Oral presentation at National Conference on Beach Preservation Technology (2012)

516 views

Published on

25 minute oral presentation at a conference targeting mainly coastal engineers

0 Comments
0 Likes
Statistics
Notes
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Views
Total views
516
On SlideShare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
18
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
6
Comments
0
Likes
0
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide

Oral presentation at National Conference on Beach Preservation Technology (2012)

  1. 1. Examining
different
beach
nourishment
designs
to
understand
 changes
in
marine
turtle
nesting
 Allison
Hays
and
Llewellyn
Ehrhart
 University
of
Central
Florida

  2. 2. Marine
turtles
 Loggerhead
 Green
turtle
Federally
threatened
 Federally
endangered
 73,702
nests
 13,225
nests

  3. 3. Marine
turtles

  4. 4. Marine
turtles

  5. 5. Marine
turtles
 Data
and
map
copyright
STC

  6. 6. Marine
turtles
Genetically
distinct
regional
rookery
groupings
 Shamblin
et
al
2011

  7. 7. Marine
turtles
 Non‐nesting
emergence
(False
crawl)
Loop
 Body
pit
 Egg
chamber

  8. 8. Marine
turtles
•  Capital
breeders
 – Stored
nutrients
•  Unexpected
false
 crawls?

  9. 9. Marine
turtles
 Photo:
Kelly
Martin

  10. 10. Beach
nourishment
•  Temporary






in
loggerhead
nesting
success
 rates
(#
nests
/
total
#
emergences)
•  1
green
turtle
study
•  None
with
alternate
template
designs

  11. 11. Brevard
County,
FL
 DDR
 Archie

 Carr
NWR

  12. 12. Nourishment
designs
Full‐scale
restoration
(FSR)
 DDR
 FSR
 Archie

 Carr
NWR
 Photo:
Town
of
Longboat
Key
 2005,
2010

  13. 13. Nourishment
designs
Full‐scale
restoration
(FSR)
 Dune
restoration
(DR)
 Photo:
Town
of
Longboat
Key
 2005,
2010
 2005,
2006,
2008,
2009

  14. 14. Methods
•  Before‐After‐Control‐Impact
Paired
Series
 Model
 CONTROL
 IMPACT
 DELTA
 BEFORE
DAY
1
 60%
 60%
 0%
 (1997‐2001
 average)
 AFTER
DAY
1
 60%
 10%
 50%
 (2005)
•  Paired
t‐test
•  Holm’s
test

  15. 15. DR
Results
 Loggerhead
 Green
turtle
Nesting
success
rate
 Nesting
success
rate
YOC
=
year
of
construction
Error
bars
=
SE
*
significance
<
0.05,
**
<
0.01,
and
***
<0.001

  16. 16. Full
Scale
Restoration
Results
 Loggerhead
 Green
turtle
 Nesting
success
rate
Nesting
success
rate
Nesting
success
rate
 Nesting
success
rate
 YOC
=
year
of
construction
 Error
bars
=
SE
 *
significance
<
0.05,
**
<
0.01,
and
***
<0.001

  17. 17. Loggerhead
effect
sizes
 YOC
 1
YEAR
POST
 Effect
 p‐value
 Effect
 p‐value
 size
 size
DR
 ‐0.11
 >0.05
 ‐0.05
 <0.001*
FSR
 ‐0.13
 ‐0.16

  18. 18. Green
turtle
effect
sizes
 YOC
 1
YEAR
POST
 Effect
 p‐value
 Effect
 p‐value
 size
 size
DR
 ‐0.15
 0.002*
 ‐0.08
 <0.001*
FSR
 ‐0.29
 ‐0.32

  19. 19. Objectives
•  Objective
1:
Determine
beach
characteristics
 that
serve
as
nesting
cues
•  
Objective
2:
Determine
if
altering
key
 characteristics
through
beach
restoration
 affects
their
role
as
nesting
cues

  20. 20. Study
sites
 •  6
study
sites
(3
•  photos
 treatments)
 –  Natural
 –  DR
 –  FSR:flat

  21. 21. Study
sites
 •  6
study
sites
(3
•  photos
 treatments)
 –  Natural
 –  DR
 –  FSR:sloped
 Photo:
Ecological
Associates,
Inc

  22. 22. Methods
•  Loggerheads
•  Nests
•  Unobstructed
looping
 false
crawls


  23. 23. Methods

  24. 24. Methods

  25. 25. Objective
1:
Statistics
 Nesting
cues
•  Logistic
regression
model
selection
 –  Beach
specific:

 •  Beach
slope

 •  Beach
width

 •  Moisture
content

 •  Grain
size

 –  Turtle
specific:
 •  Slope
where
turtle
stopped
 •  Distance
traveled
 –  Create
models
to
predict
if
turtle
nests

