Environmental Management (2008) 41:461–464
DOI 10.1007/s00267-006-0434-0
FORUM
The Benefits of Nest Relocation Extend Far Beyond Recruitment:
A Rejoinder to Mrosovsky
David A. Pike
Received: 6 December 2006 / Accepted: 6 April 2007 / Published online: 18 July 2007
Ó Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2007
Abstract Individual sea turtle nests have an extremely
low probability of producting adult turtles; thus the practice
of moving nests away from the ocean (where they will not
be inundated by seawater) is a questionable conservation
strategy. Recently in Environmental Management, Mroso-
vosky used the repeatability of nesting female turtles to
place their eggs in certain locations to infer that some fe-
males may consistently nest in areas which will be flooded,
lowering the chance that any eggs will hatch. This in-
formation was used to hypothesize that saving ‘‘doomed’’
sea turtle nests may then alter the genetic composition of
the population, ultimately resulting in turtles that nest in
poor habitats. Here I question Mrosovosky’s argument by
focusing on several weaknesses inherent in the original
article, namely that at present there is no evidence to
suggest that nest-site selection is a heritable trait with an
underlying genetic basis.
Keywords Demography
Environmental conservation

Nest relocation
Sea turtle
Introduction
Turtles are long-lived animals, and once they reach matu-
rity, they reproduce for the remainder of their lives, laying
potentially tens of thousands of eggs within a lifetime (e.g.,
Miller 2001, Congdon and others 2003). Obviously, most
of these eggs do not reach adulthood, or the world would be
D. A. Pike (&)
School of Biological Sciences A08, University of Sydney,
New South Wales 2006, Australia
e-mail: david.pike@bio.usyd.edu.au
overrun by turtles (sensu Darwin 1859); in fact, turtle eggs
have a very low probability of hatching and subsequently
surviving until sexual maturity is reached (Congdon &
Gibbons 1990). The consequence of this life history is that
the importance of each individual egg in helping sustain a
viable population is miniscule. Despite this, many sea
turtle–monitoring programs still spend considerable effort
attempting to rescue individual nests that are laid too close
to the ocean or that are under threat from predators or
poachers. This is achieved by physically moving them to
safer areas where they will be more likely to hatch.
The importance of this practice toward population
recovery efforts is undoubtedly low, and this is part of the
argument Mrosovsky (2006) recently used to suggest
alternatives to spending time and energy relocating nests
that would otherwise fail. The basis of his argument lies
within the behavior of individual nesting female turtles and
the supposition that this behavior is genetically pro-
grammed. Turtles consistently nesting in areas prone to
flooding may ultimately be ‘‘selected against’’ because
their reproductive efforts could consistently be unsuccess-
ful, and therefore such female turtles will leave no sur-
viving offspring under natural circumstances. If biologists
move these nests to safer areas so that they have a chance
of hatching, and possibly reaching adulthood, this may
‘‘distort’’ the gene pool by assisting the offspring of turtles
with behavioral or genetically guided instincts to nest in
poor-quality sites to reach sexual maturity; thus passing on
these genes to subsequent generations. Here I question the
realistic basis of Mrosovosky’s (2006) argument by
focusing on four major issues: (1) the tendency of female
turtles to nest (or not) in poor locations, (2) the population-
level effect of nest relocation in a realistic, mathematic
sense, (3) the immense educational and conservation ben-
efit that nest relocation can provide participants, and (4)
123
462
whether the alternatives to nest relocation that Mrosovsky
(2006) presents are even feasible.
Individual Nest-Site Selection
Mrosovsky (2006) presented data on leatherback (Derm-
ochelys coriacea) and hawksbill (Eretmochelys imbricata)
turtles and showed the differences in individual nesting
patterns, which he presumed have a genetic basis. For
example, individual leatherbacks tend to lay subsequent
nests in different locations; thus, each female leatherback
may lay some of her nests in areas where offspring will
drown and others in areas where they will hatch. Conversely,
hawksbills tend to consistently nest in the same areas over
time; therefore, some turtles may nest closer to the water than
others, lessening the probability of these nests hatching (or
hatchlings emerging). This consistency reveals the possi-
bility that some female turtles always lay their nests in areas
that will hatch (‘‘good’’ nesters), and others may always lay
nests in areas where they will not hatch (‘‘poor’’ nesters).
