Phase 6 064 Science Report Final

GVI Costa Rica
Expedition 064 Report
10th October – 18th December 2006

GVI Costa Rica Expedition 064 Report
10th October – 18th December 2006
Submitted in whole to:

Global Vision International
COTERC
Steven Furino, Waterloo University, Canada
Submitted in part to:

The Ministry of Environment and Energy of Costa Rica (MINAE)
Produced by
Rebeca Chaverri - Country Director
James Lewis - Expedition Manager
Ulla Kail - Expedition Staff
José Pedro Duarte Costa - Expedition Staff
Julie Jackson - Expedition Staff
Faye Wilkins - Expedition Staff
Oliver Davey - Expedition Staff
Natalia Filip - Expedition Staff
And
Expedition Member Expedition Member
Timothy Landry Richard Chinn
Carol Tervet Nina Farrimond
Brianne Smith Kate Caldwell
Kelly Smith Andrew Shult
Nicola Foley Sau Pik Wong
Aysha Hamisi Pauline Tan
Robert Burns Laura Hall
Expedition Member
Gabriel Jimenez
Edited by
Britt Larsen - Regional Director
GVI Costa Rica
Address: Estación Biológica Caño Palma, Tortuguero, Costa Rica

Tel: (+506) 709 8052
Email: Costa_rica@gvi.co.uk
Web page: http://www.gvi.co.uk

1. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The sixth 10-week phase of the Costa Rican Global Vision International (GVI) Expedition
has now been completed. The expedition has maintained working relationships with local
communities through both English classes and local community events. The expedition
has continued to work towards the gathering of important environmental scientific data
whilst working with local, national and international partners. The following projects have
been run during Phase 064:
• Jaguar predation on sea turtles. In collaboration with the Costa Rica Ministry of
Environment and Energy (MINAE).
• Jaguar camera trapping in Tortuguero National Park (TNP). In collaboration with
MINAE.
• Marine Turtle Monitoring Programme (collaboration with the Canadian Organization
for Tropical Education and Rainforest Conservation (COTERC), MINAE and the
Caribbean Conservation Corporation (CCC))
• EBCP Resident Bird Project (collaboration with Steven Furino, Waterloo University,
Canada)
• Tourist impact assessment within the Tortuguero National Park (collaboration with
MINAE)
• Tourist impact assessment on Caño Palma canal.
• English language lessons (collaboration with the San Francisco community and
Evergreen Lodge and Canopy Tours).
i
1.1. Introduction
The Coastal Rainforest Conservation Expedition at the Biological Station Caño Palma in
Tortuguero, Costa Rica has now completed its sixth phase (six x 10 weeks).
The expedition to date has assisted in collecting a substantial amount of scientific data.
Although this data is already helping to identify potential future research areas and
providing important data to the national and international scientific community it is still at
the preliminary stage. Methodologies continue to be improved and focused as
experience is gained and improvement to data quality is continuous. A full Annual Report
(to be initiated in January 2007) will collate and summarize all data and enable more
descriptive and accurate analysis.
ii
List of Contents
1. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ........................................................................................... i

1.1. Introduction ...................................................................................................... ii
List of Contents ........................................................................................................ iii
List of Figures ........................................................................................................... vi
List of Tables ........................................................................................................... viii
2. JAGUAR PREDATION ON MARINE TURTLES ....................................................... 9
2.1. Introduction ...................................................................................................... 9
2.2. Aim ................................................................................................................ 10
2.3. Methodology .................................................................................................. 10
2.4. Results........................................................................................................... 11
2.5. Discussion ..................................................................................................... 13
3. CAMERA TRAPPING............................................................................................. 14
3.1. Introduction .................................................................................................... 14
3.2. Aim ................................................................................................................ 15
3.3. Methodology .................................................................................................. 15
3.3.1. Study Site............................................................................................... 15
3.3.2. General .................................................................................................. 15
3.3.3. Setting the cameras ............................................................................... 16
3.3.4. Checking the cameras............................................................................ 17
3.3.5. Data entering and analysis ..................................................................... 17
3.4. Results........................................................................................................... 18
3.5. Discussion ..................................................................................................... 19
4. SEA TURTLE MONITORING PROGRAMME......................................................... 19
4.1. Introduction .................................................................................................... 19
4.2. Aim ................................................................................................................ 20
4.3. Methodology .................................................................................................. 20
4.3.1. Study site ............................................................................................... 21
4.3.2. Daily track census and nest surveys ...................................................... 22
4.3.3. Night surveys ......................................................................................... 22
4.3.4. Tagging .................................................................................................. 23
4.3.5. Biometric Data........................................................................................ 23
4.3.6. Nest Fate, Nest Survivorship and Hatching success .............................. 24
iii
4.4. Results........................................................................................................... 25
4.4.2. Monitoring of female turtles .................................................................... 29
4.4.3. Tagging .................................................................................................. 31
4.4.4. Biometric data ........................................................................................ 32
4.4.5. Turtle disease or injuries ........................................................................ 33
4.4.6. Monitoring of nests ................................................................................. 33
4.4.7. Nest Fate of nests marked by triangulation ............................................ 34
4.4.8. Excavation Results, Hatching and Emerging success ............................ 34
4.5. Discussion ..................................................................................................... 36
4.5.2. Monitoring of female turtles .................................................................... 37
4.5.3. Biometric data ........................................................................................ 37
4.5.4. Monitoring of nests ................................................................................. 38
4.5.5. Excavation results, hatching and emerging success .............................. 39
5. EBCP RESIDENT BIRD PROJECT ....................................................................... 39
5.1. Introduction .................................................................................................... 39
5.2. Aim ................................................................................................................ 40
5.3. Method........................................................................................................... 40
5.3.1. Point Counts .......................................................................................... 41
5.3.2. Area Searches ....................................................................................... 42
5.3.3. Incidental Observations .......................................................................... 42
5.4. Results........................................................................................................... 42
5.4.1. Survey Data ........................................................................................... 42
5.4.2. Incidental Observations .......................................................................... 52
5.4.3. Migrants ................................................................................................. 54
5.5. Discussion ..................................................................................................... 54
6. NATIONAL PARK TOURIST IMPACT ASSESSMENT ........................................... 55
6.1. Introduction .................................................................................................... 55
6.2. Aims .............................................................................................................. 57
6.3. Methods ......................................................................................................... 57
6.3.1. Assessment of terrestrial trail condition .................................................. 57
6.4. Results........................................................................................................... 58
iv
6.5. Discussion ..................................................................................................... 59
7. TOURIST IMPACT SURVEY CAÑO PALMA ......................................................... 61
7.1. Introduction .................................................................................................... 61
7.2. Aims .............................................................................................................. 61
7.3. Methodology .................................................................................................. 61
7.4. Results........................................................................................................... 62
7.4.1. Boat Dock Survey .................................................................................. 62
7.5. Discussion ..................................................................................................... 62
7.5.1. Boat Dock Survey .................................................................................. 62
8. INCIDENTALS ....................................................................................................... 62
8.1. Introduction .................................................................................................... 62
8.2. Aims .............................................................................................................. 62
8.3. Methodology .................................................................................................. 63
8.4. Results........................................................................................................... 63
8.4.1. Reptiles .................................................................................................. 63
8.4.2. Amphibians ............................................................................................ 64
8.4.3. Mammals (except Primates) ................................................................... 64
8.4.4. Other Mammals: Primates ...................................................................... 65
8.5. Discussion ..................................................................................................... 67
9. TEACHING REPORT ............................................................................................. 68
9.1. Introduction .................................................................................................... 68
9.2. Aims .............................................................................................................. 68
9.3. Method........................................................................................................... 68
9.3.1. Expedition Member training .................................................................... 68
9.3.2. Teaching ................................................................................................ 69
9.4. Results........................................................................................................... 70
9.5. Discussion ..................................................................................................... 70
10. Bibliography ........................................................................................................... 71
11. APPENDIX ............................................................................................................. 75
v
List of Figures
Figure 2-1. Beach distribution of Jaguar tracks, turtle tracks, and dead turtles along the
14.5 miles in Tortuguero National Park. Period: 21st July 12th September 200611 ......... 11
Figure 2-2 Identified number of Jaguar predated turtles recorded in Tortuguero National
Park. Period: 3rd July – 12th September 2006.MMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMM12
Figure 4-1 Seasonal distribution of nests and ½ moons of C. mydas between June 16th
and September 8th 2006.MMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMM26
Figure 4-2 Seasonal distribution of nests and ½ moons of E. imbricata, C. caretta and D.
coriacea from June 16th until September 8th 2006.
..................................................................... MMMMMMMMMMMMMMMM.297
Figure 4-3 Spatial distribution of C. mydas nests and ½ moons between mile 0 and mile
3 1/8 on North Beach of Tortuguero.MMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMM28
Figure 4-4 Spatial distribution of E. imbricata, C. caretta and D. coriacea nests and ½
moons between mile 0 and mile 3 1/8 on North Beach of Tortuguero.MMMMMMM...29
Figure 4-5 Encounter time for all sea turtle species found visiting the North Beach during
night patrol hours.MMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMM30
Figure 4-6 Nesting orientation of the 4 studied species (n=76) on North Beach between
June 16th and September 8th 2006.MMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMM31
Figure 4-7 Green nest fate recorded during morning and night surveys.MMMMMM...33
Figure 4-8 Nest fate of nests marked by triangulation.MMMMMMMMMMMMMM..34
Figure 5-1 Total species and surveys on aquatic trails, Caño Chiquero (CC), Caño
Harold (CH) and Caño Palma (CP) ............................................................................... 43
Figure 5-2 Total species and surveys on the Cleared Areas (CA) and Raphia Trail (RT)
study sites ..................................................................................................................... 44
vi
Figure 5-3 Key species recorded during AM surveys of the Cleared Areas study site ... 44
Figure 5-4 Key species recorded during PM surveys of the Cleared Areas study site .. 45
Figure 5-5 Key species recorded during AM surveys of the Raphia Trail study site ....... 46
Figure 5-6 Key species recorded during PM surveys of the Raphia Trail study site ....... 47
Figure 5-7 Key species recorded during AM surveys of the Caño Harold aquatic trail site
...................................................................................................................................... 48
Figure 5-8 Key species recorded during PM surveys of the Caño Harold aquatic trail ... 49
Figure 5-9 Key species recorded during AM surveys of the Caño Palma aquatic trail ... 50
Figure 5-10 Key species recorded during PM surveys of the Caño Palma aquatic trail . 51
Figure 5-11 Key species recorded during AM surveys of the Caño Chiquero aquatic trail
...................................................................................................................................... 52
Figure 5-12 Migrant species observed during phase 5 in the Cleared Area and Raphia
Trail study sites. MMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMM..54
Figure 6-1 Change in path width at eleven different study sites on the trail MMMMM..59
Figure 8-1 Number of incidental primates recorded around Caño Palma Biological
Station and while traveling on the boat .......................................................................... 66
Figure 8-2 Behaviour frequencies of Incidental primates recorded around Caño Palma
Biological Station and while traveling on the boat .......................................................... 67
vii
List of Tables
Table 4-1 Tags applied by the Caño Palma Sea Turtle Monitoring Program from 9th of
September until 25th of October 2006.MMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMM.. . 31
Table 4-2 Tags removed or destroyed by the Caño Palma Sea Turtle Monitoring
Program from 9th of September until 25th of October 2006........................................... 32
Table 4-3 Green mean carapace length, carapace width and clutch size on the North
Beach between June 15th and September 8th 2006 ..................................................... 32
Table 4-4 Summary of excavation results for one Loggerhead nest (Cc), one
Leatherback nest (Dc) and one Green nest (Cm) on North Beach. MMMMMMMMM35
Table 4-5 Hatchling and emerging success for 53 marked Green turtle nests excavated
from September 9th until December 11th 2006 on North Beach. ................................... 35
Table 4-6 Hatchling and emerging success for 11 unmarked Green turtle nests
excavated from September 9th until December 11th 2006 on North Beach. .................. 36
Table 8-1 Incidental reptiles recorded around Caño Palma Biological Station and while
traveling on the boat ...................................................................................................... 64
Table 8-2 Incidental amphibians recorded around Caño Palma Biological Station and
while traveling on the boat ............................................................................................. 64
Table 8-3 Incidental mammals recorded around Caño Palma Biological Station and while
traveling on the boat ...................................................................................................... 65
viii
2. JAGUAR PREDATION ON MARINE TURTLES
2.1. Introduction
Tortuguero National Park (TNP) is the most important nesting ground in the western
hemisphere for Green Turtles (Chelonia mydas). In addition to the C. mydas there are
also a significant number of Leatherbacks (Dermochelys coriacea) and the occasional
Hawksbill (Eretmochelys imbricata) and Loggerhead (Caretta caretta) (Troëng 2000).
The nesting turtle population has been monitored on the park’s beach since the 1950s
and continues to be monitored today by the Caribbean Conservation Corporation (CCC).
Information on Jaguars (Panthera onca) predating on marine turtle is sparse. In TNP,

and many other areas, marine turtle predation by Jaguars has been recorded
sporadically. 82 C. mydas were identified as being predated by Jaguars in Suriname
from 1963-1973. On the same beach in 1980 one Jaguar killed 13 turtles within only a
few days (Autar, 1994). On the Pacific coast of Costa Rica Jaguars have been recorded
preying upon Olive Ridley Turtles (Lepidochelys olivacea), Black Turtles (Chelonia
agassizii), and E. imbricata. This predation upon turtles by Jaguars is not a new
phenomenon but seems to have been increasing in the past 10 years within TNP
(Troëng 2000; Magally Castro, pers. comm.) Although, there has been much research
done on turtles in TNP, from 1956 to 1995 there were only two C. mydas recorded to be
killed by a Jaguar, one in 1981 and another in 1984 (Carrillo et al. 1994). Weekly walks
on the beach to record the number of dead turtles killed by Jaguars began in 1997 as
part of the Caribbean Conservation Corporation’s (CCC) turtle monitoring programme.
The CCC found four dead C. mydas killed by Jaguars in 1997, 25 in 1998, 22 in 1999,
and two Leatherbacks in 1999 (Troëng 2000).
Due to a lack of human resources the Costa Rican Ministry of Environment and Energy
(MINAE) invited GVI to continue data collection on Jaguar presence and predation of
marine turtles in TNP. Data collection has now been conducted by GVI since 11th July
2005. Together with the data previously collected by MINAE, a more comprehensive
understanding of Jaguar impact on the turtle population of TNP can be developed.
9
2.2. Aim
The Jaguar project aims to document the presence of Jaguar on the beach of
Tortuguero National Park and their predation of nesting marine turtles.
2.3. Methodology
Jaguar surveys are conducted over the 14.5 mile stretch of beach from the entrance of
Tortuguero National Park (mile 3.5) south to Jalova lagoon (mile 18). At least four
surveyors conduct the survey once or twice per week depending on conditions, starting
from either Tortuguero or Jalova at dawn. General data such as date, name of
researchers, and start time is noted at the beginning of the survey. Beach size (distance
from vegetation to high tide mark) is recorded every four miles (at mile 4, 8, 12 and 16)
to give an indication of how much beach was exposed during the previous night. Sand
condition and general weather are also recorded every four miles.
During the survey, researchers count the total number of fresh (one to two nights old)
turtle tracks on the beach, including both half moons (i.e. not nested) and full tracks (i.e.
nested). It should be noted that during the peak of the C. mydas season these numbers
will not be accurate because of the high numbers of turtle tracks present on the beach.
When fresh Jaguar tracks are encountered the direction of the track (north or south) and
location (northern mile marker and GPS coordinates) are recorded. The track is then
followed until it ends (goes into the vegetation or is washed away by the tide) and the
mile marker and GPS coordinates are recorded again. It is also noted if the tracks simply
were lost or if there is a clear entrance or exit point from the beach. As would be
expected intense and prolonged rain, high winds and very dry sand, can reduce the
quality of Jaguar prints making data collection very difficult. As weather conditions vary
throughout the year it is possible data quality will be affected. In order to minimise this
Jaguar surveys are undertaken during and after periods of optimal weather conditions
when possible.
Data is also collected on turtle carcasses killed by Jaguars that have not been previously
recorded. This includes turtle ID number, location (mile marker and GPS coordinates),
species, point of attack, number of nights since kill, parts of turtle eaten, location of
carcass relative to the vegetation, CCL (curved carapace length) and CCW (curved
10
carapace width) when possible, whether the turtle is on its front or back and any other
extra comments/observations. For each turtle a photograph must be taken a few meters
from the turtle with your back to the sea. This picture should include background
vegetation to help identify the turtle in the future if necessary. Photographs of anything
else of interest or out of the ordinary should be taken.
2.4. Results
A total of 10 surveys were conducted between 20 October and 12 December with an

