GREEN TURTLE MONITORING PROGRAMME KAZANLI BEACH, Turkey, 2001

United Nations Environment Programme Mediterranean Action Plan Regional Activity Centre for Specially Protected Areas - Tunis GREEN TURTLE MONITORING PROGRAMME KAZANLI BEACH, Turkey, 2001 RAC/SPA - December 2001

Note: the designation employed and the presentation of the material in this document do not imply the expression of any opinion whatsoever on the part of UNEP concerning the legal status of any state, territory, city or area or of its authorities, or concerning the delimitation of their frontiers or boundaries. TECHNICAL EDITORS: Report prepared by : Dr Monica Aureggi English text revision by: Monica Lesny GIS expert: Dr. Mirco Boschetti Illustrations: Claudio Conti Compilation and layout : Atef OUERGHI 2

Acknowledgements The author would like to thank the Turkish Ministry of Environment of Ankara and Mersin, the Kazanli Municipality for their support during the fieldwork. The author would like to thank Mr. Mohamed Adel Hentati RAC/SPA Director, Mr Atef Ouerghi, Mr Giovanni Torchia A special thank to Camil Aymak and Olcay Tungbaº for their hard and continuous work on the field. The author is grateful to Barbaros Agcagil, Ersoy Seugi, Sandro Massi, Mazal Goulding, Nilüfer Arac, and Ben Gunn for their voluntary work. The author thank all the people that have helped to realise the project: the Major and Ahmet of Kazanli Municipality and their staff, Niyazi Cakmak, Zubeyir Guvel, Recep Metin, Muruvet, Irfan Ekmekci, Hakan Baykal, Umit, Ebru Coskun, Prof. Serap Ergene Gozukara. Thanks to Prof. Yakup Kaska for his interest and scientific support to the project. A thank you to the Soda-Chrome factory for their donation of bicycles. Thanks for the attention and interest of the media, and the Rotary and Rotarct club of Mersin. The author is grateful to the local community of Kazanli, to the children and to the Bus cooperative for their daily memorable support during our stay in the village. 3

TABLE OF CONTENTS 1. INTRODUCTION... 5 2. STUDY AREA... 8 2.1. KAZANLI 4 (K4)... 8 2.2. KAZANLI 3 (K3)... 10 2.3. KAZANLI 2 (K2)... 10 2.4. KAZANLI HOTEL (BH)... 10 2.5. KAZANLI 1(K1)... 10 3. METHODOLOGY... 12 3.1. FIRST STEP OF A DEDICATE GIS FOR A NESTING BEACH... 13 3.2. TRAINING AND CONSERVATION AWARENESS... 13 4. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION... 20 4.1. NESTING ACTIVITY... 20 4.2. PREDATION ON NEST BEFORE HATCHING (P) AND HATCHING PREDATION (PH)... 24 4.3. HATCHING AND EMERGENCE SUCCESS... 28 4.4. STRANDED DEAD TURTLE... 29 4.5. PROBLEMS... 30 5. RECOMMENDATIONS... 34 5.1. LONG-TERM RECOMMENDATIONS... 34 5.2. SHORT-TERM RECOMMENDATIONS... 34 6. CONCLUSIONS... 38 BIBLIOGRAPHY... 39 4

1. INTRODUCTION Two species of sea turtles regularly nest along the Mediterranean coasts: the loggerhead turtle (Caretta caretta) and the green turtle (Chelonia mydas). Loggerhead is the most frequently found and widely distributed, with its main nesting grounds in Greece, Turkey, Cyprus and Lybia, followed by other minor sites such as Egypt, Israel, Italy, Lebanon, Tunisia, Spain. Green turtle nesting grounds are reduced to few beaches in the South eastern part of the Mediterranean in Turkey and Cyprus (North and South). Its restricted distribution to the Eastern Mediterranean could be due to a water temperature gradient along the coast (Groombridge, 1990) though a few juveniles have been found either in the west of the basin, in the Tyrrenean Sea (Laurent 1996; Meschini, 1997) and in the east, Cukurova coast and Fethiye beach, Turkey (Turkozan and Durmus, 2000). As result of human activities, green turtle population has declined throughout the basin to the extent that it is listed as critically endangered by the International Union for the Conservation of Nature (IUCN) Red Data Book and by different international convention in particular it is listed as endangered species in the annexe II of the protocol concerning specially protected areas and biological diversity in the Mediterranean. Turkey with its 2,577 km of coastline in the Aegean and Mediterranean region has a total of 17 sea turtle nesting sites; three of them (Kazanli, Akyatan and Samandagi) were identified as green turtle nesting grounds (Baran and Kasparek, 1989) (fig 1). The first report directed seriously towards the subject of sea turtles in Turkey outside of routine observations, was written by Hathaway (1972). He pointed out that the only knowledge about turtles visiting Turkey and their numbers, came from statistics which showed the year and the weight (in kg) of the fish and turtle caught in Turkish waters. The region of Mersin, where Kazanli beach is located, was first mentioned as area where 15000 turtles (chiefly Chelonia mydas) were captured in 1952-1965 (Sella, 1982). Then, starting from 1988 different surveys were conducted along Kazanli beach (Tab.1). Unfortunately, the different methodologies applied by each author do not allow an estimation of the trend or size of the nesting population: timing of the survey was often reduced to few days or weeks; the study area focused either on only some parts of the beach or based more generally on all the beach; tagging programme were started on a few occasions, but not continued. The common view emerging by different studies, is that strong human impacts have led to an alarming situation at Kazanli. However the number of green turtle nests recorded were enough for the area to be listed as among the most important in the Mediterranean. On the other hand, the fact that the density of green turtle nesting can fluctuate dramatically from year to year (Demetropoulus and Hadjichristophorou, 1995; Hirth, 1997; Gerosa et al., 1998) and that even a decade of observations may not give a reliable evaluation (Limpus,1996), preclude the need of further studies. In particular, a continuous yearly longterm monitoring programme together with conservation/recovery awareness and education program is urgently needed. 5

The main aim of this study is to start with a complete survey during a nesting season in order to provide basic information such as the number of nests laid, their position along the beach, the hatching success rate on different sections of the beach, predation rate and its temporal and spatial distribution. In addition to the scientific evaluation of the nesting population, an analysis of threats that still affect the nesting ground, conservation awareness activities and training of local people (and students) were carried out. The successful outcome, should encourage the local authorities and people, the international community, the Turkish Ministry of Environment and sea turtle researchers to continue the programme which would allow a scientific database for a conservation strategy plan of one of the most important nesting site of green turtles in the Mediterranean. 6

Period Days of survey Area No. tot nests nesting success or track density No. tagged females Threats description Authors 1965-67 Kazanli yes Sella, 1982 1988 May 25 to K1, K2, K3 116 (85 of them on K3) 70 % of emerging Aug.16 not, K4 turtles nest successfully every day 23 yes Sarigul and Langeveld, 1988 1988 Kazanli 125 (95 of them on K3). 80 track per km yes Baran and Kasparek, 1989 1988 20-27 June; 08.08-17.09 K1, K2,K3 138 (56 of them on K3). one visit on On K4 about 25 nests K4 6 yes Baran, I et al. 1991 1990 02.07 12.08 K2 K3 76 (60 of them on K3). 15,5 % of emerging turtles nest successfully 1994? Kazanli 216 54% of emerging turtles nest successfully. 48 nest/km 32 yes Smart and Coley, 1990; Coley and Smart, 1992 43 yes Yerli and Demirayak, 1996 1996? Kazanli 128 nests 32 nest/km Yerli and Cambolat 1998 1996? Kazanli 128 Cm - 7 Cc 46 Cm + yes Yerli and Cambolat, 1998 2 Cc (only in Turkish) 1999 Kazanli yes Demirayak, 1999 2000 Kazanli yes Medassett, 2000 Tab.1 Reports and publications concerning Kazanli sea turtle population s nesting activity.

