UFDC Home  |  dLOC  

2002 IUCN red list global status report : green turtle ( Chelonia mydas )

MISSING IMAGE

Material Information

Title:
2002 IUCN red list global status report : green turtle ( Chelonia mydas )
Physical Description:
Book
Language:
English
Creator:
Seminoff, Jeffrey A.
Crouse, Debby
Abreu-Grobois, F. Alberto
Marine Turtle Specialist Group, IUCN
Publisher:
Wider Caribbean Sea Turtle Conservation Network
International Union for Conservation of Nature
Publication Date:

Record Information

Source Institution:
Wider Caribbean Sea Turtle Network
Holding Location:
Wider Caribbean Sea Turtle Network
Rights Management:
All rights reserved by the source institution.
Resource Identifier:
System ID:
AA00012421:00001


This item is only available as the following downloads:


Full Text

PAGE 1

MARINE TURTLE SPECIALIST GROUP REVIEW 2002 IUCN RED LIST GLOBAL STATUS ASSESSMENT Green turtle ( Chelonia mydas ) Marine Turtle Specialist Group The World Conservation Union (IUCN) Species Survival Commission Red List Programme Submitted by: Assessor: Green Turtle Task Force Members: Jeffrey A. Seminoff George H. Balazs Archie Carr Center Annette Broderick for Sea Turtle Research Karen L. Eckert Department of Zoology Angela Formia University of Florida Brendan Godley Mario Hurtado Evaluators: Naoki Kamezaki Debby Crouse Colin J. Limpus Chair, Red List Task Force Maria A. Marcovaldi Marine Turtle Specialist Group Yoshimasa Matsuzawa Jeanne A. Mortimer F. Alberto Abreu-Grobois Wallace J. Nichols Chair, Marine Turtle Specia list Group Nicolas J. Pilcher Universidad Autonoma de Mexico Kartik Shanker

PAGE 2

1. Name of taxon: Kingdom: Animalia; Phylum: Chordata; Class: Reptilia; Subclass: Anapsida; Order: Testudines; Family: Cheloniidae; Subfamily: Chelonini Taxon Name: Chelonia mydas (Linnaeus 1758) 2. Common Names: Green turtle (English); tortue comestible, tortue franche, tortue verte (F rench); tortuga verde, tortuga blanca (Spanish ); tartaruga verde, aruan (Portugese). 3. Red List Category and Criteria: Endangered globally (EN A2bd; IUCN 2001a) 4. Summary: Distribution: Multiple genetic stocks occurring worldwide in tropical and subtropical marine waters. Range: Circumglobal, tropical to subtropical seas. Nests in over 80 countries worldwide. Habitats: Adults nest on sandy beaches; posthatchlings, small juveniles, and migrating adults occur in oceanic zones; larger juveniles and adults forage in neritic habitats. Threats: Primary threats include long-term harvest of eggs and adults at nesting beaches and capture of juveniles and adults at feeding areas. Secondary threats include incidental capture in marine fisheries, habitat loss at nesting and foraging areas, and disease. 5. Rationale for the listing: Evaluations of green turtle subpopulations focus on annual nesting activity and egg production at 34 Index Sites dist ributed globally (Fig. 1, Table 1; rationale discussed in Section 7b). Analysis of historic a nd recent published accounts indicate extensive subpopulation declines in all major ocean basins over the last three generations as a result of overexploitation of eggs and tur tles and, to a lesser extent, in cidental mortality relating to marine fisheries and degradation of marine and nesting habitats (Table 4). Subpopulation

PAGE 3

Seminoff – 2002 MTSG Green Turtle Assessment 3 declines of over 50 % have been identified in the eastern Atlan tic Ocean (Bioko Is., Equatorial Guinea), western Atlantic Ocean (Aves Is., Venezuela), Southeast Asia (Suka Made, Indonesia; Terengganu, Mala ysia), northern Indian Ocean (Gujarat, India; Hawkesbay and Sandspit, Pakistan; Sharma, Peoples De mocratic Republic of Yemen), and western Indian Ocean (Seychelles Repub lic). Declines greater than 80 % have been shown for subpopulations in the eastern Pacific Ocean (Colola, Mxico), western Pacific Ocean (Ogasawara Is., Japan), Southeast Asia (B erau Islands and Pangumbahan, Indonesia; Sarawak, Malaysia), northeastern Indi an Ocean (Thamihla Kyun, Myanmar), and Mediterranean Sea (Turkey). In all cases declines have occurre d in less than three generations, suggesting that absolute reductions over the entire 3-generation time spans are much greater. Information on nesting activity over the last three decades indicates that green turtle subpopulations are currently stable or incr easing in Ascension Is land, Australia, Brazil (Trindade Island), Comoros Islands, Costa Rica (Tortuguero), Ecuador (Galpagos Islands), Guinea-Bissau (Bijagos Islands), Malaysia (Sabah), Mxico (Yu catan Peninsula), Oman (Ras al Hadd), Saudi Arabia (Karan Island), Suri name, and the United States. However, the statuses of these subpopulati ons relative to populations thre e generations ago are unknown, and several face substantial threats of mortal ity through poaching, fisheries impacts, habitat loss, and disease (Table 6). Despite increasing conservation attention to green turtles, intentional harvest continues worldwide. Egg collection is ongoing at nes ting beaches in the eastern Atlantic Ocean (Fretey 1998; 2001), western Atlantic Ocean (van Tienen et al. 2000), Caribbean (Mangel et al. 2001), southern central Pacific Ocean (Eck ert 1993), eastern Pacific Ocean (Alvarado et

PAGE 4

Seminoff – 2002 MTSG Green Turtle Assessment 4 al. 2001), and Southeast Asia (Cruz 2 002, Dermawan 2002, Liew 2002, Sharma 2002). Nesting females continue to be killed in the Caribbean Sea (Fleming 2001, Mangel et al. 2001), eastern Atlantic Ocean (Fretey 2001), S outheast Asia (Cruz 2002), and Indian Ocean (Humphrey and Salm 1996). Of perhaps greatest current threat to the stability of existing green turtle stocks is the intentional capture of juveniles and adults at ne ritic foraging habitats (National Marine Fisheries Service and U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service 1991; 1998a; 1998b). High levels of take are present in the eastern Atlantic Ocean (Formia 1999), Caribbean Sea (Lagueux 1998), Indian Ocean (Humphrey and Salm 1996, Andrew Cooke pers. comm. to J. Mortimer), Mediterranean Sea (Kasparek et al. 2001), central Pacific Ocean (Eckert 1993), eastern Pacific Ocean (Seminoff 2000, Ni chols 2001, Gardner and Nichols 2001), and Southeast Asia (Pilcher 1999, Li mpus et al. in press). Because of slow maturation rates for green turtles, the effects of egg and juvenile mortality have yet to manifest fully at nesti ng beaches. Although large numbers of females continue to nest in many areas, egg harvests decrease the recruitment and overall abundance of juveniles, thus hindering this age-group’s ability to replace aging adults (see Figure 3). Declining population trends are exacerbated when harvest is more intense or longer term (Chaloupka 2000), and when nesting fe males are also exploited. The genetic substructure of the green turtle regional subpopulations shows distinctive mitochondrial DNA properties for each nesting r ookery (Bowen et al. 1992). Mitochondrial DNA data suggest that the global matriarchal ph ylogeny of green turtles has been shaped by ocean basin separations (Bowen et al. 1992, Encalada et al. 1996) and by natal homing behavior (Meylan et al. 1990). Th e fact that sea turtles exhibit fidelity to their natal beaches suggests that if subpopulations become extirpated they ma y not be replenished by the

PAGE 5

Seminoff – 2002 MTSG Green Turtle Assessment 5 recruitment of turtles from ot her nesting rookeries over ecolo gical time frames. Moreover, because each nesting subpopulation is genetical ly discrete, the loss of even one rookery represents a decline in genetic diversity and resilience of the species (Bowen 1995). The loss of ecological function due to deple tion of these large, long-lived animals may have serious implications for the maintenance of both marine and terrestrial ecosystems. As large herbivores, green turtles impact s eagrass productivity and abundance (Bjorndal 1980, Zieman et al. 1984) and continue to represen t an essential trophic pathway over expansive coastal marine habitats (Tha yer et al. 1982; 1984, Valentine and Heck 1999). Through egg deposition on beaches, sea turtles act as biologic al transporters of nutrients and energy from marine to terrestrial ecosystems (Bouchard and Bjorndal 2000). Thus, as green turtle stocks are depleted we can expect a corresponding br eakdown in the health of coastal marine and terrestrial systems (Jacks on 1997, Jackson et al. 2001). The green turtle has been a species of gl obal concern for decades, and was previously listed by IUCN as Endangered (Groombridge 1982, Baillie and Groombridge 1996, HiltonTaylor 2000). The majority of the most importa nt nesting populations of green turtles have declined in the 20th century at substantial rates. A lthough a few large subpopulations remain, they are vulnerable to exploitati on, incidental capture in marine fisheries, habitat loss, and disease. Based on several different population indices (see Section 7.b.) and population extrapolations (IUCN, June 2001), the global green turtle po pulation has declined by 48 % to 66 % over the last th ree generations (Table 5). These estimates are, however, based on a conservative approach; actual declin es may exceed 70 %. This rate of decline, coupled with impending thre ats (Table 6), justifies Endangered status for green turtles under the 2001 Red List Criteria. Fu rther, during the present asse ssment process it became clear

PAGE 6

Seminoff – 2002 MTSG Green Turtle Assessment 6 that there are different regional patterns in green turtle subp opulation growth trajectories. The MTSG green turtle ta sk force will therefore undertak e regional assessments and present IUCN Red List Regional Stat us recommendations in the near future. 6. Range & Population: The green turtle has a circumglobal distri bution, occurring throughout tropical and, to a lesser extent, subtropical waters (Atlantic Oc ean – eastern central, northeast, northwest, southeast, southwest, western central; Indian Ocean – eastern western; Mediterranean Sea; Pacific Ocean – eastern central, northwest, southwest, western central). Green turtles are highly migratory and they undertake comp lex movements and migrations through geographically disparate habitats. Nesting o ccurs in more than 80 countries worldwide (Hirth 1997). Their movements within the ma rine environment are less understood but it is believed that green turtles inhabit coastal wa ters of over 140 countries (Groombridge and Luxmoore 1989). The primary nesting rookeries (i.e., sites with 500 nesting females per year) are located at Ascension Island (Mortimer and Carr 1987), Australia (eastern, Limpus 1980; western, Prince 1983), Brazil (Trindade Island, Moreira et al. 1995), Comoros Islands (Frazier 1985), Costa Rica (Tortuguero, Carr et al. 1982, Bjorndal et al. 1999), Ecuador (Galpagos Archipelago, Green 1983), Equatorial Guin ea (Bioko Island, Tomas et al. 1999), GuineaBissau (Bijagos Archipelago, Barbosa et al. 1998 ), Isles Eparces (Tromelin Island, LeGall et al. 1986; Europa Island, Legall et al. 1986), Indonesia (Schul z 1987), Malaysia (de Silva 1982), Myanmar (Kar and Bhaskar 1982), Oman (Ross and Barwani 1982), Philippines (de Silva 1982), Saudi Arabia (Miller 1989), Seyc helles Islands (Mortimer 1984), Suriname

PAGE 7

Seminoff – 2002 MTSG Green Turtle Assessment 7 (Schulz 1982), and United States (Florida, Eh rhart and Witherington 1992; Hawaii, Balazs 1980). Lesser nesting areas are located in A ngola (Carr and Carr 1991), Bangladesh (Khan 1982), Bikar Atoll (Fosberg 1990), Brazil (Atoll da Rocas, Bellini et al. 1996), Chagos Archipelago (Mortimer and Day 1999), China (Groombridge and Luxmoore 1989), Costa Rica (Pacific Coast, Cornelius 1982), Cuba (N odarse et al. 2000), Cyprus (Kasparek et al. 2001), Democratic Republic of Yemen (H irth and Carr 1970), Dominican Republic (Ottenwalder 1981), d’Entrecaste aux Reef (Pritchard 1994), French Guiana (Fretey 1984), Ghana (Fretey 2001), Guyana (Pritchard 1969) India (Kar and Bhaskar 1982), Iran (Tuck 1977), Japan (Suganuma 1985), Kenya (Wamukoya et al. 1996), Madagascar (Rakotoniria and Cooke 1994), Maldives Islands (Frazier 1990 ), Mayotte Archipelago (Fretey and Fourmy 1996), Mxico (Yucatan Peninsula, Zurita et al. 1994; Michoacn, Alvarado and Figueroa 1990; Revillagigedos Islands, Br attstrom 1982, Awbrey et al. 1984), Micronesia (Wetherall et al. 1993), Pakistan (Kab raji and Firdous 1984), Palmerston Atoll (Powell 1957), Papua New Guinea (Salm 1984), Primieras Isla nds (Hughes 1974), Sao Tome Principe (Brongersma 1982), Sierra Leone (Fretey and Malaussena 1991), Solomon Islands (Vaughan 1981), Somalia (Goodwin 1971), Sri Lanka (Datta tri and Samarajiva 1983), Taiwan (Chen and Cheng 1996), Tanzania (Howell and Mbindo 1996), Thailand (Groombridge and Luxmoore 1989), Turkey (Kasparek et al. 2001 ), Scilly Atoll (Lebeau 1985), Venezuela (Medina and Sol as cited in Ogren 1989), and Vietnam (Hien 2002). Sporadic nesting occurs in at least 30 additional count ries (Groombridge and Luxmoore 1989).

PAGE 8

Seminoff – 2002 MTSG Green Turtle Assessment 8 How has human influence shaped today’s distributions? The present distribution of the breeding sites has been la rgely affected by historical patterns of human exploitation. The only substa ntial breeding colonies left today are those that have not been permanently inhabited by hu mans or have not been heavily exploited until recently (Groombridge and Luxmoore 1989). This demographic trend is corroborated by the fact that several islands which formerly held large breeding colonies ar e known to have lost them once becoming inhabited by humans (e.g. Bermuda, King 1982; Mauritius, Hughes 1982; Reunion, Bertrand et al. 1986; Cape Verd e Islands, Parsons 1962). In addition, the Cayman Island rookery, formerly one of the larg est green turtle rookeries in the world, was nearly if not totally extirpated after human col onization and the onset of an organized turtle fishery at these islands (Lewis 1940, Parsons 1962). Although green turtles continue to nest at extremely low levels at these islands (Aik en et al. 2001), it is unknow n whether they are a relict nesting subpopulation or the result of re-col onization by turtles fro m adjacent nesting rookeries in the western Atlantic or head started turtles from the Cayman Turtle Farm (Wood and Wood 1993). Nonetheless, these examples illustrate the broad-reaching effects of human exploitation and underscore the n eed for effective, long-term conservation to prevent green turtles from declining further. 7. Narrative: Generation Length. The current IUCN Red List Cr iteria (IUCN 2001) indicate that population trends should be considered over a time interval of 10 years or three generations, whichever is longer. In the cas e of long-lived sea turt les, the latter criteri on is applicable. Generation length is based on the age to matur ity plus one half the reproductive longevity

PAGE 9

Seminoff – 2002 MTSG Green Turtle Assessment 9 (Pianka 1974). Although there appears to be consider able variation in generation length among sea turtle species, it is apparent that all are relatively slow maturing and long-lived (Chaloupka and Musick 1997). Gree n turtles exhibit particularly slow growth rates, and age to maturity for the species appears to be the l ongest of any sea turtle (Hirth 1997). Estimates based on age-specific growth i ndicate there is regional variat ion in the age at which green turtles attain sexual maturity (Table 2). Th is assessment thus attempts to use the most appropriate age-at-maturity estimates for each in dex site: At Index Sites for which there are local age-to-maturity data, those data are used to establish generation length. When data are lacking, as they are for a majority of subpopulations a, information from adjacent subpopulations are used to generate an age-at-m aturity estimates (Table 3). For example, ages-to-maturity for subpopulations in the I ndian Ocean and Mediterranean Sea, for which there are no age-at-maturity estimates, are based on the mean age derived from studies in the Pacific Ocean and Atlantic Ocea n, respectively (see Table 3). Estimates of reproductive longevity range from 17 y to 23 y (Carr et al. 1978, Fitzsimmons et al. 1995). Data from the appa rently pristine green tu rtle stock at Heron Island in Australia’s southern Great Barrier Reef show a mean reproductive life of 19 y (Chaloupka et al. in press). Because Heron Island is the only undisturbed stock for which reproductive longevity data are available (M. Ch aloupka pers. comm.), this datum is used for all Index Sites (Table 3). Thus, based on the range of ages-at-sexual-maturity (26 yrs to 40 yrs) and reproductive longevity from the undistur bed Australian stock (19 yr), the range of generation lengths used for this assessment is 35.5 yrs to 49.5 yrs. a Additional growth data are available for subp opulations not listed in Table 2, however, these studies focused on head-started turtles (Ehrhart and Witham 1992, Burnett-Herkes et al. 1984), generated age-at-sexual-maturity estimates using un-reliable methods (e.g. Marquez and Doi 1973), or were based on non-applicable age classes (e.g. Zug and Glor 1999), thus reducing their utility for the present calculations.

PAGE 10

Seminoff – 2002 MTSG Green Turtle Assessment 10 a) Population trends. Estimating green turtle population size is difficult due to our incomplete knowledge of stock structure and population demography. Moreover, the widespread distribution of green turtles and relative infancy of global population assessment efforts have contributed to ga ps in our knowledge of nesting stocks worldwide. Because reliable data are not available for all subpopula tions of green turtles, the present report focuses on 34 Index Sites (Figure 1, Table 1). These index sites incl ude all of the known major nesting areas for green turtles for which quantitative data are available. Despite considerable overlap at some foraging areas, eac h is presumed to be genetically distinct (Bowen et al. 1992, Bowen 1995) except for the Inde x Sites at the Turtle Islands of Malaysia (Sabah) and Philippines (Moritz et al. 1991) These two Index Sites are treated independently because of the different ma nagement practices exercised by the two governments and the resultant differences in sub population trends. Selection of the 34 Index Sites was based on the assumption that they represent the overal l regional subpopulation trends and because historic data indicate most were among the largest nesting sites in their respective areas, a guideline for assessing wide ly distributed species (IUCN 2001b). Table 1 lists the 34 Index Sites and provides a brief rationale for their inclusion. In accord with the IUCN definition of “re duction” as a “decline in the number of mature individuals” (IUCN 2001a), asse ssments presented here are ba sed on activity at nesting beaches. The most reliable method of determini ng nesting activity is to count the number of nesting females (Meylan 1982). Although this index provides information only for the proportion of the adult females that nest in a ny given year, it can be reliable for assessing population trends when taken over many years (Lim pus 1996). The fact that data on absolute abundance of nesting females are lacking for many nesting areas has, however, challenged

PAGE 11

Seminoff – 2002 MTSG Green Turtle Assessment 11 biologists to use additional methods to quantify nesting activity during population assessments. Indices of abundance for the present assessm ent include counts of nesting females, records of adult harvest, numb er of nests per season, hatchlin g production data, and measures of egg production and harvest. Population tre nds are determined independently for each Index Site through comparisons of past and present data sets. Past data sets include the most historic quantitative informati on on nesting activity for a given Index Site, while present data sets include to the most recent quantitative information for each site. In most cases, subpopulation trend lines are es tablished with only these two data se ts (see Supporting Extrapolation Document). However, if inform ation from other time periods indicates that population trajectory changed at some point over the last three generations, then these data are also used to show such a trajectory ch ange (e.g. Seychelles, Sabah Turtle Islands). Because of the high inter-annual variability in magnitude of nesting displayed by green turtles (Limpus and Nichols 1987, Broderick et al. 2001) multiple-year data sets are used whenever available; nevertheless, in some cases single-year data sets are used because they represent the only availa ble information. Past versus present comparisons are based on the assumptions that at each site (A) the mean nu mber of nests/female/season and mean number of eggs/nest differ insignifican tly through time, (B) efforts to monitor nesting female activity and egg production are consistent through time, and (C) when us ing egg and/or adult female harvest data, capture effort is consistent duri ng all years for which data are available. There are several factors that justify popul ation assessments based on fluctuation in activity at the nesting beach rather than absolute changes in the adult pop ulation size. First, the paucity of information for in-water ad ult populations (i.e., males and non-nesting

PAGE 12

Seminoff – 2002 MTSG Green Turtle Assessment 12 females), precludes estimates of overall adult po pulation size. Biologist s have estimated the number of green turtles in specific foragi ng areas (e.g., Chaloupka and Limpus 2001), but without understanding the environmental proces ses that induce shifts in abundance, it is difficult to know if a perceived decline at a foraging area is due to natural processes or human impacts (see Bjorndal and Bolten 2000). Second, there are no comprehensive data on how the number of nesting females relate to the overall adult population size. Short-term data are available for some regions (e.g., Lim pus et al. 1994); however, without information for multiple seasons from specific areas of interest, extrapolation from number of nesting females to total adult population at these sites is unreliable. When data are only present for egg production or harvest, the problem may be compounded by inadequate extrapolations from number of eggs to number of nesting females. The IUCN (2001b) Guidelines for Assessing Widely Distributed Species identify the need to provide information on the global popul ation trend over a 3-generation interval. Although this calculation depends on knowledge of historic exploita tion that is often unavailable, using our best understanding of how green turtle subpopulations were historically exploited can facilitate an estimate of reduc tion for the global meta-population. It should be noted, however, that this practice is prone to error. Nevertheless, in the absence of information on absolute changes, extrapolatio n is the only alternative for establishing an abundance trend over the entire 3-generation interval. To ca lculate global decline a trend line was derived from the Past and Present m ean annual nesting population size at each Index Site (Table 4, Figure 2). When qualitative information suggested trends continued outside of the Past-Present interv al, extrapolations were performed using both linear and exponential functions (IUCN, June 2001). Trend lines were extrapolated backward to the year at which

PAGE 13

Seminoff – 2002 MTSG Green Turtle Assessment 13 declines/increases were documented to have started. However, despite the presence of information that indicates severa l nesting rookeries were exploite d well prior to the start of the 3-generation interval (Oga sawara Islands, Japan; Sarawa k Islands, Malaysia; Gulf of Thailand; Thamihla Kyun, Myanmar), backward ex trapolations were calc ulated only to the first year of the 3-generation in terval (Table 3). When popula tion trends were believed to continue after the most recent period for whic h quantitative data are available (i.e. Present year), trend lines were similarly extrapol ated forward using bot h linear and exponential functions. To provide a global estimate it was necessary to have the same units of measurement for all Index Sites. All extrapol ations were based on mean annua l number of nesting females (Table 5). Conversions from # eggs to # nests, # hatchlings to # nests, # nests to # females relied on published values for each site (see e nd of Table 5). When a published estimate was given as a range, the midpoint of the range wa s used for extrapolations (as per IUCN 2001b Guidelines).

PAGE 14

Seminoff – 2002 MTSG Green Turtle Assessment 14 32 Figure 1. World map with the geographic loca tions of the 34 Index Sites used for the 2002 MTSG Green Turtle Assessment. See Table 1 for the rationale for inclusion of each site. Table 4 and Table 5 summarize the published si ze estimates and extrapolated 3-generation declines, respectively. Table 6 summarizes the current threats for each Site. Figure 2 shows population trends for each site ba sed on published values in Table 4.

PAGE 15

Seminoff – 2002 MTSG Green Turtle Assessment 15 Table 1. Summary of 34 Chelonia mydas nesting rookeries used as Index Sites for the 2002 MTSG Global Green Turtle Status Assessme nt. See Figure 1 for map of all Sites. Index Nesting Site Justification EASTERN PACIFIC OCEAN 1. Mxico (Colola, Michoacn) Historically the most important C. mydas nesting rookery in the eastern Pacific Ocean (Alvarado and Figueroa 1989). 2. Ecuador (Galpagos Is.) Currently the largest nesting congregation in eastern Pacific Ocean (Hurtado 1984, Hurtado 2001). CENTRAL PACIFIC OCEAN 3. United States (Hawaii, French Frigate Shoals) Hawaii has greatest nesting density of C. mydas in central Pacific; 90% of nesting in Hawaii is at French Frigate Shoals (Balazs 1980). WESTERN PACIFIC OCEAN 4. Japan (Ogasawara Is.) Represents one of the northernmost nesting areas in the western Pacific. 5. Australia (southern Great Barrier Reef, Heron Is.) 6. Australia (northern Great Barrier Reef, Raine Is.) Australia currently hosts some of the largest nesting congregations of green turtles in the world (Limpus et al. in press); Heron Is. and Raine Is. represent the most important nesting areas in the sGBR and nGBR, respectively (Limpus et al. in press). SOUTHEAST ASIAN SEAS 7. Indonesia (Berau Islands) Indonesia is among the most important nesting areas in the world (Groombridge and Luxmoore 1989); Berau Islands host some of the largest nesting colonies in Indonesia. 8. Philippines (Turtle Islands) Historically one of the largest and most important nesting colonies in Southeast Asia (Groombridge and Luxmoore 1989). 9. Malaysia (Sabah Turtle Islands) 10. Malaysia (Sarawak) 11. Malaysia (Terengganu) Historically important nesting colonies (de Silva 1982); Sarawak and Sabah are two of the two most important insular regions in SEA; Terengganu has greatest nesting density in peninsular Malaysia (Mortimer 1991). 12. Thailand (Gulf of Thailand) Increases area of coverage for SEA region.

