Marine Turtle Monitoring and Conservation

Programme

Playa Norte, Tortuguero

2007 Leatherback Turtle Report

Produced by GVI staff members:

Julie Jackson
James Lewis
Rebeca Chaverri

Programme Coordinated by Global Vision International (GVI) in partnership with Canadian

Organization for Tropical Education and Rainforest Conservation (COTERC)
1 Introduction

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

© Global Vision International - January 2008 i

very obvious impact on the local environment. This increased demand on local
resources is demonstrating the need for management of both TNP and the Barra del
Colorado Wildlife Refuge as well as the importance of the monitoring programme on
Playa Norte.

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.

© Global Vision International - January 2008 ii

Table of Contents

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

© Global Vision International - January 2008 iii

 6.3.3 Summary of all hatched nest excavations.............................................. 26
6.3.4 Nest status based on morning census and excavations ........................ 28
6.4 Human impact data ....................................................................................... 28
7 Discussion ............................................................................................................. 30
7.1 Daily morning census.................................................................................... 30
7.1.1 Temporal Distribution ............................................................................ 30
7.1.2 Spatial distribution ................................................................................. 31
7.1.3 Nest status based on morning census................................................... 31
7.2 Night patrol.................................................................................................... 32
7.2.1 Direction nesting.................................................................................... 32
7.2.2 Tagging ................................................................................................. 32
7.2.3 Biometric data ....................................................................................... 33
7.3 Nest fate and hatching success..................................................................... 33
7.3.1 Nest fate for relocated nest.................................................................... 33
7.3.2 Nest fate for triangulated nests.............................................................. 33
7.3.3 Summary of all hatched nest excavations.............................................. 33
7.3.4 Nest status based on morning census and excavations ........................ 34
7.4 Human impact............................................................................................... 34
8 References............................................................................................................ 34
9 Appendix ............................................................................................................... 36
9.1 Appendix A Maps .......................................................................................... 36
9.2 Appendix B Summary of all encountered leatherbacks.................................. 45

© Global Vision International - January 2008 iv

List of Figures

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

© Global Vision International - January 2008 1

Table 6-6 Precision of leatherback CCLmin and CCWmax for multiple encounters. 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

© Global Vision International - January 2008 2

2 Aim

The overall aim of this programme is to be a leader in the long-term conservation of

marine turtles in the area of Playa Norte and to ethically gather valuable scientific data
on the nesting marine turtles.

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.

© Global Vision International - January 2008 3

To the CCC that allowed our Patrol Leaders to attend training classes and assisted with
training some Patrol Leaders in tagging.

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.

© Global Vision International - January 2008 4

 10. During night census 35 turtles were encountered, 32 of them nested and the
remaining three did half moons.
11. Of the 50 leatherback nest occurrences this season the nesting turtle was
observed 64% (n=32) of the time compared to 50% in 2006.
12. The peek encounter time for nesting turtles was between 22:00 and 00:59 when
65.62% of observed nesting turtles were seen.
13. Eight of the nesting turtles observed were newly tagged (presumably neophytes),
23 were previously tagged, and one was not previously tagged and was not
tagged.
14. Four leatherback turtles re-nested on Playa Norte, one nesting three times and
three nesting twice.
15. The mean minimum curved carapace length (CCLmin) for all leatherbacks
measured was 152.37 cm (n=28). The mean maximum curved carapace width
(CCW) was 110.26 cm (n=25).
16. The maximum CCLmin measured was 171.17 cm whilst the minimum CCLmin
measured 138.50 cm.
17. One leatherback nest was relocated because it was found digging its egg
chamber at mile 1 which was deemed a high poaching area. The hatching and
emerging success of that nest was 11.94%.
18. Of 18 nests triangulated, eight could not be located, five were found but had not
hatched, three were found and had hatched, and two were found and had been
poached.
19. The hatching success for the triangulated natural, hatched nests (n=3) was
58.29% while emerging success was 55.92%. The overall hatching success for
all 10 triangulated nests that were located was 18.26% whilst the emerging
success was 17.51%.
20. Excluding the relocated nest, nine excavated nests had hatched, with a hatching
rate of 54.70% and an emerging rate of 49.43%. The egg chambers for these
nests were found due to either triangulation or observed hatchling tracks.
21. Eight sets of hatchling tracks were found for which they had a mean incubation
time of 62.75 days.
22. The mean nest depth found during excavations for hatched nests was 84.67 cm
and for un-hatched nests was 122.90 cm.