This lead Mrosovsky (2006) to conclude that saving
‘‘doomed’’ turtle nests may lead to an increase in turtles that
are poor nesters, thus reversing selection on this trait.
However, from the figures he presents, it appears as although
hawksbills tend to nest near the ocean, but that they are
nesting far enough away to avoid nest inundation. In fact,
Mrosovsky (2006) even stated that ‘‘hawksbills . . . lay few
clutches below the high tide line . . .’’ Ironically, this state-
ment directly contradicts Mrosovsky’s (2006) concern for
the effects of nest relocation on the genetic structure of the
population. In essence, he fails to show that individuals
consistently nest in ‘‘poor’’ quality areas; therefore, from his
work I conclude that individual female sea turtles are not
‘‘programmed’’ to be ‘‘poor’’ nesters, and that attempting to
salvage nests laid in locations exposed to inundation will not
negatively affect the population. I agree that the seemingly
consistent behavior of nesting female turtles to place their
eggs in certain locations deserves more attention, especially
comparing inra-annual and interannual variations, but the
data Mrosovsky (2006) uses to support his claim, i.e., that
individual female turtles consistently nest in poor locations,
that this is a genetically-programmed tendency, and that
saving these nests will distort populations, is extremely
weak.
Population-Level Effects of Nest Relocation
Because very few hatchling turtles survive, unless hun-
dreds of sea turtle nests are relocated annually, the prob-
ability that any relocated eggs will result in adult turtles is
extremely low. For example, if the probability of an egg
123
Environmental Management (2008) 41:461–464
reaching adulthood is 0.03% (e.g., Frazer 1986), then >330
nests would need to be relocated to result in the survival of
just 1 adult turtle. Approximately half of these adults will
turn out to be male, and we have no information as to how,
or if, male genes contribute to nest-site selection or if genes
are involved at all. In addition to the fact that large efforts
are needed to recruit even 1 adult female turtle, Mrosovsky
(2006) pointed out that the recruitment of turtles whose
mothers nest in poor locations will ‘‘relax’’ the selection
pressure imposed on such female turtles. Although this is
technically true (offspring that would otherwise not survive
may do so), this will have no negative effect at the popu-
lation-level through the following logic: If a female turtle
that is programmed to nest in locations prone to flooding
eventually reaches maturity, then 1 more adult enters the
population. If that turtle in turn fails to successfully
reproduce because of genetics or a failure of humans to
relocate her nests, selection against poor quality nesters
still occurs but is just delayed one generation. Alterna-
tively, if her offspring in turn reach adulthood, there may
be more ‘‘poor-quality’’ nesters in the population, but this
will not affect the ‘‘good nesters’’; it will only make the
population (slightly) larger. Male turtles will continue to
mate with both ‘‘good’’ and ‘‘poor’’ female nesters, and
turtles will continue to live and provide their ecologic
functions within the greater oceanic ecosystem (e.g.,
Bouchard & Bjorndal 2000).
Although at present the tendency to nest near the sea is
maladaptive, with continually changing habitat conditions
associated with erosion and soil accumulation it may not be
in the future; therefore, maintaining these genes within the
population may have positive effects over the long-term. In
addition, because the historic harvesting of turtles has
likely acted as a strong selective agent, the nesting habits of
current populations may have no relation to historic ones;
in fact, it may be likely that historically very few indi-
viduals were good nesters, and the majority of the popu-
lation was composed of poor nesters. Equally likely is the
opposite scenario. In addition, most beaches have been
modified by humans (e.g., Weishampel and others 2003),
which may have initially led to changes in nesting areas,
potentially making previously ‘‘good’’ nesters ‘‘poor’’
because of anthropogenic habitat alterations. Regardless of
these possible scenarios, we cannot assume that current
conditions are comparable with conditions in which sea
turtles evolved; large, human-induced population bottle-
necks have occurred in the recent past, and nesting beaches
are constantly being modified (through both storms and
development close to the seashore). The importance of
such historic factors in shaping today’s populations cannot
be underestimated and must be considered when evaluating
conservation options that may have effects lasting far into
the future.