PAGE 16

Seminoff – 2002 MTSG Green Turtle Assessment 16 Table 1. Continued EASTERN AND NORTHERN INDIAN OCEAN 13. Indonesia (Suka Made, Meru Betiri National Park) Represents a nesting area in EIO that has been protected for several decades (Arrinal 1997) 14. Indonesia (West Java, Pangumbahan) Pangumbahan is most important nesting colony along the coast of Java (Groombridge and Luxmoore 1989). 15. Myanmar (Thamihla Kyun) Myanmar is a notable nesting area in northeast Indian Ocean region. Thamihla Kyun hosts largest nesting congregations in the area. 16. India (Gujarat) Provides added context for the Indian subcontinent. 17. Pakistan (Hawkes Bay and Sandspit) One of the largest nesting congregations along Indian subcontinent. 18. Saudi Arabia (Karan Is.) Largest nesting site in Arabian Gulf for which data are available. 19. Oman (Ras al Hadd) Historically one of the most important nesting areas in the northern Indian Ocean (Ross and Barwani 1982). 20. Peoples Democratic Republic of Yemen (Sharma) Described as “without any doubt one of the best nesting beaches remaining in the world” (Hirth and Carr 1970). WESTERN INDIAN OCEAN 21. Seychelles Is. (Aldabra and Assumption) Seychelles historically an important nesting area; Aldabra and Assumption represent two sites with largely different management histories. 22. Comoros Islands Currently one of the largest nesting rookeries in the western Indian Ocean. 23. Isles Eparces (Europa Is.) Europa Is is a historically important nesting area in the western Indian Ocean and has total nesting beach protection. 24. Isles Eparces (Tromelin Is.) Tromelin Is. is one of the largest nesting congregations in the western Indian Ocean and has total nesting beach protection. MEDITERRANEAN SEA 25. Turkey Currently hosts the largest nesting congregation in the Mediterranean Sea (Kasparek et al. 2001).

PAGE 17

Seminoff – 2002 MTSG Green Turtle Assessment 17 Table 1. Continued EASTERN ATLANTIC OCEAN 26. Equatorial Guinea (Bioko Is.) Important nesting area along the West African coast; Bioko Is. hosts almost all of nesting in this country (Groombridge and Luxmoore 1989). 27. Guinea-Bissau (Bijagos Archipelago) Guinea-Bissau currently hosts the largest nesting congregation along the West African coast (Fretey 2001). CENTRAL ATLANTIC OCEAN 28. Ascension Is. Represents the primary nesting rookery in the central Atlantic Ocean (Godley et al. 2001). WESTERN ATLANTIC OCEAN 29. Brazil (Trindade Is.) Adds context for the southern portion of western Atlantic Ocean nesting range for green turtles. 30. Suriname Most important nesting area along northeastern South America. 31. Venezuela (Aves Is.) Presently the second largest rookery in the Wider Caribbean Region (Lagueux 2001). 32. Costa Rica (Tortuguero) Largest nesting rookery in the Caribbean Sea and intensively studied since 1956 (Carr et al. 1982, Bjorndal et al. 1999). 33. Mxico (Yucatan Peninsula)Provides added context for the western Caribbean region. Includes the states of Campeche, Yucatn, and Quintana Roo. 34. United States (Florida) Provides added context for western Atlantic Ocean; only site included in southeastern United States.

PAGE 18

Seminoff – 2002 MTSG Green Turtle Assessment 18 Table 2. Estimated age-at-sexual-maturity A for wild green turtles, Chelonia mydas These published values are used in calculations of generation length for each Index subpopulation (see Table 3). Study Location Age at maturity (years) Reference A. Hawaiian Archipelago 30 Zug et al. 2002 B. Australia (nGBR) 30B Limpus and Walter 1980 C. Australia (sGBR) 40 Limpus and Chaloupka 1997 D. Florida 30 Mendonca 1981 E. Florida 27 Frazer and Ehrhart 1985 F. U.S. Virgin Islands 33 Frazer and Ladner 1986 G. Ascension Island 35 Frazer and Ladner 1986 H. Costa Rica 26 Frazer and Ladner 1986 I. Surinam 36 Frazer and Ladner 1986 A It has been suggested that a measure of mean nesting size will provide a closer estimate of the average size-at-maturity for green turt les than does minimum nesting size (e.g. Frazer and Ehrhart 1985, Limpus and Chaloupka 1997). Therefore, when possible, age-at-sexualmaturity is based on mean nesting size at each rookery. B Estimate based on minimum nesting size

PAGE 19

Seminoff – 2002 MTSG Green Turtle Assessment 19 Table 3. Summary of age-at-maturity, gene ration length, and calenda r year of start date for Inde x subpopulations included in t he 2002 MTSG green turtle assessment. See Table 2 for summary of the values used to determine age-at-maturity for each site. # Index Site Age at Maturity (years) Age at maturity calculation (From Table 2) Reproductive Longevity (years) Generation Length (GL; years) 3-generation duration ([= GL 3]; years) Calendar year 3 generations back (= 20013GL) 1. Eastern Pacific Ocean, Mxico (Colola, Michoacn) 33.3 Mean of A,B,C (19 yr) = 9.5 33.3 + 9.5 = 42.8 42.8 3 = 128.4 1873 2. Eastern Pacific Ocean, Ecuador (Galpagos Is.) 33.3 Mean of A,B,C (19 yr) = 9.5 33.3 + 9.5 = 42.8 42.8 3 = 128.4 1873 3. Central Pacific Ocean, United States (Hawaii) 30 A (19 yr) = 9.5 30 + 9.5 = 39.5 39.5 3 = 118.5 1883 4. Western Pacific Ocean, Japan (Ogasawara Is.) 33.3 Mean of A,B,C (19 yr) = 9.5 33.3 + 9.5 = 42.8 42.8 3 = 128.4 1873 5. Western Pacific Ocean, Australia (sGBR, Heron Is.) 40 C (19 yr) = 9.5 40 + 9.5 = 49.5 49.5 3 = 148.5 1853 6. Western Pacific Ocean, Australia (nGBR, Raine Is.) 30 B (19 yr) = 9.5 30 + 9.5 = 39.5 39.5 3 = 118.5 1883 7. Southeast Asia, Indonesia (Berau Is.) 33.3 Mean of A,B,C (19 yr) = 9.5 33.3 + 9.5 = 42.8 42.8 3 = 128.4 1873 8. Southeast Asia, Turtle Islands, Philippines 33.3 Mean of A,B,C (19 yr) = 9.5 33.3 + 9.5 = 42.8 42.8 3 = 128.4 1873 9. Southeast Asia, Turtle Islands, Malaysia (Sabah) 33.3 Mean of A,B,C (19 yr) = 9.5 33.3 + 9.5 = 42.8 42.8 3 = 128.4 1873 10. Southeast Asia, Malaysia (Sarawak) 33.3 Mean of A,B,C (19 yr) = 9.5 33.3 + 9.5 = 42.8 42.8 3 = 128.4 1873 11. Southeast Asia, Malaysia (Terengganu) 33.3 Mean of A,B,C (19 yr) = 9.5 33.3 + 9.5 = 42.8 42.8 3 = 128.4 1873

PAGE 20

Seminoff – 2002 MTSG Green Turtle Assessment 20 Table 3. – Continued # Index Site Age at Maturity (years) Age at maturity calculation (From Table 2) Reproductive Longevity (years) Generation Length (GL; years) 3-generation duration ([= GL 3]; years) Calendar year 3 generations back (= 20013GL) 12. Southeast Asia, Thailand (Gulf of Thailand) 33.3 Mean of A,B,C (19 yr) = 9.5 33.3 + 9.5 = 42.8 42.8 3 = 128.4 1873 13. Eastern Indian Ocean, Indonesia (E. Java, Suka Made) 33.3 Mean of A,B,C (19 yr) = 9.5 33.3 + 9.5 = 42.8 42.8 3 = 128.4 1873 14. Eastern Indian Ocean, Indonesia (W. Java; Pangumbahan) 33.3 Mean of A,B,C (19 yr) = 9.5 33.3 + 9.5 = 42.8 42.8 3 = 128.4 1873 15. Eastern Indian Ocean, Myanmar (Thamihla Kyun) 33.3 Mean of A,B,C (19 yr) = 9.5 33.3 + 9.5 = 42.8 42.8 3 = 128.4 1873 16. Northern Indian Ocean, India (Gujarat) 33.3 Mean of A,B,C (19 yr) = 9.5 33.3 + 9.5 = 42.8 42.8 3 = 128.4 1873 17. Northern Indian Ocean Pakistan (Hawkes Bay and Sandspit) 33.3 Mean of A,B,C (19 yr) = 9.5 33.3 + 9.5 = 42.8 42.8 3 = 128.4 1873 18. Northern Indian Ocean, Arabian Gulf Saudi Arabia (Karan Is.) 33.3 Mean of A,B,C (19 yr) = 9.5 33.3 + 9.5 = 42.8 42.8 3 = 128.4 1873 19. Northern Indian Ocean, Oman (Ras al Hadd) 33.3 Mean of A,B,C (19 yr) = 9.5 33.3 + 9.5 = 42.8 42.8 3 = 128.4 1873 20. Northern Indian Ocean, Peoples Democratic Republic of Yemen (Sharma) 33.3 Mean of A,B,C (19 yr) = 9.5 33.3 + 9.5 = 42.8 42.8 3 = 128.4 1873

PAGE 21

Seminoff – 2002 MTSG Green Turtle Assessment 21 Table 3. – Continued # Index Site Age at Maturity (years) Age at maturity calculation (From Table 2) Reproductive Longevity (years) Generation Length (GL; years) 3-generation duration ([= GL 3]; years) Calendar year 3 generations back (= 20013GL) 21. Western Indian Ocean, Seychelles (Assumption) 33.3 Mean of A,B,C (19 yr) = 9.5 33.3 + 9.5 = 42.8 42.8 3 = 128.4 1873 22. Western Indian Ocean, Comoros Islands 33.3 Mean of A,B,C (19 yr) = 9.5 33.3 + 9.5 = 42.8 42.8 3 = 128.4 1873 23. Western Indian Ocean, Isles Eparces, Europa 33.3 Mean of A,B,C (19 yr) = 9.5 33.3 + 9.5 = 42.8 42.8 3 = 128.4 1873 24. Western Indian Ocean, Isles Eparces, Tromelin 33.3 Mean of A,B,C (19 yr) = 9.5 33.3 + 9.5 = 42.8 42.8 3 = 128.4 1873 25. Mediterranean Sea, Turkey 31.2 Mean of D,E,F,G,H,I (19 yr) = 9.5 31.2 + 9.5 = 40.7 40.7 3 = 122.1 1879 26. Eastern Atlantic Ocean, Equatorial Guinea (Bioko Is.) 31.2 Mean of D,E,F,G,H,I (19 yr) = 9.5 31.2 + 9.5 = 40.7 40.7 3 = 122.1 1879 27. Eastern Atlantic Ocean, Guinea-Bissau (Bijagos Archipelago) 31.2 Mean of D,E,F,G,H,I (19 yr) = 9.5 31.2 + 9.5 = 40.7 40.7 3 = 122.1 1879 28. Central Atlantic Ocean, Ascension Is. 35 H (19 yr) = 9.5 35 + 9.5 = 44.5 44.5 3 = 133.5 1868 29. Western Atlantic Ocean, Brazil (Trindade Is.) 31.2 Mean of D,E,F,G,H,I (19 yr) = 9.5 31.2 + 9.5 = 40.7 40.7 3 = 122.1 1879

PAGE 22

Seminoff – 2002 MTSG Green Turtle Assessment 22 Table 3. – Continued # Index Site Age at Maturity (years) Age at maturity calculation Reproductive Longevity (years) Generation Length (GL; years) 3-generation duration ([= GL 3]; years) Calendar year 3 generations back (= 20013GL) 30. Western Atlantic Ocean, Suriname (Galibi) 36 J (19 yr) = 9.5 36 + 9.5 = 45.5 45.5 3 = 136.5 1865 31. Western Atlantic Ocean, Venezuela (Aves Is.) 31.2 Mean of D,E,F,G,H,I (19 yr) = 9.5 31.2 + 9.5 = 40.7 40.7 3 = 122.1 1879 32. Western Atlantic Ocean, Costa Rica (Tortuguero) 26 I (19 yr) = 9.5 26 + 9.5 = 35.5 35.5 3 = 106.5 1895 33. Western Atlantic Ocean, Mxico (Yucatan Peninsula.) 31.2 Mean of D,E,F,G,H,I (19 yr) = 9.5 31.2 + 9.5 = 40.7 40.7 3 = 122.1 1879 34. Western Atlantic Ocean, United States (Florida) 29 Mean of D,E (19 yr) = 9.5 29 + 9.5 = 38.5 38.5 3 = 115.5 1886

PAGE 23

Seminoff – 2002 MTSG Green Turtle Assessment 23 Table 4. Summary of published estimates of Past and Present nesting activity and subpopulation trends for Chelonia mydas at the 34 Index Sites. Data codes include: AN, ne sting females; AC, number of nests; FH, nesting females harvested; EP, egg production; EH, egg harvest; HP, hatchlings produ ced; and TC, tally count for high density nesti ng area. See Section 7.b. for description of HP S ranks. ALL VALUES ARE BASED ON ANNUAL MEANS UNLESS OTHERWISE STATED. Past Estimate Present Estimate Index # Subpopulation Data type Years Mean YearsMean Interval Trend (% Change)Citation (Past) Citation (Present) 1.Eastern Pacific Ocean, Mxico (Colola, Michoacna) AN 1970 15,000 females 19972001 851 females 18 yr 96% Cliffton et al. 1982; Mrquez pers. comm. Alvarado et al. 2001, R. Marquez, pers. comm. 2.Eastern Pacific Ocean, Ecuador (Galpagos Is.) AN 19761982 ca. 1,400 females 19992000 ca. 1,400 females 19 yr 0% Hurtado 1984 Hurtado 2001, M. Hurtado pers. comm. 3.Central Pacific Ocean, United States (Hawaii) AN 19741978 378 females 19912000 574 females 22 yr + 44% Balazs 1980, G. Wetherall et al. 2000 4.Western Pacific Ocean, Japan (Ogasawara Is.) FH 18801889 1,300 females harvested 19922001 96 females harvested 112 yr 92% Kurata 1981 Horikoshi et al. 1994, S. Horikoshi unpubl. data. 5.Western Pacific Ocean, Australia (Heron Is.) AN 19641969 ca. 400 females 19931998; 562 females 29 yr + 40% Bustard 1974 Limpus et al. in press 6.Western Pacific Ocean, Australia (nGBR, Raine Is.b) TC/ AN 19741979 2,361 females /night 19952000; 2001 3,680 fem/nig.; ~18,000 females/season 21 yr + 56% Limpus et al. in press Limpus et al. in press; Dobbs 2002, K. Dobbs, pers. comm. 7.Southeast Asia, Indonesia (Berau Islands, NE Kalimantan) AN 1940s ca. 36,000; 200 fem/night, peak sea. 1984 ca. 4000-5000; 25 fem/night, peak season 50 yr 80% Schulz 1984 Schulz 1984 8.Southeast Asia, Turtle Islands, Philippines EH 1951 1,401,450 eggs 19811985 917,189 eggs 33 yr 35 % Domantay 1953, Groombridge and Luxmoore 1989 Reyes 1986 in Groombridge and Luxmoore 1989

PAGE 24

Seminoff – 2002 MTSG Green Turtle Assessment 24 Table 4. Continued # Subpopulation Data type Past Year Past annual mean Pres. year Present annual mean Interval Trend (% change) Citation (Past) Citation (Present) 9.Southeast Asia, Turtle Islands, Malaysia (Sabah)c EH 19651968 556,278 eggs 19831986 255,877 eggs 18 yr 54% de Silva 1982 de Silva in Groombridge and Luxmoore 1989 9.Southeast Asia, Turtle Islands, Malaysia (Sabah)c EH / EP 19831986 255,877 eggs 19891993; 19951999 ca. 540,000 eggs; 975,480 eggs 13 yr + 281% Groombridge and Luxmoore 1989 Basintal and Lakim 1994; E. Chan pers. comm. 9.Southeast Asia, Turtle Islands, Malaysia (Sabah)c EH/ EP 19651968 556,278 eggs 19951999 975,480 eggs 31 yr + 75% de Silva 1982 E. Chan pers. comm. 10.Southeast Asia, Malaysia (Sarawak)d EH 19271934 2,264,886 eggs 19811985; 19981999 229,990 eggs; 228,618 eggs 63 yr 90% Banks 1936, Harrison 1962 Leh 1986 in Groombridge and Luxmoore 1989; E. Chan pers. comm. 11.Southeast Asia, Malaysia (Terengganu) EH 1961 928,900 eggs 1993 317,105 eggs 32 yr 65% Hendrickson and Alfred 1961 Ibrahim 1993 12.Southeast Asia, Thailand (Gulf of Thailand) AC 19731983 405 nests 19922001 255 nests 18 yr 37% Charuchinda and Monanunsap 1998 Charuchinda and Monanunsap 1998 13. Eastern Indian Ocean, Indonesia (E. Java, Suka Made) AC 19701974 1,555 nests 19911995 395 nests 21 yr 55% Schulz 1987 Arrinal 1997, C. Limpus pers. comm. 14.Eastern Indian Ocean, Indonesia (W. Java; Pangumbahan) EH 1950s 2,500,000 eggs 1980s 400,000 eggs 30 yr 84% Schulz 1987 Schulz 1987 15.Eastern Indian Ocean, Myanmar (Thamihla Kyun) EH 18831898 1,744,164 eggs 1999 <250,000 eggs 101 yr 84% Maxwell (1911) as cited in Groombridge and Luxmoore (1989) Thorbjarnarson et al. 2000

PAGE 25

Seminoff – 2002 MTSG Green Turtle Assessment 25 Table 4. Continued # Subpopulation Data Type Past Year Past Mean Pres. Year Present Mean Interval Trend (% change) Citation (Past) Citation (Present) 16.Northern Indian Ocean, India (Gujarat) AC 1981 866 nests 2000 461 nests 19 yr 53 % Bhaskar 1984 W. Sunderraj pers. comm. 17. Northern Indian Ocean Pakistan (Hawkes Bay and Sandspit) AC 19811985 1286 nests 19941997 ca. 600 nests 12 yr 53 % Khan in Groombridge and Luxmoore 1989 Asrar 1999 18.Northern Indian Ocean, Arabian Gulf Saudi Arabia (Karan Is.) AN 1970s 500-1000 females 1990s 500-1000 females 20 yr 0 % Basson et al. 1977 Al-Merghani et al. 2000 19.Northern Indian Ocean, Oman (Ras al Hadd) AN 19771979 ca. 6,000 females 1988 ca. 6,000 females 9 yr 0 % Ross and Barwani 1982 Ross in Groombridge and Luxmoore 1989 20.Northern Indian Ocean, Peoples Democratic Republic of Yemen (Sharma) AN 1966, 1972 30-40 fem/night, peak sea. 1999 15 females /night, peak season 27 yr 50 % Hirth 1968, Hirth and Hollingworth 1973 Saad 1999 21.Western Indian Ocean, Seychelles (Assumption)e AN ca. 1900 ca. 5000 females 1980s ca. 200 females 80 yr 96 % Hornell 1927 Mortimer 1984 21.Western Indian Ocean, Seychelles (Aldabra)e AN 1900s 6,000-8000 females 19811985 941-1730 females 85 yr 71 % Mortimer 1985 Mortimer 1988 22.Western Indian Ocean, Comoros Islands AN 19721973 1,850 females 2000 5,000 females 27 yr + 170 % Frazier 1985 S. Ahamada pers. comm. 23.Western Indian Ocean, Isles Eparces, Europaf AN 19701971; 19781979 4-5,000; 9-18,000 females 19731985 2,000-11,000 females 7 yr 90% to + 175% Hughes 1970; Lebeau et al. 1983 Le Gall et al. 1986 23.Western Indian Ocean, Isles Eparces, Europaf HP 19831987 153,000 hatchlings 19901994 119,000 hatchlings 7 yr 22% Rene and Roos 1996 Rene and Roos 1996

PAGE 26

Seminoff – 2002 MTSG Green Turtle Assessment 26 Table 4. Continued # Subpopulation Data Type Past Year Past mean Pres. Year Present Mean Interval Trend (% change)Citation (Past) Citation (Present) 24.Western Indian Ocean, Isles Eparces, Tromeling HP 19831987 427,600 hatchlings 19901994 377,000 hatchlings 7 yr 12% Rene and Roos 1996 Rene and Roos 1996 25.Mediterranean Sea, Turkey AN 19781982 1,000 females 19982000 76-383 females 17 yr 62 to 92 % Geldiay 1987 Kasparek et al. 2001, Broderick et al. 2002 26.Eastern Atlantic Ocean, Equatorial Guinea (Bioko Is.) AH 1940s 200-300 females /night 1980s, 1996/97 -97/98 50-100 fem/night, 1468 nests 40 yr 50% Eisentraut 1964 J. Tomas pers. comm. Tomas et al. 1999 27. Eastern Atlantic Ocean, Guinea-Bissau (Bijagos Archipelago) AN 19901992 ca. 2000 females 2000 ca. 2465 females 8 yr + 23% Limoges and Robillard 1991, Paris and Agardy 1993 as cited in Fretey 2001 Catry et al. in review 28.Central Atlantic Ocean, Ascension Is. AC 19771978 5257-10,764 nests 1998/99 1999/00 2000/0113,881; 13,000 ;6,500 nests (=11,127 nests) 23 yr + 3 to 111% Mortimer and Carr 1987 Godley et al. 2001, Broderick et al. 2001 29.Western Atlantic Ocean, Brazil (Trindade Is.) AN 1981 ca. 3,000 females 2000 ca. 3,000 females 19 yr 0% Moreira et al. 1995Moreira pers. comm. 30.Western Atlantic Ocean, Suriname (Galibi) AN 19751979 1,657 females 19831987, 1995 1,740, 1,803 females 8 yr + 5 to 6% Schulz 1982 Mahadin in Ogren 1989, Weijerman et al. 1998 31.Western Atlantic Ocean, Venezuela (Aves Is.h) AN 1947 150-200 emergences/night (1199 females) 19841987; 1994 700-900 nests/season (267 females) 40 yr 50% Pinchon 1967 as cited in Pritchard and Trebbau 1984 V. Vera pers. comm. to K. L. Eckert 32.Western Atlantic Ocean, Costa Rica (Tortuguero) AC 19711975 ca. 41,250 nesting emergences 19921996 72,229 nesting emergences 21 yr + 75% Carr et al. 1982, modified from Bjorndal et al. 1999 Modified from Bjorndal et al. 1999 33.Western Atlantic Ocean, Mxico (Yucatan Peninsula.) AC 1983 2623 nests (ca. 874 females) 2000 4641 nests (ca. 1547 females) 17 yr + 77% Marquez 1984 a,b Instituto Nacional de Pesca/R. Marquez pers. comm.