© Global Vision International - January 2008 5

 23. The percent of all eggs predated for hatched nests was 18.52% and for un-
hatched nests was 38.72%.

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

1. It is critical to the programme that a Field Coordinator(s) is designated to manage

the training, ensure high quality data collection, entry and analysis, and to
guarantee that all aspects of the programme continue (beach cleans,
excavations, hatchling watches, etc). The Field Coordinator(s) should not be

© Global Vision International - January 2008 6

 required to partake in multiple areas of station or expedition work but be able to
focus on the management of the turtle programme. This may mean the Field
Coordinator(s) will be unable to undertake patrols due to other priorities such as
data control and report writing.
2. Extensive training in the classroom and in the field for patrol leaders and
volunteers increased competence levels on the beach and the quality of data
collection. The comprehensive training and high standards should continue next
season.
3. It is advised that the programme has more patrol leaders as the schedule for GVI
is rigorous. More patrol leaders would allow time for presentations in the
community and at hotels, more patrols on the beach, more beach cleans, and
higher quality data collection as the patrol leaders would have more time to
recuperate prior to their next patrol.
4. A recruiting effort should to be made to maintain the number of volunteers next
year in order to undertake the large amount of work that is needed to run the
programme. GVI has consistently provided enough volunteers during their
occupancy of the station, however, in the time between these periods the number
of volunteers drops dramatically. It is suggested that more volunteers and patrol
leaders are recruited during these periods in order to continue at the same
standard of work throughout the season.
5. It is recommended that all patrol leaders and volunteers get trained in managing
tourists and people from the local community. Since patrol teams are not policing
the beach, they must not act like it and should use these encounters as an
opportunity to create awe and to educate.
6. Environmental education in the local community of San Francisco and for the
landowners along Playa Norte is critical. Presentations about the work done at
the station and about the need for conserving marine turtles should be done at
least twice during the turtle season.
7. Environmental education for the children is very important to the future of the
programme and the area. It is recommended that this be continued. It is also
recommended that the children, in small groups, be invited to the beach to watch
a marine turtle nest whilst learning about the importance of protecting them.
Parents should be invited as well.

© Global Vision International - January 2008 7

 8. The mile-markers on the beach help teams to know their location and it is an
easy way to divide up the beach for analysis. Before next season, all markers
should be re-measured to ensure that they are 200 meters apart and the
accurate GPS coordinates should be taken at each one (with an accuracy of five
meters or less). Each mile-marker should be painted white with large black
numbers written on them.
9. More white lights on the beach over the season were replaced with red ones, but
the programme should contact hotels and landowners prior to the beginning of
the season to ensure more lights are red before the season starts. As done
during this year, the programme could purchase red lights for the landowners as
long as there is a commitment to use them.
10. Morning censuses and night walks should be continued as during the 2007
season. It is advised that more night walks should take place, having at least two
to three patrols every night. This would require more patrol leaders.
11. Leatherbacks are a critically endangered species and all eggs and nesting
females should be protected and monitored as much as possible. The last two
years have had only 52 and 50 nests. Therefore, there should be an effort made
in 2008 to walk more often in the high poaching areas (between mile 5/8 and 1),
especially when they correspond to high emergence areas.
12. The criteria used during morning census to determine the nest status should
continue in order to allow for comparing poaching rates from year to year.
13. Because of the relative low number of nests and the high importance of the
individuals, all leatherback nests should be monitored for more than two days. It
would be of interest to monitor each nest daily in order to know if they have
become flooded, eroded, poached or predated.
14. It is recommended that all mapping GPS units have all nests coordinates saved.
This will prevent affecting other nests during the disguising of leatherback nests
or covering a nest with logs during beach cleans.
15. It would be beneficial if resources were allocated to someone who could research
excavations to study prior knowledge on the subject and to analyse further our
own findings. This will prevent mistakes from being made and gain knowledge to
improve methods.
16. The excavation team needs to dig much deeper as some nests were more than a
metre deep. It is worth considering marking the nests in some way in addition to

