Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Programme
Tortuguero and the surrounding area have a long history with marine turtles. Archie Carr
began his studies of green turtles (Chelonia mydas) in Tortuguero in 1955 and since
1958 the Caribbean Conservation Corporation (CCC) has continued work on this
species and the others that nest on that beach (de Haro & Troëng, 2006). Although
Tortuguero and the Tortuguero National Park (TNP) are best known for their populations
of green turtles, they also host populations of leatherback turtles (Dermochelys
coriacea), hawksbill turtles (Eretmochelys imbricata) and the occasional loggerhead
turtle (Caretta caretta). The CCC initiated monitoring the leatherback nesting population
in 1995 (Campbell et al, 1996).
Located about 7 km north of Tortuguero, inside the Barra del Colorado Wildlife Refuge,
is the Estacion Biologica Caño Palma (EBCP). EBCP is owned by the Canadian
Organization for Tropical Education and Rainforest Conservation (COTERC) and is the
base of the Marine Turtle Monitoring and Conservation Programme of Playa Norte
(North Beach).
Two years after its creation in 1990, COTERC was approached by the CCC with the
idea of monitoring the marine turtle population on Playa Norte (Greg Mayne written
comm 2007), the beach to the north of Laguna Tortuguero. It was not until 2004 and
2005 that COTERC undertook a feasibility assessment in order to establish the
significance of the population of marine turtles nesting on Playa Norte and to determine
whether this number warranted a programme and significant protection (Greg Mayne
written comm 2007). The findings of the assessment were considered sufficient to
warrant the implementation of a long-term marine turtle monitoring programme and the
programme was initiated with the assistance of Global Vision International (GVI) in 2006.
The number of tourists visiting TNP has increased from about 49,000 in 2000 to over
103,000 in 2006 (Allan Valverde, written comm. 2007). This increase in visitors to the
TNP has had a trickle down effect on the reserve, Playa Norte and the surrounding
communities. The increase in tourism has opened up opportunity for employment and
with that has come further development. Playa Norte currently has two hotels, several
private homes and a new larger hotel is being planned. The nearest community to Playa
Norte, San Francisco, is increasing in size almost constantly and as a result is having a
It is expected that with a greater understanding of the turtle population and Playa Norte
this programme will help contribute to an informed approach to the management of the
study site, the refuge and the surrounding area.
1 Introduction................................................................................................................i
Table of Contents ........................................................................................................... iii
List of Figures................................................................................................................. 1
List of Tables .................................................................................................................. 1
2 Aim .......................................................................................................................... 3
3 Acknowledgements ................................................................................................. 3
4 Executive summary ................................................................................................. 4
4.1 Research Conducted ...................................................................................... 4
4.2 Conclusions .................................................................................................... 6
4.3 Recommendations .......................................................................................... 6
5 Methodology.......................................................................................................... 11
5.1.1 Study site .............................................................................................. 11
5.1.2 Beach preparations ............................................................................... 12
5.1.3 Staff and volunteer training.................................................................... 12
5.1.4 Daily track census and nest surveys...................................................... 12
5.1.5 Night patrols .......................................................................................... 13
5.1.6 Nest fate, nest survivorship and hatching success ................................ 14
5.1.7 Disguising nests .................................................................................... 15
5.1.8 Collection of human impact data............................................................ 15
6 Results .................................................................................................................. 16
6.1 Morning census............................................................................................. 16
6.1.1 Temporal distribution ............................................................................. 16
6.1.2 Spatial distribution ................................................................................. 17
6.1.3 Nest status based on morning census................................................... 18
6.2 Night patrol.................................................................................................... 20
6.2.1 Encounter time ...................................................................................... 20
6.2.2 Direction nesting.................................................................................... 21
6.2.3 Tagging ................................................................................................. 22
6.2.4 Biometric data ....................................................................................... 23
6.3 Nest fate, nest survivorship and hatchling success ....................................... 24
6.3.1 Nest fate for relocated nest.................................................................... 24
6.3.2 Nest fate of triangulated nests ............................................................... 25
Figure 6-1 Weekly nesting distribution of leatherback turtles. Playa Norte, Costa Rica. 17
Figure 6-2 Spatial distribution of nests and half moons from mile-markers 0 to 3 1/8.
Playa Norte, Costa Rica. .............................................................................................. 18
Figure 6-3 Leatherback nest status based on morning census, Playa Norte, Costa Rica.
..................................................................................................................................... 19
Figure 6-4 Nest status based on morning census from mile-markers 0 to 3 1/8. Playa
Norte, Costa Rica. ........................................................................................................ 20
Figure 6-5 Encounter time for leatherback nesting turtles. Playa Norte, Costa Rica. .... 21
Figure 6-6 Direction facing during oviposition. Playa Norte, Costa Rica........................ 22
Figure 6-7 Human impact data by month for PM one team. Playa Norte, Costa Rica ... 29
Figure 6-8 Human impact data by month for PM two team. Playa Norte, Costa Rica.... 30
List of Tables
Table 6-1 Monthly leatherback activity from March to June 2007, Playa Norte, Costa
Rica. ............................................................................................................................. 16
Table 6-2 Summary of tag status of all encountered leatherback turtles. Playa Norte,
Costa Rica.................................................................................................................... 22
Table 6-3 Tag series applied to leatherback turtles during the 2007 season. Playa Norte,
Costa Rica.................................................................................................................... 23
Table 6-4 Leatherback mean CCLmin and CCW for 2007 season. Playa Norte, Costa
Rica. ............................................................................................................................. 24
Table 6-5 Leatherback mean clutch size. Playa Norte, Costa Rica. .............................. 24
Table 6-7 Summary of excavation of relocated nest. Playa Norte, Costa Rica.............. 25
Table 6-8 Hatching and emerging success for all triangulated nests. Playa Norte, Costa
Rica. ............................................................................................................................. 25
Table 6-9 Summary of excavations for all triangulated nests. Playa Norte, Costa Rica. 26
Table 6-10 Hatching and emerging success of hatched excavated nests. Playa Norte,
Costa Rica.................................................................................................................... 26
Table 6-11 Summary of the hatched nest excavations. Playa Norte, Costa Rica. ......... 27
Table 6-12 Egg and nest depth during excavation for hatched and un-hatched nests.