PAGE 27

Seminoff – 2002 MTSG Green Turtle Assessment 27 Table 4. Continued # Subpopulation Data Type Past Year Past mean Pres. Year Present Mean Interval Trend (% change) Citation (Past) Citation (Present) 34.Western Atlantic Ocean, United States (Florida) AN 1980 366 females 19952000 2,278 nests (ca. 759 females) 20 yr + 107% Dodd 1982 Meylan et al. 1994, FMRI, INBDP (c/o B. Witherington) Remainderi AN 1860 2001 declining Groombridge and Luxmoore 1989, Humphrey and Salm 1996, Fretey 2001, Fleming 2001 a Value for nesting females in Colola for 1970 is based on the estima te of 25,000 females for that year in all of Michoacn (Clif fton et al. 1982) multiplied by 60%, the relative amount of Michoacn nesting that is at Colola (R. Marquez, pers. comm.). b Dobbs (2002) estimates that the annual number of nesting females in nGBR is ~ 30,000. 60% of this is at Raine Is. (K. Dobbs p ers. comm.) c Three separate Past – Present data input lines are provided for Sabah Turtle Islands (Malaysia) to illustrate (1) the declining trend from 1965 to 1986, (2) the increasing trend from 1986 to 1999, and (3) the overall decline from 1965 to 1999. d Two separate Past – Present data input lines are provided for Sarawak (Malaysia) to compare declines as determined by (1) egg harvest and (2) annual nesting female abundance. Extrapolations in Table 3 are based on annual female nesting abundance (the more c onservative index that shows the least decline) e Two separate Past – Present data input lines are provided for Seychelle s to describe the conditions at the two la rgest nesting beaches at this site (Assumption Is. and Aldabra Is.). These sites were combined for extrapolations in Table 3. f Two separate Past – Present data input lines are provided for Europa Island (Isles Eparce s) to report (1) counts of nesting females and (2) hatchling production. Hatchling production data are based on the index site called Station B each (M. Taquet pers. comm.) an d represent only a subset of the entire production for Europa Island. Because these data more are based on hard counts rather than estimations presented in Ross (1982) we used them for the extrapolations in Table 3. g There are a variety of estimates available for Tromelin Island (see Hughes 1982), however the methods used to derive these est imates are unclear. Therefore, the present asse ssment is based on hatchling production data fr om the entire island (M. Taquet pers. co mm.). Because these data are based on hard counts rather than unclearly deriv ed estimations they were used for the extrapolations in Table 3. h At Aves Is., the Past esti mate of nesting is based on estimate of 150-200 emergences per night during a one week period in 19 47 (Pinchon 1967 as cited in Pritchard and Trebbau 1984). Taking this num ber and conservatively assuming that 1/3 of these were false c rawls arrives at a nests/night estimate of 100-132. Using the midpoint of th is estimate (116 nests/night) and, conservatively assuming that th e season is only 1 month (31 d in July) long arrives at a value of 3,596 nests per season. At a rate of 3 nests per female, this equals 1199 females/season. i The category entitled Remainder has been included as per the IUCN species assessment guidelines (IUCN, June 2001b). This category is a catchall for the areas that have not been included as Index Sites (see discussion below).

PAGE 28

Seminoff – 2002 MTSG Green Turtle Assessment 28 Table 5. Summary of extrapolated ‘3-generation’ declines for Chelonia mydas at the 34 Index Sites as determined with Exponential ( E ) and Linear ( L ) declining functions (IUCN 2001b). Past and Present published estimates and citations are provided in Table 2. Function values are provided for: interval, number of years for which declining function was calculated; r per capita annual rate of change for Exponential functions; and A absolute annual change for Linear functi on. Subpopulation size units are mean annual number of nesting females. Unless otherwis e stated, conversions from Table 2 data on number of eggs to number of nests and num ber of nests to number of females was determined using a mean va lue of 100 eggs/nest and 3 nests/ female, respectively, for any give n nesting season (Groombridge and Luxmoore 1989). Explanation of extrapolations pr ovided in Supporting Reference Document. Index # Subpopulation (Index Site) Past Present Notes Subpopulation 3 gen. ago (est.) Current Subpopulation (est.) Estimated 3generation reduction E 38,519 851 98% 1. Eastern Pacific Ocean, Mxico (Colola, Michoacn) 15,000 (1970) 851 (1997-2001) Subpopulation declining since at least 1960 (Craig 1926, Caldwell 1963). L 19,564 851 96% 2. Eastern Pacific Ocean, Ecuador (Galpagos Is.) 1,400 (1976-1982) 1,400 (2000-2001) Subpopulation believed to have been stable due to isolated nature of Galapagos Archipelago. 1,400 1,400 0% E 378 585 + 55% 3. Central Pacific Ocean, United States (Hawaii) 378 (1974-1978) 574 (1991-2000) Increasing from 1978 baseline. L 378 582 + 54% E 1,609 96 96% 4. Western Pacific Ocean, Japan 1,300 (1880-1889) 96 (1999-2001) Subpopulation declining since at least 1873 (Kurata 1979 in Groombridge and Luxmoore 1989); harvest continues today. L 1,375 96 94% E 400 573 + 43% 5. Western Pacific Ocean, Australia (Heron Is.) 400 (1964-1969) 562 (1993-1999) Subpopulation believed to have been stable until 1969 baseline (Parsons 1962); increasing since. L 400 573 + 38% 6. Western Pacific Ocean, Australia (Raine Is) 11,538 (1974-1979) 18,000 (2001) Believed to be stable prior to 1974 (e.g., MacGillivray 1910); since then, appears to have increased by 56% to present estimate of ~18,000a. 11,538 18,000 + 56% E 48,973 1,881 96% 7. Southeast Asia, Indonesia (Berau Islands) 36,000 (1940s) 4,500 (1984) Subpopulation declining since at least 1934 (Schulz 1984). L 40,295 0 100%

PAGE 29

Seminoff – 2002 MTSG Green Turtle Assessment 29 Table 5. Continued Index # Subpopulation (Index Site) Past Present Notes Subpopulation 3 gen. ago (est.) Current Subpopulation (est.) Estimated 3generation reduction E 6,034 2,723 55% 8. Southeast Asia, Philippinesb 4,886 (1951) 3,198 (1981-1985) Subpopulation declining since at least 1930 (Domantay 1953). L 5,928 2,404 59% E 7,738 4,006 48% 9. Southeast Asia, Malaysia (Sabahc) 1,854 (1965-1968) 3,251 (1995-1999) Subpopulation declined from 1933 to 1986 (n1986=853); increased since 1986. (de Silva 1969, 1982; E. Chan, pers. comm.). L 3,814 3,620 05% E 22,474 2,074 91% 10. Southeast Asia, Malaysia (Sarawak) 7,549 (1927-1934) 2,074 (1984-1988) Subpopulation declining since at least 1873 (Parsons 1962, Pelzer 1972); stable since 1989 (E. Chan pers. com.). L 12,398 2,074 83% E 7,264 828 89% 11. Southeast Asia, Peninsular Malaysia 3,096 (1961) 1,057 (1993) Subpopulation declining since 1933 (Hendrickson and Alfred 1961). L 4,880 547 89% E 2,839 85 97% 12. Southeast Asia, Thailand, Gulf of Thailand 135 (1973-1983) 85 (1992-2001) Subpopulation declining since 1873 (Parsons 1962). L 412 85 79% E 2,286 132 94% 13. Eastern Indian Ocean, Indonesia (Suka Made, East Java) 518 (1970-1974) 132 (1991-1995) Subpopulation declining since 1950 (Schulz 1984), stable since 1995. L 959 132 86% E 8,333 363 96% 14. Eastern Indian Ocean, Indonesiad (West Java) 8,333 (1950s) 1,333 (1980s) Subpopulation declining since at least 1950 (Schulz 1984, Groombridge and Luxmoore 1989). L 8,333 0 100% E 7,872 783 90% 15. Eastern Indian Ocean, Myanmar 5,814 (1883-1898) 833 (1999) Subpopulation declining since 1883 baseline (Maxwell (1911) as cited in Groombridge and Luxmoore (1989)). L 6,554 587 91%

PAGE 30

Seminoff – 2002 MTSG Green Turtle Assessment 30 Table 5. Continued Index # Subpopulation (Index Site) Past Present Notes Subpopulation 3 gen. ago (est.) Current Subpopulation (est.) Estimated 3generation reduction E 443 149 66% 16. Northern Indian Ocean, India (Gujarat) 289 (1981) 154 (2000) Believed to be declining since at least 1967 (Kar and Bhaskar 1982). L 388 147 64% E 429 124 71% 17. Northern Indian Ocean, Pakistan (Hawkes Bay and Sandspit) 429 (1985) 200 (1997) Stable until 1985 baseline (Groombridge and Luxmoore 1989), declining since. L 429 156 64% 18. Northern Indian Ocean, Saudi Arabia (Karan Is.) 750 (1970s) 750 (1990s) Believed to have been stable prior to 1970s (N. Pilcher, pers. comm.). 750 750 0% 19. Northern Indian Ocean, Oman (Ras al Hadd) 6,000 (1979) 6000 (1988) Believed to have been stable prior to 1979 baseline (Ross 1982). 6,000 6,000 0% E 5,409 677 87% 20. Northern Indian Ocean, PRD Yemen (Sharma) 1,750 (1972) 750 (1999) Subpopulation declining since at least 1950 (Hirth 1968). L 2,564 676 74% E 12,000 5,097 57% 21. Western Indian Ocean, Seychelles 12,000 (1900) 4145 (1996) Subpopulation declined since at least 1900 to 1968 (Mortimer 1984); increased from 1968 to 1996 (N1968 = 1,700); still increasing. L 12,000 4,803 60% E 1,850 5,200 + 181% 22. Western Indian Ocean, Comoros Is. 1850 (1973) 5000 (2000) Believed to be stable until 1973 baseline (Parsons 1962), increasing since. L 1,850 5,117 + 177% E 463 271 41% 23. Western Indian Ocean, Isles Eparces (Europa Is.e) 463 (1987) 360 (1994) Believed to have been stable until 1987; declining since then due to impacts in foraging areas (Rene and Roos 1996). L 463 257 44%

PAGE 31

Seminoff – 2002 MTSG Green Turtle Assessment 31 Table 5. Continued Index # Subpopulation (Index Site) Past Present Notes Subpopulation 3 gen. ago (est.) Current Subpopulation (est.) Estimated 3generation reduction E 1,639 1,254 23% 24. Western Indian Ocean, Isles Eparces (Tromelin Is.f) 1,639 (1987) 1,445 (1994) Believed to be stable until 1987 baseline; declining since then due to impacts in foraging areas (Rene and Roos 1996). L 1,639 1,251 24% E 46,352 230 99% 25. Mediterranean Sea, Turkey 1,000 (1982) 230 (2001) Declines since at least 1920 (Sella 1982, Demetropoulos 2000). L 3,511 230 94% E 2,075 446 78% 26. Eastern Atlantic Ocean, Equatorial Guinea (Bioko Is. g) 2,075 (1940) 489 (1998) Subpopulation declining since at least 1940 (T. Butynski pers. comm. to K. Bjorndal as cited in Fretey 2001). L 2,075 407 80% E 2,000 2,514 + 26% 27. Eastern Atlantic Ocean, GuineaBissau (Bijagos Is.) 2,000 (1990) 2,465 (2000) Likely larger prior to 1990 baseline (Agardy 1992) but increasing since. L 2,000 2,511 + 26% 28. Central Atlantic Ocean, Ascension Island 2670 (1978) 3,709 (2001) Likely larger prior to 1978 baseline (Parsons 1962), but increasing since (Godley et al. 2001). 2,670 3,709 + 39% 29. Western Atlantic Ocean, Brazil (Isla Trindade) 3,000 (1981) 3,000 (2000) Subpopulation is currently stable (L. Moreira pers. comm.). 3,000 3,000 0% E 1,657 1,814 + 9% 30. Western Atlantic Ocean, Suriname 1,657 (1979) 1,771 (1995) Stable to increasing since 1979 (H. Reichart pers. comm.). L 1,657 1,814 + 9% E 13,360 267 98% 31. Western Atlantic Ocean, Venezuela (Aves Is.) 1,199 (1947) 267 (1979-1997) Subpopulation believed to be declining since at least 1900 (Parsons 1962), stable since 1979 (V. Vera pers. comm. to K. Eckert). L 2,567 267 90%

PAGE 32

Seminoff – 2002 MTSG Green Turtle Assessment 32 Table 5. Continued Index # Subpopulation (Index Site) Past Present Notes Subpopulation 3 gen. ago (est.) Current Subpopulation (est.) Estimated 3generation reduction E 13,750 27,911 + 103% 32. Western Atlantic Ocean, Costa Rica (Tortuguero) 13,750 (1975) 24,076 (1996) Subpopulation increased from 1975 baseline to 1996 (Bjorndal et al. 1999); increasing trend still present (S. Trong pers. comm.). L 13,750 26,534 + 93% E 874 1,593 + 82% 33. Western Atlantic Ocean, Mxico (Yucatan Pen.) 874 (1983) 1,547 (2000) Likely larger prior to 1983 baseline (Parsons 1962), but increasing since. L 874 1,588 + 82% E 366 779 + 115% 34. Western Atlantic Ocean, United States (Florida) 366 (1980) 759 (2000) Likely larger prior to 1980 baseline (Parsons 1962, Witzell 1994a,b), but increasing since. L 366 789 + 113% TOTAL EXPONENTIAL FUNCTION 282,744 96,165 66% TOTAL LINEAR FUNCTION 176,781 90,957 48% a For nGBR/Raine Island, past nesting numbers were determined by calculating the relative change in numbers of turtles observed during nightly surveys between Past and Present (+56%)and integrating this into current Raine Is. estimate of 18,000 annual nesting females (Dobbs 2002). b For Philippine Turtle Islands, conversion from egg data to # females was based on 95.6 eggs/nest (Trono 1991) c For Sabah, conversion from nest data to number of female s was based on 5 nests/female/season (C. Limpus pers. comm.) d For Pangumbahan, Indonesia, conversion from egg data to # fe males was based on 107 eggs/nest (Suwelo and Kuntjoro 1969) e For Europa Is. conversions from hatchlings to number of females was determined usi ng hatchling survivorship value of 77.6%; num ber of nests were determined using a value of 142 eggs/nest (Hughes 1974). Conversion to females from nests was based on a value of 3 nes ts per season per female(Bonnet et al. 1985). f For Tromelin Is. conversions from hatch lings to number of females was determined using hatchling survivorship value of 69.8%; number of nests were determined using a value of 124.6 eggs/nest (Hughes 1974). Conversion to females from nests was based on a value of 3 n ests per season per female(Bonnet et al. 1985). g For Bioko Is. 1940 nesting subpopulation size (2,075) is based on a linear decline in turtles per night between 1940 (250 turt les) and 1980 (75 turtles) (=1.25 % / yr) extrapolated to 1998 (= 58.5 turtles/night ). The actual turtles per season in 1998 (489) is then divi ded by this value to get a value for the number of turtles per season represented by each turtle counted in a night (= 8.3). This value is then mult iplied by mean nightly count from 1940 (8.3 250) to get an estimate of the annual nesting N in 1940.

PAGE 33

Seminoff – 2002 MTSG Green Turtle Assessment 33 Table 6. Summary of recent and current threats documented for each of the 34 Chelonia mydas Index Sites included in the 2001 IUCN Red List Programme Species assessm ent. Presence of threats are indicate d as Y = yes; N = no; ? = unknown. Existing Threats Intentional Take Incidental Impacts Index # Subpopulation Egg Collection Harvest of Nesting Females Intentional Capture at Feeding Areas Incidental Capture in Marine Fisheries Habitat Loss at Nesting Beach Contamination at the nesting beach Disease Citations 1. Eastern Pacific Ocean, Mxico (Michoacn) Y (1) Y (1) Y (2,3,4) Y (3,4,5) Y (1) ? ? 2. Eastern Pacific Ocean, Ecuador (Galpagos Is.) N (6) N (6) ? ? N (6) N (6) ? 3. Central Pacific Ocean, United States (Hawaii) N (5) N (5) ? Y (5) ? ? Y (7) 4. Western Pacific Ocean, Japan (Ogasawara Is.) N (8) Y (9) ? ? ? ? Y (8) 5. Western Pacific Ocean, Australia (sGBR, Heron Is.) N (10) N (10) N (10) N (10) ? ? ? 6. Western Pacific Ocean, Australia (nGBR, Raine Is.) ? ? Y (11) Y (12) ? ? Y (13) 7. Southeast Asia, Indonesia (Derawan (Berau Islands) Y (14) ? Y (15) ? ? ? Y (16) 8. Southeast Asia, Philippines (Turtle Islands) Y (17) ? ? Y (17) ? ? Y (18) 1. Alvarado-Daz et al. 2001 2. Seminoff 2000 3. Nichols 2001 4. Gardner and Nichols in press 5. NMFS 2001 6. Hurtado 2001 7. Balazs et al. 1998 8. Y. Matsuzawa pers. comm. 9. Horikoshi et al. 1994 10. Chaloupka and Limpus 2001 11. Limpus et al. 2001 12. Limpus et al. in press 13. Limpus and Miller 1990 14. Dermawan 2002 15. C. Hitipeuw pers. comm. 16. Adnyana et al. 1997 17. Cruz 2002 18. Nalo-Ochona 2000

PAGE 34

Seminoff – 2002 MTSG Green Turtle Assessment 34 Table 6. Continued Subpopulation Egg Collect Female Harvest Intent. Capture Incident. Capture Habitat Loss Cont. Dis. Citations 9. Southeast Asia, Malaysia (Sabah Turtle Islands) Y (19) N (20) ? Y (19) ? ? Y (19) 10. Southeast Asia, Malaysia (Sarawak) N (19) N (19) ? ? N (19) ? N (19) 11. Southeast Asia, Malaysia (Peninsula) Y (20) ? ? ? Y (19,20) ? N (19) 12. Southeast Asia, Thailand, Gulf of Thailand ? ? ? ? Y (21) ? ? 13. Eastern Indian Ocean, Indonesia (Java; Suka Made, Meru Betiri NP) ? ? Y (22) ? ? ? ? 14. Southeast Asia, Indonesia (Java; Pangumbahan) Y (23) ? Y (17) ? ? ? Y (17) 15. Eastern Indian Ocean, Myanmar (Thamihla Kyun) Y (24) ? ? ? ? ? ? 16.India (Gujarat) Y (25,26) N (25,26) ? ? Y (26) Y (27) ? 17. Pakistan (Hawkes Bay and Sandspit) ? ? ? Y (27) Y (27) Y (27) ? 18. Northern Indian Ocean, Arabian Gulf (Saudi Arabia, Karan Is) Y (28,29) N (28) ? Y (30) N (30) ? ? 19.Oman (Ras al Hadd) Y (31) ? Y (31,32) Y (31) ? ? ? 20. Peoples Democratic Republic of Yemen ? Y (30,33) ? ? ? ? ? 19. E. Chan pers. comm. 20. Chan et al. 1997 21. Charuchinda et al. 2002 22. C. Limpus pers. comm. 23. Hutabarat pers. comm. 24. Thorbjarnarson et al. 2000 25. W. Sunderraj pers. comm. 26. W. Sunderraj pers. comm. 27. Asrar 1999 28. Pilcher 2000 29. Al-Merghani et al. 2000 30. N. Pilcher pers. comm. 31. R. Baldwin pers. comm. 32. B. Ferreira pers. comm. 33. Saad 1999

PAGE 35

Seminoff – 2002 MTSG Green Turtle Assessment 35 Table 6. Continued Subpopulation Egg Collect Female Harvest Intent. Capture Incident. Capture Habitat Loss Cont. Dis. Citations 21. Western Indian Ocean, Seychelles N (34) Y (34) Y (35,36) Y (36) Y (34) ? Y (36) 22.Comoros Islands ? Y (37) Y (37) ? ? ? ? 23. Western Indian Ocean, Isles Eparces (Europa Is.) N (38) N (38) Y (38) Y (38) ? ? ? 24. Western Indian Ocean, Isles Eparces (Tromelin Is.) N (38) N (38) Y (38) Y (38) ? ? ? 25. Mediterranean Sea, Turkey ? ? Y (39,40) Y (40,41, 42) Y (40) Y (43) ? 26. Eastern Atlantic Ocean, Equatorial Guinea (Bioko Is.) Y (44) Y (44,45, 46) Y (47) ? ? ? Y (47) 27. Guinea-Bissau (Bijagos Archipelago) Y (48) Y (49) Y (45,48) Y (49) ? ? ? 28. Central Atlantic Ocean, Ascension Is. N (50) N (50) ? ? N (50) ? ? 29. Western Atlantic Ocean, Brazil (Trindade Is.) N (51) N (51) N (51) Y (52) N (51,52) ? Y (53) 30. Western Atlantic Ocean, Suriname Y (54,55) N (54) Y (55) Y (55,56) ? ? N (54) 31. Western Atlantic Ocean, Venezuela (Aves Is.) N (57) N (57) Y (58,59) ? ? ? Y (57,60) 34. Mortimer et al. 1996 35. A. Cooke pers. comm. to J. Mortimer 36. J. Mortimer pers. comm. 37. Mohadji et al. 1996 38. Rene and Roos 1996 39. Nada 2001 40. Kasparek et al. 2001 41. Godley et al. 1996 42. Godley et al. 1998 43. Godley et al. 1999 44. Fretey 2001 45. Formia 1999 46. Tomas et al. 1999 47. J. Tomas pers. comm. 48. Barbosa et al. 1998 49. Fortes et al. 1998 50. Broderick et al. 2001 51. L. Moreira pers. comm. 52. M. Marcovaldi pers. comm. 53. Matushima et al. 2000 54. van Tienen et al. 2000 55. H. Reichart pers. comm. 56. Bass et al. 1998 57. Guada and Sol 2000 58. Tambiah 1994 59. Fallabrino et al. 2000 60. Sol and Azara 1998

PAGE 36

Seminoff – 2002 MTSG Green Turtle Assessment 36 Table 6. Continued Subpopulation Egg Collect Female Harvest Intent. Capture Incident. Capture Habitat Loss Cont. Dis. Citations 32. Western Atlantic Ocean, Costa Rica (Tortuguero) Y (61) Y (61) Y (61,62) ? N (61) N (61) Y (61) 33. Mxico (Yucatan Peninsula) Y (63) Y (63) ? Y (63) Y (63) ? Y (63) 34.United States (Florida) ? ? ? ? Y (64) ? Y (65,66) Total number of Sites with threat present (Y) 15 9 16 16 9 3 14 Percent of Increased/Stable Sites with threat present 47% (7/15) 27% (4/15) 40% (6/15) 60% (9/15) 13% (2/15) 0% (0/15) 47% (7/15) Percent of Declined Sites with threat present 42% (8/19) 26% (5/19) 53% (10/19) 37% (7/19) 37% (7/19) 16% (3/19) 37% (7/19) 61. Mangel et al. 2001 62. Lagueux 1998 63. K. Lopez pers. comm. 64. Schroeder and Mosier 2000 65. Ehrhart 1991 66. Balazs et al.1992

PAGE 37

Seminoff – 2002 MTSG Green Turtle Assessment 37 100 1,000 10,000 100,000 1880190019201940196019802000 Mexico (Michoacan) Galapagos Is. (Ecuador) A. Eastern Pacific Ocean 100 1,000 10,000 100,000 1880190019201940196019802000 FFS, Hawaii (USA) Ogasawara Is. (Japan) B. Central and Western Pacific Ocean C. Australia D. South East Asia 100 1,000 10,000 100,000 1880190019201940196019802000 Seychelles Is. Iles Eparses (Europa) Iles Eparses (Tromelin) Comoros Is. F. Western Indian Ocean 100 1,000 10,000 100,000 1880190019201940196019802000 Turkey Bioko Is. Bijagos Is. Ascension Is. G. Med. Sea, East., and Cent. Atlantic O. 10 100 1,000 10,000 100,000 1880190019201940196019802000 Brazil Suriname Venezuela Costa Rica Florida Yucatan H. Western Atlantic Ocean and Caribbean E. Eastern and Northern Indian Ocean 100 1000 10000 100000 1880190019201940196019802000 East Java West Java Myanmar India Pakistan Saudi Arabia Oman Yemen 100 1,000 10,000 100,000 1880190019201940196019802000 Sabah (Malaysia) Sarawak (Malaysia) Peninsular Malaysia Berau Is. (Indonesia) Thailand Philippines 100 1,000 10,000 100,000 1880190019201940196019802000 Raine Is. (nGBR) Heron Is. (sGBR) Figure 2. Population trends organized by regi on for 34 Index Sites used in the 2001 IUCN Green Turtle Assessment. Trend lines are ba sed on published population estimates listed in Table 2.

PAGE 38

Seminoff – 2002 MTSG Green Turtle Assessment 38 Global Declines Over 3-Generation Interval Because the 3-generation intervals for the I ndex subpopulations (106 to 148 yr) are much greater than the intervals for which published information is available for green turtle subpopulations, efforts to establish 3-generati on subpopulation trends re quired extrapolations (see IUCN 2001b). Determination of the approp riate temporal range for extrapolations depended on educated assumptions about the patt ern of decline for each site (summarized for each Index Site under ‘notes’ in Table 5). In many cases it is believed that declines were exponential; however, because the true d eclining function was not known, subpopulation trends were also determined with the linea r function, as per the IUCN Guidelines for Assessing Widely Distributed Species: “Whe n there is no basis for deciding among various patterns of decline, the rate of decline can be specified as (a range), based on the declines predicted by the diffe rent patterns (i.e., Linear vs. Exponential )” (IUCN 2001b). The category Remainder was not included in this analysis due to a lack of quantitative data (see explanation below). Extrapolations of documented trends using both Linear and Exponential functions indicate that the global g reen turtle population has d ecreased 48 % to 66 % over the last three generations Because many of the threats that have led to these declines are not reversible and have not yet ceased, it is eviden t that green turtles face a measurable risk of extinction. Based on this assessment, it is apparent that green turtles qualify for Endangered ( EN ) status under Criteria A2bd.

