Issue Number 112 April 2006

Issue Number 112 April 2006 Green turtle hatchling produced from a nest laid on Réunion Island. See Ciccione & Bourjea, pp. 1-3. IN THIS ISSUE: Articles: Nesting of Green Turtles in Saint Leu, Réunion Island...S. Ciccione & J. Bourjea Sea Turtles and Fishery Interactions in Brazil: Identifying and Mitigating Potential Conflicts...M.A. Marcovaldi et al. First Report of Leatherback Turtle Entanglement in Trap Lines in the Uruguayan Continental Shelf..M. Laporta et al. Loggerhead Turtle Nesting Activity in Kuriat Islands (Tunisia): Assessment of Nine Years Monitoring...I. Jribi et al. Hawksbill Turtles on the Pacific Coast of Costa Rica...A. Gaos et al. Notes: Oceanic Movement of a Benthic Foraging Juvenile Hawksbill Turtle from The Cocos (Keeling) Islands...S.Whiting & A. Koch Use of Marine Turtles in Zootherapy in Northeast Brazil...R. Romeu da Nóbrega Alves Meeting Reports Announcements News & Legal Briefs Recent Publications Marine Turtle Newsletter No. 112, 2006 - Page 1 ISSN 0839-7708

MTN Online - The Marine Turtle Newsletter is available at the MTN web site: <http://www.seaturtle.org/mtn/>. Subscriptions and Donations - Subscriptions and donations towards the production of the MTN should be made online at <http://www.seaturtle. org/mtn/> or c/o SEATURTLE.ORG (see inside back cover for details). Editors: Online Editor: Brendan J. Godley & Annette C. Broderick Marine Turtle Research Group Centre for Ecology and Conservation University of Exeter in Cornwall Tremough Campus, Penryn TR10 9EZ UK E-mail: MTN@seaturtle.org, Fax: +44 1392 263700 Michael S. Coyne A321 LSRC, Box 90328 Nicholas School of the Environment and Earth Sciences Duke University Durham, NC 27708-0328 USA E-mail: mcoyne@seaturtle.org Fax: +1 919 684-8741 Editorial Board: Nicholas Mrosovsky (Founding Editor) University of Toronto, Canada Karen L. Eckert (Editor Emeritus) WIDECAST, USA George H. Balazs National Marine Fisheries Service, Hawaii, USA Lisa M. Campbell Duke University Marine Lab, USA Angela Formia University of Florence, Italy Colin Limpus Queensland Turtle Research Project, Australia Roderic B. Mast Conservation International, USA Nicolas J. Pilcher Marine Research Foundation, Malaysia Manjula Tiwari National Marine Fisheries Service, La Jolla, USA Kartik Shanker ATREE, Bangalore, India Matthew H. Godfrey North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission, USA Jeanette Wyneken Florida Atlantic University, USA Roldán Valverde Southeastern Louisiana University, USA We are grateful to our major donors: Marine Turtle Newsletter No. 112, 2006 - Page 1 Marine Turtle Newsletter

Nesting of Green Turtles in Saint Leu, Réunion Island Stéphane Ciccione 1 & Jérôme Bourjea 2 1 Centre d Etude et de Découverte des Tortues Marines de la Réunion (E-mail: stephane.ciccione@tortuemarine-reunion.org) 2 Ifremer de La Réunion, Laboratoire Ressources Halieutiques Réunion Island is a French island, situated in the southern Indian Ocean, off the eastern coast of Madagascar. As testified to by the first navigators to land on the island, Réunion Island was an important place for nesting marine turtles. The place of Saint-Paul (north west coast) is where sea turtles nest, because of large sandy beach. 24 big sea turtles were caught alive and we have salted more than thirty. A thousand people can have a good meal with only one of these turtles. (Dubois 1669 in Lougnon, 1992). Unfortunately, nesting on Réunion Island has been dramatically reduced as a result of intensive harvesting, the introduction of egg predators (i.e., rats, pigs and dogs) and the urbanization of the coast. Since 1986 only four observations of marine turtle nesting have been recorded. The species was not determined in all cases: - on the 28 June 1986, three tracks were discovered on an black sand beach at Etang Salé (southwest coast) (Bertrand et al. 1986); - the 13 May 1994, a green turtle nesting was observed, and a hatching recorded 93 days later at Grand Fond beach on the west coast (Vie Océane, pers. comm.); - the 16 November 1996, a green turtle hatching was observed at Ravine Mulla beach in the south west of the island (Hunez, pers. comm.); -in August 2002, two tracks were observed (Ciccione pers. comm.) at Souris Chaude beach, on the west coast of the island. They were confirmed by the CEDTM (Centre d Etude et de Découverte des Tortues Marines de La Réunion / Sea Turtle Survey and Discovery Center). Observations made by ultra-light aircraft and by boat since 1996 have shown that adult green turtles were present around Réunion Island (Sauvignet et al. 2000). A case of mating was also observed near the west coast of the island (Ciccione pers. obs). These observations have shown that despite the urbanisation of the coasts, sea turtles continue to migrate to Réunion Island to nest. Regulations put in place to protect marine turtles in 1983, awareness programmes and twenty years (1977-1997) of discussions concerning a sea turtle ranch at La Réunion may have had positive impacts. Before regulations were brought into effect in 1983, many green turtle eggs and hatchlings were imported from the Eparses Islands (especially Tromelin and Europa atolls) to Réunion Island, by the people staying in those far away islands. This activity was not monitored and therefore the number of eggs and hatchlings translocated during this project is unknown. In 1979, during a scientific programme lead by ISTPM (now called Ifremer Institut) and CORAIL sea turtle ranch, eggs were taken from Tromelin s Atoll (one nest) and 50% of eggs buried in the sand of Ferme Corail beach. The eggs hatched and fifteen hatchlings were released. Since 1997, the CEDTM has reintroduced 140 green turtles, from the CORAIL ranch into the ocean. This ranch raised green turtles from 1977 to 1997. Europa and Tromelin hatchlings were taken for the ranch until 1992. The turtles released were between 6 and 15 years old. All of them were tagged with monel tags (1005-46 Monel tag 035 MO), with a transponder (Indexel) and since 2000 were photo-identified (right and left head profile). The first turtles released (6 to 7 years old) were tracked using satellite telemetry. These four captive-reared turtles migrated far from Réunion Island to Madagascar and Chagos Islands (Pelletier et al. 2002). On the other hand, some of the released adult green turtles (over 10 years old) remained along the west coast of Réunion Island. Presently, four of them (two males and two females) are regularly observed behind the reef barrier of Ferme Corail beach (Figure 1) where they come to sleep at the end of the afternoon. In the early 1980s, a 100m 3 breeding tank of CORAIL sea turtle ranch of Saint Leu broke and hundreds of several-month-old green turtles escaped into the sea. This accidental release was reported by people working on the ranch. These turtles were not tagged and only a few of them were retrieved. Furthermore, in July (1984), 2,500 four month old green turtles were released by Ifremer Institute. Those turtles were brought over from Tromelin atoll and tagged with plastic tags on the marginal scute of their carapaces. Experiments carried out in the breeding tanks of CORAIL ranch demonstrated that turtles lost their tags after several months, leaving behind a lifelong characteristic scar. Nesting on Réunion Island takes place throughout the year. Between 01 June 2004 and 15 January 2006 daily surveys were conducted on the two main beaches (Ferme Corail Beach and La Cafrine Beach) of northern Saint Leu (Figure 1). When a track was observed, the beach was put under intensive observation between 22:00 and 05:00. This observation continued for 19 days following the initial observation in order to observe other nesting events of the same turtle (Dizon & Balazs 1982; Legall et al. 1985). If a female was recorded nesting, she was measured (Curved Carapace Length- CCL), tagged with a Monel Tag (1005-46 Monel Tag 035 MO) and a DNA sample taken. Each nest was monitored every morning and afternoon during the incubation period in order to observe signs of deterioration and to detect precursory signs of hatching. After hatching, all clutch data were recorded and DNA samples taken from dead hatchlings. Twenty-three tracks of nesting green turtles were observed on the two beaches (Table 1). Of these, seven were recorded as nests. Two periods of nesting were observed in 2004 (Table 1). We know that at least two different females nested during this period as nesting took place on the same night (Table1). For these two females, the nests were laid 19 days apart. In December 2004, four tracks and one nest were recorded (Table 1). In October 2005, on the Ferme Corail beach, one nest was recorded. We measured CCL of two females during this study, one measured 106cm the other 109cm. All Marine Turtle Newsletter No. 112, 2006 - Page 1