Playa Norte, Costa Rica. .............................................................................................. 27
Table 6-13 Percent of all eggs predated. Playa Norte, Costa Rica. .............................. 27
Table 6-14 Nests status based on morning census and excavations. Playa Norte, Costa
Rica. ............................................................................................................................. 28
Table 6-15 Human impact data for nights with two teams from 8 March to 27 June. Playa
Norte, Costa Rica. ........................................................................................................ 28
Table 6-16 Stationary lights recorded per month. Playa Norte, Costa Rica................... 30
The programme’s specific conservation aims are to 1) reduce poaching rates and 2)
educate the community and tourists about marine turtle conservation, including
appropriate behaviour on the beach.
The programme’s specific scientific aims are to 1) gather selected biometric data on
nesting marine turtles, 2) record the spatial and seasonal distribution of nesting females,
3) monitor the number of nests and half moons, 4) determine the level of illegal poaching
on turtles and their nests, 5) record hatchling emergence and hatching success rates, 6)
monitor for the apparent physical health of nesting females, 7) track re-emergences to
the nesting beach and migration between beaches, and 8) register tourist and human
development around the nesting site.
3 Acknowledgements
This programme is the result of the hard work of GVI and COTERC employees and
volunteers. Their time and dedication is invaluable and the programme would not be
possible without them.
All data was collected by Patrol Leaders Rebeca Chaverri (GVI Costa Rica Country
Director), James Lewis (GVI Expedition Manager), Julie Jackson (GVI Assistant
Expedition Manager), Jennifer Christie (GVI Field Staff), Hannah Mountain (GVI Field
Staff), Brianne Smith (GVI Intern), Aysha Hamisi (GVI Intern), Tiffanie Rainville (GVI
Intern), Anne Thompson (COTERC Intern), Christina McDonald (COTERC Intern), and
GVI and COTERC volunteers. Thank you for your hard work and dedication.
Our appreciation to two local hotels, Cabinas Vista al Mar and Turtle Beach Lodge for
allowing the use of their property, for access to the beach and for cover during
thunderstorms.
Thanks to Jonathan Willans (EBCP Station Manager) and Mario Gómez Rodríguez
(EBCP Staff) for ensuring the day-to-day running of the station.
To MINAE and especially to Carlos Calvo for granting the permits not only for the turtle
research but also for the leatherback and hawksbill nest relocations.
Thanks to local police based in Tortuguero, in particular to don Matamoros, for their
presence on Playa Norte.
4 Executive summary
4.1 Research Conducted
1. Morning walks were conducted from 22 February to 27 June and night walks
from 8 March to 27 June.
2. The first leatherback track was recorded from the night of 7 March while the last
track was recorded on 27 June.
3. A total of 75 leatherback tracks were recorded this season, 50 of which lead to a
nest and the remaining 25 were half moons.
4. The peak month for leatherbacks was April, with 26 nests and 14 half moons
whilst the peak week was from 8 -14 April with nine nests and six half moons.
5. The peak night was 27 April when three nests were recorded.
6. The sections of beach with the highest nest activity were the eighth of a mile
before mile-markers 6/8, 7/8, 1, 1 7/8, 2, and 3 1/8.
7. A total of 86% of leatherback nests were in the open area (n=43), 14% in the
border (n=7), whilst none were in the vegetation.
8. Based on morning censuses, 74% (n=37) of nests were recorded as natural,
10% (n=5) as poached, 10% (n=5) as unknown, and 6% (n=3) as eroded
compared to 2006 when the nest status was 55% natural, 31% poached, 8%
unknown, and 6% eroded.
9. High areas of poaching or possible poaching (status ‘unknown’) were the eighth
of a mile before mile-markers 6/8, 7/8, 1, 2 7/8, and 3. 70% of the poached or
possibly poached nests occurred between mile-markers 5/8 and 1.
4.2 Conclusions
1. More nests this season remained natural compared to last season. This was
most likely due to a greater presence on the beach and a greater effort put into
disguising nests.
2. The quality of data has increased this season mainly due to the facts that data is
being stored in a Microsoft Office Access database and is being checked daily.
The new database proved to be a much more efficient and easier way to store,
extract and analyse data.
3. To triangulate nests when the egg chamber had not been seen proved unhelpful
as no nests were found during those excavations.
4. The data suggests that some nests may not be hatching because of the depth of
the nest. This will require further study next season.
5. In the last two years, this programme has improved greatly. Its standards for data
collection, training, data management, and ethics are continually being revised
and improved.
6. The new criteria used during morning census to determine the nest status is a
straightforward way to determine it.
7. Leatherback excavations proved to be difficult and eight of the 18 triangulated
nests could not be located. It is possible that some nests were not found because
a large amount of sand may have been deposited over the nest causing the eggs
to be deeper than expected.
8. The improvements in this season were possible due to the fact that the
management team for the programme remained consistent throughout the entire
season.
