GVI Jalova Expedition Phase Report Report July-September 113

8/2/2019 GVI Jalova Expedition Phase Report Report July-September 113

1/100


2/100


3/100

GVI Jalova, Parque Nacional Tortuguero, July September 2011 i

Executive Summary

The seventh 10-week phase of the Costa Rican GVI Jalova Programme has now been

completed. The programme has continued to work towards the gathering of importantenvironmental scientific data whilst working with local, national and international partners.

The following projects have been run during Phase 113 (July - September 2011):

Canal Bird Population Study

Jaguar Camera Trapping in Tortuguero National Park (TNP)

Jaguar Predation on Marine Turtles.

Incidental Species and Diversity Assessment

Biodiversity Assessment Project

Marine Turtle Monitoring

Beach Profiling

Great Green Macaw Project in collaboration with the Great Green Macaw Research

and Conservation Project.


4/100

GVI Jalova, Parque Nacional Tortuguero, July September 2011 ii

Table of Contents

Executive Summary ............................................................................................................. i

Table of Contents ................................................................................................................ iiList of Figures .................................................................................................................... iv

List of Tables ..................................................................................................................... iv1. Introduction ................................................................................................................ 52. Canal Bird Population Study ..................................................................................... 6

2.1 Introduction ..................................................................................................... 6

2.2 Aim ................................................................................................................. 72.3 Methodology ................................................................................................... 72.4 Results ............................................................................................................. 72.5 Discussion ..................................................................................................... 14

3. Jaguar Camera Trapping Project .............................................................................. 173.1 Introduction ................................................................................................... 173.2 Aim ............................................................................................................... 17

3.3 Methodology ................................................................................................. 183.4 Results ........................................................................................................... 183.5 Discussion ..................................................................................................... 19

4. Jaguar Predation of Marine Turtles .......................................................................... 214.1 Introduction ................................................................................................... 214.2 Aim ............................................................................................................... 22

4.3 Methodology ................................................................................................. 22

4.4 Results ........................................................................................................... 224.5 Discussion ..................................................................................................... 26

5. Incidental Species Study .......................................................................................... 295.1 Introduction ................................................................................................... 29

5.2 Aim ............................................................................................................... 295.3 Methodology ................................................................................................. 29


6. Biodiversity Assessment Project .............................................................................. 41

6.1 Introduction ................................................................................................... 416.2 Aim ............................................................................................................... 416.3 Methodology ................................................................................................. 416.4 Results ........................................................................................................... 46

6.5 Discussion ..................................................................................................... 547. Marine Turtle Monitoring ........................................................................................ 59

7.1 Introduction ................................................................................................... 597.2 Methodology ................................................................................................. 597.3 Results ........................................................................................................... 59

8. Beach Profile ............................................................................................................ 60

8.1 Introduction ................................................................................................... 608.2 Aim ............................................................................................................... 608.3 Methodology ................................................................................................. 60

8.4 Results ........................................................................................................... 60


5/100

GVI Jalova, Parque Nacional Tortuguero, July - September 2011 iii

8.5 Discussion ..................................................................................................... 61

9. Great Green Macaw ................................................................................................. 629.1 Introduction ................................................................................................... 629.2 Aim ............................................................................................................... 62

9.3 Methodology ................................................................................................. 63


10. References ................................................................................................................ 6511. Appendices ............................................................................................................... 67

Appendix A. Canal Bird Population Study Methodology ....................................... 67

Appendix B: List of Study Bird Species .................................................................. 70

Appendix C: Canal Incidentals Species List ............................................................ 71Appendix D: Jaguar Camera Trapping Project Methodology ................................. 73Appendix E: Jaguar Predation of Marine Turtles Study Methodology ................... 76

Appendix F: Incidental Study Species Methodology .............................................. 80Appendix G: Species List for the Incidentals Project outlining the percentage of

days species has been seen in each zone comparing phase 113 to 103 ................... 83

Appendix G: Species List for the Incidentals Project outlining the percentage ofdays species has been seen in each zone comparing phase 113 to 103 ................... 83Appendix H: BAS Seen and Heard Species List ..................................................... 91

Appendix I: BAS Track Species List ....................................................................... 95Appendix J: BAS Significant Difference P Values Comparing Number of Species

Between Transects ................................................................................................... 96

Appendix K: BAS Significant Difference P Values Comparing Number of TrackRecords Between Transects ..................................................................................... 97Appendix L: Beach Profile Methodology ................................................................ 98


6/100

GVI Jalova, Parque Nacional Tortuguero, July - September 2011 iv

List of FiguresFigure 2-1 Number of canal bird species per canal ............................................................... 9Figure 2-2 Number of canal bird records per canal ............................................................... 9

Figure 2-3 Number of canal incidentals species, records and individuals per canal ........... 13

Figure 4-1 Boxplot of curved carapace length of predated turtles. ...................................... 23

Figure 4-2 Comparison of the number of predated turtles per half mile to jaguar activity inthe same half mile. ............................................................................................................... 24

Figure 4-3 Spatial distribution of predated turtles, jaguar activity and turtle activity ......... 25

Figure 4-4 Boxplots of human disturbance to jaguar activity, turtle activity and number ofpredated turtles ..................................................................................................................... 26

Figure 5-1 Distribution of incidentals records by class ....................................................... 31

Figure 5-2 Distribution of amphibian records by zone ........................................................ 32Figure 5-3 Distribution of aves records by zone .................................................................. 32

Figure 5-4 Distribution of mammal records by zone ........................................................... 33

Figure 5-5 Distribution of reptilia records by zone ............................................................. 33Figure 6-1 Average number of species recorded by transect ............................................... 48Figure 6-2 Average number of records by transect ............................................................. 49

Figure 6-3 Number of species recorded at 8 minutes per 100m by transect ........................ 50

Figure 6-4 Number of records by transect when surveying at 8 minutes per 100m ............ 50

Figure 6-5 Number of species recorded by class ................................................................. 51

Figure 6-6 Record distribution by class ............................................................................... 53

Figure 6-7 Average number of records by class and transect .............................................. 54Figure 8-1 Beach profile morphology from section 1 ......................................................... 60

Figure 8-2 Beach profile morphology from section 4 ......................................................... 61

Figure 8-3 Beach profile morphology from section 6 ......................................................... 61

List of TablesTable 2-1 Overall canal bird data phase 113.................................................................. 8

Table 2-2 Species Presence/Absence per Canal .................................................................... 8

Table 2-3 Species Frequency by Canal ................................................................................ 11

Table 2-4 Max and Mean number of each species recorded per canal (n=number of

surveys) ................................................................................................................................ 12Table 3-1 Site and date of identifiable jaguar captures on camera traps ............................. 18

Table 5-1 New species recorded in phase 113 by the Incidentals project ........................... 30

Table 5-2 Total number of records by zone ......................................................................... 31Table 5-3 Total number of days with records by zone ........................................................ 31

Table 5-4 Comparison of total number of records per zone ................................................ 34

Table 5-5 Comparison of total number of records by class ................................................. 35

Table 6-1 Transect names, distances and time allowances .................................................. 42

Table 6-2 Statistics by transect ............................................................................................ 46

Table 6-3 Number of species and records by class and transect .......................................... 52

