. 1-54. M.M. Guzman, Toxicology Area, Dept of Socio-Sanitary Sciences, Faculty of Veterinary Medicine, Univ of Murcia, Campus of Espinardo 30100, Murcia, Spain. (E-mail: [email protected]) HEASLIP, S.G., S.J. IVERSON, W.D. BOWEN & M.C. JAMES. 2012. Jellyfish support high energy intake of leatherback sea turtles (Dermochelys coriacea): video evidence from animalborne cameras. PLoS ONE 7: e33259. S.G. Heaslip, Dalhousie Univ, Dept Biol, Halifax, NS, Canada. (E-mail: Susan.Heaslip@ dal.ca) HU, X., D.J. BURDIGE & R.C. ZIMMERMAN. 2012. delta C-13 is a signature of light availability and photosynthesis in seagrass. Limnology and Oceanography 57: 441-448. X.P. Hu, Univ Georgia, Dept Marine Science, Athens, GA 30602, USA. (E-mail: [email protected]) IHLOW, F., J. DAMBACH, J.O. ENGLER, M. FLECKS, T. HARTMANN, S. NEKUM, H. RAJAEI & D. ROEDDER. 2012. On the brink of extinction? How climate change may

affect global chelonian species richness and distribution. Global Change Biology 18: 1520-1530. D. Rodder, Zool Forsch Museum Alexander Koenig, Adenauerallee 160, D-53113 Bonn, Germany. (E-mail: [email protected]) KARAA, S., I. JRIBI, A. BOUAIN & M.N. BRADAI. 2012. The Cirripedia associated with loggerhead sea turtles, Caretta caretta, in the Gulf of Gabes, Tunisia. Cahiers De Biologie Marine 53: 169-176. S. Karaa, Sfax Fac Sci, Dept Biol, BP 802, Sfax 3018, Tunisia. (E-mail: [email protected]) KELLER, J.M., L. NGAI, J.B. MCNEILL, L.D. WOOD, K.R. STEWART, S.G. O'CONNELL & J.R. KUCKLICK. 2012. Perfluoroalkyl contaminants in plasma of five sea turtle species: Comparisons in concentration and potential health risks. Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry 31: 1223-1230. J.M. Keller, Analytical Chemistry Division, Hollings Marine Laboratory, National Institute of Standards and Technology, Charleston, SC, USA. (E-mail: [email protected]) KOBAYASHI, M. 2012. Ecological, behavioral & physiological evidence of the hawksbill turtle reproduction in captivity. Bulletin of Fisheries Research Agency No. 36: 107-142. Japanese. M. Kobayashi, Seikai Natl Fisheries Res Inst, Res Ctr Subtrop Fisheriers, 148 Fukaiohta, Ishigaki, Okinawa 9070451, Japan. KOMOROSKE, L.M., L. BOWEN & A.K. MILES. 2012. Biomarker development to examine sublethal impacts of pollutants in marine turtles. Integrative and Comparative Biology 52: E278. Meeting Abstract. L.M. Komoroske, Univ Calif Davis, Dept Wildlife Fish & Conservat Biol, 1 Shields Ave,1088 Acad Surge, Davis, CA USA. (E-mail: [email protected]) KOMOROSKE, L.M., R.L. LEWISON, J.A. SEMINOFF, D.D. DEUSTCHMAN & D.D. DEHEYN. 2012. Trace metals in an urbanized estuarine sea turtle food web in San Diego Bay, CA. Science of the Total Environment 417: 108-116. (Address same as above) KURZ, D.J., K.M. STRALEY & B.A. DEGREGORIO. 2012. Outfoxing the red fox: how best to protect the nests of the endangered loggerhead marine turtle Caretta caretta from mammalian predation? Oryx 46: 223-228. D.J. Kurz, Princeton Univ, Frist Campus Ctr, Box 1219, Princeton, NJ 08544, USA. (E-mail: [email protected]) LASALA, J.A., K. WILLIAMS, J.S. HARRISON, M. FRICK & D.C. ROSTAL. 