Upload
rebecacha
View
216
Download
0
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
8/14/2019 Phase 081 Report Final Version
1/69
GVI Costa Rica
Coastal Rainforest and Wildlife Expedition
Phase Report 081
11th January 21st March 2008
Phase Report 081
11th January 21st March 2008
8/14/2019 Phase 081 Report Final Version
2/69
GVI Costa Rica Coastal Rainforest and Wildlife Expedition Report
Submitted in whole to:Global Vision International
The Canadian Organisation for Tropical Education and Rainforest Conservation
(COTERC)Steven Furino, Waterloo University, Canada
Submitted in part to:The Ministry of Environment and Energy of Costa Rica (MINAE)
Produced byRebeca Chaverri - Country Director
James Lewis - Programme CoordinatorDavid Jones Base Manager
Diogo Verissimo Expedition StaffManuel Delgado Expedition StaffBrooke McIntyre Expedition Staff
Darren Watts Expedition InternCoraline Daeninck - Expedition Intern
And
Tom Bregman Expedition Member Simon Ferguson Expedition Member
Kristle Villemaire Expedition Member Christian Chavarria Expedition Member
Ian Quest Expedition Member Becky Solecki Expedition Member
Ruth Mattock Expedition Member Marie Errington Expedition Member
Scott Evans Expedition Member Ulla Koskinen Expedition Member
Ben Fisher Expedition Member Dannielle Price Expedition Member
Simone Du Toit Expedition Member Lynn Windell Expedition Member
Andrew McCreery Expedition Member James Weber Expedition Member
Kimberley Barylo Expedition Member Simon Crosbie-Smith Expedition Member
Peter Graham Expedition Member Amy Bloor Expedition Member
Sarah Cater Expedition Member Christina Hassett Expedition Member
Paul Rowntree Expedition Member Codie Gesumaria Expedition Member
GVI Costa Rica Coastal Rainforest and Wildlife Expedition
Address: Estacin Biolgica Cao Palma, Tortuguero, Costa RicaTel: (+506) 2709 8052Email: [email protected]
Web page: http://www.gvi.co.uk
8/14/2019 Phase 081 Report Final Version
3/69
3
Executive Summary
The 11th ten-week phase (phase 081) of the Global Vision International (GVI) Costa
Rica Coastal Rainforest and Wildlife Expedition has now been completed. The
expedition, based at Estacin Biolgica Cao Palma (EBCP), has continued to worktowards the gathering of important environmental scientific data whilst working with local,
national and international partners and has maintained working relationships with local
communities through both English classes and local community events. The following
projects were conducted during phase 081:
Marine Turtle Monitoring and Conservation Programme. In collaboration with the
Canadian Organization for Tropical Education and Rainforest Conservation
(COTERC) and the Costa Rican Ministry of Environment and Energy (MINAE) andin association with the Caribbean Conservation Corporation (CCC).
Monitoring of Jaguar Predation on Marine Turtles. In collaboration with MINAE.
Jaguar Camera Trapping Study in Tortuguero National Park (TNP). In collaboration
with MINAE.
Large Mammal Monitoring Programme. In collaboration with COTERC.
Resident and Migratory Canal Bird Study. In collaboration with Steven Furino from
Waterloo University, Canada.
Estacin BIolgica Cao Palma Incidental Species Study Canal Boat Impact Study on Cao Palma canal.
English Language and Environmental Education lessons. In collaboration with the
San Francisco community and Tortuguero Canopy.
8/14/2019 Phase 081 Report Final Version
4/69
4
Table of Contents
Executive Summary ........................................................................................................ 31 General introduction ................................................................................................ 82 Marine Turtle Monitoring and Conservation Programme ........................................ 11
2.1 Introduction .................................................................................................... 112.2 Aims .............................................................................................................. 122.3 Methodology .................................................................................................. 12
2.3.1 Study site ............................................................................................... 122.3.2 Pre-season preparations ........................................................................ 132.3.3 Data collection........................................................................................ 13
2.4 Results ........................................................................................................... 162.5 Discussion ..................................................................................................... 17
3 Monitoring of Jaguar Predation on Marine Turtles ................................................. 193.1 Introduction .................................................................................................... 193.2 Aims .............................................................................................................. 203.3 Methodology .................................................................................................. 20
3.3.1
Study site ............................................................................................... 20
3.3.2 Survey technique ................................................................................... 213.3.3 Data collection........................................................................................ 21
3.4 Results ........................................................................................................... 233.5 Discussion ..................................................................................................... 27
Jaguar Camera Trapping Study ............................................................................. 294 29
4.1 Introduction .................................................................................................... 294.2 Aims .............................................................................................................. 294.3 Methodology .................................................................................................. 30
4.3.1 Study site ............................................................................................... 304.3.2 Survey techniques .................................................................................. 304.3.3
Data collection........................................................................................ 32
4.4 Results ........................................................................................................... 334.5 Discussion ..................................................................................................... 34
5 Large Mammal Monitoring Programme .................................................................. 365.1 Introduction .................................................................................................... 365.2 Aims .............................................................................................................. 365.3 Methodology .................................................................................................. 37
5.3.1 Study site ............................................................................................... 375.3.2 Data collection........................................................................................ 37
5.4 Results ........................................................................................................... 385.5 Discussion ..................................................................................................... 39
6 Canal Bird Monitoring Programme ......................................................................... 406.1 Introduction .................................................................................................... 406.2 Aims .............................................................................................................. 406.3 Methodology .................................................................................................. 41
6.3.1 Study site ............................................................................................... 416.3.2 Data collection........................................................................................ 41
6.4 Results ........................................................................................................... 436.5 Discussion ..................................................................................................... 47
7 Incidental Species Study ....................................................................................... 507.1 Introduction .................................................................................................... 50
8/14/2019 Phase 081 Report Final Version
5/69
5
7.2 Aims .............................................................................................................. 507.3 Methodology .................................................................................................. 50
7.3.1 Data collection........................................................................................ 507.4 Results ........................................................................................................... 507.5 Discussion ..................................................................................................... 52