average time of 7 hours and 52 minutes. The longest walk was 10 hours and four
minutes and the shortest was 5 hours and 54 minutes. A total of 61 surveys have been
conducted by GVI since 11 July 2005.
During this phase, 28 C. mydas were killed by Jaguars. The number of separate sets of
Jaguar tracks found during this phase was 71 and a total of 2833.5 turtle tracks were
recorded. Figure 2-1 shows the location of turtle tracks, Jaguar tracks, and turtle
carcasses per half mile.
18
Dead Turtles
Turtle Tracks x 10
16
Jag Tracks
14
12
10
0
4
9
5
5
10
.5
11
.5
12
.5
13
.5
14
.5
15
.5
16
.5
17
.5
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
Mile
Figure 2-1. Beach distribution of Jaguar tracks, turtle tracks, and dead turtles along the 14.5 miles in
Tortuguero National Park. Survey Period: 20 Oct—12 Dec, 2006.
11
During this phase, all of the turtle carcasses were located between miles five and 16 with
a high concentration between miles 4 4/8 and 8. Jaguar tracks ranged between miles 4
4/8 and 18 with the highest concentration between miles and 8 4/8 and 10 4/8 and then
again between 13 4/8 and 16. The turtle carcasses found within the high Jaguar activity
area make up 32% of the total turtle carcasses found. Figure 2-2 shows the number of
killed turtles found each week of this phase.
Dead Turtles Found During Phase 064 per Week Killed
4.5
3.5
3
Number of Dead Turtles
2.5
1.5
0.5
0
Week 36 Week 37 Week 38 Week 39 Week 40 Week 41 Week 42 Week 43 Week 44 Week 45 Week 46
Week of Year
Figure 2-2 Identified number of Jaguar predated turtles recorded in Tortuguero National Park.
rd th
Period: 3 July – 12 September 2006.
Beach conditions this phase made Jaguar track data easier to record. Often there was a
high amount of rain before the walk packing the sand down and making tracks from the
night before or that morning easy to see and follow. However, because of rain during
surveys data collection at times was difficult. On one occasion a walk ended at mile 15
(three miles early) due to rainy conditions.
A high level of Jaguar activity has been recorded during this phase. The National Park
Rangers have reported seeing Jaguars several times over the past couple of months.
On one occasion Jaguar tracks were found on the Gavilan trail very close to Tortuguero.
12
On the 22 November a large Jaguar was seen by GVI near mile 14 (N10 24 02.5
W83 25 15.3) during a Camera Trapping survey. It was lying in an old turtle nest for five
minutes then walked into the vegetation once it noticed the surveyors. The Jaguar was
seen again about 15 minutes later when it went quickly into the vegetation once again.
On a separate Camera Trapping survey a dead turtle was found in the vegetation only a
few hours old. The turtle had been attacked on the neck and was dragged five meters
into the forest but not eaten. Five days later the turtle was found to be dragged further
into the vegetation, flipped on its back and presumably eaten by a Jaguar.
2.5. Discussion
Data collected during Phase 064 from early October to late December includes the end
of the C. mydas season. A high amount of C. mydas tracks were seen on the walks at
the beginning of the phase but numbers fell quickly towards the middle of the phase.
During the last walk only four C. mydas tracks were found. All 28 dead turtles found
were C. mydas. The kills that were very fresh were always found near Jaguar tracks
and many of the turtle carcasses were found in high Jaguar activity areas.
The only animals that are known to kill adult sea turtles are Sharks, Crocodiles, Killer
Whales, and Jaguars (Hirth 1997, Oritz et al. 1997). Because of this any C. mydas
carcasses that showed no sign of being poached were presumed to have been killed by
a Jaguar. The majority of the turtles were found in the open area of the beach (54%),
however a high proportion was also found in the vegetation (32%) and the border (14%).
As previously collected data has shown, Jaguars appear to be consuming only a small
percentage of the turtle meat. In the majority of cases it was found that only the neck
was consumed. This method, by which the Jaguars feed off the turtles, is confirmed by
the video footage obtained by the National Park rangers.
It is not known why Jaguars kill turtles and then eat only a small amount. However, one
hypothesis put forward is that turtles may be used as training for young Jaguars since
they are easy to approach and kill (Schaller 1972, Carrillo, pers. comm.) It may also be
that Jaguars exert such a small amount of energy killing turtles that not much meat is
required to replace the total energy expenditure of the kill (Castro, pers. Comm.; Carrillo,
pers. comm.) There were many other potential Jaguar prey or tracks of prey seen on
13
the beach during the surveys, such as a White-nosed Coati (Nasua narica), Black River
Turtle (Rhinoclemmys funerea), Spider monkeys (Ateles geoffroyi), White-faced
Capuchins (Cebus capucinus) Green Iguanas (Iguana iguana), Great Curassows (Crax
rubra), Red Brocket Deer (Mazama americana), Agouti paca, and Tayra (Eira barbara).
Therefore Jaguars may be on the beach in search of any prey species and not turtles
exclusively. Further research on this topic is needed before any conclusions can be
made.
GVI now has over a year of data collected on the predation of turtles by Jaguars. It is
becoming clear through the data that there is an increase in the predation upon turtles. It
is possible that after many months of working on the project the expedition as a whole
has become better at finding turtles deep in the vegetation. However, this phase there
were 28 predated turtles and during this phase last year only 15 predated turtles were
found. GVI will continue to monitor the number of turtles being predated in future
phases.
3. CAMERA TRAPPING
3.1. Introduction
The Jaguar (Panthera onca) is the third largest felid in the world and the largest in all of
North and South America (Silver 2004). Its range spans from southwestern United
States to northern Argentina (Seymour 1989), however, the current range is less than
50% what it was in 1900 (Sanderson et al. 2002b). The Jaguar is an elusive animal that
has been hunted greatly in the past for its pelt. In 1968 alone, more than 13,000 pelts
were imported to the United States (NatureServe 2006). The demand for Jaguar pelts
has since declined but there are still many clashes between the animal and humans.
Jaguars will occasionally kill farm animals and are hunted by farm owners when they are
considered a problem (Nevarro-Serment 2005). Today the major threats to the Jaguar
are illegal hunting, prey depletion, and habitat destruction and fragmentation (Silver
2004). Jaguars depend upon a variety of ecosystems and need a wide home-range.
Scientists have now started to focus on a range-wide approach to the conservation of
the species. However in order to aid future conservation initiatives of the species a
greater understanding of Jaguar population dynamics is needed (Sanderson et al.
2002b).
14
Very little is known about the population of Jaguars in TNP. The National Park guards
have seen Jaguars on numerous occasions and they are guessing that there are six to
eight individuals currently using the beach. GVI is using photo trapping cameras initially
to identify presence and habits, but in the future they could potentially be used to do a
population study by identifying individuals and using mark/recapture models. Camera
traps have been used before in this way to study tiger (Panthera tigris) populations in
India (Karanth 1995, Karanth & Nichols 1998, 2000, 2002) and to study Jaguar
populations in Central and South America (Silver 2004). We have adopted similar
methods as used by Silver and are currently undertaking field trials.
3.2. Aim
The main aim is to have an estimate of Jaguars using the coastal habitat inside
Tortuguero National Park. In order to do so, we need to identify individual animals.
Specific objectives that can be reached at the same time are 1) to determine the areas
where jaguars are present, 2) to record their hours of activity and habits, 3) to compare
jaguar activity at the different sites along the beach.
3.3. Methodology
3.3.1. Study Site
The beach of TNP is 18 miles long with posts marking every half-mile (the half miles are
marked as 4/8). Tortuguero Village is located at about mile three (the north end of the
beach) and Jalova is located at mile 18 (the south end of the beach). There is a trail
parallel to the beach running from mile 0 to about mile 14 4/8. Along the trail there are
many paths that lead to the beach close to town but get more sparse further south.
Tourists use this trail frequently during the turtle season up to about mile six. During off-
season tourists and local people occasionally use the trail.
3.3.2. General
Cameras are placed in the forest along the edge of the TNP beach. GVI has been
recording data on Jaguar presence on the TNP beach for over a year. The areas of high
activity and known entrance and exit points of Jaguars will be used to assist in selecting
camera sites. There are many things to consider before selecting a camera site. Ideally
the cameras are placed about no more than two miles apart trying to avoid the possibility
15
of a Jaguar having no possibility of being ‘’captured’’ by “holes” left in between camera
locations. When possible, cameras should be placed on paths that will not be used often
by humans in order to avoid theft.
3.3.3. Setting the cameras
The cameras to be used are motion-activated Stealth Cam Model MC2-GWMV. The
mode button needs to be set on the time, not the date stamp. When working with
trapping stations (two cameras per site), one camera will be set on the time and the
other one on the date stamp functions. The cameras will be set at about one meter off
the trail where the jaguar is expected to pass and at 30-60 cm above the ground (Silver
et al. 2004).
The cameras have the capacity to be programmed to activate between one and 60
minutes between motion detection (time-out function). Defining the right number
depends on the level of activity of the given location. Initially, this function will be set on 1
in order to try to “capture” as many animals as possible. This setting can be modified
accordingly to the findings of the trial stage.
The Stealth Cam camera also has a continuous capture feature, meaning it can be
programmed to take between one and nine pictures each time motion is detected. Both
functions can be modified as necessary. During this stage, the cameras will be set at
four, expecting to capture for example a mother with cubs or two individuals travelling
together. The exception is the camera closest to Tortuguero town, which will be set at
two in order to avoid unnecessary human attention caused by the camera flash.
One aim of camera trapping for species with particular markings is to identity individual
animals. In order to do so, two cameras are installed on each side of the trail, as
trapping stations. Due to the limited number of cameras, stations weren’t set at this trial
point, but they will once the cameras are set in January 2007.
Once a location has been found, the camera is secured to a tree or a post using a strap.
After setting the cameras, a tampon is put inside to absorb moisture and the edges of
the camera are sealed with silica gel.
16
3.3.4. Checking the cameras
The cameras will be checked at least once a week to ensure they still function and to
change film as necessary. Depending on the activity level, this can be done more or less
often. Every time, the team needs to bring extra batteries and a sealed container or bag
to carry the role, if needed.
The team needs to keep track of how many trapping nights have passed between the
last time the cameras were checked and the next check. The idea is to have a ratio of
number of pictures taken divided by trapping nights.
When all the film frames are close to being used, the silica gel needs to be cut with the
cutter and the roll needs to be rewound. It should be brought to the station to be
developed and a new film installed in the camera. Make sure the roll is labelled with the
camera location name and date. Once the film has been developed, the information from
the pictures needs to be entered in the data spreadsheet.
3.3.5. Data entering and analysis
Data entering consists of two steps: the data entered after each Camera Walk and the
data to be entered once the film has been developed and the results known.
Data should be entered after each Camera Walk, including:
• Date
• Name of team leader
• Names and location of cameras checked
• Number of pictures taken
After the film has been developed, in the same spreadsheet the following data needs to
be entered in additional columns:
• Date
• Time
• Name of team leader
• Names and location of cameras checked
17
• Comments
3.4. Results
In this phase we have set up cameras at nine different sites. Five roles of film have been
developed with 35 photographs of animals. The two species photographed were the
Black Vulture (Coragyps atratus) and the Great Curassow (Crax rubra). We had a total
of 89 trap nights for all of the cameras combined.
Site one was located 425m before mile 6 4/8. Two cameras were placed there because
a dead turtle was found in the vegetation only hours old and it was presumed the Jaguar
would return. The film was removed after two nights and revealed only photos of
vultures. Three days after the film was removed the cameras were found stolen and the
turtle had been dragged ten meters into the vegetation presumably by the jaguar.
The camera at site two, located 170m before 7 4/8, was up for 11 days. It was put up on
the 16th of November and taken down on the 27th of the same month because it was too
close to a human trail. One photo of a Great Curassow was recorded on November 16th.
The camera at site three, located 420m before 4 4/8, was up for 11 days. It was put up
on the 17th of November and taken down on the 28th of November. There were no
photographs of animals.
The camera at site four, located 15m after mile 12, was left up for five days. It was put
up on the 17th of November and taken down on the 22nd. The camera was put at the
edge of the vegetation in the middle of the path. An old predated turtle was on the beach
near the entrance to the path. No animals were photographed.
Camera site five, located 300m before 16 4/8, was up for five days. It was used from the
17th of November through the 22nd then taken down. No animals were photographed.
Camera site six is located 192m after mile 19. The camera was put up on the 22nd of
November and taken down on the 12th of December. The camera was placed 200m into
the forest facing a trail that runs parallel to the beach.
18
The camera at site seven, 450m after 6 4/8, was put up on the 27th of November and
taken down on the 11th of December. It was placed about five meters into the forest on
an animal trail.
At site eight a camera was put up on the 28th of November 373m before 14 4/8. this
camera was taken down on the 12th of December. The camera was placed 10m into the
vegetation directly behind an old dead turtle.
Site nine has had one camera up since December 4th and it was taken down on the 11th
of December. It was placed five meters after mile six about 18 meters into the
vegetation.
3.5. Discussion
Although no photographs of Jaguars were taken, a great deal was learnt this phase
about site selection and operation of the cameras. We are continuing to develop the
project and will revise our methods before setting up the cameras again. During the next
phase we will set camera stations, although the area covered will be smaller. We will
choose sites less likely to be found by humans. We will also try to camouflage the
cameras and possibly lock them to the tree in some way.
4. SEA TURTLE MONITORING PROGRAMME