Table 9-1 Great green macaw sightings............................................................................... 63
http://e/Costa%20Rica/Base%20Specific/Expedition%20Jalova%20Base/reports%20and%20updates/exped%20phase%20reports/113%20report/Phase%20Report%20113%20Final%20Final.doc%23_Toc314216655http://e/Costa%20Rica/Base%20Specific/Expedition%20Jalova%20Base/reports%20and%20updates/exped%20phase%20reports/113%20report/Phase%20Report%20113%20Final%20Final.doc%23_Toc314216655http://e/Costa%20Rica/Base%20Specific/Expedition%20Jalova%20Base/reports%20and%20updates/exped%20phase%20reports/113%20report/Phase%20Report%20113%20Final%20Final.doc%23_Toc314216656http://e/Costa%20Rica/Base%20Specific/Expedition%20Jalova%20Base/reports%20and%20updates/exped%20phase%20reports/113%20report/Phase%20Report%20113%20Final%20Final.doc%23_Toc314216656http://e/Costa%20Rica/Base%20Specific/Expedition%20Jalova%20Base/reports%20and%20updates/exped%20phase%20reports/113%20report/Phase%20Report%20113%20Final%20Final.doc%23_Toc314216656http://e/Costa%20Rica/Base%20Specific/Expedition%20Jalova%20Base/reports%20and%20updates/exped%20phase%20reports/113%20report/Phase%20Report%20113%20Final%20Final.doc%23_Toc314216658http://e/Costa%20Rica/Base%20Specific/Expedition%20Jalova%20Base/reports%20and%20updates/exped%20phase%20reports/113%20report/Phase%20Report%20113%20Final%20Final.doc%23_Toc314216658http://e/Costa%20Rica/Base%20Specific/Expedition%20Jalova%20Base/reports%20and%20updates/exped%20phase%20reports/113%20report/Phase%20Report%20113%20Final%20Final.doc%23_Toc314216658http://e/Costa%20Rica/Base%20Specific/Expedition%20Jalova%20Base/reports%20and%20updates/exped%20phase%20reports/113%20report/Phase%20Report%20113%20Final%20Final.doc%23_Toc314216659http://e/Costa%20Rica/Base%20Specific/Expedition%20Jalova%20Base/reports%20and%20updates/exped%20phase%20reports/113%20report/Phase%20Report%20113%20Final%20Final.doc%23_Toc314216659http://e/Costa%20Rica/Base%20Specific/Expedition%20Jalova%20Base/reports%20and%20updates/exped%20phase%20reports/113%20report/Phase%20Report%20113%20Final%20Final.doc%23_Toc314216660http://e/Costa%20Rica/Base%20Specific/Expedition%20Jalova%20Base/reports%20and%20updates/exped%20phase%20reports/113%20report/Phase%20Report%20113%20Final%20Final.doc%23_Toc314216660http://e/Costa%20Rica/Base%20Specific/Expedition%20Jalova%20Base/reports%20and%20updates/exped%20phase%20reports/113%20report/Phase%20Report%20113%20Final%20Final.doc%23_Toc314216661http://e/Costa%20Rica/Base%20Specific/Expedition%20Jalova%20Base/reports%20and%20updates/exped%20phase%20reports/113%20report/Phase%20Report%20113%20Final%20Final.doc%23_Toc314216661http://e/Costa%20Rica/Base%20Specific/Expedition%20Jalova%20Base/reports%20and%20updates/exped%20phase%20reports/113%20report/Phase%20Report%20113%20Final%20Final.doc%23_Toc314216662http://e/Costa%20Rica/Base%20Specific/Expedition%20Jalova%20Base/reports%20and%20updates/exped%20phase%20reports/113%20report/Phase%20Report%20113%20Final%20Final.doc%23_Toc314216662http://e/Costa%20Rica/Base%20Specific/Expedition%20Jalova%20Base/reports%20and%20updates/exped%20phase%20reports/113%20report/Phase%20Report%20113%20Final%20Final.doc%23_Toc314216663http://e/Costa%20Rica/Base%20Specific/Expedition%20Jalova%20Base/reports%20and%20updates/exped%20phase%20reports/113%20report/Phase%20Report%20113%20Final%20Final.doc%23_Toc314216663http://e/Costa%20Rica/Base%20Specific/Expedition%20Jalova%20Base/reports%20and%20updates/exped%20phase%20reports/113%20report/Phase%20Report%20113%20Final%20Final.doc%23_Toc314216663http://e/Costa%20Rica/Base%20Specific/Expedition%20Jalova%20Base/reports%20and%20updates/exped%20phase%20reports/113%20report/Phase%20Report%20113%20Final%20Final.doc%23_Toc314216662http://e/Costa%20Rica/Base%20Specific/Expedition%20Jalova%20Base/reports%20and%20updates/exped%20phase%20reports/113%20report/Phase%20Report%20113%20Final%20Final.doc%23_Toc314216661http://e/Costa%20Rica/Base%20Specific/Expedition%20Jalova%20Base/reports%20and%20updates/exped%20phase%20reports/113%20report/Phase%20Report%20113%20Final%20Final.doc%23_Toc314216660http://e/Costa%20Rica/Base%20Specific/Expedition%20Jalova%20Base/reports%20and%20updates/exped%20phase%20reports/113%20report/Phase%20Report%20113%20Final%20Final.doc%23_Toc314216659http://e/Costa%20Rica/Base%20Specific/Expedition%20Jalova%20Base/reports%20and%20updates/exped%20phase%20reports/113%20report/Phase%20Report%20113%20Final%20Final.doc%23_Toc314216658http://e/Costa%20Rica/Base%20Specific/Expedition%20Jalova%20Base/reports%20and%20updates/exped%20phase%20reports/113%20report/Phase%20Report%20113%20Final%20Final.doc%23_Toc314216658http://e/Costa%20Rica/Base%20Specific/Expedition%20Jalova%20Base/reports%20and%20updates/exped%20phase%20reports/113%20report/Phase%20Report%20113%20Final%20Final.doc%23_Toc314216656http://e/Costa%20Rica/Base%20Specific/Expedition%20Jalova%20Base/reports%20and%20updates/exped%20phase%20reports/113%20report/Phase%20Report%20113%20Final%20Final.doc%23_Toc314216656http://e/Costa%20Rica/Base%20Specific/Expedition%20Jalova%20Base/reports%20and%20updates/exped%20phase%20reports/113%20report/Phase%20Report%20113%20Final%20Final.doc%23_Toc314216655


7/100

GVI - Jalova, Parque Nacional Tortuguero, July September 2011 Page 5

1. Introduction

The Coastal Rainforest Conservation Programme at the Jalova Biological Station in

Tortuguero National Park, Costa Rica has now completed its seventh 10 week long phase.For the purpose of this report, research phases are named following the last 2 digits of the

year and then 1 for January to March, 2 for April to June, 3 for July to September and 4 for

October to December. This report summarizes the data collected from July to September

2011, phase 113.

Since its initiation the programme has collected a considerable amount of scientific data

for all its projects. This data has been submitted to the partner organisations and will go

towards planning future research areas and meeting current project aims.

This data has been summarized in this report. To draw further conclusions some annual

reports have been created for projects where the data set is large enough. These can be

read upon request.

Past reports can be seen and downloaded from the GVI Costa Rica blog at

www.gvicostarica.blogspot.com


8/100


2. Canal Bird Population Study

2.1 Introduction

Mesoamerica is a very important hotspot for biological diversity (Myers et. al., 2000). With

over 830 species of avifauna alone, Costa Rica is a very rich country for nature (Stiles &

Skutch, 1989). One of the reasons for this richness is the array of habitats available in

such a small space. These include two very different coastlines, highland and lowland

forests, forest swamps, marshes, rivers, lagoons, and subalpine pramos (Stiles & Skutch,

1989). The aquatic environment is of major importance to the tourism industry and ecology

of the Tortuguero area. This habitat is being increasingly utilized as tourism in the

Tortuguero area is increasing. It is expected that this use will, in time, have an impact on

the avian population it supports.

Growing concerns about the status of birds in the rainforests of Costa Rica have lead to

the establishment of long-term monitoring programmes. The nature of Costa Ricas birdlife

has meant that it has been a popular location to study behaviour and diversity for many

years. Much of this focus is directed towards migratory birds, neglecting research on

resident species. The Canal Bird Monitoring Programme was established to help fill this

gap. The project was initially set up to quantify diversity and abundance of the species that

live and breed in the area of Caribbean Lowland Rainforest around Estacin Biolgica

Cao Palma (EBCP), 7km North of Tortuguero National Park. It now operates along the

southern edge of Tortuguero National Park in the vicinity of Jalova (24km South of

Tortuguero).

The EBCP Resident Bird Project monitoring survey began in July 2005, developing in

recent years into the current incarnation, which is still ongoing. Further collection of data is

important in order to establish reliable population trends for local bird species. In 2010 it

was necessary to relocate the survey to the current location due to the demands of the

GVI Costa Rica expedition.

The GVI protocol is modified from the original protocol created by Steven Furino of

Waterloo University, Canada. Modifications to the protocol were made so that data

collectors with minimal field experience are able to collect high quality data. This has


9/100


involved reducing the number of species and study areas as well as limiting the amount of

technical data collected on species.

2.2 Aim

This research programme intends to collect data that will help researchers examine long-

term changes in specific bird populations. The specific aims of the project are 1) to identify

study species use of the study areas, 2) monitor long-term changes in use of these areas,

and 3) to aid in the collection of both resident and migratory avian population data sets for

wider public use.