Environmental Management (2008) 41:461–464
Educational Opportunities
Relocating nests can greatly increase the opportunities for
private citizens to participate in conservation efforts. The
seemingly simple practice of using volunteer field assis-
tants to move turtle nests has immense benefit to the con-
servation of sea turtles (Campbell & Smith 2006, Lee &
Snepenger 1992, Tisdell & Wilson 2002, 2005, Tisdell and
others 2005, 2006). First, involving members of the general
public in on-the-ground conservation greatly increases the
opportunity for hands-on experience; accordingly, these
types of activities have repeatedly been shown to positively
influence interest in, and knowledge of, ecological pro-
cesses (e.g., Lee & Snepenger 1992, Tisdell & Wilson
2002, 2005, Campbell & Smith 2006). In turn, this
opportunity improves participants’ appreciation for envi-
ronmental conservation in a more general sense (Tisdell &
Wilson 2005); the participants can leave feeling good about
helping a species recover (or at least helping individual
eggs hatch), and ultimately believe that they are making a
positive difference in the world. The most important aspect
of using the public to relocate nests is that there is an
immediate, short-term, and visible result. Participants can
see how the ocean may affect nests that are being moved
and how much safer they are after relocation (which
Mrosovsky [2006] also pointed out). Seeing conservation
in action, with immediate short-term benefits, should not be
understated. Most conservation efforts take years or dec-
ades to produce results, which are hard to visualize and
may be frustratingly slow, making people more skeptical
and less supportive of such endeavors. Even if some edu-
cational opportunities take place in ‘‘doomed’’ (e.g.,
decreasing) populations, they are providing a greater good
to participants even if they fail as conservation efforts
(Shankar & Kutty 2005). Nest relocations provide visible
and rapid examples of conservation action. Furthermore,
they also make good media events, thus widening the
opportunities for this type of conservation education to
include those who may not have direct involvement (e.g.,
by volunteering).
Alternatives to Nest Relocation
The main alternative to nest relocation that Mrosovsky
(2006) presented (in addition to not relocating them at all)
involves the commercialization of eggs (e.g., eating or
selling them). The net benefit would involve using the
profits to invest in other conservation efforts (on which
Mrosovsky [2006] did not elaborate). These practical
suggestions are already being used in many circumstances,
both in sea turtles and in freshwater species (e.g., Caputo
and others 2005). However, the feasibility of this endeavor
463
may need to be re-evaluated. The general public may not
understand the slim biological probability that any one nest
has of producing mature turtles and will likely not care –
instead, the argument will rely on the perception by the
public that ‘‘every egg counts.’’ Furthermore, does har-
vesting eggs on nesting beaches set a good example? This
may create an undiscovered market for turtle eggs, which
could increase incidences of poaching (e.g., ‘‘if they can
harvest eggs, so can I’’). Any practice other than relocating
nests (or leaving them in situ, as Mrosovsky [2006] offered
as one alternative) is bound to send a negative conservation
message by commercializing a precious and legally
protected resource. With the global conservation of biodi-
versity at the forefront of ecological research, govern-
ment debate, and media attention, we can hardly afford to
minimize the importance of each and every opportunity for
conservation, regardless of the true biological importance
of the conservation practice. Hands-on learning and expe-
rience is what educates people about conservation.