PAGE 39

Seminoff – 2002 MTSG Green Turtle Assessment 39 In determining the 3-generation declines fo r green turtles, the present assessment was conservative in its approach to dealing with uncertainty. The conser vative nature of these calculations is evidenced by that facts that: 1. Although it is likely that impacts to subpopul ations started long before the earliest documented accounts, many are assumed to have been stable until the first estimate of abundance (i.e., the baselines are from relatively recent times), 2. despite the documented presence of substantial impacts at their respective foraging areas and evidence of decreasing su rvivorship values for in-water stocks (e.g., Sideek and Baldwin 1996, C. Limpus et al. in press, Campbell pers. comm.), several Index rookeries (e.g., Oman, eastern Australia, Co sta Rica) are classified as stable or increased based on number of nesting females, and 3. there are a number of formerly large rooke ries that are known to have declined in recent years but for which no quantitative da ta are available that would enable them to be included as Index Sites (e.g., Fiji, Gulf of Carpentaria – Australia, Guyana, Kenya, Somalia,; Parsons 1962) Recent Documented Declines: A Regional Perspective Figure 2 summarizes the subpopulation trajec tories among eight regions (based on published Past and Present estimates, Table 4): (1) eastern Pacific Ocean, (2) central and western Pacific Ocean, (3) eastern Australia, (4) Southeast Asia, (5 ) eastern and northern Indian Ocean, (6) western Indian Ocean, (7) Med iterranean Sea, eastern and central Atlantic Ocean, and (8) western Atlantic Ocean and Cari bbean Sea. Based on this regional approach

PAGE 40

Seminoff – 2002 MTSG Green Turtle Assessment 40 it is apparent that green turtle subpopulations exhibit varyi ng overall trends in different parts of the world. For example, green turtle subpopul ations in Australia, western Atlantic Ocean and central Pacific Ocean are exhibiting encouraging trends: both subpopulations in eastern Australia have increased (Fig. 2c); all but one nesting subpopulati on (Venezuela) in the western Atlantic Ocean are stable or have increased in recent years (Fig. 2h); and the single rookery examined in the central Pacific Ocean (H awaii) has increased (Fig. 2b). In contrast, subpopulations in Southeast Asia, northern and eastern Indian Ocean, eastern Pacific Ocean, western Pacific Ocean, and Mediterranean Sea are doing relatively poorly. Among the six rookeries in Southeast Asia, all but one (Saba h, Malaysia) are deplete d, and in the northern and eastern Indian Ocean all but two (Saudi Arabia, Oman) have declined. Among rookeries in the eastern Pacific Ocean (Fig. 2a), west ern Pacific Ocean (Fig. 2b), and Mediterranean Sea (Fig. 2g), declining trajectories are presen t at all but one (Galpagos Islands). Differences in population trajectories among the Index Sites are likely due to variation in both the intensity of historical exploitation and the duration and qua lity of conservation efforts. In respect to exploitation, patterns of human occupation and th e cultural significance of sea turtles have dictated the duration and inte nsity of green turtle harvests. Rookeries in areas that have had less human presence or were colonized more recently tend to be in better condition (e.g. Galpagos Island s, Raine Island, Heron Island). Likewise, subpopulations in areas where turtle consumption has not been an integral part of the culture have been impacted to a lesser extent than those located where turtles or eggs have been a traditional food source. Rookeries in Australia, for example, have benefited from the fact that sea turtle consumption has not been an integral part of th e dominant culture. A ve ry different scenario is present in Southeast Asian countries, the Indian Ocean, eastern Pacific Ocean (Mxico)

PAGE 41

Seminoff – 2002 MTSG Green Turtle Assessment 41 and western Pacific Ocean, where green turtle subpopulations have suffered tremendously through harvest of eggs and turtles. In respect to current conditions affecting gr een turtles, conservation programs have had a positive impact on nesting population trends around the world. In some cases conservation practices have enabled nesting subpopulations to partially or fully rebound from prior exploitation-induced declines. As a consequence of the slow maturation of green turtles, it is apparent that on-the-ground conservation progr ams must be in place for extended durations to reverse declines. Once exploitation threats have been eradicated, th e recovery time of a subpopulation will depend largely on the status of the immature cohorts: subpopulations with a healthy immature stock will typically exhibit signs of recovery at the nesting beach more quickly than subpopulations with depleted im mature stocks (Mortimer 1991, Crouse 2000). In summary, regional differences in subpopulat ion trends are eviden t among the 34 Index Sites examined in this assessment. These diffe rences are due to both the varying duration of exploitation and the history and quality of conservation programs in each region. Although this IUCN Red List assessment focuses on global status, the presence of regional subpopulation trends suggests that it is appropriate to apply th e IUCN Red List Criteria at regional levels (Grdenfors et al. 2001). The MTSG Green Turtle Task Force will therefore draft regional assess ments for the IUCN Red List. The Shifting Baseline Syndrome Although extrapolations as pe r the IUCN Guidelines (IUC N 2001b) have provided some understanding about the historic subpopulation sizes at the 34 Index nesting rookeries, assessments of how today’s subpopulations comp are to those from pr e-exploitation years

PAGE 42

Seminoff – 2002 MTSG Green Turtle Assessment 42 may be erroneous. In several cases, perceptions suffer from the ‘shifting baseline syndrome’ (Pauly 1995). This situation arises when the gr eatest rates of decline take place prior to the earliest period for which subpopulation abundanc e data are available. As a result, subpopulations may be falsely classified as stable or increased when they are in fact depleted relative to historic levels. For example, th e numbers of nesting females at Tortuguero, the most important rookery in the Caribbean, have increased since the onset of census counts in the early 1970s. When considering the exorb itant rate of extraction documented in other areas of the Caribbean over the last 141 year s (for review see Groombridge and Luxmoore 1989, Fleming 2001) it is reasonable, however, to suspect that the ne sting subpopulation at Tortuguero and other extant Cari bbean rookeries were markedly larger 3-generations ago. Similarly, Ingle and Smith (1949), Parsons (1962 ), and Witzell (1994a) describe a Florida green turtle fishery that extracted a substantia l number of turtles from Florida waters. In 1970 for example, the legal Florida green tu rtle harvest peaked at 190,013 kg (Witzell 1994b). Although there has been a steady increase in nesting numbers in this region over the past 20 years, current nesting activity likely repr esents only a fraction of historical levels. The fact that a shifting baseline may be resu lting in the false per ception of stable and increasing trends is underscored by estimates from Jackson (1997) that s uggest the total adult green turtle population for the entire pre-Columbian Caribbean population ranged from 33 to 660 million turtles. Similarly, based on the assumption that Caribbean green turtle populations are regulated by the av ailability of turtlegrass ( Thalassia testudinum ), Bjorndal et al. (2000) estimated that between 16 and 568 million green turtles were present in the Caribbean prior to organized fisheries. These ar e rather wide intervals but even if historic

PAGE 43

Seminoff – 2002 MTSG Green Turtle Assessment 43 green turtle population sizes were closer to the lower end of these ranges, the estimates would still represent a substant ially greater number of green tu rtles than are present today. The shifting baseline syndrome is widespread and variable in contex t. In addition to altering perceptions a bout the current stability of s ubpopulations, the shifting baseline syndrome may lessen the perceived intensity of historic declin es for localities at which subpopulations are already classifi ed as depleted. In Michoacn, Mxico for instance, the population size in the early 1970s was estimate d to be 25,000 nesting females per season (Cliffton et al. 1982). However, this was lik ely an estimate for an already depleted population, as green turtle harves ts in the eastern Pacific Ocea n had been ongoing for at least 50 years by that point (Averett 1920, Craig 1926) As noted by Carr (1961), the abundant green turtle populations were subjected to heavy extraction throughout the eastern Pacific Ocean for many decades. Speaking of the harvest at a single village in Baja California, Mxico, Caldwell (1963) wrote, “I saw over 500 landed in a 3-week summer period in 1962 at Los Angeles Bay alone, and a comparable num ber, considering fishing effort, per week in winter”. Extraction was so hea vy that, during their investigations of green turtles, Caldwell and Caldwell (1962) coined this species the ‘black st eer’ of the Gulf of California. When considering that Baha de los Angeles was only one of many villages in northwestern Mxico that had extensive fishing operations (M rquez and Doi 1973, Olguin Mena 1990), it is reasonable to believe that the combined efforts of these fisheries contributed to a significant decline in nesting numbers well before Cliffton et al.’s (1982) estimate. The Shifting Baseline Syndrome also creates fa lse perceptions about the degree to which some subpopulations have recovered from hist oric, exploitation-induced declines. At the Seychelles Islands in the western Indian O cean for example, the annual nesting population

PAGE 44

Seminoff – 2002 MTSG Green Turtle Assessment 44 has shown recent increases but remains depleted relative to historic numbers. The mean annual number of nesting females at Aldabra Ato ll, presently the most important nesting area in the Seychelles, has increased since the onset of protective measures in 1968 (1984 – 1988 mean = 941 – 1,730; Mortimer 1988). However, upon expanding the temporal range of the inquiry, it is apparent that the present nesting level remains at least 72 % below that from the turn of the century (6,000 – 8,000; Mortimer, 1985). A similar scenario is present in Sabah, Malaysia, where at least 40 years of intense egg harvest during the middle of the 1900s resulted in a highly depleted nesting population (de Silva 1982, Limpus 1995). In the early 1970s al l three Sabah Turtle Islands were acquired and protected by the Sabah State Government (d e Silva 1982a, b). Even with near total protection, the nesting stock continued to declin e for nearly 20 years until the 1987/88 season when the subpopulation showed the initial signs of rebound. By 2001 nesting numbers exceeded those of the 1960s and it was proclaim ed that the subpopulation had recovered (E. Chan pers. comm.). However, in 1965 (the year that served as the baseline for the recovery comparisons) the green turtle subpopulation ha d already been subjec ted to intense egg harvest since at least 1933 (d e Silva 1982). It is reasonabl e to believe, based on current knowledge of the detrimental impacts of egg harvest, that the Sa bah nesting subpopulation was considerably larger during the decades pr ior to 1965. Moreover, if the baseline were shifted farther back it would perhaps beco me evident that today’s Sabah nesting subpopulation has yet to reach pre-exploitation levels.

PAGE 45

Seminoff – 2002 MTSG Green Turtle Assessment 45 Current and Future Threats Despite improving conservation efforts thr oughout the world, green turtle subpopulations continue to be impacted by a variety of threat s (Table 6). Four of the most common threats are intentional capture in foragi ng areas (16/34 Sites), incidental capture in marine fisheries (16/34 Sites), egg poaching (15/34 Sites), and harv est of nesting females (9/34 Sites). These impacts and others (summarized in Table 6) th reaten the stability of many of the world’s intact nesting subpopulations a nd also hinder recovery effort s for depleted subpopulations. The adverse effects of egg harvest have been quantified and it is clear that long-term unregulated take is detrimental to sea tur tle subpopulations (Chaloupka 2000). However, even if egg harvest is ceased, damage to the futu re stability of some st ocks may have already been done. This is because the slow matura tion rate of green turt les causes a delayed response to the negative effects of egg harves t. For example, when 100 % of the eggs are harvested from a nesting beach, reproduction is essentially halted: hatchling production ceases and no new juveniles recruit to the population. Without new recruits the population progressively loses important age classes that w ould normally replenish a dults lost to natural or unnatural processes (Crouse 2000). After 30 year s or more of egg harvest the true effects will be revealed when nesting numbers finally crash because all the juveniles have matured and can no longer offset the loss of adults (Mortimer 1995, Crouse 2000). The onset of such a crash may be exacerbated when nesting st ocks experience a conc urrent extraction of juveniles from in-water populati ons and/or unnatural rates of adu lt mortality. With regard to the sustainability of egg harvest, Chaloupka and Limpus (1998) warn that prolonged egg harvest, even for a period as short as 10 years, will have a major impact on stock viability.

PAGE 46

Seminoff – 2002 MTSG Green Turtle Assessment 46 The probability of collapse is greatly enhanced when harvest is greater than 25% of the total egg production (Chaloupka 2000). In addition to the collection of eggs from nesting beaches, there is a delayed response to the killing of nesting females. In areas wher e the killing of adults is commonplace, there may already be more than 30 years worth of j uveniles in the marine environment, some of which mature and ‘replace’ the harvested adu lts each year. This replenishment prevents immediate declines in annual nesting numbers and creates a false perception of a population seemingly capable of sustaining adult harvests indefinitely (Crouse 2000). The killing of adults can also be considered a double negative in the sense that, not only are females being killed thus immediately reducing the population size, but with the loss of each female there is a corresponding decrease in egg production potentia l for the population. Although adult mortality results in more quick ly observable changes at the nesting beach, it is the mortality of immature turtles in marine habitats that may be of greater threat to the stability of green turtle subpopul ations. Directed take of la rge juveniles is particularly worrisome as Crouse et al. (1987) and Frazer (i n Ogren 1989) have identified this life-stage as the most valuable in terms of recovery and stabilization of sea turtle populations. This is due to the fact that not only have large juveni les already survived many mortality factors thus having a high reproductive value, but also there are typically more juveniles than adults in a population. Therefore, relatively small changes in the survival rate of this life-stage class impact a large segment of the population, magnify ing the effect (Crouse 2000). As with the delayed feedback from egg harvest, green turt les’ extended time to maturity delays the observable effects of juvenile harvests, and th ey may not manifest as a decline in nesting females for a number of decades. However, once there is a crash in the adult nesting

PAGE 47

Seminoff – 2002 MTSG Green Turtle Assessment 47 population as a result of such impacts, the nesting population may be substantially more difficult to recover compared to a population wi th a thriving sub-adul t population (Mortimer 1991). The fact that sea turtles exhibit fidelity to their natal beaches suggests these sites may not be replenished by the recruitment of turt les from other nesting rookeries in ecological time frames, a pattern consistent with the curr ent distribution of nes ting sites relative to human exploitation (see Section 6). Green turtle populations in decline Nineteen (55 %) of the 34 Index Sites examined in this assessment show declining trends in nesting activity. Many reductions are not only well in excess of 50 %, but also occurred in less than three generations. Thus as demonstrated by the extrapolated declines (Table 5), the rate of these declines is much greater than 50 % over three generations. Based on published accounts, subpopulation declines of over 50 % have been iden tified in the eastern and western Atlantic Ocean; declines of greater than 80% have been shown in the eastern, southern, and western Pacific Ocean, Southeast Asia, Indian Ocean and Mediterranean Sea. Among all 19 declining subpopulations, the weig hted mean rate of decline between documented Past and Present estimates (Table 4) is 62 % (SD = 24, range = 12 to 98 %) over a mean interval of 49 years (range = 7 y to 101 yr) or just over one generation, a rate much greater than 50% ove r three generations. The most common intentional impact th at has been documented among declining subpopulations is egg harvest: present at at le ast of eight of the 19 subpopulations in decline (Table 6). As previously discussed, this pract ice will cause further declines to these already depleted subpopulations. At the largest green turtle nesting beach along the Pacific Coast of

PAGE 48

Seminoff – 2002 MTSG Green Turtle Assessment 48 Mxico (Index Site #1), nearly all eggs were harvested for at least several decades prior to 1978, less than one generation ago (Cliffton et al 1982). The problem pe rsists today, albeit at substantially reduced levels (Alvarado et al. 2001). At the Berau Islands in Indonesia (Index Site # 7), formerly one of the most impor tant nesting areas in Indonesia, egg harvest continues at nearly 100 % (N. P ilcher, pers. comm.). As seen in other parts of Indonesia (Stringell et al. 2000), improvements in nesti ng activity through beach protection have been hindered by the closure of nesting beach cons ervation projects due to political turmoil (N. Pilcher pers. comm.). Throughout the Philippine s, egg collection occurred at high levels until 1993 (Ramirez de Veyra 1994), and continues at > 50 % in some areas (Cruz 2002). At the Sarawak turtle islands of Malaysia (Index Site # 10), most of the eggs laid between 1927 and 1989 were harvested, certain ly contributing to the 94% decline over three generations reported here; the harvest rate approached 100 % from 1963 to 1975 (Mortimer 1990). At Terengganu, Malaysia (Index Site # 11) nearly 97 % of all eggs were harvested between at least 1960 and 1988 (Hendrickson and Alfred 1961, Mortimer 1991). Egg collection continues at 58 % in this re gion (Chan pers. comm.). Although not quantified, egg harvest also continues at Bioko Island (Index Site # 26) in the western Atlantic Ocean (Fretey 2001). In addition to egg harvesting, the take of nesting females continues to impact some subpopulations. Among the 19 Index subpopulations that are presently de pleted, harvests of nesting females have likely contributed to declines at at least five Index Sites. Adult female harvest persists at various intensities: low level harvest of nesting adults has also been reported for subpopulations along the Pacific Coas t of Mxico (Alvara do et al. 2001) and the Seychelles Islands (Mortimer et al. 1996), wh ile nearly 50 % of a ll nesting females are poached each year at Bioko Is. and mainland Equatorial Guinea (Tomas et al. 1999) and

PAGE 49

Seminoff – 2002 MTSG Green Turtle Assessment 49 Sharma (PRD Yemen, N. Pilcher pers. comm.). Adult green turtles continue to be harvested each year at the Ogasawara Islands of Japan (Y. Matsuzawa pers. comm.). In regard to the capture of j uveniles and adults in marine habitats, current practices are preventing the recovery of several depleted subpopulations. In Michoacn, Mxico, despite more than 20 years of nesting beach protec tion (Alvarado and Delgado 2001) and a countrywide ban on sea turtle harvest (Anonymous 1990) recovery efforts have been hampered by the 5,000 to 10,000 turtles killed each year at neri tic foraging habitats near Baja California, Mxico (Seminoff 2000, Nichol s 2001, Gardner and Nichols 2001) In the Indian Ocean, rookeries at Europa and Tromelin Islands that were stable unt il recently have begun to show signs of decline despite total pr otection at the nesting beaches (T able 4). This drop in annual nesting is due, at least in part, to green turtle fisherie s in the eastern Indian Ocean, particularly in Madagascar: first reported in the 1990s (Rakotonirina and Cooke 1994, Mbindo 1996), this fishery currently lands thous ands of green turtle s each year (Andrew Cooke pers. comm. to J. Mortimer). When comb ined with incidental captures, green turtle mortality in the Madagascar regi on is believed to be at least 10,000 individuals each year (J. Mortimer pers. comm.). A similar situation has been described in the northern Indian Ocean in Oman, where, in 1990 for example, a co mbined 4,280 green turtles were taken through direct harvest (Salm 1991) and in cidental capture (Hare 1991). Stable and increasing green turtle subpopulations Among the 34 Index Sites examined in this report, subpopulations are stable at four localities; Galpagos Islands (Ecuador), Kara n Island (Saudi Arabia), Ras al Hadd (Oman), and Trindade Island (Brazil). Annual nesting po pulations have increased from the earliest

PAGE 50

Seminoff – 2002 MTSG Green Turtle Assessment 50 documented abundance at 11 localities; Ascensi on Island, Bijagos Islands (Guinea-Bissau), Comoros Islands, Florida (United States), Hawaii (United States), Heron Island (Australia), Raine Island (Australia ), Sabah Turtle Islands (Malaysi a), Suriname, Tortuguero (Costa Rica), and Yucatan (Mxico). Although a substantial number of sites show st able and increasing tre nds, three points are worth noting that provide context for these non-dec lining patterns. First, it is likely that several Sites are perceived as increasing due to the aforementioned Shifting Baseline Syndrome. If earlier data were available for th ese localities, it stands likely that the wider temporal interval would depict depletions relative to histor ic population sizes (see shifting baseline explanation above; e.g., Sabah). Second, several rookeries (e.g., Galpagos Is., Florida, Hawaii, Heron Island, Saudi Arabia,) represent small segments of the global metapopulation. Although they may be showing encour aging trends, their sm all size relative to that of most declining subpopulations minimizes their effect when integrated into the global population trend. Third, a number of sites, incl uding several of the largest rookeries, face increased threats of mortality in distant fora ging habitats. Such impacts in the marine environment are likely to result in declining subpopulation tre nds at many of these localities in the future. In Southeast Asia current evid ence indicates that tens of thousands, perhaps more than 100,000 juvenile and adult green tu rtles are harvested annually (Pilcher 1999, Limpus et al. in press). Many of these originate from Raine Island in the northern Great Barrier Reef, site of one of the world’s largest congr egation of nesting green turtles. The fact that a substantial number of juveniles are being killed suggests that the full imp act from mortality in foraging areas has yet to be fully expressed in nesting abundance. Although turtle s still nest in large

PAGE 51

Seminoff – 2002 MTSG Green Turtle Assessment 51 numbers at this rookery, there has been a progr essive decrease in the mean nesting size of females (Limpus et al. in press). Limpus et al. (in press) suggest th is is a response to a reduction in the proportion of older turtles to the population (probably due to mortality in Southeast Asia), and interpret this as an ear ly warning signal that the northern GBR green turtle nesting population is in th e early stages of decline. Mo reover, in recent years there has been an upward trend in the mean remigration interval of turtles nesting at Raine Island (Limpus et al. in press). Given that the remi gration interval of females returning for only their second season is longer th an that for turtles that have nested during multiple prior seasons (i.e. older turtles), the observed incr ease in mean remigration further supports the notion that fewer large turtles ar e present in the population (Limpus et al. in press). It must be noted, however, that these trends coul d also be interpreted potentially good signs indicating a preponderance of new recruits to the population (N. Mros ovsky pers. comm., R. Mrquez pers. comm.). The green turtle subpopulation that nests in Sabah, Malaysia similarly faces impacts in distant foraging areas (Limpus 1995). Although th is nesting subpopulation is currently in a recovering phase (E. Chan pers. comm.), sustained impacts in the marine environment jeopardize its long-term stability. Moreover, this subpopulation is very sensitive to largescale environmental perturbations that may compound the adverse impacts in foraging areas (Chaloupka 2001). Imperfect nesting beach co nservation strategies may also weaken stability of the Sabah rookery: artificially high incubation temper atures at the Sabah hatcheries are resulting in nearly 100 % female sex among hatchling stocks (Tiwol and Cabanban 2000). This trend that may skew wild sex ratios and adversely affect future reproduction.