4.1. Introduction
Over the past 20 years there has been a huge decline in both Leatherback turtles
(Dermochelys coriacea) (Troëng et al. 2004) and Green turtles (Chelonia mydas)
(Troëng & Ranking 2005) due to overexploitation such as illegal harvesting of their meat
and eggs, as well as fishing, contamination and habitat alteration. The Leatherback turtle
is classified as critically endangered and Green turtles as globally endangered on the
IUCN Red List (IUCN 2003). In addition to the general decline in sea turtles, Tortuguero
and the surrounding areas are continuously developing and thus the need for protection
and conservation of sea turtles and their habitat is growing.
Tortuguero National Park (TNP) was established in 1975 with the main purpose of
protecting sea turtles and the nearby areas of humid lowland forest and beach (A.
Castro, pers. comm.) While its protection is contributing to the stability of sea turtle
19
populations, many beaches surrounding the park are supposedly affected by a high level
of poaching (J. Daigle, pers. comm.). In response to this, COTERC (Canadian
Organization for Tropical Education and Rainforest Conservation) started a five-year
feasibility study in 2004 with the aim of determining nesting populations and poaching
rates of Green turtles and Leatherback turtles on North Beach (the beach just north of
Laguna Tortuguero) and the occasional Hawksbill (Eretmochelys imbricata) and
Loggerhead turtles (Caretta caretta).
In July 2005 GVI joined COTERC in collecting data on the unprotected North Beach. As
well as collaborating with data collection and analysis, GVI and COTERC share data
with the CCC (Caribbean Conservation Corporation) in order to gain more knowledge
about tagged turtles and to compare poaching rates with turtles nesting on the protected
National Park beaches.
4.2. Aim
Based on previous studies conducted by COTERC there is a great amount of illegal

harvest of turtle eggs and to a lesser extent of turtle meat on the North Beach.
By monitoring sea turtle nesting activity on the North Beach we gain information about
the spatial and seasonal distribution of nesting females, the total number of mature
females, the extent of illegal harvest of turtle meat and eggs, as well as natural predation
of nests.
The collected data are intended to be used as a basis for the development of a
conservation project on the North Beach aimed to protect both adult females and nests
of all sea turtle species during future nesting seasons.
All data will be compared with other important nesting sites like the TNP beach.
4.3. Methodology
The methodology used for the marine turtle monitoring program follows the COTERC
and GVI protocol which is adapted from and approved by the CCC.
20
4.3.1. Study site
The North Beach, which encompasses the study area, is 3 1/8 miles long, about five
kilometers, and extends from the Tortuguero River mouth (10º36’36,9”N - 83º31’52,1”W)
at the southernmost point until Laguna Cuatro (10º37’56,3”N – 83º32’25,7”W) in the
north. Although this beach is not located within the TNP boundaries, it is situated within
the Barra del Colorado Wildlife Refuge, which, like the TNP, is managed by ACTo (Area
de Conservación Tortuguero) under MINAE – the Costa Rican Ministry of Environment
and Energy.
The limits of the study area are Mile 0 at the Tortuguero River mouth (10º35’51”N –
83º31’40”W), and Mile 3 1/8 at Laguna Cuatro. The entire study area is divided and
marked with mile markers at each 1/8 of a mile (200 meters) from the south to the north
with ascending numbers. This allows for the documentation of spatial distribution and
density of nests along the beach.
The nearest village to the study beach is San Francisco, situated south of mile 0, a
constantly growing community of about 200 residents. Two hotels, Cabinas Vista al Mar
and Turtle Beach Lodge and a few ranchos and houses are located along the study
beach. On the southern side of the Tortuguero River mouth is Tortuguero beach which
the CCC monitors from mile 0 (10º35’51”N – 83º31’40”W) to mile 18 (10º21’46”N –
83º23’41”W) at Jalova lagoon.
The sand of the study beach is black and fine, typical for a high energy-beach. The width
of the nesting beach platform or berm varies from two to 38 meters, but the configuration
of the shape and size of the berm changes constantly in response to long shore drift and
exposure levels.
The dominant plants on the nesting beach are members of the morning glory family
(Ipomoea pescaprae), Rea-purslane (Sesuvium portulacastrum) and Rush grass
(Sporobolus virginicus). The berm is bordered by a hedgerow of Cocoplum
(Chrysobalanus icaco) and Sea grapes (Coccoloba uvifera) with a mixture of Coconut
palms (Cocos nucifera) and various tropical hardwoods behind.
The beach is littered with a variety of debris including logs, coconut husks and a large
amount of plastics, trash, bottles, etc.
21
4.3.2. Daily track census and nest surveys
Sea turtles found in this area are Leatherback turtles, nesting from March to mid-July,
Green turtles, nesting from June to November, and the occasional Hawksbill and
Loggerhead turtle, both nesting from June to September (Troëng et al. 2004). Surveys
were and are conducted every day and night from March 1st until October 31st 2006.
The daily track surveys start at 6:00 am and last until 8:30 am consisting of walking the
beach between mile 0 and 3 1/8, recording and monitoring tracks and nests from the
night before. The day team identifies tracks as full tracks (turtle nested) or half moons
(non-nesting emergences in which the track takes the form of a parabolic curve), or a
lifted turtle (no tracks going back into the sea). The vertical position of the nest on the
beach is identified either as Open (O – area of beach which receives 100% sunlight),
Border (B - area where nest is partially shaded by vegetation) or Vegetation (V - area
where nest is constantly shaded by vegetation). Nests are then identified as natural (if
remained in its original state), poached (with at least two of the following signs: stick
marks, exposed egg chamber, flies, eggs shells on the sand or human foot prints) or
predated by an animal.
Data is also recorded when encountering dead turtles on the beach. The size, sex, state
of the turtle, and an estimated time of death are recorded. Any obvious sign of an
unnatural death is also recorded such as harpoon marks, machete cuts or blows to the
head and/or limbs and photographs taken. If the turtle had been tagged, the ID number
is recorded and checked against CCC tagging data.
4.3.3. Night surveys
Each night a minimum of one survey team walks the beach between mile 0 and mile 3
1/8 during approximately five hours (21:00 to 02:00).
Since June 5th the survey period was extended by division into two shifts (20:30 to 00:30
and 00:00 to 04:00) whenever the number of expedition members made this possible.
During all of this phase only one patrol per night could be carried out.
The purpose of the night patrols is to collect data from as many turtles as possible.
However, considering that the beach is 3 1/8 miles long and only covered by one night
22
team at any time, except when two teams meet between 00:00 and 00:30, there is a
high possibility that not all turtles are encountered. In this case their tracks are
documented confirming that there are two sets of tracks, one ascending and one
descending the beach, following the same methodology as used for the day protocol.
When encountering a turtle on the beach, the following data is collected: the date, the
time when the track is found, the species, the activity corresponding with a sequence
from 1-8 (1-emerging from the sea, 2-selecting nest site, 3-digging body pit, 4-digging
egg chamber, 5-oviposition, 6-covering egg chamber, 7-camouflaging, 8-returning to the
sea) the initials of each member of the team, the mile marker number and the GPS
position of each nest, the orientation of the nesting turtle (turtle facing North, South, East
or West) and the vertical position of the nest on the beach (Open, Border or Vegetation).
When the nesting process is observed the number of laid eggs including yolkless eggs is
recorded. Any other comments or anomalies observed are noted.
4.3.4. Tagging
Leatherback turtle females are tagged in the membrane located between the tail and the
rear flipper using Monel #49 tags (National Band & Tag Co., Newport, USA). Green,
Hawksbill and Loggerhead turtle females are tagged in the front flippers just before the
primary scale using Inconel #681 tags. Females are only tagged if they lay eggs and
then the tagging takes place while they are covering the egg chamber, camouflaging the
nest or returning to the sea. Evidence of old tags in the flippers like old tag notches
(OTN) or old tag holes (OTH), are recorded, as well as evidence of trauma or parasites
due to old tags.
4.3.5. Biometric Data
During the oviposition process the clutch size (number of eggs) is recorded by hand
using a plastic glove and a manual counter (clicker). Leatherback turtles and in some
cases Green turtles lay both normal and yolkless eggs.
For all turtles found after the oviposition process, the Minimum Curved Carapace Length
and the Maximum Curved Carapace Width are recorded by two people using a 300 cm
fibreglass measuring tape. The measurement is taken three times to allow for precision
and the average of the three measurements is calculated.
23
• Minimum Curved Carapace Length (CCLmin): In Leatherback turtles CCLmin is
measured from the beginning of the carapace on the neck, extending along the
side of the central dorsal ridge, until the tip of the caudal projection. For the three
other species the measurement is taken exactly along the center of the
carapace.
• Maximum Curved Carapace Width (CCW max): Measured at the widest part of
the carapace from one side to the other.
4.3.6. Nest Fate, Nest Survivorship and Hatching success
Samples of nests are marked using triangulation in order to locate the nests five days
after the estimated hatching time or 70 days after the nest was laid for excavation.
Triangulation is conducted during oviposition using three pieces of flagging tape (tags)
which are attached to the vegetation behind the nest. The distance from the center of the
egg chamber to each of these tags is measured to the nearest cm whilst the turtle is
laying eggs. The distance to the most recent high tide line is also recorded. Triangulation
allows finding the location of the egg chamber where the three tag lines cross when the
nest is due to be excavated. Three tags are used to compensate for the loss of any
points of reference. If one tag is lost it is still possible to locate the nest using the other
two tags.
Marked nests are excavated five days after hatching, whereas if there are no signs of
hatching, excavation takes place five days after the average incubation period for each
of the species. Leatherback turtle nests are therefore excavated 75 days after they had
been laid, while Green, Hawksbill and Loggerhead turtle nests are excavated 70 days
after the date they had been laid. This report includes all nest fate and excavation data
collected until the 11th of December 2006.
In addition, all nests found hatching on the beach during morning or night surveys are
excavated five days after the first hatchling tracks are encountered.
For all excavations the number of live and dead hatchlings, egg shells accounting for
more than 50% of an egg, unhatched eggs with no sign of development, unhatched eggs
with embryos and depredated eggs by crabs or other animals are counted and recorded.
24
For all accurately marked and measured nests a nest fate is determined. Nests which
are not marked or measured correctly, or for which more than one reference is lost are
excluded from analysis. The following nest fate categories are applied: hatched,
poached, predated, eroded and flooded. Empty egg chambers are classified as poached
nests. If there is any doubt about the fate of a nest it is categorized as unknown.
During all excavations the bottom depth of nests, which is the depth measured from the
surface to the bottom of the nest after all eggs have been removed, is measured using a
stick and a 1,50 m fiber glass measuring tape.
4.4. Results
Night data from this phase was collected from September 9th until October 25th whereas
morning surveys were carried out until October 31st.
The total numbers of morning and night surveys undertaken were 52 and 47,
respectively.
During daily track census a total of 312 miles were walked in a total of 97 hours and 12
minutes, taking an average of one hour and 52 minutes to complete the 3 3/8 miles per
census (including 2/8 of a mile of backtracking to Mile 0). Meanwhile, the night surveys
covered 258 3/8 miles and were completed in a total of 193 hours and 20 minutes,
taking an average of four hours and six minutes to walk an average of five miles per
night.
Without taking into consideration the half moons and dead turtles, 29.5% (n=44) of the
turtles that came to the beach to nest were seen during night patrols this phase. The
remaining 70.5% (n=105) were from tracks found but no turtle seen during both nights
patrols and the daily track census. Only 11 turtles were observed doing a half moon.
The tracks encountered on the North Beach this phase were identified as Green,
Hawksbill, Loggerhead and Leatherback turtles. A total of 367 tracks were observed,
divided into 149 nests and 218 half moons. The nests were 98.66% Green (n=147) and
1.34% Hawksbill (n=2) whereas no Loggerhead or Leatherback nests were found during
25
this phase. Regarding the vertical distribution of Green turtles nesting on the beach
36.54% were seen in the open area (n=19), 36.54% on the border (n=19) and 26.92% in
the vegetation (n=14). (There was no information regarding the vertical position for one
Green turtle). The two Hawksbill nests were both located in the vegetation.
The seasonal distribution of nests and half moons of Green turtles is shown in Figure 4-
1, for Hawksbill turtles in Figure 4-2 respectively.
80
70
60
50
Cm Nests
40
Cm 1/2 Moons
30
20
10
0
Sept 9-14 Sept 15-22 Sept 23-30 Oct 1-8 Oct 9-16 Oct 17-24 Oct 25-31
th
Figure 4-1. Seasonal distribution of nests and half moons of Green turtles between September 9
st
and October 31 2006.
26
3.5
2.5
2
Ei Nests
Ei 1/2
Moons
1.5
0.5
0
Sept 23-30 Oct 1-8 Oct 9-16
Figure 4-2. Seasonal distribution of nests and half moons of Hawksbill turtles between September
9th and October 31st 2006.
Most Green turtle nests were recorded in September (n=110) which also accounted for
the highest number of half moons (n=172). In October 37 Green turtle nests and 41 half
moons were found on North Beach.
Hawksbill turtles nested in the period from 23rd of September until 16th of October
accounting for a total of two nests and five half moons.
Figure 4-3 demonstrates the spatial distribution of nests and half moons of Green turtles,
while figure 4-4 shows the spatial distribution for Hawksbill turtles.
27
30
25
20
Cm 1/2 Moon
15
Cm Nest
10
0
1/8
2/8
3/8
4/8
5/8
6/8
7/8
1 1/8
1 2/8
1 3/8
1 4/8
1 5/8
1 6/8
1 7/8
2 1/8
2 2/8
2 3/8
2 4/8
2 5/8
2 6/8
2 7/8
3 1/8
0
3
Beach Location (Mile)
Figure 4-3. Spatial distribution of nests and half moons of Green turtles between September 9th and
October 31st 2006.
Regarding the spatial distribution of Green turtle nests on North Beach Mile 2 7/8
accounted for the highest number of nests (n=16) followed by Mile 4/8 and 5/8 (both
n=14). Green ½ moons peaked at Mile 5/8 (n=25), followed by 6/8 (n=20) and Mile 1 1/8
(n=18).
28
2,5
1,5
Ei 1/2 Moon
Ei Nest
0,5
0
1/8
2/8
3/8
4/8
5/8
6/8
7/8
1 1/8
1 2/8
1 3/8
1 4/8
1 5/8
1 6/8
1 7/8
2 1/8
2 2/8
2 3/8
2 4/8
2 5/8
2 6/8
2 7/8
3 1/8
0
3
Beach Location (Mile)
Figure 4-4. Spatial distribution of nests and half moons of Hawksbill turtles between September 9th
and October 31st 2006.
Hawksbill turtle activity was recorded between Mile 2/8 and 1 2/8 (two nests and two ½
moon) as well as between Mile 2 5/8 and 2 7/8 (3 ½ moons).
4.4.2. Monitoring of female turtles
During the night surveys, 52 female sea turtles were observed during six out of eight
possible nesting activity processes (for three turtles seen no activity information had
been collected). 11.1% were emerging from the sea (n=6), 33.3% were digging the body
pit (n=17), 7.4% were digging the egg chamber (n=4), 13% were in the oviposition
process (n=7), 22.2% were disguising the nest (n=11) and finally, 13% were returning to
the sea (n=7). No dead turtles were found on North Beach during this phase.
The earliest turtle coming to the beach at night was found at 20:30 (n=1), while the latest
turtles were registered at 3:00 in the morning (n=1). The peak nesting activity occurred
at 22:30 corresponding to a total of eight turtles encountered at this time during the night
patrols. See figure 4-5.
29
9
Turtles
4
0
20:30 21:00 21:30 22:00 22:30 23:00 23:30 0:00 0:30 1:00 1:30 2:00 2:30 3:00
Figure 4-5 Encounter time for all sea turtle species (n=52) found visiting the North Beach during
night patrol hours (for three turtles seen no information had been collected regarding the encounter
time).
Out of 32 females for which information was collected regarding the orientation during
oviposition, 28.1% (n=9) were facing West, 25% were orientated towards Northwest
(n=8), 18.7% South (n=6), 9.4% both North and Southwest (each n=3), 6.3% East (n=2)
and 3.1% Northeast (n=1), none facing Southeast (n=0). See figure 4-6.
30
North
30
25
NW NE
20
15
10
West 0 East Turtles (%)
SW SE
South
Figure 4-6 Nesting orientation of Green and Hawksbill turtles (n=32) recorded on North Beach
between September 9th and October 31st 2006.
4.4.3. Tagging
Of the total females for which information regarding their tags was collected during the
night patrols (n=46), 56.5% were already tagged (n=26), whereas 36.96% (n=17) were
newly tagged out of which 6.52% (n=3) showed old tag holes or old tag notches. The
tags applied by the Caño Palma Sea Turtle Monitoring Program from September 9th until
October 25th are shown in table 3-1. Numbers of removed or destroyed tags are listed in
table 3-2.
Furthermore one previously tagged and one untagged Hawksbill turtle were encountered
on North Beach during night patrols.
CP0126 CP0179-CP0184 CP0199-CP0202

