Portfolio

Daniel Devlin 508391 Sea Turtle Conservation
1 | P a g e
6001NATSCI - Work Based Learning for Credit
Sea Turtle Conservation
Photo – D.Devlin
Daniel Devlin
508391
Word Count: 8,777
School of Natural Sciences and Psychology, Liverpool John Moores
University, Byrom Street, Liverpool L3 3AF

2 | P a g e
Contents
Chapter Page(s)
1. Wildlife Sense 3-4
1.1. Ecotourism 5
2. Placement Tasks 6-15
2.1. Field Methods 6
2.1.1 Beach Patrol 7-10
2.1.2. Harbour Watch 10-11
2.1.3. Beach Topography 12
2.2. European Union Laws and Regulations 13-14
2.3. Tourism & Habitat Encroachment 14-15
3. Literature Review 15-21
4. Mini-Project – Impact of bathymetry on loggerhead
sea turtle (Caretta caretta) nest site selection
22-35
4.1. Abstract 22
4.2. Introduction 22-24
4.3. Methods 24-27
4.4. Results 28-32
4.5. Discussion 32-35
5. Reflection & Evaluation 36
6. Acknowledgements 37
7. References 37-51
8. Appendices 52-56
8.1. Diary of Work Placement 53-56

3 | P a g e
1. Wildlife Sense
Wildlife Sense is a conservation and wildlife research organisation based in
Kefalonia, Greece, which was setup in order to protect the biodiversity of Kefalonia.
Their aims are to carry out research focusing on endangered flora and fauna, mainly
Mediterranean Sea Turtles, and provide volunteers a unique experience in the field
of wildlife conservation.
Wildlife Sense is a relatively new conservation organisation, with the summer of
2013 being their first full summer in operation; previously they had been working in
coordination with other sea turtle programmes on the island. Wildlife Sense was
setup by Chanel Comis from North Carolina, America, who has a Biology degree and
a Masters in Marine Coastal Management and Nikos Vallianos, who himself is from
Kefalonia and has a degree in Wildlife Management. They are one of two sea turtle
conservation groups, the other being Katelios Group who survey beaches in the
town of Kato Katelios, in the south-eastern coast of the island.
Figure 1 – Map showing Greek Island of Kefalonia including an arrow showing the
capital Argostoli, where accommodation is situated. [1]

4 | P a g e
Wildlife Sense manages, in total, ten beaches in the Argostoli area; four beaches in
the village of Lassi, three beaches beside the main airport in Kefalonia, and another
three beaches in the Avithos area of the island which is further south. The mini-
project report contained in this portfolio focuses on one of the beaches in the airport
area and two in the Avithos area. As with most organisations Wildlife Sense is
affected by economic situations, their income is solely based on the payment
received from volunteers and support of the local people as they are not a public
company, therefore, do not receive any support from the government, without the
volunteers help the organisation would be none existent.
Like most environmental organisations Wildlife Sense is particularly keen on being
as environmental friendly as possible. Beach surveys, Harbour watch and most
excursions are carried out on bicycle therefore, reducing the use of vehicles and
decreasing their carbon footprint.
Marine Zoology has always been a particular interest to me, one of the reasons why
I choose to do a Zoology degree. A flyer for Wildlife Sense had been placed on the
notice board at university, so I decided to enquire about their internships. I spoke to
Chanel Comis via email, the structure and plan of the internship was explained and
from that point on I knew that Wildlife Sense was where I wanted to carry out my
work-based learning. Early complications arose with the insurance, putting the
placement opportunity in doubt, however, these were soon resolved and the
placement was confirmed.
Figure 2 – Wildlife Sense Logo - C.Comis [2]

5 | P a g e
1.1. Ecotourism
The definition of ecotourism is, without a doubt, surrounded by confusion, with many
different interpretations found in literature (Bjork, 2000). One of the most cited
definitions comes from Allcock et al. (1993) who defined ecotourism as `nature-
based tourism that includes an educational component and is managed to be
sustainable'. Diamantis (2001) states that the Mediterranean coastal strip
accommodates 140 million permanent inhabitants, a figure that increases by almost
200 million as a result of tourists, mainly from Central and Northern Europe, who visit
this region each year. Most of the eco-tourists who visit the Mediterranean islands
tend to be of an occasional nature, in that they are engaged in other forms of tourism
in addition to ecotourism (Diamantis, 2001).
Wilson & Tisdell (2001) show that there is substantial economic potential in the
ecotourism of wildlife resources, and if well managed, can result in long-term
conservation of wildlife resources. This is especially important in cases where wildlife
resources are declining due to habitat destruction, poaching and other human
threats, as is the case for sea turtles. Jacobson and Lopez (1994) however, explain
that indeed ecotourism has positive implications but there are some negative effects
of the ecotourism industry, such as unstable income and leakages of income from
host countries that need to be evaluated. In modern times, the conservation of
species, or more widely of biodiversity, has been linked to the possibility of achieving
sustainable development (Wilson and Tisdell, 2003). Furthermore Panou (1993)
found, in their study of the endangered Mediterranean Monk Seal (Monachus
monachus) in the Ionian Sea, Greece, that tourism should be channelled in a way
acceptable to both man and seals and that guided tours and other forms of
ecotourism should be promoted. Ecotourism facilitates awareness and knowledge,
whilst also increasing conservation efforts.

6 | P a g e
2. Placement tasks - Demonstrate that you have acquired higher skills and/or
knowledge to enable you to carry out a number of designated tasks
2.1. Field Methods
Monitoring trends in loggerhead turtle populations is vital in order to assess current
population status, and to evaluate and develop conservation strategies (Schroeder,
2003). Broderick et al. (2002) estimates that between 2,280–2,787 loggerhead sea
turtles nest on beaches in Greece each season, whilst Margaritoulis (2000) also puts
estimates, for loggerheads, at between 2,355 and 5,287. Figure 3 shows the annual
nesting efforts of the countries in the Medditerranean (Margaritoulis et al., 2003).
Figure 3 – map showing the annual nesting efforts per country. Solid triangles feature
values derived from monitoring projects and open triangles are estimates, taken from
Margaritoulis et al. (2003).

7 | P a g e
2.1.1. Beach Patrol
Beach patrols are carried out every morning between 5.30am and 12.00pm, they are
carried out in order to locate and collected data on any nesting activity which may
have occurred the previous night. It is logistically feasible on most beaches to count
the number of nest made each night during an early morning survey of the nesting
beach, patrolling beaches daily will ensure that a full count of nesting and non-
nesting emergences are recorded (Schroeder and Murphy, 1999). It is likely that the
sea turtles nesting on the beaches in Kefalonia, Greece are ones which have
previously nested there; this is called nesting site fidelity (Schroder, 2003). Beach
patrols, therefore, can provide a good estimate to the numbers of turtles in that area.
Schroeder and Murphy (1999) explain that the extent in which beach surveys are
undertaken will depend on many factors, most notably, available personnel and
equipment, and nest density. Boulan (1999) stated that the presence of researchers
on nesting beaches can reduce or even eliminate a variety of threats.
Volunteers leave the camp at 5.30am and cycle to the nesting beaches in which they
are assigned to patrol. Once at the beach the surveyors begin to walk the beaches in
search of any signs of turtle activity. When turtle crawl tracks are encountered,
surveyors need to first off, work out which tracks are up-tracks and which tracks are
down-tracks. This is important because, if any activity has occurred, the up-track will
lead the surveyor to the first instance of activity. Each attempt needs to be classified;
table 1 shows the classifications for each nesting activity along with a description.
Figure 5 – Photo of a nest at Ai Chelis, Kefalonia.
Notice the spray of sand to the left, used to
camouflage the nest. Photo: D.Devlin
Figure 4 – Photo of a loggerhead sea turtle
crawl at Ai Chelis beach in Kefalonia, Greece.
Photo: D.Devlin.

8 | P a g e
Activity Description
Crawl Any tracks or signs left by sea turtle on beach, turtles leave a ‘comma’ like shape in
the sand as they manoeuvre over it. Shape of a crawl is usually ‘U’ or an arched
bend. Pritchard and Mortimer (1999) state that loggerhead crawl tracks are typically
70-90 cm. Figure 5 shows a picture of a loggerhead crawl in Kefalonia.
No Attempt (NA) or
False Crawl
A non-nesting emergence or abandoned nesting attempt, turtle leaves the water but
for whatever reason does not make an attempt to nest. Figure 6 shows Schroeder
and Murphy (1999) sketch of a crawl.
Swim (S) The turtle places her neck in the sand, whilst slowly moving forward, creating two
parallel ridges either side of her carapace. A swim can lead to a body pit or nest,
but not necessarily.
Body (BP) The excavation of sand from the beach prior to a nesting attempt, the presence of a
body pit does not always mean there will be a nest present, but it is a good
indicator.
Abandoned Egg
Chamber (AEC)
An egg chamber that has been dug by a sea turtle, however no eggs are deposited
into the chamber.
Nest (N) A successful crawl attempt, which results in eggs being deposited into a chamber in
the sand. Figure 7 shows, in sketch, what a nest looks like.
Figure 7 – A sketch by Schroeder and
Murphy (1999) showing what a successful
crawl and nesting looks like.
Figure 6 - Schroder and Murphy (1999)
show what an extensive crawl by a sea
turtle looks like with no attempt at a body
pit or nest.
Table 1 – Table showing the classification of each nesting activity along with a description.

9 | P a g e
Once classified, the activities are noted in the beach log book specific to each beach,
with the names of the surveyors present, the date and time. Every activity is roughly
sketched in the log book with arrows showing the section in the crawl, where any
activity occurred. Nesting activities such as body pits, swims and nests need more
in-depth details taken, i.e. GPS points and measurements to the water and back of
the beach. Data collection should be simple and straight-forward (Schroeder and
Murphy, 1999).
When a nest is encountered, the first step taken is cordon off and mark out the area
in which the nesting activity has occurred, this has one of two reasons: first of it
makes the nesting area clear in case someone inadvertently steps on it and second
once you start digging for the nest, you do not want to lose your bearings, in case,
where you have started to dig is wrong. Occasionally the nesting area can be a
several metres wide; therefore, it is not always a certainty that once you start digging
you will find the egg chamber. The top egg is the egg closest to the surface of the
sand, care has to take when trying to find the top egg because sometimes the side of
the chamber is found, and mistaken for the top egg (Figure 8). A measurement is
taken from the top egg to the surface of the sand; this is taken as the depth of the
nest (Figure 9). Measurement are taken from the nest to the water and to the back of
the beach, GPS coordinates of the nest are also recorded. Once all the data is
collected, the nest is filled back in with sand; importantly the same sand that was
taken from the nest, must be used to cover it over so that the temperature and
moisture balances of the nest are not upset. Finally, the nest is cordoned off using
bamboo sticks and red/white tape, to ensure that it is not trampled on by foot
passengers and animals. A sign is placed at the back/front of the nesting, with
information regarding the nest in Greek and English (Figure 10). Antworth et al.
(2006) found no evidence to suggest that marking nests increased the likelihood of
predation, even after using the same method for 19 years.

