# Are we working towards global research priorities for management and conservation of sea turtles?

A.F. Rees, J Alfaro-Shigueto, P.C.R. Barata, K.A. Bjorndal, A.B. Bolten, J. Bourjea, A.C. Broderick, L.M. Campbell, L. Cardona, C Carreras, et al.

<figure><img src="image_1.png" /></figure>

## To cite this version:

A.F. Rees, J Alfaro-Shigueto, P.C.R. Barata, K.A. Bjorndal, A.B. Bolten, et al., Are we working towards global research priorities for management and conservation of sea turtles?. Endangered Species Research, 2016, 31, pp.337 - 382. 10.3354/esr00801. hal-01926684

HAL Id: hal-01926684

https://hal.umontpellier.fr/hal-01926684

Submitted on 31 May 2021

HAL is a multi-disciplinary open access archive for the deposit and dissemination of scientific research documents, whether they are published or not. The documents may come from teaching and research institutions in France or abroad, or from public or private research centers.

L'archive ouverte pluridisciplinaire HAL, est destinée au dépôt et à la diffusion de documents scientifiques de niveau recherche, publiés ou non, émanant des établissements d'enseignement et de recherche français ou étrangers, des laboratoires publics ou privés.

<figure><img src="image_2.png" /></figure>

Distributed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License
REVIEW

# Are we working towards global research priorities for management and conservation of sea turtles?

A. F. Rees<fnref n="1" />, J. Alfaro-Shigueto, P. C. R. Barata, K. A. Bjorndal, A. B. Bolten, J. Bourjea, A. C. Broderick<fnref n="1" />, L. M. Campbell, L. Cardona, C. Carreras, P. Casale, S. A. Ceriani, P. H. Dutton, T. Eguchi, A. Formia, M. M. P. B. Fuentes, W. J. Fuller, M. Girondot, M. H. Godfrey, M. Hamann, K. M. Hart, G. C. Hays, S. Hochscheid, Y. Kaska, M. P. Jensen, J. C. Mangel, J. A. Mortimer, E. Naro-Maciel, C. K. Y. Ng, W. J. Nichols, A. D. Phillott, R. D. Reina, O. Revuelta, G. Schofield, J. A. Seminoff, K. Shanker, J. Tomás, J. P. van de Merwe, K. S. Van Houtan, H. B. Vander Zanden, B. P. Wallace, K. R. Wedemeyer-Strombel, T. M. Work, B. J. Godley<fnref n="1" />,*

ABSTRACT: In 2010, an international group of 35 sea turtle researchers refined an initial list of more than 200 research questions into 20 metaquestions that were considered key for management and conservation of sea turtles. These were classified under 5 categories: reproductive biology, biogeography, population ecology, threats and conservation strategies. To obtain a picture of how research is being focused towards these key questions, we undertook a systematic review of the peer-reviewed literature (2014 and 2015) attributing papers to the original 20 questions. In total, we reviewed 605 articles in full and from these 355 (59%) were judged to substantively address the 20 key questions, with others focusing on basic science and monitoring. Progress to answering the 20 questions was not uniform, and there were biases regarding focal turtle species, geographic scope and publication outlet. Whilst it offers some meaningful indications as to effort, quantifying peer-reviewed literature output is obviously not the only, and possibly not the best, metric for understanding progress towards informing key conservation and management goals. Along with the literature review, an international group based on the original project consortium was assigned to critically summarise recent progress towards answering each of the 20 questions. We found that significant research is being expended towards global priorities for management and conservation of sea turtles. Although highly variable, there has been significant progress in all the key questions identified in 2010. Undertaking this critical review has highlighted that it may be timely to undertake one or more new prioritizing exercises. For this to have maximal benefit we make a range of recommendations for its execution. These include a far greater engagement with social sciences, widening the pool of contributors and focussing the questions, perhaps disaggregating ecology and conservation.

KEY WORDS: Sea turtle · Marine conservation · Evidence-based conservation · Systematic review · Research prioritisation

<footnote n="1">¹Marine Turtle Research Group, Centre for Ecology and Conservation, School of Biosciences, University of Exeter,
Penryn Campus, Treliever Road, Penryn, Cornwall TR10 9FE, UK</footnote>

<footnote>Addresses for other authors are given in the Supplement at www.int-res.com/articles/suppl/n031p337_supp.pdf</footnote>
## INTRODUCTION

The key research question approach has been used effectively to engage ecologists with priority topics determined by policy makers or the researchers themselves (Sutherland et al. 2006, 2009). The approach draws on the knowledge of a broad range of targeted experts to set out their priority questions for the subject matter. The individual questions are then discussed and synthesised to generate a number of priority questions that, if addressed, would have the greatest impact (Cooke et al. 2010). This approach has been used on a range of subject areas, from global conservation and biodiversity issues (e.g. Sutherland et al. 2009) to taxon specific initiatives, such as for sea birds (Lewison et al. 2012) and cetaceans (Parsons et al. 2015).

The status of sea turtles and the need for conservation to aid population recovery have captured the interest of government agencies, non-governmental organisations (NGOs) and the general public, worldwide. This has facilitated increased research focusing on a wide variety of topics relating to sea turtle biology and conservation. However, management actions are often hindered by the lack of data on turtles themselves, human-turtle interactions, turtle population status and threats or the effectiveness of conservation interventions. In an effort to inform effective sea turtle conservation, Hamann et al. (2010) compiled a list of priority research questions based on the opinions of 35 sea turtle researchers from 13 nations. A list of more than 200 questions was condensed into 20 metaquestions that were classified under 5 categories: reproductive biology, biogeography, population ecology, threats and conservation strategies (see Fig. 1). Now, more than 5 years later, we set out to critically appraise the progress that has been made towards informing these key research priorities in this taxon.

## METHODS

### Reviewing the literature

To determine how published research has been focused towards informing sea turtle management and conservation, we evaluated the peer-reviewed literature. We undertook a systematic review using Web of Science (v.5.22.3; 21 June 2016). In order to ensure capture of all relevant texts we used the topic search 'sea turtle' or 'marine turtle' or 'loggerhead turtle' or 'green turtle' or 'leatherback tur-

tle' or 'olive ridley' or 'Kemps ridley' or 'hawksbill turtle' or 'flatback turtle' in 'All databases' for the 2 most recent complete years (2014 and 2015), which resulted in a list of 707 articles. We then removed duplicates, spurious hits, generic texts (such as references to entire proceedings) and non-peer-reviewed 'grey' literature based on title and abstract, or main text if relevance was unclear from the abstract.

### Literature analysis

For each article, 2 authors (A.F.R. and B.J.G.) independently reviewed and ascribed its application to the original 20 questions highlighted in Hamann et al. (2010). These assignations were compared, and where differences occurred they were resolved through discussion. As a further check, input on the assignation of articles was sought from the other co-authors. Papers were, where possible, classified by sea turtle species and ocean basin.

### Expert opinion

A total of 63 publishing sea turtle researchers were invited to contribute to this initiative. Those that responded positively (n = 42) were requested to indicate the 3 most relevant questions in Hamann et al. (2010) that matched their expertise. Based on their indications, they were then assigned to groups of 2 or 3 to compile summaries on recent progress towards answering each of the 20 questions. These summaries were then shared among all co-authors for comment, cross-linkage, internal review and refinement.

## RESULTS

In total, 605 articles were reviewed in full and from these 355 (59%) were judged to substantively address the 20 key questions in sea turtle conservation and management (Fig. 1 and Appendix). A total of 40 (11%) of these papers cited the Hamann et al. (2010) paper. Papers on palaeontology (n = 21; 3%) were excluded. Publications on fundamental science (n = 74; 12%) and novel techniques (n = 36; 6%) not yet linked with conservation or management questions were not included here, although we stress the importance of such work in leading innovation that can underpin significant advancement. Baseline
<figure><img src="image_3.png" /><figcaption>Fig. 1. Proportion of publications from 2014 and 2015 that address the 20 key questions of Hamann et al. (2010). Dashed line represents the mean value of the proportion of publications (8%). Percentages sum to greater than 100 as some publications covered more than one question</figcaption></figure>
<figure><img src="image_4.png" /><figcaption>Fig. 2. (a) Proportion of papers addressing the key conservation questions highlighted by Hamann et al. (2010). Prevalence and biases in publications from 2014 and 2015 per (b) species and (c) ocean area. Dashed lines represent mean values. Percentages sum to greater than 100 as some publications covered more than one species. Cc = Caretta caretta, Cm = Chelonia mydas, Dc = Dermochelys coriacea, Ei = Eretmochelys imbricata, Lk = Lepidochelys kempii, Lo = Lepidochelys olivacea, Nd = Natator depressus</figcaption></figure>

nesting monitoring reports that did not include extensive time series (n = 20; 3%), or reports of simple trophic interactions (n = 16; 3%), were further examples of articles that were not included in the final list, although we acknowledge that such data underpin studies of ecology, efficacy of conservation or assessments regarding the severity of threats. A total of 202 papers (33%) were considered to cover single key questions but 153 (25%) were more broadly scoped papers addressing up to 6 of the questions (Fig. 2a).

## Outputs by species, ocean basin and publication venue

Species bias in published articles was prevalent (Fig. 2b). By far the most common species reported upon were green turtles (41% of articles) and logger-head turtles (34% of articles). As might be expected, sea turtle species with more restricted ranges (Kemp's ridley and flatback turtles) featured least, appearing in less than 6% of the articles (see also Jeffers & Godley 2016). Geographically, work was biased towards the North Atlantic and, to a lesser extent, the North Pacific (Fig. 2c), possibly demonstrating the great interest and relatively enhanced funding in nations bordering these regions. Sea turtle literature contributing to the key questions was published in over 130 outlets, with the top 6 journals accounting for 32% (n = 114) of all articles (Fig. 3). Three of these are Open Access venues, with the other 3 being leading marine ecology journals.

<figure><img src="image_5.png" /><figcaption>Fig. 3. Frequency of publishing outlet of all sources with 4 or more publications for the 355 articles that were adjudged as describing work that substantively informs sea turtle conservation or management that may be ascribed as contributing to answering the 20 key questions. Dashed line represents the mean value of publications per all publishing outlets, i.e. 2.6 publications</figcaption></figure>
**To what extent are the 20 questions being addressed?**

Progress to answering the 20 questions in the 2 years of peer-reviewed literature was not uniform (Fig. 1). The related questions which extensively utilise modern technologies such as satellite tracking and molecular genetics: 'What are the population boundaries and connections that exist among rookeries and foraging grounds?' and 'How can we develop an understanding of sea turtle metapopulation dynamics and conservation biogeography?' featured most highly (both at 17% of publications numerically). Eight questions were each addressed in less than 5% of the literature with those relating to reproductive biology (Q1-3), threats (Q12-16) and conservation strategies (Q17-20) generally the least addressed. The question 'How can we evaluate the effects of anthropogenic factors on sea turtle habitats?' was singly the least represented (<1% of articles).

Quantifying peer-reviewed literature output is not the only metric for understanding research progress towards informing key conservation and management goals. Nevertheless, it is a useful tool with which to determine research output as an indicator of the focus and extent of work valuable to the management and conservation of sea turtles. The following 20 sections present synthesized expert opinion on the actual progress towards answering each of the original key questions set out by Hamann et al. (2010). They reference up-to-date findings together with foundation research carried out prior to publication of the 20 questions.

### Q1. What are the factors that underpin nest site selection and behaviour of nesting turtles?

How do turtles decide where and when to lay their eggs? We know the necessary conditions for oviposition and incubation (Mortimer 1990, Ackerman 1997), we recognize that some anthropogenic activities can disrupt nesting (Miller et al. 2003) and have identified that delays to nesting can increase embryonic death (Rafferty et al. 2011, 2013). However, we still lack a deeper understanding of how sea turtles select nest sites at intra- and inter-beach levels. Natal homing has been the predominant explanation for maintenance of populations of turtles at specific nesting beaches (Bowen et al. 2016; see Q4 and Q9), and recent region-level analyses suggest that the interplay of abiotic patterns with natal homing, may also play a role in beach selection, including destructive

weather patterns (Fuentes et al. 2011a), access of hatchlings to major oceanic currents for dispersal (Putman et al. 2010a), and variation in the Earth's magnetic field used for geolocation (Brothers & Lohmann 2015). There may also be local adaptation to specific incubation conditions at the beach level that constrains where a turtle may choose to nest (Weber et al. 2012).

Once a beach is selected by a reproductive female, it remains unclear where along the beach she may emerge to lay her eggs, and whether lateral, spatial proximity to previous nests is the product of a randomized process (Nordmoe et al. 2004, Tiwari et al. 2005). Others have reported that nearshore factors such as wave height and steepness of approach (Yamamoto et al. 2012, Lamont & Houser 2014) or major beach-strand structures such as vegetation (Reising et al. 2015), buildings and other types of construction (Witherington et al. 2011), and natural or artificial debris (Fujisaki & Lamont 2016) influence where along the beach females lay their eggs.

Once a female has emerged from the ocean onto a nesting beach, she chooses where to place her eggs relative to the high tide line, dune line, and/or vegetation line. There has been some debate about the repeatability of nest site selection by individual females (e.g. Kamel & Mrosovsky 2005 vs. Pfaller et al. 2009 and Nordmoe et al. 2004). Recent studies have focused on quantifying nests laid in different beach zones such as open sand, intermediate and vegetation, and/or repeatability of location. Contrasting with lateral placement, most report that the nest locations are not randomly dispersed, and that individual females generally prefer to use the same zone for placing sequential nests in the same season (Nee man et al. 2015a). Interestingly, a multi-season study suggests that while females tended to lay clutches in similar zones in the same season, in other seasons the same females would change zones to lay their nests (Santos et al. 2016). The pattern of non-random nesting at a fine scale (on a given beach) while retaining the capacity to widely vary nest position at a larger scale (between beaches) would seem to be a prerequisite for populations of turtles to maximise hatching success while still being able to respond to environmentally caused changes in the suitability of beaches over time. Individuals with a lower nest site fidelity are needed for the establishment or drift of nesting along a coastline as conditions change. Overall, progress in understanding nest site selection and nesting behaviour has primarily been focused on observational research. While this is valuable for identifying the factors involved in these behaviours,
embryonic development, emergence success, hatch success, and/or hatchling condition, including paternity (Phillips et al. 2013, Alfaro-Núñez et al. 2015) and maternal health (Perrault et al. 2012), microbes (e.g. Sarmiento-Ramírez et al. 2014b, Bézy et al. 2015), insect (Baena et al. 2015) and avian (Burger & Gochfeld 2014) predators; (3) population or rookery viability and hatchling production in a changing climate (e.g. Laloë et al. 2014, Santidrián Tomillo et al. 2014, 2015; see Q12) and (4) examinations of long-term programmes, policy or management instruments related to improving management of, or maintaining, high hatchling production (e.g. Brost et al. 2015, Fuentes et al. 2015b, Liles et al. 2015, Muñoz & Arauz 2015, Revuelta et al. 2015b; see Q19). Additionally, more research is required to investigate potential health effects (i.e. abnormalities) caused by contaminants on sea turtle development (Alava et al. 2011; see Q15).

Most research on hatchling production has focused on loggerhead, green and leatherback turtles, and the majority of studies have been conducted on North Atlantic and Pacific turtle populations. In general, the key species gaps are for hawksbill, flatback and ridley turtles, and studies on populations of any species from the Mediterranean, Indian Ocean and South Atlantic regions. These are important species and location gaps; 6 sea turtle Regional Management Units (RMUs) determined to be at highest risk and 8 of the 12 RMUs with critical data needs are in the Indian Ocean, and 8 of the 12 hawksbill turtle RMUs have critical data needs (Wallace et al. 2011). Although there are numerous turtle research and conservation initiatives throughout these regions, much of the data and publications from these regions exist as grey literature (project or governmental reports, etc.) and are not available to a wider audience.

In addition to filling knowledge gaps on population-scale hatchling production for species in these locations, further research is also required to develop and evaluate techniques to assess hatchling fitness, analyse long-term data sets on hatchling production, understand the abiotic factors that link hatchling production to nest site selection (see Q1) and determine critical thresholds for hatchling production for all sea turtle populations or management units. Our predictions of rookery and population viability and the ability of sea turtles to shift nesting locations in relation to human-impacted changes to the environment will be informed not only by measuring hatchling production, but also by understanding the effects of abiotic and biotic factors during incubation on hatchling survivorship and dispersal.

### Q4. What are the population boundaries and connections that exist among rookeries and foraging grounds?

Defining the geographical boundaries of cryptic organisms including sea turtles is a fundamental but complex process. Major advances in defining breeding populations have led to a comprehensive understanding of stock structure for most species globally. Perhaps the biggest recent genetic advances have been made in the Indian and Pacific Oceans, for green (e.g. Dutton et al. 2014a,b, Nishizawa et al. 2014b, Bourjea et al. 2015a, Jensen et al. 2016), hawksbill (e.g. Gaos et al. 2016, Vargas et al. 2016) loggerhead (e.g. Nishizawa et al. 2014a, Shamblin et al. 2014, Matsuzawa et al. 2016), and olive ridley turtles (Jensen et al. 2013). Globally, significant advances have been made integrating male- and female-mediated gene flow by incorporating both mitochondrial and nuclear DNA (Dutton et al. 2013) for delineating demographically independent populations. Progress towards increasingly multidisciplinary approaches, where data such as genetics and ocean particle modelling (e.g. Gaspar et al. 2012, Monzón-Argüello et al. 2012, Putman & Naro-Maciel 2013, Putman et al. 2013), stable isotopes and satellite telemetry (e.g. Zbinden et al. 2011, Seminoff et al. 2012, Shimada et al. 2014, Vander Zanden et al. 2014, 2016), or tracking and modelling (Putman & Mansfield 2015), have been combined to reveal new information, including about the cryptic 'lost years'.

Nonetheless, researchers continue to identify and fill significant gaps in sampling and to address methodological limitations. There is insufficient information regarding connectivity in flatback turtles, which are still listed as 'Data Deficient' (Red List Standards & Petitions Subcommittee 1996). Some regions remain less studied than others in light of accessibility, permitting, funding, safety, or other obstacles. Despite recent pioneering work, to more fully understand the boundaries and constraints of sea turtle movements, connections among Management Units (MUs; rookeries) and less accessible juvenile/adult foraging grounds, and 'lost years' habitats, must be further investigated (see Q5).

New technological advances are increasingly being applied to address these gaps through tracking, modelling, and genomic analyses. Satellite tags are being developed for use on cryptic stages such as small pelagic turtles (Putman & Mansfield 2015), and high resolution particle models are challenging ideas of boundaries defined solely by passive pelagic drift (Wolanski in press). New DNA sequencing technology
gies are resolving stock structure through whole mitogenome approaches (Shamblin et al. 2012a,b) and short tandem repeats (STRs, Tikochinski et al. 2012). Indeed, the small segment traditionally sequenced stands to be dwarfed by next-generation data. One of the advantages of these genome-wide data, compared to traditional markers, possibly relies on the chance to identify traces of selection shaping population genetic differentiation (Funk et al. 2012). Furthermore, not only will more of the genome be covered, but sea turtle connectivity may soon be approached more comprehensively through environmental DNA (eDNA) sequencing of entire communities from water or soil samples. Although the significant obstacle of international comparisons has been overcome through the widespread adoption of a standardised sequence nomenclature for now, this will continue to be an important consideration in the genomics era. As we reveal the boundaries and constraints of sea turtles, we will better understand the processes leading to these biogeographic patterns. However, we should always keep in mind that boundaries must been viewed as being flexible, particularly in a changing world (see Q12).

### Q5. What parameters influence the biogeography of sea turtles in the oceanic realm?

Satellite tracking has continued to expand our knowledge of adult oceanic movements with noteworthy advances in data-sharing and collaborative partnerships that have allowed assessment of the spatial distribution of populations over entire ocean basins, such as for leatherback turtles in the Atlantic, where it has been revealed how individuals target productive areas for foraging (Fossette et al. 2010, 2014, Benson et al. 2011). For oceanic juvenile stages, the last few years have seen a profusion of work using 3 distinct approaches: (1) assessing likely drift patterns for post-hatchlings based on ocean currents, (2) direct tracking of individuals that are large enough (generally >20 cm carapace length) to carry satellite tags, and (3) using chemical markers (trace elements and stable isotopes) in the tissues to indicate the likely oceanic foraging areas of individuals.

It is generally assumed that once their swimming frenzy finishes a few hours or days after they enter the water, hatchlings then drift passively, at least in their first months, so that their patterns of movement can be approximated by ocean circulation models or the movement of Lagrangian drifters (e.g. Hays & Marsh 1997, Hays et al. 2010a, Hamann et al. 2011,

Putman et al. 2012a), although in some cases the limited swimming ability of hatchlings has also been parameterized within these models (Hamann et al. 2011, Putman et al. 2012a, Scott et al. 2012a). Emerging from these studies is a view that the movements of post-hatchlings may shape the oceanic breeding migrations subsequently seen in adults, with adults travelling to foraging sites that they experienced in their earlier oceanic juvenile stage, i.e. adult migration patterns may not be innate but are rather a learned response to an individual's earlier experience (Scott et al. 2014b). Simulated drift of young turtles has also shed light on potential interactions of young turtles with pollutants (Putman et al. 2015a), helped to inform on growth rates (Scott et al. 2012b) and started to reveal how inter-annual variability in ocean currents may impact survival of oceanic juvenile stages and hence subsequent recruitment rates to adult populations (Ascani et al. 2016).

As young turtles grow and their swimming ability improves, these assumptions of largely passive drift become less realistic. There have been a number of landmark studies to directly track juvenile individuals, from 14 cm carapace length (Putman & Mansfield 2015) and bigger (Briscoe et al. 2016), as well as ongoing efforts to track larger (>50 cm) juveniles caught at sea (Dalleau et al. 2014). These studies suggest that even small oceanic turtles may sometimes show movements that are independent of the prevailing currents, presumably in cases where passive drift is not enough to ensure movements to favourable oceanic resources such as temperature and food. A challenge for our understanding of sea turtles and other marine megafauna remains the synoptic assessment of the ocean currents where turtles are located, to better resolve the roles of active directional swimming versus passive drift (Hays et al. 2016).

Chemical signatures in the tissues of individuals sampled once they have settled in neritic sites have started to reveal their previous oceanic habitats. Work on this topic suggests that from a single rookery each juvenile may occupy one of several distinct oceanic foraging areas, and that these areas are shared by multiple rookeries (López-Castro et al. 2013, 2014b, Fujioka et al. 2014a). A goal of future studies will be to see a convergence of the conclusions drawn from these different approaches (current models, direct tracking, chemical signatures), combined with niche modelling approaches (Varo-Cruz et al. 2016) to provide a more complete picture of oceanic foraging areas for juvenile turtles and how they connect to neritic developmental areas (see Q6).
## Q6. Where are key foraging habitats?

Multi-disciplinary approaches have advanced our knowledge on the distribution and use of sea turtle foraging habitats. These approaches include telemetry (satellite, radio, acoustic), intrinsic markers (genetics, stable isotopes, trace elements), bycatch, mark-recapture (including photo-ID), strandings, aerial and underwater surveys, particle tracking, modelling and behaviour simulation (e.g. Foley et al. 2007, Putman et al. 2012b, Stewart et al. 2013, Dunbar et al. 2014, López-Castro et al. 2014b, Luschi & Casale 2014, Seminoff et al. 2014, Walcott et al. 2014, Ceriani et al. 2015, Fuentes et al. 2015a, Narazaki et al. 2015, Pikesley et al. 2015, Putman et al. 2015a,b).