2. STUDY AREA Kazanly beach is located 10 km to the east of Mersin, at the western end of the Cukurova Delta. The total length of the beach was of 4.9 km (determined thanks to the use of Global Position System (gps) and GIS elaboration) (see map Kazanli 2001). According to previous studies (Sarigul and Langeveld, 1988; Smart and Coley, 1990; Yerli and Demirayak, 1996; Medassett, 2000) the beach consists of four different sections (K1,K2,K3,K4) easily defined by objective physical features. In this programme, the four sections were subdivided into a total of 8 sections as follow: Previous Present Length K1 B1A 653 m from the Altynkum Hotel to the eastern end (a big canal) B1B 558 m B1C 1537 m K2 B2 535 m towards the east up to the Altynkum Hotel, municipal beach K3 B3 464 m section starting at the edge of the factory property (jetty) and extending to the municipal beach, bordered on the other end by a sewage stream K4 B4A 544 m beach in front of the Soda-Chrome Factory B4B 233 m BH BH 350 m in front of Altynkum Hotel. 2.1. KAZANLI 4 (K4) Previous surveys refer to this section as the part in front of the Soda-Chrome Factory, which is with a limited public access to the area. During the season 2001, free access was given to the sea turtle monitoring programme and therefore it was included in the study area. The beach was separated from B3 (K3) by a jetty of stone blocks, which was removed in August 2001. There is a sheer cliff, approximately 3 meters high, with a road at the top surrounding the beach. K4 was divided in two sections: B4A, with Chrome-factory discharge pipe at the western end and B4B with Soda-factory discharge pipe at its western end. An additional stretch of artificial beach, created by the Chrome-factory at the extreme west, end was partly included in the study area. - B4A mainly consists of paddles; liquid discharged by the Soda-factory lies in some part of the section, in particular on the eastern end. The liquid was found on the surface and at a depth of about 30 cm at a temperature of 34º C. - B4B consists mainly of fine sand with some paddles. Rocks at the western end are white and this is due to the discharge pipe of calcium carbonate active 24hs a day, every day since many years. Behind B4B, there is a leisure complex for the management of the factory as well as for thr guests of the company. There is a restaurant, swimming pool, tennis court and football court.

Fig 1. Localisation of the study area Study Area

2.2. KAZANLI 3 (K3) Strong erosion has removed most of the western part of the beach leaving a step of about 1-2 metre, with greenhouses in the back. The eastern part of the beach ending at the sewage canal of the village was more sandy but narrow. 2.3. KAZANLI 2 (K2) This is the municipal stretch of the beach. One restaurant and two tea gardens are located on the beach and along them lies a line of cement benches was placed. There is a recreational area for children and a football ground on the eastern part of the section. A wedding saloon is situated in the back of the football ground. 2.4. KAZANLI HOTEL (BH) The section is situated within the hotel s walls which were recently demolished. The main hotel building is still on the beach, although Some construction materials and cement were left there. 2.5. KAZANLI 1(K1) This part of the beach is different from the rest of Kazanli area. It has a rather homogeneous aspect of fine sand and small dunes with quite a rich Mediterranean dune vegetation. Towards the eastern end, the dunes are wider and the beach is more wild and natural. It was in fact declared as a Nature Site in October 1999. K1 was divided in three sections : - B1A starts from the hotel wall, near which the main access to the beach and a car parking are located, and runs till the second canal. Two restaurants, which were apparently closed or only rarely open, are located in the back of the dune; - B1B is between two canals and has summer houses with a leisure complex, situated at the back of the dune; - B1C, at the eastern end of the beach, has a big building in construction, an old factory and a small house located at the back of the dune.

3. METHODOLOGY The monitoring programme was conducted from the 15 th June 2001 until the 9 th September 2001 on a daily basis. Periodical visits from the 9 th September until the 17 th September were carried out in order to record the hatching success of last nests laid during the season. The survey covered most of the egg laying period and all the hatching period as well. During the entire duration of the programme, turtle nests, tracks and predator tracks were recorded by at least two persons walking along the beach every morning from 5 a.m. until about 12 pm. The survey was conducted in the early hours of the day, in order to find turtle and predators tracks when they were still fresh and clear. Later in the day, the sun, the wind and human prints made them unclear and difficult to identify. Every day B1A-B-C were monitored first, then BH, B2, B3, B4A-B respectively. The date that was assigned to each recorded track (or nest) corresponded to turtle emergences from the previous night. The species, Chelonia mydas and Caretta caretta, was identified by considering the symmetry or asymmetry of the track. Each track was examined in detail to determine whether they led to nests (nest) or to track with no nest (track). Each track recorded was marked by drawing a horizontal line across the track in the sand, in order to avoid a repeated counting. Nests were identified by following the characteristic track in the sand. The evidence of the presence of eggs presence was not found most of the times and this is simply due to the elaborate camouflage of the egg chamber (in Chelonia mydas). The nests were not opened, in order to avoid affecting the egg development and predator behaviour. Being unable to accurately discover the precise location of the egg chamber, the body pit was detected by introducing a wooden stick into the sand until the pit was reached (Demetropoulos and Hadjichristophorou, 1995). Once the body pit was found, the site was recorded as a potential nest site. The egg chamber was identified throughout the season, when the egg laying process was observed during the night, when wire cage or screen was placed over the nest trough to when either predation or hatching occurred. A sample of 15 eggs per nest were measured when possible. Some nests, which were not recorded during the morning survey, were discovered by predation or hatching observation. It is assumed that they were laid before our arrival at Kazanli (15 th June 2001). Each nest was marked with a numbered stick and mapped with gps (Global Position System) within the beach. Distance from the sea and from the vegetation was recorded for each nest. Fresh tracks not leading to nest were also mapped daily with gps. All distance measurements were made with a 25 metre tape along a straight line from the nest to the water line or vegetation. During the morning survey, nests were checked and any sign of predation was recorded. Predator species were identified by their prints in the sand. Date, time, nest number, type of predator, number of eggshells around the nest and presence or absence of eggs remaining in the egg chamber were recorded. Nests were then covered with sand. Besides the human disturbance signs to the nest was also daily recorded.