10 | P a g e
2.1.2. Harbour Watch
Directional observations of animals in their natural habitat, contribute important
information about how species adapt to a particular environment (Schofield et al.,
2006). Volunteers leave camp for harbour watch with the intention to be at the
harbour to start observations at 7.30am; depending on sea turtle activity and
instructions from shift leader departure is by 11.30am. The shift leader is in charge of
the harbour journal, recording volunteers present, date, time and activity, whilst also
delegating tasks. Data sheets (Figure 11) are brought by every volunteer in order to
collect behavioural data on loggerhead sea turtles (Caretta caretta) (Figure 12)
which are frequently observed in the harbour area. The harbour is split into 4
sections, usually 1-2 volunteers per section. Wildlife Sense t-shirt must be worn by
every volunteer, letting the public know who we are, giving them an opportunity to
ask any questions they may have relating to sea turtle activity. Field researcher
badge also carried at all times in case identity needs to be proven (Figure 13). Table
2 shows the behaviours of loggerhead which are observed at harbour watch.
Figure 10 – A cordoned off nest
with sign. Photo: D.Devln
Figure 9 – Photo of the top egg.
Photo: D.Devlin
Figure 8 – Locating the top egg of a
turtle nest. Photo: D.Devlin

11 | P a g e
Behaviour Description
Swimming Most frequently observed behaviour, consists of sea turtle
swimming – no interaction with environment or other sea turtle
(Figure 12)
Foraging Sea turtle consuming any food item, may this be bivalves from the
edge of the harbour or fish from tourist and/or fishermen (White,
2004).
Contest Fighting behaviour between turtles, passive threat displays (e.g.
head-tail chasing) and aggressive combat (biting and chasing)
(Schofield et al., 2006)
Courtship Schofield et al. (2007) defines courtship behaviour as a male
entering in the visual range of a female, advancing quickly and
biting the carapace.
Copulation Behaviour observed least at harbour, male gets behind female
and attempts to mount her (Schofield et al, 2006) usually
undertaken in a more secluded area.
Table 2 – behaviours of loggerhead sea turtles as observed during Harbour Watch.
Figure 13 – Field researcher I.D. badge. Photo: D.DevlinFigure 12 – Sea turtle swimming alongside the
harbour. Photo: D.Devlin
Figure 11 – Data sheets used to record sea turtle behaviour.

12 | P a g e
2.1.3. Beach Topography
Emery (1961) described a simple and rapid method to measure beach profiles,
henceforth called the Emery-Method, which has been used in numerous studies
throughout the world (Krause, 2004). This method of data collection is used at
Wildlife Sense in order to carry out beach profiling. Beach topography sessions
coincided with the data which was collected for the mini-project in Chapter 4, on
bathymetric profiles.
During beach topography sessions, Emery’s method was altered slightly to cater for
the resources and time available. Two bamboo sticks were gathered and cut to equal
lengths using a saw, they will be used as the markers. All data collected copied into
the beach topography book by the shift leader.
A bamboo stick is held by one person at the back of the beach, whilst another
volunteer places the second bamboo stick directly in front, in the direction of the
water line, at a 2 metre gap. The first observer moves their line of sight down the
bamboo stick until the top of the second bamboo stick is in line with the horizon
(Figure 14). The distance from the eye of the observer to the top of the first pole is
the height difference recorded over that distance, i.e. 2 metres. This was repeated at
two metre intervals, recording the height difference at each interval, until the water
line was reached. At the end of an observation, the height differences can be used to
map the profile of the beach. Krause (2004) believes that even though there are
modern instruments for measuring beach profiles, Emery’s method still has
considerable advantages, especially in areas which are less developed.
Figure 14 - A sketch from Emery (1961)
describing the process of profiling using
two wooden rods 5ft in length.

13 | P a g e
2.2. European Union Laws & Regulations
Sea turtles are protected under the European Union habitats directive, more formally
known as Council Directive 92/43/EEC of 21st May 1992 on the conservation of
natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora, in Appendix 2, meaning they are strictly
protected. Member states of the E.U must take appropriate action in following
guidelines and objectives. The main aim of the directive is the conservation by a
series of measures, required to maintain or restore the natural habitats and the
populations of species of wild fauna and flora (Habitats Directive, 1992).
This directive resulted in the establishment of the European Natura 2000 network of
protected areas (EC, 2000). Natura 2000 includes Special Areas of Conservation
(SACs), and Special Protection Areas (SPAs), based on the Habitats Directive and
the Birds Directive (Apostolopoulou and Pantis, 2009). Figure 15 shows the current
protected sites under the Natura 2000 directive in Kefalonia, Greece. Most sea
turtles are protected through this act; sea turtles are also protected through the
Environmental Protection Act of 1986. Many problems have arisen through these
acts, such as violations by states not following guidelines and preventable issues
that could have been solved, but are ignored. Therefore leaving all the work burden
on private effort and non-government organisations, such as Wildlife Sense, to fulfil
the conservation needs.
Papageorgiou and Vogiatzakis (2006) believe that the Natura 2000 directive leaves
the overall picture of protected areas in Greece as confusing and fragmented. They
call for a greater realisation of integrated conservation in Greece, mainly reforming
legal framework in order to promote environmentalism. Tsianou et al. (2013) state, in
their study of the Greek Natura 200 conservation network, that the selection of
managed sites was primarily based on scientific reasoning and political motivation In
their view a more integrated approach, for example considering socioeconomic
factors, should have been involved in the process. Furthermore, according to a study
done by Jones at al. (2011) on public perception of an important nesting beach in
Rethymno, Crete, awareness of the existence of the Natura 2000 site was low.

14 | P a g e
2.3. Tourism & Habitat Encroachment
Impacts of human activities have been known for decades (Lutcavage et al., 1997)
with most efforts to mitigate impacts largely focused on terrestrial habitats
(Witherington and Martin, 1996). The sea turtle population is under signiﬁcant
pressure in Greece, mainly due to construction and recreational activities connected
with tourism (Mazaris et al., 2009). It is estimated that in 2005, 246 million
international tourists visited the Mediterranean countries, this to constitutes to 30.5%
of global international tourism (UNEP/Map/Blue Plan, 2009).
Figure 15 – Map of Kefalonia, Greece showing the Natura 2000 sites. Diagonal blue lines represent Habitats
Directive Sites (SCI); note a lot of these areas are on the coast at well-known nesting areas, including the south of
the island where the research and beach surveys mentioned in this portfolio were carried out. Legend included –
top right. (European Environment Agency, 2013)

15 | P a g e
Tourism has important impacts, both positive and negative, on the management of
coastal areas with high biodiversity value (Jones et al., 2011). Priskin (2003) states
that tourism is associated with environmental impacts, such as changes in water
quality, habitat destruction and water pollution, which affect sea turtles in Greece.
Furthermore Gibson and Smith (1999) believe that indiscriminate anchoring can
result in damage to both coral reefs and seagrass, and this problem is increasing
due to tourism and pleasure boating activities. This poses a problem for sea turtles in
Greece as they feed on and amongst the seagrass. Moreover, Denkinger et al.
(2013) found in their study of boating strikes on green turtles that, due to the
increase in tourism, there has been an increase in boating activities in a marine
reseve where turtles are frequently observed. Results show that boating strikes at
nesting beaches caused the injuries to 4198 turtles in 2 years. However, Jacobson
and Lopez (1994) believe that an increase in tourism to protected areas, potentially,
could result in increased revenues, better protection and facilities. Additionally,
Wilson and Tisdell (2001) believe the economic benefits of tourism are not only
useful for the further development of nature-based activities, but can develop political
support for conservation.
3. Literature Review – Sea Turtle Conservation Techniques
Sea turtles are described as one of the most endangered marine taxa on earth, the
IUCN’s redlist describes the Hawksbill (Eretmochelys imbricate) as critically
endangered, Loggerhead (Caretta caretta) and Green sea turtle (Chelonia mydas)
as endangered, and the Olive Ridley (Lepidochelys olivacea) and Leatherback sea
turtle (Dermochelys coriacea) as vulnerable (IUCN, 2013). Sea turtles are
susceptible to human impacts at every life stage, from egg to hatchling, juvenile to
adult, thereby placing them among the most conservation dependent of marine taxa
(Hamann et al., 2010). The survival rate from egg to adulthood has been estimated
to be less than one per thousand for the loggerhead sea turtle, (Caretta caretta)
(Frazer 1986). The declining populations of sea turtles worldwide are fragile, for
example Heppel et al. (1996) found a loss of only a few hundred subadult and adult
females each year, at a rookery in Mon Repos, could lead to extinction of the eastern
Australian loggerheads in less than a century.