8 Canal Boat Impact Study ....................................................................................... 538.1 Introduction .................................................................................................... 538.2 Aims .............................................................................................................. 538.3 Methodology .................................................................................................. 538.4 Results ........................................................................................................... 548.5 Discussion ..................................................................................................... 56
9 English Language and Environmental Education ................................................... 589.1 Introduction to English Teaching .................................................................... 589.2 Introduction to Environmental Education ........................................................ 589.3 Aims .............................................................................................................. 589.4 Methodology .................................................................................................. 59
9.4.1 Training .................................................................................................. 599.4.2 Teaching ................................................................................................ 59
9.5 Results ........................................................................................................... 609.6 Discussion ..................................................................................................... 6110 References ............................................................................................................ 64
8/14/2019 Phase 081 Report Final Version
6/69
6
List of Figures
Figure 3-1 Number of green turtle full tracks (black) and half-moons (grey) recorded
weekly. Parque Nacional Tortuguero, Costa Rica. ........................................................ 25Figure 3-2 Number of leatherback turtle full tracks (black) and half-moons (grey)
recorded weekly along the 14.5 miles of beach in Parque Nacional Tortuguero, Costa
Rica. .............................................................................................................................. 25Figure3-3 Number of surveys where jaguar presence was detected between half mile
marker. Parque Nacional Tortuguero, Costa Rica. ........................................................ 26Figure3-4 Number and location of jaguar track entries and exits. .................................. 27Figure 6-1 Total number of species on Cao Chiquero, Cao Harold and Cao Palma,
Tortuguero, Costa Rica. ................................................................................................ 43Figure 6-2 Study species recorded per survey on Cao Chiquero aquatic trail, TNP,
Costa Rica. ................................................................................................................... 44Figure 6-3 Study species recorded per survey on Cao Harold aquatic trail .................. 45
Figure 6-4 Study species recorded per survey on the aquatic trails (AQT) entrance...... 46 Figure 6-5 Study species recorded per survey on Cao Palma, Costa Rica. ................. 47Figure 8-1 Proportion of tourism v non-tourism traffic passing EBCP. ........................... 55Figure 8-2 Comparison of the number of boats per Lodge recorded on Cao Palma. ... 55 Figure 8-3 Distribution of time of day and number of boats passing EBCP. ................... 56List of Tables
Table 3-1 Survey dates, intinerary/route and duration for walks conducted in Phase 081
...................................................................................................................................... 24Table 4-1 Position of camera sites along study site ....................................................... 33
8/14/2019 Phase 081 Report Final Version
7/69
7
Table 4-2 Timeframe, unit(s) installed and number of records per study site ................. 33Table 4-3 Presence/absence of recorded species and there distribution across camera
sites .............................................................................................................................. 34Table 5-1 Number of records per ID method on BCWR, Costa Rica. ........................... 38Table 5-2 Number of individuals recorded per ID method .............................................. 39Table 6-1 Canal Bird Monitoring Study Species ............................................................ 42Figure 6-1 Total number of species on Cao Chiquero, Cao Harold and Cao Palma,
Tortuguero, Costa Rica. ................................................................................................ 43Table 7-1 Top incidentals and the percentage of days that they were recorded on over
the 78-day period, Estacin Biolgica Cao Palma, Costa Rica. ................................... 51Table 7-2 Top incidentals by order, Estacin Biolgica Cao Palma, Costa Rica .......... 51 Table 8-1 Boat use restriction on Cano Palma, Tortuguero, Costa Rica. ....................... 53 Table 9-1 Topics covered throughout the phase for each of the formal classes ............. 60
8/14/2019 Phase 081 Report Final Version
8/69
8
1 General introduction
Global Vision International (GVI) was formed in 1998 to provide support and services to
international charities, non-profits and governmental agencies, through volunteering
opportunities and direct funding. GVI is guided by a unique commitment to its volunteersand to its partners. To the volunteer it offers a safe responsible travel experiences,
exceptional training and career development opportunities, and facilitates the ability to
make a real difference. To its partners it commits all research ownership rights and all
work is undertaken under their direction, in conjunction with the local community. In July
2006, GVI established the Costa Rica expedition based at Estacin Biolgica Cao
Palma (EBCP), Tortuguero.
The biological station is located in the southern section of the Barra del Colorado WildlifeRefuge (BCWR) directly to the north of Tortuguero National Park (TNP). The area of
operation for the expedition covers both TNP and the BCWR; both of which are included
in the Tortuguero Conservation Area (ACTo). The area consists of a collection of
waterways running through Caribbean lowland rainforest. The coastal habitats are
generally similar in type throughout the area of operation with small variation in boarding
habitats, width of the beach and quantity and type of debris found on the beach. The
forest habitats vary more considerably with several distinct habitats being present.
Altitudinal differences of a couple metres have a large effect on both habitat and speciescomposition in the area. Lower areas, such as those found around the station, tend have
large areas of flooded forest whereas the drier areas associated to the national park
tend to only be submerged during times of flooding. Within ACTo there are also areas
containing higher ground of up to 311m in Lomas de Sierpe. Most of the research is
carried out within TNP and BCWR, where the highest elevation is El Cerro (119 meters
above sea level). Although these are not particularly high they do provide non-floodable
habitat. The ecological importance of the ACTo has been recognized for some time;
however, the level of active research has been minimal aside from the world-renowned
turtle studies.
The EBCP was purchased in 1991 by the Canadian Organization for Tropical Education
and Rainforest Conservation (COTERC). The stations research was intended to focus
on terrestrial ecology studies leaving the monitoring of the turtle population to the
Caribbean Conservation Corporation (CCC). Prior to GVIs arrival a number of studies
8/14/2019 Phase 081 Report Final Version
9/69
9
had been undertaken looking at various species and habitats but no longer term
monitoring projects had been possible.
GVIs volunteer resource made long-term studies possible and needs were assessed
and partnerships sourced. Currently GVI is working closely with MINAE, COTERC,Waterloo University, the local community of San Francisco and the CCC.
Along with the individual needs of partners, GVI seeks to meet several of its own aims
when undertaking work in an area. These aims are:
Document biodiversity of the area
Increase scientific knowledge
Encourage scientific interest in the area
Increase community awareness and capacity building
Support sustainable development.
The Tortuguero area has been of strong interest to the scientific community since Archie
Carrs studies of the Marine Turtles of Playa Tortuguero during the 1950s. Archie Carr
highlighted the importance of this stretch of coast for green turtles (Chelonia mydas) and
his work promoted the TNP establishment in 1975 (Boza & Mendoza 1981).
Being a large charismatic species, green turtles tend to attract both researches andtourists: data collected by MINAE has shown a steady increase in the number of visitors
each year to Tortuguero (Bermdez & Hernndez 2004a, Allan Valverde pers. comm.
2007). Although many visitors come specifically to see the turtles, others visit TNP for its
canals and abundant wildlife. Often referred to as the Amazon of Costa Rica, Tortuguero
offers visitors a chance to view wildlife from both boats and on foot.