Figure 1. Réunion Island and study areas in Saint Leu region. the tracks were located on the Ferme Corail beach and La Cafrine beach (Figure 1) within approx 200 meters of one another. In 2004, we observed two females nesting and all nests were located on the Ferme Corail beach as was the one nest recorded in 2005. The incubation periods were longer during the austral winter (over 80 days), and shorter during the austral summer (53 days, Table 1). Mean clutch size was 100 eggs (SD = 31.3; n = 5, range 52-139). All the 5 nests attained a high level of hatching (>91%). Mean hatching rate was 95.8% (SD = 4; n=5), and mean emergence success (proportion of hatchlings that emerged from the sand) was 77.4% (SD = 9.9; n=5). In the 3rd nest, 30 juveniles had become entangled in the sand with a fishing line. All of them were released. La Cafrine beach is separated from buildings by a road. Road traffic is heavy from 05:00-23:00 and continues all night. Between July and October trucks transporting sugar cane drive all night. During the austral winter, a low level of nocturnal human activity was observed on the beaches. Nocturnal fishing activity peaked throughout the summer, especially at weekends and during school holidays. Campers were observed fishing. We also noticed the presence of rats and feral dogs on the beaches. The apparent increase in the number of green turtles nesting on a frequented beach, bordered by a road and building construction is an encouraging sign for the population of green turtles at Réunion Island. The year-round presence of adult green turtles around the coast of Réunion Island is known, although it is not documented to what degree the translocation and release projects may have augmented numbers within this population. According to different authors (Legall et al. 1985; Marquez 1990), the delay between hatching and the sexual maturity of wild green turtles ranges from less than 20 to 30 years. This delay certainly depends upon the geographical area. The interval between the reintroduction operations of the 1980 s and the nesting that occurred in 2004 and 2005 corresponds to the delay to maturity recorded in wild green turtles. In Réunion Island Corail Ranch, more than 100 matings were observed in the tanks holding captive green turtle 9 to 18 years old and 3 clutches were laid in the water of the tanks holding captive green turtles that were 13-22 years old (personal observation). Hatchlings and yearlings release by the Cayman Turtle Farm have been observed nesting or mating near the point of release after 17-19 years (Bell & Parsons 2002). In 1998, three Kemp s ridley turtles from the experimental head-starting project on North Padre Island nested in south Texas (Shaver & Caillouet 1998). So we cannot reject the hypothesis that the green turtles (hatchlings and yearlings) that were reintroduced in the 1980s may be the same turtles that came to nest on Réunion Island in 2004 and 2005. However, the two females observed nesting in 2004 did not have any scars on their carapace to indicate previous tagging. Therefore, although not marked headstarted animals, they may be animals that were accidentally reintroduced during the 80 s or wild animals. As all green turtles nested on the same beach in 2004, the principal element which has influenced these turtles may be the quality of Ferme Corail beach. Since 1999, CEDTM has been running a programme to regenerate Ferme Corail beach. This regeneration focuses upon reintroduction of the original vegetation of the upper beach. This upper beach vegetation provides a protection against human activities on the coast, protects the beach from erosion, which may in turn affect the choice of the nesting site by the female and may also have an important impact on the navigation of the sea turtles near the coast of a potential nesting site. Our observation during the nesting periods demonstrated that females do not nest when the beach is subject to human activities. The presence of campers during the austral summer may explain why the majority of turtles laid only one clutch instead of several as is more usual for green turtles (Legall et al. 1985; Roos et al. 2000), although we cannot rule out the fact that they were nesting elsewhere on the island. Nesting females however did not appear to be perturbed by the light coming from cars on the road. In any case, this increase in the number of green turtle tracks and of nesting females, though limited, is encouraging for the preservation of sea turtles in Réunion Island. Green turtle populations have the ability to recover from very low numbers, and these observations should serve as a catalyst for the new development of a conservation programme whose goal is to maintain the reproduction and the nesting activities of the green turtles on the coast of Réunion Island. Presently, it is important to: 1) Continue to develop the regeneration programme of upper beach vegetation and to control the human activities on the beaches of the west coast of Réunion Island. Marine Turtle Newsletter No. 112, 2006 - Page 2