2.3 Methodology

An additional part of the project is now to record all other species of bird, mammal, reptile

and amphibian seen on the canals on an incidentals basis, the following data is collected

on every species identified;

Species Name

Seen or heard

Adult or juvenile

Number of individuals in one group

Behavioural observations

Comments

The methodology for the remainder of the survey has remained constant since the

production of the previous report, where the methodology is mentioned in full. For further

details of the methodology used please see Appendix A.

2.4 Results

A total of 29 surveys have been completed throughout the course of phase 113, these

surveys collected 562 individual seen or heard records, comprising of 21 of the target

canal bird species (Appendix B), a canal specific break down of the data gathered can be

observed in table 2-1. Figure 2-1 illustrates that of the data collected Sierpe Viejo recorded

slightly more species that the remaining canals as well as the most number of records,

illustrated in Figure 2-2, whereas Sirena recorded both the least number of species and by

far the least number of records. A canal specific breakdown of the presence or absence of

each of the target species can be observed in table 2-2.


10/100


Table 2-1 Overall canal bird data phase 113

Canal # of Surveys # of Species # of Records

California 7 12 186

Sierpe Viejo 8 17 265

Sirena 6 10 25Central 8 12 86

Table 2-2 Species Presence/Absence per Canal

Species California Central SierpeViejo

Sirena Overall

Agami Heron N N Y N Y

Amazon Kingfisher Y Y Y Y Y

American Pygmy Kingfisher Y Y Y Y Y

Anhinga Y Y Y N Y

Bare-throated Tiger-heron Y Y Y Y Y

Belted Kingfisher N N Y N Y

Boat-Billed Heron N N Y N Y

Cattle Egret N N N N N

Gray-necked Wood-rail Y Y N Y Y

Great Blue Heron N N N N N

Great Egret Y N Y N Y

Green Heron Y Y Y Y Y

Green Ibis Y N Y N Y

Green Kingfisher Y Y Y Y YGreen-and-rufous Kingfisher N Y N Y Y

Limpkin N Y N N Y

Least Bittern N N N N N

Little Blue Heron Y Y Y Y Y

Neotropical Cormorant N N N N N

Northern Jacana Y Y Y N Y

Purple gallinule N N Y N Y

Reddish Egret N N N N N

Ringed Kingfisher Y Y Y Y Y

Rufescent Tiger-Heron N N N N NSnowy Egret N N N N N

Sunbittern N N N N N

Sungrebe Y N N N Y

Tricoloured Heron N N N N N

White-throated Crake N Y Y Y Y

Yellow-crowned Night-heron Y N Y N Y


11/100


Figure 2-1 Number of canal bird species per canal

Figure 2-2 Number of canal bird records per canal


12/100


The data collected indicates that of the species recorded on the canals, the Northern

Jacana, Bare-throated Tiger Heron, Anhinga, Green Heron and Little Blue Heron are

recorded most often, on average over 50% across all canals. Species recorded fewer than

10% on average across all canals are the Agami Heron, Belted Kingfisher, Purple

Gallinule, Limpkin and Yellow-crowned Night-heron. Canal specific species encounter

frequencies can be observed in Table 2-3. The maximum number of individuals recorded

in one survey over the entire survey period, as well as the mean number of individuals

recorded over all surveys conducted can be observed in table 2-4. The species recording

higher numbers are consistent with the species listed above.


13/100


Table 2-3 Species Frequency by Canal

Species California Central Sierpe Viejo Sirena Average

Agami Heron 0% 0% 13% 0% 3%

Amazon Kingfisher 29% 50% 13% 50% 35%

American Pygmy Kingfisher 0% 0% 38% 17% 14%

Anhinga 86% 100% 88% 0% 68%Bare-throated Tiger-heron 100% 75% 75% 33% 71%

Belted Kingfisher 0% 0% 13% 0% 3%

Boat-Billed Heron 0% 0% 25% 0% 6%

Cattle Egret 0% 0% 0% 0% 0%

Gray-necked Wood-rail 29% 38% 0% 17% 21%

Great Blue Heron 0% 0% 0% 0% 0%

Great Egret 0% 0% 63% 0% 16%

Green Heron 100% 13% 100% 17% 57%

Green Ibis 29% 0% 38% 0% 17%

Green Kingfisher 71% 13% 13% 17% 28%

Green-and-rufous Kingfisher 0% 13% 0% 33% 11%

Little Blue Heron 57% 38% 100% 33% 57%

Least Bittern 0% 0% 0% 0% 0%

Limpkin 0% 13% 0% 0% 3%

Neotropical Cormorant 0% 0% 0% 0% 0%

Northern Jacana 100% 100% 100% 0% 75%

Purple Gallinule 0% 0% 25% 0% 6%

Reddish Egret 0% 0% 0% 0% 0%

Ringed Kingfisher 43% 50% 63% 33% 47%

Rufescent Tiger-Heron 0% 0% 0% 0% 0%

Snowy Egret 0% 0% 0% 0% 0%Sunbittern 0% 0% 0% 0% 0%

Sungrebe 43% 0% 0% 0% 11%

Tricoloured Heron 0% 0% 0% 0% 0%

White-throated Crake 0% 13% 63% 17% 23%

Yellow-crowned Night-heron 14% 0% 13% 0% 7%


14/100


Table 2-4 Max and Mean number of each species recorded per canal (n=number of surveys)

SpeciesCalifornia (n=7) Sierpe Viejo (n=8) Sirena (n=6) Central (n=8)

Max Mean Max Mean Max Mean Max MeanAgami Heron 0 0 1 0.12 0 0 0 0

Amazon Kingfisher 2 0.42 1 0.12 2 0.66 4 1

American Pygmy Kingfisher 0 0 1 0.37 1 0.16 0 0

Anhinga 5 2.71 4 2.12 0 0 3 1.62

Bare-throated Tiger-Heron 6 3.71 2 1.12 3 0.66 3 1.12

Belted Kingfisher 0 0 1 0.12 0 0 0 0Boat-billed Heron 0 0 5 0.87 0 0 0 0

Cattle Egret 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Great Blue Heron 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Great Egret 0 0 1 0.62 0 0 0 0

Green Heron 8 5.42 5 2.37 1 0.16 1 0.12

Green Ibis 2 0.57 4 1 0 0 0 0

Green Kingfisher 5 1.85 2 0.25 1 0.16 1 0.12

Green and Rufous Kingfisher 0 0 0 0 2 0.5 1 0.12

Gray-necked Wood-Rail 2 0.42 0 0 2 0.33 2 0.5

Least Bittern 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Limpkin 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0.12

Little Blue Heron 8 1.85 6 2.65 2 0.66 2 0.5

Neotropical Cormorant 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Northern Jacana 15 8.14 28 19 0 0 7 4.75

Purple Gallinule 0 0 1 0.25 0 0 0 0Reddish Egret 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Ringed Kingfisher 1 0.42 3 1 2 0.66 2 0.62

Rufescent Tiger-Heron 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Snowy Egret 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Sun Bittern 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Sungrebe 3 0.85 0 0 0 0 0 0

Tricoloured Heron 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

White-throated Crake 0 0 2 1 1 0.16 1 0.12

Yellow-crowned Night-heron 1 0.14 1 0.12 0 0 0 0


15/100

GVI - Jalova, Parque Nacional Tortuguero, July - September 2011 Page 13

Canal incidental data collected during the phase can be observed in table 2-5, after

starting trial collection of this data on 10th August 2011 the data indicates high levels of

non-target species activity across all canals, figure 2-3 displays California and Central to

have higher species richness thus far.

Table 2-5 Overall canal incidentals data

phase 113

Figure 2-3 Number of canal incidentals species, records and individuals per canal

Canal usage data collected during phase 113 can be observed in table 2-6, California and

Central receiving higher levels of boat usage than Sierpe Viejo and Sirena.