Two different kinds of predation were observed: predation on nest before hatching (P) and hatching predation (PH). The former occurred during the incubation period, before any sign of hatching was externally visible, whereas PH was identified and distinguished by P, by the presence of tracks left in the sand by emerging neonate turtles. PH was divided into two categories: PH with eggshells scattered around the nest and PH without eggshells at all. Pilot project on individual nest protection was attempted by placing wire cages over the egg chamber of freshly laid nests on B3 and BH and wire screens of 1 m, made of square mesh, were placed on B1A-B-C. The protected nests were checked daily during the morning survey. During the survey, hatching events were evaluated on the basis of print observations. Direction of and an estimation of hatchlings tracks, was recorded. Nests were opened, between 0-7 days after the first day on which a hatchling emerged onto the surface, The incubation success was assessed by determining the hatching success (number of hatchlings that hatched out of their egg shell) and the emergence success (number of hatchlings that reach the beach surface) and the nest content was examined (Miller, 1999). Hatching and emergence success were evaluated only on nests that were not attacked by predators either before or after hatching and on nests attacked during hatching (PH) but without any eggshells scattered around the nest. Stranded dead turtles found on the beach were recorded. Species was identified and the carapace length (SCCL) and width (SCW) were measured. The position along the beach was mapped with gps. 3.1. FIRST STEP OF A DEDICATE GIS FOR A NESTING BEACH The GPS 1 measurements have been recorded in Geo mode: WGS 84 (map datum), latitude and longitude in degrees and minutes (hddd mm.mmm ). The position accuracy was 15 meters (subject to accuracy degradation to 100m). The basic cartographic (1:5000) of Kazanli were scanned in order to obtain a digital source of data. This raster map were georeferenced using UTM system and imported in the dedicated GIS made in ArcView Environment. The map represent a part of Turkey in the UTM 36 zone. The data were firstly imported as a coverage of point in Geographic coordinate in ArcView, secondly, in order to allow the overlay of field data with the cartographic ones, the coverage was transformed in UTM system. The transformation was made using the reproject module of ArcView obtaining a new coverage of point in UTM coordinate. Measurement of the total length of the beach and of each section were obtained. 3.2. TRAINING AND CONSERVATION AWARENESS One student from Mersin University and one from Pamukkale University were trained on fieldwork techniques to survey sea turtles. A Collaboration was established with the local community, in particular with the Municipality being very keen in preserving the sea turtle nesting population. 1 Garmin 12 13

The local Media paid a close attention to the project. In some cases, they published articles supporting the local municipality against the Soda-Chrome factory without specifying the real aims of the project. A talk was organized for the staff of the Soda-Chrome factory in order to make them aware of the importance of sea turtle biology and conservation in their area. In particular, a short training was conducted in order to show them the wire cage technique destinated to protect nests against predators to explain the effects of light pollution. Some people of the Ministry of Environment of Ankara participated as well and observed the techniques applied during the fieldwork. Collaboration with the local Ministry of Environment (Mersin) was established in order to record and sample stranded dead turtles in the area. A project on heavy metals analysis on dead turtles and an attempt to initiate a local stranding and salvage network was started. Local people who were used to walk on the beach were asked to call the Ministry s office whenever they found a dead turtle. Information materials and instruments were left with the Ministry s staff in order to allow them to continue the work. A record sheet for stranded dead turtle was translated and produced in collaboration with Pamukkale University. Talks were organized for the Rotary and Rotaract club of Mersin, and these latters who showed a particular interest in knowing more about sea turtle biology and conservation. On the 26th of August, a special day for Kazanli's children was organized. The event was called One day for the Environment and it was organized by the project in collaboration with the Municipality. The message for the children was: you should keep the environment clean because your house is not restricted to the four walls you are used to but expanded to the outside. Many children participated. Talks and workshop were held near the beach. The importance of not throwing rubbish around was shown through short scenes. Then, big plastic bags were given to the children and Beach B3 was cleant by collecting any sort of rubbish. The day's activities ended with a cocktail (drinks and candies offered to the children) and few green turtle hatchlings were released after being kept in a bucket for the occasion. The children appeared to be enthusiastic for the event. 14

16

17

18

19

4. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION 4.1. NESTING ACTIVITY The most frequent nesting species was Chelonia mydas (Cm) with 73 nests (69,52%), but a considerable number of Caretta caretta (Cc) nests was also found (N=26). The high number of green turtle nests in the area emphasized the role of the beach as one of the most important nesting sites in Turkey and in the whole Mediterranean (Baran and Kasparek, 1989; Medassett, 2000). Loggerhead nests which were found at Kazanli during previous studies, consisted of such a low percentage that were considered as not constituting significative portion of a population and have rarely been mentioned. An exact estimation of loggerhead nests is possible, only by conducting regular and daily surveys, it turned out to be the kind of nest that is only detectable when the nesting crawl is fresh. The low number of loggerhead nests recorded in Kazanli so far, could be due to different survey methods. Since this beach was surveyed every day in 2001, the number of loggerhead nest (24,76 %) was higher than it used to be in previous studies (Tab.1). The spatial distribution of the 105 nests varied over the 8 sections, with a range of 3-28 nests were present in each one of them (Fig.1). Most of the nests (64%) were laid on B1 (A-B-C), likewise a high portion (16%) was found on B3. Nest allocation at Kazanli showed a preference for the eastern part of the beach which is still quite natural with sand dune vegetation, and with only few buildings and a low human impact. The area of B3 has been taken into consideration during different surveys in the past and resulted to be the stretch with the highest nest density of green turtles in Mediterranean (Tab.1). Although today B3 is reduced to a narrow stretch of sand and has nearly disappeared, many tracks (N=57) and nests (N=17) were found. Nesting attempts were even observed in the ground near green houses, a substrate which is not suitable for laying eggs. This fact could be explained by the strong nest site fidelity of adult green turtles, revealed by long term studies (Mortimer and Portier, 1989; Meyland et al., 1990), indeed females exhibit within-beach natal philopatry even nesting one or two years apart (Peare and Parker, 1995). In fact, the eastern part of the beach was either rarely patrolled in the past or its records were not specified. Therefore it is not possible to evaluate if there was a shift of nesting activity away from the west, where the nesting habitat is deteriorated, to the east, which represents more suitable nesting habitat. A total of 171 tracks with no nests were recorded, of which 149 belongs to Chelonia mydas, 18 to Caretta caretta and 4 were not identifiable to species. The spatial distribution of tracks varied along the beach, with a range of 9 57 in each section (Fig.2).The highest number of Chelonia mydas tracks (55) was found on B3, whereas the lowest (7) was found on BH.