PAGE 52

Seminoff – 2002 MTSG Green Turtle Assessment 52 In the Caribbean, the aforementioned nes ting colony at Tortuguero has exhibited encouraging trends over the last two decades; however, poaching of eggs and adults at the nesting beach and intense harves t of juveniles and adults at foraging habitats threatens the stability of this nesting subpopulation. From 1997 to 1999, despite beach protection efforts, a mean of 9.8 % of nests near the township of Tortuguero were poached (Trong 2000) and, over the entire nesting beach, a mean of 600 adul ts were killed annually with a peak of 1,720 nesting adults poached in 1997 (Trong 1998, Trong and Rankin Gonzlez 2000). Although poaching of nesting adults has been slowed in recent years, there are persistent impacts at foraging areas for this nesting subpopulation. For example, at the Miskito Cays along the Caribbean coast of Nicaragua, an area consider ed to be the primary foraging habitat for turtles originating from Tortuguero, a mean of 9,357 turtles were killed per annum between 1994 and 1996 (Lagueux 1998). Legal harvest of gr een turtles continues in this area today (Fleming 2001, C. Lagueux pers. comm.). If this mortality is not ceased, or at least drastically reduced, the Tortuguero nesting s ubpopulation, which has long been considered the stronghold for green turtles in the Cari bbean region, could experience substantial declines. There have been steady improvements in th e conservation of sea turtles throughout the world and these have likely contri buted to the stable nature of the aforementioned rookeries. However, a stable nesting density is not n ecessarily indicative of a healthy subpopulation. While green turtles in Hawaii and Florida have demonstrated some encouraging signs of recovery after 20 years of protect ion efforts, the relatively recent increase in the incidence of Fibropapilloma disease threatens to eliminate improvements in the status of these stocks (Ehrhart 1991, Balazs and Pooley 1991, Balazs et al. 1992). The presence of this often-fatal

PAGE 53

Seminoff – 2002 MTSG Green Turtle Assessment 53 affliction has increased significan tly among stranded turtles over the past 20 years; increases in incidence during the past de cade range from 47 % to 69 % in Hawaii (Murakawa et al. 2000). Green turtles studied near Molokai fr om 1982-1996 showed a massive increase in the disease over this period, peaking at 61% pr evalence in 1995 (Murakawa et al. 2000). In Florida, the affliction rate reaches 62% in some areas (Schroeder et al. 1998). These sites have received considerable attention due to the incredibly high incidence of Fibropapillomatosis, but they are not the only subpopulations that are afflicted with this pathogen. Among the remaining 34 Index areas Fibropapillomatosis has also been documented in Australia (Raine Island), Brazi l (Isla Trindade), Costa Rica (Tortuguero), Japan (Ogasawara Is.), Indonesia (Berau Islands), Malaysia (Sabah Turtle Islands), Mxico (Yucatan Peninsula), Philippine Turtle Island s, Seychelles, and Venezuela (Aves Is.) [see Table 6 for citations]. The Remainder Category In addition to the 34 Index Sites included in this report, there ar e many areas that host green turtle nesting for which there are no long term quantitative data. Green turtle nesting congregations of particular in terest include, but are not limite d to, those at the Aru Islands (Shultz 1984), western coast of Australia (R. Prince pers. comm.), Gulf of Carpentaria coast of Australia (C. Limpus pers. comm.), Pacifi c Coast of Costa Rica (Cornelius 1982), Natuna Islands (Schulz 1984), New Caledonia (C. Limpus pers. comm.), Papua New Guinea (Philip 2002), Scilly Atoll (Lebeau 1985) and additional islands of the South Pacific (C. Limpus pers. comm.). Despite the lack of quantita tive data from these areas, the ‘Remainder’ category appears to be in overall decline. This conclusion is based on the overwhelming

PAGE 54

Seminoff – 2002 MTSG Green Turtle Assessment 54 number of qualitative reports that describe declin ing green turtle subpopu lations at non-Index areas (e.g., Groombridge and Luxmoore 1989, Salm and Humphrey 1996, Fretey 2001, Fleming 2001, C. Limpus pers. comm.). Alt hough past versus presen t comparisons are not commonly possible, these reports suggest that green turtle declines have been extensive and widespread, occurring within one human generati on. Declines are attrib uted to intentional harvest of eggs and adult females at nesting beaches, and juveniles and adults in marine habitats. b) Degree of fragmentation. Molecular genetic analyses ha ve shown that green turtles exhibit a fundamental phylogenetic split that di stinguishes subpopulations in the Atlantic Ocean and Mediterranean Sea from those in th e Indian and Pacific Oceans (Bowen et al. 1992). Within the eastern Pacific Ocean, some au thors have applied specific or subspecific status to green turtles (a lso known as black turtles; C. (=mydas) agassizii ) ranging from Baja California south to Peru and west to the Revi llagigedos Islands and Galpagos Archipelago (Mrquez 1990, Pritchard 1997); however, there is little evidence for th is level of genetic distinctiveness of this regi onal subpopulation (Bowen et al. 1992, Karl et al. 1992). The genetic substructure of the green turtle regional subpopulations shows distinctive mitochondrial DNA properties for each nesting r ookery (Bowen et al. 1992). Mitochondrial DNA data suggest that the global matriarchal ph ylogeny of green turtles has been shaped by ocean basin separations (Bowen et al. 1992, Encalada et al. 1996) and by natal homing behavior (Meylan et al. 1990). Th e fact that sea turtles exhibit fidelity to their natal beaches suggests that, if subpopulations become extir pated, they may not be replenished by the recruitment of turtles from ot her nesting rookeries in ecological (i.e. short) time frames.

PAGE 55

Seminoff – 2002 MTSG Green Turtle Assessment 55 Moreover, because each nesting subpopulation is genetically discrete, the loss of even one rookery represents a decline in genetic divers ity and resilience of the species (Bowen 1995). The depletion of these large, long-lived animals is also resu lting in a loss of important ecological functions and trophic pathways w ithin coastal habitats (Zieman et al. 1984, Valentine and Heck 1999, Jackson et al. 2001). c) Main habitats. Like most sea turtles, green turtle s are highly migrator y and use a wide range of broadly separated localities and habitats during their lifetimes (for review see Hirth 1997). Upon leaving the nesting beach, it has b een hypothesized that hatchlings begin an oceanic phase (Carr 1987), perhaps floating passively in major current systems (gyres) that serve as open-ocean developmental grounds (Carr and Meylan 1980, Witham 1991). These turtles are then thought to recruit from oceanic ha bitats to neritic developmental habitats rich in seagrass and/or marine algae where they forage and grow until maturity (Musick and Limpus 1997). Upon attaining sexual maturity green turtles commence breeding migrations between foraging grounds and nesting areas th at are undertaken in sometimes irregular multiple year intervals (Hirth 1997). Migrati ons are carried out by both males and females and may traverse oceanic zones, often sp anning thousands of kilometers (Carr 1986, Mortimer and Portier 1989). Du ring non-breeding peri ods adults reside at coastal neritic feeding areas that sometimes coincide with j uvenile developmental habitats (e.g., Limpus et al. 1994, Seminoff 2000). d) Nature, extent, and severity of threats. Green turtles, like other sea turtle species, are particularly susceptible to populat ion declines because of their vulnerability to anthropogenic

PAGE 56

Seminoff – 2002 MTSG Green Turtle Assessment 56 impacts during all life-stages: from eggs to adul ts. These impacts are both intentional, such as the harvest of eggs and adults, and accidental as exemplified by drowning in fishnets. In addition, increased pollution, degrad ation and loss of coastal and marine habitat, and disease have threatened the stability of ecosystems with in which green turtles live (see Table 6). Intentional Harvests One of the most detrimental human threats to green turtles is the intentional harvest of eggs from nesting beaches. By taking eggs from nesting beaches, humans have extirpated populations from the bottom up (Mortimer 1995). As each nesting season passes and populations continue to suffer from egg harvest, they will progressively lose the juvenile cohorts that would have recru ited from the post-hatchling stoc k. Present nesting populations may appear hardy, but without recruitment into the juvenile populati on and a well-balanced distribution of turtles among all cohorts, populations are more vulnerable to decline (Crouse et al. 1987, Frazer 1992). Further, when declin es come, they will be fast, thorough, and longlasting. Directed take of eggs is an ongoi ng problem in: Comoros Is. (Mohadji et al. 1996), Costa Rica (Tortuguero, Mangel et al. 2001), Guinea (Fretey 2001), Equatorial Guinea (Fretey 2001), Guinea-Bissau (Barbosa et al. 1998), India (Andaman and Nicobar Islands, Andrews 2000), Indonesia (H. Hutabarat pers. co mm.), Ivory Coast (Fretey 1998), Malaysia (Terengganu, Limpus 1995), Maldives (H. Zahir pers. comm.), Mxico (Alvarado-Daz et al. 2001), Panama (Evans and Vargas 1998), Phil ippines (Cruz 2002), Sao Tome Principe (Fretey 2001), Saudi Arabia (Karan Island, Pilcher 2000, Al-Merghani et al. 2000), Senegal (Fretey 2001), Sri Lanka (T. Kapurusinghe pe rs. comm.), Thailand (Limpus 1995), Vietnam (P. Thuoc pers. comm.), and the Pacific Is lands of American Samoa, Guam, Palau,

PAGE 57

Seminoff – 2002 MTSG Green Turtle Assessment 57 Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands, Fe derated states of Micronesia, Republic of Marshall Islands, and the Unincorporated Is lands Iwake, Johnston, Kingman, Palmyra, Jarvis, Howland, Baker, and Midway (Eck ert 1993). The above list is by no means comprehensive but it does, however, illustrate the widespread nature of this problem. In addition to the collection of eggs from ne sting beaches, the killing of nesting females continues to threaten the stab ility of green turtle subpopulatio ns. As mentioned previously, this affects subpopulations both by depleting the current subpopulati on and through reducing the subpopulation’s egg producing potential. On going harvest of nesting adults has been documented at Bioko Island (J. Tomas pers. comm.), Costa Rica (Mangel et al. 2001), Guinea Bissau (Fortes et al. 1998), India (Andaman and Nicobar Islands, Andrews 2000), Japan (Y. Matsuzawa pers. comm.), Mxico (Michoacn, Alvarado-Diaz et al. 2001), western Australia (R. Prince pers. comm.), Seychelles (Mortimer et al. 1996), and Yemen (Saad 1999). Although there are likely more countri es at which such harvests continue, it is apparent, based on the above list, that harvest of nesting females remains a problem in many areas throughout the world. Mortality of turtles in foraging habitats cont inues to be problematic for recovery efforts worldwide. Although subpopulations may be prot ected at nesting beach es, their large-scale in-water movements often trav erse arbitrary national boundaries and take them to areas where protection is absent. A partial list of the countries that expe rience ongoing intentional capture of green turtles includes: Austra lia (Prince 1998), Bahamas (Fleming 2001), British Virgin Islands (Fleming 2001), Cameroon (F retey 1998), Cayman Islands (Fleming 2001), Comoros Islands (Mohadji et al. 1996), Costa Rica (Tortuguero, Mangel et al. 2001), Cuba (Fleming 2001), Egypt (Nada 2001), Equatorial Guinea (Formia 1999, Tomas et al. 1999),

PAGE 58

Seminoff – 2002 MTSG Green Turtle Assessment 58 Gabon (Fretey 2001), Ghana (Fretey 2001), Guinea Bissau (Fretey 1998; 2001), India (Andaman and Nicobar Islands, H. Andrews pers. comm.), Indonesia (C. Hitipeuw pers. comm., Limpus et al. in pre ss), Ivory Coast (Fretey 1998), Liberia (Siakor and Greaves 2001), Madagascar (Rakotoniri na and Cooke 1994, Mbindo 1996, A. Cooke pers. comm. to J. Mortimer), Mayotte Archipelago (Frete y and Fourmy 1996), M xico (Seminoff 2000, Nichols 2001, Gardner and Nichols 2001), Ne w Caledonia (Limpus et al. in press), Nicaragua (Lagueux 1998), Pakist an (Asrar 1999), southern and eastern Papua New Guinea (Limpus et al. in press), Sao Tome Princi pe (Fretey 1998), Seychell es (Mortimer et al. 1996), Sierra Leone (Fretey 1998), Solomon Is lands (Broderick 1998), Togo (Fretey 1998), Turks and Caicos (Fleming 2001), Vanuatu (Limpus et al. in press), and Vietnam (P. Thuoc pers. comm.). Despite substantial declines in green turtle subpopulation size, harvest remains legal in several of these countrie s (Humphrey and Salm 1996, Fleming 2001, Fretey 2001). Incidental Impacts In addition to the intentional exploitation of green turtles there are increasing incidental threats in the nesting and marine environment that affect green tu rtles. Structural impacts to nesting habitat include the construction of buildings, beach armoring and re-nourishment, and/or sand extraction (Lutcavag e et al. 1997). These factor s may directly, through loss of beach habitat, or indirectly, through changing thermal profiles and increasing erosion, serve to decrease the amount of nesting area availabl e to nesting females, and may evoke a change in the natural behaviors of adults and hatc hlings (Ackerman 1997). In addition, coastal development is usually accompan ied with artificial lighting. The presence of lights on or

PAGE 59

Seminoff – 2002 MTSG Green Turtle Assessment 59 adjacent to nesting beaches alters the behavior of nesting adults (Witherington 1992) and is often fatal to emerging hatchlings as they are attract ed to light sources and drawn away from the water (Witherington and Bjorndal 1990). In many countries, coastal development and artificial lighting are responsib le for substantial hatchling mo rtality. Although legislation controlling these impacts does exis t (Lutcavage et al. 1997), a ma jority of countries do not have regulations in place. As the human population expands, so do impact s to the coastal zones of both developing and modernized countries. The problems associ ated with developmen t in these zones will progressively become a greater challenge for conservation efforts, particularly in the developing world where wildlife conservation is often secondar y to other national needs. This is underscored by the fact that over the ne xt 40 years the human population is expected to grow by more than 3 billion people (about 50 %; United Nations Educational, Scientific, and Educational Organization [UNESCO] 2001). By the year 2025, UNESCO (2001) forecasts that population growth and migration will result in a s ituation in which 75% of the world human population will live within 60 km of the sea. Such a migration undoubtedly will change a coastal landscape that, in many areas, is already suffering from human impacts. Incidental threats do not stop at the nesting beach. Once hatchlings and adults enter the marine environment they are subjected to a my riad of human-related impacts. Although not a direct impact, increased effluent and contam ination from coastal development diminishes the health of coastal marine eco systems and may, in turn, advers ely affect green turtles. Sea turtles also suffer directly from incidental inte ractions with commercial and artisanal marine fisheries. These fisheries practices include drift netting, l ong-lining, trawling, and dynamite fishing and their adverse impacts on sea tu rtles have been doc umented in marine

PAGE 60

Seminoff – 2002 MTSG Green Turtle Assessment 60 environments throughout the world (e.g., Arauz et al. 1998, Kasparek et al. 2001). Of the world’s 17 major fisheries zones, nine are considered depleted and an additional four are in early stages of collapse (Safina 1995). Unfortunatel y, rather than elicit a closure of fisheries, declines in catch rate are often greeted with new fisheries and expanding fleets (DiSilvestro 1995). Without effective management practic es, such expansion likely will result in increased mortality of all sea turtle species. Disease Diseases threaten a larger number of existing subpopulat ions. Certainly the most deleterious of pathogens is Fibropapillomatosis (Herbst 1994). This often-fatal disease has been found in green turtle subpopulations of Au stralia (eastern, Limpus and Miller 1990; western, Raidal and Prince 1996), Bahamas (K. Bjorndal pers. comm.), Barbados (Gameche and Horrocks 1992), Brazil (Matushima et al. 2000), British Virgin Islands (Overing 1996), Cameroon (Fretey 2001), Cayman Islands (W ood and Wood 1994), Costa Rica (Tortuguero, Mangel et al. 2001), Cuba (Moncada and Prieto 2000), Equatorial Guinea (A. Formia pers. comm.), Federated States of Micronesia (Kol inski 1994), Indonesia (A dnyana et al. 1997), Japan (Y. Matsuzawa pers. comm.), Kenya (R Zangre pers. comm.), Mxico (Yucatan Peninsula, K. Lopez pers. comm.), Nicara gua (Lagueux et al. 1998) Philippines (NaloOchona 2000), Senegal (Fretey 2001), Seychelles (J. Mortimer pers. comm.), United States (California, MacDonald and Du tton 1990; Florida, Eh rhart 1991; Hawaii, Balazs et al. 1992), U. S. Virgin Islands (Eliazar et al. 2000) and Venezuela (Sol and Azara 1998, Guada and Sol 2000). Epidemiological studi es indicate rising incidence of this disease (George 1997), thus the above list will likely grow in the future.

PAGE 61

Seminoff – 2002 MTSG Green Turtle Assessment 61 Although Fibropapillomatosis can be considered a natural di sease, there is speculation that the prevalence of th is disease has reached epidemic proportions due immunosuppression in green turtles brought about by human-related habitat degradation (George 1997). Clearly, additional studies are necessary to elucidate the causes of this disease, but the fact that human activity has been at least partially implicat ed in this epidemic suggests that the widespread incidence of Fibropapillo matosis should be taken into consideration when establishing the IUCN Red Li st status of green turtles. e) Conservation measures. Green turtles have been afforded legislative protection under a number of treaties and laws (for review see Navid 1982, Humphrey and Salm 1996, Fleming 2001, Fretey 2001). Among the more globally relevant designations are those of Endangered by the World Conservation Union (IUCN; Ba illie and Groombridge 1996, Hilton-Taylor 2000); Annex II of the SPAW Prot ocol to the Cartagena Conven tion (a protocol concerning specially protected areas and wildlife); A ppendix I of CITES (Conve ntion on International Trade in Endangered Species); and Appendices I and II of the Convention on Migratory Species (CMS). A partial list of the Internat ional Instruments that benefit green turtles includes the Inter-American Convention for the Protection and Conservation of Sea Turtles, the Memorandum of Understanding on the Conser vation and Management of Marine Turtles and their Habitats of the I ndian Ocean and South-East As ia (IOSEA), the Memorandum of Understanding on ASEAN Sea Turtle Conservati on and Protection a nd the Memorandum of Agreement on the Turtle Islands Heritage Pr otected Area (TIHPA), and the Memorandum of Understanding Concerning Conserva tion Measures for Marine Turtles of the Atlantic Coast of Africa.

PAGE 62

Seminoff – 2002 MTSG Green Turtle Assessment 62 As a result of these designations and ag reements, many of the intentional impacts directed at sea turtles have b een lessened: harvest of eggs a nd adults has been slowed at several nesting areas through nesting beach cons ervation efforts and an increasing number of community-based initiatives are in place to slow the take of tu rtles in foraging areas. In regard to incidental take, the implementation of Turtle Excluder Devices has proved to be beneficial in some areas, primarily in the United States and Sout h and Central America (National Research Council 1990 ). However, despite these advances, human impacts continue throughout the world. The lack of e ffective monitoring in pelagic and near-shore fisheries operations still allows substantial di rect and indirect mortal ity, and the uncontrolled development of coastal and mari ne habitats threatens to dest roy the supporting ecosystems of long-lived green turtles. f) Future actions that are required. The recovery of green tu rtles throughout the world will require maximized protection in both nestin g and marine environments. Full protection of the remaining nesting beaches is necessary to eliminate poaching of nesting females and eggs, increase egg and hatchling survivorshi p, and avoid degradation of critical nesting habitat. Because green turtles spend greater than 99 % of their lives in the sea, addressing inwater impacts should also be of high prior ity (Frazer 1992). As Congdon et al. (1993) discussed with long-lived species, the traits that make green turt les so vulnerable to reduced survival rates also make them very slow to recover once depleted, leaving them vulnerable to other threats even if the impact that initially caused their depletion is addressed. Nest protection efforts may not be sufficient to stop the decline of already threatened subpopulations without the concu rrent reduction of human-induced mortality of juveniles and

PAGE 63

Seminoff – 2002 MTSG Green Turtle Assessment 63 adults in the marine environment (Crouse et al. 1987). Moreover, although hatcheries, headstarting, and captive breeding programs have been used in efforts to increase subpopulations, they remain unproven techniques that merely addresses symptoms rather than actual subpopulation threats. The adoption of such t echniques should therefore not be chosen in place of, but rather in coordination with, conserva tion efforts that directly target the ultimate causes of subpopulation declines (i .e. legal and illegal take, fi sheries impacts, and habitat degradation). The extended longevity and delayed maturity of green turtles dict ate that conservation efforts must be long-term in scope (Crowder et al. 1994). Because migratory routes of green turtles commonly cross territorial waters of many nations or occur in the high seas, these practices should involve in ternational collaboration whenever possible. Recovery efforts will benefit from greater fo cus on habitat protection and restoration and better enforcement of existing legislation. Coas tal seagrass beds and marine algae pastures should be protected. Existing algae harvest pr actices must be assessed to ensure that practices are sustainable and do not directly impact foraging turt les, particularly the earlier life-stages. Water quality st andards should be established and enforced through coastal monitoring efforts. With respect to the di stribution of people on the planet, adequate strategies should be es tablished to encourage and legislat e ecologically friendly development in coastal zones so as to minimize the effect s of increasing populati ons and prevent pollution of the marine environment and wa ter resources (UNESCO 2001). As conservation measures are implemented it is recommended that long-term monitoring programs be established. These may include efforts to track s ubpopulations at nesting beaches or in foraging habitats. Better monito ring of understudied ar eas is essential, and

PAGE 64

Seminoff – 2002 MTSG Green Turtle Assessment 64 research protocols should be standardized so that comparisons can be made within and between sites and the results of monitoring pr ograms must be made available in a timely manner to enable prompt conservation actions (see Eckert et al. 1999). In the near future, stronger efforts must be put forth to control and re duce intentional take and incidental mortality in marine fisherie s. Controlling illegal capture may require increased vigilance at importa nt feeding areas and better monitoring of highways and other human movement corridors used to transport turt le contraband. In the areas that currently experience heavy exploitation, recovery effo rts will benefit from the implementation of community-based conservation initiatives. Wh en communities are involved that have a long history of turtle use, conservation efforts s hould include capacity building and education programs, and provide economic alternatives th at are carefully planned and implemented. Whenever possible, local community members should be included early in the planning and decision-making process. In regard to legal take, careful consideration should be given to cultures that incorporate traditional use into their customs. Efforts should be made to establish and maintain levels of traditional harvest that are sustainable over th e long term in these cases. Where, through growth of the coastal population, traditional ha rvest has become unsustainable, efforts must be made jointly by local scholars, elders and cl ergy to identify alternate practices. This must be done in a way that balances the cultural integrity of indigenous practices with responsible management of endangered green turtle stocks Wildlife managers should pursue the best possible understanding of subpopulation sizes and tr ends to establish what level of take is ‘sustainable’. With ongoing trad itional practices, adherence to harvest limits may be ensured through periodic monitoring.

PAGE 65

Seminoff – 2002 MTSG Green Turtle Assessment 65 Efforts to address incidental capture must be equally broadbased and far-reaching. Such efforts may entail restrictions on, or the elimination of, some fisheries, use of bycatch reduction technologies wherever available, increased frequenc y of observers onboard fishing vessels, and greater vigilance fo r vessel adherence to fisheries zones. New fisheries should not be initiated, and current fisheries should not be allowed to expand, until they are carefully analyzed for both target and not target species (Crouse 2000). Moreover, mitigation measures must be built into fishery management plans from the outset. 8. The Assessment Process and Participants The completion of the present Global Green Turtle Population Assessment was made possible by the involvement of numerous i ndividuals stationed throughout the world. Foremost was the assistance of Green Turtle Task Force members (Table 7) that provided regional expertise and editorial comments for the present assessment. Task Force members also acted as liaisons with re gional informants and facilitate d the submission of information from within their respective regions (Table 8). Throughout the process the IUCN Marine Turtle Specialist Group Evaluators (Debby Cr ouse and F. Alberto Abreu-Grobois) provided invaluable assistance. The information for this assessment has come primarily from published articles and interagency reports. In addition, a Green Turtle Status Questionnai re was drafted (in cooperation with F. Alberto Abreu-Grobois and Jeanne A. Mortimer) and distributed to individuals in over 40 countries. Questionna ires solicited information on subpopulation trends, past and present threats, and current cons ervation efforts. Information was augmented with interviews of several informants.