Canal Number of

dates

Number of

species

Number of

records

Number of

individuals

California 5 33 51 89

Cao Negro 3 29 39 94

Central 6 36 64 120

Sierpe Viejo 7 20 33 57

Sirena 3 20 39 56

Total Findings 24 71 228 418


16/100


Table 2-6 Overall canal usage data phase 113

Canal Number ofSurveys

Number of boatsrecorded

Number ofsurveys with no

boats recordedCalifornia 7 9 2

Sierpe Viejo 8 2 6

Sirena 6 1 5

Central 8 8 3

2.5 Discussion

The 29 canal bird surveys from phase 113 have provided positive further data on the canal

bird populations of Tortuguero National Park, identifying 21 of the 30 target species and

562 individual records. Comparing these figures to the same time in the previous year,

phase 103, similar records after a similar number of surveys were gained on canals

California, Sierpe Viejo and Sirena. A difference this year compared to the previous year is

that surveys are now being conducted on Central which allowed the collection of 83 further

individuals. This year the surveys identified 6 species that were not identified in the same

phase last year; these are the Limpkin which has not been recorded on the canals since

phase 102, Great Egret, Belted Kingfisher, Amazon Kingfisher, Green and Rufous

Kingfisher and Purple Gallinule. 3 species that were identified last year and not this year

were the; Snowy Egret, Tricolour Heron and Least Bittern. The reason for not seeing the

Snowy Egret and Tricolour Heron is potentially linked to migration patterns, both species

being North American migrants that are reported to be seen in the area from September

until April/May, therefore in the coming phase we would expect to see these species on

the canals. However, both of these species were recorded on the BAS project at the

estuary. Not recording the Least Bittern is mostly likely down to the birds behavioural

habits of spending its time in dense vegetation. Of the remaining 6 birds of the 30 target

species not recorded the Cattle Egret, Great Blue Heron, Neotropical Cormorant andRufescent Tiger-heron have all been recorded on BAS surveys, all other than the

Rufescent Tiger-heron that was spotted in the forest were also spotted at the estuary

confirming their presence in the area, along with the Snowy Egret and Tricolour Heron. A

possible reason for not seeing these birds on the survey canals could perhaps be a

seasonal issue, the birds maybe travelling further into the canals later in the season, which


17/100


according to the phase 104 results that did record several of the species within the canals

may be the case. Not recording the Reddish Egret this phase was expected as it is, not

only a rare species but it is not expected to arrive in to the area until November. Not

recording the Sunbittern, an uncommon species in the area, was expected as this species

has not yet been recorded, perhaps indicating that it does not exist on the survey canals.

In addition, the very uncommon Agami Heron was observed once on Sierpe Viejo. This is

in keeping with previous records as the only non Sierpe Viejo record was from California in

April 2010.

Differences between canals continues to follow the trend set in the previous year and in

previous phases this year, with Sirena recording less species and far less records than

Sierpe Viejo and California. In addition, Central continues to follow the trend set in

previous phases this year, recording a similar amount of species as Sierpe Viejo and

California as well as recording less individual birds. Potentially indicating that the further

inland the canals travel, fewer individuals of the 30 target species can be found. This could

be related to habitat differences and/or human disturbance levels.

Seasonal trends are also consistent with the previous years data in regards to the number

of individuals birds seen on the canals, phase 112 and 113 recording less species than

111 when many of the migrant species are present. Previous records also indicating that

the number of records gained are due to increase in the coming phase 114 with the arrival

of the migrant species, particularly on California, which compared to the phase 113

recorded 468 more individual records.

The new incidental sightings records provided positive results on other species found in

around the canals, recording 71 species over 418 individual records. Centrals records

indicated the highest species diversity, recording 36 species, California recorded slightly

less with 33 species but was surveyed once less for incidentals (5). Sierpe Viejo was

surveyed the most times (7) but only recorded 20 species, a fair amount less than Centraland California even with more surveys, indicating that although the habitat is specific

enough to cater for species such as the Agami Heron, perhaps generalist species cannot

benefit here compared to other areas. Sirena recorded the same amount of species as

Sierpe Viejo but only received 3 surveys for incidentals. However, the fact that Sirena

produces fairly poor canal bird species results may indicate generally low diversity for this


18/100


site. A newly surveyed site, Cao Negro, produced interesting results, recording 29

species over 3 surveys, close to the amount seen on Central and California in half the

amount of surveys, indicating potentially higher diversity in this canal. Few conclusions can

be made on the data gathered due to the short time scale in which the data was gathered.

Continuing to monitor the canals for other bird, mammal, reptile and amphibian life in the

future will allow us to make better conclusions and learn more about the canals.

Notable sightings gained from the incidentals data included; 1 record of the rare West

Indian Manatee; 1 record of 2 Baird's Tapir, a rare species; 1 record of the fairly

uncommon Blue Dacnis; 1 record of 2 Crested Guan, a species found fairly commonly in

protected areas and 1 record of 10 Bottlenose Dolphins; all of which were recorded on

Cao Negro. These results alone warrant protection for this canal. In addition the

uncommon to rare Neotropical River Otter was also seen on Cao Negro as well as on

Sirena and a single record of the rare Muscovy Duck was recorded on Central. These

results, as well as all others, such as 17 records of the uncommon Central American

Spider Monkey consisting of 69 individuals, indicate very promising results for the future. A

full list of all incidental species recorded can be found in appendix C.

Canal usage data for phase 113 recorded a total of 20 boats on the canals over the 29

survey days consisting of 7 MINAE boats, 4 tourist boats, 2 canoes, 1 police boat and 6

unnamed boats. All boats were observed travelling down the canals, although most

unnamed boats were expected to the fisherman. The number of boats recorded is not

dissimilar from previous phases, a notable differences appears to be an increase in

MINAE presence on Central. 1 of the Canoe records was the sole recorded for Sirena and

the 2 records for Sierpe Viejo were the police boat and a MINAE boat, all other boats

being observed on California (9 boats, the majority being unnamed) and Central (8 boats,

the majority being MINAE boats). In general, illegal use of the canals appears to be low in

the morning periods when GVI surveys are carried out.


19/100


3. Jaguar Camera Trapping Project

3.1 Introduction

The Jaguar is the third largest cat in the world and the largest in all of North and South

America (Silver, 2004). Its range used to span from the South-western United States of

America to Northern Argentina (Seymour, 1989). However, the current known, occupied

range is about 54% of what it was in 1900 (Sanderson et al., 2002), ranging from northern

Mexico to northern Argentina and are considered threatened across much of this range

(Aranda 2000, Sanderson et al., 2002).

Although there has been much research done on turtles in the area, little is known about

the population of Jaguars in TNP. The Tortuguero Conservation Area covers a total areaof 180,925 hectares of which Tortuguero National Park covers a total area of 80,574

hectares, including marine territory (Bermudez, Plan de Manejo, 2004).

The National Park guards have seen Jaguars on numerous occasions and have estimated

that there are at least five individuals currently using the beach (Eduardo Chamorro comm.

pers. 2008). GVI has initiated the use of cameras to estimate the population size of

Jaguars in the parks coastal habitat.

Cameras have been used by the Sea Turtle Conservancy in the past with successful

results. A camera trap left with a freshly killed turtle recorded 58 minutes of video of a male

Jaguar feeding on a turtle (Harrison et al. 2005). We will adopt similar methodology and

undertake field trials.

3.2 Aim

The aim of this project is to use camera trapping as a means of estimating the abundance

of Jaguars using the coastal habitat inside TNP and to increase ecological awareness.

The objectives are:

1. to determine the areas where Jaguars are present

2. to record their hours of activity and other habits

3. to compare Jaguar activity at different sites along the beach

4. to identify individual Jaguars by their rosette pattern


20/100


3.3 Methodology

The methodology for this project is explained in detail in report 104 and can also be found

in Appendix D.

3.4 Results

A total of 76 camera nights during this phase allowed us to collect 167 Jaguar pictures and

1508 pictures of other species. The jaguar pictures allowed us to identify two new jaguars

currently active on the beach and hunting in a pair, Mario and Lyra. We also got a

recapture of Luca, one of our resident jaguars, whilst feeding on a kill. Two more jaguars

were caught on camera but have not been identified due to poor image quality. The

jaguars captures this phase were all photographed in the early evening, specifically

between 17:00 and 19:00. Table 3-1 shows a history of captures and recaptures in our

survey area for the past year. The last three entries are from this phase.

Table 3-1 Site and date of identifiable jaguar captures on camera traps

This phase we have also had a prolific number of other species of interest captured at

night and daylight in our camera traps. Many of the other species shots were of vultures

as they fight for the remains of turtle carcasses left by jaguars, we were also lucky to

PhaseJaguarName

Date of FirstCapture

LocationRecapture

NoDate of

recapture104 #1 Molly 21.10.2010 Turtle Kill

104 #2 Alex 12.11.2010 Turtle Kill

104 #3 Luca 12.11.2010 Turtle Kill

111 #4 Bia 13.01.2011 Trail

111 #3 Luca Turtle Kill 1 24.02.2011

111 #4 Bia Trail 1 14.03.2011

112 #1 Molly Trail 1 12.04.2011

112 #2 Alex Sighting 1 23.04.2011

112 #1 Molly Trail 2 27.04.2011

112 #2 Alex Turtle Kill 2 26.05.2011

112 #5 Dave 26.05.2011 Turtle Kill

112 #1 Molly Turtle Kill 3 27.05.2011

112 #3 Luca Turtle Kill 2 29.05.2011

113 #6 Mario 20.07.2011 Turtle Kill

113 #7 Lyra 20.07.2011 Turtle Kill

113 #3 Luca Turtle Kill 3 08.08.2011


21/100


capture two shots of the elusive ocelot as it quickly passed in front of one of our cameras.