30 No. nests 25 20 15 10 Total Cm Chylonia mydas Cc Caretta caretta? Unkown 5 0 B4A B4B B3 B2 BH B1A B1B B1C Beach sections Fig.1- Spatial distribution of nests along Kazanli beach No. tracks 60 50 40 30 20 Total Cm Chylonia mydas Cc Caretta caretta? Unkown 10 0 B4A B4B B3 B2 BH B1A B1B B1C Beach sections Fig.2- Spatial distribution of tracks along Kazanli beach 21

The spatial distribution of nests and tracks along the beach varied in each section (Fig.3 and GIS maps). The number of tracks was higher than the number of nests on B4 (A-B), B3, B2; tracks and nests were nearly the same on BH, B1A-B, and nests were higher then tracks on B1C. The percentage of successful nests over the number of tracks was therefore higher on BH, B1 (A-B-C) than on B4(A-B), B3,B2. Cm and Cc nest and track distribution are shown respectively in Fig.3a and Fig.3b. For marine turtles, as for any egg laying organism, nest placement has important consequences on the reproductive success; when they emerge from the sea to the nest, they look for a nest site which will have the appropriate characteristics. The eastern part of the beach was probably preferable to the other parts of the beach as they offere more suitable nesting site conditions to turtles emerging from the sea. Though, the western side of the beach coincides with the area where many factors threaten the nesting habitat. The nesting success of emerging Cm was 49% along the beach. It varies from 0 on B4A where only tracks without nests were recorded, to an area in the eastern end of the beach (B1B-B1C) where the number of nests was higher then the number of tracks (Fig.3a). This result was similar to the 1994 study in Kazanli (Yerli and Demirayak, 1996) where the nesting success was of 54% and it was comparable to 41,06% obtained at Akyatan in 1994 (Gerosa et al., 1995), the most important green turtle nesting site in the Mediterranean (Aureggi et al., 2000). On B3 the nesting success was of 18%, which was analogous to 15% reported by Smart and Coley (1990), who undertook a survey that focused on B3 and B2 only. 22

60 Nests Tracks No.nests- tracks 50 40 30 20 10 0 B4A B4B B3 B2 BH B1A B1B B1C Beach sections Fig.3 - Spatial distribution of nests and tracks (Chelonia mydas and Caretta caretta) along kazanli beach. No.nests - tracks 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 Nests Cm B4A B4B B3 B2 BH B1A B1B B1C Beach sections Fig.3a -Spatial distribution of Chelonia mydas (Cm) nests and tracks along Kazanli beach No.nests - tracks 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 0 Nests Cc B4A B4B B3 B2 BH B1A B1B B1C Beach sections Fig.3b - Spatial distribution of Caretta caretta (Cc)nests and tracks along Kazanli beach 23

4.2. PREDATION ON NEST BEFORE HATCHING (P) AND HATCHING PREDATION (PH) A total of 71 nests were attacked by predators either before, during or after hatching resulting in a total predation rate of 67.61 during all the season (Tab.2). Green turtle nest predation (P=81,81%) and hatching predation (PH=69,38%) were higher than on loggerhead nests (P=9.09%; PH=24,48%). On the other hand, considering predation (P and PH) rates in relation to the number of nests of each species, PH was similar (46,15-46,57 %), for both Cm and Cc, whereas there was a greater difference between species in the P rate (24,6% - 7,69%). No.nests No.P nests % P % tot. P No.PH nests % PH % tot. PH Cm 73 18 24,65 81,81 34 46,57 69,38 Cc 26 2 7,69 9,09 12 46,15 24,48? 6 2 33,33 9,09 3 50 6,12 Total 105 22 20,95 49 46,67 Tab.2 - Marine turtle species nesting at Kazanli, 2001. Cm= Chelonia mydas; Cc= Caretta caretta;?=unknown; No.=number; P= predation before hatching; PH= predation during hatching; %P or % PH = predation rate calculated on the total number of nests of each species; % tot. P or % tot. PH = predation rate calculated on the overall total number of predated nest (22 or 49). The spatial distribution of nests (Cm + Cc) attacked either before, during or after hatching within each beach section is summarized in Fig.4. Beach 4 (A-B) was the safest area (P+PH range 0-33,3 %) whereas on the other sections the total predation (P+PH) ranged between 64,29 and 87,5 %. 30 25 P : Predation before hatching PH: Hatching predation Nests P+PH No.nests 20 15 10 5 0 B4A B4B B3 B2 BH B1A B1B B1C Beach sections Fig.4- Spatial distribution of nests and predation along Kazanli beach 24

Nests located on beach 4 were all protected by a wire cage produced by the factory. It was made out of a heavy and a strong wire providing solid protection to the nests. The spatial distribution of nest predation (P) on Chelonia mydas (Fig.5) was of 50% on B3 and B2, whereas it was between 15 to 33.33% on the other sections and it was absent on B4B. The rate of P on Caretta caretta (Fig.6) was low (20-25%) and recorded only on BH and B3. 25 20 nests Cm No.nests 15 10 P Cm 5 0 B4A B4B B3 B2 BH B1A B1B B1C Beach sections Fig.5 - Spatial distribution of Chelonia mydas nests and predation before hatching (P) No.nests 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 0 B4A B4B B3 B2 BH B1A B1B B1C Beach sections nests Cc P Cc Fig.6 - Spatial distribution of Caretta caretta nests and predation before hatching (P) 25

The spatial distribution of PH on Chelonia mydas (Fig.7) showed a high rate (range 50-66.67%) on B2, BH, B1A-B-C, of 20% on B3 and no record of it on B4. PH distribution of Caretta caretta (Fig.8) showed a high rate (range 50-75%) on B3,B2,BH, B1B-C and no record of it on B4A-B. 25 20 nests Cm PH Cm No.nests 15 10 5 0 B4A B4B B3 B2 BH B1A B1B B1C Beach sections Fig.7 - Spatial distribution of Chelonia mydas nests and hatching predation (PH) No.nests 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 0 nests Cc PH Cc B4A B4B B3 B2 BH B1A B1B B1C Beach sections Fig.8 - Spatial distribution of Caretta caretta nests and hatching predation (PH) 26

The majority of nests (97,3%) were taken by predators (P+PH) after the fifth week of incubation (Fig.9) and only one nest was predated in the fifth week of development. The interval between the egg laying date and the first predation (P+PH), pre-predation time (Aureggi et al., 1999) had a mean value of 47 days (range 33-60, median 49). No. nests 16 14 12 10 8 6 4 2 0 P PH 1-7 8-14 15-21 22-28 29-35 36-42 43-49 50-56 Pre-predation time (days) Fig.9 - Interval of time between date of ovoposition and predation (P and PH): pre-predation time considering both species (Cm+Cc) The beginning of the nesting season (first nest laid) at Kazanli beach was estimated to be around the first of June and the end (last hatched nest) of the 12 th of September (Tab.3). Dates are slightly different according to the two species nesting in the same area. The occurrence of the first hatching predation (PH) was recorded before, on the 15 th of July, than the first nest predation (P) event (on the 9 th August). Chelonia mydas Caretta caretta start end start end Egg laying season 01 June 01*28 July 01 02 June 01** 12 July 01 Hatching season 26 July 01 12 September 0115 July 01 24 August 01 First Predation (P) 9 August 01 11 August 01 First hatching predation (PH) 26 July 01 15 July 01 * estimation based on the incubation period of 55 days. ** estimation based on the incubation period of 51 days. Tab.3 Timing of nesting season 2001 for Chelonia mydas and Caretta caretta at Kazanli. Nests predators in the Mediterranean are mostly canids, in particular red fox, jackals, feral dogs (Geldiay et al., 1982; Demetropoulus and Hadijchristophorou, 1989; van Piggelen and Strijbosch, 1993; Brown, 1993; Erk kan, 1993; Macdonald et al., 1994; Brown and Macdonald, 1995; Broderick and Godley, 1996; Yerli et al., 1997; Aureggi et.al., 1999; Kaska, 2000;). 27