  26. 26. Objective
1:
Results
 Nesting
cues
•  R2
=
0.75
•  Beach
slope
and
width

•  Sand
moisture
content
and
grain
size

•  Distance
turtle
traveled
•  Slope
where
turtle
stopped

  27. 27. Objective
1:
Results
 Nesting
cues
•  R2
=
0.75
•  Beach
slope
and
width

•  Sand
moisture
content
and
grain
size

•  Distance
turtle
traveled
•  Slope
where
turtle
stopped

  28. 28. Objectives
•  Objective
1:
Determine
beach
characteristics
 that
serve
as
nesting
cues
 –  Beach
slope
and
width

 –  Sand
moisture
content
and
grain
size


  29. 29. Objectives
•  Objective
1:
Determine
beach
characteristics
 that
serve
as
nesting
cues
 –  Beach
slope
and
width

 –  Sand
moisture
content
and
grain
size

•  
Objective
2:
Determine
how
altering
key
 characteristics
through
beach
restoration
 affects
nesting

  30. 30. Objective
2:
Methods
 Altering
beach
characteristics
 •  Divided
crawl
4
 into
quarters
 •  Averaged
data
3
 for
each
quarter
 •  Slope,
moisture
 content,
grain
2
 size
1

  31. 31. Objective
2:
Results
 Altering
beach
characteristics
 All
nests
 (n=49)
 All
false
crawls

 (n=25)
Elevation
(m)
 Crawl
Quarter

  32. 32. Objective
2:
Results
 Altering
beach
characteristics
 Natural
nests
 (n=19)
 Natural
false
crawls
 (n=7)
 FSR:
flat
nests
Elevation
(m)
 (n=8)
 FSR:
flat
false
crawls
 (n=4)
 Crawl
Quarter

  33. 33. Objective
2:
Results
 Altering
beach
characteristics
 Crawl
distances
on
FSR:flat
 False
crawl
n
=
4
 Nest
n
=
8
Distance
from
water
(m)
 Crawl
Type

  34. 34. Objective
2:
Results
 Altering
beach
characteristics
 Natural
nests

 (n=19)
 Natural
false
crawls

 (n=7)
 FSR:
flat
nests

Elevation
(m)
 (n=8)
 FSR:
flat
false
crawls
 (n=4)
 FSR:
sloped
nests
 (n=5)
 FSR:
sloped
false
crawls

 (n=8)
 Crawl
Quarter

  35. 35. Objective
2:
Methods
Altering
beach
characteristics
 •  Reference
point
 •  Rate
of
change

 



(change/1.5
m)

 •  Profile,
moisture
 content,
grain
size

  36. 36. Objective
2:
Results
 Altering
beach
characteristics
 •  Difference
in
nests
and
false
crawls
1.5
m
from
 head
 Nests 
 
 








False
crawls 

 
 
 
 
 
 

 Change
per
unit
(m)
Change
per
unit
(m)
 Distance
from
head
(m)
 Distance
from
head
(m)

  37. 37. Objective
2:
Conclusion
 Altering
beach
characteristics
•  Objective
2:
Determine
if
altering
key
 characteristics
through
beach
nourishment
 affects
their
role
as
nesting
cues
 –  Slope
 –  Too
flat/too
sloped
=
more
false
crawls
 –  Affects
its
ability
to
function
as
an
effective
 nesting
cue

  38. 38. Summary
•  Bigger
effect
size
after
full‐scale
restoration
•  Beach
slope/width
and
sand
moisture
 content/grain
size
=
loggerhead
nesting
cues
•  Altering
beach
slope
affects
its
ability
to
 function
as
a
nesting
cue

  39. 39. Why
is
this
important?
•  1st
data
to
show
the
importance
of
slope
•  Lays
groundwork
for
further
research
•  Experiment
with
alternate
template
designs

  40. 40. Acknowledgments
•  Committee:
Drs.
Llewellyn
Ehrhart,
Ross
Hinkle,
Mario
 Mota,
John
Weishampel
•  Field
crew:
Meredith
Hickman,
Sarah
Krieg,
Robyn
Lee,
 Greg
Norris
•  Labmates:
Simona
Ceriani,
Jennifer
Elliot,
Chris
Long,
 Cheryl
Sanchez,
Jennifer
Solis,
Andrew
Sterner,
Terry
 Williamson
•  UCF
Marine
Turtle
Research
Group
•  Ecological
Associates,
Inc.,
Rick
Herren,
Kristen
Kneifl,
 Mike
McGarry
•  UCF
Department
of
Engineering


×