© Global Vision International - January 2008 8

 triangulation. A bit of flagging tape or aluminium tag could be placed into the nest
after the turtle begins to cover the egg chamber. This would make it simpler to
find the egg chamber.
17. The egg depth should be measured just before the turtle starts to disguise in
order to compare with the egg depth during excavation.
18. Due to the uncertainty as to where the egg chamber was located, it is
recommended that next season only nests in which the egg chamber is seen
should be triangulated.
19. As leatherback nests are difficult to find during excavation, training should
include information on the depth and width of holes that should be dug during
excavations.
20. During the 2007 season, night survey data was entered after each patrol, either
after the shift or the following morning. Morning census and excavation data was
always entered immediately after the survey. The data was then checked
thoroughly by the programme manager. Because of the nature of this programme
and the changing patrol leaders and volunteers, it is absolutely essential to the
consistency and quality of the data that it continues to be entered by field teams
and that the programme manager is able to check it on a daily basis for the entire
season.
21. The Microsoft Office Access database should continue to be used to ensure data
consistency. Some improvements should be implemented.
22. It is recommended that the data continue to be managed on site in order for high
poaching areas to receive immediate attention.
23. A good relationship with the local hotels is important to the programme. It is
recommended that a presentation be developed for hotel staff (in Spanish or
English as needed) in order to educate them about what is being studied on
Playa Norte and about good practices on the beach. Another presentation should
be developed for tourists educating them about what is done on the beach and
about the importance of protecting marine turtles.
24. Local lodges should be encouraged to use the programme’s staff to deliver
presentations to tourist on a regular basis. This would require staff, interns and
volunteers to be able to schedule time to do such visits.
25. The proper funding should be allocated to print and distribute a bilingual brochure
that was designed during this season. It targets the local hotels so that their

© Global Vision International - January 2008 9

 guests are aware of what the programme does and guidelines for walking the
beach at night.
26. At various times throughout the season flagging tape was found either on gates
to people’s houses or ripped off the trees and thrown onto the beach. The
programme was also informed that the poachers read the dates on the flagging
tape in order to determine if a nest can be dug up or not. Moreover, partway
through the season the dates were no longer written on the tape. It is
recommended that green flagging tape be purchased in order to camouflage it,
that no tape be left flying in the wind, and that dates are not to be written onto the
tape.
27. Since regular police and MINAE visits could deter poachers from coming onto the
beach, there should be a stronger presence from both parties. The police should
continue to be encouraged to visit the local community of San Francisco when
possible. More police presence may deter the selling of turtle eggs and turtle
meat in town. From personal communication with villagers the programme has
learned that it is fairly easy to obtain both.
28. The programme should encourage the police to patrol the beach during the
weekend of Semana Santa (Easter) in order to provide the safety needed to
carry out the surveys.
29. Development along Playa Norte is continuing and increasing with speed. It is
advised that all developed areas are documented by both informal observations
as well as mapping using ArcView at the beginning and the end of each season.
30. It is not known how many leatherbacks nest north of mile 3 1/8. If the resources
allow, the programme should perform a preliminary study on this beach to
determine the level of activity in that area, something in which MINAE is
interested.
31. For the purpose of relocation training, at least one patrol leader without previous
experience should be trained in nesting beaches with greater nesting numbers in
order to reduce the time to acquire the necessary experience and confidence.
32. Based on the 2007 season nest status data, it is recommended that all
leatherback nests in front of Laguna Cuatro and in high poaching areas, such as
mile 1, be relocated without hesitation.