2012. Multiple paternity of loggerhead sea turtle (Caretta caretta) within the Northern Management Unit. Integrative and Comparative Biology 52: E100. Meeting Abstract. J.A. Lasala, Georgia So Univ, Caretta Res Project, Savannah, GA USA. (E-mail: [email protected]) LAVENDER, A.L., S.M. BARTOL & I.K. BARTOL. 2012. A two-method approach for investigating the underwater hearing capabilities of loggerhead sea turtles (Caretta caretta). Integrative and Comparative Biology 52: E102. Meeting Abstract. A.L. Lavender, Old Dominion Univ, Norfolk, VA USA. (E-mail: [email protected]) LAVRETSKY, P., T.M. TRUONG, A.E. MCGOWIN, G.H. BALAZS & J.L. PETERS. 2012. New primers reveal the presence of a duplicate histone H3 in the marine turtle leech Ozobranchus branchiatus. Conservation Genetic Resources 4: 487-490. A.E. McGowin, Dept of Chemistry, Wright State Univ, Dayton, OH


45435, USA. (E-mail: [email protected]) LEMONS, G., T. EGUCHI, B.N. LYON, R. LEROUX & J.A. SEMINOFF. 2012. Effects of blood anticoagulants on stable isotope values of sea turtle blood tissue. Aquatic Biology 14: 201206. J.A. Seminoff, NOAA, National Marine Fisheries Service, SW Fisheries Science Center, 8604 La Jolla Shores Drive, La Jolla, CA 92037 USA. (E-mail: [email protected]) LING, O.S. & P.M. PALANIAPPAN. 2011. Silent turtle dwellers: barnacles on resident green (Chelonia mydas) and hawksbill turtles (Eretmochleys imbricata) of Mabul and Sipadan Islands. Borneo Science 28: 66-72. Borneo Marine Research Institute, Universiti Malaysia Sabah, Jalan UMS, 88400 Kota Kinabalu, Sabah, Malaysia LOHMANN, K.J., N.F. PUTMAN & C.M.F. LOHMANN. 2012. The magnetic map of hatchling loggerhead sea turtles. Current Opinion in Neurobiology 22: 336-342. K.J. Lohmann, Dept of Biology, Univ N Carolina, Chapel Hill, NC 27599, USA. (E-mail: [email protected]) LOHMANN, K.J., N.F. PUTMAN & C.M.F. LOHMANN. 2012. Navigating the Atlantic Ocean with geomagnetic markers: an inherited magnetic map in hatchling loggerhead sea turtles. Integrative and Comparative Biology 52: E108. Meeting Abstract. (Address same as above) LOPEZ-BARRERA, E.A., G.O. LONGO & E.L.A. MONTEIROFILHO. 2012. Incidental capture of green turtle (Chelonia mydas) in gillnets of small-scale fisheries in the Paranagua Bay, Southern Brazil. Ocean and Coastal Management 60: 11-18. E.A. Lopez-Barrera, Univ Fed Parana, Programa Pos Grad Ecol & Conservaciro, Setor Ciencias Biol, POB 19031, BR-81531980 Curitiba, PR, Brazil. (E-mail: [email protected]) MAGALHAES, M.D.S., A.J. BARSANTE SANTOS, N.B. DA SILVA & C.E.B. DE MOURA. 2012. Anatomy of the digestive tube of sea turtles (Reptilia: Testudines). Zoologia 29: 70-76. M.D.S. Magalhaes, Univ Fed Amazonas, Dept Morfol, Histol Lab, Ave Gen Rodrigo Octavio Jordao Ramos 3000, BR-69080005 Manaus, Amazonas, Brazil. (E-mail: [email protected]) MANCINI, A., V. KOCH, J.A. SEMINOFF & B. MADON. 2012. Small-scale gill-net fisheries cause massive green turtle Chelonia mydas mortality in Baja California Sur, Mexico. Oryx 46: 69-77. V. Koch, Univ Autonoma Baja California Sur, Dept Biol Marina, Carretera Sur Km 5-5, La Paz 23080, BCS, Mexico. (E-mail: [email protected]) MATOS, L., A.C.C.D. SILVA, J.C. CASTILHOS, M.I. WEBER, L.S. SOARES & L. VICENTE. 