While strong focus remains on post-nesting females (logistically more accessible; e.g. Griffin et al. 2013), more studies are investigating males and juveniles (Meylan et al. 2011, Arendt et al. 2012a,b, Casale et al. 2013, Mansfield et al. 2014; see also review by Jeffers & Godley 2016). Consequently, our understanding of migratory connectivity among breeding, foraging and developmental habitats has improved. This information facilitates the delineation of migratory corridors (Pendoley et al. 2014b, Baudouin et al. 2015, Shaver et al. 2016) and the identification of foraging habitats supporting high genetic diversity for protection (Hart et al. 2012, Hardy et al. 2014, Joseph et al. 2014). While some foraging habitats overlap with protected areas (Scott et al. 2012c, Hart et al. 2013, Revuelta et al. 2015a), others are more susceptible to fisheries pressure (Fossette et al. 2014, Seminoff et al. 2014) or industry (Whittock et al. 2014).

Some foraging habitats support large aggregations of turtles of different species and size/age classes from different populations (Bresette et al. 2010, Vander Zanden et al. 2013, Sampson et al. 2014, Gorham et al. 2014), whereas others support small numbers of individuals distributed across wide areas (Hawkes et al. 2006, Luschi & Casale 2014). Turtles tend to exhibit high fidelity to oceanic and/or coastal foraging habitats (Goodman Hall et al. 2015, Shimada et al. 2016, Vander Zanden et al. 2016), which, in some places, could be the result of adults and late-stage juveniles retaining high fidelity to known resources after drifting there as hatchlings (Hays et al. 2010a, Putman et al. 2015a,b). However, turtle behaviour is also more complex than previously hypothesized, with many exceptions to traditional life-history models.

Plasticity in the distances travelled to foraging habitats, home range size, and foraging strategy exists (Hatase et al. 2013, Schofield et al. 2013), possibly driven by competition, resource quality or resource

availability, predation risk or climatic variability (Stadler et al. 2015, Prior et al. 2016). Our knowledge about movement patterns and interactions within foraging habitats is constantly advancing through the use of high-resolution technologies, including acoustic tracking, Fastloc GPS, ROVs, and camera systems (e.g. Narazaki et al. 2013, Smolowitz et al. 2015, Thomson et al. 2015a,b, Crear et al. 2016). An emphasis, however, is required on understanding resource partitioning and the trophic structuring of turtles at the ecosystem level (Thomson et al. 2015a,b; see Q10).

Ultimately, sea turtles spend most of their lives in foraging habitats, which are fundamental for juveniles to recruit into adult populations (Velez-Zuazo et al. 2014, Colman et al. 2015) and for adults to have sufficient reserves to breed and produce offspring. Thus, future studies must focus on how to assess which are the key foraging areas, including how their distribution and productivity will alter with climate change and impact reproductive output (Pikesley et al. 2015, Willis-Norton et al. 2015; see Q12), in order to prioritise the protection of these key habitats.

## Q7. Can we develop methods to accurately estimate age in individual turtles, determine a population's (or species') mean age-at-maturity, and define age-based demography?

Understanding the demography of sea turtle populations is fundamental for accurate population models and conservation (see Q8). Age structure of individuals and populations, as well as age-at-maturity are crucial for such models, yet are among the most elusive aspects of sea turtle biology. So far, aging sea turtles has largely relied on skeletochronology, a technique that analyses humerus bones of dead animals (Zug et al. 1997, Snover & Hohn 2004). Indeed, skeletochronology can determine individual age (IA), offer some inferences about population age distribution, and when combined with capture-mark-recapture (CMR) techniques, provide insights about age-at-maturity (AM) (Van Houtan et al. 2014a). However, progress in these areas has been slow and these tools have been applied sparingly, due to the limitation that dead carcasses are required.

During the past decade, there have been several advances in understanding IA and AM of sea turtles based on (1) study of captive turtle growth and maturation (Bjorndal et al. 2014), (2) application of the 'living tag' technique on hatchlings (Tucek et al. 2014), and (3) increased use of skeletochronology and growth analysis (e.g. Avens et al. 2009, 2015, Hawkes et al.).
2014, Ramirez et al. 2015, Turner-Tomaszewicz et al. 2015). New non-destructive, epigenetic approaches have also emerged for studying IA; however, these have yielded mixed results. For example, reduced telomere length in sea turtle blood cells has been suggested to be a function of age. However, while telomere length analysis has been promising in some cases (Hatase et al. 2008), others have found no link with age (Girondot & Garcia 1999, Plot et al. 2012). Measuring DNA methylation within tissues is another epigenetic approach; this shows promise for the study of tissue-specific changes that occur as a result of aging (Richardson 2003, Varriale & Bernardi 2006). Reduced DNA methylation in crocodilians has been shown to be a function of age (Nilsen et al. 2016), but substantial research and development is necessary to establish the efficacy of this technique for sea turtles.

Genetic approaches to determining AM represent a new frontier. Until now, CMR studies have been constrained by the absence of a reliable way of tagging hatchlings and identifying them later in life. Two recent advances have occurred that now make large-scale and long-term CMR studies of hatchlings through adulthood feasible, using DNA as genetic 'tags'. Firstly, the development of rapid non-injurious methods for collecting small genetic samples from hatchlings in the field (Dutton & Stewart 2013), and secondly, advancement in laboratory technologies for high throughput processing and genotyping of DNA (Hancock-Hanser et al. 2013). The rapidly accelerating pace of progress in molecular biology will continue to offer new techniques over the next decade to rapidly and cheaply genotype these DNA samples (Giardina et al. 2011, Schneider & Dekker 2012).

Knowledge of sea turtle demography will continue to be paramount to aiding in population modelling and conservation planning. Whereas traditional approaches will continue to yield important insights in this realm, the advent of genetic and epigenetic approaches shows even greater promise for studying sea turtle age dynamics. As these technologies become widespread and cost-effective, there will be opportunity to develop long-term monitoring experiments with wild populations to validate age estimates (e.g. Dutton et al. 2005) and ultimately better understand population vital rates and heterogeneity among individuals.

### Q8. What are the most reliable methods for estimating demographic parameters?

Important demographic parameters include abundance, fecundity, age at sexual maturity (see Q7),

survival rates, and sex ratios (see Q2). Chaloupka & Musick (1997), Heppell et al. (2003) and National Research Council (2010) presented in-depth summaries of sea turtle demography and the role that demographic parameters play in sea turtle population assessments. A wide variety of methods with long time-series of data are necessary to estimate these parameters for sea turtle populations.

On nesting beaches, total counting (census) of nests is generally unnecessary and often infeasible; sampling can be a cost-effective option for abundance estimates based on nest counts; there are different ways to sample nests on a beach and to statistically estimate the total number of nests from a sample (Jackson et al. 2008, Sims et al. 2008, Girondot 2010, Whiting et al. 2013, 2014a). A time-series of hatchling production is essential for determining the change in the productivity of a population (e.g. Brost et al. 2015). In recent years, genetics, satellite telemetry and ultrasonography have been used to generate improved estimates of clutch frequency, the number of nesting females, and effective population size (Tucker 2010, Blanco et al. 2012, Frey et al. 2014).

Somatic growth is determined through long-term capture-recapture studies (e.g. Hawkes et al. 2014, Colman et al. 2015). A combination of skeletochronological and stable isotope analyses can be used to estimate growth rates and age at maturity (e.g. Avens et al. 2013, 2015; see Q7). Data collection at foraging grounds is essential because multiple stage classes, both sexes and turtles originating from different rookeries can be sampled at the same time. To estimate demographic parameters at a foraging ground, distance sampling and CMR methods can be used. Distance sampling is useful for estimating density and abundance as a snapshot (e.g. Lauriano et al. 2011, Seminoff et al. 2014), whereas CMR methods are useful for estimating various demographic parameters with long-time series of data (e.g. Sasso et al. 2007, Patrício et al. 2014, Stewart et al. 2014). Although a CMR study using both nesting beaches and foraging grounds is needed to obtain rookery-specific estimates on survival and movement rates within a population, this kind of approach has not been implemented because of the logistical difficulty in collecting sufficient data at nesting beaches and foraging grounds simultaneously.

The sex ratio is a poorly understood demographic characteristic of sea turtle populations (see Q2). Primary sex ratios at a nesting beach have been estimated from histological examination of hatchlings, laparoscopy (after allowing some growth of the
hatchlings), incubation durations, or environmental temperatures (e.g. Maulany et al. 2012, Woolgar et al. 2013, Lolavar & Wyneken 2015, Marcovaldi et al. 2016; see Q2 for a discussion on methodological issues and new developments concerning primary sex ratio estimation). In foraging areas, hormone-based sex determination methods (Wibbels 2003, Braun-McNeill et al. 2007, Allen et al. 2015) require minimal invasive procedures and are promising; more validation studies of hormone-based methods should be conducted (e.g. Allen et al. 2015).

A fundamental issue in studies of sea turtle demography is the characterisation of the functional demographic units (Chaloupka & Musick 1997), which can be accomplished via multiple techniques, including genetics, tagging and telemetry (Wallace et al. 2010; see Q4 and Q5). There exists a need for assessing the intrinsic variability of demographic parameters (Bjornndal et al. 2014, Tucek et al. 2014) and for comparing and combining subpopulation data to capture variations of demographic parameters in the wider population (Patrício et al. 2014, Bjorndal et al. 2016).

### Q9. How can we develop an understanding of sea turtle metapopulation dynamics and conservation biogeography?

The first step is to identify the metapopulations. Significant advancements have been made in recent years, with the identification of groups of populations occupying large areas at the ocean basin level, such as RMUs by IUCN (Wallace et al. 2010) or Distinct Population Segments by NOAA, USA (e.g. Seminoff et al. 2015). These units were identified mainly—although not exclusively—through a high degree of genetic differentiation among nesting sites caused by the homing behaviour of adults, particularly of females. Hence, these units are basically 'anchored' to groups of nesting sites and may still be subject to changes. The same genetic data indicate that these large units are also structured internally (e.g. Carreras et al. 2014b, Shamblin et al. 2014, Bourjea et al. 2015a, Gaos et al. 2016, Vargas et al. 2016) and can be regarded as the metapopulations targeted by the present question. These unit approaches were particularly valuable and needed for circumglobal species, as many are known to exhibit local adaptations (Seminoff & Shanker 2008, Wallace et al. 2011, Fukuoka et al. 2015, Liles et al. 2015, Vargas et al. 2016). For example, in the Indian Ocean and southeast Asia there are 9 RMUs identified by Wallace et al. (2010) but these 9 RMUs contain at least 30 genetically distinct

genetic stocks (Dethmers et al. 2006, Fitz-Simmons & Limpus 2014).

A second step is to assess the structure within a metapopulation, with each population anchored to a nesting area (group of nesting sites with genetic similarity) and occurring at one or multiple foraging grounds. When compared to genetic data, the degree of geographic overlap among different populations can help in understanding metapopulation structure and dynamics. While a population is intrinsically linked to a nesting site, identifying foraging grounds is particularly challenging. First approaches to assess connectivity between nesting and foraging sites were represented by flipper tag returns (Mortimer & Carr 1987, Limpus et al. 1992), satellite tracking of adults from nesting sites (reviewed in Godley et al. 2008, Hart & Hyrenbach 2009, Jeffers & Godley 2016) and genetic analyses of individuals sampled at foraging grounds (See Q4). However, these approaches are limited by numbers of tracked individuals and numbers of sampled foraging areas, respectively. Significant advancements are derived from coupling satellite tracking and stable isotope analyses (Zbinden et al. 2011, Ceriani et al. 2012, Pajuelo et al. 2012, Jones & Seminoff 2013, Vander Zanden et al. 2015; see Q4 and Q6) and from understanding the role of currents in the dispersal of hatchlings into their future foraging grounds (e.g. Casale & Mariani 2014, Putman & Mansfield 2015, Naro-Maciel et al. 2016). Technological advances to track smaller turtles are improving the understanding of habitat use by sea turtles during their first and most cryptic life stage (Mansfield et al. 2014, Scott et al. 2014a; see Q5). All these aspects can also inform the degree of dispersal and exchanges within a metapopulation, which plays a key role in a context of extinction-recolonisation and, ultimately, in the vulnerability of the metapopulation. Understanding how specific features of different nesting sites affect metapopulation dynamics in terms of extinction-recolonisation cycles can inform where to prioritise conservation efforts. In this respect, attempts to consider factors like incubation temperature (Pike 2013a) and dispersal facilitation (Putman et al. 2010b) are promising.

A third step is to assess population-specific demographic parameters (see Q7 and Q8). While separate approaches at nesting sites and foraging grounds (e.g. for growth rate, fecundity) are consolidated, novel approaches can relate the 2 different habitats, for instance reproductive output as dependent on the foraging area (Zbinden et al. 2011, Vander Zanden et al. 2014, Ceriani et al. 2015, Patel et al. 2015b).
In conclusion, despite significant advances in tools to determine population-level connectivity as well as the level of heterogeneity and the geographical range of a sea turtle metapopulation, a true understanding of metapopulation dynamics and the application of spatially structured models (Akçakaya 2000) are probably still far in the future.

### Q10. What are the past and present roles of sea turtles in the ecosystem?

When recovery goals are set at returning sea turtle populations to 'fulfil ecological roles' (Bjorndal & Bolten 2003), this definition extends beyond simple metrics of abundance or dietary intake, and precisely because of the complex nature of studying sea turtles in this context, research in this category remains underrepresented. Ecological models aimed at characterising the complexity of the relationships between organisms in a given ecosystem can allow an exploration of the consequences of different management scenarios, past and future impacts of fisheries and environmental disturbance, disease, or the carrying capacity for different species.

Ecopath trophic models that include sea turtles represent advances in understanding their ecological roles (Wabnitz et al. 2010, Viet Anh et al. 2014, Piroddi et al. 2015), but remain limited by the extensive data required for model parameterisation, as the analysis is highly dependent on the availability and quality of such data. Nevertheless, these models can provide insight into the structure and functioning of marine ecosystems. Additionally, other intrinsic markers such as stable isotopes and fatty acids can be important to understanding food web structure and the basal resources contributing to different food webs that include sea turtles (Cardona et al. 2015).

Some of the most pressing research needs identified in 2010 included studies to address roles of sea turtles as ecosystem engineers, nutrient transporters, consumers, and prey (Hamann et al. 2010). With respect to ecosystem engineers and consumers, research on green turtles—the only herbivorous sea turtle species—has composed the majority of research in these areas. The past and present roles of green turtle grazing in seagrass pastures and the regulation of green turtle populations by top-down vs. bottom-up processes are critical to understanding the ecosystem effects of green turtle recovery (Bjorndal & Jackson 2003, Burkholder et al. 2013, Heithaus et al. 2014). As densities of green turtles increase in seagrass pastures, reports of 'destructive foraging'

that may prevent seagrass recovery after grazing have garnered much attention (Fourqurean et al. 2010, Lal et al. 2010, Christianen et al. 2014). Understanding green turtle foraging strategies, including rotational grazing and cues that trigger patch abandonment (Bresette et al. 2010, Lacey et al. 2014, Molina Hernández & van Tussenbroek 2014), as well as seagrass responses to grazing, are critical to evaluation of carrying capacities of seagrass pastures for green turtles. Whether high densities of green turtles represent historical conditions (Bjorndal & Jackson 2003) or a release from predation with the decline of shark populations (Heithaus et al. 2014) is an essential question to ask when determining recovery goals in restoring ecosystem structure and function. Additionally, sea turtle grazing may have implications for the resilience of coral reef habitats, as hawksbills and green turtles target the consumption of algal turfs and macroalgae (Goatley et al. 2012).

Sea turtles have important roles in the terrestrial environment as nutrient transporters and prey. Nutrients from productive marine ecosystems are transported to less productive beach ecosystems by nesting turtles. These nutrient subsidies are assimilated by beach vegetation, predators, and detritivores and may influence the productivity and community structure of coastal ecosystems (Bouchard & Bjorndal 2000, Hannan et al. 2007, Madden et al. 2008, Vander Zanden et al. 2012, Peterson et al. 2013). As prey, nesting sea turtles provide a supplemental food resource for terrestrial species such as jaguars, crocodiles, and alligators (Nifong et al. 2011, Whiting & Whiting 2011, Veríssimo et al. 2012, Guilder et al. 2015), and as a possible last-resort resource for Mediterranean monk seals during the nesting season (Margaritoulis & Touliatou 2011, Tonay et al. 2016). Sharks remain an important predator of sea turtles, and tiger sharks appear to alter their surfacing behaviour to enhance predation opportunities in areas of high sea turtle activity (Hammerschlag et al. 2015). Future emphasis should be on quantitative studies of all sea turtle species in oceanic, neritic, and terrestrial habitats that address the complex functions of sea turtles in healthy, functioning ecosystems.

### Q11. What constitutes a healthy turtle?

This overarching question is addressed as 5 sub-topics, as it was previously divided.

(1) *The need for normal baseline physiological (blood work) studies.* This has been amply addressed with numerous studies presenting basic haematology and
blood chemistry: juvenile and adult loggerhead turtles (Delgado et al. 2011, Ley-Quiñónez et al. 2011, Flower et al. 2015, Kelly et al. 2015), juvenile and adult green turtles (Prieto-Torres et al. 2013, Lewbart et al. 2014, McFadden et al. 2014, Zwarg et al. 2014, Flint et al. 2015a, Li et al. 2015, Page-Karjian et al. 2015c), adult leatherback turtles (Harris et al. 2011, Perrault et al. 2012, Stewart et al. 2012, Innis et al. 2014), and hawksbill turtles (Montilla et al. 2014, Whiting et al. 2014b). Data for other species are still lacking and obtaining regional values for different subpopulations would contribute to better understanding spatial variation. Overall, these studies have enriched the archive of reference values that are needed to assess the health status of both free-ranging and rehabilitating turtles. Rehabilitation plays an important role in stabilising debilitated turtles (Baker et al. 2015) and reintroducing them into the wild, yet, a consensus on declaring a rehabilitated turtle suitably healthy for release has still to be achieved.

(2) *Impacts of disease on population viability.* This hinges on ways to assess or predict the survivorship of sea turtles carrying disease and prevalence of the disease within the population. Flint et al. (2015b) identified clear links between infectious and non-infectious diseases and poor body condition of green turtles. Similarly, Work et al. (2015a) identified infectious/ inflammatory diseases as a significant contributor to turtle mortality (18% of known causes of death) in green turtles. Page-Karjian et al. (2014) found that ocular tumours increased the likelihood of mortality eight fold in turtles with fibropapillomatosis (FP). Finally, a number of sea turtle health and mortality indexes (based on blood chemistry) recently proposed for predicting sea turtle survival (e.g. Stacy et al. 2013, Li et al. 2015) could have important applications.

(3) *The role of environmental factors in disease.* This remains poorly understood, but there are some recent advances in understanding the links between climate change and sea turtle health. Extreme temperatures can lead to sea grass diebacks, reducing body condition of green sea turtles (Thomson et al. 2015a). Climate change has also been linked to increases in the geographic distribution, intensity, frequency and toxicity of harmful algal blooms (Wells et al. 2015). Cold stress continues to be an issue in eastern USA, and an index to predict events has been developed (Pirhalla et al. 2015).

(4) *Health impacts.* Helminth parasites continue to dominate the infectious disease literature for sea turtles (Werneck & Silva 2015), and a new coccidian parasite has been found in leatherback adrenals (Ferguson et al. 2016). Fungi are starting to become

more prominent, with recent descriptions of new fungal infections in green (Donnelly et al. 2015) and loggerhead (Schumacher et al. 2014) turtles, and documentation that the ovopathogenic fungus *Fusarium* has a broad global distribution (Sarmiento-Ramírez et al. 2014a). There is also increasing evidence that exposure of sea turtles to marine toxins can be widespread (Capper et al. 2013) and adversely affect turtle health (Fauquier et al. 2013) (see Q15).

(5) *Health status of pelagic turtles.* This remains poorly understood, primarily due to the lack of information on this life stage (see Q5).

Overall, there is a clear need for new and innovative laboratory tools to understand physiology and disease pathogenesis. Several new such tools have recently been developed: computer-aided tomography to diagnose decompression sickness (García-Párraga et al. 2014); COMET assay to look at DNA damage (Caliani et al. 2014); haemoglobin binding protein adds to the repertoire of acute phase proteins useful for monitoring turtle health (Dickey et al. 2014); and laser capture microdissection (Page-Karjian et al. 2012).

### Q12. What will be the impacts from climate change on sea turtles and how can these be mitigated?

Given the potential impacts of climate change on sea turtles, there has been a substantial growth in the number of studies exploring this topic. Most of the earlier studies explored the relationship between temperature and the sex of sea turtles (Mrosovsky et al. 1984) and highlighted potential impacts from projected increases in temperature. Consequently, several studies have estimated primary sex ratio at nesting grounds (Fuller et al. 2013, Marcovaldi et al. 2016) and predicted sex ratios under several scenarios of climate change (Hawkes et al. 2007, Laloë et al. 2014), using a variety of proxies (Girondot & Kaska 2014, 2015, Wyneken & Lolavar 2015; see Q2).

Despite a more robust understanding of sex ratio baseline in advance of climate change, limited knowledge still exists in relation to the operational sex ratio of the sea turtle population, and this has been highlighted as an emerging theme, although some studies have made some advancements in this area (see Hays et al. 2010b, 2014a, Wright et al. 2012, Lasala et al. 2013, Laloë et al. 2014). A focus also exists on the implications of projected increases in temperature on hatching success and population sustainability (Santidrián Tomillo et al. 2014, 2015a,b; see Q3), with recent work suggesting that the embryos of some
species may be more resilient to higher temperatures
than previously thought and that their thermal toler-
ance may change as they grow (Howard et al. 2014,
2015).

The development of new biomarkers to detect ther-
mal stress on clutches is a promising tool to detect the
negative effects on the nesting environment and the
resilience of embryos to extreme heating events
(Tedeschi et al. 2015). The direct effect of tempera-
ture on hatchling attributes has also been explored,
including clutch success, hatch weight and hatchling
performance (Dudley & Porter 2014, Fisher et al.
2014, Horne et al. 2014). Further, studies have focused
on impacts of sea level rise on nesting grounds and
future availability of nesting areas (Katselidis et al.
2014, Patino-Martinez et al. 2014, Calvillo Garcia et
al. 2015) as well as the overlap between cyclonic
activities and nesting activities (Fuentes et al. 2011a,
Dewald & Pike 2014, Kumar et al. 2014) highlighting
the fact that monitoring the morphological changes
of nesting habitat is a key factor in assessing the
impact of climate change on sea turtles (Yamamoto et
al. 2015).

Advancements have been made in evaluating the
impacts of climate change on the oceanic realm; pre-
dicted variations in wave regimes and currents (Oso-
rio et al. 2014) may have a great impact on foraging
areas for several sea turtle species (Robinson et al.
2014, Thomson et al. 2015a, Willis-Norton et al. 2015),
highlighting the need to also monitor the vulnerabil-
ity of the ecosystems used by sea turtles. Typically
the impacts of climatic processes on sea turtles have
been explored individually, but processes are likely
to occur simultaneously with other anthropogenic
threats and cause cumulative and synergetic effects,
emphasizing the need to simultaneously analyse
multiple threats (Fuentes et al. 2011b). This is impor-
tant, since the resilience of sea turtles to climate
change is likely affected by several factors including
non-climate-related threats such as disease, pollu-
tion and fisheries interactions (Fuentes et al. 2013,
Abella Perez et al. 2016). The adaptive capacity of
sea turtles to climate change, among other factors, may
be dependent on their dispersal potential (Boyle et al.
2014). This dependence is especially relevant as cli-
mate change has been suggested to affect dispersal
by impacting key offspring attributes, such as fitness
(Cavallo et al. 2015, Sim et al. 2015). Some changes
in the timing of the nesting season, possibly as an
adaptation, have been detected and related to sea
surface temperature (Neeman et al. 2015b). Adaptive
capacity will also be dependent on the future avail-
ability of habitat with optimal incubating environ-

ment (Pike 2013b). Thus, further knowledge of the
factors contributing to population expansion and spe-
cies range, such as nest site selection, fidelity and
dispersal from nesting areas is important (Pike 2014,
Mazaris et al. 2015, Neeman et al. 2015c, Pikesley et
al. 2015, Maffucci et al. 2016). Although several
strategies (e.g. shading of nests, sprinkling, assisted
migration) have been suggested to mitigate potential
impacts from climate change on sea turtles (Wood et
al. 2014, Hill et al. 2015b, Jourdan & Fuentes 2015,
Lopez et al. 2015), there is general consensus that
robust knowledge of their risks and effectiveness is
needed before implementation.