Dog, the predator species recorded in the past in Kazanli (Smart and Coley, 1990; Baran et al., 1991), were seen patrolling the beach in groups of 3-5 individuals. They were mostly observed in places near houses or near source of food such as rubbish on the road. Nests were mostly attacked after the fifth week of incubation, probably because predators were not able to find nests before (Aureggi et al., 1999) or they were not patrolling the beach very often at the beginning of the season. Similar timing of predation in relation to the incubation period were recorded in the Mediterranean (Aureggi et al. 1999; Kaska, 2000). In Kazanli,for instance, the first predation event (15.07) was on a hatching loggerhead nest. It is known that pre-emergent clutches are frequently raided by predators (Stancyk, 1982; Demetropoulus and Hadijchristophorou, 1989; van Piggelen and Strjibosh, 1993) probably because they release cues which are easily detectable by mammals. Later in the season, once dogs learned to find food on the beach, they search more, becoming able to detect nests before hatching. At that time, starting from the 9th of August, only a few Cc nests were still available on the beach, resulting in a low rate of predation on this species and a high rate on Cm. After the eggs hatch, the hatchlings must ascend to the beach surface from the underground egg chamber; the upward journey is a socially- facilitated movement of hatchling mass (Carr and Hirth, 1961) which lasts from 1 to 7 days after pipping (Lohman et al., 1997). Considering that at Kazanli the incubation period was estimated of 55 days (Cm) and 51 days (Cc) and that most of the nests were predated on average after 47 days, it seems that dogs learned how to detect the hatchling mass while they were moving upward to reach the surface, still in the nest column. Human disturbance to nests protected with cages or screen made it impossible to conduct the pilot project on individual nest protection. Both cages and screens were either stolen or often removed by people. The use of screen was successful in preventing fox predation on sea turtle nests in Cyprus and Dalyan (Yerli et al., 1997; Kaska, 2000), but there was no human interference on the beach. It is therefore necessary to inform and educate people in Kazanli before applying this conservation measure. 4.3. HATCHING AND EMERGENCE SUCCESS The hatching success on a total sample of 51 nests was of 73,91 % (range 0-96,00%) along the beach. The hatching success was higher for Cm (average = 83,68%, N=38) than for Cc (average= 64,13%, N=13). According to table 4, it varies within each beach section and each species. HATCHING SUCCESS Beach section Cc (%) N Cm (%) N B4A 0 2 0 B4B 72,79 3 79,50 3 B3 77,78 1 96,00 1 B1A 80,07 10 B1B 79,3 2 74,63 10 B1C 90,79 5 88,20 14 13 38 Tab.4 - Hatching success rate per beach section per species. 28

The emergence success calculated on the same sample of nests (51), was of 71,31% (range 0-94%) along the beach. According to table 5 it varies within each beach section. EMERGENCE SUCCESS Beach section Cc (%) N Cm (%) N B4A 0 2 0 B4B 70,43 3 77,71 3 B3 77,78 1 94 1 B1A 0 78,85 10 B1B 78,67 2 73,39 10 B1C 76,19 5 86,17 14 13 38 Data recorded on reproductive biology of Chelonia mydas and Caretta caretta are summarized in table 6. REPRODUCTIVE BIOLOGY DATA Chelonia mydas mean min-max N Carapace length of nesting females SSCL 86 84-88 2 Diameter of eggs (cm) 4,2 3,9-4,3 11 1 Clutch size 115 85-154 38 Length of incubation (days) 2 55 51-61 10 Length of incubation (days) 3 53 45-61 24 Carapace length of hatchlings SSCL (cm) 4,7 4,6 4,9 4 4 Weight (g) 22 20-24 4 4 EC TOP (cm) 62 46-79 50 EC BOT (cm) 73 55-90 56 Caretta caretta Diameter of eggs (cm) 3,8 3,7-3,9 5 1 Clutch size 60 27-94 13 Length of incubation (days)** 50,5 49-52 4 Length of incubation (days)*** 50 47-52 8 EC TOP (cm) 37 23,5-45 16 EC BOT (cm) 47 36-54,5 19 1 Sample of 15 eggs for each nest that was measured. 2 Calculated only on nest Not predated 3 Calculated on nest Not predated and nest predated on the first day of hatching 4 sample of 4 nests. Tab.6 Reproductive data on Chelonia mydas and Caretta caretta at Kazanli. 4.4. STRANDED DEAD TURTLE A total of 26 stranded dead sea turtles (Chelonia mydas =3, Caretta caretta =22 and 1 unknown) were found in Kazanli during the research period (Tab.7) Most of them arrived on the beach already decomposed, which means that they have already died several days before. The cause of death and the region they came from was unknown. More studies are needed in order to investigate the cause of death. 29

Date Beach Species SCCL SCW 15/06/01 BH Cm 52 44 16/06/01 B3 Cc 70* 50* 18/06/01 B4B Cm 54 50 18/06/01 B4B Cc 72 64 19/06/01 B2 Cc 70 64 19/06/01 B2 Cc 73 65 19/06/01 B1C Cm 30* 27* 01/07/01 B1A Cc 78 69 11/07/01 B1A Cc 69 66 31/07/01 B1C Cc 63 59 02/08/01 B4B? 03/08/01 B1C Cc 68 60 06/08/01 B1C Cc 47 44 06/08/01 B1B Cc 78 69 08/08/01 B1A Cc 72 63 11/08/01 B1A Cc 55 50 14/08/01 B1C Cc 18/08/01 B1B Cc 74 65 21/08/01 B1C Cc 59 54 21/08/01 B1B Cc 66 63 21/08/01 B1A Cc 71 69 22/08/01 B1C Cc 63 57 25/08/01 B1B Cc 63 57 25/08/01 B1C Cc 53 45 25/08/01 B1B Cc 68 65 06/09/01 B1A Cc 79 70 Tab.7 Sea turtles stranded dead at Kazanli during nesting season 2001. Cc = Caretta caretta; Cm= Chelonia mydas; * = damaged carapace, measurement is circa; SCCL= standard curved carapace length (cm); SCW = carapace curved width (cm). 4.5. PROBLEMS Since Kazanli was identified as one of the most important nesting sites for Cm, several relevant problems and recommendations have being suggested by different authors. According to the most recent review of threats (Medassett, 2000) the main existing problems affecting Kazanli are respectively: erosion, light pollution, agriculture and fishing, predation, pollution, litter on the beach, disturbance during nesting season. An update of the situation is summarized in table 8, classifying problems in three categories high, low and unknown. 30