2012. Strong site fidelity and longer internesting interval for solitary nesting olive ridley sea turtles in Brazil. Marine Biology 159: 1011-1019. L. Matos, Univ Bremen, MARUM Ctr Marine Environm Sci, PO 33 04 40, D-28334 Bremen, Germany. (E-mail: [email protected]) MONCADA, F.G., L.A. HAWKES, M.R. FISH, B.J. GODLEY, S.C. MANOLIS, Y. MEDINA, G. NODARSE & G.J.W. WEBB. 2012. Patterns of dispersal of hawksbill turtles from the Cuban shelf inform scale of conservation and management. Biological Conservation 148: 191-199. L.A. Hawkes, Bangor Univ., Brambell Laboratories E30, School of Biological Sciences, Deiniol Road, Bangor, Gwynedd LL57 2UW, UK. (E-mail: [email protected])

MORAIS, R.A., G.O. LONGO, R.A. SANTOS, E.T.E. YOSHIDA, G.D. STAHELIN & P.A. HORTA. 2012. Cephalopod ingestion by juvenile green sea turtles (Chelonia mydas): Predatory or scavenging behavior? Herpetological Review 43: 47-50. R.A. Morais, Univ Fed Santa Catarina, Ctr Ciencias Biol, Lab Biogeog and Macroecol Marinha, BR-88010970 Florianopolis, SC, Brazil. (E-mail: [email protected]) MUELLER, C., K. TOWNSEND & J. MATSCHULLAT. 2012. Experimental degradation of polymer shopping bags (standard and degradable plastic & biodegradable) in the gastrointestinal fluids of sea turtles. Science of the Total Environment 416: 464-467. J. Matschullat, Tech Univ Bergakad Freiberg, Interdisciplinary Environm Res Ctr, Brennhausgasse 14, D-09599 Freiberg, Saxony, Germany. (E-mail: [email protected]) NDIAYE, P.I., Y. QUILISHINI, A. SENE, V.V. TKACH, C.T. BA & B. MARCHAND. 2012. Ultrastructural study of the male gamete of Pleurogonius truncatus Prudhoe, 1944 (Platyhelminthes, Digenea, Pronocephalidae) parasite of Eretmochelys imbricata (Linnaeus, 1766). Comptes Rendus Biologies 335: 239-246. Laboratory of Evolutionary Biology, Ecology and Management of Ecosystems, Faculty of Sciences and Techniques, Cheikh Anta Diop University of Dakar, BP 5055, Dakar, Senegal. NORTON, T.M. & M.T. WALSH. 2012. Sea turtle rehabilitation. R.E. Miller & M.E. Fowler (Eds.). Fowler's Zoo and Wild Animal Medicine, Volume 7: Current Therapy. Elsevier Saunders; St. Louis ISBN: 978-1-4377-1986-4: 239-46. T.M. Norton, Georgia Sea Turtle Center, Jekyll Island, Georgia, USA. (E-mail: tnorton@ jekyllisland.com) OROS, J., A. ARENCIBIA & P. MONAGAS. 2012. Anthropogenic causes of mortality of sea turtles in the Canary Islands: a multidisciplinary approach to the conservation of endangered sea turtles. M.J. Cosgrove & S.A. Roe (Eds.). Turtles: Anatomy, Ecology and Conservation. Nova Science Publishers, Inc; New York. ISBN: 978-1-61470-554-3. 196 pp. 55-88. J. Oros, Dept of Morphology, Veterinary Faculty, University of Las Palmas de Gran Canaria, Trasmontana s/n, 35416 Arucas, (Las Palmas), Spain. (E-mail: [email protected]) OTERO, R.A., J.F. PARHAM, S. SOTO-ACUNA, P. JIMENEZHUIDOBRO & D. RUBILAR-ROGERS. 2012. Marine reptiles from Late Cretaceous (early Maastrichtian) deposits in Algarrobo, central Chile. Cretaceous Research 35: 124-132. R.A. Otero, Consejo Monumentos Nacl, Av Vicuna Mackenna N 084, Santiago, Chile. (E-mail: [email protected]) PAJUELO, M., K.A. BJORNDAL, K.J. REICH, M.D. ARENDT & A.B. BOLTEN. 