CP0139-CP0143 CP0186-CP0189 CP0205-CP0208
CP0145-CP0146 CP0191-CP0192 CP0210-CP0213
CP0160-CP0161 CP0194-CP0195
Table 4-1 Tags applied by the Caño Palma Sea Turtle Monitoring Program from 9th of September
until 25th of October 2006.
31
88231 removed + recovered CP0196 destroyed - not recovered
CP0185 removed + recovered CP0197 destroyed + recovered
CP0193 destroyed + recovered CP0209 destroyed + recovered
Table 4-2 Tags removed or destroyed by the Caño Palma Sea Turtle Monitoring Program from 9th of
September until 25th of October 2006.
Four tags with the numbers 96968, 96969,104480 and 105163 were given to the station
from turtles which had been killed in San Francisco.
A total of five Green turtles nested twice on North beach from 9th of September until 25th
of October 2006. For three turtles the inter-nesting interval was an average of nine days
long while two turtles nested an average of 22.5 days apart.
4.4.4. Biometric data
The mean carapace length, carapace width and clutch size (fertile and infertile eggs) of
Green turtles for which this information could be collected is shown in the Table 3-3. The
mean carapace length of newly tagged individuals with no evidence of previous tags
(OTH or OTN) was 103.1 cm (n=17), whereas the mean carapace width was 92.86 cm
(n=17). Newly tagged Greens with old tag holes or old tag notches had a mean
carapace length of 104.7 cm (n=3) and a mean carapace width of 96.29 cm (n=3).
Previously tagged Greens averaged at a carapace length of 106.2 cm (n=17) and a
carapace width of 96.53 cm (n=3.08).The average number of fertile eggs was 116.1 for
newly tagged Green females (n=12) with no signs of previous tagging and 117 for newly
tagged Greens with old tag holes or old tag notches (n=3). Previously tagged Greens
laid an average number of 98.13 eggs per clutch (n=9).
CCL min (cm) CCW max (cm) Number of Eggs

Green turtles x
n x  n n x 

Newly tagged Green no OTH/OTN 17 103.1 ± 4.17 17 92.86 ± 3.5 12 116.1 ± 19.58
Newly tagged Green with OTH/OTN 3 104.7 ± 0.73 3 96.29 ± 3.57 2 117 ± 36.1
98.13
Previously tagged Green 9
17 106.2 ± 2.81 16 96.53 ± 3.08 
Table 4-3. Green turtle mean carapace length, carapace width and clutch size on North Beach from
9th of September until 25th of October 2006.
32
One previously tagged Hawksbill turtle was encountered doing a half moon during the
study period. No data could be collected regarding size or number of eggs.
4.4.5. Turtle disease or injuries
Disease and injury related information was not analyzed for this phase.
4.4.6. Monitoring of nests
Out of 126 nests, for which a nest fate was determined during night and morning surveys
45.24% seemed to be left in their natural state without any signs of poaching, erosion or
predation (n=57). Based on at least two evidences such as human foot prints, stick
marks, flies, egg shells and/or an exposed egg chamber, the remaining 54.76% (n=69)
of nests were classified as poached, two of which were Hawksbill turtle nests while 67
were Green turtle nests. See figure 4-7.
45%
natural nests
55% poached nests
Figure 4-7 Nest fate recorded during morning and night surveys on North Beach from 9th of
September until 25th of October 2006.
33
4.4.7. Nest Fate of nests marked by triangulation
A total of 62 triangulated and marked nests were due to be dug up within the time frame
analyzed in this report from the 9th of September until the 11th of December 2006. Nine
nests could not be found because of inaccurate measurements (n=2) or lost tags (n=7),
these nests were excluded from analysis. 53 nests were located using the
measurements taken, out of which 64.15% (n=34) of nests were “empty” (some nests
contained one to a few eggs or eggshells) and therefore classified as poached. 32.08%
of nests (n=17) had hatched while 3.77% (n=2) of nests contained the full clutch of eggs
but did not hatch, both of the latter were excavated. See table 4-4 for a summary of
excavation results and figure 4-8 for nest fate of marked nests.
4%
32%
Hatched and Excavated

Poached
Eggs present but did not hatch
64%
Figure 4-8. Nest fate results of marked nests from September 9th until December 11th 2006.
4.4.8. Excavation Results, Hatching and Emerging success
During morning patrols from September 10th until October 31st 2006 a total of 12 sets of
hatchling tracks were found on North Beach for 11 of which the position of the nest could
be located. These 11 Green turtle nests, all of which had not been triangulated, were
34
excavated a minimum of five days after the tracks had been encountered and the data
collected is summarized in Table 4-5.
Out of 62 nests marked by triangulation, 53 could be located using the measurements

and reference points taken. 19 of these nests contained a full clutch of eggs and their
content was excavated and analyzed. See Table 4-4 for a summary of the data recorded
during excavations of all nests, unmarked and marked.
Unhatched
# of Alive Dead Shells Yolkless Unhatched Total
without Depredated Unknown
nests Hatchlings Hatchlings >50% Eggs with Embryo Eggs
Embryo
30 6 3 2898 9 111 104 373 76 3562
Table 4-4. Summary of excavation results for 30 Green turtle nests on North Beach from September
9th until December 11th 2006.
For 23 nests the bottom depth of the egg chamber was measured during the nest
excavations. The calculated average nest depth accounted for 67.57 cm (n=23).
The incubation period could not be calculated as none of the marked nests was
observed hatching.
See table 4-5 for hatching and emergence success of the 53 marked nests excavated on
North Beach.
n Fate Eggs total Shells total Hatching Emerging

success (%) success
(%)
17 hatched 2006 1823 90.89 90.58
34 poached 3712 0 0 0
2 unhatched 283 0 0 0
53 Total 6001 1823 30.38 30.28
Table 4-5. Hatching and emerging success for 53 marked Green turtle nests excavated from
September 9th until December 11th 2006 on North Beach. Note: For nests of which the number of
eggs laid was unknown, the average number of eggs per clutch (x = 120) was used to calculate
hatching and emergence success.
35
Hatching and emerging success for marked hatched nests were almost equal at 90.89%
and 90.58% (n=17) respectively. Overall, triangulated nests accounted for 30.38%
hatching and 30.28% (n=53) success.
Table 4-6 shows hatching and emerging success for 11 nests which were observed
hatching during morning and night patrols. As the number of eggs is unknown for those
nests, the average clutch size of 120 eggs was used for analysis.
n Fate Eggs total Shells total Hatching Emerging

success (%) success (%)
11 Hatched 1320 1075 81.44 81.21
Table 4-6. Hatching and emerging success for 11 unmarked Green turtle nests excavated from
September 9th until December 11th 2006 on North Beach.
The 11 nests found hatching reached a hatching success of 81.44% and an emerging
success of 81.21%.
4.5. Discussion
The study period from September 9th until October 31st 2006 reflects two months of the
Green turtle nesting season which on the Caribbean coast of Costa Rica ranges from
June to November. Thus this report does not represent the entire Green turtle nesting
season.
The seasonal distribution of Green turtle tracks shows September as a month of high
nesting activity with 110 nests recorded from September 9th until September 30th 2006.
October reflects the end of the nesting season with a comparatively low nesting activity
resulting in a total number of 37 nests from October 1st to October 31st 2006.
The only other sea turtle species visiting North Beach during this phase was the
Hawksbill turtle. Seven tracks resulted in two nests and five half moons, the last track of
the season being encountered on October 16th 2006.
Regarding the spatial distribution of sea turtle nests on North beach during the study
period, Green turtles preferred the following sectors: Mile 4/8, Mile 5/8, Mile 1 2/8 and
36
Mile 2 7/8, whereas Hawksbill turtle tracks also peaked in two of the latter sectors, Mile 1
2/8 and Mile 2 7/8.
4.5.2. Monitoring of female turtles
Nesting activity, reflecting the encounter time of sea turtles on North Beach, peaked at
22:30 with a continuous high nesting activity until 1:30 am, which was the approximate
end time of night patrols during this phase. Only one nightly patrol was carried out from
September 9th until October 25th 2006. As observed during the previous study period
from June 15th until September 9th 2006, Green turtle nesting activity remains high until
at least 3 am. For this reason it should be aimed for maintaining the night patrols in two
shifts (20:30 to 00:30 and 00:00 to 04:00) throughout the peak nesting season.
The favoured orientation of sea turtles while nesting on North Beach was West and
Northwest with 28.1% and 25% respectively, reflecting an orientation towards the
vegetation.
No dead turtles were found on North Beach from September 9th until October 31st 2006
but the project received four tags of Green turtles which had been killed in San
Francisco.
The killing of adult sea turtles causes a major impact on nesting populations by reducing
the number of adult females who can live for about 19 years beyond maturity until 45-59
years. It is estimated that an adult Green turtle produces 1900-2300 eggs and 1000-
1900 hatchlings in her lifetime (Sea Turtles, Spotila J.R., 2004). It should be of highest
priority to stop the killing of sea turtles in the Tortuguero area by involving the local
authorities when such events occur. Collaboration with both the CCC (Caribbean
Conservation Corporation) and MINAE should be aimed for to reduce the slaughter.
4.5.3. Biometric data
During this study period the biometric data collected on nesting female Green turtles
matches the expected pattern of an ongoing tagging program for the first time. Newly
tagged turtles without signs of previous tags accounted for the smallest carapace length
and width, whereas previously tagged turtles had the largest carapace measurements
for CCL and CCW. Newly tagged turtles with old tag holes or old tag notches were of
37
intermediate size, their measurements lying in between the CCL and CCW
measurements recorded for the other two turtle categories.
Possibly these results are the outcome of the continuous tagging effort throughout the
Green turtle nesting season increasing the number of tagged re-nesting turtles. This is
also reflected in the overall higher percentage of previously tagged turtles during this
study period (56.5%) compared to the previous phase (44%). The smallest size of newly
tagged turtles without OTN or OTH indicates that these turtles might be neophytes in
their first year of nesting.
4.5.4. Monitoring of nests
Illegal poaching of sea turtle nests was recorded throughout the entire study period.
During beach patrols a minimum of 54.76% of nests were classified as poached
including both of two Hawksbill nests. Compared to 64.15% of poaching of marked nests
by triangulation, the above numbers underestimate the actual poaching rate.
The results of this study period show that the accuracy of triangulation measurements
has improved throughout the sea turtle nesting season, whereas the loss or removal of
triangulation tags seems to be an ongoing problem.
Nests of critically endangered Hawksbill turtles need to be protected by all means,

therefore nest protection measures such as nest relocations should be implemented in
future nesting seasons.
Regarding the globally endangered Green turtles, North Beach receives less than 1 % of
the Tortuguero Green turtle population of nesting females. Their peak nesting occurs on
Tortuguero Beach, where estimated nest numbers range from about 40,000 to about
160,000 nests per season on 23 miles of beach from the Tortuguero River mouth to the
Jalova lagoon. Green turtle nest protection should be aimed for on North Beach, but in
this case the situation of the local community regarding their dependence on sea turtle
eggs together with the lack of control by the local authorities make this approach a highly
sensitive one. Therefore finding sources of alternative income as well as raising
awareness within the local community together with collaborating with local authorities
should hopefully help to decrease poaching of adult turtles and sea turtle eggs. The
38
implementation of a sustainable sea turtle conservation program on North Beach should
be aimed for as soon as possible.
4.5.5. Excavation results, hatching and emerging success
The hatching and emerging success of hatched, marked nests recorded on North Beach
is high at 90.89% and 90.58% (n=17) respectively. These numbers are higher than
those recorded for undisturbed, marked nests excavated on Tortuguero Beach by the
CCC (Unpublished Report on the 2005 Green turtle program by the Caribbean
Conservation Corporation) with 82.8% hatching and 80.5% emerging success (n=151).
Regarding hatching and emerging success of 11 unmarked nests observed hatching, the
obtained numbers of 81.44% and 81.21% are closer to the results of Tortuguero Beach
than to the success rates of marked, hatched nests on North Beach.
The overall hatching and emerging success on North Beach is extremely low due to a
high number of poached nests with 30.38% and 30.28% respectively (n=53). Compared
to an overall hatching success of 70.7% and an overall emerging success of 68.1%
recorded on Tortuguero Beach by the CCC, the success rates of sea turtle nests on
North Beach are preoccupying. These results should be a strong enough reason to call
for protective measures, e.g. patrolling of North Beach, by the local authorities during
future sea turtle nesting seasons.
5. EBCP RESIDENT BIRD PROJECT1

5.1. Introduction
Over the past 40 years northeast Costa Rica has been under much scientific focus due
to its extensive primary lowland and coastal rainforests and also the largest nesting
colony for the endangered Green Turtle (Chelonia mydas). Because of the geographical
1
The information in the introduction and methodology of this section of the report has been
directly taken from the protocol developed by Steven Furino. Some adaptations have been made
where field experience has identified more suitable ways of undertaking the research.
39
location, a large amount of investigation into the migratory avifauna of the New World
has also been conducted in this part of Costa Rica.
Though quite a bit is known about Costa Rican birds, and in particular the migratory
species that either winter in Costa Rica or pass through, an astonishing amount remains
to be learned about the residential species. Because of this and the growing concerns
about the status of birds of the rainforests in Mesoamerica, this long-term monitoring
program has been established in the area of Tortuguero. Estación Biológica Caño Palma
(EBCP) is based 7km north of Tortuguero National Park on the Caño Palma canal that
runs parallel to the coast.
This protocol is intended to gather data that will shed light on the natural history of
resident birds as well as the migratory species in several different habitats using area
searches, point counts.
The GVI protocol is a slight modification of the protocol created by Steven Furino, of
Waterloo University Canada, to take into account the use of a number of different
recorders. In all other aspects the research follows the original protocol.
5.2. Aim
This research program is intended to accumulate data that will allow researchers to
answer, at least in part, the following questions.
• How frequently do pelagic species visit the Caribbean Coast? Is there any
pattern to their visits?
• When, exactly, do resident birds breed in coastal areas and swamp forests?
• What can be learned about the breeding and nesting behaviour of resident birds?
• Are breeding activities and climate correlated?
5.3. Method
This project has adopted standard survey techniques so that suitable comparisons can
be made against data sets gathered by other researchers.
For each Resident Bird Project (RBP) survey the following general data is recorded:
40
• Name of study site • Rainfall
• Name of surveyors • Leaf Drip
• Date of survey • Start time (using a 24 hour clock)
• Cloud cover • End time (using a 24 hour clock)
• Ground moisture
For further information on the categories used to assess climatic conditions see
appendix A.
5.3.1. Point Counts
A point count survey records all species seen or heard in a 10 minute period at a
predetermined location. Point counts are conducted in conjunction with area searches.
See appendix B for exact locations for each point count station.
Point counts allow researchers to use statistical techniques to assess the density of bird
populations.
Surveyors record all study species positively identified in an exact 10 minute span. The
point stations are not left during this period unless it aids in the identification of a bird.
For each positive record made the following data should be collected:
• Point count station at which species was observed

• Time at which species was first recorded
• Number seen or heard (S: seen only, H: heard only, SH: seen and heard)
• Distance from observers (0-10m, 11-25m, 26-50m, 50m +)
• Height within habitat (G: ground, L: Low, M: Medium, H: High, A: Arial)
• When possible, the number of males, the number of females and the number of
sub-adults/adults
• Any notes on breeding plumage or behavior
Examples of behaviors which are recorded include: courtship displays, nest building,
copulation, and feeding young (see appendix C for further details). For this protocol, only
behaviors that are strongly correlated with probable or confirmed breeding are recorded.
41
5.3.2. Area Searches
An area search records all species seen or heard while searching a predetermined area.
See appendix B for exact locations of each area.
Within each area, sectors have been selected to aid with data collection and analysis.
These sectors have been selected on various habitat variables and enable a similar unit
effort to be used on all surveys.
For each area search as with the point counts only positively identified species are
recorded. For each positive record made the following data was collected:
• Station code at which species was observed