Beach section Threats B4A B4B B3 B2 BH B1A B1B B1C Erosion? L* H* L H??? Light pollution - L H H H L L L Litter on the beach L L H H H H H H Agriculture - - H H H H H H Fishing L L L L L L L L Vehicle on the beach - - H H H H H H Buildings on the beach - - H H H L H L People on the beach - - H H H L L L Pollution H H H H H H H H Factory discharges H H - - - - - - Predation L - H H H H H H Tab.8 - Description of threats in each beach section. H=high; L=Low;?=unknown, not evident. *= jetty removed during the season. B4A B4B: As far as erosion is concerned, the jetty that was artificially built in the past at the border between Kazanli beach and the factory, was removed during the nesting season of 2001. The effect on the erosion incidence on both sides will be evident next season. The negative effect of light pollution was solved with the collaboration of the people working in the factory. The lights surrounding the beach were switched off during the night and the road behind the beach acted as a screen for the lights from the factory s buildings. Hatchlings tracks were observed going straight into the sea without disorientation. Rubbish on the beach coming from the sea was periodically removed manually removed by factory s staff. Fishing activities were limited to some small fishing boats using gillnets and were kept very close to the beach. The main problem was the discharge of liquids from the factory. In particular on the western part, some liquid was found at a depth of about 30 cm, in the sand with a temperature of 34 C degrees. The problem was discussed with the factory s engineer and a plan of canalisation to collect this liquid was carried out for the coming season. Nest protection with wire cage was successful on this side of the beach. B3 The construction of a jetty nearby the factory in the 1980 s, the misuse of sand dunes for agriculture (greenhouses) and sand extraction were probably the main causes of erosion that have led to the destruction of section B3. Although the beach is reduced to small and narrow stretches of sand, erosion still represent a threat, together with dog predation and agriculture. Artificial lights from houses and probably from the factory s buildings caused hatchling disorientation. Litter on the beach coming either from the sea or left by the people using the beach (during the day and night) were abundant. Besides, several layers of debris were found in the sand at different depth. Greenhouses which were originally built behind the dunes are now on the beach. Tractors were driven on the beach to and from greenhouses. 31

B2 This part of the beach is the most visited by people and it has many buildings using artificial lights. The new municipality s administration made some positive changes, such as the removal of a road in the back, etc. but some recreational areas, such as tea garden, football ground, public park, still cause light pollution. Cement benches on the beach are acting as an obstacle for emerging turtle and hatchlings. The sand, hard and compacted, is not suitable for digging. Plenty of rubbish is either left by people or comes directly from the sea. Dogs were often patrolling the area often, probably finding different sources of food (i.e from restaurant). Vehicles were often driven onto the beach. The Bus-terminal station is on the western end of the beach and it was open until about 22.00. BH The hotel building, which will apparently be demolished soon, is located on the beach. Some cement walls are on the shoreline functioning as obstacle for emerging turtle. Although the activity of the hotel was limited, artificial lights were often used and rubbish was left on the beach. Fishermen were often in this area with small boats near the shore. Dogs were often patrolling this short part of the beach, probably because they were finding plenty of food. Tracks from tractors were fequently found as well. B1 A-B-C - these sections are much similar in their characteristics and problems. A few buildings were producing artificial lights in the night, causing disorientation. Litter and tractors on the beach, and predation were the main problems. Layer of debris were found in the sand at different depths. Greenhouses were located further in the back, separated from the beach by a road. Fishermen with small boats were often seen fishing with gillnets. 32

Solutions for common lighting problems near nesting beaches: balcony or porch lighting BEST Louvered step lighting is one of the best ways to light balconies that are visible from nesting beaches BETTER Completely shielding fixtures with a sheet of metal flashing can reduce stray light reaching the beach Solutions for a common lighting problem near nesting beaches footpath and roads POOR Poorly directed balcony lighting can cause problems on sea turtle nesting beaches BEST Linear tube lighting BEST Ceiling-recessed down lighting with baffles to eliminate lateral light Figures adopted from Witherington and Martin, 1996

5. RECOMMENDATIONS 5.1. LONG-TERM RECOMMENDATIONS Since all the problems are caused by the impact of humans, the most important recommendation is to ensure the participation of the local community in future conservation management process of the area. An information-education programme for local people should be established as follow: Long term education programme for children: at schools during the academic year (lessons and workshops on different conservation issues focusing on sea turtles) in the field, during the nesting season (direct participation of the children in the fieldwork activities such as monitoring, tagging, games and working-competition on the beach etc,). Children should put into practice what they were taught during the year. Establish an Information Centre in Kazanli near the beach, which would work as follows: a focal point for villagers and for people visiting Kazanli a place where people are informed and became aware of the importance of sea turtles conservation. distribution of awareness material a natural history museum section where natural specimen of local wildlife are displayed. A display area for children, where they can display their works a place where any kind of information related to sea turtles can be reported or put in an mail box In addition, the lack of scientific information on the nesting population would require an urgent long term research program on the nesting population, in order to continue the work started in the season of 2001 and to collect enough data for a conservation/recovery strategy plan. Scientific monitoring programme : 5 years monitoring programme covering the entire beach of Kazanli o period: from the end of May to the end of September of each season o recruitment of an international research team (students, Turkish and foreign volunteers, researchers) o Focus the research on: tagging, satellite tracking programme, study on sex ratio,, impact of pollution, natural predation and other topics. o Reinforce the local network on stranding sea turtles 5.2. SHORT-TERM RECOMMENDATIONS Suggestions for immediate conservation actions are herein described: Erosion: the negative effect of erosion constitutes the partial or the total cause of the loss of suitable nesting habitat. The jetty that was apparently the main cause of erosion has been nullified. It is recommended to investigate and observe the effects of this removal before even planning any sand dune restoration project.

Light pollution: The most clearly demonstrated effect of artificial lighting on nesting is to deter turtles from emerging from the water or to abandon their nesting attempts on the beach. In addition, many researches have demonstrated that the principal component of the sea-finding behaviour of emergent hatchlings is a visual response to the light. Intense artificial lighting can affect the act of sea-finding of hatchlings, which crawl to the sea as soon as they hatch. Both outdoors and indoor lighting from buildings, road, etc. that are close to the beach cause some problems to the sea turtles. This problem subsists in case the light is visible from the beach. The following actions are suggested: unnecessary light sources near the beach should be eliminated, and the number of light sources that provide more than adequate illumination should be reduced. Lighting that is necessary for safety or for security purposes can be used when needed during early evening hours and switched off during the rest of the night. The municipality established 23 as maximum time in the evening, but this limit should be applied or implemented. Luminaries should not be directed onto the beach or onto any object visible from the beach. A solution could be to provide shields light source: light shields should be completely opaque, sufficiently large, and positioned in such a way so that light coming from the shielded source does not reach the beach (see figures pag19). In most cases, light shields can be fashioned from materials that are inexpensive and easily obtained. Aluminium and galvanised-steel flashing, plywood, and some opaque plastics make excellent lights shields. An effective, simple, and inexpensive way to shield luminaries with hemispherical globes is to line the inside of the seaward half of the globe with household aluminium foil (the foil is not likely to remain on the outside of the globe). Attempts to shield light by fastening tinted acrylic or acetate to luminaries or painting their globes are generally not effective because these materials are not sufficiently opaque. Tarpaper shields are effective only for a short time because they do not weather well. Litter on the beach: The presence of litter on the beach could have negative effect on both emerging female turtles and hatchlings. The beach should be regularly cleaned by hand and rubbish bins should be placed near the beach, in particular on B3,B2 and BH where people are frequently using the beach. In addition, the initiative one day for the environment (see training and conservation awareness ) started during the season of 2001 should be repeated periodically (once a month) with children and villagers. Agriculture: The intense agriculture activities in Kazanli should be regulated and controlled, in particular the use of extremely hazardous substances, such as methyl bromide, should be prohibited. Furthermore, the impact of pesticides on the environment should be assessed by scientific investigation. 35