© Global Vision International - January 2008 10

5 Methodology

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.

5.1.1 Study site

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

© Global Vision International - January 2008 11

hardwoods behind. The beach is littered with a variety of debris including logs, coconut
husks and a large amount of plastics, bottles, and garbage in general.

5.1.2 Beach preparations

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.

5.1.3 Staff and volunteer training

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.

5.1.4 Daily track census and nest surveys

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

© Global Vision International - January 2008 12

100% sunlight), Border (B - area where nest is partially shaded by vegetation) or
Vegetation (V - area where nest is constantly shaded by vegetation). Nests were then
identified as natural (if it remained in its original state until hatchling emergence or
excavation), poached (when egg shells or a cavity were found), eroded or predated by
an animal. It was marked as unknown if the nest had signs of poaching such as flies,
stick holes, and human and/or dog prints, and it was believed that the nest was poached
but no egg shells or cavity were seen.

5.1.5 Night patrols

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

© Global Vision International - January 2008 13

in the thin membrane between the rear flippers and the tail using Monel #49 tags
(National Band & Tag Co., Newport, USA).

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.

5.1.6 Nest fate, nest survivorship and hatching success

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.

© Global Vision International - January 2008 14

Reverse triangulation was also used during beach cleans in order to locate the nest so a
pathway could be cleared for the hatchlings. In addition to triangulated nests, all nests
found because hatchlings or hatchling tracks were seen on the beach during morning or
night surveys were excavated two days after the first hatchling tracks were encountered.

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.

5.1.7 Disguising nests

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.

5.1.8 Collection of human impact data

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

© Global Vision International - January 2008 15

groups exceeding 10 people were encountered. Each month during the new moon, the
number of stationary white and stationary red lights was also recorded.

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.

6.1 Morning census

6.1.1 Temporal distribution

Based on morning census, a total of 75 leatherback tracks were encountered on Playa

Norte, of which 50 lead to a nest and 25 were half moons. Leatherback activity reached
its peak in April with 26 nests recorded. Monthly leatherback activity from March through
to June is shown in Table 6-1.

Month Number of nests Number of half moons Total number of tracks

March 4 2 6
April 26 14 40
May 12 5 17
June 8 4 12
TOTAL 50 25 75

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).

© Global Vision International - January 2008 16

 Number of Nests Number of Half Moons

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.

6.1.2 Spatial distribution

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).

© Global Vision International - January 2008 17

 6

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.

6.1.3 Nest status based on morning census

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.

© Global Vision International - January 2008 18

 6%

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).

© Global Vision International - January 2008 19

 4
Natural
Poached or Unknown
Eroded

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.

6.2 Night patrol

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.

6.2.1 Encounter time

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.

© Global Vision International - January 2008 20

 10

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.

6.2.2 Direction nesting

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.

© Global Vision International - January 2008 21

 N
5

4
NW NE

W 0 E

SW SE

Figure 6-6 Direction facing during oviposition. Playa Norte, Costa Rica.

6.2.3 Tagging

A total of 35 leatherbacks turtles were encountered (including re-emergent turtles). Of

the nesting turtles encountered eight were newly tagged by the patrol team, none of
which had evidence of old tag notches or holes, 23 had been previously tagged, and one
nesting turtle was observed who had no tags and was not tagged. Three additional
turtles were encountered but did not nest: one had no tags and was not tagged whilst
two had tags which were recorded (Table 6-2).

Emergence result Tagging status Number

Newly tagged turtles 8
Nesting turtles Previously tagged turtles 23
Had no tags and was not tagged by patrol 1
Previously tagged turtles 2
Half-moons
Had no tags and was not tagged by patrol 1
TOTAL 35

Table 6-2 Summary of tag status of all encountered leatherback turtles. Playa Norte, Costa
Rica.

© Global Vision International - January 2008 22

Of previously tagged nesting turtles, one turtle had two tags which were removed and
recovered. The turtle was then retagged on both flippers. Two turtles had only one tag
and were tagged on the other flipper, while one turtle, which had two tags, had one tag
removed and recovered and was then retagged on that flipper.