• Time at which species was first recorded
• Number seen or heard (S: seen only, H: heard only, SH: seen and heard)
• Distance from observers (0-10m, 11-25m, 26-50m, 50m +)
• Height within habitat (G: ground, L: Low, M: Medium, H: High, A: Arial)
• When possible, the number of males, the number of females and the number of
subadults/ adults
• Any notes on breeding plumage or behaviour
5.3.3. Incidental Observations
An incidental observation is an observation made while one is not engaged specifically

in area searches or point counts. Incidental observations cover all of the other times of
day and night when birds might be observed. Only species that have been classed as
rare or vagrant in the Widdowson and Widdowson – Tortuguero species checklist 2004
were recorded.
5.4. Results
5.4.1. Survey Data
During Phase 064 a total of 58 RBP surveys were undertaken. Of these 10 were
undertaken on the Cleared Areas study site (6 AM surveys and 4 PM surveys), 20 were
undertaken on the Raphia Trail (10 AM surveys and 10 PM surveys), eight were
undertaken on the Caño Palma (5 AM surveys and 3 PM surveys) and on the Aquatic
42
trails (Caño Harold and Chiquero), were undertaken a total of 20 – (17 AM surveys and
3 PM surveys) A total of 83 species were recorded within the Cleared Areas study site, a
total of 56 species were recorded within the Raphia Trail Study Site, a total of 14 species
on the Caño Palma Study Site, and on the Aquatic trails a total of 16 species.
25
20
15
Nº Surveys
Nº Species
10
0
CC CH CP
Figure 5-1 Total species and surveys on aquatic trails, Caño Chiquero (CC), Caño Harold (CH) and
Caño Palma (CP).
43
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
Baltimore Oriole
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
Blackburnian Warbler
Black-crowned Tityra
Blue Grosbeak
Brown-capped Tyrannulet
Buff-throated Saltator
Gray-capped Flycatcher
Laughing Falcon
Lineated Woodpecker
Magnificent Frigatebird
Northern Barred-Woodcreeper
Pink-billed Seed-Finch
Purple-crowned Fairy
Red-eyed Vireo
Roadside Hawk
Rose-breasted Grosbeak
Short-billed Pigeon
CA
Streak-headed Woodcreeper
Stripe-breasted Wren
Stripe-throated Hermit
Swainson’s Thrush
Tropical Pewee
Violet-crowned Woodnymph
White-breasted Wood-Wren
White-fronted nunbird
Yellow-bellied Elaenia
Yellow-margined Flycatcher
Gray-cheeked Thrush
Masked Tityra
Peregrine Falcon
Ringed Kingfisher
Bright-rumped Attila
Social Flycatcher
Bare-throated Tiger-Heron
Thick-billed Seed-Finch
White-necked Jacobin
Broad-winged Hawk
Squirrel Cuckoo
Cinnamon Becard
44
White-crowned Parrot
Barn Swallow
White-ringed flycatcher
Yellow-olive Flycatcher
Scarlet Tanager
Slaty-tailed Trogon
RT
Cleared Areas AM Surveys

Black-cowled Oriole
Yellow Warbler
Purple-throated Fruitcrow
Long-billed Hermit
Passerini's Tanager
Black Vulture
Summer Tanager
Black-cheeked Woodpecker
Bay Wren
Keel-billed Toucan
Bronzy Hermit
Turkey Vulture
Olive-backed Euphonia
Great Crested Flycatcher
Boat-billed Flycatcher
White-collared Manakin
Common Tody-Flycatcher
Golden-hooded Tanager
Montezuma Oropendola
Black-mandibled Toucan
Figure 5-3 Key species recorded during AM surveys of the Cleared Areas study site
Olive-throated Parakeet
Rufous-tailed Hummingbird
Tropical Kingbird
Lesser Greenlet
Palm Tanager
Blue-gray Tanager
House Wren
Nº Surveys
Nº Species
Chestnut-sided Warbler
Great Kiskadee
Black-striped Sparrow
Clay-colored Robin
Figure 5-2 Total species and surveys on the Cleared Areas (CA) and Raphia Trail (RT) study sites
Blue-black Grassquit
Eastern Wood-Pewee
Collared Aracari
Variable Seedeater
For the Cleared Areas AM survey the top five species were: Variable Seedeater
(Sporophila americana), Collared Aracari (Pteroglossus torquatus), Eastern Wood-
Pewee (Contopus virens) and equal fifth were Golden-hooded Tanager (Tangara
larvata), Clay-colored Robin (Turdus grayi) and Blue-black Grassquit (Volatinia jacarina).
The rare species observed during the Cleared Areas AM survey were: Yellow-margined
Flycatcher (Tolmomyias assimilis), Black-crowned Tityra (Tityra inquisitor), Purple-
crowned Fairy (Heliothryx barroti) and Roadside Hawk (Buteo magnirostris).
Cleared Areas PM Surveys
14
12
10
Golden-hooded Tanager
Yellow-crowned Euphonia
Streak-headed Woodcreeper
Variable Seedeater
Blue-gray Tanager
Slaty-tailed Trogon
Passerini's Tanager
Scarlet Tanager
Boat-billed Flycatcher
Black-cheeked Woodpecker
Olive-backed Euphonia
Black-cowled Oriole
Clay-colored Robin
Montezuma Oropendola
Eastern Wood-Pewee
Black-striped Sparrow
Lesser Greenlet
Masked Tityra
Red-capped Manakin
Great Kiskadee
Turkey Vulture
White-collared Manakin
Baltimore Oriole
Blue-black Grassquit
Squirrel Cuckoo
Tropical Kingbird
Long-billed Hermit
Black Vulture
Northern Waterthrush
Bay Wren
Figure 5-4 Key species recorded during PM surveys of the Cleared Areas study site
For the PM survey the top five species were: Variable Seedeater (Sporophila
americana), Eastern Wood-Pewee (Contopus virens), Montezuma Oropendola
(Psarocolius montezuma), Great Kiskadee (Pitangus sulphuratus) and Golden-hooded
Tanager (Tangara larvata).
The rare species observed during the Cleared Areas PM survey were Yellow-crowned
Euphonia (Euphonia luteicapilla).
45
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
Blue-gray Tanager
Chestnut-mandibled toucan
virens).
Great tinamou
Prothonotary Warbler
Ringed Kingfisher
Spotted Woodcreeper
Tropical Pewee
Turkey Vulture
Wedge-billed Woodcreeper
Clay-colored Robin
Golden-crowned Spadebill
Bay Wren
Plain-brown Woodcreeper
Brown Jay
Red-capped Manakin
Red-eyed Vireo
Rufescent Tiger-Heron
Cinnamon Woodpecker
Wood Thrush
Yellow-throated Vireo
Northern Barred-
Olive-throated parakeet
46
Gray-necked Wood-Rail
Great Blue Heron
Raphia Trail AM Surveys
Green Ibis
Slaty-tailed Trogon
Checker-throated Antwren
Violet-crowned Woodnymph
Bright-rumped attila
and Spotted Woodcreeper (Xiphorhynchus erythropygius).

Western Slaty-Antshrike
Montezuma oropendola
Bicolored Antbird
Long-billed Hermit
Figure 5-5 Key species recorded during AM surveys of the Raphia Trail study site
Mealy Parrot
White-Breasted Wood-Wren
White-flanked Antwren
Eastern Wood-Pewee
Chestnut-backed antbird
White-Collared Manakin
Olive-backed euphonia
Collared Aracari
Lesser Greenlet
The rare species observed during the AM survey on the Raphia Trail were: Yellow-
The top five species observed in the AM Raphia trail survey were: Lesser Greenlet
Cinnamon Woodpecker (Celeus loricatus), Rufescent Tiger-Heron (Tigrisoma lineatum)

margined Flycatcher (Tolmomyias assimilis), Green Ibis (Mesembrinibis cayennensis),
Chestnut-backed antbird (Myrmeciza exsul) and Eastern Wood-Pewee (Contopus
Euphonia (Euphonia gouldi), White-Collared Manakin (Manacus candei) and equal fifth
(Hylophilus decurtatus), Collared Aracari (Pteroglossus torquatus), Olive-backed
Raphia Trail PM Surveys
18
16
14
12
10
0
Olive-throated parakeet

Brown-hooded Parrot
Rufescent Tiger-Heron
Tropical Pewee
Slaty-tailed Trogon
Olive-backed euphonia
Montezuma oropendola
Paltry Tyrannulet
Collared Aracari
Eastern Wood-Pewee
Mealy Parrot
Red-capped Manakin
Keel-billed toucan
Red-lored Parrot
Lesser Greenlet
Green Kingfisher
Wedge-billed Woodcreeper
White-flanked Antwren
Chestnut-mandibled toucan
Chestnut-backed antbird
Great tinamou
Squirrel Cuckoo
Bicolored Antbird
Western Slaty-Antshrike
Green Ibis
Long-billed Hermit
Wood Thrush
White-Breasted Wood-Wren
Figure 5-6 Key species recorded during PM surveys of the Raphia Trail study site
The top five species observed in the PM Raphia trail survey were: Montezuma
oropendola (Psarocolius montezuma), Collared Aracari (Pteroglossus torquatus),
Chestnut-backed antbird (Myrmeciza exsul), Lesser Greenlet (Hylophilus decurtatus)
and equal fifth Red-lored Parrot (Amazona autumnalis) and White-Breasted Wood-Wren
(Henicorhina leucosticta)
The rare species observed during the PM survey on the Raphia Trail were: the Yellow-
margined Flycatcher (Tolmomyias assimilis), Green Ibis (Mesembrinibis cayennensis)
and Rufescent Tiger-Heron (Tigrisoma lineatum).
47
Caño Harold AM Surveys
60
50
40
30
20
10
Bare-throated Tiger-
Yellow-crowned
Green-Backed Heron
Green-and-rufous
Gray-necked Wood-
Green Kingfisher
Great Blue Heron
Boat-Billed Heron
Northern jacana
Snowy Egret
Little Blue Heron

Amazon Kingfisher
Ringed Kingfisher
Cattle Egret
American Pygmy
Green Ibis
Osprey
Agami Heron
Sungrebe
Anhinga
Night-Heron
Kingfisher
Kingfisher
heron
Rail
Figure 5-7 Key species recorded during AM surveys of the Caño Harold aquatic trail
The top five species observed in the AM Caño Harold aquatic trail surveys were: Little
Blue Heron (Egretta caerulea), Green-Backed Heron (Butorides virescens), Green
Kingfisher (Chloroceryle americana), Bare-throated Tiger-heron (Tigrisoma mexicanum)
and Northern jacana (Jacana spinosa).
The rare species observed during the AM survey on the Caño Harold aquatic trail were
two Green Ibis (Mesembrinibis cayennensis) on separate days and an Agami Heron
(Agamia agami).
48
Caño Harold PM Surveys
12
10
0
Yellow-crowned
Green-Backed Heron
Green-and-rufous
Green Kingfisher
Boat-Billed Heron
Northern jacana
Snowy Egret
Little Blue Heron

Ringed Kingfisher
Amazon Kingfisher
American Pygmy
Osprey
Anhinga
Night-Heron
Kingfisher
Kingfisher
heron
Figure 5-8 Key species recorded during PM surveys of the Caño Harold aquatic trail
The top five species observed in the PM Caño Harold aquatic trail survey were: Little
Blue Heron (Egretta caerulea), Anhinga (Anhinga anhinga), Northern jacana (Jacana
spinosa), Green-Backed Heron (Butorides virescens) and Snowy Egret (Egretta thula).
There were no rare species observed during the PM survey on the Caño Harold aquatic
trail.
49
Caño Palma AM Surveys
45
40
35
30
25
20
15
10
0
Yellow-Crowned
Blue-winged Teal
Green-Backed Heron
Green-and-Rufous
Green Kingfisher
Boat-billed Heron
Cattle egret
Ringed Kingfisher
Great Egret
White-Throated
American Pygmy
Green Ibis
Anhinga
Night-Heron
Kingfisher
Kingfisher
Crake
Heron
Figure 5-9 Key species recorded during AM surveys of the Caño Palma aquatic trail
The top five species observed in the AM Caño Palma aquatic trail survey were: Cattle
egret (Bubulcus ibis), Green Ibis (Mesembrinibis cayennensis), Yellow-Crowned Night-
Heron (Nyctanassa violacea), Green-Backed Heron (Butorides virescens) and Ringed
Kingfisher (Ceryle torquatus).
The rare species observed during the AM survey on the Caño Palma aquatic trail were
Green Ibis (Mesembrinibis cayennensis) and Blue-winged Teal (Anas discors).
50
Caño Palma PM Surveys
20
18
16
14
12
10
0
Green-Backed Heron Ringed Kingfisher Green Kingfisher Anhinga Yellow-Crowned Night-Heron
Figure 5-10 Key species recorded during PM surveys of the Caño Palma aquatic trail
The top five species observed in the PM Caño Palma aquatic trail survey were: Yellow-
Crowned Night-Heron (Nyctanassa violacea), Anhinga (Anhinga anhinga), Green
Kingfisher (Chloroceryle americana), Green-Backed Heron (Butorides virescens) and
Ringed Kingfisher (Ceryle torquatus).
There were no rare species observed during the PM survey on the Caño Palma aquatic
trail.
51
Caño Chiquero AM Surveys
20
18
16
14
12
10
0
Green Ibis Sungrebe Anhinga Green-backed Green kingfisher Northern Jacana Bare-throated Little Blue Heron
Heron Tiger-heron
Figure 5-11 Key species recorded during AM surveys of the Caño Chiquero aquatic trail
The top five species observed in the AM Caño Chiquero aquatic trail survey were: Little
Blue Heron (Egretta caerulea), Bare-throated Tiger-heron (Tigrisoma mexicanum),
Northern Jacana (Jacana spinosa), Green kingfisher (Chloroceryle americana) and
equal fifth Green-backed Heron (Butorides virescens) and Anhinga (Anhinga anhinga).
The only rare species observed during the AM survey on the Caño Chiquero aquatic trail
was one Green Ibis (Mesembrinibis cayennensis).
There were no species observed during the PM survey on the Caño Chiquero aquatic
trail.
5.4.2. Incidental Observations
For the incidental species observed during this phase, see appendix E
52
The Gray-capped Cuckoo (Coccyzus lansbergi) was without doubt the most thrilling
sighting from this RBP phase. This is probably the first time this species has been
reported for Costa Rica.
On the morning (approximately at 8:50) of the 4th of December, at the Caño Palma
Biological Station (N 10º 35`36.2`` W 83º 31`39.2``), the Gray-capped Cuckoo was seen
and identified by one of the GVI staff biologist members, feeding on two different species
of caterpillars. The next morning (5th of December approximately at 11:50) the bird was
seen again, this time by several other people – including Staff biologists and Expedition
members. On the same day in the afternoon (12:40 approximately), the bird was again
seen by the staff Biologists.
All the different sighting places were eye level and very close (five to 10 meters) at the
Biological Station forest edge.
Below a picture and description of the bird, from the field guide Birds of Venezuela.
Gray-capped Cuckoo (Coccyzus lansbergi)
(24cm). Top and sides of the head dark gray, back and wings rufescent brown, tail black,
tipped white. Below deep rusty buff, darkest on breast. Tropical, occasionally subtropical
zone. N Colombia; sw Ecuador; n Peru. Forested areas, dense shrubby undergrowth, to
1400; secretive.
53
Reference: A guide to Birds of Venezuela – R.M de Schauensee, W.H.Phelps, Jr, and
Guy Tudor. 1978 by Princeton University Press
5.4.3. Migrants
Migration of North American, Boreal and Temperate species occurs mainly during
August to October. Observations during phase 064 may not accurately reflect true
abundances due to study limitations. This includes: periods of survey (for example, night
hawks mostly migrate at dusk) and study sites (where it is difficult to accurately count
aerial species such as the Hirundinidae family).
Migrants
60 57
45
30
21
17
15
8
5 6
3 3 3 4
1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 2 2
0
o
ak
k
w
r
sh
o
er
r
on
le
e
sh
ak
r
ch
er
er
sh
sh
he
ge
le
ge
re
re
we
lo
rio
bl
bl
bl
be
ru
b
be
ru
lc
in
Ha
ru
ru
Vi
tc
Vi
l
na
ar
r
ar
ar
Fa
Pe
O
F
Th
an
Th
a
Th
th
a
Sw
s
ed
W
-
Ta
W
ro
W
ro
yc
d
er
tT
d-
ye
ge
e
d
’s
e
d
G
or
at
G
Fl
w
at
ry
an
in
ed
rn
ke
Se
oo
oo
er
on
-e
rle
in
m
ro
llo
d
gr
W
ta
ue
Ba
ed
m
ni
ee
id
ed
W
te
lti
ns
-th
ca
no
d
Ye
re
ur
Bl
-s
m
n
d-
st
Ba
as
ille
ch
R
ai
n
Pe
S
er
w
ho
Su
ut
kb
re
oa
er
re
Sw
y-
llo
-b
th
tn
C
ot
ac
st
Br
-b
ra
or
nk
Ye
es
Pr
Ea
at
Bl
se
G
N
Pi
Ch
re
Ro
Figure 5-12 Migrant species observed during phase 064 in the Cleared Area and Raphia Trail study
sites. None migrant species were observed during the freshwater canal surveys.
5.5. Discussion
The EBCP Resident Bird Project monitoring surveys began in July of 2005 and will
continue for several years. As the study is only in its sixth phase, this early set of data
can not be taken as indicative of trends for local bird species.
54
During Phase 064 a total of 58 RBP surveys were undertaken. The original aim was to
achieve an equal number of surveys per study site and an equal number of dawn and
dusk surveys within each study site. The complexities of the expedition meant that this
was not always possible however the numbers were kept relatively constant
Data collected on individual study sites will be used over time to assess how certain
populations are changing, if at all, and how they use the specific habitat over the course
of a year.
The findings from this phase do not highlight any unexpected or unusual patterns in the
local bird populations.
The EBCP Resident Bird Project surveys undertaken during Phase 064 have assisted in
increasing the overall data set. They have also helped in identifying areas where
continued improvement to the methodology is required in order to gain the most useful
and accurate data possible.
6. NATIONAL PARK TOURIST IMPACT ASSESSMENT