Date Beach No. Tracks No. Nests Incubation (days) 01/06/2004 Ferme corail 1 0 19/06/2004 Ferme corail 1 0 21/06/2004 Ferme corail 1 0 21/06/2004 La cafrine 1 0 23/06/2004 Ferme corail 1 1 23/06/2004 La cafrine 2 0 11/07/2004 Ferme corail 4 2 82, 85 29/07/2004 Ferme corail 4 1 83 18/08/2004 Ferme corail 2 0 19/08/2004 Ferme corail 1 1 81 11/12/2004 Ferme corail 1 0 12/12/2004 Ferme corail 1 0 14/12/2004 Ferme corail 1 0 18/12/2004 Ferme corail 1 1 53 14/10/2005 Ferme Corail 1 1 Total 23 7 Table 1. Activities of Chelonia mydas recorded on two beaches at St Leu (Réunion Island). 2) Maintain and increase the population of green turtles present around the island by preserving their marine habitats, reducing mortality due to human activities (poaching, boat accidents) and pollution. BELL, C.D.L. & J. PARSONS. 2002. Cayman turtle farm head-starting project yields tangible success. Marine Turtle Newsletter 98: 5-6. BERTRAND, J., B. BONNET & G. LEBRUN. 1986. Nesting attempts of Chelonia mydas at Réunion Island (S. W. Indian Ocean). Marine Turtle Newsletter 39:3-4. Dizon, A.E. &G.H.Balazs. 1982. Radio telemetry of Hawaiian green turtles at their breeding colony. Marine Fisheries Review 44: 13-20. Legall, J.Y., D. château & P. BoSC. 1985. Rythme de reproduction interannuelle des tortues vertes Chelonia mydas sur les sites de ponte de Tromelin et Europa (Océan Indien) C.R Acad. Sc. Paris. 301. sér. III(5): pp. 195-200. Lougnon, A. 1992 Sous le signe de la tortue. Voyages anciens à l île Bourbon. (1611-1725). Lib. Gérard Saint Denis. MarqUez, R.M. 1990. Sea turtles of the world, FAO Species catalogue, Roma, Italia, 11: pp. 25-30. Pelletier, D., D. Roos & S. Ciccione S. 2002. Oceanic survival and movements of wild and captive-reared immature green turtles (Chelonia mydas) in the Indian Ocean. Aquatic Living Resources 16: 35 41. Roos, D. 2000. Généralités concernant la tortue verte Chelonia mydas. Bulletin Phaethon 12: 7-98. Sauvignet, H., A. Pavitrin, S. Ciccione & D. ROOS. 2000. Premiers résultats des campagnes de dénombrements aériens des tortues marines sur la côte Ouest de La Réunion. Bulletin Phaethon 11: 8-12. SHAVER, D. J. & C. W. CAILLOUET, Jr. 1998. More Kemp s ridley turtles return to south Texas to nest. Marine Turtle Newsletter 82: 1-5. Marine Turtle Newsletter No. 112, 2006 - Page 3

Sea Turtles and Fishery Interactions in Brazil: Identifying and Mitigating Potential Conflicts Maria Ângela Marcovaldi 2 *, Gilberto Sales 1, João C. A. Thomé 1, Augusto C. C. Dias da Silva 2, Berenice M. G. Gallo 2, Eduardo H. S. M. Lima 2, Eron P. Lima 2, Cláudio Bellini 1 1 Projeto TAMAR-1BAMA. Caixa Postal 2219 Rio Vermelho, Salvador, Bahia, Brazil 2 Fundação Pró-TAMAR. Caixa Postal 2219 Rio Vermelho, Salvador, Bahia, Brazil (E-mail: *neca@tamar.org.br gilsales@tamar.org.br) Projeto TAMAR/IBAMA (TAMAR) has been actively involved in sea turtle conservation in Brazil for the past 25 years and currently operates a network of 21 research stations in 9 states distributed along 1,100 km of coastline. TAMAR s combination of research efforts has successfully reduced the number of threats facing the five species of sea turtle that nest or forage along Brazil s coast and oceanic islands (Marcovaldi & Marcovaldi 1999). Research aimed to minimize sea turtle interactions with the coastal fisheries has been a priority for Projeto TAMAR/IBAMA since 1990 (Marcovaldi et al. 2002; Thomé et al. 2003), and in the two high seas fisheries - longline and driftnet - since 2001. During this 11 year period, TAMAR has empirically implemented mitigation actions according to local needs, and realized that these efforts needed to be taken on a larger scale, supported by standardized information. In order to achieve this goal, a federal plan entitled Brazilian National Action Plan to Reduce Incidental Capture of Sea Turtles in Fisheries (herein referred to as Action Plan ) was created in 2001 and its stated methodologies and objectives are described at Marcovaldi et al. (2002). The current article aims to provide an update on the Action Plan and how its objectives are being met in conjunction with TAMAR s regional leadership and research stations, as well as institutional partners such as universities, NGO s, and the fishing industry (e.g. fishermen, vessel owners). Specifically, this report provides an initial assessment of sea turtle interactions with Brazil s coastal and high seas fisheries. By characterizing the fisheries (e.g. effort, region, season), it will be possible to identify threats to sea turtle species at different life history stages in a manner that will allow for best management practices to reduce sea turtlefisheries interactions. This work represents the first in a number of steps required to determine the rates of incidental capture of sea turtles in fisheries, thereby allowing us to identify the relative and actual threats of specific coastal and high seas fisheries on long term sea turtle population trends in the waters off Brazil in the South Atlantic Ocean. Future efforts will target fisheries where mitigation efforts and awareness-campaigns for fishermen will have the greatest impact to reduce sea turtle mortality. In order to implement strategies defined in the Action Plan (Marcovaldi et al. 2002), the term fishery is defined by parameters such as characterization of gear, boat, target species, spatial and temporal distribution, organizational aspects (e.g. associations), offloading locations, institutional interfaces, fishermen, relevant legislation, and fishing effort. Fisheries data have been collected during interviews with fishermen at major points and by at-sea observers for the pelagic fisheries. Information on fisheries via interviews has been collected consistently since 1990 for coastal fisheries, and by onboard observers for the pelagic fisheries since 2001. To obtain fishing effort and other characteristics of each fishery, data from government agencies or from published research were used. The various forms of data collected have been stored in a national TAMAR data base. We have identified 18 different fisheries that interact with sea turtles, 16 of which are coastal (Table 1, Figure 1) and 2 are high seas, or pelagic (Table 2, Figure 2). The pelagic longline fishery in Brazil generally targets tuna species (e.g., Thunnus sp), swordfish (Xiphias Gladius), and sharks. Preliminary data and anecdotal reports from fishermen suggest that the main species interacting with pelagic longline gear are primarily loggerheads (ca. 65%) and leatherbacks (ca. 25%), followed by occasional captures of green and olive ridley turtles, with a reportedly high incidence of turtles captured and released alive. Preliminary analysis from a limited data set obtained from on-board fisheries observers in the longline fleet also suggests a region (ca.30 and 40 S and 30 and 40 W) with exceptionally high rates of loggerhead captures (Figure 2). Driftnet fisheries, which generally target shark (primarily hammerhead, Sphirna spp) for a domestic market (only the meat), and the fins to the international market, have been monitored since 2002 in collaboration with local fishermen. To date, the fleet in Ubatuba, Sao Paulo is the only one monitored. There are approximately 50 vessels that use drift nets on a regular basis. Preliminary data obtained from a few on-board observers and from anecdotal reports from fishermen suggest that most of the sea turtles captured in this fishery are leatherback (ca. 70%), followed by loggerhead turtles (15%), with occasional captures of green and hawksbill turtles. There is a high rate of mortality upon capture. This is an initial assessment and characterization of the various fisheries in Brazil that interact with sea turtles, a key step in addressing fisheries management priorities in order to minimize turtle bycatch and effectively work towards restoring sea turtle populations. Characterizing and monitoring these fisheries has enabled: (1) the development of a methodology that will enable estimation of turtle capture rates per unit of fishing effort (CPUE); (2) species identification and life history stage of turtles captured per fishery; and (3) participation in fora where stakeholders directly involved in priority fisheries can interact. For each identified fishery the Action Plan developed four objectives: 1) monitoring the fishing operations; 2) developing specific experiments or tests; 3) developing mitigation measures; and 4) supporting actions for sustainable fishing. This preliminary work has allowed for these actions to occur, and furthermore has identified priority areas to maximize conservation efforts. Of particular note is the identification of a bycatch hotspot in the Brazilian longline fishery. Previous preliminary studies on sea Marine Turtle Newsletter No. 112, 2006 - Page 4