The impact of this human presence is becoming more obvious within ACTo. Lodges are
in need to expand and as a result they are consuming more forested areas; new homes
are being built for the workers of these hotels and associated industries; and an increase
in demand for building materials and general goods is resulting in increased use of the
canals. Areas that had previously not been visited by tourists are now beginning to open
up and although some limits are being put in place to control tourist numbers in certain
locations, many areas are uncontrolled and not monitored.
8/14/2019 Phase 081 Report Final Version
10/69
10
As tourism has increased so has job availability and as a result the population of
Tortuguero has increased and new settlements have developed. The most significant
new settlement has been the establishment of the San Francisco community. San
Francisco began its history as a home to a few families in 1989. It was not until 2000 that
the population began to increase more significantly. Now San Francisco is home to 274people and this number is continuing to increase (Van Odenhoven 2007).
San Francisco is increasing in size almost constantly and as a result is having an
obvious impact on the local environment. This increased demand on local resources is
demonstrating the need for management of both TNP and the BCWR as well as the
importance of the monitoring programme on Playa Norte.
The projects currently being run by GVI in ACTo aim to help raise awareness of the
effect these changes are having on the environment. This is being done in numerous
ways some of which have a direct effect on the conservation of the area whilst others
have longer-term educational benefits.
This report briefly looks at the work undertaken during Phase 081 (11 th January 21st
March 2008). Its aim is to present an outline of the specific aims, methodologies and
results gained during this period. In some cases, such as the turtle-monitoring
programme, season reports are produced and therefore no results have been included.
In addition to this report, a year report is produced annually presenting in more detail
findings from the year and in some cases comparing to previous years work. Throughout
this document, those persons who have received additional training in order to be able to
train and lead others on surveys are referred to as Research Staff (RS) or Patrol
Leaders (PLs), as appropriate. Persons trained to assist the RS in all aspects of their
work are referred to as Research Assistants (RAs).
8/14/2019 Phase 081 Report Final Version
11/69
11
2 Marine Turtle Monitoring and Conservation Programme
2.1 Introduction
Over the past 20 years, there has been an extensive decline in marine turtle populations
worldwide due to illegal harvesting of meat and eggs, unsustainable fishing practices,water contamination, and habitat destruction. As a result, the World Conservation Union
(IUCN) lists all marine turtle species as either endangered or critically endangered
(IUCN, 2006).
Having six out of the worlds seven species of marine turtles, not only is Central America
known for diversity but also for the large number of marine turtle nesting on its beaches.
Within this sub-continent, Costa Rica hosts some of the largest populations of
leatherback (Dermochelys coriacea), green and olive ridley (Lepidochelys olivacea)turtles, assuming a pivotal role in marine turtle conservation.
Two years after its creation in 1990, COTERC was approached by the CCC with a
proposal of monitoring the marine turtle population on Playa Norte (Greg Mayne written
comm 2007), the beach to the north of Laguna Tortuguero. Between 2004 and 2005
COTERC undertook a feasibility study in order to establish the significance of the nesting
site on Playa Norte and to assess whether the number of marine turtles warranted a
programme (Greg Mayne written comm 2007). Playa Norte adjoins the aforementioned
community of San Francisco, currently borders two hotels, Cabinas Vista al Mar and
Turtle Beach Lodge, approximately eight private homes and there are plans for a larger
hotel within the survey area. Existing just north of the boundary of the National Park it
has gone without the regular law enforcement and protection afforded to Playa
Tortuguero for decades.
Based on the findings of the preliminary study, in 2005 a marine turtle monitoring and
conservation programme was implemented and initiated, with the assistance of GVI in
2006.
This report is a summary account of the work developed and data collected from 11 th
January to 17th March 2008.
8/14/2019 Phase 081 Report Final Version
12/69
12
2.2 Aims
The overall aims of this programme are to monitor the population dynamics of marine
turtles on Playa Norte and investigate the impact of human activities on their
conservation status.
In terms of species conservation the programmes aims are to 1) reduce poaching rates
by constant presence on the beach, disguising and relocating nests as necessary, 2)
educate the community and tourists about marine turtle conservation and 3) manage the
beach habitat as to increase availability of nesting sites 4) investigate the impact of
human development on the marine turtle population
In terms of species monitoring the programmes aims are to 1) gather selected biometric
data on nesting marine turtles, 2) record the spatial and seasonal distribution of nesting
turtles, 3) monitor the number of nesting emergences, 4) determine the level of illegal
poaching on turtles and their nests, 5) record survival of the nests and hatchling success
rates, 6) monitor for the apparent physical health of nesting females, 7) track re-
emergences to the nesting beach and or migration between beaches, and 8) register
tourist and human development around the nesting site.
2.3 Methodology
The methodology used for the marine turtle-monitoring programme follows the
GVI/COTERC protocols. For further, more specific methodologies, please refer to the
2008 Marine Turtle Conservation and Monitoring Programme Night and Day Protocols.
Furthermore, a logical framework for the programme was designed in March of this year
to maintain the objectives and aims through time and allow evaluation of management
practices at the end of the season.
2.3.1 Study site
The sand on Playa Norte is black and fine, typical of a high energy-beach. The width of
the nesting beach platform, or berm, varies from two to 38 meters, but the configuration
of its shape and size changes constantly in response to long shore drift and exposure
levels.
8/14/2019 Phase 081 Report Final Version
13/69
13
The dominant plants on the nesting beach are morning glory (Ipomoea pes-caprae), rea-
purslane (Sesuvium portulacastrum) and rush grass (Sporobolus virginicus). The berm is
bordered by a hedgerow of cocoplum (Chrysobalanus icaco) and sea grapes (Coccoloba
uvifera) with a mixture of coconut palms (Cocos nucifera) and various tropical
hardwoods behind.
Playa Norte, which contains the study area of 31/8 miles long (approximately 5 km),
extends from the Tortuguero River mouth (N10 35.673 W83 31.495) on the southern end
of the beach to Laguna Cuatro (N10 38.115 W83 32.528) to the north. Although this
beach is not located within the TNP boundaries, it is situated adjacent to the BCWR,
which, like the TNP, is managed by ACTo under the MINAE.
The study area is marked as mile marker (MM) 0 at the Tortuguero River mouth and MM
31/8 just north of Laguna Cuatro. The length of the beach is divided and marked with mile
markers at every eighth of a mile (approximately 200 m), to allow for the documentation
of spatial distribution and density of nests along the beach.
The nearest village to the study site is San Francisco, situated south of MM 0. On the
southern side of the Tortuguero river mouth is Playa Tortuguero, which the CCC
monitors from MM -3/8 to Jalova lagoon at MM 18.