Fishing: Fishing activities on the beach or near shore should be banned during the nesting season during the night and the day. Neighbouring beaches can be easily used by local fishermen. Vehicle on the beach: A ban of driving tractors or other vehicles on the beach should be implemented throughout the year. The Bus terminal station should be removed from the B2, to somewhere far from the beach. Building on the beach: Greenhouses, hotels, restaurants, football grounds, etc. should be removed where it is possible or the use of lights should be regulated. The construction materials left after demolition should be removed as well from the beach. People on the beach: The access onto the beach during the night in the nesting season should be limited to some sections only. i.e. B2 an BH, whereas the other sections should remain exclusively closed. Pollution: A multi disciplinary research project should be established in order to evaluate the pollution level of (air, water, sea) of the area and its effects on both humans and sea turtles. Factory discharge: The control of the discharge from factories onto the beach and into the sea should be regularly checked by the Ministry of the Environment. Predation by dogs: Considering that the predation period is limited to the period of nest hatching (August- September), the following control methods are suggested for Kazanli: Hatching monitoring: this consists of having at least two people next to each nest whilst the turtles are hatching during the night. A team of volunteers (locals, student, foreign volunteers, etc) should be trained and involved in monitoring the hatching. Human presence near nest will deter dog predation. The Cost are low, but recruitment, training and volunteers' coordination is necessary. In addition, it is assumed that there is a research team working since the beginning, which has identified nest position and the dates of laying along the beach. Individual nest protection together with hatching monitoring: this requires a campaign of education campaign and must provide information to the local people in order to avoid human disturbances; high man power and accurate nest mapping (by an expert). In addition, nest protections (cage or screen) must be removed before the hatch emergence is expected. The costs involved is of the materials to produce enclosures. A new model of individual nest protection, instead of wire cages or screen, was designed and illustrated in Fig. 10. The application of this model does not require the removal of this later before hatching but it should be applied with hatching monitoring programme. Once the egg chamber is identified, within 6-12 hours from the egg laying, a thin plastic tube of cm 30 diameter (inside) and cm 50 height has to be placed vertically over the egg chamber, in the nest column. The tube has to be placed about cm 20 above the eggs, in order not to damage them and their natural incubation. The tube is then filled with the sand that was digged out at the beginning and covered up to the top putting about a layer of cm 36

20 of sand. The tube acts as a barrier for dogs digging from the eggs laying until hatching, including the period of their upward journey which last from 1 to 7 days after pipping. It is not necessary to remove the tube whereas the monitoring of the hatching itself is essential. Control of the dog population: predation levels may be lowered by allowing individual predators to remain within a restricted fenced area, at least during the hatching period. Reproduction and increase of individuals could be achieved by sterilizing adults and controlling the number of offspring annually. Limiting and controlling the source of food available during the year in the village, such as rubbish scattered around, could help to control the population of dogs. Shock aversive conditioning: An aversive conditioning, such as electric shock, should be created in order to give a sufficiently strong shock to the dogs which may be deterred from further predation. Standard fencing: excluding dogs from the beach may be achieved by fencing the beach on three sides, leaving only the seaward side open for turtle nesting. In Kazanli, it would be possible only in the back dune zone of beach one. Costs would be for materials and construction work. Guards should be responsible for the access to the beach by the public during the day. However, specific entrances should be controlled. 37

6. CONCLUSIONS Despite the presence of many factors considered to be threats posed by humans to sea turtles was observed in Kazanli, the beach has preserved its role as one of the most important nesting site for green turtles in the Mediterranean. In fact, nesting activity still occurs with a reasonable number of nests being laid. The survival percentage of the hatchlings is very low. The rate is so low to compromise the survival of the nesting population. As far as predation is concerned, which remains the main threat to the hatchlings, further studies are in fact needed to compare between the results of this survey and others. Briefly, application of some conservation measures is essential. The loss of B3, the beach section historically known as the Mediterranean beach with highest density of green turtle nest, is probably also affecting the nesting population itself. Due to the lack of scientific information, a trend can be neither found nor a status of the population can be drawn at this stage. A five-year-monitoring programme, following the same methodology of this survey, together with a tagging programme, will provide a good data base to allow the status of the population to be shown. In the meantime, some urgent conservation actions should be applied. Public awareness through the participation of the local community in the conservation plan, is consequently extremely important in Kazanli. 38

BIBLIOGRAPHY Aureggi, M. Gerosa, G. and Yerli, S.V. 2000. Five years of research at Akyatan Beach (Turkey): one of the main nesting sites for green turtle, Chelonia mydas, in the Mediterranean. In: Proceeding XXXII Congresso della Società Italiana di Biogeografia. Roma, 29-31 ottobre 1998. Biogeographia Vol.XXI: 555-560. Aureggi, M., Gerosa. G. and Yerli, S.V. 1999. Observations on predation of marine turtle nests at Akyatan, Turkey, Eastern Mediterranean. Chelonian Conservation and Biology, 3 (3): 487-489. Baran, I. and Kasparek, M. 1989. Marine turtles in Turkey. Status survey 1988 and recommendations for conservation and management. WWF report. Baran, I., Durmus, S.H. and Atatur, M.K. 1991. On the Chelonia mydas (L.) (Reptilia:Chelonia) population of Mersin - Kazanli region. Turk.J.of Zoology 15:185-194. Broderick, A.C. and Godley, J.B.1996. Population and nesting biology of the green turtle, Chelonia mydas and the loggerhead turtle, Caretta caretta, in northern Cyprus. Zool. Middle East 13: 27-46. Brown, L. 1993. Controlling turtle egg predators in the Goksu Delta, Turkey: some options. MTNewsletter 60:15-17. Brown, L. and Macdonald, D.W. 1995. Predation on green turtle (Chelonia mydas) nests by wild canids at Akyatan beach, Turkey. Biol.Conserv.71:55-60. Carr, A. and Hirth, H. 1961. Social facilitation in green turtle siblings. Animal behaviour 9:68-70. Coley, S.J and Smart, A.C. 1992. The nesting success of green turtles on beaches at Kazanli, Turkey. Oryx 26 (3):165-171. Demetropoulos, A. & Hadjichristophorou, M. 1989. Sea turtle conservation in Cyprus. MTNewsletter 44 :4-6. Demetropoulos, A. & Hadjichristophorou, M. 1995. Manual on marine turtle conservation in the Mediterranean. UNEP(MAP)SPA/IUCN/CWS/Fisheries Department, MANRE (Cyprus). Demirayak, F. 1999. the status of green turtle Chelonia mydas nesting habitat in Kazanli, Akyatan and Samandagi on the Turkish Mediterranean coast, Medasset (UK). Report for Bern Convention T-PVS(1999)74. Erk kan, F. 1993. Nesting biology of loggerhead turtles Caretta caretta L. on Dalyan beach, Mugla-Turkey. Biol.Conserv.66:1-4. Geldiay, R., Koray, T., and Balik, S. 1982. Status of sea turtle populations (Caretta caretta and Chelonia mydas) in the Northern Mediterranean Sea, Turkey. In: Biology and Conservation of Sea Turtles, Bjorndal K.A.(eds), Smithsonian Inst.Press, Washington D.C. 425-434. Gerosa, G., Aureggi, M., Casale, P. and Yerli, S.V. 1998. Green Turtle nesting at Akyatan Beach, Turkey, 1994 1997. Marine Turtle Newsletter, 81:4-5. Gerosa, G., Casale, P. and Yerli, S.V. 1995. Report on a sea turtle nesting beach study (Akyatan, Turkey), 1994. International Congress of Chelonian Conservation (SOPTOM Ed.). 6-10 July 1995. Gonfaron, France: 173-180. Groombridge, B. 1990. Marine turtles in the Mediterranean: Distribution, population status, conservation. Report to the Council of Europe, Environment Conservation and Management Division, Nature and Environment Series No. 48. 98 pp. Hathaway, J.R. 1972. Sea Turtles: unanswered questions about sea turtles in Turkey. Balik ve Balikcilik 20:1-8. Hirth, F.H. 1997. Synopsis of the biological data on green turtle Chelonia mydas (Linnaeus 1758). Fish and Wildlife Service, U.S.Department of the Interior, Washington, D.C. 20240.Biol.Rep.97(1). 39