6.1. Introduction
With 622,000 ha or 12.2% of the country set aside in preserves, Costa Rica’s National
Parks stand as a model for the preservation of biodiversity in the tropics. These
magnificent wild lands provide shelter for some 205 species of mammals, 845 species of
birds, 160 species of amphibians, 218 species of reptiles and 1,013 species of
freshwater and marine fishes that have been discovered in the country. 10,000 of
species of vascular plants have been identified to date which account for almost 4% of
the total number of plant species in the world (Boza 1993). This diversity of wildlife is
encapsulated within a variety of habitats found in Costa Rica.
Tortuguero National Park, located on the upper Caribbean coastline of Costa Rica was
established between 1970 and 1971 along with three others in this region. The Park is
managed and protected by the Costa Rican Ministry of Environment and Energy
(MINAE). Terrestrial sections of the National Park consist of primary rainforest and
flooded swamplands which extend from the Caribbean coastline to the foothills of the
55
central Costa Rican mountain range. Within the Park’s boundaries exists a sequence of
terrestrial and aquatic trails clearly marked to allow tourists the opportunity to experience
the impressive species richness of the areas 2,200 species of plant, 375 birds, 125
mammal species and 124 species of reptiles (Hocken et al. 1992 cited in Hill et al.
1997). Controversy has arisen in recent years over the extent to which humans uses of
such reserves may have adverse effects of wildlife. These uses include tourism,
recreation and industrial development. Therefore there is considerable conservation
interest in quantifying the effects of such disturbance upon the diversity that exists here
(Hocken et al. 1992 cited in Hill et al. 1997).
The flow of tourists to the National Park is regulated by MINAE. Greater accessibility to
this region has begun to create an additional constant influx of tourist groups into the
Park using both the aquatic and terrestrial trails. Since 1998 annual totals of visitors to
the Park have risen from 15,000 to 92,000 in 2005 (C. Calvo, pers. comm.) Although
tourism is encouraged by the local community, MINAE and the national economy, a
certain balance between the Park’s human activity and the conservation of these fragile
ecosystems should be respected. Thus there is a potential threat to the biodiversity of
the Park due to excessive stress from this continuous activity. Initiation of this study is in
direct response to growing concerns of the negative impact tourism is having on the
National Park.
Assessing the severity of the effects of disturbance has important practical

consequences; if it has serious impacts conservationist are justified in recommending
that access to wildlife areas be limited (Burger 1981 cited in Gill et al. 2001). However if
the impacts of disturbance are trivial then such measures cannot be justified. Restricting
human access to these areas can be expensive and time consuming but more
importantly it goes against the increasing view that rural access should be increased. In
many cases access to areas of conservation value can be the optimum way to protect
them as it increases the value placed on them by society (Adams 1997 cited in Gill et al.
2001).
The impact of tourist presence can also be measured through direct measurements of
physical factors such as path width, level of erosion and litter. All of these factors enable
a very simple assessment of tourist impact to be produced whilst enabling a useful and
often immediate tool for management.
56
Funded by the European Union, in 2005 MINAE developed a Management Plan for
visitors to Tortuguero National Park. GVI were requested to initiate and implement the
Tourist Impact Assessment in order to provide data for an objective and quantitative
evaluation of the impact of tourism in this National Park. In order to gain as much data
on tourist impact a number of studies recommended in the Management Plan have been
initiated examining both environmental and physical effects.
6.2. Aims
The Tortuguero National Park Tourist Impact Assessment aims to provide MINAE with
suitable data to aid with management decisions in relation to tourist use of the parks
resource. This is achieved through a variety of survey methods that assess physical and
ecological characteristics of the National Park.
6.3. Methods
Five phases of data collection have been undertaken by GVI since October 2005. This
baseline data has resulted in a good understanding of the ecological systems operating
in and around the park. As this understanding continues to develop, methodology is
adapted to yield the most beneficial results possible.
The National Park Tourist Impact Study this phase has been directed exclusively
towards the assessment of the terrestrial trail condition.
6.3.1. Assessment of terrestrial trail condition
The presence and development of extensions and divergences along the Gavilán Trail
system in Tortuguero National Park was assessed.
The Gavilán Trail is approximately 2000m in length and is open to tourists. The path was
originally designed to be 2m wide along its entire length. When the trail becomes
flooded, visitors have found other routes to make their way around the trail. As a result of
this, the path width has been extended in certain areas and in other areas divergences
(a separate trail through the vegetation) have been created. In areas where there are
raised boardwalks or log paths, there are no extensions.
57
Measurements of the extensions and divergences have been taken at 11 sites along the
trail. The aim of this was to identify the rate of change to the path width and show
maintenance work may be required. To enable the relocation of each site, the distance
from the entrance was measured (in metres).
At the beginning of each extension, a pole was placed in the vegetation on the left of the
trail. The pole was spray painted white at the tip and labelled with a number, ranging
from one to eleven. This pole acts as a marker for the point. A ten metre transect was
then measured down the middle of the path. At the five meter point, which was generally
the widest part of the extension, a small pole was placed at either side of the trail. These
poles were also spray painted white at the tip.
The reason for using smaller poles at these points was so not to impact the route that
the tourists may take. The width was measured from the middle of one pole to the
middle of the other pole (along the ground) and recorded. The width was then measured
at every metre point along the trail (about one meter off the ground), giving eleven
measurements, but no other poles were placed in the ground. Instead of measuring from
pole to pole at these points, the widest parts were estimated by the use of vegetation
(over hanging branches, tree trunks, etc). For the divergences, the total width was
recorded. If the divergence was on the left, the measurement would be taken from the
widest point on the right side of the main path, to the widest point on the left hand side of
the divergence. This was generally measured through the vegetation but in some cases
this was not possible. Where the vegetation was too thick or if there was a tree in the
way, the width of the main path and the divergent path were measured and recorded
separately. Any observations that would help the re-measuring of the points were also
recorded, such as the angle at which the transects were measured out. The extensions
were sometimes at bends, and it was therefore not possible to place the transect down
the middle of the path. Every site was then measured and recorded on a weekly basis.
6.4. Results
During this phase (10th October – 18th December) GVI collected data on 11 sites with
extensions or divergences along the main trail. All of these extensions and divergences
were found between 250 m and 1000 m from the headquarters of Cuatro Esquinas.
58
The maximum width recorded was 10.22m (at site nine). The full set of results can be
seen in appendix D. The average change in width, for each site, between the samples is
shown in Figure 6.1.
0.6
0.5
Change in Path Width (M)
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1
0
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11
-0.1
-0.2
Site Number
Figure 6-1 Change in path width at eleven different study sites on the trail
There was a maximum average change in width of 0.52m at site nice and at site four
there was no sign of change.
6.5. Discussion
From the nine surveys that have been carried out, a small change in the path width (see
Figure 5.1) has been seen. However these changes cannot be seen as significant as
there are both increases and decreases in the path width at every site. This is probably
due the difficulties associated with measuring the trail accurately. The results however,
do show that there has been a definite erosion of the path boundaries since the trail was
made to its original two metre wide specifications. At some points the path width has
59
increased up to as much as ten metres and there are also clear divergences where
visitors have taken alternative routes.
The data set currently cannot provide any definitive results and due to the small sample
size the results should be assessed with caution. The trail will require an ongoing
monitoring program in order to produce any useful data.
The trail has been dry for the majority of this survey period and there has been no
reason for the tourists to detour from the main trail. It is very possible that dramatic
changes to the trail width will only occur when the trail is flooded. Thus there may be no
changes for a long period of time, and then sudden dramatic changes during times of
heavy rain.
Distinguishing where the border of the path is, when there are no poles marking them,
has proved to be a challenge. This is the most likely cause of the variations in the
measurements between the samples. At site 11, increase of 2.39m was measured (see
Appendix D). The probability of this amount of erosion occurring in one week is very
small. The likelihood is that there has been no change in the path width during the
survey time. For this reason, only significant changes which are found on a continual
basis should be taken into consideration.
As water levels fluctuate, both the marker poles and the centre poles can become
difficult to locate. Measurements may be hard to carry out in this case. Small poles,
instead of the larger marker poles, at the centre point were required to minimise any
impact on tourists’ behaviour. Larger poles may influence tourists to either walk inside or
around the poles. There is also the possibility that poles may be lost when the trail floods
or that the poles may be removed by visitors.
During the survey undertaken on the 30th November 2006 the survey team recorded that
path maintenance had taken place. This maintenance involved the removal of a
proportion of vegetation that overhung areas of the path. This management has had an
impact on data collected and will explain some of the increases in path width.
Despite finding no significant change in the trail width between the surveys, it is very
clear that there has been a large amount of erosion to the path borders. The trail
requires a significant amount of maintenance to prevent further widening.
60
7. TOURIST IMPACT SURVEY CAÑO PALMA
7.1. Introduction
Caño Palma canal is located within the Barra Colorado Wildlife Refuge, immediately
north of the river Penitencia, about 7 km northwest of Tortuguero village and National
Park. Although not part of the National Park, this caño is included in the Management
Plan for Visitors as it provides a suitable alternative for wildlife viewing to the National
Park and thus helps to reduce the demand on the other caños (Bermúdez & Hernández
2004). Proposed restrictions on the number of boats allowed into the National Park were
due to be put in place at the end of April 2006. This is likely to increase the number of
tourist boats using Caño Palma, and baseline data before this occurs is thus necessary.
The processes currently taking place with the Tourist Impact surveys for the National
Park have a direct effect on this study.
7.2. Aims
GVI continues to undertake the Tourist Impact survey on Caño Palma in order to
estimate the intensity of the tourist activity on the Caño.
7.3. Methodology
The Boat Dock Survey is commenced at 06:00 and continues for 12 consecutive hours.
During the survey data is collected on all boats passing the boat dock of the biological
station. For each craft observed the following data is collected:
• Time of observation
• Whether the boat was used by tourist
• Number of passengers/tourists on each boat
• Boat name and/or number
• Boat direction
• Time spent on canal
• Engine type
Any additional information that is considered to potentially be of use at a later date is

recorded in notes.
61
7.4. Results
7.4.1. Boat Dock Survey
Three Boat Dock Surveys were undertaken during Phase 064. The majority of boats
recorded were not carrying tourists and accounted for 70% (n=62) of all traffic. The
average amount of passengers in each boat was 5.4.
7.5. Discussion
7.5.1. Boat Dock Survey
The Boat Dock Survey is currently providing a base line dataset. Although the data
collected to date provides little use for in depth analysis it is providing an important
dataset that can be closely examined over the next few years.
The data gathered from Phase 064 indicate that the majority of boats were not carrying
tourists as indicated in previous data sets. This could be partly due to the limited amount
of data collected during this period due to works being carried out on the boat dock.
With increased restriction in the National Park it is assumed that tourist traffic will
increase and therefore have an impact on local species. As Caño Palma has had rare
and sensitive species recorded as present, this increase in tourist presences could be
significant and therefore require management. The work being undertaken through the
Boat Dock Survey will help to monitor this impact.
8. INCIDENTALS
8.1. Introduction
An incidental observation is made while one is not engaged specifically in surveying for
that species. They can be recorded at any time of the day, whilst on a survey, around
Caño Palma Biological Station and while traveling on the boat. Incidental observations
are recorded for reptiles, amphibians, mammals, and primates only.
8.2. Aims
The recording of incidentals is intended to provide baseline data, on the species that are
observed in the local area, and at the Caño Palma Biological Station.
62
8.3. Methodology
For each incidental observation the following information is recorded:
• Date
• Time
• Location
• Species
• Number of Individuals
• Comments
In addition to the above information, the following information is recorded for the
primates observed from the canal within 100m north and south of the Caño Palma
Biological Station boundary.
• Position in habitat (High, Medium, Low)

• Position East of West of the canal
• GPS position
• Observed behaviour
• Tail Use
Observed behaviour was divided into broad categories such as climbing, eating, tail use,
grooming and vocalizing, multiple observations were taken whilst the individual remained
in view.
8.4. Results
8.4.1. Reptiles
During phase 064 a total of eight different species of reptiles were observed (table 8-1).
Date Time Location Species (common name) # individuals

19.10.06 14.00 Cano Palma Base 2 x Vine snakes 2
25.10.06 4.30 Jalova Crocodiles 8 + or - 8
25.10.06 8.00 Cano Negro Crocodiles 2 2
2.11.06 19.00 Raphia Trail Fer de lance 1
63
13.11.06 19.00 Cano Palma Pond Common Blunthead 1
15.11.06 8.00 Cano Palma Base Red Coffee Snake 1
16.11.06 7.00 Cano Palma Base Red Coffee Snake 1
16.11.06 8.00 Cano Palma Base Yellow tailed Dwarf Gecko 1
5.12.06 15.35 Raphia Trail White-lipped Mud Turtle 1
6.12.06 9.00 Mile 14 Tort Beach Eyelash Viper 1
7.12.06 9.15 CP 100m N of Don Edgar Crocodile 1
8.12.06 7:12 Gavilan Trail Marker 8 Eyelash Viper (Gold) 1
Table 8-1 Incidental reptiles recorded around Caño Palma Biological Station and while traveling on
the boat.
8.4.2. Amphibians
During phase 064 a total of four different species of Amphibian were observed (table 8-
2).
Date Time Location Species (common name) # individuals