4.3 Recommendations
The methodology used for the marine turtle monitoring programme follows the COTERC
and GVI protocols and it was used for the duration of the leatherback season. For further
details, please refer to the 2007 Marine Turtle Monitoring and Conservation Programme
Night and Day Protocols.
The study area is located within Playa Norte and encompasses the 3 1/8 mile (~5 km)
long sandy beach that extends from the Tortuguero River mouth (10º36’36.9”N -
83º31’52.1”W) on the southern end to Laguna Cuatro (10º37’56.3”N – 83º32’25.7”W) at
the northern end. This beach is located within the Barra del Colorado Wildlife Refuge,
which like TNP, is managed by ACTo (Area de Conservación Tortuguero), part of the
Costa Rica Ministry of Environment and Energy (MINAE).
The study area is marked as mile 0 at the Tortuguero River mouth and mile 3 1/8 just
north of Laguna Cuatro. The length of the beach is divided and marked with mile-
markers at every 1/8 of a mile (approximately 200 meters). The mile-markers run in
ascending order from the south to the north to allow for the documentation of spatial
distribution and density of nests along the beach. A map of the study site is located in
appendix A, map 1.
The nearest village to the study site is San Francisco, a constantly growing community
of about 274 residents (van Oudenhoven, 2007), situated south of mile 0. Two hotels,
Cabinas Vista al Mar and Turtle Beach Lodge, and several houses are located along the
study site. There is a road that runs parallel to the beach the entire length of the study
site which is used by those on foot, bike, horseback, and car. On the southern side of
the Tortuguero River mouth is Tortuguero beach, which the CCC monitors from mile 0 to
Jalova lagoon at mile 18.
The dominant plants on the nesting beach are morning glory (Ipomoea pes-caprae), 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
Before the season began in February 2007, each mile-marker was repaired or replaced
if necessary, and reflective tape was nailed to the markers. Many beach cleans were
completed with the purpose of creating a better nesting site for leatherback turtles. In
addition, before a nest was meant to hatch the area in front was cleaned in order to
increase the survival rates of hatchlings.
Each volunteer and patrol leader was trained extensively both in the classroom and in
the field in order to ensure competent data collection and ethical behaviour on the
beach. Field training consisted of triangulating on the beach once during the day and
twice at night. Both patrol leaders and volunteers were tested on the night and day
protocols in the classroom and had a triangulation test on the beach. For the classroom
tests all patrol leaders and volunteers needed to receive a 95% in order to participate in
patrols. Patrol leaders were trained throughout the season, whilst training for GVI
volunteers occurred during 14 February—19 February, 12 April—16 April, and 17 May—
21 May.
The first morning census took place on 22 February and continued until the end of the
season (27 June). The date recorded was that of the night before since data was
collected on each and every nest and half moon from the previous night and dates
needed to be kept consistent. The daily morning census started at approximately 5:00 to
6:00 and lasted for up to three hours depending on the volume of data to collect. The
survey involved walking the beach between mile 0 and 3 1/8, recording and monitoring
tracks and nests from the night before.
The morning team identified tracks as full tracks (turtle nested), half moons (non-nesting
emergences), or a lifted turtle (no tracks going back into the sea). The vertical position of
the nest on the beach was identified either as Open (O – area of beach which receives
Night patrols were conducted nightly from 8 March to 27 June. Each night a minimum of
one survey team walked the beach between mile 0 and 3 1/8 for a minimum of four
hours per patrol. Nights when only one team was on the beach, they patrolled around
21:30 to 01:30 since these are the hours of greater leatherback emergence. When two
teams were scheduled, the first team surveyed the beach from approximately 20:30 to
00:30 whilst the second team patrolled from 23:00 to 03:00.
When a turtle track was found, the patrol leader determined whether or not the turtle was
still on the beach. If the turtle was not on the beach, the patrol leader determined if the
track was a half moon, nest, or lifted turtle. If it was deemed a half moon, the species,
coordinate using a handheld Geographical Positioning System (GPS), closest northern
mile-marker, and the time the track was seen were recorded. If the encountered track
led to a nest the species, GPS coordinate, closest northern mile-marker, time the track
was seen, vertical position, and nest status were recorded. If a lifted turtle was
encountered, the species, GPS coordinate, closest northern mile-marker, time the track
was seen and vertical position (if it had nested), were recorded along with any additional
information available that may help to determine the event circumstances.
All efforts were made not to disturb the turtle before oviposition. Patrol members who
were to come in contact with the turtle put on gloves. Once the egg-laying process had
started, the eggs were counted (yolkless and fertile counted separately) and
triangulation of the nest was completed. When the turtle completed oviposition and
began to cover her egg chamber, she was then checked for tags, old tag notches
(OTNs), old tag holes (OTHs), and tagged if necessary. Leatherback turtles were tagged
Once tagging was complete, the CCLmin and CCWmax were measured to the nearest
millimetre, three times each. If the measurements were not within 3 mm of each other, it
was taken again until the data was consistent. For leatherbacks, CCLmin measured from
the nuchal scute where the skin touches the carapace, along the back to the right of the
central ridge until the end of the caudal projection. It was also noted whether the caudal
projection was complete or not. The CCWmax was measured along the widest part of
the carapace.
Once tagging and measuring were completed, the turtle was checked for external
physical signs of health. Abnormalities such as missing parts, scars, fibropapillomas
tumors and other irregularities were recorded.
The GPS coordinate, closest northern mile marker, phase the turtle was found in (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),
encounter time, direction while nesting, and vertical position were also recorded.
Nests were triangulated during oviposition whenever possible. During this season,
triangulation was attempted even when the egg chamber was not seen in order to gather
as much information about the poaching rate and hatching success as possible.