Q13. What are the major sources of fisheries bycatch and how can these be mitigated in ways that are ecologically, economically and socially practicable?

Drifting longlines have attracted most of the re-
search attention during the past 5 years, partially
because along with purse seiners, industrial longlin-
ers often carry on-board observers collecting bycatch
data. As a result of this new information, researchers
have developed risk assessment models (Fossette et
al. 2014, Roe et al. 2014, Pikesley et al. 2015) and
tools to help predict bycatch risk in near-real time
(Howell et al. 2015). There is also growing evidence
that hook removal has the potential to reduce post-
release mortality (Swimmer et al. 2006, Álvarez de
Quevedo et al. 2013, Swimmer et al. 2014, Gilman &
Huang 2016).

Recent research on trawl fisheries has demonstrated
that in some regions, only bottom trawls operating on
shallow water are likely to catch significant numbers
of turtles (Warden 2011, Domènech et al. 2015). Al-
though turtle excluder devices (TEDs) and tow times
have been enforced in some fleets operating in shal-
low water, recent evidence indicates that captured
turtles may suffer decompression sickness, and
hence there is a high risk of significant post-release
mortality (García-Párraga et al. 2014). There remains
an urgent need to assess post-release mortality of tur-
tles caught in bottom trawls.

There is increasing evidence that passive net fisher-
eries, drift nets in particular, are a major threat for
sea turtles in many ocean regions around the world
(e.g. Gilman et al. 2010, Casale 2011, Wang et al.
2013a, Wilcox et al. 2013, Girard et al. 2014, Ayissi et
al. 2015, Ortiz et al. 2016). Many of these are small-
scale fisheries that are poorly monitored and studied.
The use of LED lights or chemical light sticks has
proven promising in reducing bycatch (Wang et al.
2010, 2013a, Ortiz et al. 2016), as well as the use of buoyless nets (Peckham et al. 2016). However, the use of shark models, as visual deterrents near fishing gear may also reduce the value of the commercial catch to unacceptable levels (Wang et al. 2010, Bostwick et al. 2014). These mitigation measures require additional testing in other fisheries before their use can be recommended.

Recent studies indicate very low levels of bycatch associated with purse seiners (Hall & Roman 2013, Bourjea et al. 2014). Drifting fish aggregating devices (DFADs), however, might result in some ghost fishing (Balderson & Martin 2015, Maufroy et al. 2015). It is therefore essential to assess the magnitude of overall mortality of turtles through entangling in DFADs at sea or beached.

Efforts to develop risk assessment models, predict the demographic consequences of bycatch and set limit reference points (Curtis et al. 2015a,b, Murray 2015, Warden et al. 2015, Casale & Heppell 2016) are complicated by: variation over time in fishing gear and fishing area resulting in fluctuations in turtle bycatch (e.g. Álvarez de Quevedo et al. 2013, 2014, Báez et al. 2014a,b); poor coverage of species' entire foraging grounds affected or the suite of fisheries operating in a region (with small-scale fisheries particularly under-represented; Alfaro-Shigueto et al. 2010); and large uncertainties about reproductive parameters (Warden et al. 2015) and post-release mortality (Murray 2015).

Further research should encompass all major fisheries of concern, assess both direct and post-release mortality, determine the species and natal populations of captured turtles (Dutton et al. 2014b), contextualize bycatch figures according to life stage and population size, and periodically update bycatch numbers (Casale & Heppell 2016). Additional effort is required in regions other than the North Pacific, North Atlantic and Mediterranean, because large portions of the oceans and their resident turtle populations are under-studied and vulnerable to massive levels of fishing effort, especially from net gears. Artisanal fisheries deserve particular attention and on-board observers may play a critical role in the monitoring of industrial fleets.

### Q14. How can we evaluate the effects of anthropogenic factors on sea turtle habitats?

Recent advancements in remotely sensed data and spatial analysis tools have greatly improved our ability to map sea turtle habitats, detect changes over

time and model habitat suitability. For example, Hedley et al. (2016) mapped persistence of seagrass habitat in Moreton Bay from 1998 to 2010, Yamamoto et al. (2015) mapped morphological changes of nesting beaches in southeastern Florida from 1999 to 2005, and Dunkin et al. (2016) mapped loggerhead nesting habitat suitability along part of Florida's Atlantic coast. In addition, cumulative human impacts in marine environments (e.g. climate change, pollution, commercial shipping) have been mapped on a global scale (Halpern et al. 2015). These types of studies generally have a global overview and focus on a particular habitat type (e.g. seagrass, mangroves, coral reefs). However, it could be argued that understanding the anthropogenic effects on marine habitats at a coarse, global scale is, in fact, providing important information on the human impacts in local sea turtle habitats. Certainly, there is great potential within the current literature to overlap global anthropogenic-induced changes to marine habitats with known sea turtle habitat locations. However, there is still some question as to whether the scale of these global assessments is fine enough to provide meaningful information about the anthropogenic impacts within specific sea turtle habitats.

The effects of sea turtle habitat degradation on sea turtle populations have been relatively well researched in recent years (Mathenge et al. 2012, Schuyler et al. 2014a, Vander Zanden et al. 2016), as have acute, large-scale impacts such as the BP Deepwater Horizon discharge (Bjorndal et al. 2011, Putman et al. 2015a, Vander Zanden et al. 2016). Research has continued to assess the impact of nesting beach development on nesting turtles (Flores-Monter et al. 2015), and the effects of artificial lighting on hatchling dispersal and nesting (Kamrowski et al. 2012, 2014a, Berry et al. 2013). Assessments of specific anthropogenic impacts on sea turtles on nesting beaches continue (e.g. van de Merwe et al. 2012). In addition, it could be argued that impacts such as climate change (see Q12; although impacts may not always be negative, Hawkes et al. 2007) and pollution (see Q15) are affecting sea turtle populations via habitat degradation. For example, increases in nesting beach temperature affect hatchling survival and sex ratios (Santidrián Tomillo et al. 2015a), and accumulation of plastic in core foraging areas results in plastic ingestion in young green turtles (González Carman et al. 2014a). A threat of emerging concern is that of anthropogenic noise (Estabrook et al. 2016, Nelms et al. 2016a).

However, due to the often cumulative nature of human-induced impacts on sea turtle habitats, deci-
sion and risk-based frameworks (e.g. Whittock et al. 2014, Fuentes et al. 2015b, Riskas et al. 2016) are required to better identify the most important impacts of anthropogenic activities on sea turtle populations. Likewise, more studies establishing attributes of good quality habitat (e.g. beach characteristics and environmental conditions that support mass nesting events, Barik et al. 2014; see Q1) are needed for a systematic evaluation of sea turtle habitats. This will promote more efficient and effective allocation of conservation and management resources.

### Q15. What are the impacts of pollution on sea turtles and their habitats?

The primary pollutants influencing sea turtles and their ecosystems may be grouped into plastic and other debris (including microplastics), toxins, and nutrient runoff. Although not discussed here, artificial lighting and anthropogenic noise are discussed elsewhere (see Q14).

The understanding of the impacts of plastic debris, broadly to marine life (Vegter et al. 2014, Ryan 2016) and specifically to sea turtles, has gained significant attention since the previous review (Barreiros & Raykov 2014, Schuyler et al. 2014a, 2016, de Carvalho et al. 2015, Nelms et al. 2016b). Acute threats posed by plastic debris include physical entanglements in derelict fishing gear (discarded monofilament lines, 'ghost' nets etc.) and other plastic debris (Poli et al. 2014, Wilcox et al. 2015). Mortality associated with gastrointestinal tract blockage from ingested plastic is another known acute impact. Ingestion of debris can also cause sub-lethal effects such as internal injuries, dietary dilution, malnutrition, and increased buoyancy (Nelms et al. 2016b). These effects may result in poor health, reduced growth rates and reproductive output but are not well quantified. Additional indirect impacts may include harm from persistent organic pollutants that adsorb to ingested plastic, and endocrine disruption resulting from chemicals leached from plastic (Santos et al. 2015), but these are also poorly understood and challenging to obtain (Casale et al. 2016).

Juveniles may be particularly susceptible to ingestion of plastics, as the offshore convergence zone ecosystems where they reside also concentrate ocean debris (González Carman et al. 2014a, Van Houtan et al. 2016). Further research to locate these areas (see Q5) and understand the trophic structure of these ecosystems (Choy et al. 2015) and the resulting bioaccumulation of contaminants is needed. There is

increasing research on the detection of microplastics in the marine environment and marine fauna, both resulting from macroplastic degradation or from sewage. However, very little is published on the presence or impact of microplastics on sea turtles, and this deserves future attention.

Literature on the accumulation of heavy metals (e.g. García-Fernández et al. 2009, Bucchia et al. 2015) and organic contaminants (e.g. Orós et al. 2009, Lazar et al. 2011, Camacho et al. 2013b) in sea turtles continues to grow. However, only 3 studies have further assessed the risks associated with chemical accumulation in sea turtles (Lam et al. 2006, van de Merwe et al. 2009, Dyc et al. 2015). Toxicity of heavy metals varies with species, developmental stage, environmental conditions, and the anthropogenic source (Godley et al. 1999, references in Bucchia et al. 2015). Maternal transfer of pollutants to eggs has also recently been described (Guirlet et al. 2008, 2010, van de Merwe et al. 2010, Ikonomopoulou et al. 2011), indicating potential risk to developing embryos. However, very little is known about the toxic effects of chemical contaminants on sea turtles (Finlayson et al. 2016). Most recent studies in this area focus on correlations between contaminant concentrations (mostly PCBs, PAHs and DDT) and effects, such as clinical blood parameters (e.g. Swarthout et al. 2010, Komoroske et al. 2011, Camacho et al. 2013a,c), FP (e.g. Keller et al. 2014, da Silva et al. 2016; see Q16), diseases (e.g. Orós et al. 2013) and hatchling body condition (e.g. Perrault et al. 2011). Not surprisingly, considering the conservation status of sea turtles, direct *in vivo* exposure of contaminants to measure toxicity has decreased in recent years. More recently, *in vitro*, or cell-based, approaches have been used as an ethical alternative for assessing the effects of contaminants in sea turtles (e.g. Wang et al. 2013b, Webb et al. 2014, Wise et al. 2014, Young et al. 2015). Investigating toxicity thresholds for pollutants and the effects of complex chemical mixtures are important areas for future research.

Oil spills can lead to varied threats, including injuries, oil-derived toxic effects and habitat degradation (Putman et al. 2015a). However, immunotoxicity is not typically assessed during oil spills (Barron 2012). On the other hand, due to the migratory behaviour and sharing of feeding grounds, oil spills may impact turtles from different, distant populations (Putman et al. 2015a).

Exploratory analyses must also be carried out to reveal the presence of currently undetected pollutants from land-based activities. Land-based nutrients originating from human wastewater and agri-
culture cause eutrophication, harmful algal blooms, hypoxia, and alter coastal ecosystems dramatically (Carpenter et al. 1998). Cyanobacteria blooms favoured by such wastes, e.g. *Lyngbya majuscule* blooms in East Australia, are noted to impact sea turtle habitats and turtle health, but to varying degrees over large spatial scales (Arthur et al. 2006, 2008). Impaired waterways are often hotspots for FP (Aguirre & Lutz 2004), and eutrophication has recently been linked as a potential key factor (Van Houtan et al. 2010; see Q16).

### Q16. What are the etiology and epidemiology of fibropapillomatosis (FP), and how can this disease be managed?

Since the previous update, there have been 2 published reviews (Kane et al. 2012, Jones et al. 2016) and one international symposium (Hargrove et al. 2016) on FP, all identifying needs for research that may lead to better understanding of the manifestation, occurrence, cause, and population impacts of FP. Though yet to be conclusively proven, FP is still considered to be caused by a herpesvirus. Description of the genetic sequence of the ChHV5 virus (Ackermann et al. 2012) was a big step forward. Further, a global phylogeography of FP-associated herpesviruses (Patrício et al. 2012) revealed no recent viral mutations, suggesting the recent epizootic may be driven by other factors. Nested and quantitative PCR documented high levels of ChHV5 in normal tissues of several species (Page-Karjian et al. 2012, Alfaro-Núñez & Gilbert 2014, Alfaro-Núñez et al. 2014, 2016, Page-Karjian et al. 2015b).

Aside from the well-known occurrence of FP in green turtles from Hawaii, Florida, and Australia, more information is emerging in other regions. New descriptions of FP for olive ridleys in Costa Rica (Chaves et al. 2013), green turtles in Principe (Duarte et al. 2012) and Brazil (Rodenbusch et al. 2012, Rodenbusch et al. 2014, Zwarg et al. 2014, Monezi et al. 2016), and loggerheads in Brazil (Rossi et al. 2015) are available. In green turtles, the population-level prevalence varies among sites (e.g. Sterling et al. 2013, López-Mendilaharsu et al. 2016). Turtle fishers in the Caribbean may elevate FP prevalence by selecting against tumoured turtles (Stringell et al. 2015b).

Previously documented in Hawaii, tumour regression was also described in Brazil (Machado Guimarães et al. 2013) and Puerto Rico (Patrício et al. 2016). For Puerto Rico green turtles, FP does not appear to be

influenced by demographics (Patrício et al. 2011, 2016) and may not always alter growth rates (Patrício et al. 2014). In Hawaii, disease transmission may depend in part on disproportional viral shedding from a few individuals (Work et al. 2015c). Electrotherapy (Brunner et al. 2014) and phototherapy (Sellera et al. 2014) may be promising tools for treatment of affected turtles. Additional studies retrospectively examined FP rehabilitation cases in green (Page-Karjian et al. 2014) and loggerhead (Page-Karjian et al. 2015a) turtles from Florida.

FP has long been associated with impaired coastal ecosystems but the exact mechanisms are unknown (see Q15). Heavy metal burdens are associated with FP in green turtles from Brazil (da Silva et al. 2016). However, persistent organic pollutants do not appear to be associated with FP in green turtles from Hawaii (Keller et al. 2014) or Brazil (Sánchez-Sarmiento et al. 2016). In Hawaii, FP is prevalent in watersheds where invasive algae and land-based nutrients are chronic management concerns (Van Houtan et al. 2010). Elevated nitrogen is sequestered by macroalgae in arginine, which when consumed, may contribute to FP by promoting herpes (Van Houtan et al. 2014b), but this is subject to debate (T. M. Work et al. unpubl. data).

### Q17. How can we effectively determine the conservation status of sea turtle populations?

This can be divided into 2 sub-questions: (1) What is the appropriate conservation unit and (2) What are the appropriate methodological approaches to assess the extinction risk and type of data required?

(1) The IUCN Red List assessments are the most cited. Significant advancement has been made from the original global scale at species level to a new scale: the RMU (Wallace et al. 2010). Thus far, the RMU approach has been applied to leatherback and loggerhead sea turtles (www.iucnredlist.org), while others are underway. Although an improvement, an RMU may include several biological units whose individual fate is not reflected by the overall risk assessment. As genetic markers improve, smaller biological units are recognised (Shamblin et al. 2015a,b, Gaos et al. 2016).

(2) Trends or indices of abundance are often used to determine population status, but require precise annual abundance estimates, which can be difficult to ascertain (see Q8). Thus, models have been developed to obtain reliable abundance estimates from partial nest counts (e.g. Girondot 2010, Delcroix et al. 2014, Whiting et al. 2014a). Trend analysis can be
improved by additional demographic parameters obtained through physical tagging (flipper and PIT) of nesting females (e.g. survival, movements, detection, recruitment of nesting females; Pfaller et al. 2013, Stokes et al. 2014, García-Cruz et al. 2015). However, these analyses require consistent, thorough data collection, which may be implausible at remote nesting beaches. To include more than adult females in trend analysis, in-water indices (e.g. Bretsette et al. 2010, Pons et al. 2010, Casale et al. 2012, Redfoot & Ehrhart 2013, Lagueux et al. 2014, Patrício et al. 2014, 2016, Williams et al. 2015), especially for the juvenile life-stages, are necessary to complement nesting indices and detect population changes before they are observed at nesting beaches (see Q7 and Q8). Unfortunately, abundance estimates at foraging areas are challenging to obtain and unavailable for many populations (Fuentes et al. 2015a). Possible future technological development may include the use of drones or improvements to sampling techniques such as photo identification coupled with citizen science. These would reduce or eliminate the cost and risk of conducting aerial surveys at nearshore foraging grounds and nesting beaches. With these demographic data, the status of a marine turtle population can be determined via population modeling, which can be used to estimate the probability of persistence (e.g. Dethmers & Baxter 2011).

Additionally, incorporating the human dimensions, via traditional ecological knowledge, can strengthen species assessments and provide unique insight into a population's conservation status, especially for data-limited populations and locations where baselines are lacking (Sáenz-Arroyo et al. 2005, Drew & Henne 2006, Fraser et al. 2006, Gaos & Yañez 2012). To include human dimensions, combining the social (e.g. interviews, workshops) and natural sciences can provide unique insight via traditional ecological knowledge. Studies have used this inter-disciplinary approach to assess local perceptions of species (Gaos et al. 2010, Butler et al. 2012, Braga & Schiavetti 2013, Liles et al. 2014), sea turtle bycatch in artisanal fisheries (Moore et al. 2010, Braga & Schiavetti 2013), and to inform species assessments of endangered whales (Frans & Augé 2016).

Q18. What are the most viable cultural, legal and socioeconomic frameworks for sea turtle conservation?

Generally, the same 4 categories identified by Hamann et al. (2010) addressed topics related to cultural, legal, and socioeconomic frameworks of con-

servation. From the literature reviewed, we found the emphasis remained on description and assessment, rather than quantifying relative costs and benefits and how they are distributed among impacted human populations. Slow progress has been made, although there have been some novel approaches. These include several methods for ecological assessments and further identification of conservation priorities—such as the use of fuzzy logic mathematical systems (Aguilar-González et al. 2014), habitat modelling (Fujioka et al. 2014a), modelling food webs (Viet Anh et al. 2014), modelling of threat risk and mitigation measures (Kvamsdal & Stohs 2014, Watson & Bigelow 2014), and including budget constraints together with local and expert opinions (Fuentes et al. 2015b)—in order to model cost effective management options (Gjertsen et al. 2014). A further novel approach was the use of religious education addressing turtle conservation (Macrae & Whiting 2014).

Several studies have shown the importance of applying inter-disciplinary frameworks which consider social, cultural, ecological and governance factors to bring about management changes (Jackson et al. 2015, Stringell et al. 2015a, Teh et al. 2015). However, the limitations on the extent to which research can effectively support legislation, management and overall conservation seem to be a general concern (Lagueux et al. 2014, Kvamsdal & Stohs 2014, Harris et al. 2015, Humber et al. 2015, Lewison et al. 2015, Lopez 2015, Lopez et al. 2015, Stringell et al. 2015a). For instance, sea turtle conservation within the context of other long-distance marine migratory species (Gredzens et al. 2014, Lascelles et al. 2014), assessments of critical habitat and environmental sensitivity (Lopez et al. 2015, Martin et al. 2015b), management of wider ocean ecosystems (Maxwell et al. 2014, 2015) and understanding the connections between diverse stakeholders (e.g. Weiss et al. 2012, 2013) all call into play broad international and cross-sector governance and legal issues which are as yet unresolved. Insufficient integration and application of social and natural science in institutions, agencies, universities, and organisations remains an impediment, along with the limits to collaboration created by thematic siloes.

Although on the increase, psychological and behavioural research is still limited (Kamrowski et al. 2014b, McDonald et al. 2014, Hill et al. 2015a). Neuropsychology, neuroeconomics and neuroconservation are areas to watch for emerging themes and breakthrough insights within this category, as applications of neuroimaging technology become more viable. Studies of the cognitive, emotional, psycho-
logical, social, and spiritual value of access to 'blue
space', wildlife, and biodiversity will begin to include
sea turtles, their habitat, and conservation projects
(Kuo 2015, Cracknell et al. 2016, White et al. 2016).

Despite some historical knowledge of sea turtle
fisheries around the world (Halkyard 2014, Lagueux
et al. 2014, Van Houtan & Kittinger 2014), we still
have a lot to learn about the long-term impact of har-
vests. On the other hand, with successful conserva-
tion efforts, some sea turtle populations have been
downlisted. In many places the conversation about
legal consumption (see Q20) is increasing and will
have to be addressed within cultural, legal, and socio-
economic frameworks to avoid conflict. Thus, studies
of conflict resolution will be useful in addressing these
issues.

As technologies to monitor both human and animal
behaviour expand in use, concerns about privacy,
rights, and access to data will enter this discussion
with increased frequency, and could be considered an
emergent area for further study. Conservation efforts
must adapt to this digital age through a better appre-
ciation of the drivers of human behaviour, social struc-
ture and effective communication. Advancements on
these emerging themes may help resolve some of the
longstanding challenges, limitations, and conflicts by
offering a wider, deeper, and more inclusive and
robust framework for understanding the human–sea
turtle relationship.

Q19. Which conservation strategies are working (have worked) and which have failed?

Complex population dynamics and life cycles, long
lifespans and extended generation times, and multi-
ple natural and anthropogenic stressors across wide
distributions present significant challenges to com-
prehensive, effective conservation approaches for
sea turtles. There is clearly room to improve the crit-
ical appraisal of our interventions and to incorporate
lessons learned from holistic approaches to sea turtle
conservation that explicitly integrate human commu-
nities at relevant geographic scales to maximise their
effectiveness. See discussion of evidence-based con-
servation (Flaspohler et al. 2000, Pullin & Knight
2001, 2009, Pullin et al. 2004, Sutherland et al. 2004,
Fazey et al. 2005) and scale-dependent engagement
of human actors in holistic sea turtle conservation
(Campbell 2007, Dutton & Squires 2011). A compre-
hensive, integrated analysis of current conservation
practices that includes political and human dimen-
sions at different geographic scales (sensu Frazier

1999, Marcovaldi & Thomé 1999, Campbell 2007,
Dutton & Squires 2011) is beyond the scope of this
section; below we focus discussion on the progress
(or lack thereof) of some sea turtle conservation ap-
proaches in recent years.