2.11.06 19.10 Raphia Trail Drab Similisca 1
2.11.06 19.30 Cano Palma Base Smokey Jungle Frog 1
7.11.06 9.40 Cano Palma Base Strawberry poison dart frog 1
6.12.06 15.00 CP Base by laundry Strawberry poison dart frog 1
8.12.06 13.45 CP Base by outside toilet Strawberry poison dart frog 1
6.12.06 7.00 Mile 15 Forest Harlequin Treefrog 1
Table 8-2 Incidental amphibians recorded around Caño Palma Biological Station and while traveling
on the boat.
8.4.3. Mammals (except Primates)
A total of 12 different species of mammal have been observed during phase 064 (table
8.3).
64
Date Time Location Species common name # individuals
10.10.06 19.17 Cano Palma Mexican Mouse Opossum 1
16.10.06 14.00 Cano Palma Otter 1
21.10.06 8.00 Cano Harold Otter 1
23.10.06 1.40 Boat Dock Don Edgar Silky Anteater 1
24.10.06 18.10 Cano Palma Kinkajou 1
24.10.06 18.15 Cano Palma Four eyed Opossum 1
25.10.06 16.11 Cano Negro Two-toed sloth 1
1.11.06 7.00 Cano Harold Banded Anteater 1
7.11.06 5.45 Cano Palma 50m South of Station Banded Anteater 1
9.11.06 8.30 Cano Harold Otter 1
13.11.06 19.00 Cano Palma Pond Mexican Mouse Opossum 1
15.11.06 07.00 Raphia Trail Common Tent-Making Bats 5
15.11.06 18.45 Cano Palma Mexican Mouse Opossum 1
16.11.06 AM National Park Jaguar Trail Red Brocket Deer - Juvenile 1
16.11.06 AM National Park Jaguar Trail White-nosed Coati 10+
22.11.06 11.30 Mile 14.5 on Jag Walk Jaguar 1
4.12.06 08.15 Meeting of Cano Mora & Chiquero Two-toed Sloth 1
6.12.06 8.00 Mile 7 of Jag Walk Tayra 1
7.12.06 7.40 CP 100m outside South Boundary Banded Anteater 1
Table 8-3 Incidental mammals recorded around Caño Palma Biological Station and while traveling on
the boat.
8.4.4. Other Mammals: Primates
Three species of primate were observed during incidental observations: the White-faced
Capuchin (Cebus capucinus), Central American Spider Monkey (Ateles geoffroyi) and
the Mantled Howler (Allouata palliata).
There were a total of 80 observations of primates, 19 of these were from Caño Palma
Biological Station. There were 61 observations from the canal of which 83% were on the
East and 17% on the West side of the canal.
65
45
40
35
30
Adults
25
Number
Sub Adults
20 Juvenile
15
10
0
White-faced Capuchin Spider Monkey Mantled How ler
Species
Figure 8-1 Number of incidental primates recorded around Caño Palma Biological Station and while
traveling on the boat.
The Mantled Howler was the most frequently observed. Of the observed behaviours the
most frequent were climbing, eating and tail use (fig. 8-2).
66
60
50
Threat
Frequency of Observations
Vocalising
40 Grooming
Juvenile on Back
30 Juvenile on Front
Tail use
20 Eating
Climbing
Resting
10
0
Spider Monkey Mantled How ler White-faced Capuchin
Species
Figure 8-2 Behaviour frequencies of Incidental primates recorded around Caño Palma Biological
Station and while traveling on the boat.
8.5. Discussion
During phase 064 a total of 139 observations were recorded. Due to the informal nature
of collecting incidental data it is possible that more individuals were seen but not
recorded. It is also possible that due to the range of species for which data is collected, it
was not possible to identify all of the species encountered.
The methodology for recording Incidentals is still in its early stages, and is dynamic in
nature. The number of observations of primates in phase 064, has been greatly
increased by including observations from the canal as well as recording data from within
the station.
Recording of incidental observations will continue to be collected to provide baseline

data. As more data becomes available it could be drawn on to inform potential future
surveys and provide information for analysis over a long period of time.
67
9. TEACHING REPORT
9.1. Introduction
People of different nations increasingly utilize English as a common language in order to

communicate with one another. Costa Rica, and in particular Tortuguero, hosts a
growing number of international visitors each year. The people living in this area rely
heavily on the international community and the tourism market. Acquisition of English
language skills is one tool for accessing this market.
9.2. Aims
The following are the main aims of the teaching programme:
I. Local community training/capacity building.

II. Increase sustainable revenue to the local communities.
III. Generate local community commitment to environment conservation and
sustainable development.
IV. Language and Cultural Exchange.
V. Provide authentic opportunities for local students to practice listening and
speaking English with native speakers.
VI. Provide an introductory course in the methodology of TEFL for Expedition
Members.
9.3. Method
9.3.1. Expedition Member training
All Expedition Members received fundamental training in teaching English as a foreign

language utilizing the ‘Introduction to TEFL’ course adapted by GVI from the theory and
methods used by TEFL (Teaching English as a Foreign Language). Theory sessions
were initiated in the first week and feedback sessions conducted in the following weeks.
The first sessions included introductory pedagogy and learning the mechanics of
creating a lesson plan. During the initial first week period a new teaching program was
developed through a collective effort from both GVI staff and a GVI volunteer with
extensive TEFL teaching experience. This new program was then implemented and the
teachers were placed with a class and English lessons were launched in the second
68
week. Expedition members were encouraged to dive into teaching soon after arrival
because theory and pedagogy make more sense in the context of the classroom. The
ongoing ‘Intro to TEFL’ workshops included topics such as curriculum, lesson plans,
motivational strategies, cooperative learning groups, and assessment tools to
accommodate a wide range of learning styles and abilities. It also contained a scheme
of work for the nine week project and a range of different teaching resources.
The teachers worked in pairs so that they could dialog together about each lesson.
Reflection sheets were used as a guide to begin the process of debriefing, improving,
and ascertaining of what procedures worked. Each pair used a lesson plan sheet to fully
prepare themselves for the lesson.
9.3.2. Teaching
The English lessons were created, written and adapted to fit the proficiency, the desired
content, and the comfort level of the students and the teachers. Preparing and teaching
in teams of two, Expedition Members had the opportunity to share ideas and work
together. Each pair of teachers had a group of two-five students, who had comparable
language skills. Planning took place in the afternoons and teaching in the evenings.
Lessons based at San Francisco focused more on speaking, listening, and pronunciation
skills rather than on written work, whilst those at Evergreen included written work as
English levels were generally at a more advanced level.
GVI conducted English lessons in the San Francisco Community Primary School for
children and adults. Each Monday and Thursday, for the first five weeks, lessons began
at 3 pm for children and at 6:30 pm for adults, and lasted for one hour. During the last
five week period lessons were scheduled solely for Mondays again starting at 3:00pm for
the kids and 6:30pm for adults.
In addition to its commitment to San Francisco, GVI also continued working with the
local lodge of Evergreen. An Intercambio programme (language exchange) was initiated
to allow volunteers the opportunity to learn Spanish as well as teach English.
69
9.4. Results
A total of 19 Expedition Members and staff participated in English teaching and

language Intercambios. Twenty-five children and 28 adults were served for a total of 32
formal classroom contact hours and 13.5 informal Intercambio exchange hours. The
average teacher: adult student ratio was 1:2 and average teacher: child student ratio 1:3.
GVI has continued the commitment to offer the adult English language programme in
San Francisco during Phase 064, as well as upholding our dedication to the children’s
programme and supporting the national curriculum and the local primary school.
During Phase 064 GVI continued its Intercambio programme with nine sessions being
held at Evergreen lodge resulting in 13.5 contact hours.
9.5. Discussion
Phase 064 ended with the successful completion of 45.5 teaching contact hours among
a total of 19 GVI teachers and 53 students. The atmosphere was relaxed and fun, but
the participants worked very hard and are extremely grateful to GVI for receiving the
lessons. The successful completion of a new teacher training program and individual
student learning system will help to improve the projects effectiveness. In addition to
this, a new scheme of work was planned for the start of the phase which was followed by
all volunteers involved in the teaching project. This has proven to be a successful way of
keeping a structure to the project, whilst still allowing the volunteers the opportunity to be
creative and flexible.
GVI continued to develop its teaching program based at Evergreen lodge by focusing
more on an Intercambio system. This was well received by both expedition members
and Canopy staff as both parties had the opportunity to improve their language skills.
It is recommend that GVI continue with the Individual learning plan program for phase
071 in addition to the class profile record sheet. These are both useful tools which will
allow a more detailed understanding as to the current level and subsequent direction
that each class has and needs. In addition, the use of a scheme of work for phase 071
is recommended based on past success as well as lesson plan templates.
70
10. Bibliography
Autar, L. 1994. Sea turtles attacked and killed by Jaguars in Suriname. Marine Turtle
Newsletter 67:11-12
Azevedo-Ramos, C. De Carvalho & Nasi, R. 2002. Animal Indicators, a Tool to Assess

Biotic Integrity After Logging Tropical Forests? Núcleo de Altos Estudos Amazônicos
Report:1-35
Bjorndal, K.A., Wetherall, J.A., Bolten, A.B., & Mortimer, J.A. 1999. Twenty-Six Years of
Green Nesting at Tortuguero, Costa Rica: An Encouraging Trend. Conservation Biology
13(1):126-134
Blumstein, D.T., Fernandez-Juricic, E., LeDee, O., Larsen, E., Rodriiguez-Prieto, I. &
Zugmeyer, C. 2004. Avian Risk Assessment: Effects of Perching Height and
Detectability. Ethology 110:273-285
Blumstein, D.T., Fernandez-Juricic, E., Zollner, P.A., & Garity, S.A. 2005. Inter-specific
variation in avian responses to human disturbance. Journal of Applied Ecology 42:943-
953
Boza, M.A. 1993. Conservation in Action: Past, present and future of the National Park
System of Costa Rica. Conservation Biology 7(2):239-247
Bradford, D.F., Franson, S.E., Neale, A.C., Heggem, D.T., Miller, G.R. & Canterbury,
G.E. 1998. Bird species assemblages as indicators of Biological Integrity in Great Basin
Rangeland. Environmental Monitoring and Assessment 49:1-22
Bryce, S.A. & Hughes, R.M. 2002. Development of a Bird Integrity Index: Using Bird
Assemblages as Indicators of Riparian Conditions. Environmental Management 30(2):
294-310
Canterbury, G.E., Martin, T.E., Petit, D.R, Petit, L.J, & Bradford, D.F. 2000. Bird
communities and habitat as ecological indicators of forest condiditons in regional
monitoring. Conservation Biology 14(2):544-558
71
Chacón, D., Valerín, N., Gamboa, H. & Marín, G. 1999. Manual de mejores prácticas de
conservación de las tortugas marinas en Centroamérica. p.19.
De Haro, A. & Troëng, S. 2005. Report on the 2005 Green Program at Tortuguero,
Costa Rica. Unpublished reported presented to Caribbean Conservation Corporation. 49

pp.
Fernandez-Juricic, E., Venier, M.P., Renison, D., & Blumstein, D.T. 2005. Sensitivity of
wildlife to spatial patterns of recreationist behaviour: A critical assessment of minimum
approaching distances and buffer areas for grassland birds. Biological Conservation
125:225-235
Gill, J.A., Sutherland, W.J. & Watkinson, A.R. 1996. A method to quanify the effects of
human disturbance on animal population. The Journal of Applied Ecology 33(4):786-792
Gill, J.A., Norris, K. & Sutherland W.J. 2001. The effects of disturbance on habitat use by
Black-Tailed Godwits Limosa limosa. The Journal of Applied Ecology 38(4):846-856
Graham, A.D. 1987. Methods for surveying and monitoring crocodiles. In: Hutton, J.M.,
J.N.B. Mpande, A.D. Graham & H.H. Roth (eds). Proceedings SADDC Workshop on
management and utilization of crocodiles in the SADDC region of Africa, 74-101
Hill, D. Hockin, D. Price, D. Tucker, G. Morris, R. & Treweek, J. 1997. Bird disturbance:
Improving the quality and utility of disturbance research. The Journal of Applied Ecology
34(2):275-288
Hill, J.K. & Hamer, K.C. 1998. Using species abundance models as indicators of habitat
disturbance in tropical forest. Journal of Applied Ecology 38:458-450
IUCN. 2003. 2003 IUCN Red List of Threatened Species. IUCN, Gland, Switzerland
[http://www.redlist.org, accessed 2 February 2004].
72
Laiolo, P. 2003. Diversity and structure of the bird community overwintering in the
Himalayan subapline zone: is conservation compatible with tourism? Biological
Conservation 115:251-262
NatureServe Explorer. 2006. Online encyclopedia of plants, animals, and ecosystems

[http://www.natureserve.org Accessed 30 November 2006].
Miller, C.M. 2001. Measurement of Jaguar Tracks: a promising means to identify

individuals. Track Collection Protocols, Belize.
Preisler, H.K., Ager, A.A., & Wisdom, M.J. 2006. Statistical methods for analyzing
responses of wildlife to human disturbance. Journal of Applied Ecology 43:164-172
Rabinowitz, A.R., Nottingham Jr., B.G. 1986. Ecology and behaviour of the jaguar
(Panthera onca) in Belize, Central America. Journal of Zoology 210:149-159
Rodriiguez-Prieto, I. & Fernandez -Juricic, E. 2005. Effects of direct human disturbance

on the endemic Iberian frog Rana iberica at individual and population levels. Biological
Conservation 123:1-9
Rutschke, E., 1987. Waterfowl as bio-indicators. In: Diamond, A.W., F.L. Filion (eds),
The value of birds. ICBP Technical Publication No. 6:167-172
Sanderson, E.W., Redford, K.H., Chetkiewicz, C.B., Medellin, R.A., Rabinowitz, R.A.,
Robinson, J.G. & Taber, A.B. 2002. Planning to save a species: the jaguar as a model.
Conservation Biology 16:1-15
Silver, S.C., Ostro, L.E.T., Marsh, L.K., Maffei, L., Noss, A.J., Kelly, M.J., Wallace, R.B.,
Gómez, H., & Ayala, G. 2004. The use of camera traps for estimating jaguar Panthera
onca abundance and density using capture/recapture analysis. Oryx 38(2):148-154
Troëng, S. 2000. Predation of green (Chelonia mydas) and Leatherback (Dermochelys

coriacea) turtles by Jaguars (Panthera onca) at Tortuguero National Park, Costa Rica.
Chel. Cons. Biol. 3(4):751-753.
73
Troëng, S., Chacón, D. & Dick, B. 2004. Possible decline in Leatherback Turtle
Dermochelys coriacea nesting along the coast of Caribbean Central America. Oryx 38
(4):395-403
Troëng, S. & Rankin, E. 2005. Long-term conservation efforts contribute to positive

Green Chelonia mydas nesting trend at Tortuguero, Costa Rica. Biological Conservation
121:111-116
Widdowson, B & Widdowson, G. 2004. Checklist to the Birds of Tortuguero, Costa Rica.
Whitman, A.A., J.M. Hagan & Brokaw, N.V.L. 1998. Effects of selection logging on birds
in northern Belize. Biotropica 30:449-457
74
11. APPENDIX
Appendix A – Climate Data
10- 26- 51- 76- 90-