Triangulation was done in order to locate and excavate the nests 75 days after the nest
was laid. Triangulation was conducted using three pieces of flagging tape which featured
the date, relative direction from nest (north, centre, south), and the station name. These
were attached to large trees, palms or suitable structures behind the nest. The distance
from the centre of the egg chamber to each of these tags was measured to the nearest
centimetre whilst the turtle was laying eggs. The distance to the most recent high tide
line was also recorded. 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
flagging tapes.
For all excavations, the number of live and dead hatchlings, egg shells accounting for
more than 50% of an egg, un-hatched eggs with embryo (stages 1, 2, 3 or 4), un-
hatched eggs without embryos and pipped eggs were recorded. Any egg or hatchling
that was predated by larvae, bacteria or fungi, ants, crabs or other animals were counted
and recorded.
For all nests accurately marked and measured, the nest’s fate was determined. Nests
which were not marked or unable to be excavated were excluded from the analysis. The
following nest fate categories were applied: natural and hatched, natural and un-
hatched, poached, predated, eroded and unknown. Empty egg chambers were classified
as poached nests. If there was any doubt about the fate of a nest it was categorized as
unknown.
During all excavations, the distance from the surface of the beach to the eggs as well as
to the bottom of the egg chamber was measured.
For all leatherback nests, a considerable effort was put into disguising the nests from
poachers. Different strategies were applied in order to make it as difficult as possible to
find the egg chamber. The teams frequently flattened out and disturbed a very large area
of sand, dug false body pits and egg chambers, making sure that no other nests were
around, and poured dry sand over the top of the disturbed sand in order to hide the track
and nest. The efforts, on occasion, were abandoned when people approached or when
dogs from the houses barked.
During each night survey, the number of red and white mobile lights, fires, locals and
tourists on the beach were recorded. A specific note was made when individual tourist
6 Results
Daily track census for the leatherback season commenced on 22 February and
continued through to 27 June, after which leatherback turtles were no longer recorded.
Night patrols began on 8 March, after the first track was seen during a morning census,
and continued through to 27 June. It should be noted, however, that walks continued
uninterrupted until the end of green turtle season. All data recorded on green, hawksbill,
or loggerhead turtles can be found in the 2007 Green Turtle Report.
On the nights of 6 April and 7 April, the weekend of Semana Santa (Easter), there was a
high level of human activity on the beach. Although morning censuses were continued, it
was deemed unsafe to conduct night patrols.
Table 6-1 Monthly leatherback activity from March to June 2007, Playa Norte, Costa Rica.
The week of 8 April to 14 April contained the highest activity, with nine nests recorded
and six half moons (Figure 6-1).
10
8
Number of nests or half moons
06 May
13 May
20 May
27 May
04 March
11 March
18 March
25 March
03 June
10 June
24 June
01 April
08 April
15 April
22 April
29 April
Week commencing on:
Figure 6-1 Weekly nesting distribution of leatherback turtles. Playa Norte, Costa Rica.
There were only a few occasions with multiple nests being recorded in one night. On 27
April there were three nests recorded and on the 3, 5, 10, 12, 14, 20, and 23 April, as
well as on the 2 May and 5 June two nests were recorded per night.
The spatial distribution of leatherback turtle nests and half moons is shown in Figure 6-2.
This information is complemented by the monthly spatial distribution map (see appendix
A, maps 2.1 - 2.4).
Nests
Half moons
4
Number of tracks
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
Closest northern mile-marker
Figure 6-2 Spatial distribution of nests and half moons from mile-markers 0 to 3 1/8. Playa
Norte, Costa Rica.
Note that just under 25% of the beach contained over 40% of the nests. These areas
were the eighth of a mile before mile-markers 6/8, 7/8, 1, 1 7/8, 2, and 3 1/8. The
monthly distribution for April, May and June 2007 shows that the nests were relatively
evenly distributed within the study site. Nests in March all occurred south of mile-marker
1 7/8 (appendix A, maps 2.1 - 2.4).
Of the 50 leatherback nests 86% were in the open area (n=43), 14% in the border (n=7)
and no nests were found in the vegetation.
Of the 50 nests recorded during the morning census survey period, 74% (n=37) were
recorded as natural, 10% (n=5) poached, 10% (n=5) unknown, and 6% (n=3) eroded
(Figure 6-3). The nest status based on morning censuses did not take into account
excavation status. The nest status from 2006 was 55% natural, 31% poached, 8%
unknown, and 6% eroded.
10%
10%
Natural
Poached
Unknown
Eroded
74%
Figure 6-3 Leatherback nest status based on morning census, Playa Norte, Costa Rica.
The areas between mile-markers 5/8 and 1 and 2 7/8 and 3 1/8 were areas that showed
higher levels of poaching or possible poaching (status unknown). 70% (n=7) of the
poached and unknown nests were between mile-markers 5/8 and 1 (Figure 6-4). In
addition to these areas, the three nests that eroded were located within the eighth of a
mile before mile-markers 1 1/8, 1 3/8, and 3 1/8 (Figure 6-4). These areas were
considered areas of lower success due to unnatural causes such as poaching and
natural causes such as erosion (appendix A, map 3.0).
3
Number of nests
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
Closest northern mile-marker
Figure 6-4 Nest status based on morning census from mile-markers 0 to 3 1/8. Playa Norte,
Costa Rica.
During the season (between 8 March and 27 June), leatherback turtles were
encountered at night 35 times, 850.7 hours were spent on night surveys and 0.041
leatherbacks were seen per working hour. Of the 50 nest occurrences this season the
nesting turtle was observed 64% (n=32) of the time. In 2006 50% of the nesting turtles
were encountered by a patrol team.