Decades of protection of females at nesting beaches
and the advent of CITES and locally enabling legisla-
tion have likely contributed to successful population
recovery at nesting sites around the world (Dutton et
al. 2005, Marcovaldi & Chaloupka 2007, Abreu-
Grobois & Plotkin 2008, Chaloupka et al. 2008, Allen
et al. 2010, Mortimer et al. 2011, Ehrhart et al. 2014,
Weber et al. 2014, Balazs et al. 2015b, Bourjea et al.
2015b). Preserving nesting females (and their breed-
ing, migratory and foraging habitats) remains an
essential element of any conservation programme
because their delayed sexual maturity and lifetime
fecundity makes each mature female disproportion-
ately valuable to the population. In contrast, conser-
vation efforts focused only on the youngest sea turtle
life stages have not shown clear benefits—e.g.
19th/20th century fisheries legislation protecting small
turtles preferentially to adults (Mortimer 1984), and
head-starting of hatchlings in captivity (Mortimer
1995, but see Bell et al. 2005). Nevertheless, it is
essential to develop conservation strategies that also
target the often overlooked in-water life stages
(Crouse et al. 1987). Efforts must be expanded to
address threats to, and monitor status of, all life stages
of individual population segments to effect durable
sea turtle population recoveries. In some cases, this
can be challenging: for example, green turtle recovery
in various geographies is leading to concerns regard-
ing ecosystem collapse and human-wildlife conflict
(Lal et al. 2010, Christianen et al. 2014) in some in-
stances, while in others it has been posited that in-
creases in abundance may be a result of predator re-
lease due to shark overfishing (Heithaus et al. 2014).

A major threat is fisheries bycatch (see Q13), and
there have been significant advances evaluating and
addressing this threat, particularly in small-scale fisher-
ies in developing nations (Wallace et al. 2013, Lewi-
son et al. 2015). Rapid, port-based interviews and
radio communication with fishers from large numbers
of ports provide baseline information about sea turtle
bycatch in fisheries that are typically poorly moni-
tored, if at all, by conventional techniques (e.g. on-
board observers) (Alfaro-Shigueto et al. 2011, 2012).
The ability to identify areas of bycatch risk improves
predictions and informs management through analy-
ses that overlay sea turtle distribution and abundance,
fishing effort, and environmental correlates of both
(Howell et al. 2008, Fossette et al. 2014, Roe et al.
2014). Although effectiveness of bycatch mitigation — typically through changes in fishing gear — has been the focus of more critical research effort than any other interventions (Gilman et al. 2006, 2007, 2010, Read 2007, Alessandro & Antonello 2010, Bostwick et al. 2014, Senko et al. 2014b, Ortiz et al. 2016, Peckham et al. 2016), there is a paucity of published papers evaluating the success of other conservation interventions in reducing effects of bycatch on sea turtles, especially in recent years. Exceptions include efficacy of marine protected areas (Revuelta et al. 2015a) and rehabilitation success (Baker et al. 2015).

Restoring sea turtle populations to their historic abundance may be infeasible in most cases, given the current state of available habitats and anthro-pogenic threats. Nonetheless, tangible, measurable recovery goals are needed to orient management efforts, especially at regional and global scales. Indeed, several sea turtle populations have increased significantly in abundance, thrusting a challenging, but positive, question before the conservation com-munity: What protections should remain in place, if any, when a population reaches levels by status assessment frameworks (e.g. IUCN Red List, USA Endangered Species Act, Australia's Environmental Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act) that merit 'downlisting' to less- or non-threatened cate-gories? There is a valid concern that downlisting will encourage excessive resource use by communities whose activities are currently constrained by protec-tive regulations (see Q20). However, conservation approaches should engage human actors appropri-ately at different geographic scales, paying special attention to how communities use, value, and man-age sea turtles at local scales (Campbell 2007). Nev-ertheless, as this challenge continues to emerge, the sea turtle conservation community must embrace a holistic perspective that recognises the need to both celebrate and ensure conservations gains.

Q20. Under what conditions (ecological, environmental, social and political) can consumptive use of sea turtles be sustained?

The issue of sustainable use of sea turtles continues to be contentious (Campbell 2012). Since 2010, 3 cat-gories of research have featured in the literature: (1) biological sustainability, (2) social, economic, or cul-tural sustainability, or (3) both of the above. Although there are studies of illegal take of sea turtles and eggs, we focus on legalized take regimes where sus-tainability is an explicit or implicit goal.

In the first category, studies focus on documenting and describing levels of legal take of sea turtles, either for a specific project or area over time (Humber et al. 2011, Valverde et al. 2012, Lagueux et al. 2014), or globally (Humber et al. 2014). These datasets provide necessary information for improved understanding of what kind of directed take exists, and help establish a baseline against which to evaluate future trends. Beyond this, focused research on what level of harvest is sustainable to the target population is relatively rare. Nearly all recent research on harvest has focused on stage class survivorship and population trends of turtle rookeries exposed to directed take of either eggs or later life stages, and these studies tend to suggest that any harvest will cause population decline (e.g. Campbell & Lagueux 2005, Santidrián Tomillo et al. 2008, Macrae & Whit-ing 2014, Senko et al. 2014a, Bourjea et al. 2015b), even if there has been no documented decline in all the study populations.

In the second category, 2 relevant papers were published in the same year as the Hamann et al. 20 questions, in a special issue of the journal *Conserva-tion and Society* dedicated to social science research on sea turtle conservation (Campbell 2010, Garland & Carthy 2010). Garland & Carthy (2010) describe shifts in consumption of turtle meat among the Miskito people of Nicaragua, and how this was influ-enced by changing taste preferences and economic context, among other things. They found pressures for both increased and decreased consumption in the future. Grayson et al. (2010) evaluate the poten-tial for community-based versus regionally-based co-management of sea turtles by Hammond Islanders in the Torres Straits, with the aim of balancing the rights of Torres Strait Islanders with long-term sus-tainability of turtle harvesting. More recently, a long standing and well known case of use—the legal har-vest and sale of olive ridley sea turtle eggs from Ostional, Costa Rica (Campbell 1998, Campbell et al. 2007)—was assessed through the lens of common property resource (CPR) theory. Madrigal-Ballestero et al. (2013) analyse how rule-following behaviour among egg harvesters varies according to demo-graphics, economic dependence, perceived legiti-macy of rules, and social norms. Schlüter & Madrigal (2012) also use the Ostional case to further methodo-logical thinking about social-ecological systems. All these studies recognise that questions of biological sustainability do not exist in isolation; they are tightly linked to, and arguably dependent on, social, eco-nomic, and cultural sustainability of institutions guid-ing management.
The third category both recognises, and empirically
interrogates, these linkages. A multi-disciplinary study
on the legal fishery of green and hawksbill turtles in
the Turks and Caicos Islands (Richardson et al. 2009)
assessed ecological, social, economic, and cultural
aspects of the fishery, and led to national legislative
changes. These changes were directed at maintain-
ing the fishery while reducing negative impacts to
population growth and on the more vulnerable
hawksbill turtle (Stringell et al. 2015a). An innovative
participatory research method (CommunityVoice
Method.org) was used both to collect data and to
engage fishers and community members in dis-
cussing and vetting the recommended legislative
changes before they were submitted to government
(see TCI case study in Christie et al. 2014). Continued
monitoring will reveal whether this fishery is sustain-
able, and highlights the need for long-term monitor-
ing for assessing sustainability.

Although legal harvest regimes for sea turtles are
uncommon in contrast to other conservation ap-
proaches, the need to assess the possibilities for sus-
tainable use remains. For example, green turtles
make up more than 80% of turtles harvested legally
world-wide (Humber et al. 2014), and with the recov-
ery of many green turtle rookeries globally (Weber et
al. 2014, García-Cruz et al. 2015), we need further
research into how to manage turtle fisheries to mini-
mize negative impacts, as it is unlikely that they will
become a thing of the past. Research must include
socio-economic studies into the drivers of both legal
and illegal fisheries in order to better manage and
protect populations (Hancock et al. in press).

GENERAL DISCUSSION

This review finds that significant effort is being
expended towards global research priorities for man-
agement and conservation of sea turtles. Sea turtles
are now a very well researched taxon, and are sub-
ject to a wide variety of conservation actions which
appear, in some cases, to be leading to recovering
turtle populations.

Although variable, there has been clear advance-
ment towards the key research questions identified
by Hamann et al. (2010), whether we look at the sys-
tematic review of 2 recent years of publications or the
integrated expert opinion of contributing authors. As
yet under-researched are those relating to repro-
ductive biology (Q1–3), threats (Q12–16) and conser-
vation strategies (see Q17–20). Some of these biases
may have been less marked if we had incorporated

non-peer-reviewed literature and/or non-English lit-
erature sources. Additionally, no proactive effort was
made to promote the 20 key questions, other than
Open Access publication which may have lessened
the impact of the exercise.

Compiling this critical review has highlighted that
it may be timely to undertake one or more new prior-
itizing exercises. For this work to have maximal ben-
efit we make the following recommendations that
echo those of the original exercise.

A need for a far greater engagement
with social sciences

Although the field of conservation has traditionally
been dominated by natural scientists—primarily
conservation biologists and ecologists—calls for
increased engagement with social sciences from
those within and external to the field are now ‘rou-
tine’ (Bennett et al. 2016) and have been directed to
sea turtle conservation specifically (Frazier 2005,
Campbell 2010). Yet, as this paper reveals, the ten-
dency to prioritize biological questions remains.
Although this prioritization reflects both ‘who’ partic-
ipated in the original question setting and in this
review of progress, and ‘how’ the review of progress
was conceptualized, it also likely reflects 2 related
realities: (1) sea turtle conservation remains domi-
nated by natural scientists, (2) integration of natural
and social sciences is difficult, both generally (Sand-
brook et al. 2013, Bennett et al. 2016) and for sea tur-
tle conservation, specifically (Campbell 2007).

However, if we accept that natural science alone is
‘insufficient to find solutions to complex conservation
problems that have social dimensions’ (Sandbrook et
al. 2013, p. 1488), then we need to tackle, rather than
shy away from, these difficulties. Social science
research ‘for’ sea turtle conservation—defined as
research that strives to enhance conservation by
studying, for example, how humans interact with and
impact on biodiversity, and how individuals or com-
munities can be motivated or incentivised to reduce
negative impacts or contribute directly to conserva-
tion (cf. Sandbrook et al. 2013)—is evident in this
review, but we need more of it. Furthermore, most of
the existing research ‘for’ conservation is directed at
specific field sites or conservation projects. Although
it is essential to understand the history, culture, poli-
tics and economics of people and communities who
interact with sea turtles in particular places, there is
also a need for work at broader scales or on general
policies that influence these place-specific outcomes,
i.e. to understand how decisions are made, policies formulated and finally translated into practice. For example, how do new national or regional policies in support of other sectors or goals—e.g. tourism, poverty reduction, fisheries reform, port development, coastal resilience—interact with or impact existing formal and informal institutions for sea turtle conservation and management? Current quantitative frameworks such as network analyses and graphical models provide both an approach to understand these processes as well as tools for effective decision and practice.

Social science research 'on' conservation 'studies the conservation movement itself as a social phenomenon' (Sandbrook et al. 2013, p. 1488) and is less evident in this review (e.g. Campbell 2012, Liles et al. 2014). Research 'on' conservation is often met with hostility by conservationists, seen as counter-productive to their interests. However, Sandbrook et al. (2013, p. 1489) argue that conservation professionals need to 'understand themselves as a community with particular interests, habits, and characteristics', and understand 'the political and economic processes that not only affect the state of the natural world, but also frame and constitute the work of conservation organizations themselves' (p. 1489). This kind of research may prove particularly important if and when conservation biologists and practitioners have to reorient their activities and priorities in the face of recovering sea turtle populations, as referenced in several sections above.

After over 50 years of orienting activities around the perceived threat of extinction, how will existing institutions for sea turtle conservation be transformed and remain relevant in the face of recovered populations? The response of scientists, volunteers, local residents, and conservation professionals and governments (local, state, and federal) invested in a particular vision of sea turtle conservation will have important impacts for the sustainability of existing institutions and/or the emergence of new ones.

## Widening the pool of contributors

As pointed out in Hamann et al. (2010) future exercises would benefit from a wider range of stakeholders consulted and involved in generating questions, and weighting their importance. This would include more management and policy professionals, governmental environmental resource managers and practitioners from industrial sectors that interface with turtle conservation, e.g. fisheries, port development, tourism,

petrochemicals, government agencies and legal experts. Such engagement would help identify research needs for specific conservation problems, such as testing gear modifications to reduce bycatch of sea turtles (e.g. Murray 2015) or policy innovation. Including stakeholders from a wider array of countries will help ensure that a diversity of issues and approaches to research and sea turtle conservation is included in this type of assessment. It should also help avoid a biased emphasis on sea turtle issues that are experienced by certain regions or research groups that tend to be over-represented in the published literature (Fig. 2).

## Focussing the questions

In undertaking this appraisal, it became clear that the focus of the questions generated in the first exercise was not precise enough. Any subsequent prioritizing exercise would need to develop more specific and discrete questions, even if it means they are not so easily prioritized into a 'top 20'. The considerable overlap among the questions became obvious as they were reviewed, and there are clearly emerging themes which could be more effectively highlighted in any new exercise. Given the biases outlined above it is likely that we should disentangle ecology from conservation (see Sutherland et al. 2006, 2009). A further step forward could be improving the connection between the priority research questions and priority conservation actions; moving from a qualitative to a quantitative assessment of how the field is heading. Finally, a concerted effort should be made to publicize resultant priority questions and enhance their impact.

**Acknowledgements.** Zara Botterell helped with project administration and we acknowledge the support and insight of 3 anonymous referees. K.R.W-S is supported by the National Science Foundation Graduate Research Fellowship under Grant No. DGE-1252521. Any opinion, findings, and conclusions or recommendations expressed in this material are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of the National Science Foundation. Mention of products and trade names do not imply endorsement by the US Government.

## LITERATURE CITED

<figure><img src="image_6.png" /></figure>

* Abd Mutalib AH, Fadzly N (2015) Assessing hatchery management as a conservation tool for sea turtles: a case study in Setiu, Terengganu. Ocean Coast Manage 113:47–53

<figure><img src="image_7.png" /></figure>

* Abella Perez E, Marco A, Martins S, Hawkes LA (2016) Is this what a climate change-resilient population of marine turtles looks like? Biol Conserv 193:124–132
<figure><img src="image_8.png" /></figure>

Abreu-Grobois A, Plotkin P (2008) (IUCN SSC Marine Turtle Specialist Group). 2008. *Lepidochelys olivacea*. The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species 2008: e.T11534 A3292503. http://dx.doi.org/10.2305/IUCN.UK.2008.RLTS. T11534A3292503.en (accessed 1 November 2016)

Ackerman R (1997) The nest environment and the embryonic development of sea turtles. In: Lutz P, Musick J (eds) The biology of sea turtles. CRC Press, Boca Raton, FL, p 83–106

<figure><img src="image_9.png" /></figure>

Ackermann M, Koriabine M, Hartmann-Fritsch F, de Jong PJ and others (2012) The genome of chelonid Herpesvirus 5 harbors atypical genes. PLOS ONE 7:e46623

<figure><img src="image_10.png" /></figure>

Adimey NM, Hudak CA, Powell JR, Bassos-Hull K and others (2014) Fishery gear interactions from stranded bottle-nose dolphins, Florida manatees and sea turtles in Florida, USA. Mar Pollut Bull 81:103–115

<figure><img src="image_11.png" /></figure>

Aguilar-González ME, Luna-González L, Aguirre A, Zavala-Norzagaray A, Mundo-Ocampo M, González Ocampo HA (2014) Perceptions of fishers to sea turtle bycatch, illegal capture and consumption in the San Ignacio-Navachiste-Macapule lagoon complex, Gulf of California, Mexico. Integr Zool 9:70–84

Aguirre AA, Lutz PL (2004) Marine turtles as sentinels of ecosystem health: Is fibropapillomatosis an indicator? EcoHealth 1:275–283

Akçakaya HR (2000) Population viability analyses with demographically and spatially structured models. Ecol Bull 48:23–38

<figure><img src="image_12.png" /></figure>

Al-Mohanna SY, Al-Zaidan ASY, George P (2014) Green turtles (*Chelonia mydas*) of the north-western Arabian Gulf, Kuwait: the need for conservation. Aquat Conserv Freshw Ecosyst 24:166–178

<figure><img src="image_13.png" /></figure>

Alava JJ, Keller JM, Wyneken J, Crowder L, Scott G, Kucklick JR (2011) Geographical variation of persistent organic pollutants in eggs of threatened loggerhead sea turtles (*Caretta caretta*) from south eastern United States. Environ Toxicol Chem 30:1677–1688

<figure><img src="image_14.png" /></figure>

Alessandro L, Antonello S (2010) An overview of loggerhead sea turtle (*Caretta caretta*) bycatch and technical mitigation measures in the Mediterranean Sea. Rev Fish Biol Fish 20:141–161

<figure><img src="image_15.png" /></figure>

Alfaro-Núñez A, Gilbert MT (2014) Validation of a sensitive PCR assay for the detection of Chelonid fibropapilloma-associated herpesvirus in latent turtle infections. J Virol Methods 206:38–41

<figure><img src="image_16.png" /></figure>

Alfaro-Núñez A, Bertelsen MF, Bojesen AM, Rasmussen I and others (2014) Global distribution of Chelonid fibropapilloma-associated herpesvirus among clinically healthy sea turtles. BMC Evol Biol 14:206

<figure><img src="image_17.png" /></figure>

Alfaro-Núñez A, Jensen MP, Abreu-Grobois FA (2015) Does polyandry really pay off? The effects of multiple mating and number of fathers on morphological traits and survival in clutches of nesting green turtles at Tortuguero. PeerJ 3:e880

<figure><img src="image_18.png" /></figure>

Alfaro-Núñez A, Bojesen AM, Bertelsen MF, Wales N, Balazs GH, Gilbert MT (2016) Further evidence of Chelonid herpesvirus 5 (ChHV5) latency: high levels of ChHV5 DNA detected in clinically healthy marine turtles. PeerJ 4:e2274

<figure><img src="image_19.png" /></figure>

Alfaro-Shigueto J, Mangel JC, Pajuelo M, Dutton PH, Seminoff JA, Godley BJ (2010) Where small can have a large impact: structure and characterization of small-scale fisheries in Peru. Fish Res 106:8–17

<figure><img src="image_20.png" /></figure>

Alfaro-Shigueto J, Mangel JC, Bernedo F, Dutton PH, Seminoff JA, Godley BJ (2011) Small-scale fisheries of Peru: a

major sink for marine turtles in the Pacific. J Appl Ecol 48:1432–1440.

<figure><img src="image_21.png" /></figure>

Alfaro-Shigueto J, Mangel JC, Dutton PH, Seminoff JA, Godley BJ (2012) Trading information for conservation: a novel use of radio broadcasting to reduce sea turtle bycatch. Oryx 46:332–339

<figure><img src="image_22.png" /></figure>

Allen ZC, Shah NJ, Grant A, Derand GD, Bell D (2010) Hawksbill turtle monitoring in Cousin Island, Seychelles: an eight-fold increase in annual nesting numbers. Endang Species Res 11:195–200

<figure><img src="image_23.png" /></figure>

Allen CD, Robbins MN, Eguchi T, Owens DW and others (2015) First assessment of the sex ratio for an East Pacific green sea turtle foraging aggregation: validation and application of a testosterone ELISA. PLOS ONE 10:e0138861

<figure><img src="image_24.png" /></figure>

Álvarez de Quevedo I, San Félix M, Cardona L (2013) Mortality rates in by-caught loggerhead turtle *Caretta caretta* in the Mediterranean Sea and implications for the Atlantic populations. Mar Ecol Prog Ser 489:225–234

<figure><img src="image_25.png" /></figure>

Álvarez de Quevedo I, San Félix M, Cardona L (2014) Temporal trends in the by-catch of loggerhead turtle *Caretta caretta* in the Mediterranean Sea: Reply to Báez et al. (2014). Mar Ecol Prog Ser 504:303–304

Amorim S, Santos MN, Coelho R, Fernandez-Carvalho J (2015) Effects of 17/0 circle hooks and bait on fish catches in a Southern Atlantic swordfish longline fishery. Aquat Conserv Freshw Ecosyst 25:518–533

<figure><img src="image_26.png" /></figure>

Anastácio R, Santos C, Lopes C, Moreira H and others (2014) Reproductive biology and genetic diversity of the green turtle (*Chelonia mydas*) in Vamizi island, Mozambique. Springerplus 3:art540

<figure><img src="image_27.png" /></figure>

Arena PC, Warwick C, Steedman C (2014) Welfare and environmental implications of farmed sea turtles. J Agric Environ Ethics 27:309–330

<figure><img src="image_28.png" /></figure>

Arendt MD, Segars AL, Byrd JI, Boynton J, Schwenter JA, Whitaker JD, Parker L (2012a) Migration, distribution, and diving behaviour of adult male loggerhead sea turtles (*Caretta caretta*) following dispersal from a major breeding aggregation in the Western North Atlantic. Mar Biol 159:113–125

<figure><img src="image_29.png" /></figure>

Arendt MD, Segars AL, Byrd JI, Boynton J and others (2012b) Distributional patterns of adult male loggerhead sea turtles (*Caretta caretta*) in the vicinity of Cape Canaveral, Florida, USA during and after a major annual breeding aggregation. Mar Biol 159:101–112

<figure><img src="image_30.png" /></figure>

Arthur KE, Limpus CJ, Roelfsema CM, Udy JW, Shaw GR (2006) A bloom of *Lyngbya majuscula* in Shoalwater Bay, Queensland, Australia: an important feeding ground for the green turtle (*Chelonia mydas*). Harmful Algae 5: 251–265

<figure><img src="image_31.png" /></figure>

Arthur KE, Limpus CJ, Whittier JM (2008) Baseline blood biochemistry of Australian green turtles (*Chelonia mydas*) and effects of exposure to the toxic cyanobacterium *Lyngbya majuscula*. Aust J Zool 56:23–32

<figure><img src="image_32.png" /></figure>

Ascani F, Van Houtan KS, Di Lorenzo M, Polovina JJ, Jones JJ (2016) Juvenile recruitment in loggerhead sea turtles linked to decadal changes in ocean circulation. Glob Change Biol 22:3529–3538. doi:10.1111/gcb.13331

<figure><img src="image_33.png" /></figure>

Attum O, Kramer A, Mahmoud T, Fouda M (2014) Post-nesting migrations patterns of green turtles (*Chelonia mydas*) from the Egyptian Red Sea. Zool Middle East 60:299–305

<figure><img src="image_34.png" /></figure>

Avens L, Taylor JC, Goshe LR, Jones TT, Hastings M (2009) Use of skeletochronological analysis to estimate the age of leatherback sea turtles *Dermochelys coriacea* in the western North Atlantic. Endang Species Res 8:165–177

<figure><img src="image_35.png" /></figure>

Avens L, Goshe LR, Pajuelo M, Bjorndal KA and others
(2013) Complementary skeletochronology and stable isotope analyses offer new insight into juvenile loggerhead sea turtle oceanic stage duration and growth dynamics. Mar Ecol Prog Ser 491:235–251

<figure><img src="image_36.png" /></figure>

Avens L, Goshe LR, Coggins L, Snover ML, Pajuelo M, Bjorndal KA, Bolten AB (2015) Age and size at matura- tion- and adult-stage duration for loggerhead sea turtles in the western North Atlantic. Mar Biol 162:1749–1767

<figure><img src="image_37.png" /></figure>

Ayala L, Sanchez-Scaglioni R (2014) Catch, effort and bycatch of longline fishery in central Peru. Rev Peru Biol 21:243–250

Ayissi I, Aksissou M, Tiwari M, Fretey J (2015) Descriptive study of artisanal fisheries and their impact on sea turtles within the future marine national park of Manyange na Elombo Campo (Cameroon, Gulf of Guinea). Bull Soc Herpetol Fr 156:15–30

<figure><img src="image_38.png" /></figure>

Baena ML, Escobar F, Halffter G, García-Chávez JH (2015) Distribution and feeding behavior of *Omorgus suberosus* (Coleoptera: Trogidae) in *Lepidochelys olivacea* turtle nests. PLOS ONE 10:e0139538