Figure 1. Location of major coastal fisheries, monitored by Tamar, interacting with sea turtles along the Brazilian coast. turtle incidental captures in this fishery have been reported elsewhere (Barata et al. 1998; Kotas et al. 2004; Pinedo & Polacheck 2004). Despite limited data collected in our study we are confident in our ability to identify the area between approximately 30 and 40 South and 30 and 40 West as a bycatch hotspot with an exceptionally high rate of incidental capture of primarily loggerhead and secondarily leatherback turtles (Sales et al., unpublished data; Figure 2). This area, known as Rio Grande Rise (Elevação do Rio Grande), is approximately 600 nautical miles off the southern Brazilian coast where depths range between 300 and 4000 m and with a bathymetry characterized by a chain of underwater mountains (Sales et al. unpublished data). This area hosts large pelagics (e.g. Thunnus sp.) and fishermen report numerous interactions with sea turtles (Sales et al., unpublished data). This area is likely to be an important habitat especially for loggerhead sea turtles in the South West Atlantic Ocean and further research on the occurrence of turtles and ways to minimize bycatch in that region is clearly an urgent need. We are also working towards a better understanding of the genetic stock of sea turtle populations in areas with high rates of incidental capture in fisheries. Preliminary results using mitochondrial DNA analysis indicate that 45% of loggerhead turtles incidentally captured off the coast of south Brazil, especially on Rio Grande Rise, originate from a unique Brazilian loggerhead nesting population from the states of Bahia and Espírito Santo. Juvenile loggerhead turtles with origins suggested for Australia, South Africa, Oman and other unknown locations also contribute Marine Turtle Newsletter No. 112, 2006 - Page to the bycatch hotspot (Soares, unpublished thesis). In the future, determination of bycatch rates for coastal fisheries will be estimated by linking fisheries information with sea turtle stranding data or direct observations from onboard observers, with an emphasis on the latter method as linking stranding data with fisheries interactions can be a flawed approach (Epperly et al. 1996). In addition, conversations with fishermen on the subject of turtle capture rates will allow for a more reliable estimate of turtle bycatch occurring in Brazil s extensive and complex coastal fisheries. In the meantime, more research is needed in order to define fisheries effort (e.g. net or trap size and numbers) in coastal fisheries in Brazil (and elsewhere in the world) so that such reporting can be standardized for various purposes regarding factors influencing the marine habitat in this region. TAMAR will continue to improve its data collection, analyses, and assessments by working cooperatively with the coastal fisheries and pelagic commercial fleets. Ideally, this work will lead to management efforts that will effectively minimize both turtle bycatch and the negative economic impacts these mitigation efforts pose to fishing communities. TAMAR will continue to participate in the Western South Atlantic Network that includes Brazil, Argentina, and Uruguay. It is also necessary to continue working on mitigation measures such as awareness campaigns through stakeholder fora and specific educational material, including safe-handling practices to increase turtles chances of survival after their release from fishing gear. Furthermore, TAMAR will continue efforts at the federal