PAGE 66

Seminoff – 2002 MTSG Green Turtle Assessment 66 The completion of this report was made possi ble by access to the Sea Turtle Library at that Archie Carr Center for Sea Turtle Resear ch generously provided by Karen Bjorndal and Alan Bolten. In addition, published materi als were provided by Ge orge Balazs (NMFS), Nancy Engelhardt (World Wildlife Fund), Bren dan Godley (Marine Turtle Research Group, University of Wales, Swansea), Linette La mare (UNEP/CMS Secretariat), Colin Limpus (Queensland Department of Environment & He ritage), Jeanne Mortimer (Ministry of Environment, Republic of Seychelles), and Alessandra Vanzella-K houri (United Nations Environment Programme). I greatly thank Mi chael Coyne for all his computer assistance throughout the entire assessment process. Table 7. List of Green Turtle Task For ce Members for the 2001 IUCN Marine Turtle Specialist Group Assessment Green Turtle Task Force Member Affiliation / Institution 1. George H. Balazs National Marine Fisheries Service, Honolulu, HI 2. Annette Broderick Marine Turtle Research Group, University of Wales, Swansea 3. Karen Eckert Wider Caribbean Sea Turtle Conservation Network 4. Angela Formia Cardiff University, United Kingdom 5. Brendan Godley Marine Turtle Research Group, University of Wales, Swansea 6. Mario Hurtado Hurtado and Associates, Ecuador 7. Naoki Kamezaki Sea Turtle Association of Japan, Osaka 8. Colin J. Limpus Conservation Strategy Branch, Queensland Department of Environment & Heritage, Australia 9. Maria A. Marcovaldi Fundacao Pro-TAMAR, Bahia, Brazil 10. Yoshimasa Matsuzawa Sea Turtle Association of Japan, Osaka 11. Jeanne A. Mortimer Ministry of Environment, Republic of Seychelles 12. Wallace J. Nichols Wildcoast Conservation Team; California Academy of Sciences, San Francisco, United States 13. Nicolas J. Pilcher University of Malaysia, Sarawak; Helen Reef project, Palau' 14. Kartik Shanker Madras Consultancy Group, India

PAGE 67

Seminoff – 2002 MTSG Green Turtle Assessment 67 Table 8. List of Participants for the 2001 IUCN Green Turtle Assessment. Codes for type of information and assistance provided include: Q, Questionnaire submission; PC, personal communication/interview; R, provided pub lished or unpublished reports; SC, provided helpful suggestions and comments, and; L, acted as liaison with addi tional contact persons. Name Region Type of Information 1. Ridchard Adjei Ghana Q 2. Said Ahamada Comoros Islands R 3. Javier Alvarado Mxico PC 4. Windyia Andana Indonesia Q 5. Harry Andrews India Q 6. Vincent Attard Malta Q 7. Robert M. Baldwin Oman Q, PC 8. Karen Bjorndal Caribbean; Costa Rica SC, PC, R, L 9. Ess Bowessidjaou Togo Q 10. Paulo Catry Guinea Bissau Q 11. Milani Chaloupka Australia SC 12. Mickmin Charuchinda Thailand R 13. I-Jiunn Cheng Taiwan PC,R 14. Jean-Franois Dontaine So Tom e Principe Q 15. Eng Heng Chan Malaysia PC, R, L 16. Hamid Chfiri Morocco R 17. Andreas Demetropoulos Global Overiew SC 18. Than Ngoc Diep Vietnam Q 19. Josea Dossou-Bodjeronou Benin Q 20. Jacques Fretey Africa PC, R 21. Betaina Ferreira Spain PC 22. Nancy FitzSimmons Southeast Asia PC, R 23. Matthew Godfrey Global overview SC 24. Jos Gomez Ivory Coast Q 25. Stephen S. Greeves Liberia Q 26. Michael Griffin Namibia Q 27. Hedelvy Guada Venezuela PC 28. Hammou El Habouz Morocco R 29. Mark Hamann Australia R, L 30. Tran Minh Hien Vietnam Q 31. Creusa Hitipeuw Indonesia Q 32. Sahir Hussein Maldives Q 33. Herda Hutabarat Indonesia Q 34. Angoni Hyacinthe Cameroon Q 35. Justus Joshua India Q 36. Vijay Kumar India Q 37. Max Kasparek Mediterranean R 38. Cynthia Lagueux Caribbean PC, R 39. Bojan Lazar Adriatic Sea Q 40. Hock-Chark Liew Malaysia PC 41. Karina Lopez Mxico PC, R

PAGE 68

Seminoff – 2002 MTSG Green Turtle Assessment 68 Table 8. Continued 42. Luis Felipe Lopez Jurado Cape Verde Q 43. Sudharshani Kapurusinghe Sri Lanka Q 44. Dimitris Margaritoulis Mediterranean R, L 45. Rene Mrquez Global overview PC, R, SC 46. Amina Moumni Morocco Q 47. Nicholas Mrosovsky Canada SC 48. Samuel Kofi Nyame Ghana Q 49. Joey Palma Philippines Q 50. Bob Prince Australia Q, PC 51. Peter Pritchard Suriname PC 52. Tahir Qureshi Pakistan Q 53. Henk Reichart Suriname Q, L 54. Doinsoude Segniagbeto Togo Q 55. Alhaji Siaka Sierra Leon Q 56. Guy-Philippe Sounguet Gabon Q 57. Thomas Stringell Western Pacific PC 58. Hiroyuki Suganuma Japan PC,R 59. S. F. Wesley Sunderraj India Q 60. Pham Thouc Vietnam Q 61. Manjula Tiwari Morocco Q 62. Jess Toms Aguirre Equatorial Guinea Q 63. Joca Thom Brazil Q, L 64. Sebastian Troeng Costa Rica PC, R, L 65. Christopher John L. Ty Philippines Q 66. Alessandra Vanzella-Khouri Caribbean R, L 67. Blair Witherington United States (Florida) PC, R 68. Ben Wolf Nigeria Q 69. M. Abou Zaid Egypt Q 70. H. Zahir Maldives Q 71. Richard Zanre Kenya PC

PAGE 69

Seminoff – 2002 MTSG Green Turtle Assessment 69 Assessor: Date: 25 July 2002 Jeffrey A. Seminoff Archie Carr Center for Sea Turtle Research Department of Zoology University of Florida P.O. Box 118525 Gainesville, FL 32611-8525 E-mail: seminoff@zoology.ufl.edu Evaluators: Date: 25 July 2002 Debby Crouse MTSG Red List Authority Focal Point Division of Endangered Species United States Fish and Wildlife Service 4401 N. Fairfax Drive, #420 Arlington, VA 22203 E-mail: Debby_Crouse@fws.gov F. Alberto Abreu Grobois MTSG Chairperson Undidad Academica Mazatlan Instituto de Ciencias del Mar y Limnologia Universidad Autonoma de Mxico Apartado Postal 811 Mazatlan, Sinaloa 82000 MXICO E-mail: abreu@ola.icmyl.unam.mx

PAGE 70

Seminoff – 2002 MTSG Green Turtle Assessment 70 References Ackerman, R. A. 1997. The nest environment and the embryonic developmen t of sea turtles, pp. 83-106. In: P. L. Lutz and J. A. Musick (eds.), Th e Biology of Sea Turtles. CRC Press, Boca Raton, Florida. Adnyana, W., P. W. Ladds, and D. Blair. 1997. Observations of fibropapillomatosis in green turtles ( Chelonia mydas ) in Indonesia. Aust. Vet. J. 75:737-742. Agardy, M. T. 1992. Conserving sea turtles while building an ecotourism industry in Guinea Bissau, West Africa, P. 3-6. In M. Salmon and J. Wyneken (comps.), Proceedings of the Eleventh Annual Workshop on Sea Turtle Bi ology and Conservation. NOAA Tech. Memo. NMFS-SEFSC-302. Al-Merghani, M., J. D. Miller, N. J. Pilche r, and A. Al-Mansi. 2000. The green and hawksbill turtles in the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia: Synopsis of nesting studies 1986-1997. Fauna of Arabia 18: 369-384. Alvarado, J. and A. Figueroa. 1990. The ecological recovery of sea tu rtles in Michoacn, Mxico. Special Attention: the black turtle Chelonia agassizii Final report 1989-1990, U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Albuquerque, New Mxico. 97 pp. Alvarado-Daz, J., C. Delgado-Trejo, and I. Suazo-Ortuo. 2001. Evaluation of black turtle project in Michoacn, Mxico. Ma rine Turtle Newsletter 92:4-7. Aiken, J. J., B. J. Godley, A. C. Broderick, T. Austin, G. Ebanks-Petrie, and G. C. Hays. 2001. Two hundred years after a commercial marine turtle fishery: the current status of marine turtles nesting in the Cayman Islands. Oryx 35:145-151. Andrews, H. V. 2000. Current marine turtle situ ation in the Andaman and Nicobar IslandsAn urgent need for conser vation. Kachhapa 3:19-23. Anonymous. 1990. Acuerdo por el que se establece veda para las especies y subespecies de tortuga marina en aguas de jurisdiccin Federal del Go lfo de Mxico y Mar Caribe, as como en las costas del Ocano Pacfico, incluy endo el Golfo de California. Diar io Official de la Federacion. Mxico, Federal District, May 28, 1990. Arauz, R. M., R. Vargas, I. Naranjo, and C. Gamboa. 1998. Analysis of incidental capture and mortality of sea turtles in the shrimp fleet of Pacific Costa Rica, pp. 1-5. In: S. P. Epperly and J. Braun (comps.), Proceedings of the Seventeenth Annual Sea Tur tle Symposium. U. S. Dep. Commer. NOAA Technical Memorandum NMFS-SEFSC-415. Arrinal 1997. Nesting green turtle s at Meru Betiri National Park, Suka Made, East Java. (c/o C. Limpus)

PAGE 71

Seminoff – 2002 MTSG Green Turtle Assessment 71 Asrar, F. F. 1999. Decline of marine turtle ne sting populations in Paki stan. Marine Turtle Newsletter 83:13-14. Averett, W. E. 1920. Lower California gree n turtle fishery. P acific Fishermen 18:24-25. Awbrey, F. T., S. Leatherwood, E. D. Mitchell, and W. Rogers. 1984. Nesting green sea turtles ( Chelonia mydas ) on Isla Clarin, Islas Revillagigedos, Mxi co. Bull. Southern Calif. Acad. Sci. 82:89-75. Baillie, J. and B. Groombridge. 1996. IUCN Red List of Threatened Animals. Gland, Switzerland: IUCN, 368 pp. Balazs, G. H. 1980. Synopsis of biological data on the green turtle in the Hawaiian Islands. NOAA Tech. Report SWFSC-36. 141 pp. Balazs, G. H. and S. Pooley. 1991. Research pl an for marine turtle fibropapilloma. U. S. Department of Commerce. NOAA Tec hnical Memorandum NMFS-SWFSC-341. 113 pp. Balazs, G. H., H. Hirth, P. Kawamoto, E. N itta, L. Ogren, R. Wass, and J. Wetherall. 1992. Interim Recovery Plan for Hawaiian Sea Turtle s. Honolulu Lab., SWFSC Administrative Report H-92-01. 76 pp. Banks, E. 1937. The breeding of the edible turtle, Chelonia mydas Sarawak Museum Journal 4:523-532. Barbosa, C., A. C. Broderick, and P. Catry. 1998. Marine turtles in the Orango National Park (Bijags Archipelago, Guinea-Bissau). Marine Turtle Newsletter 81:6-7. Bass, A. L, C. J. Lagueux, and B. W. Bowen. 1998. Origin of green turtles, Chelonia mydas at 'Sleeping Rocks' off the northeast co ast of Nicaragua. Copeia 1998:1064-1069 Basson, P., J. Burchard, J. Hardy and A. Pri ce. 1977. Biotopes of the western Arabian Gulf. Aramco, Dhahran, Saudi Arabia. 284 pp. Basintal, P. and M. Lakim. 1994. Status and manage ment of sea turtles at Turtle Island Park, pp. 139-149. In: Proceedings of the First ASEAN Sy mposium-Workshop on Marine Turtle Conservation, Manila, Philippines 1993. Manila: World Wildlife Fund. Bellini, C., M. A. Marcovaldi, T. M. Sanches, A. Grossman, and G. Sales. 1996. Atol das Rocas biological reserve: second largest Chelonia rookery in Brazil. Marine Turtle Newsletter 72:1-2. Bertrand, J., B. Bonnet, and G. Lebrun. 1986. Nesting attempts of Chelonia mydas at Runion Island (S.W. Indian Ocean). Mari ne Turtle Newsletter 39:3-4. Bhaskar, S. 1984. The status and distribution of s ea turtles in India. Proceeding of the Workshop on Sea Turtle Conservation: CMFRI publication. No: 18.

PAGE 72

Seminoff – 2002 MTSG Green Turtle Assessment 72 Bjorndal, K. A. 1980. Nutrition and gr azing behavior of the green turtle, Chelonia mydas Marine Biology 56:147-154 Bjorndal, K. A. 1997. Foraging ecology a nd nutrition of sea turtles, pp. 199-231 In: J. A. Musick and P. L. Lutz (eds.), The Biology of Sea Turtles. CRC Press, Boca Raton, Florida. Bjorndal, K. A. and A. B. Bolten (eds). 2000. Proceedings of a workshop on assessing abundance and trends for in-water sea turt le populations. NOAA Tech. Memo. NMFS-SEFSC445. 83 pp. Bjorndal, K. A., J. A. Wetherall, A. B. Bolte n, and J. A. Mortimer. 1999. Twenty-six years of nesting data from Tortuguero, Costa Rica: an encouraging trend. C onservation Biology 13:126134. Bjorndal, K. A., A. B. Bolten, and M. Y. Ch aloupka. 2000. Green turtle somatic growth model: evidence for density dependence. Ecological Applications 10:269-282. Bonnet, B., J. Y. Le Gall, and G. Lebrun. 1985. Tortues marines de la Reunion et des Isles Eparces. Universite de al Reuni on, Institut Franais de Recherches pour l’exploitation de la mer et Associaon pour le developpement de l’aquaculture, 24 pp. Bouchard, S. S. and K. A. Bjorndal. 2000. Sea turt les as biological transpor ters of nutrients and energy from marine to terrestri al systems. Ecology 81:2305-2313. Bowen, B. W., A. B. Meylan, J. P. Ross, C. J. Limpus, G. H. Balazs, and J. C. Avise. 1992. Global population structure and natura l history of the green turtle ( Chelonia mydas ) in terms of matriarchal phylogeny. Evolution 46:865-881. Bowen, B. W. 1995. Molecular genetic studi es of marine turtles, pp. 585-587. In: K. A. Bjorndal (ed.), Biology and Conserva tion of Sea Turtles, revised ed ition. Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington, D.C. Brattstrom, B. H. 1982. Breeding of the green turtle, Chelonia mydas on the Islas Revillagigedo, Mxico. Herp. Review. 13:71. Broderick, D. 1998. Subsistence harv esting of marine turtles in the Solomon Islands, pp. 15-18. In: S. P. Epperly and J. Braun (comps.), Pro ceedings of the Seventeen th Annual Sea Turtle Symposium. U. S. Dep. Commer. NOAA Technical Memorandum NMFS-SEFSC-415. Broderick, A. C. and B. J. Godley. 1996. Populat ion and nesting ecology of the Green Turtle, Chelonia mydas and loggerhead turtle, Caretta caretta in northern Cyprus. Zoology in the Middle East 13:27-46.

PAGE 73

Seminoff – 2002 MTSG Green Turtle Assessment 73 Broderick, A. C., B. J. Godley, and G. C. Hays. 2001. Trophic status drives inter-annual variability in nesting numbers of marine turt les. Proceedings of the Royal Society 268:14811487 Broderick, A. C., B. J. Godley, and G. C. Hays. 2001. Monitoring and conservation of marine turtles of Ascension Island: a sustainable resource. Interim Report to Foreign and Commonwealth Office Environment Fund fo r the Overseas Territories. 13 pp. Broderick, A. C., F. Glen, B. J. Godley, and G. C. Hays. 2002. Estimating the number of green and loggerhead turtles ne sting annually in the Me diterranean. Oryx 36:1-9. Brongersma, L. D. 1982. Marine turtles of the eastern Atlantic Ocean, pp. 407-416. In: K. A. Bjorndal (ed.), Biology and Conservation of S ea Turtles. Smithsoni an Institution Press, Washington, D.C. Burnett-Herkes, J., H. G. Frick, D. C. Barwick, and N. Chitty. 1984. Juvenile green turtles ( Chelonia mydas ) in Bermuda: movements, growth, and maturity, pp. 250-251. In I.P. Bacon, F. Berry, K. Bjorndal, H. Hirth, L. Ogren, and M. Weber (eds.), Proceedings of the Western Atlantic Turtle Symposium. Rosenstiel School of Marine and Atmoshperic Sciences Printing, Miami, Florida. Bustard, H. R. 1974. Barrier Reef sea turtle populations. Proceedings of the Second International Coral R eef Symposium 1:227-234. Caldwell, D. K. 1963. The sea turtle fishery of Baja California, Mxico. California Fish and Game 49:140-151. Caldwell, D. K. and M. C. Caldwell. 1962. The bl ack “steer” of the Gulf of California. Los Angeles County Museum of Science and History Quarterly. 1(1): 1-15 Carr, A. 1961. Pacific turtle pr oblem. Natural History 70:64-71. Carr, A. 1986. The Sea Turtle: So Excellent a Fish e. University of Texas Press, Austin. 280 pp. Carr, A. 1987. New perspectives on the pelagic st age of sea turtle development. Conservation Biology 1:103 Carr, A. and N. Carr. 1991. Surveys of the sea turt les of Angola. Biological Conservation 58:1929. Carr, A. and A. B. Meylan. 1980. Evidence of passi ve migration of green turtle hatchlings in Sargassum. Copeia 1980:366-368. Carr, A., M. H. Carr, and A. B. Meylan. 1978. Th e ecology and migrations of sea turtles, 7. The West Caribbean green turtle co lony. Bulletin of American Muse um of Natural History 162:1-46.

PAGE 74

Seminoff – 2002 MTSG Green Turtle Assessment 74 Carr, A., A. Meylan, J. Mortimer, K. A. Bjornda l, and T. Carr. 1982. Surveys of sea turtle populations and habitats in the Western Atlantic U. S. Department or Commerce NOAA Tech Memo. NMFS-SEFC-91. 91 pp. Catry, P., C. Barbosa, B. Indjai, A. Almeida, B. J. Godley and J. Vi. In review. Biology and conservation of the green turtle ( Chelonia mydas ) nesting at Poilo, Bijags Archipelago (Guinea-Bissau). Oryx. Chaloupka, M. 2000. Modelling the sustainability of sea turtle egg harvests in a stochastic environment, pp. 52-54 In: F. A. Abreu-Grobois, R. Briseo-Dueas, R. Mrquez-Millan, and L. Sarti-Martinez (comps.), Proceedings of the Eighteenth Annual Symposium on Sea Turtle Biology and Conservation. NOA A Tech. Memo. NMFS-SEFSC-436. Chaloupka, M. 2001. Historical trends seasonality and spatial sync hrony in green sea turtle egg production. Biological Conservation 101:263-279. Chaloupka, M. Y. and J. A. Musick. 1997. Age, Growth, and Population Dynamics, pp. 233-273. In: P. L. Lutz and J. A. Musick (eds.), The Bi ology of Sea Turtles. CRC Press, Boca Raton, Florida. Chaloupka, M. Y. and C. J. Limpus. 1998. Simu lation modeling of trawl fishery impacts on loggerhead population dynamics, pp. 26-29. In: S. P. Epperly and J. Braun (comps.), Proceedings of the Seventeenth Annual Sym posium on Sea Turtle Biology and Conservation. NOAA Tech. Memo. NMFS-SEFSC-415. Chaloupka, M. Y. and C. J. Limpus. 2001. Trends in the abundance of sea turtles resident in southern Great Barrier Reef waters. Biological Conservation 102:235-249. Chaloupka, M. Y., C. J. Limpus, and J. D. Miller. in press. Sea turtle growth dynamics in a spatially disjunct metapopulation. Canadian Journal of Zoology. Chan, E. H. and H. C. Liew. 1997. Recent updates on interactions between fishing gear and sea turtles in Terengganu. Paper presented at th e International Marine Science Conference on Assessment and Monitoring of Marine Systems, 25-27 August 1997, Kuala Terengganu, Malaysia. Charuchinda, M. and S. Monanunsap. 1998. Monitoring survey on sea turtle nesting in the Inner Gulf of Thailand, 1994-1994. Thai. Mar. Fish. Res. Bull. 6:17-25 Charuchinda, M., S. Monanunsap, and S. Chantrapor nsyl. 2002. Status of sea turtle conservation in Thailand. Unpublished report to Western Pacific Regional Fish eries Council. Honolulu, HI February 2002. Chen, T. H. and I. J. Cheng. 1995. Breeding biology of the green turtle, Chelonia mydas (Reptilia: Cheloniidae) on Wan-As Island, Peng -Hu Archipelago, Taiwan. I. Nesting Ecology. Marine Biology 124:9-15.

PAGE 75

Seminoff – 2002 MTSG Green Turtle Assessment 75 Cliffton, K., D. O. Cornejo, and R. S. Felger. 19 82. Sea turtles of the Pacific coast of Mxico, pp. 199-209. In: K. A. Bjorndal (ed.), Biology and Cons ervation of Sea Turtles, Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington, D.C., Congdon, J. D., A. E. Dunham, and R. C. Van Loben Sels. 1993. Delayed sexual maturity and demographics of Blanding’s turtles ( Emydoidea blandingii ): Implications for conservation and management of long-lived organi sms. Conservation Biology 7:826-833. Cornelius, S. E. 1982. Status of sea turtles al ong the Pacific coast of Middle America, pp. 211219. In: K. A. Bjorndal (ed.) Biology and Conserva tion of Sea Turtles. Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington, D.C. Craig, J. A. 1926. A new fishery in M xico. California Fish and Game 12:166-169. Crouse, D. T. 2000. The consequences of delayed maturity in a human-dominated world. American Fisheries Society Symposium 23:195-202. Crouse, D.T., L. B. Crowder, and H. Caswell. 1987. A stage based population model for loggerhead sea turtles and implicatio ns for conservation. Ecology 68:1412-1423. Crowder, L. B., D. T. Crouse, S. S. Heppel, and T. H. Martin. 1994. Predicting the impact of turtle excluder devices on loggerhead sea turt le populations. Ecologica l Applications 4:437-445. Cruz, R. 2002. Marine turtle distribution a nd mortality in the Philippines, p. 51-61. In I. Kinan (ed.), Proceedings of the Wester n Pacific Sea Turtle Cooperati ve Research and Management Workshop. Western Pacific Regional Fish ery Management Council, Honolulu, HI. Dattatri, S. and D. Samarajiva. 1983. The status and conservation of sea turtles in Sri Lanka. Report to the center for Environm ental Education, Washington, D.C. Delgado, C. and J. Alvarado. 1999. Recovery of the black sea turtle ( Chelonia agassizi ) of Michoacan, Mxico. Final Report 1998-1999. subm itted to U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Dermawan, A. 2002. Marine turtle management and conservation in Indonesia, p 62-73. In I. Kinan (ed.), Proceedings of the Western Paci fic Sea Turtle Cooperative Research and Management Workshop. Western Pacific Region al Fishery Management Council, Honolulu, HI. de Silva, G. S. 1969. Turtle conservati on in Sabah. Sabah. Soc. J. pp. 6-26. de Silva, G. S. 1982a. The status of sea turtle populations in East Mala ysia and the China Sea, pp. 327-337. In: K. A. Bjorndal (ed.), Biology and Cons ervation of Sea Turtles. Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington, D.C. de Silva, G. S. 1982b. Protected areas and tu rtle eggs in Sabah, East Malaysia, 154-159. In: National Parks, Conservation, and Developmen t. World Congress on National Parks, Bali.

PAGE 76

Seminoff – 2002 MTSG Green Turtle Assessment 76 DiSilvestro, R. 1995. Are we headed toward a fishless ocean? Defenders Magazine, Spring 1995:26-33. Dobbs, K. 2002. Marine turtle conservation in the Great Barrier Reef, World Heritage Area, Queensland, Australia, p. 77-82. In I. Kinan (ed.), Proceedings of the Western Pacific Sea Turtle Cooperative Research and Management Work shop. Western Pacifi c Regional Fishery Management Council, Honolulu, HI. Dodd Jr., C. K. 1982. Nesting of the green turtle, Chelonia mydas (L.), in Florida: Historic Review and Present Trends. Brimleyana 7:39-54. Domantay, J. S. 1953. The turtle fisheries of the tu rtle islands. Bulletin of the Fisheries Society of the Philippines 3,4:3-27. Eckert, K. A. 1993. The biology and status of mari ne turtles in the Nort h Pacific Ocean. NMFS Technical Memorandum. NOA A-TM-NMFS-SWFSC-1186. 156 pp. Eckert, K. A., K. A. Bjorndal, F. A. Abre u-Grobois, and M. Donnelly. 1999. Research and Management Techniques for the Conservation of Sea Turltes. IUCN/SSC Marine Turtle Specialist Group Publication No. 4. 235 pp. Ehrhardt, N.M. and R. Witham. 1992. Analysis of growth of the green sea turtle ( Chelonia mydas ) in the western Central Atlantic. Bulletin of Marine Science 50:275-281. Ehrhart, L. M. 1991. Fibropapillomas in green turtles of the Indian River lagoon, Florida: distribution over time and area, p. 59. In: G. H. Balazs and S. G. Pooley (eds.), Research Plan for Marine Turtle Fibropapilloma. NM FS Technical Memorandum. NOAA-TM-NMFS-SWFC156. Ehrhart, L. M. and B. E. Witherington. 1992. Green Turtle, pp. 90-94. In: P.E. Moler (ed.), Rare and Endangered Biota of Florida. Vol. III. Amph ibians and reptiles. Univ. of Florida Press, Gainesville, Florida. Eisentraut, M. 1964. Meeresschildkrten an der Kste von Fernando Poo. Natur und Museum 94, 471-475 Eliazar, P. J., K. A. Bjorndal, and A. B. Bolten. 2000. Early Report of Fibropapilloma from St. Croix, USVI. Marine Tu rtle Newsletter 89:16 Encalada, S. E., P. N. Lahanas, K. A. Bjornda l, A. B. Bolten, M. M. Miyamoto, and B. W. Bowen. 1996. Phylogeography and populat ion structure of the Atlantic and Mediterranean green turtle Chelonia mydas : a mitochondrial DNA control region sequence assessment. Molecular Ecology 5:473-483.