Here is a list of all the species captured in phase 113.

Marine Toad (Bufo marinus)

Jaguar (Panthera onca)

Central American Agouti (Dasyprocta punctata)

Black Vulture (Coragyps atratus)

Turkey Vulture (Catahartes aura)

Red Brocket Deer (Mazama Americana)

Ocelot (Leopardus pardalis)

3.5 Discussion

Phase 112 was successful. Following techniques and methods that had been used in

previous phases we had a good number of jaguars captured confirming the viability of this

healthy population. A spreadsheet has been created to keep track of the jaguars active in

the TNP that we have been able to capture on our cameras. An archive of their rosette

patterns will allow us to identify all the individual jaguars. This spreadsheet is updated with

site locations and GPS coordinates as well as any relevant comments.

There is a strong possibility that Tortuguero National Park is becoming an important hub

for a healthy population of Jaguars. Having an abundant and easy prey item, such as the

nesting green turtles, is definitely a strong lure for these jaguars, who might be travelling

long distances to reach the beach hunting ground. This survey allows us to keep a record

of the jaguar population as well as its hunting and feeding patterns in the summer, during

green turtle nesting season, and its activity in the winter months when the green turtles are

not present. We are interested in understanding whether there is the possibility that many

jaguars are migrating to Tortuguero in the summer months to then return to other feeding

grounds in the winter. We hypothesise that prey availability in the winter in TNP would not

allow the viability of a large jaguar population with overlapping ranges such as the one that

we have.

For the next phases we are looking into expanding our camera trapping surveys down the

beach line to mile 5. This way we would encompass all turtle hunting grounds used by the

jaguars in the TNP. GVI is planning on purchasing more camera traps (Bushnell Trophy


22/100


Cam 2011) so as to intensify surveying effort and increase capture probabilities. We are

looking into, with the consent of MINAET, using bicycles along the Beach Trail to ensure

fast camera set-ups and retrievals. We will be using lures, as allowed by permits, such as

CK Obsession that have been proven successful on other jaguar camera trapping surveys

in Costa Rica (Salom-Perez, Carrillo et al. 2007). This will allow us to obtain clearer and

more consistent data as we will avoid blurry and unidentifiable pictures. We have been in

contact with researchers from PANTHERA working in Costa Rica who are very interested

in our project and impressed with the results we have been obtaining. We are currently

working on permits for MINAET to allow us to collect scat and hair samples from the TNP

to assist in the ongoing research efforts to genetically map (DNA micro-satelliting) the

Costa Rican jaguar population and obtain clearer data on the geographic provenance of

jaguars currently in the TNP. This data could in the future allow us, and other researchers,

to understand the spatial and range patterns of these jaguars and reinforce the creation

and conservation of biological corridor to link populations in such a fragmented landscape.


23/100


4. Jaguar Predation of Marine Turtles

4.1 Introduction

Tortuguero National Park (TNP) is the most important nesting ground in the western

hemisphere for Green Turtles (Chelonia mydas). In addition to the C. mydasthere are also

a significant number of Leatherbacks (Dermochelys coriacea) and the occasional

Hawksbill (Eretmochelys imbricata) and Loggerhead (Caretta caretta)(Trong 2000). The

nesting turtle population has been monitored on the parks beach since the 1950s and

continues to be monitored today by the Sea Turtle Conservancy (STC).

Information on Jaguars (Panthera onca) predating on marine turtle is sparse. In TNP and

many other areas, marine turtle predation by Jaguars has been recorded sporadically. 82

C. mydaswere identified as being predated by Jaguars in Suriname from 1963-1973. On

the same beach in 1980 one Jaguar killed 13 turtles within only a few days (Autar, 1994).

On the Pacific coast of Costa Rica Jaguars have been recorded preying upon Olive Ridley

Turtles (Lepidochelys olivacea), Black Turtles (Chelonia agassizii), and E. imbricata.

Although, there has been much research done on turtles in TNP, from 1956 to 1995 there

were only two C. mydas recorded to be killed by a Jaguar, one in 1981 and another in

1984 (Carrillo et al. 1994). Weekly walks on the beach to record the number of dead turtles

killed by Jaguars began in 1997 as part of the STC turtle monitoring programme. The STC

found four dead C. mydas killed by Jaguars in 1997, 25 in 1998, 22 in 1999, and two

Leatherbacks in 1999 (Trong 2000). This predation upon turtles by Jaguars is not a new

phenomenon but seems to have been increasing in the past 10 years within TNP (Trong

2000; Magally Castro, pers. comm.)

Due to a lack of human resources the Costa Rican Ministry of Environment and Energy

(MINAE) invited GVI to continue data collection on Jaguar presence and predation of

marine turtles in TNP. Data collection has now been conducted by GVI since 11 th July

2005. Together with the data previously collected by MINAE, a more comprehensive

understanding of Jaguarimpact on the turtle population of TNP can be developed.


24/100


4.2 Aim

The Jaguar project aims to document the presence of Jaguars on the beach of Tortuguero

National Park and their predation of nesting marine turtles.

4.3 Methodology

The methodology for this project is explained in detail in report 082 and can also be found

in Appendix E. The methodology used has remained unchanged since its last complete

mention.

4.4 Results

During phase 113 we were able to carry out a total of nine surveys of the beach, covering

the 14.5 survey miles between Jalova and Tortuguero. For the first two surveys we had to

take into account turtles that had been predated upon in previous weeks when surveys

were not being completed. This explains why the first two surveys have higher number of

kills relative to later surveys. By dividing the data into kills per week (calculated from the

days since kill) we were able to remove this bias from the data. A total of 137 Green

Turtles (Chelonias mydas) and 3 Hawksbills (Eretmochelys imbricata) were predated upon

during the 10 weeks of surveying. We were able to measure CCL of 92 turtles, 57 found in

the open beach and 35 in the vegetation or border zones. Data was tested to see if there

was any size difference between turtles killed and left in the open, i.e. not dragged(nd)

by, and turtles dragged(d) in to the border and vegetation (an assumption was made that

all turtles found in border and vegetation were dragged or moved). A Kolmogorov-Smirnov

was performed to test the data for normality, both data sets were normally distributed (d,

p=0.882; nd, p=0.995). The boxplot in figure 4-1 shows the spread of the two data sets.

Variance between the data was very high (Levenes test, p=0.022) so a Mann-Whitney U

Test was used to test for difference. No significant difference was found between dragged

and non dragged turtle CCLs (p=0.376).


25/100


A total of 22,397 green turtle tracks were counted across the beach on all surveys. Of

these 1,552 were half moons and 20,845 were full tracks. Three data sets were

constructed using the total Green Turtle full tracks (CmT), the presence/absence of jaguar

tracks (JT), and the number of predated turtles (P) per half mile. These were then tested to

identify any correlations between each other. Data was normally distributed (K-S, CmT,

p=0.737; JT, p=0.328; P, p=0.582) so a Pearsons correlation was used. No significant

correlation was found between JT and CmT (Pearsons = 0.174), and between CmT and P

(Pearsons = 0.143). A significantly positive correlation was found between JT and P

(Pearsons = 0.533, p=0.003). The scattergraph in Figure 4-2 illustrates this correlation

(note that the R2Linear is lower than the Pearsons value, less variation than expected can

be explained by the correlation.)

Dragged turtles have a wider array of CCLs and a higher mean (103.44, SD = 4.23) CCL comparedto Not Dragged (102.67, SD = 6.14)

Figure 4-1 Boxplot of curved carapace length of predated turtles.


26/100


The line graph in Figure 4-3 illustrates the spread of the data over the 15 miles of the

survey. Readers should keep in mind that Green Turtle tracks and Jaguar tracks are only

noted if they are less than 24 hours old. The predated turtles on the other hand are

recorded from the whole week between surveys. It was decided not to use data from one

night to estimate for the whole week as the presence of Jaguars on the beach and the

number of nesting Green Turtles are highly variable and can not be predicted or estimated.