<figure><img src="image_39.png" /></figure>

Báez JC, García-Barcelona S, Real R, Macías D (2014a) Esti- mating by-catch of loggerhead turtles in the Mediterran- ean: Comment on Álvarez de Quevedo et al. (2013) Mar Ecol Prog Ser 504:301–302

<figure><img src="image_40.png" /></figure>

Báez JC, Macías D, García-Barcelona S, Real R (2014b) Interannual differences for sea turtles bycatch in Spanish longliners from Western Mediterranean Sea. SciWorld J 2014:861396

<figure><img src="image_41.png" /></figure>

Baker L, Edwards W, Pike DA (2015) Sea turtle rehabilita- tion success increases with body size and differs among species. Endang Species Res 29:13–21

Balazs G, Parker D, Gorman J, Luecke J, Pawloski J (2015a) Settling down in Hawaii: adaptation of captive-bred green turtles (*Chelonia mydas*) released from the Maui Ocean Center. Mar Turtle Newsl 145:22–26

<figure><img src="image_42.png" /></figure>

Balazs GH, Van Houtan KS, Hargrove SA, Brunson SM, Murakawa SK (2015b) A review of the demographic fea- tures of Hawaiian green turtles (*Chelonia mydas*). Che- lonian Conserv Biol 14:119–129

Balderson SD, Martin LEC (2015) Environmental impacts and causation of ‘beached’ drifting fish aggregating devices around Seychelles Islands: a preliminary report on data collected by Island Conservation Society. Indian Ocean Tuna Commission 2015 WPEB 11 WD39. www. iotc.org/sites/default/files/documents/2015/09/IOTC- 2015-WPEB11-39_-FAD_beaching_Seychelles.pdf

<figure><img src="image_43.png" /></figure>

Barik SK, Mohanty PK, Kar PK, Behera B, Patra SK (2014) Environmental cues for mass nesting of sea turtles. Ocean Coast Manage 95:233–240

<figure><img src="image_44.png" /></figure>

Barreiros JP, Raykov VS (2014) Lethal lesions and amputa- tion caused by plastic debris and fishing gear on the log- gerhead turtle *Caretta caretta* (Linnaeus, 1758). Three case reports from Terceira Island, Azores (NE Atlantic). Mar Pollut Bull 86:518–522

<figure><img src="image_45.png" /></figure>

Barron MG (2012) Ecological impacts of the Deepwater Horizon oil spill: implications for immunotoxicity. Toxicol Pathol 40:315–320

<figure><img src="image_46.png" /></figure>

Baudouin M, de Thoisy B, Chambault P, Berzins R and oth- ers (2015) Identification of key marine areas for conser- vation based on satellite tracking of post-nesting migrat- ing green turtles (*Chelonia mydas*). Biol Conserv 184: 36–41

<figure><img src="image_47.png" /></figure>

Bell CDL, Parsons J, Austin TJ, Broderick AC, Ebanks-Petrie G, Godley BJ (2005) Some of them came home: the Cay- man Turtle Farm headstarting project for the green turtle

*Chelonia mydas*. Oryx 39:137–148

<figure><img src="image_48.png" /></figure>

Bennett NJ, Roth R, Klain SC, Chan KMA and others (2016) Mainstreaming the social sciences in conservation. Con- serv Biol. doi:10.1111/cobi.12788

<figure><img src="image_49.png" /></figure>

Benson SR, Eguchi T, Foley DG, Forney KA and others (2011) Large-scale movements and high-use areas of western Pacific leatherback turtles, *Demochelys cori- acea*. Ecosphere 2:art84

<figure><img src="image_50.png" /></figure>

Berry M, Booth DT, Limpus CJ (2013) Artificial lighting and disrupted sea-finding behaviour in hatchling loggerhead turtles (*Caretta caretta*) on the Woongarra coast, south- east Queensland, Australia. Aust J Zool 61:137–145

Bevan E, Wibbels T, Najera BMZ, Martinez MAC and others (2014) In situ nest and hatchling survival at Rancho Nuevo, the primary nesting beach of the Kemp's ridley sea turtle, *Lepidochelys kempii*. Herpetol Conserv Biol 9:563–577

<figure><img src="image_51.png" /></figure>

Bézy VS, Valverde RA, Plante CJ (2015) Olive ridley sea tur- tle hatching success as a function of the microbial abun- dance in nest sand at Ostional, Costa Rica. PLOS ONE 10:e0118579

Bhatpuria D, Solanki HU, Varghese S, Chauhan P (2015) Applications of satellite derived meso-scale features and in-situ bycatch to understand sea turtle habitats along the Indian Coast. Curr Sci 108:326–329

Bjorndal KA, Bolten AB (2003) From ghosts to key species: restoring sea turtle populations to fulfill their ecological roles. Mar Turtle Newsl 100:16–21

Bjorndal KA, Jackson JBC (2003) Roles of sea turtles in mar-ine ecosystems: reconstructing the past. In: Lutz PL, Musick JA, Wyneken J (eds) The biology of sea turtles. CRC Press, Boca Raton, FL, p 259–273

<figure><img src="image_52.png" /></figure>

Bjorndal KA, Bowen BW, Chaloupka M, Crowder LB and others (2011) Better science needed for restoration in the Gulf of Mexico. Science 331:537–538

<figure><img src="image_53.png" /></figure>

Bjorndal KA, Parsons J, Mustin W, Bolten AB (2014) Varia- tion in age and size at sexual maturity in Kemp's ridley sea turtles. Endang Species Res 25:57–67

<figure><img src="image_54.png" /></figure>

Bjorndal KA, Chaloupka M, Saba VS, Diez CE and others (2016) Somatic growth dynamics of West Atlantic hawks- bill sea turtles: a spatio-temporal perspective. Ecosphere 7:e01279

<figure><img src="image_55.png" /></figure>

Blanco GS, Morreale SJ, Vélez E, Piedra R, Montes WM, Paladino FV, Spotila JR (2012) Reproductive output and ultrasonography of an endangered population of east pacific green turtles. J Wildl Manag 76:841–846

<figure><img src="image_56.png" /></figure>

Bostwick A, Higgins BM, Landry AM, McCraken ML (2014) Novel use of a shark model to elicit innate behavioral responses in sea turtles: application to bycatch reduction in commercial fisheries. Chelonian Conserv Biol 13: 237–246

<figure><img src="image_57.png" /></figure>

Bouchard SS, Bjorndal KA (2000) Sea turtles as biological transporters of nutrients and energy from marine to ter- restrial ecosystems. Ecology 81:2305–2313

<figure><img src="image_58.png" /></figure>

Bourjea J, Clermont S, Delgado A, Murua H, Ruiz J, Cic- cione S, Chavance P (2014) Marine turtle interaction with purse-seine fishery in the Atlantic and Indian oceans: lessons for management. Biol Conserv 178:74–87

<figure><img src="image_59.png" /></figure>

Bourjea J, Mortimer JA, Garnier J, Okemwa G and others (2015a) Population structure enhances perspectives on regional management of the western Indian Ocean green turtle. Conserv Genet 16:1069–1083

<figure><img src="image_60.png" /></figure>

Bourjea J, Dalleau M, Derville S, Beudard F and others (2015b) Seasonality, abundance, and fifteen-year trend in green turtle nesting activity at Itsamia, Moheli,
Comoros. Endang Species Res 27:265-276

<figure><img src="image_61.png" /></figure>

Bovy CM, Wyneken J (2015) Seasonal variation in sea turtle density and abundance in the southeast Florida Current and surrounding waters. PLOS ONE 10:e0145980

<figure><img src="image_62.png" /></figure>

Bowen BW, Gaither MR, DiBattista JD, Iacchei M and others (2016) Comparative phylogeography of the ocean planet. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 113:7962-7969

<figure><img src="image_63.png" /></figure>

Boyle M, Schwanz LE, Hone J, Georges A (2014) How do climate-linked sex ratios and dispersal limit range boundaries? BMC Ecol 14:19

<figure><img src="image_64.png" /></figure>

Braga HO, Schiavetti A (2013) Attitudes and local ecological knowledge of expert fishermen in relation to conservation and bycatch of sea turtles (Reptilia: Testudines), Southern Bahia, Brazil. J Ethnobiol Ethnomed 9:15

<figure><img src="image_65.png" /></figure>

Braun-McNeill J, Epperly SP, Owens DW, Avens LA, Williams E, Harms CA (2007) Seasonal reliability of testosterone radioimmunoassay (RIA) for predicting sex ratios of juvenile loggerhead (*Caretta caretta*) turtles. Herpetologica 63:275-284

<figure><img src="image_66.png" /></figure>

Bresette MJ, Witherington BE, Herren RM, Bagley DA and others (2010) Size-class partitioning and herding in a foraging group of green turtles *Chelonia mydas*. Endang Species Res 9:105-116

<figure><img src="image_67.png" /></figure>

Briscoe DK, Parker DM, Balazs GH, Kurita M and others (2016) Active dispersal in loggerhead sea turtles (*Caretta caretta*) during the 'lost years'. Proc R Soc B 283: 20160690

<figure><img src="image_68.png" /></figure>

Brost B, Witherington B, Meylan A, Leone E, Ehrhart L, Bagley D (2015) Sea turtle hatching production from Florida (USA) beaches, 2002-2012, with recommendations for analyzing hatching success. Endang Species Res 27:53-68

<figure><img src="image_69.png" /></figure>

Brothers JR, Lohmann KJ (2015) Evidence for geomagnetic imprinting and magnetic navigation in the natal homing of sea turtles. Curr Biol 25:392-396

<figure><img src="image_70.png" /></figure>

Brunner CH, Dutra G, Silva CB, Silveira LM, Martins M de F (2014) Electrochemotherapy for the treatment of fibropapillomas in *Chelonia mydas*. J Zoo Wildl Med 45:213-218

<figure><img src="image_71.png" /></figure>

Bucchia M, Camacho M, Santos M, Boada L and others (2015) Plasma levels of pollutants are much higher in loggerhead turtle populations from the Adriatic Sea than in those from open waters (Eastern Atlantic Ocean). Sci Total Environ 523:161-169

<figure><img src="image_72.png" /></figure>

Burger J, Gochfeld M (2014) Avian predation on olive ridley (*Lepidochelys olivacea*) sea turtle eggs and hatchlings: avian opportunities, turtle avoidance, and human protection. Copeia 2014:109-122

<figure><img src="image_73.png" /></figure>

Burkholder DA, Heithaus MR, Fourqurean JW, Wirsing A, Dill LM (2013) Patterns of top-down control in a seagrass ecosystem: Could a roving apex predator induce a behaviour-mediated trophic cascade? J Anim Ecol 82: 1192-1202

Butler JR, Tawake A, Skewes T, Tawake L, McGrath V (2012) Integrating traditional ecological knowledge and fisheries management in the Torres Strait, Australia: the catalytic role of turtles and dugong as cultural keystone species. Ecol Soc 17:1-9

Caillouet CW Jr (2014) Interruption of the Kemp's ridley population's pre-2010 exponential growth in the Gulf of Mexico and its aftermath: one hypothesis. Mar Turtle News1 143:1-7

Caillouet CW Jr, Shaver DJ, Landry Andre MJ (2015) Kemp's ridley sea turtle (*Lepidochelys kempii*) headstart and reintroduction to Padre Island National Seashore, Texas. Herpetol Conserv Biol 10:309-377

<figure><img src="image_74.png" /></figure>

Caliani I, Campani T, Giannetti M, Marsili L, Casini S, Fossi MC (2014) First application of comet assay in blood cells of Mediterranean loggerhead sea turtle (*Caretta caretta*). Mar Environ Res 96:68-72

Calvillo Garcia Y, Ramirez-Herrera MT, Delgado-Trejo C, Legorreta-Paulin G, Corona N (2015) Modeling sea-level change, inundation scenarios, and their effect on the Colola Beach Reserve - a nesting-habitat of the black sea turtle, Michoacán, Mexico. Geofis Int 54:179-190

<figure><img src="image_75.png" /></figure>

Camacho M, Luzardo O, Boada L, Jurado L, Medina M, Zumbado M, Orós J (2013a) Potential adverse health effects of persistent organic pollutants on sea turtles: evidences from a cross-sectional study on Cape Verde loggerhead sea turtles. Sci Total Environ 458-460:283-289

<figure><img src="image_76.png" /></figure>

Camacho M, Boada L, Orós J, López P, Zumbado M, Almeida-González M, Luzardo O (2013b) Comparative study of organohalogen contamination between two populations of eastern Atlantic loggerhead sea turtles (*Caretta caretta*). Bull Environ Contam Toxicol 91: 678-683

<figure><img src="image_77.png" /></figure>

Camacho M, Orós J, Boada LD, Zaccaroni A and others (2013c) Potential adverse effects of inorganic pollutants on clinical parameters of loggerhead sea turtles (*Caretta caretta*): results from a nesting colony from Cape Verde, West Africa. Mar Environ Res 92:15-22

<figure><img src="image_78.png" /></figure>

Camedda A, Marra S, Matiddi M, Massaro G and others (2014) Interaction between loggerhead sea turtles (*Caretta caretta*) and marine litter in Sardinia (Western Mediterranean Sea). Mar Environ Res 100:25-32

<figure><img src="image_79.png" /></figure>

Campbell LM (1998) Use them or lose them? Conservation and the consumptive use of marine turtle eggs at Ostional, Costa Rica. Environ Conserv 25:305-319

<figure><img src="image_80.png" /></figure>

Campbell LM (2007) Local conservation practice and global discourse: a political ecology of sea turtle conservation. Ann Assoc Am Geogr 97:313-334

<figure><img src="image_81.png" /></figure>

Campbell LM (2010) Studying sea turtle conservation and learning about the world: perspectives from social sciences. Conserv Soc 8:1-4

<figure><img src="image_82.png" /></figure>

Campbell LM (2012) Seeing red: inside the science and politics of IUCN Red Lists. Conserv Soc 10:367-380

<figure><img src="image_83.png" /></figure>

Campbell CL, Lagueux CJ (2005) Survival probability estimates for large juvenile and adult green turtles (*Chelonia mydas*) exposed to an artisanal marine turtle fishery in the western Caribbean. Herpetologica 61:91-103

<figure><img src="image_84.png" /></figure>

Campbell LM, Haalboom BJ, Trow J (2007) Sustainability of community-based conservation: sea turtle egg harvesting in Ostional (Costa Rica) ten years later. Environ Conserv 34:122-131

<figure><img src="image_85.png" /></figure>

Capper A, Flewelling LJ, Arthur K, Garcia AC (2013) Dietary exposure to harmful algal bloom (HAB) toxins in the endangered manatee (*Trichechus manatus latirostris*) and green sea turtle (*Chelonia mydas*) in Florida, USA. Harmful Algae 28:1-9

<figure><img src="image_86.png" /></figure>

Cardona L, Clusa M, Eder E, Demetropoulos A and others (2014) Distribution patterns and foraging ground productivity determine clutch size in Mediterranean loggerhead turtles. Mar Ecol Prog Ser 497:229-241

<figure><img src="image_87.png" /></figure>

Cardona L, Martínez-Iñigo L, Mateo R, González-Solís J (2015) The role of sardine as prey for pelagic predators in the western Mediterranean Sea assessed using stable isotopes and fatty acids. Mar Ecol Prog Ser 531:1-14

<figure><img src="image_88.png" /></figure>

Carpenter SR, Caraco NF, Correll DL, Howarth RW, Sharp-ley AN, Smith VH (1998) Nonpoint pollution of surface waters with phosphorus and nitrogen. Ecol Appl 8: 559-568
Carreras C, Monzón-Argüello C, Felipe Lopez-Jurado L, Calabuig P and others (2014a) Origin and dispersal routes of foreign green and Kemp's ridley turtles in Spanish Atlantic and Mediterranean waters. Amphib- reptil 35:73–86

Carreras C, Rees AF, Broderick AC, Godley BJ, Margari- toulis D (2014b) Mitochondrial DNA markers of logger- head marine turtles (Caretta caretta) (Testudines: Che- loniidae) nesting at Kyparissia Bay, Greece, confirm the western Greece unit and regional structuring. Sci Mar 78:115–124

de Carvalho RH, Lacerda PD, Mendes S da S, Barbosa BC, Paschoalini M, Prezoto F, de Sousa BM (2015) Marine debris ingestion by sea turtles (Testudines) on the Brazil- ian coast: an underestimated threat? Mar Pollut Bull 101:746–749

Casale P (2011) Sea turtle by-catch in the Mediterranean? Fish Fish 12:299–316

Casale P, Heppell SS (2016) How much sea turtle bycatch is too much? A stationary age distribution model for simu- lating population abundance and potential biological removal in the Mediterranean. Endang Species Res 29:239–254

Casale P, Mariani P (2014) The first 'lost year' of Mediterran- ean sea turtles: dispersal patterns indicate subregional management units for conservation. Mar Ecol Prog Ser 498:263–274

Casale P, Lazar B, Pont S, Tomás J and others (2006) Sex ratios of juvenile loggerhead sea turtles Caretta caretta in the Mediterranean Sea. Mar Ecol Prog Ser 324: 281–285

Casale P, Aprea A, Deflorio M, De Metrio G (2012) Increased by-catch rates in the Gulf of Taranto, Italy, in 20 years: A clue about sea turtle population trends? Chelonian Conserv Biol 11:239–243

Casale P, Freggi D, Cinà A, Rocco M (2013) Spatio-temporal distribution and migration of adult male loggerhead sea turtles (Caretta caretta) in the Mediterranean Sea: further evidence of the importance of neritic habitats off North Africa. Mar Biol 160:703–718

Casale P, Freggi D, Maffucci F, Hochscheid S (2014) Adult sex ratios of loggerhead sea turtles (Caretta caretta) in two Mediterranean foraging grounds. Sci Mar 78: 303–309

Casale P, Freggi D, Furii G, Vallini C and others (2015) Annual survival probabilities of juvenile loggerhead sea turtles indicate high anthropogenic impact on Medit- erranean populations. Aquat Conserv Freshw Ecosyst 25:690–700

Casale P, Freggi D, Paduano V, Oliverio M (2016) Biases and best approaches for assessing debris ingestion in sea tur- tles, with a case study in the Mediterranean. Mar Pollut Bull 110:238–249

Cavallo C, Dempster T, Kearney MR, Kelly E, Booth D, Had- den KM, Jessop TS (2015) Predicting climate warming effects on green turtle hatchling viability and dispersal performance. Funct Ecol 29:768–778

Ceriani SA, Roth JD, Evans DR, Weishampel JF, Ehrhart LM (2012) Inferring foraging areas of nesting loggerhead turtles using satellite telemetry and stable isotopes. PLOS ONE 7:e45335

Ceriani SA, Roth JD, Tucker AD, Evans DR and others (2015) Carry-over effects and foraging ground dynamics of a major loggerhead breeding aggregation. Mar Biol 162:1955–1968

Chaloupka MY, Musick JA (1997) Age, growth, and popula- tion dynamics. In: Lutz PL, Musick JA (eds) The biology of sea turtles. CRC Press, Boca Raton, FL, p 233–276

Chaloupka M, Bjorndal KA, Balazs GH, Bolten AB and oth- ers (2008) Encouraging outlook for recovery of a once severely exploited marine megaherbivore. Glob Ecol Biogeogr 17:297–304

Charnier M (1966) Action de la température sur la sex-ratio chez l'embryon d'Agama agama (Agamidae, Lacertil- ien). C R Seances Soc Biol Fil 160:620–622

Charnov EL, Bull JJ (1977) When is sex environmentally determined? Nature 266:828–830

Chaves LB, Berrocal A, Meneses AI, Sánchez CJ, Orrego Vásquez CM (2013) Study on the etiology of fibropapillo- matosis of olive ridley sea turtles (Lepidochelys olivacea) nesting in the National Wildlife Refuge at Ostional, Gua- nacaste, Costa Rica. Revista Marina Costera 5:119–134

Cheng IJ, Lin CH, Tseng CT (2015) Factors influencing vari- ations of oxygen content in nests of green sea turtles during egg incubation with a comparison of two nesting environments. J Exp Mar Biol Ecol 471:104–111

Choy CA, Popp BN, Hannides CCS, Drazen JC (2015) Trophic structure and food resources of epipelagic and mesopelagic fishes in the North Pacific Subtropical Gyre ecosystem inferred from nitrogen isotopic compositions. Limnol Oceanogr 60:1156–1171

Christianen MJA, Herman PMJ, Bouma TJ, Lamers LPM and others (2014) Habitat collapse due to overgrazing threatens turtle conservation in marine protected areas. Proc R Soc B 281:20132890

Christie P, Campbell LM, Armada N (2014) Stewardship in tropical small-scale fisheries: community and national perspectives. In: Garcia S, Rice J, Charles T (eds) Gover- nance of marine fisheries and biodiversity conservation: interaction and co-evolution. Wiley-Blackwell, London, p 332–345

Clusa M, Carreras C, Pascual M, Gaughran SJ and others (2014) Fine-scale distribution of juvenile Atlantic and Mediterranean loggerhead turtles (Caretta caretta) in the Mediterranean Sea. Mar Biol 161:509–519

Cocci P, Bracchetti L, Angelini V, Buccchia M and others (2014) Development and pre-validation of a testosterone enzyme immunoassay (EIA) for predicting the sex ratio of immature loggerhead sea turtles (Caretta caretta) recovered along the western coast of the central Adriatic Sea. Mar Biol 161:165–171

Coelho R, Santos MN, Fernandez-Carvalho J, Amorim S (2015) Effects of hook and bait in a tropical northeast Atlantic pelagic longline fishery. I. Incidental sea turtle bycatch. Fish Res 164:302–311

Colman LP, Patrício ARC, McGowan A, Santos AJB, Marco- valdi MÂ, Bellini C, Godley BJ (2015) Long-term growth and survival dynamics of green turtles (Chelonia mydas) at an isolated tropical archipelago in Brazil. Mar Biol 162:111–122

Cooke SJ, Danylchuk AJ, Kaiser MJ, Rudd MA (2010) Is there a need for a '100 questions exercise' to enhance fisheries and aquatic conservation, policy, management and research? Lessons from a global 100 questions exer- cise on conservation of biodiversity. J Fish Biol 76: 2261–2286

Cracknell D, White MP, Pahl P, Nichols WJ, Depledge MH (2016) Marine biota and psychological well-being: a pre- liminary examination of dose-response effects in an aquarium setting. Environ Behav 48:1242–1269
* Crear DP, Lawson DD, Seminoff JA, Eguchi T, LeRoux RA, Lowe CG (2016) Seasonal shifts in the movement and distribution of green sea turtles *Chelonia mydas* in response to anthropogenically altered water temperatures. *Mar Ecol Prog Ser* 548:219–232

* Crouse DT, Crowder LB, Caswell H (1987) A stage-based population model for loggerhead sea turtles and implications for conservation. *Ecology* 68:1412–1423

* Curtis KA, Moore JE, Boyd C, Dillingham PW, Lewison RL, Taylor BL, James KC (2015a) Managing catch of marine megafauna: guidelines for setting limit reference points. *Mar Policy* 61:249–263

* Curtis KA, Moore JE, Benson SR (2015b) Estimating limit reference points for western Pacific leatherback turtles (*Dermochelys coriacea*) in the U.S. west coast EEZ. *PLOS ONE* 10:e0136452

* D'Cruze N, Alcock R, Donnelly M (2015) The Cayman Turtle Farm: why we can't have our green turtle and eat it too. *J Agric Environ Ethics* 28:57–66

* da Silva CC, Klein RD, Barcarolli IF, Bianchini A (2016) Metal contamination as a possible etiology of fibropapillomatosis in juvenile female green sea turtles *Chelonia mydas* from the southern Atlantic Ocean. *Aquat Toxicol* 170:42–51