State Fisheries CE SE BA ES RJ SP Target species Turtle spp interaction Fishing Effort Degree of Turtle Interaction Mitigation Measures Gill net lobster Cc; Cm; Dc; Ei; Lo ca 2000 vessels (9-15m length) Fix cage fishes Cc; Cm; Dc; Ei; Lo 48 Fix cage Gill net fishes Cc; Cm; Ei; Lo Not estimated Unknown Shrimp trawl shrimp Cc; Cm; Ei; Lo ca 500 vessels Gill net lobster Cc; Cm; Ei; Lo ca 50 vessels Gill net fishes Cc; Cm; Ei; Lo ca 350 vessels Unknown Shrimp trawl shrimp Cc; Cm; Ei; Lo ca 250 vessels Gill net lobster Cc; Cm; Dc; Ei ca 186 vessels Unknown Gill net fishes Cc; Cm; Dc; Ei ca 698 vessels Unknown Shrimp trawl shrimp Cc; Cm; Dc; Ei ca 186 vessels Gill net fishes Cc; Cm; Ei ca 150 vessels Unknown Shrimp trawl shrimp Cc; Cm; Ei ca 125 vessels Gill net fishes Cc; Cm; Ei Not estimated Unknown Shrimp trawl shrimp Cc; Cm; Ei ca 150 vessels Floating cage fishes Cc; Cm; Ei 10 Floating cages in Ubatuba-SP Unknown. Observers now on board to collect data 299* turtles caught in 2003. High capture rate, nearly 100% turtles released alive Direct estimates unknown. Stranding data used to infer estimates Unknown. Observers now on board to collect data Direct estimates unknown. Stranding data used to infer estimates Direct estimates unknown. Stranding data used to infer estimates Direct estimates unknown. Stranding data used to infer estimates. Direct estimates unknown. Use stranding data to infer estimates. Unknown. Nearly 100% turtles released alive. Forced replacement of gear to traps. #Gill nets forbidden by federal law since December 2004 Awareness campaign for fishermen. Area closures in some regions and awareness programs oriented to fishermen Time-area closures (during nesting season or in important feeding areas), TEDs required but not enforced. Awareness campaigns for fishermen. Forced replacement of gear to traps. #Gill nets forbidden by federal law since December 2004 Area closures in some regions and awareness programs oriented to fishermen Time-area closures (during nesting season or in important feeding areas), TEDs required but not enforced. Awareness campaigns for fishermen. Forced replacement of gear to traps. #Gill nets forbidden by federal law since December 2004 Area closures in some regions and awareness programs oriented to fishermen Time-area closures (during nesting season or in important feeding areas), TEDs required but not enforced. Awareness campaigns for fishermen. Area closures in some regions and awareness programs oriented to fishermen Time-area closures (during nesting season or in important feeding areas), TEDs required but not enforced. Awareness campaigns for fishermen. Area closures in some regions and awareness programs oriented to fishermen Time-area closures (during nesting season or in important feeding areas), TEDs required but not enforced. Awareness campaigns for fishermen. Monitoring of cages, awareness campaigns for fishermen. # Despite the 2004 regulations forbidding gill nets for lobsters, this law has still not being enforced. Table 1. Coastal fisheries and sea turtle interactions in Brazil. Codes for turtle species: Dc=leatherback (Dermochelys coriacea), Cc=loggerhead (Caretta caretta), Lo= olive ridley (Lepidochelys olivacea), Cm= green (Chelonia mydas), Ei= hawksbill (Eretmochelys imbricata). Marine Turtle Newsletter No. 112, 2006 - Page 6

Figure 2. Pelagic longline and drift net interactions with sea turtles off Brazil. Marine Turtle Newsletter No. 112, 2006 - Page 7

Fisheries Target species Turtle spp interaction Mitigation Measures Experiments conducted to minimize bycatch Pelagic longline Swordfish, tuna, sharks Cc; Cm; Dc; Lo; Federal Act SEAP (February/2003) requiring use of approved mitigation measures, training courses for fishermen and on-board fisheries observers regarding data collection and safe-handling practices, cooperative agreement with the fisheries industries to develop conservation plan for sea turtles and sea birds, federal act requiring onboard observers in the Brazilian rented commercial fleet (Act SEAP nº. 4810, August 2003). Field trials on federal research vessels with modified baits and hooks. Experiments with captive turtles with modified baits to identify potential chemical repellent. Driftnet sharks Cc; Cm; Dc; Ei Time and area closures, creation of a discussion forum with stakeholders to find solutions to minimize the capture of sea turtles such as the replacement for another gear. Table 2. Pelagic fisheries that interact with sea turtles in Brazil. Codes for turtle species: Dc=leatherback (Dermochelys coriacea), Cc=loggerhead (Caretta caretta), Lo= olive ridley (Lepidochelys olivacea), Cm= green (Chelonia mydas), Ei= hawksbill (Eretmochelys imbricata). n/a level to reduce the incidental capture of sea turtles and improve international exchange of information on incidental capture of sea turtles in international waters through the various Regional Fisheries Bodies and International Conventions, such as the International Convention for the Conservation of Atlantic Tunas and Inter- American Convention on Sea Turtles. Acknowledgements: Projeto TAMAR is affiliated with IBAMA, comanaged by the Fundação Pró-TAMAR, and officially sponsored by PETROBRAS. We thank Yonat Swimmer and Luciano Soares for their kind assistance on this manuscript, the Brazilian longline commercial fleet for their cooperation, Projeto Albatroz, and the following universities: UNIVALI, UFRPE, UEFS, UFES and UFRJ. The work was partially funded by the University of Hawaii, Joint Institute of Marine and Atmospheric Research, Honolulu, Hawaii, USA. BARATA, P.C.R., B.M.G. GALLO, S. DOS SANTOS, V.G. AZEVEDO, & J.E. KOTAS. 1998. Captura acidental da tartaruga marinha Caretta caretta (Linnaeus, 1758) na pesca de espinhel de superfície na ZEE brasileira e em águas internacionais. In Resumos Expandidos da XI Semana Nacional de Oceanografia, Rio Grande, RS, outubro de 1998, p. 579-581. Editora Universitária - UFPel, Pelotas, RS, Brazil. EPPERLY, S.P., J. BRAUN, A.J. CHESTER, F.A. CROSS, J.V. MERRINER, P.A. TESTER & J. CHURCHILL. 1996. Beach stranding as an indicator of at-sea mortality of sea turtles. Bulletin of Marine Science 59: 289-297. Kotas, J.E., S. dos Santos, V.G. Azevedo, B.M.G. Gallo & P.C.R. Barata. 2004. Incidental capture of loggerhead (Caretta caretta) and leatherback (Dermochelys coriacea) sea turtles by the pelagic longline fishery off southern Brazil. Fishery Bulletin 102: 393 399. Marcovaldi, M.A., & G.G. dei Marcovaldi. 1999. Marine turtles of Brazil: the history and structure of Projeto TAMAR-IBAMA. Biological Conservation 91: 35-41. MARCOVALDI, M.A., J.C. THOMÉ, G. SALES, J. COELHO, B. GALLO & C. BELLINI. 2002. Brazilian plan for reduction of incidental sea turtle capture in fisheries. Marine Turtle Newsletter 96: 24-25 PINEDO M.C. & T. POLACHECK. 2004. Sea turtle bycatch in pelagic longline sets off southern Brazil. Biological Conservation 119: 335 339. THOMÉ, J., M.A. MARCOVALDI, G. MARCOVALDI, C. BELLINI, B. GALLO, H. LIMA, A.C. SILVA & P.C. BARATA. 2003. An overview of Projeto Tamar Ibama s activities in relation to the incidental capture in sea turtles in Brazilian fisheries. Proceedings of the Twenty-Second Annual Symposium on Sea Turtle Biology and Conservation. Miami, FL, USA. NOAA Technical Memorandum NMFS - SEFSC - 503. Pp. 119-120. Marine Turtle Newsletter No. 112, 2006 - Page 8