16 | P a g e
Over the last three decades, the knowledge of sea turtle conservation and protection
issues have increasingly captured the interest of many government agencies, non-
governmental organisations (NGOs) and the general public (Campbell 2007). The
increasing number of literature reviews on sea turtle conservation and management,
has equally reflected the increase in sea turtle research, with the ISI Web of Science
reporting 813 research items from 2006 to 2009, in a search for ‘sea turtle’ or ‘marine
turtle’ and ‘conservation’ (Hamann et al., 2010). Frazer (1992) believes that the
definition of the impending extinction of sea turtles needs to be revised in order to re-
write our solutions. If the definition of the extinction of a sea turtle species is based
solely in terms of there being too few turtles, then we are tempted to think of
solutions solely in terms of increasing the numbers of turtles (Frazer, 1992), which
may not be the solution. Sea turtle are generally regarded as species of conservation
concern, and in many places throughout world they are impacted by a variety of
anthropogenic and natural threats (Hamann et al. 2010).Throughout this literature
review these threats will be split by terrestrial and marine, then evaluated and
discussed in relation to how they affect sea turtle population worldwide and greater
conservation efforts.
Terrestrial
The ability to easily monitor, handle, and hence protect the early life stages of marine
turtles in the terrestrial nesting habitat (i.e., eggs and hatchlings) has resulted in this
becoming the primary focus for sea turtle conservation efforts worldwide
(Witherington, 2003). Donlan et al. (2010) found in their survey of sea turtle experts
from around the world, that nest predation and poaching of eggs come in as the
second and third greatest threats to sea turtle survival. However, even though results
suggest marine threats are of greater importance there seems to be a biased
towards terrestrial based impacts, in the sea turtle community. Improving knowledge
of embryology and hatchling production is a fundamental component of nesting
beach management (Hamann et al., 2010).
Captive breeding (also known as ‘head-starting’ and ‘captive farming’) of sea turtles
is a conservation technique whereby newly hatched turtles are transferred to
captivity and retained, for a period of approximately 9-12 months, in order to

17 | P a g e
minimize the natural mortality factors which threaten their survival at that size
(Woody, 1990; Mortimer, 1995). A number of conservation advantages and
disadvantages to captive sea turtle breeding have been described in literature; Ross
(1999) believes that these advantages and detriments lack quantifiable information,
therefore leading to an emotional discussion of factors with little resolution. Wood &
Wood (1993) suggest that sea turtles, from captive breeding programs, have
successfully adapted to the wild following release, citing information from
documented cases of long term survival, however Dodd (1982) suggest that the
intense migratory patterns in the sea turtles sub-adult years are compromised from
captivity rearing, and behaviour in the wild in unlikely to follow normal behaviour
patterns.
Ross (1999) believes that sea turtle captive programs provide a unique opportunity
to study the biology of sea turtles, allowing manipulation and experimentation which
would not be possible in the wild. On the other hand, Jacobson (1996) states that
crowded and often unhygienic conditions of captivity allow epizootic diseases to
flourish which cause catastrophic mortality. Furthermore, Frazer (1992) considers
programs such as captive breeding, to involve “halfway technology” meaning that
they may serve only to release more turtles into a degraded environment in which
their parents have already demonstrated that they cannot flourish. Sea turtle farms,
whether for captive breeding or ranching, cannot be shown to be directly beneficial
or proven to be fatally detrimental to the conservation of wild populations (Ross,
1999).
A common practise among conservation programs consists of transferring complete
clutches to hatcheries, which helps to mitigate hatchlings mortality due to poaching,
predators, floods and beach erosion (Patino-Matinez et al., 2012). Hatcheries should
be located as close as possible to the nesting beach to minimize physical trauma to
eggs during transportation (Mortimer, 1999) and should only be used as a last resort
when no other options are viable, where in situ protection is impossible (Mortimer,
1999). Understand hatchling production is important because it is a fundamental
component of population models (Hamann et al, 2010).
Aspects of hatcheries conservation value have been question, since some believe it
may result in reduced hatchling success and also bias the sex ratio of the hatchlings

18 | P a g e
(Morreale et al., 1982). Garcia et al. (2003) evaluated the effect of nest removal to an
enclosed hatchery on sex ratios under natural conditions, through the study in
Mexico it was found that there was an alteration of sex ratios because of incubation
in Styrofoam boxes or in shaded hatcheries, resulting in a sex ratio which was male
biased. Mortimer (1999) believes that there are some limitations to hatcheries, for
example hatcheries are very expensive in terms of the financial and human
resources required to maintain. Furthermore, for a hatchery to run effectively, it must
have reliably, well-trained staff, however, due to budget constraints hatcheries are,
sometimes, only able to support staff on minimum wage. Conversely, Sönmez
(2013) found that the hatching success in hatcheries was similar to natural nests;
however the number of dead hatchlings in hatcheries was higher than in natural
nests.
Nest relocation is a management tool used in the recovery of sea turtle populations,
involving removing nests from areas with extreme abiotic conditions (i.e. excessive
moisture, tidal threat) (Tuttle, 2010) and the relocation to an area with more
favourable conditions, usually in close proximity to original nest. Upon leaving the
beach after laying her nest, eggs and hatchlings are subject to a number of natural
threats (e.g., beach erosion & native predators) (Boulan, 1999), relocation of a nest
is a possible solution to overcome these threats. (Boulan 1999) states that relocation
of a nest is best accomplished through regular patrols of the nesting beach, ensuring
that the eggs are collected as soon as possible after deposition; eggs must be
transported in clean bags, buckets or baskets which are strong enough to hold the
weight of up to 12kg of eggs.
A study on relocation of nests in Zakynthos, W Greece by Kornaraki et al. (2006)
indicated in the results that relocation of nests laid in highly threatened locations
provides adequate conservation measures that allow for an increase in hatchling
production, although the choice of relocation site should be based upon specific
condition’s relative to each nest. Furthermore, Wyneken et al. (1988) found in their
study that the eggs in an undisturbed natural nest had lower hatchling success that
relocated eggs, reinforcing their belief that the relocation of nests is an effective
conservation method, provided sites are chosen carefully.

19 | P a g e
Artificial night lights pose a major threat to multiple species, however, as this threat is
difficult to quantify, it is often disregarded in conservation management (Mazor et al.,
2013). Artificial lighting near nesting beaches deters sea turtles from nesting and
interferes with the ability of hatchlings to move from their nest to the sea
(Witherington, 1999). In a recent study by Mazor et al. (2013) high resolution data
taken from the SAC-C satellite and International Space Station were used to
examine spatial patterns of turtle nests and intensity of night lights along Israel’s
entire Mediterranean coastline. Their results show sea turtle nests are negatively
related to night light intensity and most nesting instances are concentrated in darker
sections on the coast. Night-time beach surveys should be conducted so that
specific problem light sources can be identified (Witherington, 1992)
There are many ways to alter light sources so that their effect on sea turtles is
reduced (Witherington & Martin, 1996). In recent decades, the detriments of coastal
artificial lighting to hatchlings have been mitigated in some areas with expanded use
of low pressure sodium lamps (LPS) and light shields (Salmon, 2000). Low-pressure
sodium vapour sources are the purest yellow light sources and may be the best
commercially available light sources for applications near nesting beaches
(Witherington, 1992). However, low-pressure sodium vapour sources are not
completely harmless and they can affect some species more than others
(Witherington and Martin, 1996). Witherington (1992) found lighting beaches with
LPS (low-pressure sodium vapour) had no significant effect on nesting in loggerhead
and green sea turtles, suggesting that LPS luminaires may be an acceptable
alternative where lighting on nesting beaches cannot be completely extinguished.
Marine
Incidental catch in fisheries is widely recognized as a major mortality factor for sea
turtles. Several gear types, including shrimp trawl nets and fish seines, are known
sources of injury and mortality (Oravetz, 1999). Adults and larger juveniles are
captured in fishing gear as bycatch (Murphy & Murphy 1988), considering their
endangered status, there is considerable attention drawn towards the trawl fisheries
in which they are caught, and frequently drown (Poiner and Harris, 1996).
Understanding the bycatch problem is difficult due to intrinsic uncertainties regarding

20 | P a g e
catch levels, mortality rates and recovery rates that relate to sea turtle captures
(Lewison et al. 2003). Furthermore, the total number of sea turtles captured cannot
be accurately estimated because of the numbers of unobserved vessels and data,
and also the high levels of illegal, unregulated and unreported (IUU) fishing (Agnew
et al. 2009). However, Oravetz (1999) believes that, although, there are no reliable
numbers on the global extent of trawl fishing in areas where sea turtles occur, a
reasonable estimate of annual mortality of sea turtles in shrimp trawls is
approximately 150,000. A survey by Donlan et al. (2010) of expert opinions on sea
turtles revealed that bycatch from fisheries was the most important threat to sea
turtles worldwide.
Pritchard et al. (1983) offered three solutions for reducing mortality: restricting fishing
activity in areas and during seasons when sea turtles concentrate, pulling trawls and
fishing gear to the surface more frequently, and using turtle excluder devices in order
to release captured turtles from trawls. The Turtle Excluder Device (TED) has
become the standard for reduction of sea turtle mortality from shrimping and, to a
lesser extent, from fish trawling (Oravetz, 1999) see Figure 16. TEDs have a
conservation benefit to turtles in reducing the risk of serious injury or mortality
associated with fishing gear interactions, however they also risk an increase in
fishing time if the catch retention is of lower levels (Warden, 2011). Furthermore
Epperly et al. (2003) believes that TEDs on bottom trawl fisheries have shown
promise for reducing sea turtle bycatch mortality.
Figure 16 – Turtle Excluder Device (TED) in the bottom
otter trawl gear, taken from Warden (2011).

21 | P a g e
Brewer et al. (2006) found in their study of TEDs in North Atlantic trawlers that nets
with a combination of a turtle excluder device (TED) and bycatch reduction device
(BRD) reduced the catches of sea turtles by 99%, sharks by 17.7% and rays by
36.3%, adding that the results obtained were largely due to the influence of the turtle
excluder device. Moreover, in the same study Brewer et al. (2006) found that only
one sea turtle was caught in a net when it was using a TED, further strengthening
the argument for the use of these devices as a conservation technique. Lewison et
al. (2003) found in their study of TEDs in the Gulf of Mexico that, compliance with
regulations regarding TEDs was a significant factor in accounting for annual
stranding variability, in loggerhead and kemp’s ridley sea turtles. The added that low
compliance was correlated with high levels of standings. From these results they
projected that improved compliances with TED regulations, coupled with other
protective measures should promote population recoveries for loggerhead and
kemp’s ridley turtles. Consequently, some governments have also placed tight
restrictions on prawn trawl fisheries to reduce their impacts on these species. For
example, the US has banned imports of shrimp from countries that have trawlers that
do not use TEDs as effectively as them (Hall and Mainprize, 2005).
Soykan et al. (2008) however, believes that tackling the bycatch of sea turtles in the
multitude of small-scale fisheries of coastal communities is more difficult. This is due
to the dispersed nature of the fishing community, and the diversity of the gear used
in these fisheries, thereby, a TED is not always the viable option. Nonetheless, the
use of these devices is a major step towards ensuring the long-term conservation of
many species, especially endangered sea turtles (Brewer et al., 2006).
Dimopoulos and Pantis (2010) completed a survey with 332 5th and 6th grade
students in elementary schools in Greece on their knowledge and attitudes regarding
sea turtles. Their results show low levels for knowledge but high level scores for
attitudes. Furthermore there was a significant positive correlation between
knowledge and attitudes. Showing that with more education the attitude towards sea
turtles conservation will change, this can also be related to adults. Without a
commitment to such long term goals, such as, TEDs and effective beach
management, efforts to protect sea turtles will be futile (Frazer, 1992).