2.3.2 Pre-season preparations
Before the season began, each mile marker was repaired or replaced if necessary. Each
volunteer and patrol leader was trained thoroughly both in the classroom and in the field
in order to ensure competent data collection and ethical behaviour on the beach. At the
end of the training, all Research Assistants (RAs) and Patrol Leaders (PLs) were
submitted to a test. For RAs the passing mark was 95%. Patrol Leaders were subject to
more intense and thorough training with corresponding testing, for which the passing
mark was 100%.
2.3.3 Data collection
Daily track census and nest surveys
8/14/2019 Phase 081 Report Final Version
14/69
14
A track census and nest survey was conducted every day from 22nd February to 17th
March. It started between 5:00 and 6:00 am, depending on the specific time of sunrise,
and lasted up to two and a half hours depending on the volume of data to collect and the
need to disguise nests or tracks. The survey involved walking the beach between MM 0
and MM 31/8, recording and monitoring tracks and nests from the night before. Thesurvey team identified tracks as nests, half moons (non-nesting emergences) or a lifted
turtle (no tracks going back into the sea).
All tracks not seen the night before were documented using Global Positioning System
(GPS) coordinates, the northern mile marker and vertical position. The nests seen by the
night team the previous night were monitored on the two days after they were first
discovered and identified as natural, poached, predated or unknown (if the nest had
many signs of poaching, such as an accumulation of flies, stick holes, and human and ordog prints, but no egg shells or cavity).
Night surveys
Night surveys were conducted every night from 29th February to 17th March. Each night
at least one survey team walked the study area a minimum of four hours. If one team
was on the beach they patrolled around 22:00 to 02:00. When two teams patrolled, the
first team patrolled the beach from approximately 20:30 to 00:30 whilst the second team
patrolled from 23:00 to 03:00.
When a turtle track was found, the PL determined whether or not the turtle was still on
the beach. If not, the PL determined if the track was a half moon, nest, or lifted turtle. If it
was deemed a half moon, the species, GPS coordinate, closest Northern mile marker,
and time track was seen were all recorded. If deemed a nest, the species, GPS
coordinate, closest Northern mile marker, time the track was seen, vertical position, and
nest status were recorded. If deemed a lifted turtle the species, GPS coordinate, closest
Northern mile marker, time the track was seen and vertical position (if it had nested),were recorded.
When a turtle was encountered, the PL tried to determine what stage of the nesting
process she was in (emerging, selecting a nest site, digging a body pit, digging the egg
chamber, oviposition, covering the egg chamber, disguising the nest or returning to sea).
8/14/2019 Phase 081 Report Final Version
15/69
15
All patrol members who were to come in contact with the turtle put on gloves. Once the
egg-laying process had started, the eggs were counted (yolkless and fertile counted
separately) and triangulation of the nest was completed. When the turtle completed
oviposition and began to cover her egg chamber, she was then checked for tags, Old
Tag Notches (OTNs) and Old Tag Holes (OTHs) and tagged if necessary. Leatherbackturtles were tagged in the thin skin between the rear flippers and the tail using Monel #49
tags (National Band & Tag Co., Newport, USA). Green turtles were tagged on the front
flippers before the first scale using Inconel #681 tags (National Band & Tag Co.,
Newport, USA).
Once tagging, was finished, and if appropriate, the minimum curved carapace length
(CCLmin) and maximum curved carapace width (CCWmax) were taken to the nearest
millimetre, three times each. If the measurements were not within three millimetres ofeach other more were taken until the data was consistent. For leatherbacks, CCLmin
was taken from the nuchal notch where the skin touches the carapace, along the back to
the right of the central ridge until the end of the caudal projection. It was also noted
whether the caudal projection was complete or not. For green, loggerhead (Caretta
caretta), and hawksbill (Eretmochelys imbricata) turtles, CCLmin was taken from where
the skin touches the carapace along the back until the posterior notch (not the longest
length of the carapace). For all species, CCWmax was always taken along the widest
part of the turtle.
Once tagging and measurements were completed, the turtle was checked for bite marks,
abnormalities and fibropapillomas tumours. All abnormalities were recorded.
The GPS coordinates of the egg chamber, closest northern mile marker, stage the turtle
was encountered in, encounter time, direction whilst nesting, and vertical position were
also recorded.
Nest fate, nest survivorship and hatching success
Nests were triangulated during oviposition whenever possible in order to gather as much
information about the poaching rate and hatchling success as possible. Triangulation
was done in order to enable the excavation of the nests 70 days after the nest was laid
for green turtles or 75 for leatherback turtles. Triangulation was conducted using three
8/14/2019 Phase 081 Report Final Version
16/69
16
pieces of flagging tape that featured the direction (north, centre, and south) and the
station name. These were attached to the vegetation behind the nest. The distance from
the centre of the egg chamber to each of these tags was measured to the nearest
centimetre whilst the turtle was laying eggs. The distance to the most recent high tide
line was also recorded. Three triangulation points were used to compensate for the lossof any points of reference: if one point is lost it is still possible to locate the nest using the
other two points.
Disguising nests
For all leatherback nests, considerable effort was put into disguising the nests from
poachers. Several strategies were used, such as erasing the tracks with a long piece of
wood, throwing dry sand all over the area, sweeping the sand with a coconut leaf,
placing logs and other debris on top of the nest and remove them later, etc. For green
turtles, although the body pit was always obvious, some disguising efforts, like erasing
the tracks, were also put into place.
Collection of human impact data
During each night survey, the number of red and white mobile lights, fires, locals and
tourists on the beach were recorded. Furthermore, each month during the new moon the
number of stationary white and red lights were also recorded.
Habitat management
Sixteen beach cleans were completed this phase to increase the availability of nesting
sites. After mid-phase a new management scheme was implemented where the morning
census teams evaluated the condition of each eighth of a mile of the study area and
passed that information to the beach clean teams as to allow for more effective beach
cleans.
2.4 Results
During phase 081, 25 morning surveys and 34 night surveys were completed. A total of
78 miles were walked on morning surveys and 272 miles were walked on night surveys.
8/14/2019 Phase 081 Report Final Version
17/69
17
The first nest was observed on the 22nd of February with ten leatherback turtles nests
and one half-moon recorded during the survey period. Of this number, five leatherback
turtles were encountered; three had existing tags in place and two were tagged by the
project.