First Report of Leatherback Turtle Entanglement in Trap Lines in the Uruguayan Continental Shelf Martín Laporta 1, Philip Miller 1, Sebastián Horta 2 & Gustavo Riestra 3,4 1 CID/Karumbé J. Paullier 1198/101 Montevideo, Uruguay (Email: negrolapo@adinet.com.uy, kanariotortuga@adinet.com.uy), 2 Facultad de Ciencias Montevideo, Uruguay (Email: sebahorta@fcien.edu.uy), 3 Dirección Nacional de Recursos Acuáticos Montevideo, Uruguay (Email: griestra@ dinara.gub.uy), 4 Museo de Historia Natural Dr. C. Torres de la Llosa Montevideo, Uruguay Many leatherback turtle (Dermochelys coriacea) populations have experienced drastic declines over recent decades (Spotila 2004; Spotila et al. 2000) and are currently listed as critically endangered (IUCN 2004). Little is known about the life cycle of leatherback turtles and the threats they face while in the sea. Understanding the distribution and occurrence of sea turtles has been recognized as an essential element for the successful recovery of endangered sea turtle populations. Fisheries are an important threat to sea turtles (Oravetz 1999), and it has been stated that current leatherback bycatch levels are not sustainable (Lewison et al. 2004; Spotila et al. 2000). Coincidentally, incidental catch of sea turtles in fisheries has been used as a sampling and data collection tool for sea turtle research (Laporta & Miller 2005; Miller et al. in press a). Leatherbacks are commonly found in Uruguayan waters (Fallabrino et al. 2000), although the nesting population sources of these leatherbacks are unknown. In Uruguay, the artisanal coastal gillnet fishery, the coastal bottom trawl fishery and the pelagic longline fishery are known to interact with leatherback turtles (Domingo et al. 2003; Fallabrino et al. in press; Miller et al. in press b). Leatherback turtles have been reported in interactions with the lines of crab or lobster traps, mainly in the US (Lewis, pers. com.; Lutcavage et al. 2001) and in Great Britain (Penhallurick 1991). Here, we present the first report of leatherback entanglement in trap lines in the Southwestern Atlantic Ocean. The information was collected during an exploratory fishing trip (May 18 to June 17 2004), directed to catch molluscs (Zidona dufresnei and Tonna galea) using traps, by a scientific onboard observer from the National Direction of Aquatic Resources (DINARA). The activities carried out by the observer included gathering information on the fishing effort, describing the fishing gear and maneuvers, identifying target and bycatch species; and collecting physical (i.e salinity, surface temperature), biological and biometrics samples. The boat remained over the Uruguayan continental shelf, which is influenced by the presence of the subtropical convergence and the input of the Río de la Plata estuary (Figure 1). These features generate great spatio-temporal variability of environmental conditions. Variations include water temperature and salinity gradients throughout the year, with cold water coming from the South (Malvinas Current), and warm water coming from the North (Brazil Current) (Acha et al. 2004; Framiñan & Brown 1996, Severova & Severov 1996). The fishing gear consisted of a polyamide mainline of 24 mm diameter and 1500 m length. At intervals of 10 m, 150 secondary lines of 3 fathoms were branched from the mainline, each one supporting a conical trap (3 kg) containing the bait and positioned on the sea bottom (Figure 2). The baits used were squid (Illex argentinus) alternated with anchovy (Engraulis anchoita), argentine hake (Merluccius hubbsi) and blue mussel (Mytilus edulis platensis). Each fishing set consisted of setting 14 polyamide mainlines, with soak time being 24 hours. The set velocity varied around 3 knots. Haul-back occurred at the end of the set with a hauling machine pulling the traps at high speed. In May 2004, the observer recorded the incidental capture of 3 leatherback turtles, all of which were entangled in the front flipper with the mainline of the fishing gear. The sets which captured the turtles occurred at depths between 62 m and 75 m on the Uruguayan continental shelf (Figure 1 and Table 1). The first two turtles were disentangled and released alive by the observer with the help of the crew, but the third was already dead when haul-back occurred. Coincidently, the 3 incidental captures occurred while using anchovy and argentine hake as bait. The mainline may have drifted at least 2 m or 3 m off the bottom because of the length of the secondary lines. The mainline and the traps may not have remained on the bottom for the entire set, as they may have been lifted by currents Set Date m/d/y Set Hour Longitude Latitude Depth (m) Haul Date Haul Hour Observations 19/05/04 18:45 34º55 9 52º48 3 64.0 21/05/04 18:31 Alive; released 20/05/04 20:00 34º46 5 52º32 8 75.0 24/05/04 10:00 Alive; released. No evidence of previous entanglement 22/05/04 01:30 34º29 6 52º26 1 62.0 30/05/04 16:20 Dead Table 1. Fishing effort data for the incidental capture of leatherbacks. Marine Turtle Newsletter No. 112, 2006 - Page 9

Figure 1. Map of the study area in the Southwestern Atlantic Ocean, showing the bathymetry and the incidental capture positions of the leatherbacks (black spots). in the area. It is unknown whether the turtles were caught while the fishing gear was resting at the bottom or while it was being hauled onboard. At this time, we cannot determine whether the fishing gear somehow attracted the leatherbacks turtles. The closest large leatherback nesting beaches to the Southwestern Atlantic Ocean are in French Guiana and Gabon, although a relatively small nesting population occurs in Espírito Santo, Brazil (Barata et al. 2004). Recent incidental captures in Southern Brazilian and Argentinean waters of adult leatherbacks with metal Inconel tags from Gabon (Billes et al. 2006) suggest that the Uruguayan continental shelf might be used by leatherback turtles as a migratory corridor as well as a feeding area. Considering the conservation status of leatherback turtles and the lack of knowledge relative to its presence on the Uruguayan continental shelf, it is extremely urgent to direct more efforts to determine the spatio-temporal distribution of this species in Southwestern Atlantic Ocean waters. Further research and monitoring of the fisheries operating in this area is recommended in collaboration with corresponding governmental agencies and fishermen in order to have a better understanding of the occurrence of leatherback turtles and the magnitude of the incidental capture problem. Marine Turtle Newsletter No. 112, 2006 - Page 10 Acknowledgements: Thanks to the fishing crew, BP Conservation Programme, Birdlife International, Flora & Fauna International, Wildlife Conservation Society, Conservation International, NFWF, DINARA Scientific Onboard Observer Program, Andrés Domingo, Matthew Godfrey and two anonymous reviewers for their useful comments. ACHA, E.M., H.W. MIANZAN, R.A. GUERRERO, M. FAVERO & J. BAVA. 2004. Marine fronts at the continental shelves of austral South America physical and ecological Processes. Journal of Marine Systems 44: 83-105. BARATA P.C.R., E. LIMA, M. BORGES-MARTINS, J. SCALFONI, C. BELLINI & S. SICILIANO. 2004. Records of the leatherback sea turtle (Dermochelys coriacea) on the Brazilian coast, 1969-2001. Journal of Marine Biology Association of the United Kingdom 84:1233-1240. Billes, A., J. Fretey, B. Verhage, B. Huijbregts, B. Giffoni, L. Prosdocimi, D.A. Albareda, J.-Y. Georges & M. Tiwari. 2006. First evidence of leatherback movement from Africa to South America. Marine Turtle Newsletter 111: 13-14. DOMINGO, A., A. FALLABRINO, R. FORSELLEDO & V. QUIRICI. 2003. Incidental capture of loggerhead (Caretta caretta) and leatherback (Dermochelys coriacea) sea turtles in the Uruguayan long-line fishery in