Final Remarks
In sum, Mrosovsky (2006) presented data that appear to
contradict his own arguments against nest-relocation pro-
grams. He presented little biological evidence that female
turtles consistently nest in poor-quality sites and failed to
demonstrate that female turtles consistently placing their
nests in similar locations are ‘‘poor’’ nesters. Perhaps most
importantly, he failed to demonstrate that nest placement is
a genetically determined trait and can be passed on to
offspring. Although I agree that nest relocation may have
little effect on overall population sizes, the positive impacts
stemming from public education, and thus public support,
make the effort worthwhile, especially because (as both
Mrosovsky [2006] and I have shown), there may little or no
effect on the population, positive or otherwise. Before
discussing drastic changes to current practices, the feasi-
bility of alternative programs should be evaluated in a
realistic sense to ensure that they are feasible and will
improve biodiversity conservation or education.
Acknowledgments During manuscript preparation, I was supported
by an Australian Endeavour International Postgraduate Research
Scholarship, a University of Sydney International Postgraduate
Award, and by R. Shine through the Australian Research Council. I
thank E. Roznik, K. Shanker, and two anonymous reviewers for
providing helpful comments on an earlier draft of the manuscript.
References
Bouchard SS, Bjorndal KA (2000) Sea turtles as biological
transporters of nutrients and energy from marine to terrestrial
ecosystems. Ecology 81:2305–2313
123
464
Campbell LM, Smith C (2006) What makes them pay? Values of
volunteer tourists working for sea turtle conservation. Environ-
mental Management 38:84–98
Caputo FP, Canestrelli D, Boitani L (2005) Conserving the terecay
(Podocnemis unifilis, Testudines: Pelomedusidae) through a
community-based sustainable harvest of its eggs. Biological
Conservation 126:84–92
Congdon JD, Gibbons JW (1990) In Gibbons JW (ed.), Life history
and ecology of the slider turtle. Smithsonian Institution Press,
Washington, DC. pp 45–54
Congdon JD, Nagle RD, Kinney OM, van Loben Sels RC, Quinter T,
Tinkle DW (2003) Testing hypotheses of aging in long-lived
painted turtles (Chrysemys picta). Experimental Gerontology
38:765–772
Darwin C (1859) The origin of species by means of natural selection.
John Murray, London, UK
Frazer NB (1986) Survival from egg to adulthood in a declining
population of loggerhead turtles, Caretta caretta. Herpetologica
42:47–55
Heppell SS (1998) Application of life-history theory and popula-
tion model analysis to turtle conservation. Copeia 1998:367–
375
Lee DNB, Snepenger DJ (1992) An ecotourism assessment of
Tortuguero, Costa Rica. Annals of Tourism Research 11:367–
370
123
Environmental Management (2008) 41:461–464
Miller JK (2001) Escaping senescence: demographic data from the
three-toed box turtle (Terrapene carolina triunguis). Experi-
mental Gerontology 36:829–832
Mrosovsky N (2006) Distorting gene pools by conservation: assessing
the case of doomed turtle eggs. Environmental Management
38:523–531
Shanker K, Kutty R (2005) Sailing the flagship fantastic: myth and
reality of sea turtle conservation in India. Maritime Studies
3:213–240
Tisdell C, Wilson C (2002) Ecotourism for the survival of sea turtles
and other wildlife. Biodiversity and Conservation 11:1521–1538
Tisdell C, Wilson C (2005) Perceived impacts of ecotourism on
environmental learning and conservation: turtle watching as a
case study. Environment, Development and Sustainability
7:291–302
Tisdell C, Wilson C, Nantha HS (2005) Association of public support
for survival of wildlife species with their likeability. Anthrozoös
18:160–174
Tisdell C, Wilson C, Nantha HS (2006) Public choice of species for
the ‘‘Ark’’: phylogenetic similarity and preferred wildlife
species for survival. Journal for Nature Conservation 14:97–105
Weishampel JF, Bagley DA, Ehrhart LM, Rodenbeck BL (2003)
Spatiotemporal patterns of annual sea turtle nesting behaviors
along an east central Florida beach. Biological Conservation
110:295–303