Of the 10 leatherback nests recorded, nine were classified as natural whilst one was
deemed unknown due to the presence of stick holes, human footprints and disturbed
sand. Nesting activity was highest between MM 2 and MM 21/8. Most encounters
occurred between 23h30 and 23h45.
Two green turtle nests were recorded, with one of the nesting turtles having been
tagged. The first nest was found on the night survey of the 11th of March. Both nests
were classified as natural. Nesting activity was highest between MM 6/8 and MM 7/8. The
only turtle encountered for this species occurred at 23h40.
This phase a pilot study examining activity beyond the northern extent of the current
study area was initiated. On one occasion, the morning census team continued north
along Playa Norte for an additional 1.5 miles. The team observed only an old poached
leatherback nest on the 8th of March, which was assumed to be a week old based on the
condition of both track and nest.
In addition to the above information, morning team on the 28th
February found adeceased juvenile hawksbill (CCL 4.5 cm; CCW 3.5 cm) washed up just south of mile
marker 3 1/8. The cause of death could not be determined.
2.5 Discussion
Since the data collection from this phase only covers the very beginning of the nesting
season for leatherback turtles, this is only preliminary data for this year.
One important observation however, is that both leatherback and green turtles havebeen recorded as nesting earlier on Playa Norte this year in comparison to 2007. Last
year morning surveys began in same date and during the same period we registered
only two leatherback nests, the first of which was on the 15 th of March, and no green
turtle nests.
8/14/2019 Phase 081 Report Final Version
18/69
18
Although only one survey was conducted beyond Laguna Cuatro during this phase, our
findings are that marine turtle activity is lower north of the study area. During phase 082
(from the 11th of April to the 19th of June), this monitoring will be conducted weekly to
improve our understanding of the nesting marine turtle population using that area,
together with the associated human impact.
8/14/2019 Phase 081 Report Final Version
19/69
19
3 Monitoring of Jaguar Predation on Marine Turtles
3.1 Introduction
The only species that are known to kill adult marine turtles are sharks (i.e. Carcharhinus
leucas, Carcharodon carcharias and Galeocerdo cuvier), orca (Orcinus orca), crocodiles(Crocodylus acutus and C. porosus) and jaguars (Panthera onca) (Hirth, 1997; Ortiz et
al., 1997 in Trong 2000). Information on jaguar predation of marine turtles has been
recorded sporadically in different areas of the Neotropics.
At least eighty two green turtles, three leatherbacks and seven olive ridley were
identified as being predated by jaguars in Suriname from 1963-1973. In 1980, 13 green
turtles were killed within only a few days close to this nesting beach (Autar, 1994).
Koford (1983) mentions that jaguars prey on marine turtles in Costa Rica, although no
specific species are mentioned. On the Pacific coast of this country, jaguars have been
recorded preying upon olive ridley, black (Chelonia mydas agassizii), and hawksbill
turtles (Carrillo et al., 1994, Chinchilla, 1997). Although much research has been carried
out on turtles in TNP, data collection methods on jaguar predated turtles in TNP has
been inconsistent. From 1971 the CCC began regular track census along Playa
Tortuguero. Before 1997 only two green turtles were recorded as being killed by jaguars,
one in 1981 (Carrillo et al., 1994) and another in 1984 (J. Mortimer pers. comm. in
Trong 2000).
In 1997, the CCC began collecting specific information on turtles predated by jaguars
during their weekly track censuses (Trong 1997, CCC 1999). That year, four green
turtles killed by jaguars were recorded, both fresh and old kills (Trong 1997). During
1998 and 1999 only fresh kills, i.e. those killed within the last 24 hours were recorded. In
1998, 25 dead green turtles were found, and in 1999, 22 green and two leatherback
turtles were found (Trong, 2000). In 2002, Magally Castro Alvarez, in conjunction with
MINAE and WCS began a study on the predation of marine turtles by jaguars in TNP.
Castro Alvarez recorded all kills, both fresh and old. In 2002, 60 turtle carcasses were
encountered, and in 2003, 65 (M. Castro Alvarez, unpublished data).
In 2005, MINAE invited GVI to continue data collection on jaguar presence and
predation of marine turtles in TNP on their behalf. GVI began data collection on 11th July
8/14/2019 Phase 081 Report Final Version
20/69
20
2005, modifying the MINAE protocols in line with agreed aims and available resources.
The study found 60 turtle carcasses from July to December 2005 and 131 turtles in the
first full year, 2006. In 2007, 144 dead turtle carcasses were recorded as jaguar quarry.
Though predation upon turtles by jaguars is not a new phenomenon, from the CCC andMagally Castro Alvarez studies it can be inferred that the level of predation has been
increasing over the past years within TNP, but the magnitude of this apparent increase
may be due to changes in data collection methods. Trong (2000) counted only fresh
carcasses with evidence of jaguar predation for two out of the three years of his study,
whilst Castro Alvarez study considered all carcasses with no contrary evidence to be
jaguar predated.
These studies identified a phenomenom within Playa Tortuguero and GVIs personnel
carry regular surveys with an established methodology and aims at conducting them
over a greater period, in order to understand its implications on a larger scale
3.2 Aims
This project aims to 1) document the magnitude of jaguar predation on the nesting
population of marine turtles and 2) increase knowledge of jaguar ecology in Tortuguero
National Park.
This information can be used to help MINAE develop management strategies which
cross the multiple habitats contained within the National Park, benefitting both the turtles
and the jaguars.
3.3 Methodology
3.3.1 Study site
The beach of TNP, which contains the study area, is 18 miles long (approximately 29
kilometres), and extends from the Tortuguero River mouth on the northern end of thebeach to the Jalova River mouth at the Southern end. The park is managed by ACTo
under MINAE.
The study area is mile 34/8 at the southern border of Tortuguero village to mile 18 at the
Jalova river mouth. The length of the beach is divided and marked with mile markers at
8/14/2019 Phase 081 Report Final Version
21/69
21
every eighth of a mile (approximately 200 meters) until mile 5, and is marked at every
half mile thereafter. The mile markers run in ascending order from mile 0 at the
Tortuguero River mouth to mile 18 at the Jalova river mouth.
During the marine turtle nesting seasons, there is a high level of human activity betweenmile 0 and mile 51/2 of Playa Tortuguero. This area is the focus of the CCCs marine
turtle work where they conduct one morning survey and two night surveys per day in
season; it also hosts a large number of tourists on turtle watching tours. At the southern
end of the study site is a large cattle and coconut farm. These areas of human activity
may affect jaguar behaviour.