22 | P a g e
4. Mini-Project - Impact of bathymetry on loggerhead sea turtle (Caretta caretta) nest
site selection
4.1. Abstract
Loggerhead sea turtles (Caretta caretta) are described as critically endangered,
along with most other marine turtles. The aim of this study is to determine the exact
cues for loggerhead sea turtles nest site selection, specifically looking at inclination
of a beach, through bathymetric profiling, and how it affects the number of
emergences. Three beaches were patrolled over a 3-month nesting season in
Kefalonia, Greece in order to determine nesting and non-nesting emergences. Depth
measurements were collected on these beaches and used to work out percentage
inclination. Results found that there was a significant difference in emergences
between all three study beaches and a significant difference in inclination between
Megali Ammos & Megali Petra and Megali Ammos & Avithos, providing a trend of
increasing inclination leads to increasing emergences. Many other studies in
literature lead with the idea of inclination/slope being the most important variable to a
loggerhead sea turtle in nest site selection. However there are many other variables
that also contribute to the nesting selection, which could have been evaluated more
thoroughly with more time and resources. It can be said that loggerhead sea turtles
use multiple cues in order to determine nest site selection; nevertheless one of the
most important cues is beach slope/inclination.
4.2. Introduction
The Mediterranean Sea is small when compared with oceans, but it features both
neritic and oceanic areas frequented by loggerhead sea turtles (Caretta caretta),
which are one of the most common sea turtle species in the Mediterranean
(Margaritoulis et al. 2003). Beaches of the Greek island of Kefalonia are an important
rookery for the loggerhead sea turtle (Caretta caretta) however there have been
declines in the nesting activity in this area in the last number of years. Most of the
research focuses on the Atlantic population of loggerheads around Florida, the
south-eastern United States hosts the largest assemblage of loggerhead sea turtles
in the western hemisphere, with approximately 90% of nesting occurring on Florida
beaches (Ehrhart et al, 2003). From both a life history, and conservation standpoint

23 | P a g e
there is considerable interest in nest placement by sea turtles (Hays, 1991).
Understanding what drives their selection for nest sites is important for the
conservation of this species. For animals that lay their eggs in a nest, the selection of
a nest site may strongly influence offspring survival and therefore have important
consequences for the reproductive fitness of the adult (Martin, 1988).
The loggerhead sea turtle is a sub-tropical and temperate migratory species with a
complex life history (Witzell, 2002) belonging to the family Cheloniidae and the
genus Caretta. Loggerheads are carnivorous; foraging primarily on benthic
invertebrates, the high diversity in the types of their prey demonstrates versatility in
foraging behaviour, suggesting that the loggerhead is a generalist (Plotkin, 1993).
Loggerheads in the Mediterranean are generally reproductively isolated from their
Atlantic counterparts, this leads to morphological differences (Del Mar Otero, 2012),
Mediterranean Loggerheads are smaller than their Atlantic cousins (Spotila, J.R.,
2004). Bowen et al. (1993) found significant differences in haplotype frequency
between nesting populations in Florida, and the Mediterranean nesting colony, which
indicates substantial restrictions on contemporary gene flow between regional
populations, and therefore a strong tendency for natal homing by females. Piovano
et al. (2011) also found loggerhead sea turtles nesting in the Mediterranean are not
only smaller than those nesting in the western North Atlantic but also younger.
Loggerhead Sea Turtles are listed as Endangered on the World Conservation Union
(IUCN) red list of threatened species (IUCN, 2013). Although the minimum criteria for
habitat that is suitable for nesting and hatchling production were laid out nearly 2
decades ago (Mortimer 1990), the underpinnings of nest site selection by sea turtles
largely remain a mystery (Hamann et al., 2010). From an evolutionary perspective,
nest site selection should reflect and benefit both the female and her clutch, though,
sometimes behaviours favourable for the nesting female are costly to the clutch and
vice versa, and a trade-off may occur (Mortimer, 1990).
Identification of nest site selection has received considerable attention (Miller,
1997). Beaches and adjacent offshore areas vary naturally in several important
environmental features that turtles can use proximal cues of nest site quality (Roe,
2013). Such physical and chemical characteristics include artificial lighting on beach
(Witherington, 1992), bathymetric features of the offshore approach (Hughes, 1974),

24 | P a g e
texture of the nesting beach sand (Mortimer, 1990), dimensions of the nesting beach
(Johannes & Rimmer, 1984), temperature and moisture content of the sand (Wood
et al., 2000) as well as vegetation cover (Mortimer, 1995).Factors mentioned vary in
degrees of importance from species to species. Provancha & Ehrhart (1987)
suggested that characteristics of beaches provide cues such, such as slope, which
loggerhead sea turtles use to select their nesting beach. Moreover, Mosier (1998)
reported in their study of beach seawalls that fewer turtles emerged to nest in front of
seawalls when compared with adjacent unarmoured beaches, suggesting that nest
site selection was made before the turtles emerged onto the beach. Conversely
Kikukawa et al. (1999) found that out of the twenty-three factors considered for
nesting sea turtles in Japan, sand softness was the most influential variable in nest
site selection, concluding that nest site selection was made when the turtle emerged
onto the beach. However, despite the considerable amount of work, our
understanding of the environmental cues controlling nest site selection is still limited
(Miller et al., 2003). Shoop et al. (1985) found that a nesting beach which supported
a high concentration of loggerhead sea turtles was abandoned after a five year
period due to a mud flat that developed on the ocean side of the island, changes to a
beach profile comparable to the ones observed there can have a drastic effect on
sea turtles nest site selection.
The aim of this study is to determine if there is a difference in total emergences of
loggerhead sea turtles between three beaches, in the Greek Island of Kefalonia, in
terms of their bathymetric profiles.
4.3. Methods
Study Sites
Data was collected over a three and a half week period from 6th June 2013 – 30th
June 2013; all research areas were located on the island of Kefalonia, Greece.
Kefalonia is the largest of the Ionian Islands and is situated off the West coast of
mainland Greece. The three beaches from which data was collected were situated

25 | P a g e
on the South coast. The longest of the beaches was Megali Ammos (38.125335°N,
20.491927°E), followed by Avithos (38.101915°N, 20.53871°E) the second longest
of the beaches and finally Megali Petra (38.103097°N, 20.535427°E) which is
connected to Avithos (See Figure 17). During all the data collection the weather was
clear and dry with average temperatures ranging from 22-29°C.
Data Collection
The data collection for the depth of the foreshore was split into two sections. At each
beach, transects were generated in order to measure the bathymetric profiles. To
generate these transects each beach was split evenly based on the overall length,
for each beach there was two transects placed in order to receive a more reliable
view of depth (rough sketches of each transect, at each study beach can be
observed as Figure 25 and Figure 26 in the Appendices). The transects were placed
at the quarter and three-quarter mark in terms of beach length, at these sectors there
were two beach markers (a long metal rod) inserted at equal lengths, the furthest
point away from the break of the water at the back of the beach, the GPS of each
beach marker was recorded using hand-held GPS receivers (Garmin eTrex10).
Using an assistant a straight line was made from a bamboo stick at the half-way
point between the two beach markers to the wave-line, this straight line became the
start of the transect. The transect was measured from the bamboo stick at the back
and the shoreline, and divided into 3 equal sections, two more bamboo sticks were
placed at each equal length, i.e. if the distance from the back bamboo stick to the
Figure 17 – Study Beaches – LEFT: Avithos [3], MIDDLE – Megali Ammos [4], RIGHT – Megali Petra [5]

26 | P a g e
wave-line was 9 metres then a bamboo stick would be placed at 3m and 6m. These
inserted bamboo sticks were known as Transect Identification Points (TIPs). The
distance from both TIPs to each beach marker was measured and inserted into the
Transect Identification Sketch (TIS). Measurements were then made from the
bamboo stick (nearest the water) to the wave-line and added to the TIS, then one
more bamboo stick was placed at the break of the water, this was called the wave-
line identification point (WIP). The measurements and length that were recorded for
each transect in the TIS were then used in order to located the transect for further
data collection, as the bamboo sticks could not have been left in the sand after data
collection in case of injury to general public..
The bathymetric profile of the foreshore was measured once transects were
generated and noted, if this was not straight after the generation of transect then the
TIS was referred to and the TIP used to find the WIP. At the WIP, the beach transect
was continued straight through the water from 0m at the WIP to 50m. At 5 metre
intervals a depth measurement was taken using a 30metre measuring tape with a 5
kilogram weight tied to the end. When noting the depth measurements, in
centimetres, it was important to remember that the length of the weight was 6cm;
therefore needed to be subtracted from the length observed. At the 50 metre mark a
further GPS coordinate was noted. The aforementioned methodology was followed
for each transect at each beach.
Emergence data of the loggerhead sea turtles was recorded throughout the season
by volunteers and associates of Wildlife Sense, from May, 2013 through to
September, 2013. Emergence of a loggerhead was described as the turtle leaving
the water and making entry onto the beach. Nests and non-nesting emergences
were quantified to equal total emergences.
Statistical Analysis
Depth measurement data was used to calculate the gradient/inclination of each
beach, in order to calculate the slope the formula ’a = 100 rise/run was used – “a”

27 | P a g e
being the inclination, run - the distance between each depth measurement and rise -
the depth measured at each point on transect (Table 3).
a = Inclination = 100 * rise/run
For the difference in inclination between each beach tests for normality were done to
determine if the data was normally distributed or not, homogeneity assumption were
not met therefore three non-parametric Kruskal-Wallis tests were performed between
each beach – Avithos & Megali Ammos, Avithos & Megali Petra and Megali Ammos
& Megali Petra. Emergence data was tested for normality, data was not normally
distributed and homogeneity assumption not met so a non-parametric test carried
out. Three Kruskal-Wallis tests were performed between each beach – Avithos &
Megali Ammos, Avithos & Megali Petra and Megali Ammos & Megali Petra.
Transect Point Avithos
Depth (cm)
Inclination (%)a Megali Ammos
Depth (cm)
Inclination (%)a Megali Petra
Depth (cm)
Inclination (%)a
1 36.5 7.3 13 2.6 26 5.2
2 101.5 13 53 8 91.5 13.1
3 124.5 4.6 106.5 10.7 87.5 0.8
4 131.5 1.4 148.5 8.4 65 4.5
5 131 0.1 168 3.9 70 1
6 126.5 0.9 185.5 3.5 82.5 2.5
7 135.5 1.8 227 8.3 96 2.7
8 140.5 0.9 264 7.4 109.5 2.7
9 160 3.9 299.5 7.1 121.5 2.4
10 169 1.8 318 3.7 131.5 2
Mean
Inclination (%)
3.57 6.36 3.69
Table 3 – Table showing change of depth measurement into inclination using formula ‘a=100rise/run’
between the three study beaches.