Figure 4-2 Comparison of the number of predated turtles per half mile to jaguar activity in the same half

mile.


27/100


Figure 4-3 Spatial distribution of predated turtles, jaguar activity and turtle activity

As illustrated by Figure 4-3 the data has a very variable spread across the survey area.

We were interested in knowing if human presence was having an effect on jaguar hunting

patterns and turtle track presence. To test this the 15 miles of the beach were divided into

two data sets, 3.5 miles on each side of the survey area (up to mile 14.5 from Jalova and

up to mile 7 from Tortuguero) were included in the higher human impact data set whilst the

middle section of the survey area (7.5 miles) was included in the lower human impact data

set. A significant difference was found for all three variables (Turtle Tracks, p=0.000;

Predated Turtles p=0.020; Jaguar Tracks, p=0.002) supporting the hypothesis that human

presence does have a significant impact on the jaguars hunting and spatial patterns and

on the preference of nesting sites by the Green Turtles. The Boxplots in Figure 4-4.

summarise the descriptive statistics of these data sets and illustrate these differences.


28/100


Figure 4.

4.5 Discussion

We have reason to believe that the nesting beach at Tortuguero National Park is becoming

an important hub for a healthy Jaguar population. Predation on Green Turtles has been

increasing in the past six years (GVI Phase Reports 2005-2011); however the impact of

Jaguars on the nesting population can still be considered negligible given the number ofnesting turtles per season. This phenomenon however is an important and delicate

interaction between two flagship species that are well known and appreciated by the

general public. So far this season Jaguar activity has been high and 137 Green Turtles as

well as 3 Hawksbills have been predated upon on the Tortuguero beach. Camera traps set

Data is per half mile and divided into humanpresence survey area (1. N=15) and rest ofthe survey area (2. N=14)

A. Jaguar Tracks(1. Mean=2.3,SE=0.50)(2. Mean=4.5, SE=0.39

B. Predated Turtles(1. Mean=3.5,SE=0.73)(2. Mean=6.1, SE=0.73)

C. Turtle tracks(1. Mean = 589.6,SE=49.3) (2. Mean=839.4,SE=39.9)

A B

C

Figure 4-4 Boxplots of human disturbance to jaguar activity, turtle activity and number of predated turtles


29/100


30/100


Nottingham, 1986). Carrillo et al. (2009) found that jaguars changed their movement and

hunting patterns in accordance with availability of marine turtles in Corcovado National

Park. Presumably Jaguars are not aware of the highest areas of turtle abundance are on

the beach and thus patrol ceaselessly all areas of the beach. A positive correlation was

found between Jaguar tracks and predated turtles on the beach. Where there is a kill there

will presumably be tracks (unless the vultures cover up any traces of these). Areas in

which the jaguars are the most active are also areas with the most number of predated

turtles. Some jaguars will return to feed upon a predated turtle many times after dragging it

to a safe location in the vegetation, returning to it on subsequent nights.

Our track surveys show us that jaguar presence throughout the beach peaks between mile

8 to 11 and mile 12 to 15. The highest activity appears to be confined to areas that are the

furthest away from human presence. We found that both jaguars and turtles have higher

levels of activity the further they are from the Jalova GVI base to the South and Tortuguero

town to the North. Although jaguars in Tortuguero National Park are particularly habituated

to human presence they still prefer to hunt and patrol areas of the beach where they have

less of a chance of encountering people.

We cannot yet tell if this year there will be an increase in predation of turtles by jaguars in

TNP. It is of great importance that this incredible interaction between two flagship species

is continuously observed and analysed to understand if a right balance can be found.

Jaguar population in the TNP seems to be increasing, leading to a larger strain on the

turtle nesting grounds that are already taking a toll from illegal human poaching. Jaguars

on the other hand are facing large amounts of habitat loss, fragmentation and decrease in

prey numbers. Having found this high protein, abundant and easy to catch meal that just

comes back year after year why should they go anywhere else? The increase in the

resident population may reach a non viable limit forcing healthy Jaguars out to repopulate

the Caribbean slopes of Costa Rica. Continuous management and research is needed to

better understand this interaction and its possible repercussions, both positive andnegative for both species.


31/100


5. Incidental Species Study

5.1 Introduction

The Incidental Species Study is an ongoing recording of animal species found in and

around the Jalova Biological Station, occupied by Global Vision International, Costa Rica.

Data is collected on a casual basis each day, rather than as part of an organized survey.

Currently, the study only records mammals, birds, amphibians and reptiles as these

groups have excellent publications to enable identification of them. It is currently

impossible to identify invertebrates to a species level with the resources that GVI

possesses, but taking photos of any species seen is to be encouraged particularly with

butterflies and moths, so that a photo library can be maintained with the possible long-term

goal of identifying them all.

5.2 Aim

The Incidentals Species Study aims to build a large species database of the amphibians,

birds, mammals and reptiles present in the Jalova area of Tortuguero National Park.

Based on frequency of sightings this database will indicate estimates in species

abundance between and across (i) zones and (ii) class, illustrate species which

demonstrate habitat preferences and identify seasonal trends, particularly with migratory

species. Additional to this, forest health can also be assessed by documenting sightings of

indicator species such as Central American Spider Monkey (Ateles geoffroyi) and White-

lipped Peccary (Tayassu pecari). Future aims for the Incidentals Species Study include

collecting data on specific species behaviours as well as breeding and nesting habits to

further our knowledge on the animals inhabiting Tortuguero National Park.

5.3 Methodology

The methodology for this project is explain in detail in report 111 and can also be found in

Appendix F.

5.4 Results

The overall average recorded sightings per day were 26. The overall number of records

was 1695; the overall number of new species was 21. These species are recorded (these

are new species recorded for year 2011) by in table 5-1.


32/100


Table 5-1 New species recorded in phase 113 by the Incidentals project

Overall Number of New Species by Class and date recorded

Aves Amphibia Mammalia Reptilia

15 1 0 5

Species Species Species Species

American Pygmy Kingfisher(Chloroceryle aenea)

San Carlos Treefrog(Hyla phlebodes)

Spectacled Caiman(Crocodylus caiman)

31-Aug 04 September 2011 09-Sep

Bronze-tailed Plumeleteer

(Chalybura urochrysia)

Hawksbill Turtle

(Eretmochelys imbricata)

30-Aug 18 , 19 August

Gray-breasted Martin (Prognechalybea)

Green Turtle (Cheloniamydas)

29-Aug 03, 04, 14, 19 July & 10August

Great Black-Hawk(Buteogallus urubitinga)

Red Coffee Snake

(Ninia sebae)

29-Aug 08, 15, 19 July & 01August

Bronzy Hermit(Glaucis aeneus)

Casque-headed Lizard

(Corytophanes cristatus)

19-Aug 04-Jul

Least Sandpiper(Calidris minutilla)

19-Aug

Blue-throated Goldentail

(Hylocharis eliciae)

15-Aug

Buff-throated Saltator(Saltator maximus)

15-Aug

Red-throated Ant-Tanager

(Habia fuscicauda)

11-Aug

Yellow-tailed Oriole(Icterus mesomelas )

06-Aug

Green Ibis( Mesembrinibis cayennensis)

23-Jul

Green Honeycreeper(Chlorophanes spiza)

15-JulWhite-ringed Flycatcher(Conopias albovittatus)

12-Jul

Common Tern(Sterna hirundo)

Roseate Spoonbill

(Platalea ajaja)

09-Sep


33/100


Table 5-2 Total number of records by zone

Zone Total number of species recorded

A 703

B 142C 327

D 273

E 177

F 71

Table 5-3 Total number of days with records by zone

Zone Number of dates

A 65

B 52

C 63

D 60

E 40

F 38

The distribution of species recorded per class across all zones is illustrated in figure 5-1.

The majority of recordings belong to Aves, 74.88%. Reptilia have a record of 15.07%,

whilst Mammalia and Amphibia have 6.98% and 3.04% respectively.

Figure 5-1 Distribution of incidentals records by class


34/100


The distribution of Amphibia recorded per zone is illustrated in figure 5-2. Zone A showed

the highest percent of Amphibia recorded with 6.97%. Zone D had 1.83% of records and

zone C had just 0.3% of records. Zones B, E and F had 0% of Amphibia recorded within

them. (No recordings were expected for zone F as Aves can only be recorded here).