The peak encounter time for nesting turtles was between 22:00 and 00:59 when 65.62%
of the turtles were seen (Figure 6-5). Note that on nights when two teams were on the
beach, 23:00 and 1:00 was the time when there was the most coverage of the beach.
7
Number of nesting turtles
0
9
9
9
:5
:5
:5
:5
:5
:5
:5
20
21
22
23
01
02
00
0-
0-
0-
0-
0-
0-
0-
:0
:0
:0
:0
:0
:0
:0
20
21
22
23
00
01
02
Encounnter time
Figure 6-5 Encounter time for leatherback nesting turtles. Playa Norte, Costa Rica.
For the majority of the beach, the sea is to the northeast while the vegetation is to the
southwest. Figure 6-6 illustrates the direction the turtles were facing while nesting. The
majority of turtles were found facing southwest or southeast.
4
NW NE
W 0 E
SW SE
Figure 6-6 Direction facing during oviposition. Playa Norte, Costa Rica.
6.2.3 Tagging
Table 6-2 Summary of tag status of all encountered leatherback turtles. Playa Norte, Costa
Rica.
Table 6-3 Tag series applied to leatherback turtles during the 2007 season. Playa Norte,
Costa Rica.
According to the tags recorded none of the leatherbacks were tagged on Playa Norte in
previous seasons. One leatherback was tagged in Chiriquí (Panama), one was tagged in
Cahuita (Costa Rica), and many were tagged on Tortuguero Beach by the CCC. Refer to
appendix B for a summary of all encountered turtles and tag series for the 2007 season.
There were 26 individual leatherback turtles seen at night. A total of four leatherback
individuals re-nested on Playa Norte. One was seen four times and was seen twice in
one night, first doing a half moon at mile 2 2/8 at 22:44 and then nesting at mile 3 1/8 at
00:56. This turtle nested three times over the season and the re-nesting intervals turtle
were 26 days and 18 days. In addition, three other turtles were seen nesting twice;
having re-nesting intervals of nine days, 10 days and 39 days.
A total of 28 turtles were measured for CCLmin including re-nesting turtles. Using the
Mann-Whitney test the CCLmin of leatherback turtles with caudal projections complete
(n=25) and incomplete (n=3) showed no significant difference and therefore were
grouped together for calculating the mean. The mean CCLmin for all leatherback turtles
was 152.37 cm (n=28) whilst the mean CCWmax for all leatherbacks measured was
n X ± SD
CCLmin (cm) 28 152.37 ± 8.54
CCW (cm) 25 110.26 ± 7.33
Table 6-4 Leatherback mean CCLmin and CCW for 2007 season. Playa Norte, Costa Rica.
For all turtles where the eggs were counted (n=18) the mean number of fertile eggs was
73.06 and the mean infertile or yolkless eggs was 19.28 (Table 6-5). One turtle laid only
five eggs and was removed from all further analysis.
Clutch Size
n Fertile eggs ± SD n Yolkless ± SD
Leatherbacks 18 73.06 ± 20.34 18 19.28 ± 10.07
Table 6-5 Leatherback mean clutch size. Playa Norte, Costa Rica.
For turtles measured on two different occasions, the CCLmin precision was 1.46 and the
CCW precision was 0.56 (Table 6-6).
Table 6-6 Precision of leatherback CCLmin and CCWmax for multiple encounters. Playa
Norte, Costa Rica.
During the 2007 season, only one nest was relocated, summarized here but removed
from all other analysis. On 15 June a leatherback was found preparing to nest at mile 1
which was a predetermined high poaching zone. The nest was relocated to mile 3/8 as
no other areas nearby were suitable. The nest was excavated on 1 September and
11.94% (n=8) of the hatchlings had hatched and emerged successfully. No dead or alive
hatchling were found. Of the un-hatched eggs (n=59), 12 had been predated by ants and
46 by fungus or bacteria (Table 6-7).
67 27 0 0 8 40 8 4 3 4 0
Table 6-7 Summary of excavation of relocated nest. Playa Norte, Costa Rica.
The nest had initially been dug to a depth of 62 cm and a width of 35 cm. During
excavation, the distance from the top of the sand to the top of the eggs was 62 cm while
the distance from the top of the sand to the bottom of the nest was 66 cm, indicating that
at least 4 cm of sand had accumulated on top.
During this season, 18 nests were triangulated when the egg chamber was seen. Of
these nests eight were unable to be located during excavation because of either poor
triangulation or possibly because the excavation teams did not dig deep enough. These
nests have been removed from analysis. Of the remaining 10 nests, five nests were
located by triangulation but did not hatch at all. Hatchling tracks were seen from two
triangulated nests before they were excavated and the data was subsequently registered
by excavating them, two other triangulated nests were poached and one nest was
located by triangulation and had hatched.
The hatching success for the natural, hatched nests (n=3) was 58.29% while emerging
success was 55.92% (Table 6-8).
Table 6-8 Hatching and emerging success for all triangulated nests. Playa Norte, Costa
Rica.
The overall hatching success for all 10 nests was 18.26% whilst the emerging success
was 17.51% (Table 6-8). These figures were calculated using the estimated 673.74 total
eggs (70.33 x 3 + 65.60 x 5 + 67.37 x 2). The average number of poached eggs per nest
Total Mean
Unhatched, Stage Stage Stage Stage Number clutch
Nest fate N Live Dead Hatched no Embryo 1 2 3 4 Pipped of Eggs size
Natural and hatched 3 3 2 123 45 5 2 11 25 0 211 70.33
Natural and un-
hatched 5 0 0 0 251 7 5 35 30 0 328 65.60
Poached 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ? ?