2012. Distribution of foraging habitats of male loggerhead turtles (Caretta caretta) as revealed by stable isotopes and satellite telemetry. Marine Biology 159: 1255-1267. M. Pajuelo, Univ of Florida, Dept of Biology, Archie Carr Center for Sea Turtle Research, P.O. Box 118525, Gainesville, FL 32611, USA. (E-mail: [email protected]) PATEL, K., K. WILLIAMS, M. FRICK & D. ROSTAL. 2012. Variation in egg components: a study of maternal investment and resource partitioning in the nesting loggerhead sea turtle. Integrative and Comparative Biology 52: E134. Meeting Abstract. (E-mail: [email protected]) PATRICIO, A.R., L.H. HERBST, A. DUARTE, X. VELEZ-ZUAZO,


N. SANTOS LOUREIRO, N. PEREIRA, L. TAVARES & G.A. TORANZOS. 2012. Global phylogeography and evolution of the chelonid fibropapilloma-associated herpesvirus. Journal of General Virology 93: 1035-1045. A.R. Patricio, Dept of Biology, University of Puerto Rico, Rio Pedras campus, P.O. Box 23360, San Juan, PR 00931, Puerto Rico. (E-mail: caldaspatricio.ar@ gmail.com) PELLETIER, D., K. LELEU, D. MALLET, G. MOU-THAM, G. HERVE, M. BOUREAU & N. GUILPART. 2012. Remote high-definition rotating video enables fast spatial survey of marine underwater macrofauna and habitats. PLoS ONE 7: e30536. D. Pelletier, Unite de Recherche Lagons, Ecosystemes et Aquaculture Durable en Nouvelle-Caledonie [French Institute for the Exploitation of the Sea, Noumea, New Caledonia]. (E-mail: [email protected]) PENDOLEY, K. & M. CHRISTIAN. 2012. A summary of marine turtle records for Norfolk Island. Memoirs of the Queensland Museum 55: 67-78. K. Pendoley, Pendoley Environm Pty Ltd, Locked Bag 13, Canning Bridge, WA 6153, Australia. (E-mail: [email protected]) PERRAULT, J.R., D.L. MILLER, E. EADS, C. JOHNSON, A. MERRILL, L.J. THOMPSON & J. WYNEKEN. 2012. Maternal health status correlates with nest success of leatherback sea turtles (Dermochelys coriacea) from Florida. PLoS ONE 7: e31841. J. Perrault, Dept of Biological Sciences, Florida Atlantic University, 777 Glades Road, Box 3091, Boca Raton, FL 33431-0991, USA. (E-mail: [email protected]) PERRAULT, J.R., D.L. MILLER & J. WYNEKEN. 2012. Physiological measures of health and reproductive success in leatherback sea turtles (Dermochelys coriacea). Integrative and Comparative Biology 52: E308. Meeting Abstract. (Address same as above) PICA, A., F. BASILE & C.A. GLOMSKI. 2012. Hematology of the loggerhead turtle, Caretta caretta. M.J. Cosgrove & S.A. Roe (Eds.). Turtles: Anatomy, Ecology and Conservation. Nova Science Publishers, Inc; New York. ISBN: 978-1-61470-554-3. 196 pp. 153-174. POLIDORO, B.A., T. BROOKS, K.E. CARPENTER, G.J. EDGAR, S. HENDERSON, J. SANCIANGCO & D.R. ROBERTSON. 2012. Patterns of extinction risk and threat for marine vertebrates and habitat-forming species in the Tropical Eastern Pacific. Marine Ecology-Progress Series 448: 93-104. B.A. Polidoro, Old Dominion Univ, IUCN Species Programme, Marine Biodivers Unit, Norfolk, VA 23529 USA. (E-mail: [email protected]) PRAJANBAN, B., L. SHAWSUAN, S. DADUANG, J. KOMMANEE, S. ROYTRAKUL, A. DHIRAVISIT & S. THAMMASIRIRAK. 2012. Identification of five reptile egg whites protein using MALDI-TOF mass spectrometry and LC/MS-MS analysis. Journal of Proteomics 75: 1940-1959. S. Thammasirirak, Khon Kaen Univ, Fac Sci, Dept Biochem, Inst Prot, Prote Res Grp, Khon Kaen 40002, Thailand. (E-mail: [email protected]) PROIETTI, M.C., J.W. REISSER, P.G. KINAS, R. KERR, D.S. MONTEIRO, L.F. MARINS & E.R. SECCHI. 2012. Green turtle Chelonia mydas mixed stocks in the western South Atlantic, as revealed by mtDNA haplotypes and drifter trajectories. Marine