28 | P a g e
4.4. Results
Figure 18 shows the depth measurements taken at each interval over both transects
at Avithos, included is an average depth measurement calculated between the two
transects. The depth increases at a steady rate from 0cm until it reaches 153cm at
20m then levels off slightly until a further increase at 30m, rising continuously to
238cm at 50m.
From the line graph at Figure 19 the depth measurements at each transect point can
be seen from both transects at Megali Ammos, included is an overall average of the
depths at each transect point. A positive linear increase is observed from 0m to 50m,
the difference between measurement taken at both transects is minimal providing a
similar average. Like Avithos, Megali Ammos average depth reaches approximately
148.5cm at 20m point eventually increasing to 318cm at 50m – the deepest point
over all three study beaches.
Figure 18 - Line graph showing depths measured each transect point, from both
transects including mean depth, at Avithos, (n=10).
0
50
100
150
200
250
0m 5m 10m 15m 20m 25m 30m 35m 40m 45m 50m
Depth(cm)
Point on Transect
TRANSECT
ONE @ 40m
(cm)
TRANSECT
TWO @
114m (cm)
Average
(cm)

29 | P a g e
From Figure 20, the depth measurements from Megali Petra can be observed, the
beach carries a steady increase from 0cm at 0m to 100cm at 10m, the highest rate
of inclination increase across all three beaches. Depth decreases to approximately
65cm at 20m before increasing steadily to approximately 136cm at 50m.
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
400
0m 5m 10m 15m 20m 25m 30m 35m 40m 45m 50m
Depth(cm)
Point on Transect
TRANSECT
ONE @
110M (cm)
TRANSECT
TWO @
330m (cm)
Average
(cm)
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
160
0m 5m 10m 15m 20m 25m 30m 35m 40m 45m 50m
Depth(cm)
Point on Transect
TRANSECT ONE
@ 69M (cm)
TRANSEECT @
269M (cm)
Average (cm)
Figure 19 – Line graph showing depths measured at each transect point, from both
transects including mean depth, at Megali Ammos (n=10)
Figure 20 – Line graph showing depths measured at each transect point, from
both transects including mean depth, at Megali Petra (n=10).

30 | P a g e
Figure 21 shows the mean depth measurements from the three study beaches. The
graph shows the highest inclination coming from Megali Ammos (6.36%, Table1)
with the deepest mean depth measurement at 50m of 318cm. Mean depth
measurements between beaches Avithos and Megali Petra are similar, at 10m
Megali Petra has a mean depth of 91.5 and Avithos, 101.5cm. Both beaches mean
depth increase steadily finishing at 50m with Avithos recording a mean value of
169cm and Megali Petra slightly lower at 131.5cm.
Table 4 shows the total emergences calculated from the nesting and non-nesting
emergences over one season at the study beaches: Avithos, Megali Ammos and
Megali Petra in Kefaloni, Greece. The highest number of total emergences occurred
at Megali Ammos (24), followed by Megali Petra (16) and Avithos (10).
Study Beach Nests Non-nesting Emergences Total Emergences
Avithos 3 7 10
Megali Ammos 15 9 24
Megali Petra 3 13 16
Figure 21 – Line graph showing the mean depths measured at each transect point from
the three study beaches (n=10).
Table 4 – Table showing the nests, non-nesting emergences and total emergences from all
three study beaches (n=3).
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
0m 5m 10m 15m 20m 25m 30m 35m 40m 45m 50m
MeanDepth(cm)
Point on Transect
Avithos
Megali
Ammos
Megali
Petra

31 | P a g e
Figure 22 shows a scatter graph giving the relationship between total emergences
and mean percentage inclination at each study beach. The graph provides the trend
of increasing percentage inclination equalling an increase in the total number of
emergences. The lowest percentage inclination is Avithos (3.57%) with total
emergences of 10, followed by Megali Petra (3.69%) with total emergences at 16
and the highest inclination at Megali Ammos (6.36%) also providing the highest total
emergences with 24.
Kruskal-Wallis tests carried out in order to determine if there is a difference in total
emergences between each site, between Avithos and Megali Ammos there was
significant difference in total emergences (Kruskal Wallis- Chi2= 19.000, p< 0.001)
there was also significant difference in total emergences between Avithos and
Megali Petra (Kruskal Wallis- Chi2= 19.000, p< 0.001). Results between sites Megali
Ammos and Megali Petra also show significant difference in total emergences
(Kruskal Wallis- Chi2= 19.000, p< 0.001)
Figure 22 – Scatter graph showing the Total Emergences against Mean Inclination (%)
between Avithos, Megali Ammos and Megali Petra.
Avithos Megali Ammos Megali Petra
Emergence 10 24 16
Inclination 3.57 6.36 3.69
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
MeanInclination(%)
TotalEmergence

32 | P a g e
Kruskal-Wallis between Sites Chi2 value (x2) P-value
Avithos & Megali Ammos 4.331 0.037
Avithos & Megali Petra 0.464 0.496
Megali Ammos & Megali Petra 5.147 0.023
Results on Table 5 show no significant difference in inclination between Avithos and
Megali Petra (p= 0.496), however there is significant difference in inclination between
Avithos and Megali Ammos (p= 0.037) and there is also significant statistical
difference in inclination between Megali Ammos and Megali Petra (p= 0.023).
4.5. Discussion
The hypothesis of this study was that the total number of emergences between three
beaches in Kefalonia would be affected by the inclination of the beach; moreover the
aim of this study was to determine if the inclination of the beach had an effect on the
total emergences of female sea turtles.
The study found that there is significant difference in inclination between Megali
Ammos & Megali Petra and Megali Ammos & Avithos, however there was no
significant difference in inclination between Megali Petra & Avithos. Furthermore
there was a significant statistical difference in the total number of emergences
between each beach. Graphs produced show a trend that the increase in inclination
causes an increase in the emergence of female sea turtles. These findings are
supported by Roe (2013) who found that the nesting instances of Leatherback sea
turtles (Dermochelys coriacea) at Playa Grande, Costa Rica was positively
correlated with deepness of the offshore approach, beach slope and elevation.
Figure 23 shows a graph from Roe (2013) which shows the positive correlation
between beach slope and number of nests. Horrocks & Scott (1991) also found that
Hawksbill sea turtles (Eretmochelys imbricate) in Barbados seem to use slope as a
cue for beach selection, tending to nest on those beaches with steep slopes and low
Table 5 – Table showing results of Kruskal-Wallis test performed to determine
differences in inclination between each beach.

33 | P a g e
wave energy. However Mortimer (1995) proved that it may not always be the
gradient of the approach to a beach which affects the nest site selection of sea
turtles, stating that the sea turtles that nested on Ascensions Island showed the
heaviest nesting occurred on beaches with open offshore approaches and
foreshores relatively clear of rock clutter. During data collection it was noted that the
foreshore of Avithos was densely covered in rocks, this beach showed the least
emergences of the three study beaches. However as this data was not quantified
and is merely speculation, no conclusive statement can be made.
Further evidence to support results found comes from Wood et al. (2000) who
stated in their study, that out of the four environmental factors evaluated (slope,
temperature, moisture and salinity) slope appears to have the greatest influence on
nest site selection, perhaps because it is associated with nest elevation. Horrocks &
Scott (1991) also led with the theory on higher elevation nest site, stating that many
turtles prefer to nest on wide or steeply sloping beaches presumably because areas
with reduced beach width and elevation are at a higher risk of flooding. Reducing the
risk of mortality to the nest by nesting at higher elevation seems like a logical
explanation for the consistent choice of female sea turtle to nest on highly sloping
Figure 23 – Graph taken from Roe (2013) which shows a positive correlation
between beach slope and number of nests.

34 | P a g e
beaches. Conversely, there is other factors in which female sea turtles use to select
their nest site such as characteristics and quality of the sand. Mortimer (1995)
showed that nests can fail if the sand is either too coarse or too fine, therefore one
would come to the conclusion that the sand quality of a nest site should play an
important role in the sea turtles nest site selection. These results are similar to that of
Kikukawa et al. (1999) who found in their multiple regression analysis approach that
sand softness was a more important variable than beach height (see Figure 24 for
table of results). However in Tongaland, particle size and quality seems to be of
negligible importance to the loggerhead sea turtle in their choice of nest site
(Hughes, 1974). These results are consistent with the suggestion made by Wood et
al. (2000) that sea turtles use multiple cures for the selection of the nest site.
Kikukawa et al. (1999) study using multiple regression analysis found in their results
that beach height that was a more important variable than beach width in
determining beach selection for loggerhead sea turtles, with beach width giving a
negative result. These findings contrasts with Garmestani et al. (2000) who shows
that, for loggerhead sea turtles, there is a positive relationships between beach
width, and the number of nests on the beach. Results from that study in Ten
Thousand Islands, Florida illustrate that nesting loggerheads use wide beaches
(>8.5m) that inherently have less slope. Similarly, a more recent study done by
Mazaris et al. (2006) at beaches in Zaykinthos (an island south of Kefalonia, Greece)
present results that, in terms of nesting emergences and nesting success, beach
width was the more important variable considered.
While it cannot be suggested that inclination of a beach is the deciding factor in a
sea turtles nest site selection, it can be said from the results obtained in this study
Figure 24 – Table of results taken from Kikukawa et al. (1999) who used a multiple regression
analysis with body pit density in order to determine the more important variable.

35 | P a g e
that, it is an important factor contributing to the emergence and/or nesting instances
of female sea turtles on beaches in Kefalonia, Greece.
In practise, the methodology behind bathymetric profiling is more scientific and
reliable than methods used in this study, there are many different techniques that
scientists and researchers use. Emery et al. (1965) used precision echo sounding
profiles to map the Mediterranean Sea, Stumpf et al. (2003) used high-resolution
satellite imagery in order to determine depth, and furthermore Stockdon et al. (2000)
estimated nearshore bathymetry using video imaging processing. Constraints with
time, money and resources meant that techniques mentioned, could not have been
utilised. Sea turtles often use multiple cues in their nest site selection, therefore with
the increase in resources and time; these cues could have been effectively
measured to provide a more substantial set of results.
The long-term conservation of endangered sea turtles in Greece, as in other regions
of the world, depends on their protection at nesting sites and other stages of the life
cycle (Garcia, 2003). Intervention efforts such as predator abatement and use of
hatcheries continue to be widespread, and there is little doubt that these efforts have
paid dividends for increasing hatchling production (Hamann et al, 2010). Garcia
(2003) propose that intensive beach management is a valuable conservation
strategy of sea turtle nesting beaches, aimed to reduce both human and natural
induced nests losses. Furthermore turtle excluder devices (TEDs) on bottom trawl
fisheries and circle hooks in longline fisheries have shown promise for reducing sea
turtle bycatch mortality (Epperly, 2003). However, it is important to note that what
constitutes ‘effective conservation’ has been, and will continue to be, open to debate
(Hamann et al, 2010).