Total 10 3 2 123 296 12 7 46 55 0 539 N/A
Table 6-9 Summary of excavations for all triangulated nests. Playa Norte, Costa Rica.
Considering all nests (triangulated and non-triangulated), nine nests were found to have
hatched. Of those nine nests, eight were able to be excavated because hatchling tracks
were seen and one additional nest was found because it had been triangulated. The
hatching rate for all nine nests was 54.70% and the emerging rate was 49.43% (Table
6-10).
% Hatching % Emerging
Hatched nests Total fertile eggs Total infertile eggs success success
n=9 702 283 54.70 49.43
Table 6-10 Hatching and emerging success of hatched excavated nests. Playa Norte,
Costa Rica.
There were a total of 384 hatched eggs out of 702 fertile eggs. A summary of the nine
excavations is found below in Table 6-11. Map 4.0 in appendix A shows the location of
successful nests.
Table 6-11 Summary of the hatched nest excavations. Playa Norte, Costa Rica.
Of the eight sets of hatchling tracks that were found, the mean incubation time was
62.75 days. The minimum incubation time was 51 days and the maximum was 69 days.
The egg depth (top of sand to top of eggs) and nest depth (top of sand to bottom of nest)
recorded during excavation varied considerably between hatched and un-hatched nests.
The mean egg depth for hatched nests was 63.22 cm as opposed to 99.40 cm for un-
hatched nests. The mean nest depth for hatched nests was 84.67 cm and 122.90 cm for
un-hatched nests (Table 6-12).
Table 6-12 Egg and nest depth during excavation for hatched and un-hatched nests. Playa
Norte, Costa Rica.
A summary of the predation of all hatched and un-hatched nests is shown below in
Table 6-13. The un-hatched nests had a higher percentage of predation (38.72%) than
hatched nests (18.52%). The majority of predation for both hatched and un-hatched
nests was due to bacteria or fungi.
Table 6-13 Percent of all eggs predated. Playa Norte, Costa Rica.
After completion of the excavations it was found that the status determined on morning
census for three nests was incorrect. For one excavation, a nest that was deemed to be
natural was actually found to be poached as infertile eggs were found but no fertile eggs.
For another nest, the morning census nest status was unknown and the excavation
proved that the nest was poached as again infertile eggs were found but no fertile eggs,
and for a third nest, the morning census status was poached but the nest was found to
be natural after excavation. The nest status based on morning census and excavation
for all 50 nests is illustrated below in Table 6-14.
Table 6-14 Nests status based on morning census and excavations. Playa Norte, Costa
Rica.
Map 5.0 in appendix A shows the final nest status based on morning census and
excavations.
Table 6-15 shows the mean number of mobile red lights, mobile white lights, locals, and
tourists on the beach per walk for nights when there were two walks. As most PM two
walks were held later in the night there was a lot less human presence compared to PM
one walks.
Table 6-15 Human impact data for nights with two teams from 8 March to 27 June. Playa
Norte, Costa Rica.
The human impact data per month is summarized for PM one and PM two teams in
Figure 6-7 and Figure 6-8. According to PM one data the number of tourists, red lights,
7.00
6.00
5.00
Mean number per night
2.00
1.00
0.00
March April May June
Month
Figure 6-7 Human impact data by month for PM one team. Playa Norte, Costa Rica
6.00
5.00
Mean per night
2.00
1.00
0.00
March April May June
Month
Figure 6-8 Human impact data by month for PM two team. Playa Norte, Costa Rica
Stationary red and white lights were recorded each new moon when possible or within a
few days of it (Table 6-16). Over the season, many white lights were changed to red at
the local hotels and at a couple of the houses at the request of the station.
Table 6-16 Stationary lights recorded per month. Playa Norte, Costa Rica.
7 Discussion
7.1 Daily morning census
7.1.1 Temporal Distribution
The number of nests this season (n=50) was only slightly lower than the number of nests
last season (n=52). Such a small variation in Playa Norte differs from the fluctuations in
the number of nest recorded in nesting sites such as Tortuguero (Haro & Harrison 2007)
and Gandoca (Chaverri-Chacón & Machado 2006). Many more years of data collection
The spatial distribution of the nests shows areas of high nesting activity. This data can
be used next season in order to maximize the likelihood of turtle encounters.
The areas of high poaching that have been identified can also be a focus of walks in the
future in order to prevent more poaching and to help decide when to relocate a nest. The
two high poaching areas coincide with areas that are far from hotels but near houses. A
police presence on occasion in those areas could be of great benefit.
A high percentage of leatherback turtles nested in the open area of the beach. Many
turtles emerged onto the beach, hit a sand bank and nested just below the sand bank.
Nevertheless, leatherback turtles can voluntarily nest in the low tide area in the absence
of logs and other barriers (Chacón-Chaverri & Machado 2006).
Some turtles also nested below the high tide line, which caused the egg chamber to
become flooded. The programme was granted a relocation permit, but not until towards
the end of the season. Next season the nests of encountered turtles that are laid under
the high tide line will be relocated to a more suitable beach area.
The programme will continue registering the natural location of the nests since this
information provides valuable information on the leatherback reproductive behaviour
patterns as well as nest site selection that can be used for management decisions
(Chacón-Chaverri & Machado 2006).
This season each nest was monitored for two days. For many occasions the nest did not
get poached until after the first day. This monitoring method gives us a better indication
of the true poaching rate on Playa Norte compared to previous seasons when the nests
were monitored for only one day.