* da Silva Mendes S, de Carvalho RH, de Faria AF, de Sousa BM (2015) Marine debris ingestion by *Chelonia mydas* (Testudines: Cheloniidae) on the Brazilian coast. *Mar Pollut Bull* 92:8–10
Dalleau M, Benhamou S, Sudre J, Ciccione S, Bourjea J (2014) The spatial ecology of juvenile loggerhead turtles (*Caretta caretta*) in the Indian Ocean sheds light on the 'lost years' mystery. *Mar Biol* 161:1835–1849

* Daza-Criado L, Hernandez-Fernandez J (2014) Molecular identification and first report of mitochondrial COI gene haplotypes in the hawksbill turtle *Eretmochelys imbricata* (Testudines: Cheloniidae) in the Colombian Caribbean nesting colonies. *Genet Mol Res* 13:7123–7132

* dei Marcovaldi MAG, Santos AJB, Santos AS, Soares LS, Lopez GG, Godfrey MH, Lopez-Mendilaharsu M, Fuentes MMPB (2014) Spatio-temporal variation in the incubation duration and sex ratio of hawksbill hatchlings: implication for future management. *J Therm Biol* 44:70–77

* Delcroix E, Bédel S, Santelli G, Girondot M (2014) Monitoring design for quantification of marine turtle nesting with limited effort: a test case in the Guadeloupe archipelago. *Oryx* 48:95–105

* Delgado C, Valente A, Quaresma I, Costa M, Dellinger T (2011) Blood biochemistry reference values for wild juvenile loggerhead sea turtles (*Caretta caretta*) from Madeira archipelago. *J Wildl Dis* 47:523–529

* Dellert LJ, O'Neil D, Cassill DL (2014) Effects of beach renourishment and clutch relocation on the success of the loggerhead sea turtle (*Caretta caretta*) eggs and hatchlings. *J Herpetol* 48:186–187

* Derville S, Jean C, Dalleau M, Le Gall JY, Ciccione S, Bourjea J (2015) Long-term monitoring of green turtle nesting on Tromelin Island demonstrates stable reproduction and population parameters. *Chelonian Conserv Biol* 14: 11–20

* Dethmers KEM, Baxter PWJ (2011) Extinction risk analysis of exploited green turtle stocks in the Indo-Pacific. *Anim Conserv* 14:140–150

* Dethmers KE, Broderick D, Moritz C, Fitzsimmons NN and others (2006) The genetic structure of Australasian green turtles (*Chelonia mydas*): exploring the geographical scale of genetic exchange. *Mol Ecol* 15:3931–3946

* Detjen M, Sterling E, Gomez A (2015) Stable isotopes in bar-nacles as a tool to understand green sea turtle (*Chelonia mydas*) regional movement patterns. *Biogeosciences* 12:7081–7086

* Deudero S, Alomar C (2015) Mediterranean marine biodiversity under threat: reviewing influence of marine litter on species. *Mar Pollut Bull* 98:58–68

* Deus Santos MRd, SilvaMartins A, Baptistotte C, Work TM (2015) Health condition of juvenile *Chelonia mydas* related to fibropapillomatosis in southeast Brazil. *Dis Aquat Org* 115:193–201

* Dewald JR, Pike DA (2014) Geographical variation in hurricane impacts among sea turtle populations. *J Biogeogr* 41:307–316

* Dickey M, Cray C, Norton T, Murray M and others (2014) Assessment of hemoglobin binding protein in loggerhead sea turtles (*Caretta caretta*) undergoing rehabilitation. *J Zoo Wildl Med* 45:700–703

* Dodge KL, Galuardi B, Miller TJ, Lutcavage ME (2014) Leatherback turtle movements, dive behavior, and habitat characteristics in ecoregions of the northwest Atlantic Ocean. *PLOS ONE* 9:e91726

* Domènech F, Álvarez de Quevedo I, Merchán M, Revuelta O and others (2015) Incidental catch of marine turtles by Spanish bottom trawlers in the western Mediterranean. *Aquat Conserv* 25:678–689

* Donnelly K, Waltzek TB, Wellehan JF Jr, Sutton DA, Wiederhold NP, Stacy BA (2015) Phaeohyphomycosis resulting in obstructive tracheitis in three green sea turtles *Chelonia mydas* stranded along the Florida coast. *Dis Aquat Org* 113:257–262

* Drew JA, Henne AP (2006) Conservation biology and traditional ecological knowledge: integrating academic disciplines for better conservation practice. *Ecol Soc* 11:34

* Duarte A, Faísca P, Loureiro NS, Rosado R and others (2012) First histological and virological report of fibropapilloma associated with herpesvirus in *Chelonia mydas* at Príncipe Island, West Africa. *Arch Virol* 157: 1155–1159

* Dudley PN, Porter WP (2014) Using empirical and mechanistic models to assess global warming threats to leatherback sea turtles. *Mar Ecol Prog Ser* 501:265–278

* Dunbar SG, Ito HE, Bahjri K, Dehom S, Salinas L (2014) Recognition of juvenile hawksbills *Eretmochelys imbricata* through face scale digitization and automated searching. *Endang Species Res* 26:137–146

* Dunkin L, Reif M, Altman S, Swannack T (2016) A spatially explicit, multi-criteria decision support model for loggerhead sea turtle nesting habitat suitability: a remote sensing-based approach. *Remote Sens* 8:573

* Duran N, Dunbar SG, Escobar RA III, Standish TG (2015) High frequency of multiple paternity in a solitary population of olive ridley sea turtles in Honduras. *J Exp Mar Biol Ecol* 463:63–71

Dutton PH, Squires D (2011) A holistic strategy for Pacific sea turtle conservation. In: Dutton PH, Squires D, Ahmed M (eds) Conservation of Pacific sea turtles. University of Hawaii Press, Honolulu, HI, p 37–59

Dutton PH, Stewart KR (2013) A method for sampling hatchling sea turtles for the development of a genetic tag. *Mar Turtle Newsl* 138:3–7

* Dutton DL, Dutton PH, Chaloupka M, Boulon R (2005) Increase of a Caribbean leatherback turtle *Dermochelys*
* *Chelonia mydas* nesting population linked to long-term nest protection. *Biol Conserv* 126:186–194

<figure><img src="image_89.png" /></figure>

Dutton PH, Roden SE, Stewart KR LaCasella E and others (2013) Population stock structure of leatherback turtles (*Dermochelys coriacea*) in the Atlantic revealed using mtDNA and microsatellite markers. *Conserv Genet* 14: 625–636

<figure><img src="image_90.png" /></figure>

Dutton PH, Jensen MP, Frutchey K, Frey A and others (2014a) Genetic stock structure of green turtle (*Chelonia mydas*) nesting populations across the Pacific islands. *Pac Sci* 68:451–464

<figure><img src="image_91.png" /></figure>

Dutton PH, Jensen MP, Frey A, LaCasella EL and others (2014b) Population structure and phylogeography reveal pathways of colonization by a migratory marine reptile (*Chelonia mydas*) in the central and eastern Pacific. *Ecol Evol* 4:4317–4331

<figure><img src="image_92.png" /></figure>

Dyc C, Covaci A, Debier C, Leroy C, Delcroix E, Thomé JP, Das K (2015) Pollutant exposure in green and hawksbill marine turtles from the Caribbean region. *Reg Stud Mar Sci* 2:158–170

<figure><img src="image_93.png" /></figure>

Ehrhart L, Redfoot W, Bagley D, Mansfield K (2014) Long-term trends in loggerhead (*Caretta caretta*) nesting and reproductive success at an important western Atlantic rookery. *Chelonian Conserv Biol* 13:173–181

<figure><img src="image_94.png" /></figure>

Estabrook BJ, Ponirakis DW, Clark CW, Rice AN (2016) Widespread spatial and temporal extent of anthropogenic noise across the northeastern Gulf of Mexico shelf ecosystem. *Endang Species Res* 30:267–282

<figure><img src="image_95.png" /></figure>

Esteban N, van Dam RP, Harrison E, Herrera A, Berkel J (2015) Green and hawksbill turtles in the Lesser Antilles demonstrate behavioural plasticity in inter-nesting behaviour and post-nesting migration. *Mar Biol* 162: 1153–1163

<figure><img src="image_96.png" /></figure>

Fauquier DA, Flewelling LJ, Maucher J, Manire CA and others (2013) Brevetoxin in blood, biological fluids, and tissues of sea turtles naturally exposed to *Karenia brevis* blooms in central west Florida. *J Zoo Wildl Med* 44: 364–375

<figure><img src="image_97.png" /></figure>

Fazey I, Fischer J, Lindenmayer D (2005) What do conservation biologists publish? *Biol Conserv* 124:63–73

<figure><img src="image_98.png" /></figure>

Ferguson SD, Wellehan JF Jr, Frasca S Jr, Innis CJ, and others (2016) Coccidial infection of the adrenal glands of leatherback sea turtles (*Dermochelys coriacea*). *J Wildl Dis* 52:874–882

Fernandez I, Retamal MA, Mansilla M, Yanez F and others (2015) Analysis of epibiont data in relation with the debilitated turtle syndrome of sea turtles in *Chelonia mydas* and *Lepidochelys olivacea* from Concepcion coast, Chile. *Lat Am J Aquat Res* 43:1024–1029

<figure><img src="image_99.png" /></figure>

Finlayson KA, Leusch FDL, van de Merwe JP (2016) The current state and future directions of marine turtle toxicology research. *Environ Int* 94:113–123

<figure><img src="image_100.png" /></figure>

Fisher LR, Godfrey MH, Owens DW (2014) Incubation temperature effects on hatchling performance in the loggerhead sea turtle (*Caretta caretta*). *PLOS ONE* 9:e114880
FitzSimmons NN, Limpus CJ (2014) Marine turtle genetic stocks of the Indo-Pacific: identifying boundaries and knowledge gaps. *Indian Ocean Turtle Newsl* 20:2–18

<figure><img src="image_101.png" /></figure>

Flaspohler DJ, Bub BR, Kaplin BA (2000) Application of conservation biology research to management. *Conserv Biol* 14:1898–1902

<figure><img src="image_102.png" /></figure>

Flint M, Matthews BJ, Limpus CJ, Mills PC (2015a) Establishment of reference intervals for plasma protein electrophoresis in indo-pacific green sea turtles, *Chelonia mydas*. *Conserv Physiol* 3:cov037

<figure><img src="image_103.png" /></figure>

Flint M, Eden PA, Limpus CJ, Owen H, Gaus C, Mills PC (2015b) Clinical and pathological findings in green turtles (*Chelonia mydas*) from Gladstone, Queensland: investigations of a stranding epidemic. *EcoHealth* 12:298–309

<figure><img src="image_104.png" /></figure>

Flores-Monter Y, Aceves-Quesada F, García-Romero A, Peters-Recagno EM (2015) Análisis multicriterio del impacto potencial del turismo en la anidación de las tortugas marinas en Chalacatepec, Jalisco. *Nova Scientia* 7:644–673

<figure><img src="image_105.png" /></figure>

Flower JE, Norton TM, Andrews KM, Nelson SE, Parker CE, Romero LM, Mitchell MA (2015) Baseline plasma corticosterone, haematological and biochemical results in nesting and rehabilitating loggerhead sea turtles (*Caretta caretta*). *Conserv Physiol* 3:cov003

Foley AM, Singel KE, Dutton PH, Summers TM, Redlow AE, Lessman J (2007) Characteristics of a green turtle (*Chelonia mydas*) assemblage in northwestern Florida determined during a hypothermic stunning event. *Gulf Mex Sci* 25:131–143

<figure><img src="image_106.png" /></figure>

Foley AM, Schroeder BA, Hardy R, MacPherson SL, Nicholas M (2014) Long-term behavior at foraging sites of adult female loggerhead sea turtles (*Caretta caretta*) from three Florida rookeries. *Mar Biol* 161:1251–1262

<figure><img src="image_107.png" /></figure>

Fonseca LA, Fagundes V, Girardi FM, Maia NL and others (2015) Plasma cholinesterase activity as environmental impact biomarker for green turtles (*Chelonia mydas*) on the coast of Fernando de Noronha, Pernambuco, Brazil. *Pesqui Vet Bras* 35:385–389

<figure><img src="image_108.png" /></figure>

Fossette S, Hobson VJ, Girard C, Calmettes B, Gaspar P, Georges JY, Hays GC (2010) Spatio-temporal foraging patterns of a giant zooplanktivore, the leatherback turtle. *J Mar Syst* 81:225–234

<figure><img src="image_109.png" /></figure>

Fossette S, Witt MJ, Miller P, Nalovic MA and others (2014) Pan-Atlantic analysis of the overlap of a highly migratory species, the leatherback turtle, with pelagic longline fisheries. *Proc R Soc B* 281:20133065

<figure><img src="image_110.png" /></figure>

Fourqurean JW, Manuel S, Coates KA, Kenworthy WJ, Smith SR (2010) Effects of excluding sea turtle herbivores from a seagrass bed: overgrazing may have led to loss of seagrass meadows in Bermuda. *Mar Ecol Prog Ser* 419: 223–232

<figure><img src="image_111.png" /></figure>

Frans VF, Augé AA (2016) Use of local ecological knowledge to investigate endangered baleen whale recovery in the Falkland Islands. *Biol Conserv* 202:127–137

<figure><img src="image_112.png" /></figure>

Fraser DJ, Coon T, Prince MR, Dion R, Bernatchez L (2006) Integrating traditional and evolutionary knowledge in biodiversity conservation: a population level case study. *Ecol Soc* 11:4

Frazier J (1999) Community-based conservation. In: Eckert KL, Bjorndal KA, Abreu-Grobois FA, Donnelly M (eds) Research and management techniques for the conservation of sea turtles. *IUCN/SSC Marine Turtle Specialist Group Publication No. 4*, IUCN, Washington, DC, p 15–18

Frazier J (2005) Marine turtles: the role of flagship species in interactions between people and the sea. *MAST* 3(2) & 4(1):5–38. http://www.marecentre.nl/mast/documents/Mast-2004p.5-38.pdf

<figure><img src="image_113.png" /></figure>

Frey A, Dutton PH, Shaver DJ, Walker JS, Rubio C (2014) Kemp's ridley *Lepidochelys kempii* nesting abundance in Texas, USA: a novel approach using genetics to improve population census. *Endang Species Res* 23:63–71

<figure><img src="image_114.png" /></figure>

Fuentes MMPB, Bateman BL, Hamann M (2011a) Relationship between tropical cyclones and the distribution of sea turtle nesting grounds. *J Biogeogr* 38:1886–1896

<figure><img src="image_115.png" /></figure>

Fuentes MMPB, Limpus C, Hamann M (2011b) Vulnerabil-
ity of sea turtle nesting grounds to climate change. Glob
Change Biol 17:140–153

<figure><img src="image_116.png" /></figure>

Fuentes MM, Pike DA, Dimatteo A, Wallace BP (2013) Resilience of marine turtle regional management units to climate change. *Glob Change Biol* 19:1399–1406

<figure><img src="image_117.png" /></figure>

Fuentes MMPB, Bell I, Hagihara R, Hamann M and others (2015a) Improving in-water estimates of marine turtle abundance by adjusting aerial survey counts for perception and availability biases. *J Exp Mar Biol Ecol* 471: 77–83

<figure><img src="image_118.png" /></figure>

Fuentes MMPB, Blackwood J, Jones B, Kim M and others (2015b) A decision framework for prioritizing multiple management actions for threatened marine megafauna. Ecol Appl 25:200–214

<figure><img src="image_119.png" /></figure>

Fujioka E, Halpin PN (2014) Spatio-temporal assessments of biodiversity in the high seas. Endang Species Res 24: 181–190

<figure><img src="image_120.png" /></figure>

Fujioka EJ, Kot CY, Wallace BP, Best BD and others (2014a) Data integration for conservation: leveraging multiple data types to advance ecological assessments and habitat modeling for marine megavertebrates using OBIS-SEAMAP. Ecol Inform 20:13–26

<figure><img src="image_121.png" /></figure>

Fujioka E, Soldevilla MS, Read AJ, Halpin PN (2014b) Integration of passive acoustic monitoring data into OBIS-SEAMAP, a global biogeographic database, to advance spatially-explicit ecological assessments. Ecol Inform 21:59–73

<figure><img src="image_122.png" /></figure>

Fujisaki I, Lamont MM (2016) The effects of large beach debris on nesting sea turtles. *J Exp Mar Biol Ecol* 482:33–37

<figure><img src="image_123.png" /></figure>

Fukuoka T, Narazaki T, Sato K (2015) Summer-restricted migration of green turtles *Chelonia mydas* to a temperate habitat of the northwest Pacific Ocean. Endang Species Res 28:1–10

<figure><img src="image_124.png" /></figure>

Fuller W, Godley B, Hodgson D, Reece SE, Witt M, Broderick A (2013) Importance of spatio-temporal data for predicting the effects of climate change on marine turtle sex ratios. Mar Ecol Prog Ser 488:267–274

<figure><img src="image_125.png" /></figure>

Funk WC, McKay JK, Hohenlohe PA, Allendorf FW (2012) Harnessing genomics for delineating conservation units. Trends Ecol Evol 27:489–496

Gaos AR, Yañez IL (2012) Saving the eastern Pacific hawksbill from extinction: last chance or chance lost? In: JA Seminoff, BP Wallace (eds) Sea turtles of the eastern Pacific: advances in research and conservation. University of Arizona Press, Tucson, AZ, p 244–262

<figure><img src="image_126.png" /></figure>

Gaos AR, Abreu-Grobois FA, Alfaro-Shigueto J, Amorocho D and others (2010) Signs of hope in the eastern Pacific: international collaboration reveals encouraging status for a severely depleted population of hawksbill turtles *Eretmochelys imbricata*. Oryx 44:595–601

<figure><img src="image_127.png" /></figure>

Gaos AR, Lewison RL, Liles MJ, Gadea V and others (2016) Hawksbill turtle terra incognita: conservation genetics of eastern Pacific rookeries. Ecol Evol 6:1251–1264

<figure><img src="image_128.png" /></figure>

García-Cruz MA, Lampo M, Peñaloza CL, Kendall WL, Solé G, Rodríguez-Clark KM (2015) Population trends and survival of nesting green sea turtles *Chelonia mydas* on Aves Island, Venezuela. Endang Species Res 29:103–116

<figure><img src="image_129.png" /></figure>

García-Fernández AJ, Gómez-Ramírez P, Martínez-López E, Hernández-García A and others (2009) Heavy metals in tissues from loggerhead turtles (*Caretta caretta*) from the southwestern Mediterranean (Spain). Ecotoxicol Environ Saf 72:557–563

<figure><img src="image_130.png" /></figure>

García-Párraga D, Crespo-Picazo JL, Bernaldo de Quirós Y, Cervera V and others (2014) Decompression sickness ('the bends') in sea turtles. Dis Aquat Org 111:191–205

<figure><img src="image_131.png" /></figure>

Garland KA, Carthy RR (2010) Changing taste preferences, market demands and traditions in Pearl Lagoon, Nicaragua: a community reliant on green turtles for income and nutrition. Conserv Soc 8:55–72

<figure><img src="image_132.png" /></figure>

Gaspar P, Benson SR, Dutton PH, Réveillère A and others (2012) Oceanic dispersal of juvenile leatherback turtles: going beyond passive drift modeling. Mar Ecol Prog Ser 457:265–284

<figure><img src="image_133.png" /></figure>

Georges A, Limpus CJ, Stoutjesdijk R (1994) Hatchling sex in the marine turtle *Caretta caretta* is determined by proportion of development at a temperature, not daily duration of exposure. J Exp Zool 270:432–444

<figure><img src="image_134.png" /></figure>

Giardina E, Spinella A, Novelli G (2011) Past, present and future of forensic DNA typing. Nanomedicine 6:257–270

<figure><img src="image_135.png" /></figure>

Gilman E, Huang HW (2016) Review of effects of pelagic longline hook and bait type on sea turtle catch rate, anatomical hooking position and at-vessel mortality rate. Rev Fish Biol Fish. doi:10.1007/s11160-016-9447-9

<figure><img src="image_136.png" /></figure>

Gilman E, Zollett E, Beverly S, Nakano H and others (2006) Reducing sea turtle by-catch in pelagic longline fisheries. Fish Fish 7:2–23

<figure><img src="image_137.png" /></figure>

Gilman E, Kobayashi D, Swenarton T, Brothers N, Dalzell P, Kinan-Kelly I (2007) Reducing sea turtle interactions in the Hawaii-based longline swordfish fishery. Biol Conserv 139:19–28

<figure><img src="image_138.png" /></figure>

Gilman E, Gearhart J, Price B, Eckert S and others (2010) Mitigating sea turtle by-catch in coastal passive net fisheries. Fish Fish 11:57–88

<figure><img src="image_139.png" /></figure>

Gilman E, Owens M, Kraft T (2014) Ecological risk assessment of the Marshall Islands longline tuna fishery. Mar Policy 44:239–255

Girard A, Dembe Louvinguila H, Breheret N, Monsinjon J and others (2014) Les engins et techniques de pêche utilisés dans la baie de Loango, République du Congo, et leurs incidences sur les prises accessoires. Cybium 38: 117–131

<figure><img src="image_140.png" /></figure>

Girondot M (2010) Estimating density of animals during migratory waves: a new model applied to marine turtles at nesting sites. Endang Species Res 12:95–105

Girondot M, Garcia J (1999) Senescence and longevity in turtles: what telomeres tell us. In: Miaud DC, Guyetant R (eds) Proceedings of the 9th Ordinary General Meeting of the Societas Europaea Herpetologica. Societa Europea Herpetologica, Le Bourget du Lac, p 133–137

<figure><img src="image_141.png" /></figure>

Girondot M, Kaska Y (2014) A model to predict the thermal reaction norm for the embryo growth rate from field data. J Therm Biol 45:96–102

<figure><img src="image_142.png" /></figure>

Girondot M, Kaska Y (2015) Nest temperatures in a loggerhead-nesting beach in Turkey is more determined by sea surface temperature than air temperature. J Therm Biol 47:13–18

<figure><img src="image_143.png" /></figure>

Girondot M, Rizzo A (2015) Bayesian framework to integrate traditional ecological knowledge into ecological modeling: a case study. J Ethnobiol 35:337–353

<figure><img src="image_144.png" /></figure>

Gjertsen H, Squires D, Dutton PH, Eguchi T (2014) Cost-effectiveness of alternative conservation strategies with application to the Pacific leatherback turtle. Conserv Biol 28:140–149

<figure><img src="image_145.png" /></figure>

Goatley CHR, Hoey AS, Bellwood DR (2012) The role of turtles as coral reef macroherbivores. PLOS ONE 7:e39979

<figure><img src="image_146.png" /></figure>

Godley BJ, Thomson DR, Furness RW (1999) Do heavy metal compounds pose a threat to marine turtles in the Mediterranean Sea? Mar Pollut Bull 38:497–502

<figure><img src="image_147.png" /></figure>

Godley BJ, Blumenthal JM, Broderick AC, Coyne MS, God-
frey MH, Hawkes LA, Witt MJ (2008) Satellite tracking of sea turtles: Where have we been and where do we go next? *Endang Species Res* 4:3–22

<figure><img src="image_148.png" /></figure>

Gómez-Picos P, Sifuentes-Romero I, Merchant-Larios H, Hernandez-Cornejo R, Diaz-Hernandez V, Garcia-Gasca A (2014) Expression of aromatase in the embryonic brain of the olive ridley sea turtle (*Lepidochelys olivacea*), and the effect of bisphenol-A in sexually differentiated embryos. *Int J Dev Biol* 58:733–741

