Effects of common loggerhead sea turtle nest management methods on hatching and emergence success at Sapelo Island, Georgia, USA
-
Published source details
McElroy M.L., Dodd M.G. & Castleberry S.B. (2015) Effects of common loggerhead sea turtle nest management methods on hatching and emergence success at Sapelo Island, Georgia, USA. Chelonian Conservation and Biology, 14, 49-55.
Published source details McElroy M.L., Dodd M.G. & Castleberry S.B. (2015) Effects of common loggerhead sea turtle nest management methods on hatching and emergence success at Sapelo Island, Georgia, USA. Chelonian Conservation and Biology, 14, 49-55.
Actions
This study is summarised as evidence for the following.
| Action | Category | |
|---|---|---|
|
Relocate nests/eggs to a nearby natural setting (not including hatcheries): Sea turtles Action Link |
 |
|
|
Protect nests and nesting sites from predation using artificial nest covers: Sea turtles Action Link |
|
-
Relocate nests/eggs to a nearby natural setting (not including hatcheries): Sea turtles
A replicated, randomized, controlled study in 2002–2007 on two sandy beaches in Georgia, USA (McElroy et al. 2015) found that relocating loggerhead turtle Caretta caretta nests resulted in similar hatching and emergence success and fewer nests being flooded compared to nests left in situ. When accounting for nest elevation, hatching and emergence success were similar for relocated nests (hatching: 70–73%; emergence: 67%) and nests left in situ (hatching: 76–80%; emergence: 68–78%). Fewer relocated nests failed completely than in situ nests (relocated: 13 of 168, 8%; in situ: 44 of 212, 21%; not statistically tested) and more relocated nests avoided tidal flooding (relocated: 94–98%; in situ: 71–81%; not statistically tested). Two stretches of beach (3 and 7 km) were searched daily during May–October 2002–2007. Nests were either relocated to the top of a nearby dune (85 with a plastic screen; 83 no screen) or were left in situ (75 screened; 137 with no screen). Data from 2004 were excluded due to tropical storms. Nests were excavated five days after hatchling emergence began and the numbers of hatched and unhatched eggs and live or dead hatchlings were counted.
(Summarised by: William Morgan)
-
Protect nests and nesting sites from predation using artificial nest covers: Sea turtles
A replicated, randomized, controlled study in 2002–2007 on two sandy beaches in Georgia, USA (McElroy et al. 2015) found that using plastic mesh screens to cover loggerhead turtle Caretta caretta nests resulted in no predation and similar hatching and emergence success compared to nests with no covers. No nests covered with plastic mesh were predated, whereas nine nests with no cover were fully predated, and nine were partially predated (result were not statistically tested). Hatching and emergence success was similar for nests with covers (hatching: 73–76%; emergence: 67–68%) and without covers (hatching: 70–80%; emergence: 67–78%). Two stretches of beach (3 and 7 km) were searched daily during May–October 2002–2007. Nests were either covered with a 1 m2 plastic mesh screen (85 relocated to nearby dune; 75 left in situ) or received no screen (83 relocated; 137 left in situ). Nests were monitored daily for predator activity, and five days after hatchling emergence began, nests were excavated, and the numbers of hatched and unhatched eggs and live or dead hatchlings were counted.
(Summarised by: William Morgan)
)_2023.JPG)