PAGE 77

Seminoff – 2002 MTSG Green Turtle Assessment 77 Evans, K. E. and A. R. Vargas. 1998. Sea turtle egg commercialization in Isla de Canas, Panama, p. 45. In: R. Byles and Y. Fernandez (comps.), Pro ceedings of the Sixtee nth Annual Symposium on Sea Turtle Biology and Conservation. NOA A Technical Memorandu m. NMFS-SEFSC-412 Fallabrino, A., A. Rodrguez, A. Trujillo, and J. Marcano. 2000. Green turtle ( Chelonia mydas ) capture by artisanal fishermen in La Blanquilla Island, Venezuela, p. 264. In: F. A. AbreuGrobois, R. Briseo-Dueas, R. Mrquez-Millan, and L. Sarti-Martinez (comps.), Proceedings of the Eighteenth Annual Symposium on Sea Tu rtle Biology and Cons ervation. NOAA Tech. Memo. NMFS-SEFSC-436. Fitzsimmons, N. N., A. D. Tucker, and C. J. Limpus. 1995. Long-term breeding histories of male green turtles and fidelity to a breeding ground. Marine Turtle Newsletter 68:2-4. Fleming, E. H. 2001. Swimming Against the Tide: Recent surveys of Exploitation, Trade, and Management of Marine Turtles in the Northern Caribbean. Traffic No rth America, Washington D. C. 161 pp. Formia, A. 1999. Les tortues marines de la Baie de Corisco. Canopee 14:1-2 Formia, A., J. Tomas, and R. Castelo. 2000. Ni dification des tortues ma rines au sud de Bioko. Canopee 18:1-4. Fortes, O., A. J. Pires, and C. Bellini. 1998. Green turtle, Chelonia mydas in the island of Poilo, Bolama-Bijags Archipelago, Buinea-Bissau, West Africa. Marine Turtle Newsletter 80:8-10. Fosberg, F. R. 1990. A review of the natural histor y of the Marshall Islands. Atol Res. Bull. 330:1-100. Frazer, N. B. 1992. Sea turtle conservation and halfway technology. Conservation Biology 6:179-184. Frazer, N.B. and L. M. Ehrhart. 1985. Preliminary growth models for green, Chelonia mydas, and loggerhead, Caretta caretta turtles in the wild. Copeia 1985:73-79. Frazer, N. B. and R. C. Ladner. 1986. A growth curve for green sea turtles, Chelonia mydas in the U. S. Virgin Islands, 1913-14. Copeia 1986:798-802. Frazier, J. 1974. Sea turtles in Seyche lles. Biological Conservation 6:71-73. Frazier, J. 1982. Status of sea turtles in the Central Western Indian Ocean, pp. 391-396. In: K. A. Bjorndal (ed.), Biology and Conservation of Sea Turtles. Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington, D.C. Frazier, J. 1985. Marine Turtles in the Como ro Archipelago. North-Holland Publishing Company. Amsterdam. 177 pp.

PAGE 78

Seminoff – 2002 MTSG Green Turtle Assessment 78 Frazier, J. 1990. Biology and conservation of th e sea turtles in the Indian Ocean, pp. 364-386. In: J. C. Daniel and J. S. Serrao (eds.), C onservation in developing countries: problems and prospects. Oxford Univ. Press, Oxford, 656 pp. Fretey, J. 1984. The national report for the country of French Guiana, pp. 177-183. In: P. Bacon, F. Berry, K. A. Bjorndal, H. Hirth, L. Ogren, a nd M. Weber (eds.), Proceedings of the Western Atlantic Turtle Symposium. Vol. 3. Univ. Miami Press. Fretey, J. 1998. Marine turtles of the Atlantic Coast of Africa. UNEP/CMS Publications No. 1. 254 pp. Fretey, J. 2001. Biology and conserva tion of marine turtles of the A tlantic Coast of Africa. CMS Technical Series Publica tion No. 6. UNEP/CMS Secretariat, Bonn, Germany, 429 pp. Fretey, J. and J. P. Malaussena. 1991. Sea turtle nesting in Sierra Leone, West Africa. Marine Turtle Newsletter 54:10-12. Fretey, J. and J. Fourmy. 1996. The status of sea tu rtle conservation in French Territories of the Indian Ocean: Mayotte, pp. 133-143. In: S. L. Humphrey and R. V. Salm (eds.), Status of Sea Turtle Conservation in the Western Indian O cean. UNEP Regional Seas Reports and Studies No. 165. IUCN/UNEP, Nairobi, Kenya. 162 pp. Gameche, N. and J. Horrocks. 1992. Fibropapilloma disease in green turtles, Chelonia mydas around Barbados, West Indies, pp. 158-160. In: M. Salmon and J. Wyneken (comps.), Proceedings of the Eleventh Annual Works hop on Sea Turtle Biology and Conservation. NOAA Technical Memorandum NMFS-SEFC-302. Grdenfors, U., C. Hilton-Taylor, G. M. Mace, and J. P. Rodrguez. 2001. The application of IUCN Red List Criteria at Regional Levels. Co nservation Biology 15:1206-1213. Gardner, S. C. and W. J. Nic hols. 2001. Assessment of sea turtle mortality rates in the Baha Magdalena region, Baja California Sur, Mxi co. Chelonian Conserva tion and Biology 4:197199. Geldiay, R. 1987. Marine turtles in Turkey. Council of Europe, Convention of European Wildlife and Natural Habitats. Secretariat Memorandum, Appe ndix IV, Pp. 10-11. Strasbourg. George, R. H. 1997. Health problems and diseases of sea turtles, pp. 363-409. In: P. L. Lutz and J. A. Musick (eds.), The Biology of Sea Tu rtles. CRC Press, Boca Raton, Florida. Giffoni, S. and B. B. Becker. in press. Projet o TAMAR’s station in Ubatuba (Sao Paolo State, Brasil): sea turtle conservation in a feeding area. Proceedings of the Twenty-firstAnnual Symposium on Sea Turtle Conservation and Biology. NOAA Technical Memorandum NMFSSEFSC-443.

PAGE 79

Seminoff – 2002 MTSG Green Turtle Assessment 79 Godley, B. J., A. C. Broderick, S. E. Solo mon, R. Tippett, and R. Malsom. 1996. Threats to marine turtles in northern Cyprus Eastern Medicerranean, pp. 100-104. In: J. A. Keinath, D. E. Barnard, J. A. Musick, and B. A. Bell. (comps .), Proceedings of the Fifteenth Annual Workshop on Sea Turtle Biology and Conservation. NOAA Technical Memo randum NMFS-SEFSC-387. Godley, B. J., R. W. Furness, and S. E. Solom on. 1998. Patterns of mortality in marine turtles in the Eastern Mediterranean, pp. 59-61. In: R. Byles and Y. Fernandez (comps.), Proceedings of the Sixteenth Annual Symposium on Sea Turtle Biology and Conserva tion. NOAA Technical Memorandum NMFS-SEFSC. Godley, B. J., D. R. Thompson, and R. W. Furness. 1999. Do heavy metal concentrations pose a threat to marine turtles? Ma rine Pollution Bulletin 38:497-502. Godley, B. J., A. C. Broderick, and G. C. Hays. 2001. Nesting of green turtles ( Chelonia mydas ) at Ascension Island, South Atlantic. Biological Conservation 97:151-158. Goodwin, M. M. 1971. Some aspects and problems of the use and exploitation of marine turtles. IUCN Publications New Series, Agenda Paper CSS/MT 71/17. Green, D. 1983. Galpagos sea turtle s. Noticias Galpagos 38:22-25. Groombridge, B. 1982. The International Union for the Conservation of Nature AmphibiaReptilia Red Data Book, Part 1. IUCN, Gland. Groombridge, B. and R. Luxmoore. 1989. The green turtle and ha wksbill (Reptilia: Cheloniidae): world status, exploitation and trade. Secretariat of the C onvention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora, Lausanne, Switzerland, 601 pp. Guada, H. J. and G. Sol S. 2000. WIDECAST Pl an de Accin para la Recuperacin de las Tortugas Marinas de Venezuela (Alexis surez, Editora). Informe Tcnico del PAC No. 39. UNEP Caribbean Environment Progra mme. Kingston, Jamaica. xiv + 112 pp. Hare, S. 1991. Turtles caught incidental to demers al finfish fishery in Oman. Marine Turtle Newsletter 53:14-16 Harrison, T. 1962. Notes on the green turtle ( Chelonia mydas ) 11. West Borneo numbers, the downward trend. Sarawak Muse um Journal 10 (19-20):514-623. Hendrickson, J. R. and E. R. Alfred. 1961. Nestin g populations of sea turt les on the east coast of Malaya. Bulletin of the Ra ffles Museum Singapore 26:190-196. Herrera, R. and J. Zurita. 1994. Incide ntal capture of sea turtles in the southern part of Quintana Roo, Mxico, pp. 239-241. In: B. A. Schroeder and B. E. With erington (comps.), Proceedings of the Thirteenth Annual Symposium on Sea Turt le Biology and Conserva tion. NOAA Technical Memorandum NMFS-SEFSC-341.

PAGE 80

Seminoff – 2002 MTSG Green Turtle Assessment 80 Herbst, L. H. 1994. Fibropapillomatosis of marine turtles. Annual Review of Fish Diseases. 4:389. Hilton-Taylor, C. (compiler) 2000. 2000 IUCN Red List of Threatened Species. IUCN, Gland, Switzerland and Cambridge, UK. xviii + 61pp. Hirth, H. F. 1968. The green turtle resource of South Arabia, and the status of the green turtle in the Seychelles Islands. Report to the govern ments of Southern Yemen and the Seychelles Islands on the green tur tle. FAO/UNDP, Rome. 50 pp. Hirth, H. F. 1997. Synopsis of the biological data on the green turtle, Chelonia mydas (Linnaeus 1758). United States Fish and Wildli fe Service Biological Report 97-1. 120 pp. Hirth, H. F. and A. Carr. 1970. The green turtle in the Gulf of Aden a nd Seychelles Islands. Verh. Konin. Nederl. Akad. Weten., Afd. Natuur. Tweede Reeks 58:1-44. Hirth, H. F. and S. L. Hollingworth. 1973. Repor t to the People’s De mocratic Republic of Yemen. Report FAO/UNDP. TA 3178, Rome. 51 pp. Horikoshi, K., H. Suganuma, H. Tachikawa, F. Sato, and M. Yamaguchi. 1994. Decline of Ogasawara green turtle nesti ng population in Japan, pp. 235-236. In: K. A. Bjorndal, A. B. Bolten, D. A. Johnson, and P. J. Eliazar (comps.), Proceedings of the Fourteenth Annual Symposium on Sea Turtle Bi ology and Conservation. NOAA T echnical Memorandum NMFSSEFSC-351. Hornell, J. 1927. The turtle fish eries of the Seychelle s Islands. H.M. Stationary Office, London. 55 pp. Howell, K. M. and C. Mbindo. 1996. The status of sea turtle conservation in Tanzania, pp. 7380. In: S. L. Humphrey and R. V. Salm (eds.), Stat us of Sea Turtle Conservation in the Western Indian Ocean. UNEP Regional Seas Reports a nd Studies No. 165. IUCN/ UNEP, Nairobi, Kenya. 162 pp. Hughes, G. R. 1970. The status of sea turtles in South East Africa, 2. Madagascar and the Mascarenes (1) Europa Island. Oceanogr. Res. Inst. Durban, South Africa. Mimeographed. 47 pp. Hughes, G. R. 1974a. The sea turtles of s outh-east Africa. I. Status, morphology, and distributions. South African Assoc. Marine Biol. Res. Ocean Res. Inst. 35:1-144. Hughes, G. R. 1974b. The sea turtles of south-ea st Africa. II. The biology of the Tongaland Loggerhead turtle Caretta caretta L. with comments on the leatherback turtle Dermochelys coriacea L. and the green turtle Chelonia mydas L. in the study region. South African Assoc. Marine Biol. Res. Ocean Res. Inst. 36:1-96.

PAGE 81

Seminoff – 2002 MTSG Green Turtle Assessment 81 Hughes, G. R. 1982. Conservation of sea turtle s in the Southern Africa Region, pp. 397-404. In: K. A. Bjorndal (ed.), Biology and Conservation of Sea Turtles. Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington, D. C. Humphrey, S. L. and R. V. Salm (eds.). 1996. St atus of Sea Turtle Conservation in the Western Indian Ocean. UNEP Regional Seas Reports a nd Studies No. 165. IUCN/ UNEP, Nairobi, Kenya. 162 pp. Hurtado, M. 1984. Registros de anid acin de la tortuga negra, Chelonia mydas en las Islas Galpagos. Boletn Cientf ico y Tcnico 4:77-106. Hurtado, M. 2001. Panormica Regional sobre el Estado de la Conservacin de las Tortugas Marinas en el Pacfico Sudeste (Colombia, Chile, Ecuador, Panam, Per). Procede de los talleres nacionales organizados por la Comisin Permanente del Pacfico Sur con el apoyo del NMFS/ WWF/ UNEP. Ibrahim, K. 1993. The status of marine turtle conservation in Peninsul ar Malaysia, pp. 87-103. In: Proceedings of the First ASEAN symposiu m-workshop on marine turtle conservation. Manila. Ingle, R. M. and F. G. W. Smith. 1949. Sea Turtle s and the Turtle Industry of the West Indies, Florida, and the Gulf of Mxic o, with Annotated Bibliography. University of Miami Press, Florida. 107pp. IUCN. 2001a. IUCN Red List Categories and Crite ria: Version 3.1 (9 February 2000). IUCN – The World Conservation Union. Gland, Switzerland. IUCN. 2001b. Guidelines for assessing taxa with widely distributed or multiple populations against Criterion A. Standards and Petit ions sub-committee of the IUCN, June 2001. Jackson, J. 1997. Reefs since Colum bus. Coral Reefs 16 Suppl. S23-33. Jackson, J. J., M. X. Kirby, W. H. Berger, K. A. Bjorndal, L. W. Botsford B. J. Bourque, R. H. Bradbury, R. Cooke, J. Erlandson, J. A. Estes, T. P. Hughes, S. Kidwell, C. B. Lange, H. S. Lenihan, J. M. Pandolfi, C. H. Peterson, R. S. Steneck, M. J. Tegner, and R. R. Warner. 2001. Historical overfishing and recent collapse of ecosystems. Science 293:629-638. Kabraji, A. M. and F. Firdous. 1984. Conservation of turtles, Ha wkesbay and Sandspit, Pakistan. WWF Project. WWF-International a nd Sind Wildlife Management Board. Kar, C. S. and S. Bhaskar. 1982. Status of s ea turtles in the Eastern Indian Ocean, pp. 365-372. In: K. A. Bjorndal (ed.), Biology and Conservation of Sea Turtles. Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington, D.C.

PAGE 82

Seminoff – 2002 MTSG Green Turtle Assessment 82 Karl, S. A., B. W. Bowen, and J. C. Avise. 1992. Global populati on structure and malemediated gene flow in the green turtle ( Chelonia mydas ): RFLP analyses of anonymous nuclear loci. Genetics 131:163-173. Kasparek, M., B. J. Godley, and A. C. Broderick. 2001. Nesting of the green turtle, Chelonia mydas in the Mediterranean: a review of status and conservation needs. Zoology in the Middle East 24:45-74. Khan, M. A. R. 1982. Wildlife of Bangladesh. University of Dhaka, Dhaka. King, G. W. 1982. Historical review of the dec line of the green turtle and Hawksbill, pp. 183188. In: K. A. Bjorndal (ed.) Biology and Conservation of Sea Turtle s. Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington, D.C. Kolinski, S. P. 1994. Carapace lesions of Chelonia mydas breeding in Yap State are diagnosed to be fibropapilloma. Marine Turtle Newsletter 67:26-27. Lagueux, C. J. 1998. Marine turtle fishery of Caribbean Nicaragua: Human use patterns and harvest trends. Doctoral Dissertation. University of Florida, Gainesville. 213 pp. Lagueux, C. 2001. Status and dist ribution of the green turtle, Chelonia mydas in the Wider Caribbean Region, pp. 32-35. In: K. L. Eckert and F. A. Abreu Grobois (eds.), 2001 Proceedings of the Regional Meeting: Marine Turtle Conservation in the Wider Caribbean Region: A Dialogue for Effective Regional Management. Santo Domingo, 16-18 November 1999. WIDECAST, IUCN-MTSG, WWF, and UNEP-CEP. Lagueux, C. J., C. L. Campbell, and L. H. Herbst. 1998. Characteriza tion of fibropapilloma occurrence in a Nicaraguan green turtle fishery, p. 90. In: R. Byles and Y. Fernandez (comps.), Proceedings of the Sixteenth Annual Sympos ium on Sea Turtle Biology and Conservation. NOAA Technical Memo randum NMFS-SEFSC-412. Lebeau, A. 1985. Essai d’ evaluation des pontes de la tortue verte Chelonia mydas (Linne) sur l’ Atoll de Scilly (Iiessous-levent, Polynsie francaise) au cours des saisons 1982-1983 et 19831984, pp. 487-493. In: Proceedings of the Fifth International Coral Reef Congress, Tahiti, Vol. 5. Lebeau, A., G. Biais, J. L. Durand, and B. Gobert. 1983. La tortue verte Chelonia mydas (Linne) des Isles de Tromelin et d’Europa (Ocean Indi en): peuplement et reproduction. Inst. Scient. Techn. Pches Marit., L Port Runion. 39 pp. Legall, J. Y., P. Bosc, D. Chateau, and M Taque t. 1986. Estimation du nombre de tortues vertes femelles adultes Chelonia mydas par saison de ponte Tromelin et Europa (Ocan Indien)(19731985). Oceanogr. Trop. 21:3-22. Lewis, C. B. 1940. The Cayman Islands and marine tu rtles. Bull. Inst. of Jamaica Sci. Ser. 2:5665.

PAGE 83

Seminoff – 2002 MTSG Green Turtle Assessment 83 Liew, H. C. 2002. Status of marine turtle c onservation and research in Malaysia, p. 44-50. In I. Kinan (ed.), Proceedings of the Western Paci fic Sea Turtle Cooperative Research and Management Workshop. Western Pacific Region al Fishery Management Council, Honolulu, HI. Liew, H. C. and E. H. Chan. 1996. Biotelemetry of green turtles ( Chelonia mydas ) at Pulau Redang, Malaysia, during the interesting pe riod, pp. 157-163. In: M. Paolo, F. Sandro, C. Cristina, and B. Remo (eds.), Biotelemetry X II: Proc. Twelfth Int. Symp. Biotelemetry, 31 August-5 September 1992. Ancona, Italy. Limoges, B. and M. J. Robillard. 1991. Sea tur tles in the Bijagos Ardhi pelago, Guinea-Bissau: nesting ecology, utilization by man and conser vation. Report mimeogr. CECI and IUCN, 42 pp. Limpus, C. J. 1980. The green turtle, Chelonia mydas (L) in eastern Australia, pp. 5-22. In: Management of turtle resources, Research Monograph 1, James Cook Univ., Queensland. Limpus, C. J. 1994. Current declines in S outheast Asian turtle populations, pp. 89-91. In: B. A. Schroeder and B. E. Witherington (comps.), Pr oceedings of the Thirteenth Annual Symposium on Sea Turtle Biology and Conservation. NOAA Technical Memo randum NMFS-SEFSC-341. Limpus, C. J. 1995. Global overview of the status of marine turtles: a 1995 viewpoint, pp. 605609. In: K. A. Bjorndal (ed.), Biology and Conser vation of Sea Turtles, Revised Edition. Smithsonian Institution Press. Washington, D.C. Limpus, C. J. 1996. Myths, reality, and limitatio ns of green turtle census data, pp. 170-173. In: J. A. Keinath, D. A. Barnard, J. A. Musick, and B. A. Bell. (comps.), Proceedings of the Fifteenth Annual Workshop on Sea Turtle Bi ology and Conservation. NOAA Technical Memorandum NMFS-SEFSC-387. Limpus, C. and M. Chaloupka. 1997. Nonparametric regression modeling of green sea turtle growth rates (southern Great Barrier Reef). Marine Ec ology Progress Series 149:23-34. Limpus, C. J. and J. D. Miller. 1990. The occu rence of cutaneous fibropapillomas in marine turtles in Queensland, p. 86. In: R. James (comp.), Proceedings of the Australian Marine Turtle Conservation Workshop. Queensland Department of Envirnoment and Her itage and Australian Nature Conservation Agency, Brisbane. Limpus, C. J. and N. Nichols. 1987. The southern oscillation regulates the annual numbers of green turtles ( Chelonia mydas ) breeding around northern Austra lia. Australian Journal of Wildlife Research 15:157-161. Limpus, C. J. and D. G. Walter. 1980. Th e growth of immature green turtles ( Chelonia mydas ) under natural conditions. Herpetologica 36:162-165 Limpus, C. J. and M. Chaloupka. 1997. Nonparametr ic regression modeling of green sea turtle growth rates (southern Great Barrier Reef). Marine Ec ology Progress Series 149:23-34.

PAGE 84

Seminoff – 2002 MTSG Green Turtle Assessment 84 Limpus, C. J., P. J. Couper, and M. A. Read. 1994. The green turtle, Chelonia mydas in Queensland: population structure in a warm temper ate feeding area. Memo irs of the Queensland Museum 35:139-154. Limpus, C. J., J. Mortimer, and N. J. Pilcher. 2001. Marine turtles of the Indian Ocean and Southeast Asian region: Breeding distribution, migration, and populat ion trends. Department of Environment and Natural Resources, Manila. Limpus, C. J., J. D. Miller, D. J. Limpus, and M. Hamann. in press. The Raine Island green turtle rookery: Y2K update. In: Proceedings of the Twentieth Annual Symposium on Sea Turtle Biology and Conservation. March 2000. Lutcavage, M. E., P. Plotkin, B. Witherington, and P. L. Lutz. 1997. Human impacts on sea turtle survival, pp. 107-136. In: P. L. Lutz and J. A. Musick (eds .), The Biology of Sea Turtles. CRC Press, Boca Raton, Florida. MacDonald, D. and P. Dutton. 1990. Fibropapi llomas on sea turtles in San Diego Bay, California. Marine Tu rtle Newsletter 51:9-10. Mangel, J., S. Trong, L. Segura, M. Stockmann, A. Ortega, C. Reyes, Z. Hudgson, A. Opazo, L. Fernndez, R. Hernndez, D. Hussy, M. Ramrez, S. de la Parra, M. Martnez, R. Hajjar, and E. Rankin. 2001. Report on the 2000 Green Turtle Program at Tortuguero, Costa Rica. Unpublished report submitted to Caribbean Conservation Corpor ation and the Ministry of Environment and Energy of Costa Rica. 58 pp. Mrquez, R. 1984a. National Report: Mexico, Ca ribbean Region. In: Bacon et al. (eds) Proceedings of the Western Atlantic Turtle Sym posium. Vol. 3. University of Miami Press. Mrquez, R. 1984b. National Report: Mexico, Gulf Region. In: Bacon et al. (eds) Proceedings of the Western Atlantic Turtle Symposium. Vol. 3. University of Miami Press. Mrquez, R. 1990. FAO Species Catalogue: Sea Tu rtles of the World. FAO Fisheries Synopsis No. 125. Vol. 11. Mrquez, R. and T. Doi. 1973. Ensayo terico sobre el anlisis de la pobla cin de tortuga prieta, Chelonia mydas carrinegra (Caldwell), en aguas del Golfo de California, Mxico. Bulletin of Tokai Regional Fisheries Re search Laboratory 73:1-22. Matushima, E. R., A. L. Filho, C. di Loetto, C. T. Kanamura, B. Gallo, and M. C. Baptistotte. 2000. Cutaneous Papillomas of green turtles: a morphological and im munohistochemical study in Brazilian specimens, pp. 237-239. In: H. J. Kalb and T. Wibbels (comps.), Proceedings of the Nineteenth Annual Symposium on Sea Turtle Biology and Conserva tion. U. S. Dept. Commerc. NOAA Technical Memo randum NMFS-SEFSC-443. Maxwell, F. D. 1911. Reports on inland and s ea fisheries in the Thongwa, Myaungmya, and Bassein districts and the turtle banks of the Irrawaddy division. Rangoon. Government Printing

PAGE 85

Seminoff – 2002 MTSG Green Turtle Assessment 85 Office 57 pp. as cited in Groombridge, B. and R. Luxmoor e (1989) The green turtle and hawksbill (Reptilia: Cheloniidae): world status, e xploitation and trade. Secretariat of the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora, Lausanne, Switzerland, 601 pp. MacGillivray, W. 1910. Along the Great Barrier Reef. Emu 10:216-223. Mbindo, C. 1996. The status of sea turtle conservation in Madagascar, pp. 117-120. In: S. L. Humphrey and R. V. Salm (eds.), Status of Sea Turtle Conservation in the Western Indian Ocean. UNEP Regional Seas Reports and Studi es No. 165. IUCN/UNEP, Nairobi, Kenya. 162 pp. Mendonca, M. T. 1981. Comparative gr owth rates of wild immature Chelonia mydas and Caretta caretta in Florida. Journal of Herpetology 15:447-451 Meylan, A. B. 1982. Estimation of popul ation size in sea turtles, pp. 135-138. In: K. A. Bjorndal (ed.), Biology and Conservation of Sea Turtles, Revised Edition. Smithsonian Institution Press. Washington, D.C. Meylan, A. B., B. W. Bowen, and J. C. Avise. 1990. A genetic test of the natal homing versus social facilitation models for green turtle migration. Science 248:724-728. Meylan, A. M., B. Schroeder, a nd A. Mosier. 1994. Marine turtle nesting activity in the state of Florida, 1979-1992, p. 83. In: K. A. Bjorndal, A. B. Bolten, D. A. Johnson, and P. J. Eliazar (comps.), Proceedings of the Fourteenth Annual Symposium on Sea Turtle Biology and Conservation. NOAA Technica l Memorandum NMFS-SEFSC-351. Miller, J. D. 1989. Marine turtles: Vol. 1: An assessment of the conservation status of marine turtles in the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia. MEPA Coastal and Marine Management Series, pp. 1209. Ministry of Defense and Aviation, Kingdom of Saudi Arabia. Report No. 9. Mohadji, F. B., H. E. Zarcach, and C. Mbimbo. 1996. The status of sea turtle conservation in the Comoros, pp. 125-132. In: S. L. Humphrey and R. V. Salm (eds.), Status of Sea Turtle Conservation in the Western Indian Ocean. UNEP Regional Seas Repor ts and Studies No. 165. IUCN/UNEP, Nairobi, Kenya. 162 pp. Moncada, F. and A. Prieto. 2000. Incidence of Fibropapillomas in the green turtle ( Chelonia mydas ) in Cuban waters, pp. 40-41. In: H. J. Kalb and T. Wibbels (comps.), Proceedings of the Nineteenth Annual Symposium on Sea Turtle Biology and Conserva tion. U. S. Dept. Commerc. NOAA Technical Memo randum NMFS-SEFSC-443. Moreira, L., C. Baptistotti, J. Scalfone, J. C. Thom, and A. P. L. S. de Almeida. 1995. Occurrence of Chelonia mydas on the Island of Trindade, Brazil. Marine Turtle Ne wsletter 70:2. Moritz, C., D. Broderick, K. Dethmers, N. FitzSimmons, and C. Limpus. 1991. Migration and genetics of Indo-Pacific marine turtle s. Progress Report to UNEP/CMS, May 1991.