36 | P a g e
5. Reflection & Evaluation
Throughout the time at Wildlife Sense on my Work-based learning placement, I feel
that I have grown substantially as a person and an academic. I have become more
mature in relation to my studies and general aspects of life, staying in a foreign
country which for 4 weeks can be a lot more challenging than it seems. I am
thankfully that throughout the placement I was surrounded by people who made the
experience so fulfilling and memorable.
I believe that modules I have undertaken at John Moore’s have massively aided the
success of my placement, modules such as Animal Behaviour and Welfare provided
me with a key background to sampling and recording the behaviour of animals which
helped significantly during Harbour Watch. Marine and Freshwater Biology in second
year also provided me with an understanding of marine environments, without this
prior knowledge I do not believe that I would have been able to apply myself as well
as I did. During the writing of the report, especially the mini –project, modules
undertaken, such as, Fundamentals of Scientific Research and Research Methods
for Bioscience, 1st and 2nd year respectively, have supported my data collection,
project design and analysis. Organisation and time-keeping skills were key, field
methods such as Beach Patrol and Harbour Watch relied on volunteers being
efficient and precise with timing and organisation, something which I have improved
on since I have come to university. For example, if you were late to Beach Patrol, the
cycle back to camp may have been done during mid-day, when the sun is highest in
the sky. This gave chance circumstances such as heat-stroke or exhaustion to
occur, which are easily avoided, proving that being on time is important.
Collection of data on endangered species in a foreign country has always been a
dream, to be given the opportunity to do so, whilst facilitating my career as a
Zoologist, is incredible. I hope that the skills that I have learnt throughout my time on
placement aide me in my future. I am eternally grateful to Liverpool John Moores
University and Wildlife Sense for providing me with this opportunity; let’s hope that
our efforts are not in vain, and the conservation efforts of many endangered species
flourishes.
“If we kill off the wild, then we are killing a part of our souls.”
― Dr. Jane Goodall (1999)

37 | P a g e
6. Acknowledgements
A big thank you to Nikos Vallianos and Chanel Comis, firstly, for setting up Wildlife
Sense which gave me the experience of a lifetime, and secondly, for their support
throughout this portfolio. I’d also like to thank the volunteers at Wilidlife Sense, 2013,
which assisted with data collection for my mini-project, Dr. Aaron Blady, Alina Iliadis,
Amy Ritchie and Kathryn Jones. Also, massive thanks to Dr. Jenny Sneddon for her
guidance and critique during the writing of this portfolio.
7. References
Agnew, D.J., Pearce, J., Pramod, G., Peatman, T., Watson, R., Beddington, J.R. and
Pitcher, T.J. (2009). Estimating the worldwide extent of illegal fishing. Plos One. 4
(2), 45-70.
Allcock, A., Jones, B., Lane, S., and Grant, J. (1993), Draft National Ecotourism
Strategy. Canberra: Commonwealth Department of Tourism.
Antworth, R.L., Pike, D.A. and Stiner, J.C. (2006). Nesting ecology, current status,
and conservation of sea turtles on an uninhabited beach in Florida, USA. Biological
Conservation. 130 (1), 10-15.
Apostolopoulou, E. and Pantis, J. (2009). Conceptual gaps in the national strategy
for the implementation of the European Natura 2000 conservation policy in
Greece. Biological Conservation. 142 (1), 221-237.
Bjork, P. (2000). Ecotourism from a conceptual perspective, an extended definition of
a unique tourism form. International Journal of Tourism Research. 2 (3), 189-202.

38 | P a g e
Boulon, R.H. (1999). Reduction threats to eggs and hatchlings. In: Eckert, K. L.,
Bjorndal, K.A., Abreu-Grobois, F.A., and Donnelly, M. Research and Management
Techniques for the Conservation of Sea Turtles. Washington, DC: IUCN/SSC Marine
Turtle Specialist Group Publication. 235.
Bowen, B., Avise, J.C., Richardson, J.I., Meylan, A.B., Margaritoulis, D., Hopkins-
Murphy, S.R. (1993). Population structure of loggerhead turtles (Caretta caretta) in
the North-western Atlantic ocean and Mediterranean sea. Conservation Biology. 7
(4), 834-844.
Brewer, D.T., Griffiths, S.P., Heales, D.S., Milton, D.A. and Stobutzki, I.C. (2006).
Validating ecological risk assessments for fisheries: assessing the impacts of turtle
excluder devices on elasmobranch bycatch populations in an Australian trawl
fishery. Marine and Freshwater Research. 57 (4), 395-401.
Broderick, A.C., Glen, F., Godley, B.J. and Hays, G.C. (2002). Estimating the
number of green and loggerhead turtles nesting annually in the Mediterranean. Oryx.
36 (3), 227-235.
Campbell, L.M. (2007). Local conservation practice and global discourse: a political
ecology of sea turtle conservation. Annals of the Association of American
Geographers. 97 (1), 313-334.
Del Mar Otero, M & Conigliaro, M (2012). Marine mammals and sea turtles of the
Mediterranean and Black Seas. Gland, Switzerland and Malaga, Spain: IUCN. 28-32
Denkinger, J., Parr, M., Muñoz, J.P., Carrasco, C., Murillo, J.C., Espinosa, E.,
Rubianes, F. and Koch, V. (2013). Are boat strikes a threat to sea turtles in the
Galapagos Marine Reserve? Ocean & Coastal Management . 80 (1), 29-35.

39 | P a g e
Diamantis, D. (2000). Ecotourism and sustainability in Mediterranean
islands. Thunderbird International Business Review. 42 (4), 427-443.
Dimopoulos, D.I. and Pantis, J.D. (2003). Knowledge and attitudes regarding sea
turtles in elementary students on Zakynthos, Greece.The Journal of Environmental
Education. 34 (3), 30-38.
Directive, H. (1992). Council Directive 92/43/EEC of 21 May 1992 on the
conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora. Brussels, Belgium.
Dodd, K. (1982). Does sea turtle aquaculture benefit conservation? In: Bjorndal,
K.A. Biology and Conservation of Sea Turtles. Washington, D.C: Smithsonian
Institution Press. 583.
Donlan, C.J., Wingfield D.K., Crowder L.B. and Wilcox C. (2010). Using expert
opinion surveys to rank threats to endangered species: a case study with sea
turtles. Conservation Biology. 24 (6), 1586-1595.
E.C. (European Commission) (2000). Managing Natura 2000 sites. The provisions of
Article 6 of the ‘Habitats’ Directive 92/43/EEC. European Communities: Luxembourg.
Ehrhart, L.M., Bagley, D.A. & Redfoot, W.E. (2003). Loggerhead turtles in the
Atlantic Ocean: Geographic distribution, abundance, and population status. In:
Bolten, A.B. & Witherington, B.E., Loggerhead Sea Turtles. Smithsonian Institution
Press, Washington, D.C., 157–174

40 | P a g e
Emery, K.O. (1961). A simple method of measuring beach profiles. Limnology and
Oceanography. 6(1), 90-93.
Emery, K.O., Heezen, B.C. & Allan, T.D. (1966). Bathymetry of the eastern
Mediterranean Sea. Deep-Sea Research. 13 (1), 173-192
Epperly, S.P. (2003). Fisheries-related mortality and Turtle Excluder Devices (TEDs).
In: Lutz, P., Musick, J. & Wyneken, J., The biology of sea turtles, CRC Press, Boca
Raton, (2) 339–353.
Epperly, S.P., Watson, J.W., Foster, D.G. and Shah, A.K. (2003). Experiments in the
Western Atlantic northeast distant waters to evaluate sea turtle mitigation measures
in the pelagic longline fishery. American Fisheries Society Annual Meeting. 133 (1),
14
Frazer, N.B. (1986). Survival from egg to adulthood in declining population of
loggerhead sea turtles, Caretta caretta. Herpetology. 42 (1), 47-55.
Frazer, N.B. (1992). Sea Turtle Conservation and Halfway Technology. Conservation
Biology. 6 (2), 179-184.
Garcia, A., Ceballos, G. & Adaya, R. (2003). Intensive beach management as an
improved sea turtles conservation strategy in Mexico. Biological Conservation. 111
(1), 243-261.
Garmestani, A.S, Percival H.F., Portier, K.M. & Rice, K.G. (2000). Nest-site selection
by the loggerhead sea turtle in Florida's ten thousand islands. Herpetology. 34 (4),
504-510.

41 | P a g e
Gibson, J. and Smith, G. (1999). Reducing threats to foraging habitats. In: Eckert, K.
L., Bjorndal, K.A., Abreu-Grobois, F.A., and Donnelly, M. Research and
Management Techniques for the Conservation of Sea Turtles. Washington, DC:
IUCN/SSC Marine Turtle Specialist Group Publication. 235.
Goodall, J (1999). In the Shadow of Man. Queson City: Phoenix. 384.
Hall, S.J. and Mainprize B.M. (2005). Managing by-catch and discards: how much
progress are we making and how can we do better? Fish and Fisheries. 6 (2), 134-
155.
Hamann, M., Godfrey, M.H., Seminoff, J.A., Arthur, K., Barata, P.C.R., Bjorndal,
K.A., Bolten, A.B., Broderick, A.C., Campbell, L.M., Carreras, C., Casale, P.,
Chaloupka, M., Chan, S.K.F., Coyne, M.S., Crowder, L.B., Diez, C.E., Dutton, P.H.,
Epperly, S.P., Fitzsimmons, N.N., Formia, A., Girondot, M., Hays, G.C., Cheng, I.J.,
Kaska, Y., Lewison, R., Mortimer, J.A., Nichols, W.J., Reina, R.D., Shanker, K.,
Spotila, J.R., Tomás, J., Wallace, B.P., Work, T. M., Zbinden, J. & Godley, B.J.
(2010). Global research priorities for sea turtles: informing management and
conservation in the 21st century. Endangered Species Research. 11 (1), 245–269.
Hays, G.C., Webb, P.I., Hayes, J.P. & Priede, I.G. (1991). Satellite tracking of a
loggerhead turtle (Caretta caretta) in the Mediterranean.Marine Biology. 71 (3), 743-
746.
Heppel, S.S., Limpus, C.J., Crouse, D.T., Frazer, N.B. and Crowder, L.B. (1996).
Population model analysis for the loggerhead sea turtle, Caretta caretta, in
Queensland. Wildlife Research. 23 (2), 143 - 161