3.3.2 Survey technique
Weekly surveys were conducted over the 14 mile study site, beginning at dawn. For
the first half of the phase, one team surveyed the entire study site, alternating between a
north start at mile 34/8 (Tortuguero) and a south start at mile 18 (Jalova) when possible.
The second half of the phase utilised two teams per survey; Team One started from mile
34/8 and surveyed to mile 11. Team Two began at mile 18 and also surveyed to mile 11.
The average team consisted of one RS and three RAs collecting the data outlined
below.
3.3.3 Data collection
General data
For each survey, the following general information was recorded:
Research team initials
Starting point (Tortuguero or Jalova)
Start and end time
Weather data (recorded at mile markers 4, 8, 12 and 16): time, sand condition (dry,
moist, wet), percentage cloud cover, precipitation (none, light, medium or heavy) and
beach width (measured from the mile marker to the high tide line)
Comments e.g. jaguar tracks not clearly visible due to a very high tide
Turtle track data
8/14/2019 Phase 081 Report Final Version
22/69
8/14/2019 Phase 081 Report Final Version
23/69
23
Marine turtle carcasses were recorded as jaguar predated if no contradictory evidence
was present. The following data was recorded on all jaguar predated marine turtles
where relevant:
Species (leatherback, green, hawksbill or loggerhead) Turtle ID number (species initials and record number for the season e.g. Cm001)
Locality (distance from Northern mile marker and GPS coordinates)
Vertical position (open, border or vegetation)
Point of attack
Parts of turtle eaten by jaguar
Estimated number of nights since kill (determined by signs of decay)
Curved carapace length (CCL)
Whether the turtle was resting on its plastron or carapace (front or back)
Any other comments e.g. drag marks, jaguar prints near the carcass, high vulture
activity, tag numbers
Due to rapid rates of decay and the activity of scavengers, point of attack, parts eaten
and CCL were recorded on fresh cadavers only (within 1-2 days). Photographic records
were taken for evidence of predation, turtle identification and location. These records
also provide an additional method of ensuring against double counting.
3.4 Results
Eight surveys were conducted between the 20 th of January and the 9th of March 2008.
Three surveys were completed from Tortuguero to Jalova, one from Jalova to
Tortuguero. Four surveys were completed utilising two research teams.
The average duration of the surveys completed when using one research team was eight hours and
10 minutes. The average duration of the surveys completed by Team One was five hours. The
average duration of the surveys completed by Team Two was four and a half hours (
Table 3-1).
8/14/2019 Phase 081 Report Final Version
24/69
24
Table 3-1 Survey dates, intinerary/route and duration for walks conducted in Phase 081, Playa Norte,
Refugio de Vida Silvestre Barra del Colorado, Costa Rica.
One hundred-and-one full turtle tracks were recorded for the phase: 80 green and 21
leatherback. Eleven half-moons were recorded, seven green and four leatherback. No
full turtle tracks were recorded before the forth week of survey (10 th of February). Week
eight (starting on 9
th
of March, 2008), recorded the highest number of full turtle tracks; 31green and 16 leatherback tracks (Figure 3-1 and Figure 3-2).
Date Itinerary/Route Duration (hrs)
20-Jan-08 Tortuguero Mile 11 06:40
26-Jan-08 Jalova - Tortuguero 09:00
03-Feb-08 Tortuguero - Jalova 08:50
10-Feb-08 Tortuguero - Jalova 08:05
17-Feb-08 Tortuguero Mile 11 03:55
17-Feb-08 Jalova Mile 11 04:00
24-Feb-08 Tortuguero Mile 11 06:00
24-Feb-08 Jalova Mile 11 05:00
02-Mar-08 Tortuguero Mile 11 04:40
02-Mar-08 Jalova Mile 11 04:00
09-Mar-08 Tortuguero Mile 11 05:2009-Mar-08 Jalova Mile 11 04:55
8/14/2019 Phase 081 Report Final Version
25/69
25
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
Week 1 Week 2 Week 3 Week 4 Week 5 Week 6 Week 7 Week 8
Week of survey
Numberoffullturtletracksand
halfmoon
s
Figure 3-1 Number of green turtle full tracks (black) and half-moons (grey) recorded weekly. Parque
Nacional Tortuguero, Costa Rica.
0
2
4
6
8
1012
14
16
18
Week 1 Week 2 Week 3 Week 4 Week 5 Week 6 Week 7 Week 8
Week of survey
Numberoffullturtle
tracksand
halfmoons
Figure 3-2 Number of leatherback turtle full tracks (black) and half-moons (grey) recorded weekly
along the 14.5 miles of beach in Parque Nacional Tortuguero, Costa Rica.
Two green turtles were recorded as jaguar predated during the survey period around
M10. One was recorded in week seven and one in week eight. No leatherbacks were
recorded during this period.
8/14/2019 Phase 081 Report Final Version
26/69
26
Seventy-eight jaguar track sets were recorded during the survey period. Jaguar activity
spanned along the entire length of the survey site with over 80% of tracks found
between miles 5 and 5 4/8, mile 8 to 12 and 154/8 to 16. Between miles 8 and 9, jaguar
tracks were present on every walk (Figure3-3).
01
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
3.5 4.5 5.5 6.5 7.5 8.5 9.5 10.5
11.5
12.5
13.5
14.5
15.5
16.5
17.5
Distribution
Num
berofwalkswherejaguar
trackswerepresent
Figure3-3 Number of surveys where jaguar presence was detected between half-mile marker. Parque
Nacional Tortuguero, Costa Rica.
The majority of the jaguar tracks were recorded in the mid-section of the study site,between miles 8.5 and 12.5; seven entry points onto the beach and five exit points were
recorded (Figure3-4).
8/14/2019 Phase 081 Report Final Version
27/69
27
0
0.5
1
1.5
2
2.5
3.5 4.5 5.5 6.5 7.5 8.5 9.5 10.5
11.5
12.5
13.5
14.5
15.5
16.5
17.5
Nearest northern mile marker
NumberofExit
sandEntries
Entry
Exit
Figure3-4 Number and location of jaguar track entries and exits. Parque Nacional Tortuguero, Costa
Rica.
3.5 Discussion
In the corresponding period in 2007 there were no records of jaguar predated marine
turtles. This year there are records of two green turtles predated by jaguar during a
period of over 600% greater green turtle activity on the beach between the same periods
of January-March, rising from only 13 in 2007 full tracks to 80 in 2008.
Both of the records of jaguar predated marine turtles were encountered by the research
teams in the vegetation near mile 10. The second encounter displayed additional
evidence of jaguar activity (blood pools and drag marks) suggesting predation occurred
on the beach and feeding in the vegetation.