Figure 2. Fishing gear design used to trap snails. By- Buoy, ByL- Buoy Line, T- Trap, ML- Main Line, W-weight. the southwest Atlantic Ocean. In: J.A. Seminoff (comp.). Proceedings of the 22nd Annual Symposium on Sea Turtle Biology and Conservation. NOAA Tech. Memo. NMFS-SEFSC-503. p. 9. Fallabrino, A., A. Bager, A. Estrades & F. Achaval. 2000. Current status of marine turtles in Uruguay. Marine Turtle Newsletter 87: 4-5. FALLABRINO, A., C. LEZAMA & P. MILLER. In press. Incidental capture of a leatherback turtle (Dermochelys coriacea) by artisanal fishermen off Valizas, Uruguay. Proceedings of the 23rd Annual International Symposium on Sea Turtle Biology and Conservation. Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia, 2003. FRAMIÑAN, M.B. & O.B. BROWN. 1996. Study of the Río de la Plata turbidity front: Part I. Spatial and temporal distribution. Continental Shelf Research 16: 1259 1282. IUCN 2004. Red List of Threatened Species. <www.iucnredlist.org>. LAPORTA M. & P. MILLER. 2005. Sea turtles in Uruguay: where will they lead us...? Maritime Studies 3-4: 63 87. LEWISON, R.L., S.A. FREEMAN & L.B. CROWDER. 2004. Quantifying the effects of fisheries on threatened species: the impact of pelagic longlines on loggerhead and leatherback sea turtles. Ecology Letters 7: 221 231. LUTCAVAGE, M., A.G.J. RHODIN, S.S. SADOVE & C.R. CONROY. 2001. Direct carapace attachment of satellite tags using orthopedic bioabsorbable mini-anchor screws on leatherback turtles in Culebra, Puerto Rico. Marine Turtle Newsletter 95: 9-12. MILLER, P., M. LAPORTA & A. FALLABRINO. In press a. Sea turtles and trawl fishery in the Rio de la Plata Estuary: what is going on here? Proceedings of the 24th Annual International Symposium on Sea Turtle Biology and Conservation. San José, Costa Rica, 2004. MILLER P., A. DOMINGO, M. LAPORTA & A. FALLABRINO. In press b. Bycatch of leatherback turtles (Dermochelys coriacea) by Uruguayan fisheries in the South Atlantic Ocean. Proceedings of the 25th Annual Symposium on Sea Turtle Biology and Conservation. Savannah, US, 2005. ORAVETZ, C. A. 1999. Reducing incidental catch in fisheries. In: Eckert, K.L., K.A. Bjorndal, F.A. Abreu-Grobois & M. Donnelly (Eds.) Research and Management Techniques for the Conservation of Sea Turtles. IUCN/ SSC Marine Turtle Specialist Group, Publication 4. pp. 189-193. PENHALLURICK, R.D. 1991. Observations of leatherback turtles off the Cornish coast. Marine Turtle Newsletter 52: 12-14. SEVEROVA, V. & D. SEVEROV. 1996. Algunos aspectos de la interacción entre la atmósfera y el océano en la zona de la descarga del agua dulce del Río de la Plata. In: Conferencia Internacional ECOPLATA 96. Documento 18. SPOTILA, J.R., R.R. REINA, A.C. STEYERMARK, P.T. PLOTKIN & F.V. PALADINO. 2000. Pacific leatherback turtles face extinction. Nature 405: 529-530. Spotila, J.R. 2004. Sea Turtles: A complete guide to their biology, behavior, and conservation. Johns Hopkins University Press, Baltimore, Maryland. 228 pp. Marine Turtle Newsletter No. 112, 2006 - Page 11