Whilst only 6% of the nests were eroded (n=3) the locations of the eroded nests also
correspond with areas of the beach that are either very narrow and likely for erosion or
at Laguna Cuatro (between miles 2 7/8 and 3 1/8) which opens up and becomes a river
during times of floods. Because of the likelihood of floods, nests in front of Laguna
Cuatro should be relocated next season.
More night patrols were conducted this season than last, which is the possible reason for
more turtles being encountered.
More turtles encountered during the nesting stage faced toward the vegetation rather
than towards the ocean. This arguable preference may be a sign of turtles avoiding the
most lighted area of the horizon and preferring the darker vegetation line (Chacón-
Chaverri, 2007 pers comm).
7.2.2 Tagging
Eight leatherback turtles were newly tagged this season compared to nine last season.
Many turtles had tags from other projects including Tortuguero and Cahuita in Costa
Rica and Chiriquí in Panama. This illustrates the need for widespread turtle conservation
as turtles nest on multiple beaches within a season and from year to year.
Only one nest was relocated this season so no conclusions can be made. Next season,
with a permit from the beginning of the season, plus the valuable data from this season,
a better assessment of relocation on Playa Norte can be made.
This season 18 nests were triangulated but eight were not able to be located. Next
season a greater effort to find nests by digging much deeper will be implemented. The
un-hatched nests did not hatch either due to being poached, flooding, erosion, or
possibly because too much sand was deposited on top of them over the season, as the
data seems to suggest. Next season the original egg depth will be measured post
oviposition in addition to the depth found at time of excavation.
The minimum incubation time was 51 days with the maximum at 69 days and a mean of
62.75 days, similar numbers as to those reported by Chacón-Chaverri & Machado
(2006) of 51 to 75 days and a mean of 62 days. These numbers are within the range
reported for this species from years of research at Gandoca (Chacón 1999).
The errors encountered this season in the determination of nest status show that
although improvements have been made, there is still a degree of subjectivity in
assessing the nest status during morning census. By cross examining the data collected
during morning census and excavations and by stressing the importance of following the
protocol for nest status during morning census, we can expect to decrease the level of
subjectivity for the 2008 season.
Even with the corrections the poaching rate this season was still lowered that in previous
seasons, which is very encouraging.
The amount of human activity has increased over the years and with constant data
collection throughout the seasons, this should be easily illustrated in the future. The
amount of houses along the beach is on the rise as well as the amount of clearing of the
beach vegetation. This could be a problem because the number of lights is increasing
along with development along the beach which could interfere with hatchling orientation
(Eckert et al. 1999, Nicholas 2001).
8 References
Campbell, C.L., Lagueux, C.J., J.A. Mortimer, 1996. Leatherback turtle, Dermochelys
coriacea, nesting at Tortuguero, Costa Rica, in 1995. Chelonian Conservation and
Biology 2:169-172.
Eckert, K.L., Bjorndal, K.A., Abreu-Grobois, F.A. & M. Donelly (eds). 1999. Research
and management techniques for the conservation of sea turtles. IUCN/SSC Marine
Turtle Specialist Group Publication No 4. Washington, D.C., USA.
Haro, A. & E. Harrison. 2006. Report on the 2006 leatherback program at Tortuguero,
Costa Rica. Caribbean Conservation Corporation.
Haro, A. & S. Troëng,. 2006. Report on the 2005 green turtle program at Tortuguero,
Costa Rica. Caribbean Conservation Corporation.
Nicholas, 2001. Light pollution and marine turtle hatchlings: the straw that brakes the