Jaguar activity has been recorded consistantly along Playa Tortuguero outside of the
nesting season both in phase 074 and now 081. No evidence of marine turtle activity
was documented on Playa Tortuguero this year until the 10 th of February, whereas
jaguar activity was in evidence on every survey conducted for this year, prior to and
since the emergence of nesting marine turtles.
Over the course of the phase, jaguar activity was recorded at each half mile of the study
site, indicating jaguars are ultilising the entire area to greater or lesser extents,
regardless of marine turtle activity.
8/14/2019 Phase 081 Report Final Version
28/69
28
Seven sites of jaguar entry and five of exit between the forest and beach were identified,
at the extremes of the study site and concentrating in the centre. As the Jaguar Camera
Trapping Study (Chapter 4) becomes established, these two programmes are becoming
increasingly amalgamated. Entry/exit data, together with marine turtle carcass spatial
distribution data is utilised in the management of the trapping study when consideringcamera site location.
The full dataset of the programme thus far (2005-2008) is currently being analysed for
the first time in combination. A full report is to be compiled to evaluate trends, investigate
mitigating factors and discuss the significance of jaguar predation of marine turtles on
Playa Tortuguero.
8/14/2019 Phase 081 Report Final Version
29/69
29
4 Jaguar Camera Trapping Study
4.1 Introduction
The jaguar (Panthera onca) is the third largest felid in the world and the largest in all of
North and South America (Silver, 2004). Its range used to span from the SouthwesternUnited States of America to Northern Argentina (Seymour, 1989). However, the current
known, occupied range is about 54% 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).
The jaguar is an elusive animal that has been hunted greatly in the past for its pelt
(Weber & Rabinowitz 1996). In 1968 alone, more than 13,000 pelts were imported to the
USA (NatureServe, 2006). Today the major threats to the jaguar are illegal hunting, preydepletion, and habitat destruction and fragmentation (Silver et al., 2004, Miller &
Rabinowitz 2002). Scientists have started to focus on a range-wide approach to the
conservation of the species. In order to aid future conservation initiatives of the species a
greater understanding of jaguar population dynamics is needed (Sanderson et al. 2002).
Little is known about the population of jaguars in TNP. 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 before to study secretive carnivore species such as tiger
(Panthera tigris) populations in India (Karanth & Nichols 1998, Karanth & Nichols 2000,
Karanth et al., 2004), and jaguar populations in the Neotropics (Silver 2004, Silveret al.,
2004, Salom-Prez et al., 2007). We have adopted similar methods as used by Silveret
al., (2004) and are currently undertaking field trials.
4.2 Aims
The aim of this project is to estimate the minimum number of jaguars using the coastal
habitat inside Tortuguero National Park. This requires the identification of individual
animals. The objectives are 1) to determine the areas where jaguars are present, 2) to
8/14/2019 Phase 081 Report Final Version
30/69
30
record their hours of activity and other habits, 3) to compare jaguar activity at different
sites along the coastal forest.
4.3 Methodology
4.3.1 Study site
TNP beach is described in detail in section Error! No se encuentra el origen de la
referencia. There is a trail parallel to the beach running from mile 0 to mile 15, known
locally as Sendero Jaguar. Along the trail close to Tortuguero there are many paths that
lead to the beach, slowly becoming more dispersed the further South you travel. Tourists
use the trail between miles 0 and 6 frequently during green turtle season (June to
November). During off-season tourists and local people use the trail much less.
4.3.2 Survey techniques
Location of cameras
Camera sites were selected in the forest along the edge of the TNP beach based upon
data collected by GVI on location and number of jaguar tracks and jaguar predated
marine turtles. This data has been recorded for over two years during Jaguar Predation
on Marine Turtles surveys (see section 3).
Many factors were considered before selecting a camera site such as jaguar and human
presence, vegetation cover, trail width, and indirect sunlight. Ideally, the cameras sites
are placed no more than two miles apart, minimizing the possibility of unmonitored area
for a jaguar to pass through. When possible, cameras were placed on trails that are not
used often by humans, in order to avoid theft and photos of humans.
Setting the cameras
Two models of motion activated cameras were trialled simultaneously this phase: theMC2-GWMV Stealth Cam and DS-06 Camtrakker. The features of both cameras are
described below:
MC2-GWMV Stealth Cam
8/14/2019 Phase 081 Report Final Version
31/69
31
The Stealth Cams are motion-activated, 32mm film cameras. They have a time-out
function. This means they can be programmed to pause from one to 60 minutes between
motion detection. Determining an appropriate amount of time depends on the level of
activity in the given location. This function was set for one minute, in order to capture
as many animals as possible within a short period of time.
The cameras also have a continuous capture feature. The cameras can be programmed
to take between one and nine pictures each time motion is detected. During this stage of
the study, the cameras were set to take three photos each time motion was detected.
After setting the cameras functions, a tampon was placed inside the casing to absorb
excess moisture; the unit was then sealed with duct tape and silicone sealant.
DS-06 Camtrakker
The Camtrakkers are heat and motion-activated digital cameras. They were set on high
sensitivity and with a ten-second delay to take two pictures each time motion was
detected. The date and time of activation was automatically recorded. A silicone sachet
was placed inside the casing and cameras were secured to trees with a chain or cable.
Both types of camera were set up off the trail, in a location where a jaguar might be
expected to pass. Trapping stations of two cameras per site were used, one camera wasset on the time function and the other one on the date function. Since the purpose is to
use the animals flanks for identifications, both sides must be pictured (Silveret al., 2004,
Karanth & Nichols 2000). Cameras were secured to trees two to four meters apart, at a
height of 30-60 cm above the ground (Silveret al, 2004).
Once a location was chosen and the cameras secured, they were directed at each other
and sticks were used to adjust the angle of the camera sight to 30 to 60 cm from the
ground. After setting the cameras, a tampon or silica gel packet was placed inside the
camera case to absorb moisture. As problems of water seepage have been encountered
whilst using the Stealth Cams, silicone sealant and duct tape were used to close all
seams and prevent water from entering. A few drops of feline bait, Wildcat #2, was
placed on a log or coconut husk between the cameras in an attempt to attract any
jaguars in the area to the exact camera location.
8/14/2019 Phase 081 Report Final Version
32/69
32
Checking the cameras
The cameras were checked once every two weeks to minimise human disturbance of the
camera sites. At this time the film/memory card and/or batteries where replaced as
necessary and cameras checked for proper functioning. When several photos had beentaken (minimum of 9 non-test photos), or the cameras were non-functional, they were
removed and replaced. The film was then removed in a dark room in order to prevent
any overexposure when films did not completely rewind. All films were labelled with the
camera location, name and date. Digital photographs were saved into the database and
labelled by site location.