<figure><img src="image_149.png" /></figure>

González Carman V, Acha EM, Maxwell SM, Albareda D, Campagna C, Mianzan H (2014a) Young green turtles, *Chelonia mydas*, exposed to plastic in a frontal area of the SW Atlantic. *Mar Pollut Bull* 78:56–62

<figure><img src="image_150.png" /></figure>

González Carman V, Botto F, Gaitan E, Albareda D, Campagna C, Mianzan H (2014b) A jellyfish diet for the herbivorous green turtle *Chelonia mydas* in the temperate SW Atlantic. *Mar Biol* 161:339–349

<figure><img src="image_151.png" /></figure>

González-Garza BI, Stow A, Felipe Sanchez-Teyer L, Zapata-Perez O (2015) Genetic variation, multiple paternity, and measures of reproductive success in the critically endangered hawksbill turtle (*Eretmochelys imbricata*). *Ecol Evol* 5:5758–5769

<figure><img src="image_152.png" /></figure>

Goodman Hall A, Avens L, McNeill JB, Wallace B, Goshe LR (2015) Inferring long-term foraging trends of individual juvenile loggerhead sea turtles using stable isotopes. *Mar Ecol Prog Ser* 537:265–276

<figure><img src="image_153.png" /></figure>

Gorham JC, Clark DR, Bresette MJ, Bagley DA and others (2014) Characterization of a subtropical hawksbill sea turtle (*Eretmochelys imbricata*) assemblage utilizing shallow water natural and artificial habitats in the Florida Keys. *PLOS ONE* 9:e114171

<figure><img src="image_154.png" /></figure>

Grayson JM, Hamann M, Marsh H, Ambar S (2010) Options for managing the sustainable use of green turtles: perceptions of Hammond Islanders in Torres Strait. *Conserv Soc* 8:73–83

<figure><img src="image_155.png" /></figure>

Gredzens C, Marsh H, Fuentes MM, Limpus CJ, Shimada T, Hamann M (2014) Satellite tracking of sympatric marine megafauna can inform the biological basis for species co-management. *PLOS ONE* 9:e98944

<figure><img src="image_156.png" /></figure>

Grego JM, Hitchcock DB (2014) Limited-information modeling of loggerhead turtle population size. *J Agric Biol Environ Stat* 19:18–38

<figure><img src="image_157.png" /></figure>

Griffin DB, Murphy SR, Frick MG, Broderick AC and others (2013) Foraging habitats and migration corridors utilized by a recovering subpopulation of adult female loggerhead sea turtles: implications for conservation. *Mar Biol* 160:3071–3086

Guilder J, Barca B, Arroyo-Arce S, Gramajo R, Salom-Pérez R (2015)aguars (*Panthera onca*) increase kill utilization rates and share prey in response to seasonal fluctuations in nesting green turtle (*Chelonia mydas mydas*) abundance in Tortuguero National Park, Costa Rica. Mamm Biol 80:65–72

<figure><img src="image_158.png" /></figure>

Guirlet E, Das K, Girondot M (2008) Maternal transfer of trace elements in leatherback turtles (*Dermochelys coriacea*) of French Guiana. *Aquat Toxicol* 88:267–276

<figure><img src="image_159.png" /></figure>

Guirlet E, Das K, Thomé JP, Girondot M (2010) Maternal transfer of chlorinated contaminants in the leatherback turtles, *Dermochelys coriacea*, nesting in French Guiana. *Chemosphere* 79:720–726

Halkyard B (2014) Exploiting green and hawksbill turtles in Western Australia: the commercial marine turtle fishery. In: Christensen J, Tull M (eds) Historical perspectives of fisheries exploitation in the Indo-Pacific. *MARE Publication Series*, Springer, Dordrecht, p 211–230

Hall MA, Roman M (2013) Bycatch and non-tuna catch in the tropical tuna purse seine fisheries of the world. FAO Fisheries and Aquaculture Tech Pap No. 568. FAO, Rome. www.fao.org/3/a-i2743e.pdf

<figure><img src="image_160.png" /></figure>

Halpern BS, Frazier M, Potapenko J, Casey KS and others (2015) Spatial and temporal changes in cumulative human impacts on the world's ocean. *Nat Commun* 6:7615

<figure><img src="image_161.png" /></figure>

Hamabata T, Kamezaki N, Hikida T (2014) Genetic structure of green turtle (*Chelonia mydas*) peripheral populations nesting in the northwestern Pacific rookeries: evidence for northern refugia and postglacial colonization. *Mar Biol* 161:495–507

<figure><img src="image_162.png" /></figure>

Hamabata T, Hikida T, Okamoto K, Watanabe S, Kamezaki N (2015) Ontogenetic habitat shifts of green turtles (*Chelonia mydas*) suggested by the size modality in foraging aggregations along the coasts of the western Japanese main islands. *J Exp Mar Biol Ecol* 463:181–188

<figure><img src="image_163.png" /></figure>

Hamann M, Godfrey MH, Seminoff JA, Arthur KE and others (2010) Global research priorities for sea turtles: informing management and conservation in the 21st century. *Endang Species Res* 11:245–269

<figure><img src="image_164.png" /></figure>

Hamann M, Grech A, Wolanskic E, Lambrechts J (2011) Modelling the fate of marine turtle hatchlings. *Ecol Modell* 222:1515–1521

<figure><img src="image_165.png" /></figure>

Hamilton RJ, Bird T, Gereniu C, Pita J and others (2015) Solomon Islands largest hawksbill turtle rookery shows signs of recovery after 150 years of excessive exploitation. *PLOS ONE* 10:e0121435

<figure><img src="image_166.png" /></figure>

Hammerschlag N, Broderick AC, Coker JW, Coyne MS and others (2015) Evaluating the landscape of fear between apex predatory sharks and mobile sea turtles across a large dynamic seascape. *Ecology* 96:2117–2126

<figure><img src="image_167.png" /></figure>

Hancock JM, Furtado S, Merino S, Godley BJ, Nuno A (in press) Exploring drivers and deterrents of illegal consumption and trade of marine turtle products in Cape Verde, and implications for conservation planning. *Oryx*, doi: 10.1017/S0030605316000107

<figure><img src="image_168.png" /></figure>

Hancock-Hanser BL, Frey A, Leslie MS, Dutton PH, Archer FI, Morin PA (2013) Targeted multiplex next-generation sequencing: advances in techniques of mitochondrial and nuclear DNA sequencing for population genomics. *Mol Ecol Resour* 13:254–268

<figure><img src="image_169.png" /></figure>

Hannan LB, Roth JD, Ehrhart LM, Weishampel JF (2007) Dune vegetation fertilization by nesting sea turtles. *Ecology* 88:1053–1058

<figure><img src="image_170.png" /></figure>

Hardy RF, Tucker AD, Foley AM, Schroeder BA, Giove RJ, Meylan AB (2014) Spatiotemporal occurrence of loggerhead turtles (*Caretta caretta*) on the West Florida Shelf and apparent overlap with a commercial fishery. *Can J Fish Aquat Sci* 71:1924–1933

Hargrove SK, Work TM, Brunson S, Foley AM, Balazs GH (2016) Proceedings of the 2015 international summit on fibropapillomatosis: global status, trends, and population impacts. US Dept Commerce, NOAA Tech Memo NOAA-TM-NMFS-PIFSC-54

<figure><img src="image_171.png" /></figure>

Harris HS, Benson SR, Gilardi KV, Poppenga RH, Work TM, Dutton PH, Mazet JAK (2011) Comparative health assessment of western Pacific leatherback turtles (*Dermochelys coriacea*) foraging off the coast of California, 2005–2007. *J Wildl Dis* 47:321–337

<figure><img src="image_172.png" /></figure>

Harris LR, Nel R, Oosthuizen H, Meÿer M and others (2015) Paper-efficientmulti-species conservation and management are not always field-effective: the status and future of Western Indian Ocean leatherbacks. *Biol Conserv* 191: 383–390
<figure><img src="image_173.png" /></figure>

Hart KM, Hyrenbach KD (2009) Satellite telemetry of marine megavertebrates: the coming of age of an experimental science. *Endang Species Res* 10:9–20

<figure><img src="image_174.png" /></figure>

Hart KM, Lamont MM, Fujisaki I, Tucker AD, Carthy RR (2012) Common coastal foraging areas for loggerheads in the Gulf of Mexico: opportunities for marine conservation. *Biol Conserv* 145:185–194

<figure><img src="image_175.png" /></figure>

Hart KM, Zawada DG, Fujisaki I, Lidz BH (2013) Habitat use of breeding green turtles *Chelonia mydas* tagged in Dry Tortugas National Park: making use of local and regional MPAs. *Biol Conserv* 161:142–154

<figure><img src="image_176.png" /></figure>

Hart KM, Lamont MM, Sartain AR, Fujisaki I (2014) Migration, foraging, and residency patterns for northern gulf loggerheads: implications of local threats and international movements. *PLOS ONE* 9:e103453

<figure><img src="image_177.png" /></figure>

Hart CE, Blanco GS, Coyne MS, Delgado-Trejo C and others (2015) Multinational tagging efforts illustrate regional scale of distribution and threats for East Pacific green turtles (*Chelonia mydas agassizii*). *PLOS ONE* 10:e0116225

<figure><img src="image_178.png" /></figure>

Hatase H, Sudo R, Watanabe KK, Kasugai T, Saito T, Okamoto H, Tsukamoto K (2008) Shorter telomere length with age in the loggerhead turtle: a new hope for live sea turtle age estimation. *Genes Genet Syst* 83:423–426

<figure><img src="image_179.png" /></figure>

Hatase H, Kazuyoshi O, Katsumi T (2013) A mechanism that maintains alternative life histories in a loggerhead sea turtle population. *Ecology* 94:2583–2594

<figure><img src="image_180.png" /></figure>

Hawkes LA, Broderick AC, Coyne MS, Godfrey MH and others (2006) Phenotypically linked dichotomy in sea turtle foraging requires multiple conservation approaches. *Curr Biol* 16:990–995

<figure><img src="image_181.png" /></figure>

Hawkes LA, Broderick AC, Godfrey MH, Godley BJ (2007) Investigating the potential impacts of climate change on a marine turtle population. *Glob Change Biol* 13:923–932

<figure><img src="image_182.png" /></figure>

Hawkes LA, McGowan A, Broderick AC, Gore S and others (2014) High rates of growth recorded for hawksbill sea turtles in Anegada, British Virgin Islands. *Ecol Evol* 4: 1255–1266

<figure><img src="image_183.png" /></figure>

Hays GC, Marsh R (1997) Estimating the age of juvenile loggerhead sea turtles in the North Atlantic. *Can J Zool* 75: 40–46

<figure><img src="image_184.png" /></figure>

Hays GC, Fossette S, Katselidis KA, Mariani P, Schofield G (2010a) Ontogenetic development of migration: Lagrangian drift trajectories suggest a new paradigm for sea turtles. *J R Soc Interface* 7:1319–1327

<figure><img src="image_185.png" /></figure>

Hays GC, Fossette S, Katselidis KA, Schofield G, Gravenor MB (2010b) Breeding periodicity for male sea turtles, operational sex ratios, and implications in the face of climate change. *Conserv Biol* 24:1636–1643

<figure><img src="image_186.png" /></figure>

Hays GC, Mazaris AD, Schofield G (2014a) Different male vs. female breeding periodicity helps mitigate offspring sex ratio skews in sea turtles. *Front Mar Sci* 1:43

<figure><img src="image_187.png" /></figure>

Hays GC, Mortimer JA, Ierodiagonou D, Esteban N (2014b) Use of long-distance migration patterns of an endangered species to inform conservation planning for the world's largest marine protected aea. *Conserv Biol* 28: 1636–1644

<figure><img src="image_188.png" /></figure>

Hays GC, Ferreira LC, Sequeira AMM, Meekan MG and others (2016) Key questions in marine megafauna movement ecology. *Trends Ecol Evol* 31:463–475

<figure><img src="image_189.png" /></figure>

Hedley J, Roelfsema C, Chollett I, Harborne A and others (2016) Remote sensing of coral reefs for monitoring and management: a review. *Remote Sens* 8:118

<figure><img src="image_190.png" /></figure>

Heithaus MR, Alcoverro T, Arthur R, Burkholder DA and others (2014) Seagrasses in the age of sea turtle conservation and shark overfishing. *Front Mar Sci* 1:28

Heppell SS, Snover ML, Crowder LB (2003) Sea turtle population ecology. In: Lutz PL, Musick JA (eds) The biology of sea turtles. CRC Press, Boca Raton, FL, p 275–306

<figure><img src="image_191.png" /></figure>

Hill BA, Stewart KM, Rawlins-Vaughan G, Illanes O and others (2014) Clinical challenge. *J Zoo Wildl Med* 45: 200–204

<figure><img src="image_192.png" /></figure>

Hill W, Byrne J, Pickering C (2015a) The 'hollow-middle': why positive community perceptions do not translate into pro-conservation behaviour in El Vizcaíno Biosphere Reserve, Mexico. *Int J Biodivers Sci Ecosyst Serv Management* 11:168–183

<figure><img src="image_193.png" /></figure>

Hill JE, Paladino FV, Spotila JR, Tomillo PS (2015b) Shading and watering as a tool to mitigate the impacts of climate change in sea turtle nests. *PLOS ONE* 10:e0129528

<figure><img src="image_194.png" /></figure>

Hirama S, Ehrhart LM, Rea LD, Kiltie RA (2014) Relating fibropapilloma tumor severity to blood parameters in green turtles *Chelonia mydas*. *Dis Aquat Org* 111:61–68

<figure><img src="image_195.png" /></figure>

Hoarau L, Ainley L, Jean C, Ciccione S (2014) Ingestion and defecation of marine debris by loggerhead sea turtles, *Caretta caretta*, from by-catches in the South-West Indian Ocean. *Mar Pollut Bull* 84:90–96

<figure><img src="image_196.png" /></figure>

Horne CR, Fuller WJ, Godley BJ, Rhodes KA, Snape R, Stokes KL, Broderick AC (2014) The effect of thermal variance on the phenotype of marine turtle offspring. *Physiol Biochem Zool* 87:796–804

<figure><img src="image_197.png" /></figure>

Howard R, Bell I, Pike DA (2014) Thermal tolerances of sea turtle embryos: current understanding and future directions. *Endang Species Res* 26:75–86

<figure><img src="image_198.png" /></figure>

Howard R, Bell I, Pike DA (2015) Tropical flatback turtle (*Natator depressus*) embryos are resilient to the heat of climate change. *J Exp Biol* 218:3330–3335

<figure><img src="image_199.png" /></figure>

Howell E, Kobayashi D, Parker D, Balazs G (2008) Turtle-Watch: a tool to aid in the bycatch reduction of loggerhead turtles *Caretta caretta* in the Hawaii-based pelagic longline fishery. *Endang Species Res* 5:267–278

<figure><img src="image_200.png" /></figure>

Howell EA, Hoover A, Benson SR, Bailey H, Plovina JJ, Seminoff JA, Dutton PH (2015) Enhancing the Turtle-Watch product for leatherback sea turtles, a dynamic habitat model for ecosystem-based management. *Fish Oceanogr* 24:57–68

<figure><img src="image_201.png" /></figure>

Huang HW (2015a) Conservation hotspots for the turtles on the high seas of the Atlantic Ocean. *PLOS ONE* 10: e0133614

<figure><img src="image_202.png" /></figure>

Huang HW (2015b) Incidental catch of seabirds and sea turtles by Taiwanese longline fleets in the Pacific Ocean. *Fish Res* 170:179–189

<figure><img src="image_203.png" /></figure>

Hulin V, Delmas V, Girondot M, Godfrey MH, Guillon JM (2009) Temperature-dependent sex determination and global change: Are some species at greater risk? *Oecologia* 160:493–506

<figure><img src="image_204.png" /></figure>

Humber F, Godley BJ, Ramahery V, Broderick AC (2011) Using community members to assess artisanal fisheries: the marine turtle fishery in Madagascar. *Anim Conserv* 14:175–185

<figure><img src="image_205.png" /></figure>

Humber F, Godley BJ, Broderick AC (2014) So excellent a fishe: a global overview of legal marine turtle fisheries. *Divers Distrib* 20:579–590

<figure><img src="image_206.png" /></figure>

Humber F, Andriamahefazafy M, Godley BJ, Broderick AC (2015) Endangered, essential and exploited: how extant laws are not enough to protect marine megafauna in Madagascar. *Mar Policy* 60:70–83

<figure><img src="image_207.png" /></figure>

Ikonomopoulou MP, Olszowy H, Limpus C, Francis R, Whittier J (2011) Trace element concentrations in nesting flatback turtles (*Natator depressus*) from Curtis Island, Queensland, Australia. *Mar Environ Res* 71:10–16
* Innis CJ, Merigo C, Cavin JM, Hunt K, Dodge KL, Lutca-
age M (2014) Serial assessment of the physiological sta-
tus of leatherback turtles (*Dermochelys coriacea*) during
direct capture events in the northwestern Atlantic Ocean:
comparison of post-capture and pre-release data. Con-
serv Physiol 2:cou048

Isler CT, Altug M, Cantekin Z, Ozsoy SY, Yurtal Z, Deveci MZY (2014) Evaluation of the eye diseases seen in loggerhead sea turtle (*Caretta caretta*). Rev Med Vet (Toulouse) 165:258–262

* Jackson AL, Broderick AC, Fuller WJ, Glen F, Ruxton GD, Godley BJ (2008) Sampling design and its effect on population monitoring: How much monitoring do turtles really need? Biol Conserv 141:2932–2941

* Jackson MV, Kennett R, Bayliss P, Warren R and others (2015) Developing collaborative marine turtle monitoring in the Kimberley region of northern Australia. Ecol Management Restor 16:163–176

* Jeffers VF, Godley BJ (2016) Satellite tracking in sea turtles: How do we find our way to the conservation dividends? Biol Conserv 199:172–184

* Jensen MP, Limpus CJ, Whiting SD, Guinea M and others (2013) Defining olive ridley turtle *Lepidochelys olivacea* management units in Australia and assessing the potential impact of mortality in ghost nets. Endang Species Res 21:241–253

* Jensen MP, Bell I, Limpus CJ, Hamann M and others (2016) Spatial and temporal genetic variation among size classes of green turtles (*Chelonia mydas*) provides information on oceanic dispersal and population dynamics. Mar Ecol Prog Ser 543:241–256

* Jin L, Escher BI, Limpus CJ, Gaus C (2015) Coupling passive sampling with in vitro bioassays and chemical analysis to understand combined effects of bioaccumulative chemicals in blood of marine turtles. Chemosphere 138: 292–299

Jones TT, Seminoff JA (2013) Feeding biology: advances from field-based observations, physiological studies, and no molecular techniques. In: Wyneken J, Lohmann KJ, Musick JA (eds) The biology of sea turtles, Vol III. CRC Press, Boca Raton, FL, p 211–248

* Jones K, Ariel E, Burgess G, Read M (2016) A review of fibropapillomatosis in green turtles (*Chelonia mydas*). Vet J 212:48–57

* Jordão JC, Vigliar Bondioli AC, Guebert FM, de Thoisy B, de Almeida Toledo LF (2015) Green turtle (*Chelonia mydas*) genetic diversity at Paranagua Estuarine Complex feeding grounds in Brazil. Genet Mol Biol 38:346–352

Joseph J, Kuen CY, Palaniappan PM, Chark LH (2014) Genetic investigation of green turtles (*Chelonia mydas*) harvested from a foraging ground at Mantanani, Sabah, Malaysia. Herpetol Conserv Biol 9:516–523

* Jourdan J, Fuentes MMPB (2015) Effectiveness of strategies at reducing sand temperature to mitigate potential impacts from changes in environmental temperature on sea turtle reproductive output. Mitig Adapt Strategies Glob Change 20:121–133

* Jribi I, Bradai MN (2014) Sex ratio estimations of loggerhead sea turtle hatchlings at Kuriat islands, Tunisia: can minor nesting sites contribute to compensate globally female-biased sex ratio? Sci World J 2014:419410

* Kamel SJ, Mrosovsky N (2005) Repeatability of nesting preferences in the hawksbill sea turtle, *Eretmochelys imbricata*, and their fitness consequences. Anim Behav 70: 819–828

* Kamrowski RL, Limpus C, Moloney J, Hamann M (2012) Coastal light pollution and marine turtles: assessing the magnitude of the problem. Endang Species Res 19:85–98

* Kamrowski RL, Limpus C, Jones R, Anderson S, Hamann M (2014a) Temporal changes in artificial light exposure of marine turtle nesting areas. Glob Change Biol 20: 2437–2449

* Kamrowski RL, Sutton SG, Renae CT, Hamann M (2014b) Potential applicability of persuasive communication to light-glow reduction efforts: a case study of marine turtle conservation. Environ Manage 54:583–595

* Kamrowski RL, Limpus C, Pendoley K, Hamann M (2014c) Influence of industrial light pollution on the sea-finding behaviour of flatback turtle hatchlings. Wildl Res 41: 421–434

Kane Y, Kerbai S, Kadja M, Wyers M (2012) La fibropapillomatose des tortues marines: état des lieux et perspectives. Revue Africaine de Santé et de Productions Animales 10:3–10

* Katselidis KA, Schofield G, Stamou G, Dimopoulos P, Pantis JD (2014) Employing sea-level rise scenarios to strategically select sea turtle nesting habitat important for long-term management at a temperate breeding area. J Exp Mar Biol Ecol 450:47–54

Kawazu I, Kino M, Maeda K (2015a) Relationship between the water temperature experienced by captive loggerhead turtles (*Caretta caretta*) and eggshell formation. Herpetol Rev 46:364–368

* Kawazu I, Kino M, Maeda K, Teruya H (2015b) Age and body size of captive hawksbill turtles at the onset of follicular development. Zoo Biol 34:178–182

* Keller JM, Balazs GH, Nilsen F, Rice M, Work TM, Jensen BA (2014) Investigating the potential role of persistent organic pollutants in Hawaiian green sea turtle fibropapillomatosis. Environ Sci Technol 48:7807–7816

* Kelly TR, McNeill JB, Avens L, Hall AG and others (2015) Clinical pathology reference intervals for an in-water population of juvenile loggerhead sea turtles (*Caretta caretta*) in core sound, North Carolina, USA. PLOS ONE 10:e0115739.