Kaska, Y. 2000. Predation pattern of loggerhead and green turtle nests in the eastern Mediterranean and its possible effect on sex ratio. Israel J.of Zoology 46:343-349. Laurent, L. 1996. Synthse historique de la prsence de tortues marines sur les cotes de France (cotes mditerranennes). Ministre de l'environnement, Dir. de la Nat. et des Pays., Sous-dir. de la chasse, de la faune et de la flore sauvages. Contrat No.95/20:pp.29. Lohman, K.J., Witherington, B.E., Lohman, C.M.F. and Salmon, M. 1997. Orientation, Navigation, and Natal Beach Homing in Sea Turtles. In: The Biology of Sea Turtles. Lutz, P.L. and Musick,J.A. (eds). CRC Press. 107-130. Limpus, C.J. 1996. Myths, reality and limitations of green turtle census data. In: J.A. Keinath, D.E. Barnard, J.A. Musick, B.A. Bell (eds),proceedings of the 15th annual Sympo. On Sea Turtles Bio. and Conserv. NOAA Tech.Memo. NMFS-SEFC-387:170-173. Macdonald, D.W, Brown, L., Yerli, S. and Cambolat, A.F. 1994. Behaviour of red foxes (Vulpes) caching eggs of loggerhead turtles, Caretta. J.of Mammology 75(4):985-988. Medassett, 2000. Habitat assessment of the remaining significant nesting sites of the green turtle (Chelonia mydas) on the Turkish Mediterranean coast: Kazanli, Akyatan and Samandagi. Rep.for Bern Convention.T-PVS (2000)56. Meyland, A.B., Bowen B.W. and Avise, J.A. 1990. A genetic test of the Natal Homing Versus Social facilitation Models for green turtle migration. Science, 248:724-727 Meschini, P. 1997. Prima segnalazione di una cattura accidentale di Chelonia mydas (Linneo, 1758) lungo il litorale livornese (Secche della Meloria) In: Fauna del Mediterraneo. Immagini e note di ecologia marina. Quaderni dell'acquario di Livorno n.3. Acquario di Livorno, Livorno, Italy:5-11. Miller, J.D. 1999. Determining clutch size and hatching success. In: Research and Management Techniques for the Conservation of sea turtles. Eckert,K.L., Bjorndal, K.A., Abreu-Grobois, F.A. and Donnelly,M.(Eds). IUCN/MTSG Pubbl.4. Mortimer, J.A. and Portier, K.M.1989. Reproductive homing and interesting behaviour of the green turtle (Chelonia mydas) at Ascension island, South Atlantic Ocean. Copeia 4:962-977. Peare,T. and Parker, P.G. 1995. A comparison of the genetic structure of two nesting population of green turtles Sarigul, G. and Langeveld, M. 1988. Sea Turtles nesting on the beaches of South east Turkey. Unpubl.report. Sella, I. 1982. Sea Turtles in the Eastern Mediterranean and Northern Red Sea. In: Biology and Conservation of Sea Turtles, Bjorndal K.A.(eds), Smithsonian Inst.Press, Washington D.C.417-425. Smart, A.C. and Coley, S.J. 1990. Kazanli Turtle Project 1990. Unpublished report. Stancyk, S.E. 1982. Non-human predators of sea turtles and their control. In: Biology and Conservation of Sea Turtles, Bjorndal K.A.(eds), Smithsonian Inst.Press, WashingtonD.C.139-152. Van Piggelen, D.C.G. and Strijbosch, H. 1993. The nesting of sea turtles (Caretta caretta and Chelonia mydas) in the Goksu Delta, Turkey, June-August 1991. Turkish J.of Zoology 17(2):137-149. Turkozan, O. and Durmus, S.H. 2000. A feeding ground for juvenile green turtles, Chelonia mydas, on the western coast of Turkey. British Herpetol.Society Bull. 71. Yerli, S.V and Canbolat, A.F. 1998. Dogu Akdeniz Bolgesi'ndeki Deniz Kaplumbagalannnin Korunmasina Yonelik Yonetim Plani Ilkeleri. Cevre Bakanligi C.K.G.M. Yayini Ankara, unpubl. report, 88pp. Yerli, S.V. and Demirayak, F. 1996. Marine turtles in Turkey: a survey on nesting site status, DHKD,CMS, rep.no.96/4, Instanbul. 40

Yerli, S., Canbolat, A.F., Brown, L.J. and Macdonald, D.W. 1997. Mesh grids protect loggerhead turtle Caretta caretta nests from red foxes Vulpes vulpes predation. Biol. Conserv. 82:109-111. Yerli, S.V. and Cambolat, A.F. 1998. Results of a 1996 survey of Chelonia in Turkey. MTNewsletter 79: 9-11. Witherington, B.E. and Martin, R.E. 1996. Understanding, assessing and resolving lightpollution problems on sea turtle nesting beaches. FMRI Tech.Rep.TR-2.Florida Marine Research Institute, St. Petersburg, Florida.73 pp. 41

PHOTOS

Green turtle Nesting Female going back into the sea Cage made by factory s staff-used only on B4 43

Factory s discharge liquid on the beach B4A Factory Beach (B4A) with discharge liquids 44

Loggerhead Nest flooded by factory s discharge liquid on B4A Loggerhead eggs unhatched on B4A due to factory s discharge liquid 45

Tractor on the beach Caged nest predated by dogs 46

Predated nest by dogs Cage on green turtle nest (B3) 47

Screen on green turtle Nest (B1C) Loggerhead hatchling (Dead) Disorientation due to light pollution It was entangled on a piece of fishing net on the beach while going toward the opposite direction of the sea (B3) 48

Loggerhead hatchling (Dead) Disorientation due to light pollution It was entangled in vegetation while crawling toward restaurant s light Then it was eaten by ants (B2) Green turtle nest against hotel-restaurant wall (BH) 49