Ecology-Progress Series 447: 195-209. M.C. Proietti, Univ Fed Rio Grande FURG, Inst Oceanog, Lab Tartarugas & Mamiferos Marinhos, BR-96201900 Rio Grande, RS, Brazil. (E-mail: [email protected]) PUTMAN, N.F., P. VERLEY, T.J. SHAY & K.J. LOHMANN. 2012. Simulating transoceanic migrations of young loggerhead sea turtles: merging magnetic navigation behavior with an ocean circulation model. Journal of Experimental Biology 215: 1863-1870. N.F. Putman, North Carolina State Univ, Initiat Biol Complex, Raleigh, NC 27695 USA. (E-mail: nathan.putman@ gmail.com) PUTMAN, N.F., P. VERLEY, T.J. SHAY & K.J. LOHMANN. 2012. Transoceanic migratory dispersal in young sea turtles: the role of currents and geomagnetic navigation. Integrative and Comparative Biology 52: E142. Meeting Abstract. (Address same as above) RAFFERTY, A.R. & R.D. REINA. 2012. Arrested embryonic development: a review of strategies to delay hatching in egglaying reptiles. Proceedings of the Royal Society B (Online Prepublication: DOI:10.1098/Rspb.2012.0100) : 10 pp. A.R. Rafferty, Australian Centre for Biodiversity, School of Biological Sciences, Monash Univ, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia. (E-mail: [email protected]) REES, A.F., A. AL-KIYUMI, A.C. BRODERICK, N. PAPATHANASOPOULOU & B.J. GODLEY. 2012. Conservation related insights into the behaviour of the olive ridley sea turtle Lepidochelys olivacea nesting in Oman. Marine Ecology Progress Series 450: 195-205. A.F. Rees, Univ Exeter, Ctr Ecology & Conservation, Marine Turtle Res Group, Cornwall Campus, Exeter TR10 9EZ, Devon, England, UK. (E-mail: afr203@ exeter.ac.uk) RIVERA, A.R.V. 2012. A comparative examination of forelimb kinematics and muscle function during rowing and flapping-style swimming in four species of turtle. Integrative and Comparative Biology 52: E146. Meeting Abstract. (E-mail: [email protected]. edu) ROARK, A.M., R.L. BAST, J. SANCHEZ, A.B. BOLTEN & K.A. BJORNDAL. 2012. Intake and growth rates modulate bone structure in juvenile green turtles (Chelonia mydas). Integrative and Comparative Biology 52: E319. Meeting Abstract. A.M. Roark, Hood Coll, Frederick, MD 21701 USA. (E-mail: roark@ hood.edu) RUDDERS, D., R.J. SMOLOWITZ & K. GOETTING. 2012. Bycatch mitigation through fishing gear based approaches: evaluation of the impacts of the Coonamessett Farm Turtle Deflector Dredge on the scallop resource and finfish bycatch. Journal of Shellfish Research 31: 342. Meeting Abstract. R. Smolowitz, Coonamessett Farm, 277 Hatchville Rd, E Falmouth, MA 02536, USA. (E-mail: [email protected]) SAIED, A., F. MAFFUCCI, S. HOCHSCHEID, S. DRYAG, B. SWAYEB, M. BORRA, A. OUERGHI, G. PROCACCINI & F. BENTIVEGNA. 2012. Loggerhead turtles nesting in Libya: an important management unit for the Mediterranean stock. Marine Ecology Progress Series 450: 207-218. F. Maffucci, Stazione Zoologica Anton Dohrn, 80121 Naples, Italy. (E-mail: maffucci@ szn.it) SALMON, M., R.R. CARTHY, C.M.F. LOHMANN, K.J.