PAGE 86

Seminoff – 2002 MTSG Green Turtle Assessment 86 Mortimer, J. A. 1984. Marine turtles in the Repub lic of the Seychelles: Status and Management. IUCN, Gland, Switzerland. 84pp. Mortimer, J. A. 1985. Recovery of gr een turtles on Aldabra. Oryx 19:146-150. Mortimer, J. A. 1988. Green turtle nesting at Al dabra Atoll: population estimates and trends. Biol. Soc. Wash. Bull. No. 8, pp. 116-128. Mortimer, J. A. 1990a. Recommendations for the management of the green turtle ( Chelonia mydas ) population nesting at the Turtle Islands of Sarawak. WWF Report, Project 3868. 25 pp. Mortimer, J. A. 1990b. Marine turtle conservation in Malaysia, pp. 21-24. In: T. H. Richardson, J. I. Richardson, and M. Donnelly (comps.), Proceedings of the Tenth Annual Symposium on Sea Turtle Biology and Conservatio n. NOAA Tech. Memo. NMFS-SEFSC-278. Mortimer, J. A. 1991. Marine turtle populat ions of Pulau Redang: their status and recommendations for their management. WWF Re port to Turtle Sanctuary Advisory Council of Terengganu. 31 pp. Mortimer, J. A. 1995. Teaching Critical Concepts for The Conservation Of Sea Turtles. Marine Turtle Newsletter 71:1-4. Mortimer, J. A. and A. Carr. 1987. Reproduction and migration of the Ascension Island green turtle ( Chelonia mydas ). Copeia 1987:103-113. Mortimer, J. A. and M. Day. 1999. Sea turtle populations and habita ts in the Chagos Archipelago, pp. 159-176. In: C.R.C. Sheppard and M.R.D. Seaward (eds.), Ecology of the Chagos Archipelago. Linnean Society Occ. Pub. Mortimer, J. A. and K. M. Portier. 1989. Repr oductive homing and internesting behaviour of the green turtle ( Chelonia mydas ) at Ascension Island, South At lantic Ocean. Copeia 1989:962 Mortimer, J. A., J. Collie, C. Mbindo. 1996. The stat us of sea turtle conservation in the republic of Seychelles, pp. 103-115. In: S. L. Humphrey and R. V. Salm (eds.), Status of Sea Turtle Conservation in the Western Indian Ocean. UNEP Regional Seas Repor ts and Studies No. 165. IUCN/UNEP, Nairobi, Kenya. 162 pp. Musick, J. A. and C. J. Limpus. 1997. Habitat ut ilization and migration in juvenile sea turtles, pp. 137-164. In: P. L. Lutz and J. A. Musick (eds.), The Biology of Sea Turtles. CRC Press, Boca Raton, Florida. Murawaka, S. K., G. H. Balazs, D. M. Ellis S. Hau, and S. M. Eames. 2000. Trends in Fibropapillomatosis among green turtles st randed in the Hawaiian Islands, 1982-1998, pp. 239241. In: H. J. Kalb and T. Wibbels (comps.), Pro ceedings of the Nineteenth Annual Symposium

PAGE 87

Seminoff – 2002 MTSG Green Turtle Assessment 87 on Sea Turtle Biology and Conservation. U. S. Dept. Commerc. NOAA Technical Memorandum NMFS-SEFSC-443. Nada, M. A. 2001. Observations on the trade in s ea turtles on the fish market of Alexandria, Egypt. Zoology in the Middle East. 21:109 Nalo-Ochona, C. M. 2000. Histopathology and histoc hemistry of fibropapilloma on the carapace of green turtles ( Chelonia mydas L.) in the Baguan Island Marine Turtle Sanctuary. Master of Science Thesis, University of the Philippines Los Baos, 44p. National Marine Fisher ies Service. 2001. Endangered Sp ecies Act Section 7 Consultation Biological Opinion. Southwest Re gion Sustainable Fisheries Di vision. Long Beach, California, USA. National Marine Fisherie s Service and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1991. Recovery Plan for U.S. Population of the Atlantic Green Turtle. National Marine Fisheries Service. Washington. D.C. 58 pp. National Marine Fisheries Service and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Serv ice. 1998a. Recovery Plan for U.S. Pacific Populations of the Green Turtle ( Chelonia mydas ). National Marine Fisheries Service, Silver Spring, MD. 84 pp. National Marine Fisherie s Service and U.S. Fish and Wildlif e Service. 1998b. Recovery Plan for U.S. Pacific Populations of th e East Pacific Green Turtle ( Chelonia mydas ). National Marine Fisheries Service, Silver Spring, MD. 50 pp. National Research Council. 1990. Decline of the Sea Turtles: Causes and Prevention. National Academy Press, Washington, D.C. 259 pp. Navid, D. 1982. Conservation and manage ment of sea turtles, pp. 523-536. In: K. A. Bjorndal (ed.), Biology and Conservation of Sea Turtles, Smithsonian Institution Press: Washington, D.C. Nichols, W. J. 2001. Biology and conservation of th e sea turtles near Baja California. Ph.D. Dissertation. University of Arizona, Tucson. 540 pp. Nodarse, G., F. Moncada, A. Menesis, and C. Rodriguez. 2000. Long-term monitoring of nesting of the green sea turtle ( Chelonia mydas ) in the southwest plat form of Cuba, pp. 68-69. In: F. A. Abreu-Grobois, R. Briseo-Dueas, R. Mrqu ez-Millan, and L. Sarti-Martinez (comps.), Proceedings of the Eighteenth Annual Sympos ium on Sea Turtle Biology and Conservation. NOAA Tech. Memo. NMFS-SEFSC-436. Ogren, L. H. 1989. Status report of the green turtle, pp. 89-94. In: L. Ogren, F. Berry, K. A. Bjorndal, H. Kumpf, R. Mast, G. Medina, H. Reichart, and R. Witham (eds.), Proceedings of the Second Western Atlantic Turtle Sympos ium. NOAA Tech Memo MMFS-SEFC-226.

PAGE 88

Seminoff – 2002 MTSG Green Turtle Assessment 88 Olguin Mena, M. 1990. Las tortugas marinas en la costa oriental de Ba ja California y costa occidental de Baja California Sur, Mxico. M.S. Thesis, Universidad Automona de Baja California Sur, Mxico. 74 pp. Ottenwalder, J. A. 1981. Estudio preliminar sobr e el status, distribuci n, y biologa reproductiva de las tortugas marinas en la Republica Dominica na. Report prepared for the Western Atlantic Sea Turtle Symposium and presented to the Nati onal Marine Fisheries Service and Caribbean Conservation Corporation. Overing, J. A. 1996. Green turtles with fibropapi lloma disease in the BVI. Marine Turtle Newsletter 75:17-18. Paris, B. and T. Agardy. 1993. La tortue verte et la tortue olive de Ridl ey de l’Archipel des Bijagos: Identification de leur importance dans le contexte mondial et contribution proposition de qonage d’ une reserve de la Biosphre. Mi mogr. 6 pp. (as cited in Fretey, J. 2001. Biology and conservation of marine turtles of the Atla ntic Coast of Africa. CMS Technical Series Publication No. 6. UNEP/CMS Secret ariat, Bonn, Germany, 429 pp.) Parsons, J. J. 1962. The Green Turtle and Man. Un iversity of Florida Press, Gainesville. 126 pp. Pauly, D. 1995. Anecdotes and the shifting baseline syndrome of fisheries. Trends in Ecology and Evolution 10:430. Pelzer, K. J. 1972. The turtle industry in Southeast Asia. Erdkund, Band XXVI:9-16. Philip, M. 2002. Marine turtle cons ervation in Papua New Guinea, p.134-137. In I. Kinan (ed.), Proceedings of the Western Pacific Sea Turt le Cooperative Research and Management Workshop. Western Pacific Regional Fish ery Management Council, Honolulu, HI. Pianka, E. R. 1974. Evolutionary Ecology. New York. Harper and Row. 356 pp. Pilcher, N. J. 1999. Turtles turned turtle. Asian Geographic 2:56-69. Pilcher, N. J. 2000. The green turtle, Chelonia mydas in the Arabian Gulf. Chelonian Conservation and Biology 3:730-735. Pinchon. 1967. In: P.C. H. Pritchard and and T. Trebbau. 1984. The Turtles of Venezuela. Society for the Study of Reptiles and Amphibians, Oxford, OH. Powell, R. 1957. Breeding turtles for profit. Sout h Pacific Commission Quarterly Bull. 7:41-42. Prince, R. I. T. 1993. Western Australian marine tu rtle conservation project: an outline of scope and an invitation to participate. Marine Turtle Newsletter 60:8-14. Prince, R. I. T. 1998. Marine turtle conserva tion: the links between populations in Western Australia and the Northern Australian Region people and turtles, pp. 93-99. In: R. Kennett, A.

PAGE 89

Seminoff – 2002 MTSG Green Turtle Assessment 89 Webb, G. Duff, M. Guinea and G. Hill (eds.), Proceedings of a Workshop on Marine Turtle Conservation and Management in Northern Austra lia. Northern Territory University, Darwin, 34 June 1997. Prince, R. I. T. 2001. The Distribution and abunda nce of Dugongs and other megavertebrates in Western Australian Coastal Waters Extending S eaward to the 20 Metre Isobath Between North West Cape and the De Grey River Mouth, West ern Australia, April 2000. Unpublished report to Environment Australia. Pritchard, P. C. H. 1969. Sea turtles of the Guianas. Bull. Florida Stat. Mus. 13:85-140. Pritchard, P.C.H. 1994. Les D’Entr ecasteaux Elfin! Report of an expedition to study the sea turtles of the D’Entrecasteaux reefs, north of New Caledonia, p. 143-145. In B.A. Schroeder and B.E. Witherington (comps.), Proceedings of th e Thirteenth Annual Symposium on Sea Turtle Biology and Conservation. NOA A Tech. Memo. NMFS-SEFSC-341, Pritchard, P. C. H. 1997. Evolution, phylogeny, and current status, pp. 1-28. In: P. L. Lutz and J. A. Musick (eds.), The Biology of Sea Turt les. CRC Press, Boca Raton, Florida. Raidal, S. R. and R. I. T. Prince. 1996. Firs t confirmation of multiple fibropapillomas in a western Australian green turtle ( Chelonia mydas ). Mar. Turt. Newsl. 74:7-9. Rakotonirina, B. and A. Cooke. 1994. Sea turtles of Madagascar – their status, exploitation, and conservation. Oryx 28:51-61. Ramirez-de Veyra, R. 1994. Status of marine turtles in the Philippines. pp. 123-125. In: Bjorndal, K. A., A. B. Bolten, D. A. Johnson, and P. J. Eliazar. (comps.), Proceedings of the Fourteenth Annual Symposium on Sea Turtle Biology and Conservation. NOAA Technical Memorandum NMFS-SEFSC-351. Rene, F. and D. Roos. 1996. The status of sea tu rtle conservation in Fren ch Territories of the Indian Ocean: Isles Eparces, pp. 151-156. In: S. L. Humphrey and R. V. Salm (eds.), Status of Sea Turtle Conservation in the Western Indian Ocean. UNEP Regional Seas Reports and Studies No. 165. IUCN/UNEP, Nairobi, Kenya. 162 pp. Ross, J. P. and M. A. Barwani. 1982. Review of sea turtles in the Arabian area, pp. 372-383. In: K. A. Bjorndal (ed.), Biology and Conservation of Sea Turtles, Smithsonian Institution Press: Washington, D.C. Saad, M. A. 1999. Hadramaut coast importance in conservation of enda ngered green turtle. Marine Sciences Resources Research Center, Aden. Unpublished Report. 8 pp. Safina, C. 1995. The world’s imperiled fi sh. Scientific American 273:46-53. Salm, R. V. 1984. Sea turtle trade in Indonesi a. IUCN/WWF Projec t 3108 Field Report #5. Marine Conservation, Bogor, Indone sia. IUCN/WWF. 50 pp.

PAGE 90

Seminoff – 2002 MTSG Green Turtle Assessment 90 Salm, R. V. 1991. Turtles in Oman: Status, th reats, and management options. Muscat. Manuscript report of IUCN/WCU Project CZMP4: F11. Report to Misistry of Commerce and Industry. Schroeder, B. A. and A. E. Mo sier. 2000. Between a rock and a ha rd place: coastal armoring and marine turtle nesting habitat in Florida, pp. 290-292. In: F. A. Abreu-Grobois, R. BriseoDueas, R. Mrquez-Millan, and L. Sarti-Martin ez (comps.), Proceedings of the Eighteenth Annual Symposium on Sea Turtle Biology a nd Conservation. NOAA Tech. Memo. NMFSSEFSC-436. Schroeder, B. A., A. M. Foley, B. E. Witherin gton, and A. E. Mosier. 1998. Ecology of marine turtles in Florida Bay: populat ion structure, distribution, and occurrence of fibropapilloma, pp. 265-267. In: S. P. Epperly and J. Braun (comps.), Proceedings of the Seventeenth Annual Sea Turtle Symposium. U.S. Dep. Comm erce NOAA Tech Memo. NMFS-SEFSC-415. Schulz, J. P. 1982. Status of sea turtle populations nesting in Suriname with notes on sea turtles nesting in Guyana and French Guyana, pp. 435-438. In: K. A. Bjorndal (ed.), Biology and Conservation of Sea Turtles, Smithsonian Institution Press: Washington, D.C. Schulz, J. P. 1984. Turtle conservation st rategy in Indonesia. IUCN/WWF Report. Schulz, J. P. 1987. Status of and trade in Chelonia mydas and Eretmochelys imbricata in Indonesia. Consultancy report prepared for IUCN Conservation Monitoring Centre. Sella, I. 1982. Sea turtles in the Eastern Mediterranean a nd Northern Red Sea, p. 417-423 In K. A. Bjorndal (ed.), Biology and Conservation of Sea Turtles. Smithsonian Inst. Press, Washington, D.C. Seminoff, J. A. 2000. Biology of the East Pacific green turtle, Chelonia mydas agassizii at a temperate foraging habitat in the central Gulf of California, Mxico. Doctoral Dissertation, University of Arizona, Tucson. 249 pp. Sharma, D. 2002. Partnerships in sea turtle cons ervation: A cas study in Madaerah, Malaysia, p. 120-122. In I. Kinan (ed.), Proceedings of the Wester n Pacific Sea Turtle Cooperative Research and Management Workshop. Western Pacific Re gional Fishery Management Council, Honolulu, HI. Siakor, R. and S. S. Greaves. 2001. Saving Liberi a Sea Turtles (A repor t of the Liberia Sea Turtle Project Baseline Survey), The Libe ria Sea Turtle Project (LSTP). Monrovia. Unpublished report. Siddeek, S. M. and R. M. Baldwin. 1996. Assessment of the Oman green turtle ( Chelonia mydas ) stock using a stage-class matrix model. Herp. Journal 6:1-8.

PAGE 91

Seminoff – 2002 MTSG Green Turtle Assessment 91 Sol, G. 1994. Migration of the Chelonia mydas population from Aves Island, pp: 283-286. In: K.A. Bjorndal, A. B. Bolten, D. A. Johnson, a nd P.J. Eliazar (comps.), Proceedings of the Fourteenth Annual Symposium on Sea Turtle Biology and Conservation. NOAA Tech. Memo. NMFS-SEFSC-351. Sol, G. and C. Azara. 1998. Fibropapillomas in the green turtles ( Chelonia mydas ) of Aves Island, p. 128. In: R. Byles and Y. Fernandez (comps.), Proceedings of the Sixteenth Annual Symposium on Sea Turtle Bi ology and Conservation. NOAA Technical Memorandum NMFSSEFSC-412. Stringell, T. B., M. Bangkaru, A. P. J. M. St eeman, and L. Bateman. 2000. Green turtle nesting at Pulau Banyak (Sumatra, Indonesia) Marine Turtle Newsletter 90:6-8. Suganuma, H. 1995. Green turtle research program in Ogasawara. Marine Turtle Newsletter 33:2-3. Suwelo, I. And S. Kuntjaro. 1969. Penju laut, pr oductivitas dan pembinaannya di Indonesia. Rimba Indonesia 14:18-49. Tambiah, C. R. 1994. Saving sea turtles or killin g them: the case of U.S. regulated TEDs in Guyana and Suriname, pp. 149-151. In: K. A. Bjorndal, A. B. Bolten, D. A. Johnson, and P. J. Eliazar (comps.), Proceedings of the Fourteen th Annual Symposium on Sea Turtle Biology and Conservation. NOAA T ech. Memo. NOFS-SEFSC-351. Thayer, G. W., D. W. Engel, and K. A. Bj orndal. 1982. Evidence for short-circuiting of the detritus cycle of seagrass beds by the green turtle, Chelonia mydas L. Journal of Experimental Marine Biology and Ecology 62:173. Thayer, G. W., K. A. Bjorndal, J. C. Ogden, S. L. Williams, and J. C. Zieman. 1984. Role of larger herbivores in seagrass communities. Estuaries 7:351. Tiwol, C. W. and A. S. Cabanban. 2000. All female hatchlings from the open-beach hatchery at Gulisaan Island, Turtle Islands Park, Sabah, pp. 218-227. In: N. J. Pilcher and M. G. Ismail (eds.), Sea turtles of the I ndo-Pacific: Research, Manage ment, and Conservation. ASEAN Academic Press, London. Thorbjarnarson, J. B., S. G. Platt, and S. T. Khaing. 2000. Sea Turtles in Myanmar: Past and Present. Marine Turtle Newsletter 88:10-11. Tomas, J., J. Castroviejo, and J. A. Raga. 1999. Sea turtles in the s outh of Bioko (Equatorial Guinea). Marine Turtle Newsletter 84:4-6. Trong, S. 1998. Poaching threatens the green turtle rookery at Tortuguero, Costa Rica. Marine Turtle Newsletter 79:11-12

PAGE 92

Seminoff – 2002 MTSG Green Turtle Assessment 92 Trong, S. 2000. Nesting activity at Tortuguer o, 2000 field season. Unpublished report to Caribbean Conservation Corpor ation, Gainesville, FL. Trong, S. and T. A. Rankin Gonzlez. 2000. I llegal harvest of nes ting green turtles, Chelonia mydas in Tortuguero, Costa Rica, pp. 30-31. In: F. A. Abreu-Grobois, R. Briseo-Dueas, R. Mrquez-Millan, and L. Sarti-Martinez (comps.) Proceedings of the Eighteenth Annual Symposium on Sea Turtle Bi ology and Conservation. NOAA Tech. Memo. NMFS-SEFSC-436. Trono, R. B. 1991. Philippine marine turtle conser vation program. Marine Turtle Newsletter 53:5-7 Tuck Jr., R. G. 1977. The turtles of Iran. Shekar Va Tabi'at; 214:20-25. United Nations Educational, Scientific, and Educational Organization. 2001. Urban Development and Freshwater Resources Webpage. www.unesco.org/csi/pub/info/info54.htm Valentine, J. F. and K. L. Heck Jr. 1999. Seagra ss herbivory: evidence for the continued grazing of marine grasses. Marine Ecology Progress Series 176:291-302. van Tienen, L. H., W. E. J. Hoekert, P. van Nughteren, and S. Denz. 2000. The sea turtles of Suriname, 1997 – Awareness, pp. 91-92. In: F. A. Abreu-Grobois, R. Briseo-Dueas, R. Mrquez-Millan, and L. Sarti-Martinez (comps.) Proceedings of the Eighteenth Annual Symposium on Sea Turtle Bi ology and Conservation. NOAA Tech. Memo. NMFS-SEFSC-436. Vaughn, P. W. 1981. Marine turtles: a review of their status and management in the Solomon Islands. Unpublished report to WWF. 70 pp. Wamukoya, G. M., F. Kaloki, and C. Mbindo. 1996. The status of sea turtle conservation in Kenya, pp. 57-80. In: S. L. Humphrey and R. V. Salm (eds .), Status of Sea Turtle Conservation in the Western Indian Ocean. UNEP Regional Se as Reports and Studies No. 165. IUCN/UNEP, Nairobi, Kenya. 162 pp. Weijerman, M., L. van Tienen, A. D. Schouten, and W. E. J. Hoekert. 1998. Sea turtles of Galibi, Suriname, pp.142-144. In: R. Byles and Y. Fernandez (comps.), Proceedings of the Sixteenth Annual Symposium on Sea Turtle Biology a nd Conservation. NOAA Tech. Memo. NMFSSEFSC-412. Wetherall, J. A., G. H. Balazs, and M. Y. Y. Yong. 1998. Statistical methods for green turtle nesting surveys in the Hawaiian Islands, pp. 278-280. In: Proceedings of the Seventeenth Annual Symposium on Sea Turtle Biology and Cons ervation. U.S. Dept. Commer. NOAA Tech Memo. NMFS-SEFSC-415. Wetherall, J. A., G. H. Balazs, R. A. T okunaga, and M.Y.Y. Yong. 1993. Bycatch of marine turtles in the North Pacific high-seas drift-net fisheries and impacts on th e stocks. International North Pacific Fisheries Co mmission Bull. 53(III):519-538.

PAGE 93

Seminoff – 2002 MTSG Green Turtle Assessment 93 Whitham, R. 1991. On the ecology of young sea turtles. Florida Sci 54:179 Witherington, B. E. 1992. Behavi oral responses of nesting sea turtles to artif icial lighting. Herpetologica 48:31-39. Witherington, B. E. and K. A. Bjorndal. 1990. In fluences of artificial lighting on the seaward orientation of hatchli ng loggerhead turtles, Caretta caretta Biological Conservation 53:139149. Witzell, W. N. 1994a. The origin, evolution, and demise of the US sea turtle fisheries. Marine Fisheries Review 56:8-23. Witzell, W. N. 1994b. The U. S. commercial sea turtle landings. NOAA Tech. Memo. NMFSSEFSC-350. Wood, F. and J. Wood. 1993. Release and capture of captive-reared green sea turtles, Chelonia mydas in the waters surrounding the Cayman Islands. Herp etological Review 3:84-89. Wood, F.E. and J. R. Wood. 1994. S ea turtle of the Cayman Islands. Pages 229-236 in M.A. Brunt and J.E. Davies (eds.) The Cayman Is lands: Natural History and Biogeograpy. Kluwer Academic Press, Netherlands. Zieman, J. C., R. L. Iverson, and J. C. Ogden. 1984. Herbivory effects on Thalassia testudinum leaf growth and nitrogen c ontent. Marine Ecology Progress Series 15:151-158. Zug, G. R., G. H. Balazs, J. A. Wetherall, D. M. Parker, and S. K. K. Murakawa. 2002. Age and growth of Hawaiian green seaturtles ( Chelonia mydas ): an analysis based on skeletochronology. Fishery Bulletin 100:117-127. Zurita, J. C., B. Prezas, R. Herrera, and J. L. Miranda. 1994. Sea tur tle tagging program in Quintana Roo, Mxico, pp. 300-303. In: K. A. Bjorndal, A. B. Bolten, D. A. Johnson, and P. J. Eliazar (comps.), Proceedings of the Fourteen th Annual Symposium on Sea Turtle Biology and Conservation. NOAA Technica l Memorandum NMFS-SEFSC-351.


  Home | About dLOC | Collections | Governance | Digitization | Outreach | FAQ | Contact  
  Powered by SobekCM
Acceptable Use, Copyright, and Disclaimer Statement  
© All rights reserved   |   Citing dLOC