Applied Monel tags 2007 season

VA8240
VA8242
VA8252
VA8254-VA8256
VA8258-VA8259
VA8261
VA8263-VA8264
VA8266-VA8270
VA8274-VA8275
VA8277-VA8279

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.

6.2.4 Biometric data

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

© Global Vision International - January 2008 23

110.34 (n=25) (Table 6-4). The maximum CCLmin measured was 171.17 cm whilst the
minimum CCLmin measured 138.50 cm.

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).

Number of CCLmin (cm) CCW (cm)

Encounters n x ± SD Range x ± SD Range
2 4 1.46 ± 1.46 0.50-3.57 0.56 ± 0.46 0.13-1.17

Table 6-6 Precision of leatherback CCLmin and CCWmax for multiple encounters. Playa
Norte, Costa Rica.

6.3 Nest fate, nest survivorship and hatchling success

6.3.1 Nest fate for relocated nest

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).

© Global Vision International - January 2008 24

 Totals Hatched Un-hatched
Total Total Hatched
Alive Dead No Stage Stage Stage Stage
fertile yolkless (Shells
hatchlings hatchlings embryo 1 2 3 4 Pipped
eggs eggs >50%)

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.

6.3.2 Nest fate of triangulated nests

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).

Nest fate n % of total % Hatching success % Emerging success

Natural and hatched 3 30 58.29 55.92
Natural and un-hatched 5 50 0 0
Poached 2 20 0 0
Totals 10 100 18.26 17.51

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

© Global Vision International - January 2008 25

 was estimated using the average number of eggs for all eight nests located which was
67.37. The details of all 10 excavations are shown below in Table 6-9.

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.

6.3.3 Summary of all hatched nest excavations

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.

Number Unhatched Total Total

Alive Dead of eggs egg, no Stage Stage Stage Stage fertile yolkless
Nest hatchlings hatchlings hatched embryo 1 2 3 4 Pipped eggs eggs
1 0 1 41 14 3 0 1 2 0 61 36
2 0 0 65 14 6 4 7 13 0 109 7
3 0 1 34 48 2 1 3 3 0 91 23
4 3 1 45 5 0 1 9 23 0 83 31
5 0 0 53 8 2 1 3 6 0 73 42
6 0 1 5 14 3 0 1 0 0 23 51

© Global Vision International - January 2008 26

 7 5 9 39 38 12 7 3 7 0 106 25
8 8 8 65 21 2 0 1 0 0 89 40
9 0 0 37 26 2 1 1 0 0 67 28
Total 16 21 384 188 32 15 29 54 0 702 283
Mean 1.78 2.33 42.67 20.89 3.56 1.67 3.22 6.00 0.00 78.00 31.44

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).

Egg depth (cm) Nest depth (cm)

n X ± S.D. N X ± S.D.
Hatched 9 63.22 ± 13.39 9 84.67 ± 14.53
Un-hatched 5 99.40 ± 22.56 5 122.90 ± 24.52

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.

n Ants Larvae Bacteria/ Crabs Unknown Total No signs of Total

Fungi predation predation
Hatched 9 0.00 1.71 15.10 0.00 1.71 18.52 81.48 100.00
Un-hatched 5 0.00 0.00 38.11 0.00 0.61 38.72 61.28 100.00

Table 6-13 Percent of all eggs predated. Playa Norte, Costa Rica.

© Global Vision International - January 2008 27

6.3.4 Nest status based on morning census and excavations

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.

Nest fate n % of total

Natural 37 74
Poached 6 12
Unknown 4 8
Eroded 3 6
Totals 50 100

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.

6.4 Human impact data

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.

Mobile Red Lights Mobile White Lights Locals Tourists

PM one team 0.45 2.39 1.96 2.96
PM two team 0.16 1.53 1.27 0.33

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,

© Global Vision International - January 2008 28

locals and white lights all reached their peak in June. The month with the highest
number of fires per night was March.