LOHMANN & J. WYNEKEN. 2012. Collecting a sample of loggerhead sea turtle hatchlings before a natural emergence does not reduce nest productivity. Endangered Species Research 16: 295-299. M. Salmon, Florida Atlantic Univ, Dept Biol Sci, Boca Raton, FL 33431 USA. (E-mail: [email protected]) SANTIDRIAN TOMILLO, P., V.S. SABA, G.S. BLANCO, C.A. STOCK, F.V. PALADINO & J.R. SPOTILA. 2012. Climate driven egg and hatchling mortality threatens survival of eastern Pacific leatherback turtles. PLoS ONE 7: e37602. P. Santidrian Tomillo, Dept of Biology, Drexel Univ, Philadelphia, PA 19104, USA. (E-mail: [email protected]) SCOTT, R., D.J. HODGSON, M.J. WITT, M.S. COYNE, W. ADNYANA, J.M. BLUMENTHAL, A.C. BRODERICK, A. FUAT CANBOLAT, P. CATRY, S. CICCIONE, E. DELCROIX, C. HITIPEUW, P. LUSCHI, L. PET-SOEDE, K. PENDOLEY, P.B. RICHARDSON, A.F. REES & B.J. GODLEY. 2012. Global analysis of satellite tracking data shows that adult green turtles are significantly aggregated in Marine Protected Areas. Global Ecology and Biogeography (Online Prepublication DOI: 10.1111/j.1466-8238.2011.00757.x) : 9 pp. B.J. Godley, Centre for Ecology & Conservation, Tremough Campus, Univ. of Exeter, Penryn, Cornwall TR10 9EZ, UK. (E-mail: b.j.godley@exeter. ac.uk) SCOTT, R., R. MARSH & G.C. HAYS. 2012. A little movement orientated to the geomagnetic field makes a big difference in strong flows. Marine Biology 159: 481-488. G.C. Hays, Swansea Univ, Swansea Moving Anim Res Team, Dept Biosci, Swansea SA2 8PP, W Glam, Wales, UK. (E-mail: [email protected]) SEITZ, W.A., K.M. KAGIMOTO, B. LUEHRS & L. KATAHIRA. 2012. Twenty years of conservation and research findings of the Hawai'i Island Hawksbill Turtle Recovery Project, 1989 - 2009. University of Hawaii Pacific Cooperative Studies Unit Technical Report 178: i-ix, 1-117. W.A. Seitz, Hawaii Island Hawksbill Turtle Recovery Project, Pacific Cooperative Studies Unit, University of Hawaii-Manoa, USA. (E-mail: Hawksbillwill@ yahoo.com) SEMINOFF, J.A., S.R. BENSON, K.E. ARTHUR, T. EGUCHI, P.H. DUTTON, R.F. TAPILATU & B.N. POPP. 2012. Stable isotope tracking of endangered sea turtles: validation with satellite telemetry and d15N analysis of amino acids. PLoS ONE 7: e37403. J.A. Seminoff, NOAA, National Marine Fisheries Service, SW Fisheries Science Center, 8604 La Jolla Shores Drive, La Jolla, CA 92037 USA. (E-mail: [email protected]) SEMINOFF, J.A. & B.P. WALLACE (Eds.). 2012. Sea Turtles of the Eastern Pacific. Advances in Research and Conservation. University of Arizona Press: 375 pp. SHAMBLIN, B.M., K.A. BJORNDAL, A.B. BOLTEN, Z.M. HILLIS-STARR, I. LUNDGREN, E. NARO-MACIEL & C.J. NAIRN. 2012. Mitogenomic sequences better resolve stock structure of southern Greater Caribbean green turtle rookeries. Molecular Ecology 21: 2330-2340. B.M. Shamblin, Daniel B. Warnell School of Forestry & Natural Resources, Univ Georgia, Athens, GA 30605, USA. (E-mail: [email protected]) SHEPPARD, C.R.C., M. ATEWEBERHAN, B.W. BOWEN, P. CARR, C.A. CHEN, C. CLUBBE, M.T. CRAIG, R. EBINGHAUS, J. EBLE, N. FITZSIMMONS, M.R. GAITHER,

C-H. GAN, M. GOLLOCK, N. GUZMAN, N.A.J. GRAHAM, A. HARRIS, R. JONES, S. KESHAVMURTHY, H. KOLDEWEY, C.G. LUNDIN, J.A. MORTIMER, D. OBURA, M. PFEIFFER, A.R.G. PRICE, S. PURKIS, P. RAINES, J.W. READMAN, B. RIEGL, A. ROGERS, M. SCHLEYER, M.R.D. SEAWARD, A.L.S. SHEPPARD, J. TAMELANDER, J.R. TURNER, S. VISRAM, C. VOGLER, S. VOGT, H. WOLSCHKE, J.M-C. YANG, S-Y. YANG & C. YESSON. 2012. Reefs and islands of the Chagos Archipelago, Indian Ocean: why it is the world's largest no-take marine protected area. Aquatic Conservation-Marine and Freshwater Ecosystems 22: 232-261. C.R.C. Sheppard, Univ Warwick, Sch Life Sci, Coventry CV4 7AL, W Midlands, England, UK. (E-mail: [email protected]) SHILLINGER, G.L., E. DI LORENZO, H. LUO, S.J. BOGRAD, E.L. HAZEN, H. BAILEY & J.R. SPOTILA. 