Loggerhead Turtle Nesting Activity in Kuriat Islands (Tunisia): Assessment of Nine Years Monitoring Imed Jribi 1, Mohamed Nejmeddine Bradai 2 & Abderrhmen Bouain 1 1 Faculté des Sciences de Sfax BP 802, Sfax 3018, Tunisie (E-mail:imed.jribi@fss.rnu.tn) 2 Institut National des Sciences et Technologie de la Mer (INSTM) BP1035, Sfax 3018, Tunisie (E-mail:mednejmeddine.bradai@instm.rnrt.tn) Introduction The only sea turtle species known to nest in Tunisia is the loggerhead turtle (Caretta caretta). Nesting in the western Mediterranean is exceptional and almost all nests are laid in the eastern basin in Greece, Libya, Turkey and Cyprus (Margaritoulis et al. 2003). In Tunisia, nesting of Caretta caretta was first recorded in 1988 on the beach situated between Ras Dimas and Mahdia and on the island Great Kuriat (Laurent et al. 1990). In order to support conservation of this species, it was deemed necessary to launch a monitoring programme at Kuriat. This programme has been implemented since 1997 (Jribi et al. 2002). The main objectives of the programme were (a) to protect nesting sites, nesting females and hatchlings and (b) to document the nesting activity. This study presents, for the first time, the results of these surveys from 1997 until 2005 interpreted along with those recorded between 1993 and 1996 (Jribi et al. 2002). Methods Study area The Kuriat islands (Figure 1) (35 48 05 N, 11 02 05 E) lie 18 km from the coast of Monastir and consist of two small islands: Little Kuriat (Kuria Sgira) which is ca. 0.7km 2 and the Great Kuriat (Kuria Kbira) which is ca.2.7km 2 in area. Little Kuriat has a total of 800m of sandy beach situated in the north-eastern part of the island whereas the rest of the coastline is rocky or marshy. Almost one third of the Great Kuriat shoreline is rocky and large deposits of sea grass (Posidonia oceanica) detritus further restrict the accessible nesting sites particularly in the south and the south-western beaches. The principal nesting beach lies on the western coast and it is almost 900 m in length. Field work and data collection A full-time survey takes place yearly on Great Kuriat from the beginning of June to the end of August. Beaches of Little Kuriat are visited during this period once or twice a week. Numerous short visits are made in May to detect any early nesting and in September and October to excavate late hatching nests. A team of three to four persons (researchers, students and volunteers) is permanently present on Great Kuriat during the season, first to characterize female turtle tracks, imprinted on the beach sand, as nesting or non-nesting emergences; second, to locate egg chambers; third, to protect and relocate clutches; finally, to tag and measure nesting turtles. At the end of the nesting season, nests are excavated to assess hatching success. Results and discussion From 1993 until 2005, the number of nests on Great Kuriat ranged from 4 to 18 (mean: 9.5 nests/season). In Little Kuriat, no nests were detected between 1997 and 2003, although 3 nests were recorded in 2004 and 2 nests recorded in 2005. For this island the number of recorded nests can be considered as an underestimate because some tracks may have been erased due to strong winds or heavy beach usage by tourists. The period between 1993 and 1999 shows the number of nests fluctuating with an apparent periodicity of two years (Figure 2). This trend ceased in 2000 and we tentatively suggest that the number of nests per season has increased slightly, possibly as a result of recruitment of new nesting females. The nesting season in the Kuriat islands generally starts at the beginning of June and ends at the middle of August with duration averaging 46 days (range: 20-58; SD= 13.24; N=9; Table 1). Deposition of nests occurred in June and mainly in July, the nesting in August was observed only the last three years, from 2003 to 2005. Compared with some of the larger nesting sites in the Mediterranean (83.5 in Fethiye, Turkey (Türkozan 2000); 78.5 in Northern Cyprus (Broderick & Godley 1996) and 87.7 in Kyparissia Bay, Greece (Margaritoulis & Rees 2001)), this duration seems to be short and may simply be due to the small nesting population size. Over the nine seasons (1997-2005), the monthly distribution of nests in the Kuriat Islands was 34.7% in June, 58.9% in July and 6.3% in August. This situation is similar on the nesting beaches of Greece (Margaritoulis & Rees 2001) and different on beaches of Turkey, where the majority of loggerhead turtle nests are in June (Türkozan 2000). This parameter is crucial for the planning and the implementing conservation and management practices such as reducing the anthropogenic disturbance resultant from beach use. Over nine consecutive nesting seasons we recorded mean clutch size of 92.9 eggs (range of means: 68.33-104.9; SD= 11.79; n=9), which is similar to those recorded in Cyprus and Turkey but less than those recorded in Greece (Margaritoulis et al. 2003). The hatching success and hatchling emergence success were 73% and 70% respectively, which reveals the suitability of the beaches of Great Kuriat. Although most nesting of Mediterranean loggerhead turtles is localised in Greece, Cyprus, Turkey and Libya, minor nesting sites exist in other countries and their protection is desirable because they can give an appreciable contribution, both in number and in genetic diversity. We conclude that nesting numbers at Kurait, although very small are stable or increasing and, at least in the nesting sites, subject to high levels of protection. Acknowledgements: This work was carried out in the context of a project financed by the National Institute of Sea Sciences and Technologies (INSTM), the Regional Activity Centre for Specially Protected Areas (RAC/SPA) and the Agency of Protection and Management of the Littoral (APAL). We wish to thank all these organisations and all volunteers have participated on the field. Marine Turtle Newsletter No. 112, 2006 - Page 12

Figure 1. Geographic position of Kuriat islands off the coast of Tunisia. Nests recorded 20 16 12 8 4 0 1993 1995 1997 1999 2001 2003 2005 Figure 2. Annual number of nests recorded over thirteen seasons (1993-2005) on Great Kuriat BRODERICK, A.C. & B.J. GODLEY. 1996. Population and nesting ecology of the green turtle, Chelonia mydas, and the loggerhead turtle, Caretta caretta, in northern Cyprus. Zoology in the Middle East 13: 27-46. JRIBI, I., M.N. BRADAI & A. BOUAIN, 2002. Marine turtle nesting in Kuriat Island (Tunisia) in 2000. Marine Turtle Newsletter 96: 4-6. LAURENT, L., S. NOUIRA, A. JEUDY DE GRISSAC & M.N. BRADAI. 1990. Les tortues marines de Tunisie : Premières données. Bulletin de la Société Herpétologique de France 53: 1-17. Margaritoulis, D. & A. Rees. 2001. The loggerhead turtle, Caretta caretta, population nesting in Kyparissia Bay, Peloponnesus, Greece: Results of beach surveys over seventeen seasons and determination of the core nesting habitat. Zoology in the Middle East 24: 75-90. Season First nest Last nest Duration (days) 1997 01 June 25 July 55 1998 01 July 31 July 31 1999 15 June 31 July 47 2000 01 June 13 July 43 2001 12 June 26 July 45 2002 04 July 23 July 20 2003 10 June 05 Aug 57 2004 18 June 14 Aug 58 2005 14 June 10 Aug 58 Mean 46 Table 1. Dates of nesting seasons at Great Kuriat (1997-2005). Margaritoulis, D., R. Argano, I. Baran, F. Bentivegna, M.N. Bradai, J. A. Caminas, P.Casale, G. De Metrio, A. Demetropoulos, G. Gerosa, B.J. Godley, D.A. Haddoud, J. Houghton, L. Laurent & B. Lazar. 2003. Loggerhead turtles in the Mediterranean Sea: Present knowledge and conservation perspectives. In: A. Bolten & B.E. Witherington. Ecology and Conservation of Loggerhead Sea Turtle. pp. 175-198. Smithsonian Institution Press. Washington D.C., USA. TÜRKOZAN, O. 2000. Reproductive ecology of the loggerhead turtle, Caretta caretta, on Fethiye and Kizilot beachs, Turkey. Chelonian Conservation and Biology 3:686-692. Marine Turtle Newsletter No. 112, 2006 - Page 13