7.00

6.00

5.00
Mean number per night

4.00 Mobile red lights

Mobile white lights
Locals
Tourists
3.00 Fires

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

© Global Vision International - January 2008 29

 7.00

6.00

5.00
Mean per night

4.00 Mobile red lights

Mobile white lights
Locals
Tourists
3.00 Fires

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.

Date Stationary red lights Stationary white lights

17-Mar-07 1 30
17-Apr-07 2 52
15-May-07 10 31
14-Jun-07 17 29

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

© Global Vision International - January 2008 30

will be necessary in order to determine an increase or decrease in the population of
leatherback turtles nesting in the Caribbean (Troëng et al, 2004), including Playa Norte.
These authors suggest that a nesting trend could be an artefact of inter-annual nesting
variation.

7.1.2 Spatial distribution

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).

7.1.3 Nest status based on morning census

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.

© Global Vision International - January 2008 31

New criteria were used for determining nest status this season. Now a minimum and
maximum poaching rate is able to be calculated. The status ‘poached’ will be used to
calculate the minimum poaching rate and the statuses ‘poached’ and ‘unknown’ will be
added together to calculate the maximum poaching rate. Also, with the new criteria there
is less room for subjectivity with determining nest status. . It should be noted that it is
possible that nests classified as unknown this season could have been classified as
poached last season. The natural nest rate this season was 74%, which is an increase
from last season (55%) and poaching was reduced to 10% to 20% as compared to 31%
during the 2006 season. This is possibly due to the intense effort in disguising nests
from poachers and an increased presence on the beach.

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.

7.2 Night patrol

More night patrols were conducted this season than last, which is the possible reason for
more turtles being encountered.

7.2.1 Direction nesting

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.

© Global Vision International - January 2008 32

Re-nesting intervals, where available, varied between nine to 39 days. These interval
periods were not deemed unusual and have been recorded in literature for this species
(Chacón-Chaverri & Machado 2006). During the longer interval periods it is likely that the
turtles returned to nest but were not identified. This may have been because they did not
nest on Playa Norte or they were simply not observed nesting.

7.2.3 Biometric data

The precision between encounters for measurements of CCLmin were deemed

acceptable this season, which illustrates the need to continue to train patrol leaders and
volunteers thoroughly. All measurements must continue to be taken in a standard way.

7.3 Nest fate and hatching success

7.3.1 Nest fate for relocated nest

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.

7.3.2 Nest fate for triangulated nests

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.

7.3.3 Summary of all hatched nest excavations

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).

© Global Vision International - January 2008 33

Most predation cases were due to the presence of bacteria and/or fungus, problems
encountered by other leatherback conservation projects (Chacón-Chaverri & Machado
2006).

7.3.4 Nest status based on morning census and excavations

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.

7.4 Human impact

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.

Chacón, D. 1999. Anidación de la tortuga Dermochelys coriacea (Testudines:

Dermochelydae) en playa Gandoca, Costa Rica (1990-1999). Revista de Biología
Tropical 47(1-2):225-236.

© Global Vision International - January 2008 34

Chacón-Chaverri, D. & Y. Machado. 2006. Anidación de la tortuga baula Dermochelys
coriacea, en la playa de Gandoca, Caribe Sur, Costa Rica. Informe temporada 2006.

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.

Troëng, S. D. Chacón & B. Dick. 2004. Possible decline in leatherback turtle

Dermochelys coriacea nesting along the coast of Caribbean Central America. Oryx
38(4): 395-403.

van Oudenhoven, F. 2007. Of turtles and tactics: conservation and sustainable

community development in San Francisco, Costa Rica. Major Research Paper York
University. Ontario, Canada.

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

Chacón-Chaverri, Didiher. 2007. Director ANAI. Programa de Conservación de Tortugas

Marinas del Caribe Sur.