2012. On the dispersal of leatherback turtle hatchlings from Mesoamerican nesting beaches. Proceedings of the Royal Society B-Biological Sciences 279: 2391-2395. G.L. Shillinger, Stanford Univ, Center for Ocean Solutions, 99 Pacific St, Suite 155A, Monterey, CA 93940, USA. (E-mail: [email protected]) SMOLOWITZ, R., H.O. MILLIKEN & M. WEEKS. 2012. Design, evolution & assessment of a sea turtle deflector dredge for the U.S. Northwest Atlantic sea scallop fishery: impacts on fish bycatch. North American Journal of Fisheries Management 32: 65-76. R. Smolowitz, Coonamessett Farm Inc, 277 Hatchville Rd, E Falmouth, MA 02536 USA (E-mail: [email protected]) STITHOU, M. & R. SCARPA. 2012. Collective versus voluntary payment in contingent valuation for the conservation of marine biodiversity: An exploratory study from Zakynthos, Greece. Ocean & Coastal Management 56: 1-9. M. Stithou, Univ Stirling, Div Econ, Stirling FK9 4LA, Scotland, UK. (E-mail: mavra. [email protected]) SUSS, J.S., S. HONARVAR, J.R. SPOTILA & M.P. O'CONNOR. 2012. Beach characteristics affect the gas exchange environment for sea turtle nests. Integrative and Comparative Biology 52: E335. Meeting Abstract. J.S. Suss, Drexel Univ, Philadelphia, PA USA. (E-mail: [email protected]) SUSS, J.S., S. PATEL, N. NEEMAN, A. PANAGOPOULOU, T. RIGGALL, D. MARGARITOULIS, M.P. O'CONNOR & J.R. SPOTILA. 2012. Gas exchange and hatching success in loggerhead turtle nests in Greece. Integrative and Comparative Biology 52: E335. Meeting Abstract. M.P. O'Connor, Drexel Univ, Philadelphia, PA USA. (E-mail: [email protected]) THOMSON, J.A., A.B. COOPER, D.A. BURKHOLDER, M.R. HEITHAUS & L.M. DILL. 2012. Heterogeneous patterns of availability for detection during visual surveys: spatiotemporal variation in sea turtle dive-surfacing behaviour on a feeding ground. Methods in Ecology and Evolution 3: 378-387. J.A. Thomson, Florida Int Univ, Marine Sci Program, Sch Environm Arts & Soc, N Miami, FL 33181 USA. (E-mail: [email protected]) THOMSON, J.A., M.R. HEITHAUS, D.A. BURKHOLDER, J.J. VAUDO, A.J. WIRSING & L.M. DILL. 2012. Site specialists, diet generalists? Isotopic variation, site fidelity & foraging by loggerhead turtles in Shark Bay, Western Australia. Marine Ecology-Progress Series 453: 213-226. (Address same as above) TIKOCHINSKI, Y., C. BENDELAC, A. BARASH, A. DAYA,


Y. LEVY & A. FRIEDMANN. 2012. Mitochondrial DNA STR analysis as a tool for studying the green sea turtle (Chelonia mydas) populations: The Mediterranean Sea case study. Marine Genomics 6: 17-24. Y. Tikochinski, School of Marine Sciences, Ruppin Academic Center, Michmoret, 40297 Israel. (E-mail: [email protected]) TINSUNG, F.G., P.M. PALANIAPPAN, C.S. VAIRAPPAN, A.H. AHMAD, H. BUIS & N. MAIDIN. 2011. A preliminary study of population dynamics of green turtles (Chelonia mydas) of Sipadan, Malaysia. Borneo Science 28: 86-90. F.G. Tinsung, Borneo Marine Research Institute, Universiti Malaysia Sabah, Jalan UMS, 88400 Kota Kinabalu, Sabah, Malaysia. TURNER-TOMASZEWICZ, C. & J.A. SEMINOFF. 2012. Turning off the heat: Impacts of power plant decommissioning on green turtle research in San Diego Bay. Coastal Management 40: 7387. C. Turner-Tomaszewicz, Univ Calif San Diego, Div Biol Sci, Scripps Inst Oceanog, 9500 Gilman Dr, La Jolla, CA 92037 USA. (E-mail: [email protected]) VARO-CRUZ, N., P. LOPEZ-SUAREZ, J. COZENS, A. LIRIALOZA, J. FRETEY & L.F. LOPEZ-JURADO. 2011(2012). New records of the olive ridley sea turtle Lepidochelys olivacea (Eschscholtz, 1829) from the Cape Verde Islands. Zoologia Caboverdiana 2: 53-61. N. Varo-Cruz, Dpto de Biologia, Universidad de Las Palmas de Gran Canaria, Campus de Tafira, 35017 Las Palmas de Gran Canaria, Gran Canaria, Spain. (E-mail: [email protected]) VERISSIMO, D., D.A. JONES, R. CHAVERRI & S.R. MEYER. 2011. Jaguar Panthera onca predation of marine turtles: conflict between flagship species in Tortuguero, Costa Rica. Fauna & Flora International, Oryx (Online Prepublication: DOI:10.1017/