The distribution of Aves recorded per zone are illustrated in figure 4, evidently zone F

showed the highest percentage of recordings with 100%, as no other class can be

recorded in this zone. Zone E had a recording of 92.21% and a lower percentage is seen

Figure 5-2 Distribution of amphibian records by zone

Figure 5-3 Distribution of aves records by zone


35/100


in Zone C (88%). Zone A and B showed a similar number of recordings with 71.97% and

78.16%, respectively,

whilst zone D presented

the lowest recordings of

36.63%.

Figure 5-4 illustrates the total distribution of Mammalia records per zone. Zone D shows

the highest percentage of recordings at 39.56%. The remaining zones show a percent of

less than 5%; these are as follows, zone B 4.92%, zone E 2.99%, zone C 1.23%, zone A

0.28% and zone F 0%. (No recordings were expected for zone F as only Aves can be

recorded here).

Figure 5-4 Distribution of mammal records by zone

Figure 5-5 Distribution of reptilia records by zone


36/100


Figure 5-5 illustrates the distribution of Reptilia recorded per zone. Zone D showed a

marginally higher percentage than zone A with 21.97% and 20.76% respectively. The

following percentages per zone are as follows, zone B 16.9%, zone C 10.46%, zone E

4.70% and zone F 0%. (No recordings were expected for zone F as Aves can be the onlyclass recorded here).

Statistical Analysis

Species within zone

ANOVA: two-factor without replication demonstrated no significant difference (P > 0.05)

between the total number of species recorded across zones, P 4.59E-16 0.05) (table 4). Both zones C and

D demonstrated a significant difference between zones E and F (P < 0.01). A significant

difference is also seen between zone E and F (table 5-4).

Species within class

ANOVA: two-factor without replication demonstrated no significant difference (P >0.05)between the total number of species recorded, from all zones, across class, P 1.5E-14


37/100


< 0.01 < 0.01

E P 9.43E-05< 0.01

X P 0.007< 0.01

P 0.038< 0.05

-

F P 1.15E-05

< 0.01

P 0.000

< 0.01

P 0.000

< 0.01

P 0.000

< 0.01

P 0.000

< 0.01

-

X denotes no significance between zones.

P denotes P-value after analysis

Table 5-5 Comparison of total number of records by class

Class Amphibia Aves Mammalia ReptiliaAmphibia -

Aves X -

Mammalia P 0.000< 0.01

X -

Reptilia P 1.21E-05< 0.01

X P 0.000< 0.01

-

X denotes no significance between zones.

P denotes P-value after analysis

A list of species from phase 113 can be found in Appendix G. Included within this is a

comparison of the zones each species was recorded in and the percentage of days seen

from phase 113 in comparison to phase 103.

5.5 DiscussionNew species recorded by class per zone

Phase 113 comprised of 68 days and within these days a total of 21 new species were

sighted for the year 2011 (table 5-1). This is 1.23% of the 1695 total of number of species

recorded this phase.

Amphibia

Zone A

A single sighting of the H. phlebodeswas recorded in zone A. Guyer and Donnelly (2005)have noted that this species of Hylid are commonly found in open and disturbed areas as

compared to other Hylids of similar size. In order to agree with Guyer's and Donnelly's

observations, more sightings are needed.


38/100


Reptilia

Zone A

The secretive ground dwelling N. sebae has been previously recorded in primary and

secondary forests of Costa Rica (Guyer, C. & Donnelly, M.A. 2005). It is interesting to note

that GVI recorded sightings once on base and the coconut plantation and twice on the

beach. It could be suggested that further attention should be paid to this species habitat

preferences.

Zone B

There were a total of five sightings of the endangered C. mydas and also the critically

endangered E. imbricatewas recorded twice on consequent days. Both of these species

of marine turtle were sighted in the early mornings (between 5:00 and 6:00) between miles

17 5/8 and 18 on the beach. Marine turtles come up to the beach to nest during the hours

or darkness and hence it is rare to see them in the daylight hours, the recorded turtles

were returning to sea after nesting. Another new species recorded for this zone was N.

sebae(see zone A for details).

Zone C

A new species recorded for this zone was N. sebae(see zone A for details).

Zone D

A single recording of the C. cristatuswas noted in the dense forest. This is a cryptic and

rarely seen lizard, its classic sit and wait predatory style may be the cause of the low

number of sightings.

Zone E

A single sighting of C. crocodileswas recorded in the shallows of the northern side of the

estuary. This sighting was in the early morning between the hours of 5:00 and 6:00. Due to

their appearance and elusive behaviour C. crocodilesare not easy to record.

Aves

Zone A

GVI has recorded a number of new species at the Jalova research station. These include

C. spiza recorded, H. fuscicauda recorded, S. maximus and C. urochrysia. A single


39/100


sighting of G. aeneuswas also recorded. With this recordingGVI has now documented

three out of the six hermit hummingbird species, these recordings belong to Phaethornis

longirostrisand Phaethornis striigularis.

Zone B

The single new species recorded by GVI on the beach was that of C. albovittatus. The lack

of new species sighted in this area could be due to its open landscape.

Zone C

I. mesomelaswas observed perched in the coconut plantation. The addition of this bird to

our Incidental Project is very promising as it is becoming a rare sight due to people

trapping it to keep as a caged pet.

Zone D

H. eliciaewas recorded for the first time by GVI in the forest. A juvenile B. urubitingawas

observed in the forest. The Great Black-hawk (.B urubitinga) is very similar in appearance

to the Common Black-hawk, Buteogallus anthracinus, which is seen regularly in the

coconut plantation and the outskirts of the forest.

Zone E

Two species of birds which are used as indicator species in the Canal Bird Study were

each recorded once outside of the Canal Bird Study survey site. These were C. aeneaand

M.cayennensis. C. aeneawas sighted in the dense forest. It was observed perched above

a small area of still shallow water. It was observed for a number of minutes where it was

seen to fly between branches above the water eventually flying further into the forest. The

reclusive M. cayennensis was recorded in the area between the sea and the rangers

station in the estuary. It was sighted perched in a tree along the waters edge. A very rare

sighting of a solitary P. ajajawas recorded in the estuary near Jalova research station.

This sighting was of particular interest for two reasons. Firstly, a sighting of this species ofbird so far from Cano Blanco is atypical. Secondly, it occurred during a period of time

where the canals water levels were low due to no rainfall for a duration of 10 days or more.

The Incidentals Project also saw the addition of one new migrant species to the project.

This was the sighting of a common North American migrant C. minutilla. This bird is a


40/100


migrant between early august to early May. It was observed typically foraging near the

waters edge by the estuary.

Zone F

The first recording of a P. chalybea, belonging to the swallow family, was first recorded on

the Incidentals Project as it flew over the study area.

Total number of species recorded per zone

Zone A

This study shows that the zones with the greatest number of sightings were zones A, C

and D. Zone A had the overall highest number and percentage of species recorded (table

5-2, figure 5-1). This zone resulted in sightings 65 out of the 68 days of phase 113. The

number of sightings within this zone is relatively high as GVI staff and volunteers have a

constant presence on a daily basis. This zone demonstrated a strong significant difference

in the total number of species recorded between it and all other zones (table 5-4). Within

each of their classes Aves demonstrated the highest total percent of records, 71.97%;

Reptilia saw 20.76%, Amphibia 6.97% and Mammalia 0.28% (figures 5-2 5-5). Within

zone A, Aves are easily viewed and thus may be the result for this classs high

percentage, whilst the rare sightings of Mammalia may be as a result of the constant

human presence throughout this zone.

Zone B

Zone B was used on a daily basis with 52 out of the total 68 days (table 5-3) resulting in

recorded sightings. It is a very unique habitat and thus may result in low species diversity.

The difference in both the total number and percentage of species recorded between

zones B and E was low (table 5-2, figure 5-1) and the comparison of these two zones

found them to have no significant difference (P > 0.05) in the total number of species

recorded (table 5-4). Within each of their classes Aves received the highest percent of

species recorded for this zone, Reptilia saw 16.9% and Mammalia saw 4.92% ofrecordings within zone B (figures 5-3 5-5). The results for Amphibia showed them to be

absent from this zone, however, during turtle surveys (between 8pm and 4am) sightings of

Bufo marinus were common (no recordings were documented as sightings were during

another survey time).