<10% 25% 50% 75% 90% 100%
CC 1 2 3 4 5 6
N L M H
High leaf drip,
Leaf
Light leaf drip, Medium leaf drip, leaf drip is
drip (N-
heard/seen light heard/seen as constant, sounds
L-M-H)
drops every few fairly large like there is
No leaf drip seconds constant drops heavy rain
D M W
Ground Dry, no sign of Moist, ground is
state ground moisture, clearly wet with Wet, ground is
(Dry, probably hasn't some small wet, frequent
Moist, rained for several areas of standing areas of standing
Wet) days water water
N L M H
Rainfall
Light rainfall, dry
(None,
patches of Medium, clothes High, clothes
Low,
clothes will still become wet become soaking
Medium,
be evident after within a few wet almost
High)
No rainfall some time minutes instantly
75
Appendix B – Point counts stations
Terrestrial Trails:
RT – RAPHIA TRAIL – POINT COUNTS - Nº 18 / 40 / 59
RT - RAPHIA TRAIL – AREA SEARCHES – All trail starting from A0 until A69
CA - CLEARED AREAS – POINT NORTH WEST

COUNTS
P1 Biological station - Clearing 10º 35` 36.2`` 83º 31` 39.2``
P2 Cabinas Vista al Mar - Clearing 10º 35` 40.8`` 83º 31` 38.0``
P3 Phone pole №89 – Forest Edge 10º 35` 24.8`` 83º 31` 35.0``
P4 First trail entrance to the Tortuguero 10º 35` 12.0`` 83º 31` 30.0``
Hill
P5 Phone pole №74 - Human 10º 34` 59.2`` 83º 31` 28.2``
habitations + Forest edge
CA – CLEARED AREAS - AREA SEARCHES

A1 From Cabinas Vista al Mar (Clearing) until phone pole №89 - Forest edge
A2 From phone pole №89 (Forest edge) until the first trail entrance to the Tortuguero
hill (Forest edge)
A3 From the first trail entrance to the Tortuguero hill (Forest edge) until Point count five ( phone
pole №74 - Human habitations + Forest edge)
CP- CAÑO PALMA – POINT COUNTS NORTH WEST

CPBIST Caño Palma Biological Station 10º 35` 36.2`` 83º 31` 39.2``
CPP1 Caño Palma River 10º 35` 47.4`` 83º 31` 44.8``
76
Aquatic Trails:
ACCESS
CODE WAYPOINT DISTANCE DISTANCE FROM
START
AC1 AC-S1 1,110 0
AC2 AC-S2 303 1,110
CC1/CH1 CC/CH-S1 0 1,413
CAÑO HAROLD
AC1 AC-S1 1,110 0
AC2 AC-S2 303 1,110
CH1 CH-S1 604 1,413
CH2 CH-S2 1248 2,017
CH3 CH-S3 718 3,127
CH END CH-END 0 4,003
CAÑO CHIQUERO
CODE WAYPOINT DISTANCE DISTANCE FROM
START
AC1 AC-S1 1,110 0
AC2 AC-S2 303 1,110
CC1 CC-S1 703 1,413
CC2 CC-S2 343 2,127
CC-END CC-END 0 2,470
Notes: All the distances are measured in meters
77
Appendix C – Breeding Evidence
78
Appendix D - Total measurements of Extensions
site 1 site 2 site 3

sample 1 sample 2 change sample 1 sample 2 change sample 1 sample 2 change
0 2.96 2.87 -0.09 2.48 2.45 -0.03 1.17 1.69 0.52
1 3.16 2.7 -0.46 2.78 2.55 -0.23 2.83 2.82 -0.01
2 3.24 3 -0.24 3.19 3.1 -0.09 2.8 2.79 -0.01
3 3.58 3.62 0.04 3.7 3.85 0.15 3.61 3.62 0.01
4 0 0 0 4.2 4.5 0.3 3.64 3.73 0.09
5 4.07 4.1 0.03 5.19 5.2 0.01 3.99 4 0.01
6 3.79 3.75 -0.04 4.98 4.73 -0.25 3.09 3.66 0.57
7 3.62 3.68 0.06 4.21 4.1 -0.11 2.82 2.6 -0.22
8 2.7 2.74 0.04 3.41 3 -0.41 2.49 2.1 -0.39
9 2.56 2.44 -0.12 2.62 2.15 -0.47 2.08 2.1 0.02
10 2.1 2.02 -0.08 2.17 2.27 0.1 2.3 2.21 -0.09
Ave. -0.078 -0.094 0.045
sample 1 sample 2 change sample 1 sample 2 change sample 1 sample 2 change
0 3.32 3.51 0.19 3.49 3.46 -0.03 1.82 2.9 1.08
1 2.95 3.7 0.75 1.51 2.38 0.87 2.96 2.65 -0.31
2 3.62 3.62 0 1.49 1.74 0.25 7.79 7.69 -0.1
3 3.9 3.9 0 1.73 1.85 0.12 8.17 8.43 0.26
4 3.65 3.64 -0.01 2.48 2.31 -0.17 7.87 8.67 0.8
5 4.53 4.63 0.1 3.14 3.13 -0.01 7.81 8.15 0.34
6 4.5 4.13 -0.37 2.06 2.34 0.28 7.24 8.9 1.66
7 2.74 2.45 -0.29 2.29 2.26 -0.03 6.84 7.17 0.33
8 2.7 2.45 -0.25 1.75 1.74 -0.01 4.12 3.8 -0.32
9 2 1.93 -0.07 2.02 2.19 0.17 3.5 2.62 -0.88
10 2.06 2 -0.06 2.49 2.76 0.27 2.24 2.5 0.26
Ave. -9E-04 0.155 0.284
sample 1 sample 2 change sample 1 sample 2 chsnge sample 1 sample 2 change
0 4.18 4.55 0.37 4.23 3.39 -0.84 4.65 4.36 -0.29
1 4.54 5.1 0.56 5.56 4.93 -0.63 4.31 3.95 -0.36
2 4.68 4.7 0.02 7.59 7.23 -0.36 5.34 6.04 0.7
3 4.65 4.6 -0.05 8.19 8.79 0.6 4.92 8.32 3.4
4 4.57 4.7 0.13 0 0 0 6.06 8.02 1.96
5 4.84 4.85 0.01 8.85 8.9 0.05 10.02 10.22 0.2
6 4.49 4.25 -0.24 8.2 7.64 -0.56 6.89 6.65 -0.24
7 3.77 4.65 0.88 6.82 6.19 -0.63 8.06 8.09 0.03
8 4.31 4.8 0.49 5.95 6.25 0.3 8.43 8.18 -0.25
9 2.72 2.8 0.08 6.2 6.35 0.15 7.1 7.83 0.73
10 1.92 2.5 0.58 5.79 6.94 1.15 7.31 7.1 -0.21
Ave. 0.257 -0.07 0.515
site 10 site 11
sample 1 sample 2 change sample 1 sample 2 change
0 1.45 1.85 0.4 4.1 6.49 2.39
79
1 1.52 1.7 0.18 6.51 6.66 0.15
2 1.41 1.4 -0.01 6.72 7.31 0.59
3 1.32 1.3 -0.02 8.02 8.65 0.63
4 1.05 2.89 1.84 7.08 7.13 0.05
5 3.19 3.02 -0.17 7.12 7.05 -0.07
6 1.71 2.9 1.19 4.98 4.92 -0.06
7 1.34 2.85 1.51 4.46 3.97 -0.49
8 2.92 2.85 -0.07 3.2 3.65 0.45
9 2.03 2.36 0.33 3.87 3.21 -0.66
10 2.27 2.18 -0.09 2.4 3.11 0.71
Ave. 0.463 0.335
80
Appendix E – Bird Incidentals Detection type: S=Song, C=Call, V=Visual, W=Wing, D=Drumming, F=Fly over.
Time Location Detection type Nº Sex Species (common name) Species (scientific name) Notes
Date
19/09/2006 AM North beach Visual 4 Ruddy Turnstone Arenaria interpres
Yellow-margined Mixed
27/09/2006 AM Clearing - Biological Station Song / Visual 2 Tolmomyas assimilis
Flycatcher Flock
Flycatcher Flock
Mixed
02/10/2006 AM Clearing - Biological Station Song / Visual 2 Yellow-crowned Euphonia Euphonia luteicapila
Flock
Flycatcher Flock
North beach - Tortuguero River
06/10/2006 PM Visual 1 Ruddy Turnstone Arenaria interpres
Mouth
08/10/2006 PM North beach Visual 1 Ruddy Turnstone Arenaria interpres
11/10/2006 AM Caño Palma Visual 1 Green Ibis Mesembrinibis cayennensis
15/10/2006 AM Clearing - Biological Station Song 3 Green Ibis Mesembrinibis cayennensis
16/10/2006 PM Clearing - Lodge C.V.Mar Song / Visual 1 Yellow-crowned Euphonia Euphonia luteicapila
17/10/2006 AM Mouth of Caño Negro Visual 21 Black-necked Stilt Himantopus mexicanus
20/10/2006 PM Mouth of Caño Negro Visual 2 Sandwich Tern Sterna sandvicencis
20/10/2006 PM Mouth of Caño Negro Visual 1 Brown Noddy Anous stolidus
20/10/2006 PM Caño Palma Visual 3 Green Ibis Mesembrinibis cayennensis
21/10/2006 AM Clearing - Biological Station Song 1 Green Ibis Mesembrinibis cayennensis
27/10/2006 PM Caño Palma Visual 2 Green Ibis Mesembrinibis cayennensis
31/10/2006 PM Jalova Visual 1 Ruddy Turnstone Arenaria interpres
04/11/2006 AM Clearing - Biological Station Visual 1 F Green-breasted Mango Anthracothorax prevostii
08/11/2006 AM Biological Station Song 1 Yellow-crowned Euphonia Euphonia luteicapila
08/11/2006 AM Caño Negro Visual 2 Green Ibis Mesembrinibis cayennensis
08/11/2006 PM Jalova Call 1 Green Ibis Mesembrinibis cayennensis
11/11/2006 PM Caño Palma Visual 1 Agami Agamia Agamia
14/11/2006 AM Caño Palma Call 1 Green Ibis Mesembrinibis cayennensis
15/11/2006 AM Caño Palma Biological Station Song 2 Green Ibis Mesembrinibis cayennensis
81
20/11/2006 AM Tortuguero River Song 1 M Blue-winged Teal Anas discors
20/11/2006 PM Caño Palma Song 1 M Black-crowned Tityra tityra inquisitor
Date Time Location Detection type Nº Sex Species (common name) Species (scientific name) Notes
23/11/2006 PB Caño Palma Song 1 Green Ibis Mesembrinibis cayennensis
24/11/2006 PM Clearing - Biological Station Song 1 Yellow-crowned Euphonia Euphonia luteicapila
24/11/2006 AM Clearing - Lodge C.V.Mar Visual 1 Purple-crowned Fairy Heliothryx barroti
28/11/2006 AM Tortuguero River Visual 2 Green Ibis Mesembrinibis cayennensis
29/11/2006 AM Clearing - Biological Station Song 1 Yellow-crowned Euphonia Euphonia luteicapila
01/12/2006 PM Clearing - Biological Station Song 1 Green Ibis Mesembrinibis cayennensis
03/12/2006 AM Raphia Trail - See Notes Song 1 Yellow-crowned Euphonia Euphonia luteicapila See 1)
04/12/2006 AM/PM Caño Palma - Biological Station Song 2 Green Ibis Mesembrinibis cayennensis
04/12/2006 AM Clearing - Biological Station Visual 1 Gray-capped Cuckoo Coccyzus Lansbergi See 2)
AM/PM Caño Palma - Biological Station Visual 2 Green Ibis Mesembrinibis cayennensis
05/12/2006
05/12/2006 AM/PM Clearing - Biological Station Visual 1 Gray-capped Cuckoo Coccyzus Lansbergi See 3)
06/12/2006 PM Clearing - Biological Station Visual 1 Purple-crowned Fairy Heliothryx barroti
07/12/2006 PM Caño Palma Visual 1 Rufescent Tiger-Heron Tigrisoma lineatum
1+
08/12/2006 AM/PM Caño Palma - Biological Station Song / Visual Green Ibis Mesembrinibis cayennensis
3
Yellow-margined
09/12/2006 PM Clearing - Biological Station Song 1 Tolmomyas assimilis
Flycatcher
09/12/2006 PM Caño Palma - Biological Station Song 1 Green Ibis Mesembrinibis cayennensis
13/12/2006 AM Mawamba trail Wing 1 Rufescent Tiger-Heron Tigrisoma lineatum
13/12/2006 AM Tortuguero River Visual 1 Short-tailed Hawk Buteo brachyurus Pale phase
14/12/2006 AM; Caño Palma - Biological Station Call 1 Green Ibis Mesembrinibis cayennensis
1) Detection coming from C.V.Mar Lodge - Clearing

2) New Species for Costa Rica - Feeding on Caterpilars
3) Two Observations - Morning and afternoon
82
83
84

Phase 6 064 Science Report Final

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Phase 6 064 Science Report Final

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

GVI Costa Rica

Expedition 064 Report

10th October – 18th December 2006

10th October – 18th December 2006

Submitted in whole to:

Submitted in part to:

GVI Costa Rica

Address: Estación Biológica Caño Palma, Tortuguero, Costa Rica

Web page: http://www.gvi.co.uk

1. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ........................................................................................... i

Figure 4-8 Nest fate of nests marked by triangulation.MMMMMMMMMMMMMM..34

Information on Jaguars (Panthera onca) predating on marine turtle is sparse. In TNP,

A total of 10 surveys were conducted between 20 October and 12 December with an

Dead Turtles Found During Phase 064 per Week Killed

3.3.3. Setting the cameras

3.3.5. Data entering and analysis

Data should be entered after each Camera Walk, including:

4. SEA TURTLE MONITORING PROGRAMME

Based on previous studies conducted by COTERC there is a great amount of illegal

4.3.3. Night surveys

4.3.5. Biometric Data

4.3.6. Nest Fate, Nest Survivorship and Hatching success

4.4.1. Daily track census and nest surveys

4.4.2. Monitoring of female turtles

West 0 East Turtles (%)

CP0126 CP0179-CP0184 CP0199-CP0202

4.4.4. Biometric data

CCL min (cm) CCW max (cm) Number of Eggs

4.4.5. Turtle disease or injuries

4.4.6. Monitoring of nests

55% poached nests

Hatched and Excavated

4.4.8. Excavation Results, Hatching and Emerging success

Out of 62 nests marked by triangulation, 53 could be located using the measurements

n Fate Eggs total Shells total Hatching Emerging

n Fate Eggs total Shells total Hatching Emerging

4.5.2. Monitoring of female turtles

4.5.3. Biometric data

4.5.4. Monitoring of nests

Nests of critically endangered Hawksbill turtles need to be protected by all means,

4.5.5. Excavation results, hatching and emerging success

5. EBCP RESIDENT BIRD PROJECT1

5.3.1. Point Counts

• Point count station at which species was observed

• Station code at which species was observed

5.3.3. Incidental Observations

An incidental observation is an observation made while one is not engaged specifically

Cleared Areas AM Surveys

Cleared Areas PM Surveys

and Spotted Woodcreeper (Xiphorhynchus erythropygius).

Cinnamon Woodpecker (Celeus loricatus), Rufescent Tiger-Heron (Tigrisoma lineatum)

Great Crested Flycatcher

Little Blue Heron

Little Blue Heron

5.4.2. Incidental Observations

Gray-capped Cuckoo (Coccyzus lansbergi)

6. NATIONAL PARK TOURIST IMPACT ASSESSMENT

Assessing the severity of the effects of disturbance has important practical

6.3.1. Assessment of terrestrial trail condition

Any additional information that is considered to potentially be of use at a later date is

For each incidental observation the following information is recorded:

• Position in habitat (High, Medium, Low)

Date Time Location Species (common name) # individuals

25.10.06 4.30 Jalova Crocodiles 8 + or - 8