S0030605311001487) : 8 pp. D. Verissimo, Global Vision International Costa Rica, 3rd Floor, The Senate, Exeter, EX1 1UG, UK. (E-mail: [email protected]) WEISS, K., M. HAMANN, M. KINNEY & H. MARSH. 2012. Knowledge exchange and policy influence in a marine resource governance network. Global Environmental Change-Human and Policy Dimensions 22: 178-188. K. Weiss, James Cook Univ, Sch Earth & Environm Sci, Townsville, QLD 4811, Australia. (E-mail: [email protected]) WRIGHT, L.I., W.J. FULLER, B.J. GODLEY, A. MCGOWAN, T. TREGENZA & A.C. BRODERICK. 2012. Reconstruction of paternal genotypes over multiple breeding seasons reveals male green turtles do not breed annually. Molecular Ecology (DOI: 10.1111/j.1365-294X.2012.05616.x) : 11 pp. A.C. Broderick, Centre for Ecology and Conservation, University of Exeter, Cornwall Campus, Penryn, TR10 9EZ, UK. (E-mail: [email protected]) XIA, Z-R., T. BLANCK, P-P. LI, I-J. CHENG, H-X. GU & E-M. ZHAO. 2012. [Experiments with various incubation factors for eggs of Chelonia mydas in China.] Versuche mit verschiedenen Inkubationsfaktoren fuer die Eier von Chelonia mydas in China. Radiata 21: 46-59. German. Zhong-rong Xia; Marine Turtle Research Group, National Gangkou Sea Turtle Reserve Management Bureau, Huidong 516359, China. YOUNG, M., M. SALMON & R. FORWARD. 2012. Visual wavelength discrimination by the loggerhead turtle, Caretta caretta. Biological Bulletin 222: 46-55. M. Salmon, Dept of Biological Sciences, Florida Atlantic University, 777 Glades Road, Box 3091, Boca Raton, FL 33431-0991, USA. (E-mail: [email protected])

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS Publication of this issue was made possible by donations from the following organizations: Conservation International, International Sea Turtle Society, IUCN - Marine Turtle Specialist Group, Sirtrack Ltd., US National Marine Fisheries Service-Office of Protected Resources, Western Pacific Regional Fishery Management Council. The MTN-Online is produced and managed by Michael Coyne. The opinions expressed herein are those of the individual authors and are not necessarily shared by the Editors, the Editorial Board, National Marine Fisheries Service, NC Wildlife Resources Commission, or any individuals or organizations providing financial support. Marine Turtle Newsletter No. 134, 2012 - Page 38

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

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

SUBSCRIPTIONS AND DONATIONS The Marine Turtle Newsletter (MTN) is distributed quarterly to more than 2000 recipients in over 100 nations world-wide. In order to maintain our policy of free distribution to colleagues throughout the world, the MTN must receive $30,000 annually in donations. We appeal to all of you, our readers and contributors, for continued financial support to maintain this venture. All donations are greatly appreciated and will be acknowledged in a future issue of the MTN. Typical personal donations have ranged from $25-100 per annum, with organisations providing significantly more support. Please give what you can. Donations to the MTN are handled under the auspices of SEATURTLE.ORG and are fully tax deductible under US laws governing 501(c)(3) non-profit organisations. Donations are preferable in US dollars as a Credit Card payment (MasterCard, Visa, American Express or Discover) via the MTN website . In addition we are delighted to receive donations in the form of either a Personal Cheque drawn on a US bank, an International Banker’s Cheque drawn on a US bank, a US Money Order, an International Postal Money Order, or by Direct Bank Wire (please contact [email protected] for details) Please do not send non-US currency cheques. Please make cheques or money orders payable to Marine Turtle Newsletter and send to: Michael Coyne (Managing Editor) Marine Turtle Newsletter 1 Southampton Place Durham, NC 27705, USA Email: [email protected]