41/100


Zone C

The total number and percentage of species recorded within zone C (table 5-2, figure 5-1),

although considerably lower than zone A, demonstrated a high number of sightings as 63

out of the 68 days of phase resulted in species recordings (table 5-3). Zone C completely

encircles zone A and too may be a reason for the high frequency of sightings. Within each

of their classes, Aves had the highest total percent of recordings for this zone, Reptilia

demonstrated 10.46%, Mammalia showed 1.23% and Amphibia saw 0.3% within zone C

(figures 5-2 5-5). The landscape of zone C is considerably open with grasses kept low by

grazing cattle. Thus it allows for easy viewing of birds and also accommodates prime

basking sites for reptiles.

Zone D

Zone D had a high number of sightings (table 5-3) over the total 68 days, although the total

number and percentage of species recorded were low (table 5-2, figure 5-1). Reasoning

for this may be that the dense foliage throughout zone D results in difficulty locating and

identifying cryptic species. The difference in both the total number and percentage of

species recorded between zones C and D was low (table 5-2, figure 5-1) and the

comparison of these two zones found them to have no significant difference (table 5-4) in

the total number of species recorded. Within each of their classes, both Mammalia and

Aves were found to have a similar high percent of records, 39.56% and 36.63%,

respectively. Reptilia demonstrated 21.97% of records and Amphibia 1.83% (figures 5-2

5-5). The relatively low percentages found within classes in zone D may portray a false

view on species diversity, as zone D has very dense foliage and therefore obscures many

species. Also, species recorded for this study are primarily recorded whilst GVI staff and

volunteers are going to and from BAS (Biodiversity Assessment Survey) sites thus their

attention may be elsewhere (i.e. on BAS) and `thus species sightings are missed or

forgotten.

Zone EZone E demonstrated the lowest number and percentage of species recorded. This zone

is predominantly used in the early mornings (5-8am) whilst survey teams get the boat

ready, this short amount of time spent within zone E may explain the reason for low

number and percentage of species recorded (table 5-2, figure 5-1). However, this zone

presented recordings a total of 40 out of 68 days perhaps indicating low species density.


42/100


Within each of their classes, Aves was found to have the highest percent of species

recorded, Reptilia, Mammalia and Amphibia demonstrated a very low occurrence, 4.70%,

2.99% and 0% respectively (figures 5-2 5-5). Due to zone E being water rich, it may be

expected that many of the recordings for this site belong to Aves.

Zone F

The purpose of zone F is to solely record bird species. Thus explaining the reasoning for

its low total number and percentage of species recorded (table 5-2, figure 5-1) and again

the reason its low number of recorded dates (table 5-3). It too explains the reasons for

100% of the total number of recordings belonged to Aves and none belonged to any of the

remaining classes (figures 5-2 5-5) in the study.

Total number of species recorded per class

This study shows that the two classes with the greatest number of recordings belonged to

Aves and Reptilia (figure 5-2). No significant difference (P > 0.05) was found in the total

number of Aves and Reptilia recorded across all zones (table 5-5). Aves also

demonstrated no significant difference (P > 0.05) in the total number of species recorded

across all zones when compared to Amphibia (table 5-5).

Future work

The Incidentals Species study during phase 113 demonstrated some very interesting

results, in particular with the addition of new species. An increase in the quantity of

incidental walks, both diurnal and nocturnal, will aid in the ongoing analysis of species

frequency, habitat preferences and ecosystem health throughout the Jalova area.


43/100


6. Biodiversity Assessment Project

6.1 IntroductionThe Biodiversity Assessment Survey is a survey that was based upon the Incidentals

Species Study. It is a more structured survey that notes recordings of animal species

found in and around the Jalova Biological Station, occupied by Global Vision International,

Costa Rica. Data is collected almost every day by scheduled surveys that take place on

four trails.

Currently, the study only records mammals, birds, amphibians and reptiles as these

groups have excellent publications to enable identification. It is currently impossible to

identify invertebrates to a species level with the resources that GVI possesses, but taking

photos of any species seen is to be encouraged particularly with butterflies and moths,

so that a photo library can be maintained with the possible long-term goal of identifying

them all.

6.2 Aim

To collect more information about abundance, behaviour and distribution locally of

mammal, bird, reptiles and amphibian species.

The numbers gathered on the number of sightings will be compared against the different

trails on a yearly basis as well as by phases, which run every ten weeks.

Potential aims are to start collecting data on species abundance by counting individuals

seen, and also to collect information on breeding success by recording breeding behaviour

or sightings of young.

6.3 Methodology

The methodology for this project underwent some changes going into phase 113. These

were, the addition of extra trails and also setting time regulations to each of the transects

dependent on their lengths. This was done so that we can standardise the amount of effort

that each survey puts into searching for records. Having done these we are now more

accurate in comparing our transects and can therefore make more conclusions about the

biodiversity of the area.


44/100


Due to these changes the methodology is outlined here.

The project will survey eight different transects for mammals, birds, reptiles, amphibians

and mammal tracks, each transect is marked at 25m intervals and will be surveyed at eight

minutes per 100 metres allowing each transect to be surveyed at the same speed (table

6-1). (Note: This time allowance was brought into effect from 09 August 2011).

Table 6-1 Transect names, distances and time allowances

Trail Distance Time ( 10 minutes)

North Trail Mile 17 Mile 16 1600m 2 hours 8 minutes

North Trail Mile 16 Mile 15 1625m 2 hours 10 minutes

Juana Lopez 1000m 1 hour 20 minutes

North Boundary 800m 1 hour 4 minutes

Coconut plantation 1225m 1 hour 38 minutes

South Trail 1100m 1 hour 28 minutes

South Boundary 900m 1 hour 12 minutes

Kingfisher Trail 700m 56 minutes

The project aims to survey each trail at least once per week during phase time, morning

surveys beginning at 06:00AM and afternoon surveys beginning at 14:00PM. Each

transects total coverage time has an error margin of 10 minutes, if the total trail time does

not fall within these times the data will not be analysed with all other data, however, all

data gathered will be recorded under the incidentals project. Transects will be surveyed

equally throughout a 10 week phase where possible.

Species Data

Physical/Audible sightings

Species Name

If seen or heard

Number of individuals

Section of trail seen/heard on

Behaviours witnessed

Additional comments


45/100


Tracks

Species

Direction of travel (N, E, S, W, NE, SE, SW, NW)

Section of trail

Tracks only recorded if fresh (~24 hours)

Tracks scrubbed after recording

General data

Date (DD/MM/YY)

Transect name

Start time (00:00 - 23:59)

End time (00:00 - 23:59)

Survey member names

Weather conditions (Clear, Cloudy, Overcast, Raining intermittent or constant)

Ground conditions (Wet, Damp, Dry, Waterlogged, Obscured by foliage)

Photos

Will be taken of animals/tracks for later identification

Team structure

One patrol leader and 3-4 survey members

Each member of the team is assigned a specific survey role;

Patrol leader in front of survey team, identifying any approaching hazards

and to assist in species identification.

Front Right looking eye level and below from the middle to the right side

of trail.

Front Left - looking eye level and below from the middle to the left side of

trail.

Back Right looking eye level and above from the middle to the right sideof trail.

Back Left - looking eye level and above from the middle to the left side of

trail.

NB when only 3 survey members are available the two front positions will

remain the same and the back position will be a single role covering both


46/100


left and right of the transect, therefore allowing the patrol leader to maintain

a high level of hazard perception.

In addition, each survey member will be assigned one of the following roles;

Book to record all sightings

Mammal ID plate to identify tracks

Compass to read direction of tracks

Machete to remove foliage overhanging path if no survey members are

trained to use the machete the patrol leader will have this role.

Equipment

Survey equipment

Notebook

Pencil and sharpeners

Bird ID Book (plus additional ID books optional)

Mammal track ID plate

Flagging tape

Camera

First Aid Kit

Radio/Mobile

Machete

Compass

Personal equipment

At least 2 litres of water

Binoculars

Long trousers/shirt

Wellies Torch

Repellent (optional)

Sun/Rain protection

Camera (optional)


47/100


Statistical Analysis

Comparisons were accomplished using ANOVA: two-factor without replication to generate

a significance level P-value, indicating whether factors were significantly different with one

another (P < 0.05). This statistical analysis was applied to the following:

(i) Number of seen or heard species

(ii) Number of Track Species

(iii) Number of Seen or Heard Records per Transect

(iv) Number of Records by Class

Note: An ANOVA: Two-Factor Without Replication was applied to the number

Documents

GVI Jalova Expedition Phase Report Report July-September 113