42 | P a g e
Hopkins-Murphy, S.R. and Murphy, T.M. (1988). Status of the loggerhead turtle in
South Carolina. In Schroeder, B.A. Proceedings of the Eighth Annual Workshop on
Sea Turtle Conservation and Biology. U.S. Dept. Commerce, Miami, Florida. 136.
Horrocks, J.A. & Scott, N.M. (1991). Nest site location and nest success in the
hawksbill turtle (Eretmochelys imbricata) in Barbados, West-Indies. Marine Ecology.
69 (1-2), 1-8.
Hughes, G.R (1974). The sea turtles of South-East Africa I. Status, morphology and
distributions . Durban: The Oceanographic Research Institute, 144.
ICUN (World Conservation Union). 2013. ICUN red list of threatened species.
ICUN/SSC, Cambridge, United Kingdom. Available from http://www.redlist..org
(accessed December 2013)
Jacobson, E.R. (1996). Marine turtle farming and health issues. Marine Turtle
Newsletter. 72 (1), 13-15.
Jacobson, S.K. and Lopez, A.F. (1994). Biological impacts of ecotourism: Tourists
and nesting turtles in Tortuguero National Park, Costa Rica. Wildlife Society Bulletin.
22 (3), 414-419.
Johannes R.E. & Rimmer, D.W. (1984). Some distinguishing characteristics of
nesting beaches of the green turtle (Chelonia mydas) on North West Cape
Peninsula, Western Australia. Marine Biology. 83 (2), 149-154
Jones, N., Panagiotidou, K., Spilanis, I., Evangelinos, K.I. and Dimitrakopoulos, P.G.
(2011). Visitors' perceptions on the management of an important nesting site for

43 | P a g e
loggerhead sea turtle (Caretta caretta): The case of Rethymno coastal area in
Greece.Ocean & Coastal Management . 54 (8), 577-584.
Kikukawa, A., Kamezaki, N. & Ota, H. (1999). Factors affecting nesting beach
selection by loggerhead turtles (Caretta caretta): a multiple regression
approach. Zoology. 249 (1), 447-454.
Kornaraki, E., Matossian, D.A., Mazaris, A.D., Matsions, Y.G. and Margaritoulis, D.
(2006). Effectiveness of different conservation measures for loggerhead sea turtle
(Caretta caretta) nests at Zakynthos Island, Greece. Biological Conservation. 130
(1), 324-330.
Krause, G. (2004). The "Emery-Method" revisited - Performance of an inexpensive
method of measuring beach profiles and modifications.Journal of Coastal Research .
20 (1), 340-346.
Lewison, R.L., Crowder, L.B. and Shaver, D.J. (2003). The impact of turtle excluder
devices and fisheries closures on loggerhead and kemp's ridley strandings in the
western Gulf of Mexico. Conservation Biology. 17 (4), 1089–1097.
Lutcavage, M.E., Plotkin, P., Witherington, B.E. and Lutz, P.L. (1997). Human
impacts on sea turtle survival. In: Lutz, P.L and Musick, J.AThe Biology of Sea
Turtles. London: CRC Press. 387-409.
Margaritoulis, D., Argano, R., Baran, I., Bentivegna, F., Bradai, M.N., Caminas, J.A.,
Casale, P., De Metrio, G., Demetropoulos, A., Gerosa, G., Godley, B., Houghton, J.,
Laurent, L. & Lazar, B. (2003). Loggerhead turtles in the Atlantic Ocean: Geographic
distribution, abundance, and population status. In: Bolten, A.B. & Witherington, B.E.,
Loggerhead Sea Turtles. Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington, D.C., 157–174

44 | P a g e
Margaritoulis, D. (2000). An estimation of the overall nesting activity of loggerhead
sea turtles in Greece . Proceeding of the 18th International Sea Turtle Symposium.
436 (1), 48-50.
Martin, T.E. (1988). Nest placement: implications for selected life-history traits, with
special reference to clutch size. American Naturalist. 132 (1), 900-910.
Mazaris, A.D., Matsinos, Y.G. & Margaritoulis, D. (2006). Nest site selection of
loggerhead sea turtles: The case of the island of Zakynthos, W
Greece. Experimental Marine Biology and Ecology. 336 (1), 157-162.
Mazaris, A.D., Matsinos, Y.G. and Pantis, J.D. (2009). Evaluating the impacts of
coastal squeeze on sea turtle nesting. Ocean & Coastal Management . 52 (2), 139-
145.
Mazor, T., Levin, N., Possingham, H.P., Levy, Y., Rocchini, D., Richardson, A.J. and
Kark, S. (2013). Can satellite-based night lights be used for conservation? The case
of nesting sea turtles in the Mediterranean. Biological Conservation. 159 (1), 63–72.
Miller, J.D., (1997). Reproduction in sea turtles. In: Lutz, P.L. & Musick, J.A., the
Biology of Sea Turtles. CRC Press, Boca Raton, 51–81.
Miller, J.D., Limpus, C.L. & Godfrey, M.H., (2003). Nest site selection, oviposition,
eggs, development, hatching and emergence of Loggerhead Turtles. 125–143 In
Ecology and Conservation of Loggerhead Sea Turtle. Bolten, A.B. & Witherington,
B.E., University Press of Florida, Gainesville, Florida, USA

45 | P a g e
Morreale, S.J., Ruiz, G.J., Spotila, J.R. & Standora, E.A. (1982). Temperature-
dependent sex determination: current practices threaten conservation of sea
turtles. Science. 216 (4551), 1245-1247.
Mortimer, J.A. (1990). The influence of beach sand characteristics on the nesting-
behaviour and clutch survival of green turtles (Chelonia mydas). Copeia. 584 (3),
802-817.
Mortimer, J.A., (1995). Factors influencing beach selection by nesting sea turtles. In:
Bjorndal, K.A., Biology and Conservation of Sea Turtles. Smithsonian Institution
Press, Washington, D.C., 45–52.
Mortimer, J.A. (1995). Head-starting as a management tool. In: Bjorndal,
K.A. Biology and Conservation of Sea Turtles. Washington, D.C: Smithsonian
Institution Press. 583.
Mortimer, J.A. (1999). Reducing threats to eggs and hatchlings: hatcheries. In:
Eckert, K. L., Bjorndal, K.A., Abreu-Grobois, F.A., and Donnelly, M. Research and
Management Techniques for the Conservation of Sea Turtles. Washington, DC:
IUCN/SSC Marine Turtle Specialist Group Publication. 235.
Mosier, A.E., (1998). The impact of coastal armouring structures on sea turtle
nesting behaviour at three beaches on the east coast of Florida. Tampa,FL:
University of South Florida, Master’s thesis, 112.
Oravetz, C.A. (1999). Reducing incidental catch in fisheries. In: Eckert, K. L.,

46 | P a g e
Panou, A., Jacobs, J. and Panos, D. (1993). The endangered mediterranean monk
seal Monachus monachus in the Ionian sea, Greece. Biological Conservation. 64 (2),
129-140.
Papageorgiou, K. and Vogiatzakis, I.A. (2006). Nature protection in Greece: an
appraisal of the factors shaping integrative conservation and policy
effectiveness. Environmental Science and Policy. 9 (5), 476–486.
Patino-Martinez, J., Marco, A., Quinones, L. and Roberto, L.A. (2012). How do
hatcheries inﬂuence embryonic development of sea turtle eggs? Experimental
analysis and isolation of microorganisms in leatherback turtle eggs. Journal of
Experimental Zoology. 317 (1), 47-54.
Piovano, S., Clusa, M., Carreras, C., Giacoma, C., Pascual, M. & Cardona, L.
(2011). Different growth rates between loggerhead sea turtles (Caretta caretta) of
Mediterranean and Atlantic origin in the Mediterranean Sea. Marine Biology. 158
(11), 2577-2587.
Plotkin, P.T., Wicksten, M.K. & Amos, A.F. (1993). Feeding ecology of the
loggerhead sea turtle (Caretta caretta) in the North-western Gulf of Mexico. Marine
Biology. 115 (1), 1-5.
Poiner, I.R. and Harris, A.N.M. (1996). The incidental capture, direct mortality and
delayed mortality of turtles in Australia’s northern prawn fishery. Marine Biology. 125
(1), 813–825.
Priskin, J. (2003). Tourist perceptions of degradation caused by coastal nature-
based recreation. Environmental Management. 32 (2), 189-204.

47 | P a g e
Pritchard, P.C.H and Mortimer, J.A. (1999). Taxonomy, external morphology, and
species identification. In: Eckert, K. L., Bjorndal, K.A., Abreu-Grobois, F.A., and
Donnelly, M. Research and Management Techniques for the Conservation of Sea
Turtles. Washington, DC: IUCN/SSC Marine Turtle Specialist Group Publication.
235.
Pritchard, P.C.H., Bacon, P. and Berry, F. (1983). Mortality of sea turtles through
international fishing. In: Bjorndal, K.A. and Balazs, G.H. Manual of Sea Turtle
Research and Conservation Techniques. Washington, D.C: Centre for
Environmental Education. 75-84.
Provancha, J.A. & Ehrhart, L.M. (1987). Sea turtles nesting trends at Kennedy space
centre and Cape Canaveral air force station, Florida, USA and relationships with
factors influencing nest site selection. NOAA Technical Report. 53 (1), 33-44.
Roe, J.H., Clune, P.R., & Paladino, F.V. (2013). Characteristics of a leatherback
nesting beach and implications for coastal development. Chelonian Conservation &
Biology. 12 (1), 34-43.
Ross, J.P. (1999). Ranching and captive breeding sea turtles: Evaluation as a
conservation strategy. In: Eckert, K. L., Bjorndal, K.A., Abreu-Grobois, F.A., and
235.
Salmon, M. (2000). Protecting sea turtles from artifical night lighting at Florida's
oceanic beaches. In: Rich, C. and Longcore, T. Ecological Consequences of Artificial
Night Lights. Washington, D.C: Island Press. 479.