Kilic C, Candan O (2014) Hatchling sex ratio, body weight and nest parameters for *Chelonia mydas* nesting on Soguzo beaches (Turkey). Anim Biodivers Conserv 37:177–182

* Kobayashi DR, Farman R, Polovina JJ, Parker DM, Rice M (2014) 'Going with the flow' or not: evidence of positive rheotaxis in oceanic juvenile loggerhead turtles (*Caretta caretta*) in the South Pacific Ocean using satellite tags and ocean circulation data. PLOS ONE 9:e103701

* Kobayashi S, Saito Y, Osawa A, Katsumata E and others (2015) Embryonic sex steroid hormones accumulate in the eggshell of loggerhead sea turtle (*Caretta caretta*). Gen Comp Endocrinol 224:11–17

* Komoroske LM, Lewison RL, Seminoff JA, Deheyn DD, Dutton PH (2011) Pollutants and the health of green sea turtles resident to an urbanized estuary in San Diego, CA. Chemosphere 84:544–552

Kumar HS, Panditrao S, Baliarsingh SK, Mohanty P, Mahendra RS, Lotliker AA, Kumar TS (2014) Consequence of cyclonic storm *Phailin* on coastal morphology of Rushikulya estuary: an arribada site of vulnerable olive ridley sea turtles along the east coast of India. Curr Sci 107: 28–30

* Kuo M (2015) How might contact with nature promote human health? Promising mechanisms and a possible central pathway. Front Psychol 6:1093
<figure><img src="image_208.png" /></figure>

Kvamsdal SF, Stohs SM (2014) Estimating endangered species risk with the Kalman Filter. Am J Agric Econ 96: 458–468

<figure><img src="image_209.png" /></figure>

Labrada-Martagón V, Zenteno-Savin T, Mangel M (2014) Linking physiological approaches to marine vertebrate conservation: using sex steroid hormone determinations in demographic assessments. Conserv Physiol 2: cot035

<figure><img src="image_210.png" /></figure>

Lacey EA, Collado-Vides L, Fourqurean JW (2014) Morphological and physiological responses of seagrasses (Alismatales) to grazers (Testudines: Cheloniidae) and the role of these responses as grazing patch abandonment cues. Rev Biol Trop 62:1535–1548

<figure><img src="image_211.png" /></figure>

Lagueux CJ, Campbell CL, Strindberg S (2014) Artisanal green turtle, *Chelonia mydas*, fishery of Caribbean Nicaragua. I. Catch rates and trends, 1991–2011. PLOS ONE 9:e94667

<figure><img src="image_212.png" /></figure>

Lal A, Arthur R, Marbà N, Lill AWT, Alcoverro T (2010) Implications of conserving an ecosystem modifier: increasing green turtle (*Chelonia mydas*) densities substantially alters seagrass meadows. Biol Conserv 143: 2730–2738

<figure><img src="image_213.png" /></figure>

Laloë JO, Cozens J, Renom B, Taxonera A, Hays GC (2014) Effects of rising temperature on the viability of an important sea turtle rookery. Nat Clim Change 4:513–518

<figure><img src="image_214.png" /></figure>

Laloë JO, Esteban N, Berkel J, Hays GC (2016) Sand temperatures for nesting sea turtles in the Caribbean: implications for hatchling sex ratios in the face of climate change. J Exp Mar Biol Ecol 474:92–99

<figure><img src="image_215.png" /></figure>

Lam JCW, Tanabe S, Chan SKF, Lam MHW, Martin M, Lam PKS (2006) Levels of trace elements in green turtle eggs collected from Hong Kong: evidence of risks due to selenium and nickel. Environ Pollut 144:790–801

<figure><img src="image_216.png" /></figure>

Lamarre-DeJesus AS, Griffin CR (2015) Habanero pepper powder as a potential deterrent to nest predation of turtle nests: a response to Burke et al. (Chelonian Conservation and Biology, 14(2):201-203, 2015). Chelonian Conserv Biol 14:203–204

<figure><img src="image_217.png" /></figure>

Lamont MM, Fujisaki I (2014) Effects of ocean temperature on nesting phenology and fecundity of the loggerhead sea turtle (*Caretta caretta*). J Herpetol 48:98–102

<figure><img src="image_218.png" /></figure>

Lamont MM, Houser C (2014) Spatial distribution of loggerhead turtle (*Caretta caretta*) emergences along a highly dynamic beach in the northern Gulf of Mexico. J Exp Mar Biol Ecol 453:98–107

<figure><img src="image_219.png" /></figure>

Lamont MM, Fujisaki I, Carthy RR (2014) Estimates of vital rates for a declining loggerhead turtle (*Caretta caretta*) subpopulation: implications for management. Mar Biol 161:2659–2668

Lamont MM, Putman NF, Fujisaki I, Hart K (2015) Spatial requirements of different life-stages of the loggerhead turtle (*Caretta caretta*) from a distinct population segment in the northern Gulf of Mexico. Herpetol Conserv Biol 10:26–43

<figure><img src="image_220.png" /></figure>

Lasala JA, Harrison JS, Williams KL, Rostal DC (2013) Strong male-biased operational sex ratio in a breeding population of loggerhead turtles (*Caretta caretta*) inferred by paternal genotype reconstruction analysis. Ecol Evol 3: 4736–4747

<figure><img src="image_221.png" /></figure>

Lascelles B, Notarbartolo di Sciara G, Agardy T, Cuttelod A and others (2014) Migratory marine species: their status, threats and conservation management needs. Aquat Conserv 24:111–127

<figure><img src="image_222.png" /></figure>

Lauriano G, Panigada S, Casale P, Pierantonio N, Donovan GP (2011) Aerial survey abundance estimates of the loggerhead sea turtle *Caretta caretta* in the Pelagos Santu-
ary, northwestern Mediterranean Sea. Mar Ecol Prog Ser 437:291–302

<figure><img src="image_223.png" /></figure>

Lazar B, Maslov L, Romani S, Gra an R, Krauthacker B, Holcer D, Tvrtkovi N (2011) Accumulation of organochlorine contaminants in loggerhead sea turtles, *Caretta caretta*, from the eastern Adriatic Sea. Chemosphere 82:121–129

<figure><img src="image_224.png" /></figure>

LeBlanc AM, Rostal DC, Drake KK, Williams KL, Frick MG, Robinette J, Barnard-Keinath DE (2014) The influence of maternal size on the eggs and hatchlings of loggerhead sea turtles. Southeast Nat 13:587–599

Levy Y, Perry N, Tchernov D, Rilov G (2014) Use of an intensive care tank for treatment of sea turtles. Herpetol Rev 45:632–635

<figure><img src="image_225.png" /></figure>

Levy Y, Frid O, Weinberger A, Sade R and others (2015) A small fishery with a high impact on sea turtle populations in the eastern Mediterranean. Zool Middle East 61: 300–317

<figure><img src="image_226.png" /></figure>

Lewbart GA, Hirschfeld M, Denkinger J, Vasco K and others (2014) Blood gases, biochemistry, and hematology of Galapagos green turtles (*Chelonia mydas*). PLOS ONE 9: e96487

<figure><img src="image_227.png" /></figure>

Lewison R, Oro D, Godley BJ, Underhill L and others (2012) Research priorities for seabirds: improving conservation and management in the 21st century. Endang Species Res 17:93–121

<figure><img src="image_228.png" /></figure>

Lewison RL, Crowder LB, Wallace BP, Moore J and others (2014) Global patterns of marine mammal, seabird, and sea turtle bycatch reveal taxa-specific and cumulative megafauna hotspots. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 111: 5271–5276

<figure><img src="image_229.png" /></figure>

Lewison R, Hobday AJ, Maxwell S, Hazen E and others (2015) Dynamic ocean management: identifying the critical ingredients of dynamic approaches to ocean resource management. Bioscience 65:486–498

<figure><img src="image_230.png" /></figure>

Ley-Quiñónez C, Zavala-Norzagaray AA, Espinosa-Carreon TL, Peckham H, Marquez-Herrera C, Campos-Villegas L, Aguirre AA (2011) Baseline heavy metals and metalloid values in blood of loggerhead turtles (*Caretta caretta*) from Baja California Sur, Mexico. Mar Pollut Bull 62: 1979–1983

<figure><img src="image_231.png" /></figure>

Li TH, Chang CC, Cheng IJ, Lin SC (2015) Development of a summarized health index (SHI) for use in predicting survival in sea turtles. PLOS ONE 10:e0120796

Liles MJ, Peterson MJ, Lincoln YS, Seminoff JA, Gaos AR, Peterson TR (2014) Connecting international priorities with human wellbeing in low-income regions: lessons from hawksbill turtle conservation in El Salvador. Local Environ 11:1383–1404

<figure><img src="image_232.png" /></figure>

Liles MJ, Peterson MJ, Seminoff JA, Altamirano E and others (2015) One size does not fit all: importance of adjusting conservation practices for endangered hawksbill turtles to address local nesting habitat needs in the eastern Pacific Ocean. Biol Conserv 184:405–413

<figure><img src="image_233.png" /></figure>

Limpus CJ, Miller JD, Parmenter CJ, Reimer D, McLachland N, Webb R (1992) Migration of green (*Chelonia mydas*) and loggerhead (*Caretta caretta*) turtles to and from eastern Australian rookeries. Wildl Res 19:347–358

<figure><img src="image_234.png" /></figure>

Lolavar A, Wyneken J (2015) Effect of rainfall on loggerhead turtle nest temperatures, sand temperatures and hatching sex. Endang Species Res 28:235–247

Lopez J (2015) Biodiversity on the brink: the role of 'assisted migration' in managing endangered species threatened with rising seas. Harvard Environ Law Rev 39:157–190
<figure><img src="image_235.png" /></figure>

Lopez GG, Sali EDC, Lara PH, Tognin F, Marcovaldi MA, Serafini TZ (2015) Coastal development at sea turtles nesting ground: efforts to establish a tool for supporting conservation and coastal management in northeastern Brazil. Ocean Coast Manage 116:270–276

<figure><img src="image_236.png" /></figure>

López-Castro MC, Bjorndal KA, Kamenov GD, Zenil-Fergu-
son R, Bolten AB (2013) Sea turtle population structure
and connections between oceanic and neritic foraging
areas in the Atlantic revealed through trace elements.
Mar Ecol Prog Ser 490:233–246

<figure><img src="image_237.png" /></figure>

López-Castro MC, Bjorndal KA, Bolten AB (2014a) Evalua-
tion of scute thickness to infer life history records in the
carapace of green and loggerhead turtles. Endang Spe-
cies Res 24:191–196

<figure><img src="image_238.png" /></figure>

López-Castro MC, Bjorndal KA, Kamenov GD, Bolten AB (2014b) Identifying oceanic foraging grounds of sea turtles in the Atlantic using lead isotopes. Mar Biol 161: 2269–2278

<figure><img src="image_239.png" /></figure>

López-Mendilaharsu M, Vélez-Rubio GM, Lezama C, Aisenberg A and others (2016) Demographic and tumour prevalence data for juvenile green turtles at the Coastal-Marine Protected Area of Cerro Verde, Uruguay. Mar Biol Res 12:541–550

<figure><img src="image_240.png" /></figure>

Luschi P, Casale P (2014) Movement patterns of marine tur-
tles in the Mediterranean Sea: a review. Ital J Zool 81:
478–495

<figure><img src="image_241.png" /></figure>

Machado Guimarães S, Gitirana HM, Wanderley AV, Monteiro-Neto C, Lobo-Hajdu G (2013) Evidence of regression of fibropapillomas in juvenile green turtles *Chelonia mydas* caught in Niterói, southeast Brazil. Dis Aquat Org 102:243–247

Macrae I, Whiting SD (2014) Positive conservation outcome from religious teachings: changes to subsistence turtle harvest practices at Cocos (Keeling) Islands, Indian Ocean. Raffles Bull Zool Suppl 30:162–167

<figure><img src="image_242.png" /></figure>

Madden D, Ballesteros J, Calvo C, Carlson R, Christians E, Madden E (2008) Sea turtle nesting as a process influencing a sandy beach ecosystem. Biotropica 40:758–765

<figure><img src="image_243.png" /></figure>

Madrigal-Ballesteros R, Schlüter A, Lopez MC (2013) What makes them follow the rules? Empirical evidence from turtle egg harvesters in Costa Rica. Mar Policy 37:270–277

<figure><img src="image_244.png" /></figure>

Maffucci F, Corrado R, Palatella L, Borra M and others (2016) Seasonal heterogeneity of ocean warming: a mortality sink for ectotherm colonizers. Sci Rep 6:23983

<figure><img src="image_245.png" /></figure>

Mansfield KL, Wyneken J, Porter WP, Luo J (2014) First satellite tracks of neonate sea turtles redefine the ‘lost years’ oceanic niche. Proc R Soc B 281:20133039

<figure><img src="image_246.png" /></figure>

Marcovaldi MA, Chaloupka M (2007) Conservation status of the loggerhead sea turtle in Brazil: an encouraging outlook. Endang Species Res 3:133–143

Marcovaldi MAG, Thomé JCA (1999) Reducing threats to turtles. In: Eckert KL, Bjorndal KA, Abreu-Grobois FA, Donnelly M (eds) Research and management techniques for the conservation of sea turtles. IUCN/SSC Marine Turtle Specialist Group Publication No. 4. IUCN, Washington, DC, p 165–168

<figure><img src="image_247.png" /></figure>

Marcovaldi MA, López-Mendilaharsu M, Santos AS, Gustave GL and others (2016) Identification of loggerhead male producing beaches in the south Atlantic: implications for conservation. J Exp Mar Biol Ecol 477:14–22

Margaritoulis D, Touliatou S (2011) Mediterranean monk seals present an ongoing threat for loggerhead sea turtles in Zakynthos. Mar Turtle Newsl 131:18–23

<figure><img src="image_248.png" /></figure>

Martin SL, Stohs SM, Moore JE (2015a) Bayesian inference and assessment for rare-event bycatch in marine fish-

eries: a drift gillnet fishery case study. Ecol Appl 25: 416–429

<figure><img src="image_249.png" /></figure>

Martin CS, Tolley MJ, Farmer E, Mcowena CJ and others (2015b) A global map to aid the identification and screening of critical habitat for marine industries. Mar Policy 53: 45–53

Mathenge SM, Mwasi BN, Mwasi SM (2012) Effects of anthropogenic activities on sea turtle nesting beaches along the Mombasa-Kilifi shoreline, Kenya. Mar Turtle Newsl 135:14–18

<figure><img src="image_250.png" /></figure>

Matsuzawa Y, Kamezaki N, Ishihara T, Omuta K and others (2016) Fine scale genetic population structure of loggerhead turtles in the Northwest Pacific. Endang Species Res 30:83–93

<figure><img src="image_251.png" /></figure>

Maufroy A, Chassot E, Joo R, Kaplan DM (2015) Large-scale examination of spatio-temporal patterns of drifting fish aggregating devices (dFADs) from tropical tuna fisheries of the Indian and Atlantic Oceans. PLOS ONE 10:e0128023

<figure><img src="image_252.png" /></figure>

Maulany RI, Booth DT, Baxter GS (2012) Emergence success and sex ratio of natural and relocated nests of olive ridley turtles from Alas Purwo National Park, East Java, Indonesia. Copeia 2012:738–747

<figure><img src="image_253.png" /></figure>

Maxwell SM, Ban NC, Morgan LE (2014) Pragmatic approaches for effective management of pelagic marine protected areas. Endang Species Res 26:59–74

<figure><img src="image_254.png" /></figure>

Maxwell SM, Hazen EL, Lewison RL, Dunn DC and others (2015) Dynamic ocean management: defining and conceptualizing real-time management of the ocean. Mar Policy 58:42–50

<figure><img src="image_255.png" /></figure>

Mazaris AD, Almpanidou V, Wallace BP, Pantis JD, Schofield G (2014) A global gap analysis of sea turtle protection coverage. Biol Conserv 173:17–23

<figure><img src="image_256.png" /></figure>

Mazaris AD, Vokou D, Almpanidou V, Türkozan O, Sgardelis SP (2015) Low conservatism of the climatic niche of sea turtles and implications for predicting future distributions. Ecosphere 6:art169

McCrink-Goode M (2014) Pollution: a global threat. Environ Int 68:162–170

<figure><img src="image_257.png" /></figure>

McDonald RI, Fielding KS, Louis WR (2014) Conflicting social norms and community conservation compliance. J Nat Conserv 22:212–216

<figure><img src="image_258.png" /></figure>

Mcelroy ML, Dodd MG, Castleberry SB (2015) Effects of common loggerhead sea turtle nest management methods on hatching and emergence success at Sapelo Island, Georgia, USA. Chelonian Conserv Biol 14:49–55

<figure><img src="image_259.png" /></figure>

McFadden KW, Gomez A, Sterling EJ, Naro-Maciel E (2014) Potential impacts of historical disturbance on green turtle health in the unique & protected marine ecosystem of Palmyra Atoll (Central Pacific). Mar Pollut Bull 89:160–167

<figure><img src="image_260.png" /></figure>

Mestre F, Braganca MP, Nunes A, dos Santos ME (2014) Satellite tracking of sea turtles released after prolonged captivity periods. Mar Biol Res 10:996–1006

<figure><img src="image_261.png" /></figure>

Metcalfe K, Agamboue PD, Augowet E, Boussamba F and others (2015) Going the extra mile: ground-based monitoring of olive ridley turtles reveals Gabon hosts the largest rookery in the Atlantic. Biol Conserv 190:14–22

<figure><img src="image_262.png" /></figure>

Meylan PA, Meylan AB, Gray JA (2011) The ecology and migrations of sea turtles 8. Tests of the developmental habitat hypothesis. Bull Am Mus Nat Hist 357:1–70

Meylan A, Arenas A, Zurita JC, Harrison E, Gray J, Meylan P (2014) Turtles tagged in developmental habitat in Bermuda nest in Mexico and Costa Rica. Mar Turtle Newsl 141:15–17

Miller J, Limpus C, Godfrey MH (2003) Nest site selection, oviposition, eggs, development, hatching, and emer-
gence of loggerhead sea turtles. In: Bolten A, Withering-
ton B (eds) Loggerhead sea turtles. Smithsonian Institu-
tion Press, Washington, DC, p 125–143

Molina Hernández AL, van Tussenbroek BI (2014) Patch dynamics and species shifts in seagrass communities under moderate and high grazing pressure by green sea turtles. Mar Ecol Prog Ser 517:143–157

Monezi TA, Mehnert DU, de Moura EM, Muller NM and others (2016) Chelonid herpesvirus 5 in secretions and tumor tissues from green turtles (*Chelonia mydas*) from Southeastern Brazil: a ten-year study. Vet Microbiol 186: 150–156

Montilla AJ, Prieto-Torres D, Hernandez JL, Alvarado MC (2014) Hematological survey of sea turtles *Eretmochelys imbricata* and *Caretta caretta* presents in the Alta Guajira, Gulf of Venezuela. Rev Cient Vet 24:363–371

Monzón-Argüello C, Dell'amico F, Morinière P, Marco A and others (2012) Lost at sea: genetic, oceanographic and meteorological evidence for storm-forced dispersal. J R Soc Interface 9:1725–1732

Moore JE, Cox TM, Lewison RL, Read AJ and others (2010) An interview-based approach to assess marine mammal and sea turtle captures in artisanal fisheries. Biol Conserv 143:795–805

Morales Mérida A, Ruiz A, Navarro E, Sifuentes-Romero I, Abreu-Grobois FA, Girondot M (2015) Contrasting incubation data for *Lepidochelys olivacea* highlight the need for more experimentation and detailed reporting. Mar Turtle Newsl 145:15–19

Mortimer JA (1984) Marine turtles in the Republic of Seychelles: status and Management. IUCN Conservation Library, Gland

Mortimer JA (1990) The influence of beach sand character-
istics on the nesting behavior and clutch survival of
green turtles (*Chelonia mydas*). Copeia 1990:802–817

Mortimer JA (1995) Headstarting as a management tool. In: Bjorndal KA (ed) Biology and conservation of sea turtles. Smithsonian Instituton Press, Washington, DC, p 613–615

Mortimer JA, Carr A (1987) Reproduction and migrations of the Ascension Island green turtle (*Chelonia mydas*). Copeia 1987:103–113

Mortimer JA, von Brandis RG, Liljevik A, Chapman R, Collie J (2011) Fall and rise of nesting green turtles (*Chelonia mydas*) at Aldabra Atoll, Seychelles: positive response to four decades of protection (1968–2008). Chelonian Conserv Biol 10:165–176

Mrosovsky N, Dutton PH, Whitmore CP (1984) Sex ratios of two species of sea turtle nesting in Suriname. Can J Zool 62:2227–2239

Muñoz SV, Arauz R (2015) Conservation and reproductive activity of olive ridley sea turtle (*Lepidochelys olivacea*) in solitary nesting beach Punta Banco, South Pacific of Costa Rica: management recommendations from sixteen years of monitoring. Rev Biol Trop 63:383–394

Muñoz FA, Franco-Noguez SY, Gonzalez-Ballesteros E, Negrete-Philippe AC, Flores-Romo L (2014) Characteri-
sation of the green turtle's leukocyte subpopulations by
flow cytometry and evaluation of their phagocytic activ-
ity. Vet Res Commun 38:123–128

Murray KT (2015) The importance of location and opera-
tional fishing factors in estimating and reducing logger-
head turtle (*Caretta caretta*) interactions in US bottom
trawl gear. Fish Res 172:440–451

Narazaki T, Sato K, Abernathy KJ, Marshall GJ, Miyazaki N (2013) Loggerhead turtles (*Caretta caretta*) use vision to

forage on gelatinous prey in mid-water. PLOS ONE 8: e66043

Narazaki T, Sato K, Miyazaki N (2015) Summer migration to temperate foraging habitats and active winter diving of juvenile loggerhead turtles *Caretta caretta* in the western North Pacific. Mar Biol 162:1251–1263

Nardini G, Florio D, Di Girolamo N, Gustinelli A and others (2014) Disseminated mycobacteriosis in a stranded loggerhead sea turtle (*Caretta caretta*). J Zoo Wildl Med 45: 357–360

Naro-Maciel E, Gaughran SJ, Putman NF, Amato G and others (2014a) Predicting connectivity of green turtles at Palmyra Atoll, central Pacific: a focus on mtDNA and dispersal modelling. J R Soc Interface 11:20130888

Naro-Maciel E, Reid BN, Alter SE, Amato G and others (2014b) From refugia to rookeries: phylogeography of Atlantic green turtles. J Exp Mar Biol Ecol 461:306–316

Naro-Maciel E, Hart KM, Cruciata R, Putman NF (2016) DNA and dispersal models highlight connectivity in a migratory marine megavertebrate. Ecography, doi:10.1111/ecog.02056

National Research Council (Committee on the Review of Sea Turtle Population Assessment Methods) (2010) Assessment of sea-turtle status and trends: integrating demography and abundance. National Academy Press, Washington, DC

Neeman N, Harrison E, Wehrmann IS, Bolanos F (2015a) Nest site selection by individual leatherback turtles (*Der-mochelys coriacea*, Testudines: Dermochelyidae). Rev Biol Trop 63:491–500

Neeman N, Robinson NJ, Paladino FV, Spotila JR, O'Connor MP (2015b) Phenology shifts in leatherback turtles (*Der-mochelys coriacea*) due to changes in sea surface temperature. J Exp Mar Biol Ecol 462:113–120

Neeman N, Spotila JR, O'Connor MP (2015c) A simple, physiologically-based model of sea turtle remigration intervals and nesting population dynamics: effects of temperature. J Theor Biol 380:516–523

Nelms SE, Piniak WED, Weir CR, Godley BJ (2016a) Seismic surveys and marine turtles: an underestimated global threat. Biol Conserv 193:49–65

Nelms SE, Duncan EM, Broderick AC, Galloway TS and others (2016b) Plastic and marine turtles: a review and call for research. ICES J Mar Sci 73:165–181

Ng CK, Dutton PH, Chan SK, Cheung K, Qiu J, Sun Y (2014) Characterization and conservation concerns of green tur-
tles (*Chelonia mydas*) nesting in Hong Kong, China. Pac
Sci 68:231–243

Nifong JC, Frick MG, Eastman SF (2011) Putative predation and scavenging of two sea turtle species by the American alligator, *Alligator mississippiensis*, in coastal southeastern United States. Herpetol Rev 42:511–513

Nijman V (2015) Decades-long open trade in protected marine turtles along Java's south coast. Mar Turtle Newsl 144:10–13

Nilsen FM, Parrott BB, Bowden JA, Kassim BL, Somerville SE, Bryan TA, Long SE (2016) Global DNA methylation loss associated with mercury contamination and aging in the American alligator (*Alligator mississippiensis*). Sci Total Environ 545-546:389–397

Nishizawa H, Narazaki T, Fukuoka T, Sato K, Hamabata T, Kinoshita M, Arai N (2014a) Genetic composition of loggerhead turtle feeding aggregations: migration patterns in the North Pacific. Endang Species Res 24: 85–93