camel’s back? Protecting dark skies 8(4): 77-82.
Written communications
Valverde, Allan. 2007. Encargado de Uso Público. Estacion Cuatro Esquinas. Parque
Nacional Tortuguero.
Mayne, Greg. 2007. Site manager for Caño Palma Biological Station. COTERC.
Personal communications
3 1/8 d
Section 1
3 d
2 7/8 d
2 6/8 d
2 5/8 d
2 4/8 d
2 3/8 d
2 2/8 d
2 1/8 d
2 d
1 7/8 d
1 6/8 d
1 5/8 d
1 4/8 d Section 2
1 3/8 d
1 2/8 d
1 1/8 d
1 d Legend
6/8 d
Beach
Canal
5/8 d Sea
Path
3/8 d
Forest
Other
Map Coverage
1/8 d
N
W E
S
Scale 1:28,000
1 4/8 d
3 d
Legend
1 3/8 d
2 7/8 d #
³
Dc Activity
2 6/8 d
1 2/8 d
#
³ #
³ Half Moon
1 1/8 d
#
· Nest
1 d
Beach
2 4/8 d Canal
7/8
#d
· Sea
2 3/8 d
Forest
6/8 d Path
2 2/8 d
Biological Station
5/8 d Other
2 1/8 d
d Mile Marker
N
4/8 d
2 d
W E
3/8 d#
·
1 7/8 d
#
· Scale 1:15,000 S
2/8 d
1 6/8 d 0.04 0 0.04 0.08 0.12 0.16 0.2 0.24 0.28 0.32 0.36 0.4 Miles
1 5/8 d #
·
1/8 d
Produced by GVI Costa Rica in Partnership with COTERC
#
³
Section 1
d
d
·#
#· 1 4/8 d
#
·
#
·
3
#
³ 1 3/8 d
#·#
³
Legend
2 7/8 d #
³
#
· Dc Activity
2 6/8 d
1 2/8 d
#
³ Half Moon
1 1/8 d
#
· Nest
1 d
Beach
2 4/8 d#
³ #·
·
Canal
#d
7/8
#
· Sea
2 3/8 d
·#
#³ Forest
2 2/8 d
6/8 d #
#·
· Path
#·
·# #·
·#d
Biological Station
5/8 Other
2 1/8 d
#·#
³ d Mile Marker
N
#
·
2 d
4/8 d
#·
·#d 3/8 d
W E
1 7/8
#
· #
³ S
1 6/8 d
#·#
³ 2/8 d #·#
³ Scale 1:15,000
#
·
0.04 0 0.04 0.08 0.12 0.16 0.2 0.24 0.28 0.32 0.36 0.4 Miles
1/8 d
1 5/8 d Produced by GVI Costa Rica in Partnership with COTERC
Section 1
#
³
1 5/8 d
Section 2
d
1 4/8 d
3 d
#
· #
·
Legend
1 3/8 d
2 7/8 d
Dc Activity
2 6/8 d
1 2/8 d
#
³ Half Moon
#³
·#·# 1 1/8 d
#
· Nest
2 5/8 d
#
· Habitat Type
#³
·#³
#·#d 1 d
Beach
2 4/8 Canal
7/8 d Sea
2 3/8 d
Forest
6/8 d Path
2 2/8 d
Biological Station
5/8 d
#
·
Other
2 1/8 d
d Mile Marker
N
2 d
4/8 d
#
·
#
³ W E
#d
· 3/8 d
1 7/8
#
· Scale 1:15,000 S
2/8 d
1 6/8 d 0.04 0 0.04 0.08 0.12 0.16 0.2 0.24 0.28 0.32 0.36 0.4 Miles
1 5/8 d#
³ 1/8 d
Produced by GVI Costa Rica in Partnership with COTERC
#
³
d
#
· 1 4/8 d
3 d
Legend
1 3/8 d
2 7/8 d #
·
Dc Activity
2 6/8 d
#
· 1 2/8 d
#
³ Half Moon
1 1/8 d
#
· Nest
2 5/8 d
#
³
Habitat Type
1 d
Beach
2 4/8 d #
· Canal
7/8 d Sea
2 3/8 d
#·
·#d
Forest
2 2/8 d
#
· 6/8 Path
#
³
Biological Station
5/8 d Other
2 1/8 d
#
· d Mile Marker
N
4/8 d
2 d
3/8 d
W E
1 7/8 d #
³
Scale 1:15,000 S
2/8 d
1 6/8 d 0.04 0 0.04 0.08 0.12 0.16 0.2 0.24 0.28 0.32 0.36 0.4 Miles
1/8 d
1 5/8 d Produced by GVI Costa Rica in Partnership with COTERC
1 4/8 d
3 d 3
Legend
1 3/8 d
2 7/8 d
2 7/8
1 2/8 d
2 6/8 d
2 6/8
Low success area
1 1/8 d
2 5/8 d Habitat Type
2 5/8
Beach
1 d
2 4/8 d Canal
2 4/8
7/8 d
Sea
2 3/8 d
2 3/8
Forest
2 2/8 d
6/8 d Path
2 2/8
Biological Station
5/8 d Other
2 1/8 d
2 1/8
d Mile Marker
N
4/8 d
2 d 2
W E
3/8 d
1 7/8 d 1 7/8
Scale 1:15,000 S
2/8 d
1 6/8 d1 6/8 0.04 0 0.04 0.08 0.12 0.16 0.2 0.24 0.28 0.32 0.36 0.4 Miles
1 5/8 d 1/8 d
1 5/8
Produced by GVI Costa Rica in Partnership with COTERC
33 d
#· 1 4/8 d
Legend
1 3/8 d
2 7/8 d
2 7/8
Nests
2 6/8 d
2 6/8
1 2/8 d
#
· Hatched Nest
2 5/8 d
2 5/8 Beach
1 d
Canal
2 4/8 d
2 4/8 Sea
#
·
#
·
7/8 d Forest
#
·
2 3/8 d
2 3/8
#
·d
Path
5/8
#
·d Other
2 1/8 d
d Mile Marker
2 1/8
d Mile Marker
N
4/8 d
2 d 2
#
· 3/8 d
W E
1 7/8 d
#
·
1 7/8
Scale 1:15,000 S
2/8 d
1 6/8 d1 6/8 0.04 0 0.04 0.08 0.12 0.16 0.2 0.24 0.28 0.32 0.36 0.4 Miles
1 5/8 d
1 5/8 #
·
1/8 d
Produced by GVI Costa Rica in Partnership with COTERC
#
Y
#YöZ
d $
1 4/8 d
Y
#
#YS
3
1 3/8 d Z$ Legnd
2 7/8 d #
Y
#
Yd Nest Status
2 6/8 d
#Y 1 2/8
Z$ Eroded
#Y 1 1/8 d
#
Y Natural
#Yd #
S
$Z
Poached
ö
2 5/8
#
Yö 1 d
Unknown
#Y
d #
Y#
Habitat Type
Sö#
2 4/8
Yd Beach
7/8
#
Y
2 3/8 d
#
Y #
S#
Canal
Sdö Sea
#
Yd 6/8
#
Y
#
Y#
2 2/8 Forest
Y ö#Yd Path
5/8
2 1/8
#
Y
d
#
Y Biological Station
#
Y N
#
Y
Other
2#
Yd 4/8 d
d Mile Marker
#
Y#
Y# #
Y W E
Yd#
Y
3/8 d
1 7/8
#
Y S
#
Y
Scale 1:15,000
2/8 d
1 6/8 d #
Y#
Y
0.04 0 0.04 0.08 0.12 0.16 0.2 0.24 0.28 0.32 0.36 0.4 Miles
1 5/8 d
1/8 d #
Y Produced by GVI Costa Rica in Partnership with COTERC