48 | P a g e
Schofield, G., Katselidis, K.A., Dimopoulos, P., Pantis, J.D. and Hays, G.C. (2006).
Behaviour analysis of the loggerhead sea turtle Caretta caretta from direct in-water
observation. Endangered Species Research. 2 (1), 71-79.
Schroeder, B.A., Foley, A.M. and Bagley, D.A. (2003). Loggerhead turtles in the
Atlantic Ocean: Geographic distribution, abundance, and population status. In:
Bolten, A.B. & Witherington, B.E., Loggerhead Sea Turtles. Smithsonian Institution
Press, Washington, D.C., 157–174.
Schroeder, B.A and Murphy, S. (1999). Population surveys (ground and aerial) on
Nesting Beaches. In: Eckert, K. L., Bjorndal, K.A., Abreu-Grobois, F.A., and
235.
Shoop C.R., Ruckdeschel, C.A. & Thompson, N.B. (1985). Sea turtles in the
southwest United States - nesting activity as derived from aerial and ground
surveys. Herpetology. 41 (3), 252-259.
Sönmez, B. and Özdile, P.Y. (2013). Conservation technique of the green turtle
(Chelonia mydas) nests under the risk of tidal inundation with hatcheries, on
Samandad beach, Turkey. Russian Journal of Herpetology. 20 (1), 19-26.
Soykan, O., Duruer, E.C., Kinacigil, T. and Tosunoglu, Z. (2008). Contribution to
some biological and fishery aspects of commercial penaeid prawns in Mersin Bay
(North-eastern Mediterranean, Turkey). Crustaceana. 81 (5), 577-585.

49 | P a g e
Spotila, J.R (2004). Sea turtles: A complete guide to their biology, behaviour and
conservation. Baltimore: JHU Press. 217-218.
Stockdon, H. F. & Holman, R. A. (2000). Estimation of wave phase speed and
nearshore bathymetry from video imagery. Journal of Geophysical Research:
Oceans (1978–2012). 105 (C9), 22015–22033.
Stumpf, R.P., Holderied, K. & Sinclair, M. (2003). Determination of water depth with
high-resolution satellite imagery over variable bottom types. Limnology and
Oceanography. 48 (2), 547–556.
Tsianou, M.A., Mazaris, A.D. and Kallimanis, A.S. (2013). Identifying the criteria
underlying the political decision for the prioritization of the Greek Natura 2000
conservation network. Biological Conservation. 166 (1), 103-110.
Tuttle, J.A. (2010). Effects of Nest Relocation on Nest Temperature and embryonic
development of loggerhead sea turtles (Caretta caretta). Chelonian Conservation
and Biology. 9 (1), 1-7.
UNEP/Map/Blue Plan (2009). Promoting Sustainable Tourism in the Mediterranean.
Proceedings of the Regional Workshop. 3(173), 12-16
Warden, M.L. (2011). Modeling loggerhead sea turtle (Caretta caretta) interactions
with US Mid-Atlantic bottom trawl gear for fish and scallops, 2005–2008. Biological
Conservation. 144 (1), 2202–2212.
White, M. (2004) Observations of loggerhead turtles feeding on discarded fish catch
at Argostoli, Kefalonia. Marine Turtle Newsletter. 105 (1), 7-9

50 | P a g e
Wilson, C. and Tisdell, C. (2001). Sea turtles as a non-consumptive tourism resource
especially in Australia. Tourism Management. 22 (3), 279-288.
Wilson, C. and Tisdell, C. (2003). Conservation and Economic Benefits of Wildlife-
based marine tourism: Sea turtles and whales as case Studies. Human Dimensions
of Wildlife: An International Journal. 8 (1), 49-58.
Witherington, B.E. (1992). Behavioural repsonses of nesting sea turtles to artificial
lighting . Herpetology. 48 (1), 31-39.
Witherington, B.E. (1992). Predation on loggerhead turtle hatchlings after entering
the sea. Herpetology. 26 (2), 226-228.
Witherington, B.E. (1999). Reducing threats to nesting habitats. In: Eckert, K. L.,
Witherington, B.E. (2003). Decreasing annual nest counts in a globally important
loggerhead sea turtle population. Ecological Applications. 19 (1), 30-54.
Witherington, B.E and Martin, R.E. (1996). Understanding, assessing, and resolving
light-pollution problems on sea turtle nesting beaches.Florida Marine Research
Institute Technical Reports. 1 (2), 1-73.
Witzell, W.N. (2002). Immature Atlantic loggerhead turtles (Caretta caretta):
suggested changes to the life history model. Herpetological Review. 33 (1), 226-269.

51 | P a g e
Wood D.W., Bjorndal, K.A. & Ross, S.T. (2000). Relation of temperature, moisture,
salinity, and slope to nest site selection in loggerhead sea turtles. Copeia. 2000 (1),
119-119
Wood, F. and Wood, J. (1993). Release and recapture of captive-reared green sea
turtles, Chelonia mydas, in the waters surrounding the Cayman Islands. Herpetology.
3 (1), 84-89.
Woody, J.B. (1990). Guest editorial: is head-starting a reasonable conservation
measure? On the surface, yes; in reality, no. Marine Turtle Newsletter. 50 (1), 8–11.
Wyneken J., Burke, T.J., Salmon, M. and Pedersen, D.K. (1988). Egg failure in
natural and relocated sea turtle nests. Herpetology. 22 (1), 88-96
Websites
[1] – Map of Kefalonia - http://www.travel-to-kefalonia.com/images/map/kefalonia-
map.gif
[2] – Wildlife Sense Logo - Chanel Comis – www.wildlifesense.com
[3] - http://holidays.syl.com/img/12496/4.jpg
[4] - http://www.greeka.com/photos/cyclades/koufonisia/megali-ammos/01-megali-
ammos-beach-b.jpg
[5] - http://greektrips.gr/images/islands/lefkada/Megali_Petra.jpg

52 | P a g e
8.1. Appendices
Figure 25 – Rough sketch of transect used at research beaches Avithos and Megali Petra

53 | P a g e
8.1. Diary of Work Placement
06/06/2013
o I arrived at camp approximately at 1pm, met with the rest of the volunteers.
o Had a one-on-one induction meeting with Chanel, my placement supervisor,
who ran through the itinerary and what was expected of me in the following
weeks. Went through the methodology of the beach patrols and harbour
watch, and showed me the rota for the following week. We also had a
discussion about mini-project and what it would entail.
07/06/2013
o First day of work, beach patrol from 6am-12pm. Went to Avithos, Ai Chelis
and Megali Petra. No tracks found, holes on beach filled in.
08/06/2013
o Beach counting with Nikos at 5pm, counting how many people was on the
beach at these times.
o Intern meeting in the evening with Chanel.
09/06/2013
o Harbour Watch from 8.30am-1pm. Not much behavioural activity, lots of
swimming with a few tail chasing.
o Beach topography at 5pm with Marina.
Figure 26 – Sketch of transects at Megas Ammos

54 | P a g e
10/06/2013
o Harbour Watch with Aaron, Caroline & Rachael, 8.30m-1pm. Not much
behavioural activity noted.
o Went out for dinner for Shonagh’s birthday, had some traditional Greek
souvlaki.
11/06/2013
o Beach Patrol from 6am-12pm. Nothing found at Avithos, Ai Chelis and Megali
Petra.
o Watch a movie back at camp that night.
12/06/2013
o Beach topography at 5pm with Nikos and a few volunteers. Measured the
topography of beach using a tube filled with water, found that it was much
easier to use a bamboo stick and the horizon.
13/06/2013
o All day nature tour with Nikos and half of the volunteers, we visited Avithos
Lake, areas of specific scientific interest (SSSI) and an ancient tomb. Visited a
local vine-yard and tasted the wine.
14/06/2013
o Beach patrol from 6am-12pm, nothing found at Avithos & Megali-Petra.
However a nest was found at Ai Chelis, first nest for me, very exciting.
o Few double eggs in chamber, with one being split, eggs successfully
removed.
15/06/2013
o Beach patrol from 6am-12pm with Nikos, setup beach markers for my project.
o Some new volunteers arrived and some others left.
o Snorkelling trip at Ai Chelis beach, in search of the endangered
Mediterranean Monk Seal which had been spotted in that area.
16/06/2013
o Beach patrol from 5.30am-11.30am, times changed as it was getting too hot
to cycle on the return to camp.
o Aaron, Kathryn helped me with the start of my project - 30m transect done at
3m intervals.
o Intern meeting at 9pm with Chanel and Nikos to discuss project.
17/06/2013
o Day off with Aaron Blady, rented mopeds and did a tour of the island visiting
some areas of interest.
o Field Methods meeting with all the volunteers
18/06/2013
o Beach patrol at Airport Beaches from 5.30am-11.30am with Marc.
o Data collection done for mini-project.

55 | P a g e
o Interview on local Kefalonian Radio Station about Sea Turtle Conservation in
Greece, very nervous!
19/06/2013
o Beach topography at 5pm with Nikos.
o Data collection for mini-project done.
20/06/2013
o All day tour with Nikos and half of the volunteers.
o Visited areas of touristic interest and pointed out how these can affect the sea
turtles in the local area.
21/06/2013
o Beach patrol from 5.30am-11.30am. Body-pit and a Swim found at Ai Chelis.
o False crawls found at Megali Petra and Avithos
22/06/2013
o Beach patrol from 5.30am-11.30am. Nothing found at Avithos, Ai Chelis &
Megali Petra.
o Data collection for project.
o Went on a drive to Lixouri beach on the other side of the island and found a
couple of False Crawls and one nest.
o Beach Topography at 5pm.
23/06/2013
o Beach patrol at Airport beaches from 5.30am-11.30am, nothing found at these
beaches.
o Project work done at beach, data collection.
o Snorkelling & Cliff Diving with Aaron Blady and Nikos
o Intern meeting in the evening.
o After meeting, there was a group discussion of a scientific paper in relation to
sea turtle conservation.
24/06/2013
o Day off with Aaron Blady.
25/06/2013
o Beach patrol from 5.30am-11.30am at Avithos, Ai Chelis and Megali Petra,
nothing found.
o Data collection for project work done with Amy and Aaron.
26/06/2013
o Beach patrol from 5.30am-11.30am at Airport beaches, no tracks found at
any.
o Beach topography at 5pm with Aaron.
o Data collection done after topography work.
27/06/2013
o Beach patrol from 5.30am-11.30am at Avithos beaches with Aaron and Alina.
o Tracks found at Megali Petra.

56 | P a g e
o Data collection done after beach patrol.
o Intern meeting at 8pm with Nikos and Chanel to discuss how the project is
going.
28/06/2013
o Beach Patrol from 5.30am-11.30am at Avithos, Megali Petra and Ai Chelis
with Aaron and Alina, no tracks found.
o Data collection done.
29/06/2013
o Beach Patrol from 5.30am-11.30am at Avithos, tracks found on Avithos and
Megali Petra with one false crawl. Nothing found at Ai Chelis.
o Data collection done.
30/06/2013
o Last day on the island, very sad.
o Feel like I have known everyone here all my life! Don’t want to go home

Portfolio

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

What's hot

What's hot (20)

Viewers also liked

Viewers also liked (20)

Similar to Portfolio

Similar to Portfolio (20)

Portfolio