© Global Vision International - January 2008 35

9 Appendix
9.1 Appendix A Maps

© Global Vision International - January 2008 36

Map 1.0 Study Site Location

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

7/8 d Habitat Type

6/8 d
Beach

Canal

5/8 d Sea

Path

4/8 d Biological Station

3/8 d
Forest

Other

2/8 d d Mile Marker

Map Coverage

1/8 d
N

W E

S
Scale 1:28,000

0.1 0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 Miles

Produced by GVI Costa Rica in Partnership with COTERC

This map has been produced for data analysis

purposes and should not be considered complete

Map 2.1 Dc Activity Distrubution March 2007
1 5/8 d
Section 1 Section 2
d

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

2 5/8 d Habitat Type

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

This map has been produced for data analysis

purposes and should not be considered complete

Map 2.2 Dc Activity Distrubution April 2007
1 5/8 d
Section 2

#
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

2 5/8 d Habitat Type

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

This map has been produced for data analysis

purposes and should not be considered complete

Map 2.3 Dc Activity Distrubution May 2007

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

This map has been produced for data analysis

purposes and should not be considered complete

Map 2.4 Dc Activity Distrubution June 2007
1 5/8 d
Section 1 Section 2

#
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

This map has been produced for data analysis

purposes and should not be considered complete

 Map 3.0 Dc Low Success Areas 2007
1 5/8 d Section 2
Section 1
3 1/8 d

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

This map has been produced for data analysis

purposes and should not be considered complete

 Map 4.0 Dc Hatched Nests 2007
1 5/8 d Section 2
Section 1
3 1/8 d
3 1/8

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

1 1/8 d Habitat Type

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

6/8 Biological Station

2 2/8 d
2 2/8

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

This map has been produced for data analysis

purposes and should not be considered complete

 Map 5.0 Dc Nest Status 2007
1 5/8 d
Section 1 Section 2
d

#
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

This map has been produced for data analysis

purposes and should not be considered complete

9.2 Appendix B Summary of all encountered leatherbacks

• HLF- Turtle did not lay • REM-Previously tagged turtle

• NST-Turtle nested, no tags • Shaded cells are tags applied on
recorded that specific occasion
• REC-Newly tagged turtle

Record Right Left Rear

Date Type Rear Tag Tag Tagging Comments
15-Mar-07 HLF Turtle had no tags
16-Mar-07 REC VA8254 VA8255
31-Mar-07 REM VA4101 VA4102
05-Apr-07 REM VA4103 VA4104
05-Apr-07 REC VA8240 VA8242
09-Apr-07 REC VA8263 VA8252
10-Apr-07 REM VA3082 VA3083
11-Apr-07 REM VA4675 VA4674
12-Apr-07 REM 69509 69510
14-Apr-07 REM 78766 VA8256
16-Apr-07 REM VA8905
18-Apr-07 NST Turtle was seen but not tagged
20-Apr-07 REM VA3082 VA3083
20-Apr-07 REC VA8268 VA8269
23-Apr-07 REC VA8258 VA8259
24-Apr-07 REC VA8261 VA8264
27-Apr-07 REM VA2091 VA2092
27-Apr-07 REM 79431 79430
01-May-07 REM 63046 VA3054
02-May-07 REM VA8267 VA8259
02-May-07 REC VA8274 VA8275
04-May-07 REM VA9449
07-May-07 REM CH2060 CH2059
23-May-07 REM 78766 VA8256
24-May-07 REM VA3334 VA3335
27-May-07 REM 63046 VA3054
Removed and Recovered Right Rear: VA9067
Removed and Recovered Left Rear: VA9068
29-May-07 REM VA8277 VA8278 Tags removed because they were not properly closed.
05-Jun-07 REM VA4123 VA4124
05-Jun-07 REC VA8266 VA8270
07-Jun-07 HLF VA4170 VA0753
08-Jun-07 REM 69417 VA8279 Removed and Recovered Left Rear: 69418
11-Jun-07 REM 76117 VC0395 Right rear tag loose but unable to remove
14-Jun-07 REM 63046 VA3054
14-Jun-07 HLF 63046 VA3054
15-Jun-07 REM VC0324 VC0323

© Global Vision International - January 2008 45