4.3.3 Data collection
The following information was recorded for each camera site:
Site number
Nearest northern mile marker,
GPS co-ordinates
Physical description of the site
Date of first instalment
The following information was recorded when a camera site was checked, installed orremoved:
Site number
Date
Survey team initials
Camera numbers
Number of photos taken and species recorded on each camera
Action taken with each camera i.e. checked, installed or removed Problems encountered and any other relevant information (e.g. number of test
photographs registered).
8/14/2019 Phase 081 Report Final Version
33/69
33
4.4 Results
Camera sites were distributed along the beach with varying degrees of success. In total
41 one photographs of animals were achieved, all recorded on the digital DS-06
Camtrakker model of camera trap.
SiteNumber(Linear)
NearestNorthern MileMarker Location (GPS coordinates)
GVI SiteCode
1 7 N:1029'24.3 W:832832.8 42 8.5 N:1028'15.4 W:833275.5 153 10 N:1027'09.0 W:832715.0 184 14 N:1024'04.4 W:832522.4 145 15 N:1023'38.8 W:832503.9 166 15 N:1023'24.4 W:832453.9 3
7 16.5 N:1022'41.9 W:832424.1 2
Table 4-1 Position of camera sites along study site. Parque Nacional Tortuguero, Costa Rica.
SiteDate ofinstalment
CamerasPresent Days in field
# ofrecords
129-Jan-08; 28-Feb-08
GVI01, CT01;CT04 30; 14 36
2 19-Jan-08 GVI12 & GVI02 27 03 02-Mar-08 CT03 7 14 20-Jan-08 GVI07, GVI11 21 0
5 10-Feb-08 GVI11, GVI07 14 06
03-Feb-08; 17-Feb-08 GVI03; CT02 13; 22 4
7 26-Jan-08 GVI10, GVI04 21 0
Table 4-2 Timeframe, unit(s) installed and number of records per study site. Parque Nacional
Tortuguero, Costa Rica.
Species
Presence (1) / Absence (0)
Site1
Site2
Site3
Site4
Site5
Site6
Site7
Site8
Central American agouti(Dasyprocta punctata) 1 1 0 1 0 0 1 0
Gray four-eyed opossum(Philander opossum) 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0Great curassow (Craxrubra) 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0
Nine-banded armadillo(Dasypus novemcinctus) 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0Paca (Agouti paca) 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0
8/14/2019 Phase 081 Report Final Version
34/69
34
Red brocket deer(Mazama americana) 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0Tayra (Eira barbara) 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 0
Table 4-3 Presence/absence of recorded species and there distribution across camera sites. Parque
Nacional Tortuguero, Costa Rica.
All Stealth cams were set in the field up at least once during the phase. Due to various
malfunctions, cameras were in operation for variable amounts of time (7-30 trapping
days). Problems included lack of sensitivity, malfunctioning LCD screens, water seeping
inside the casing, incorrect number of pictures being taken, low battery light flashing and
technical difficulties with winding on of the film. Due to these difficuites, some sites
where either established with, or reduced to, only one camera unit.
Of the three films developed, one was water damaged, one was over-exposed and theother had no pictures of animals on it.
4.5 Discussion
Significant progress has been made with the camera trapping project this phase.
Although no jaguars were photographed, many of the jaguars prey species were
recorded such as the paca, the agouti, the great curassow, red brocket deer and the
tayra (Seymour 1989, Carrillo et al., 1994). Jaguar prints were also consistently recorded
on the nearby beach during weekly track surveys, thus it is clear that the target capture
species are present in the area.
Much has been learnt about site selection and camera operation this phase. At Site 1
(where 36 records were obtained), there was a fruiting tree, thus a possible reason for
the high number of records. Cameras placed here were functioning for 44 trapping
nights.
At Site 6, motion was detected during the night but the data could not be analysed dueto the flash function being switched off. In addition, the camera was mistakeinly set to
take six pictures (instead of two) and installed without an external memory card (a fourth
one was unavailable). Thus, the 16MB of internal memory was filled very quickly. Falling
leaves appeared to activate the motion detectors frequently, as well as small
unidentifiable lizards.
8/14/2019 Phase 081 Report Final Version
35/69
35
In one instance it was found the batteries had lost charge after only four days in the field.
Cameras are only checked once every two weeks in order to minimize human impact on
the trapping sites locations, as such, it is vital to ensure cameras are set up correctly and
equipment is fully functioning.
The four digital cameras trialled this phase have given us the first consistent results
since the projects inception in November 2006. Next phase we shall continue to improve
the methods, building on the knowledge obtained this phase. We also intend to apply for
funding of additional digital cameras in order to have two digital cameras set per site and
bring our field trials in line with our study protocols, in anticipation of capturing our first
jaguar images.
8/14/2019 Phase 081 Report Final Version
36/69
36
5 Large Mammal Monitoring Programme
5.1 Introduction
The impact of human activities such as tourism and hunting on Neotropical wildlife has
been studied in Costa Rica (Carrillo et al., 2000) and elsewhere in the region (e.g.Cuarn 2000, Naughton-Treves et al., 2003, Novaro et al., 2000, Redford 1992, Wright
et al., 2000). These studies have examined the relationship between these human
activities and patterns of animal abundance, distribution, and habitat use and their
results have determined that there is a negative effect on wildlife due to these human
associated activities and due to other variables such as land protection status. Scientific
evidence also shows that many mammal species are sensitive to certain pressures such
as change in land cover, habitat reduction, and poaching (e.g. Fonseca & Robinson
1990, Laurence 1990, Soul et al., 1992, Bodmer et al., 1997, Chiarello 1999, 2000,Laidlaw 2000).
There is believed to be an abundant and important wildlife population in the BCWR,
however little research has been undertaken in the area to quantify this. Some of the
species known to be present in the study area fill important ecological roles and include
many endangered species as legislated by Costa Rican law. such as jaguars (Panthera
onca) and other Neotropical wildcats, tapirs (Tapirus bairdii), white-lipped peccary
(Tayassu pecari), and Central American spider monkeys (Ateles geoffroyi).
The mammal monitoring programme began preliminary studies in phase 073 (11th July
19th September 2007) and began full transect surveys on 6th December 2007 (phase
074).
5.2 Aims
The general aim is to examine the species assemblage of arboreal and terrestrial
mammals (>0.5 kg in size) inhabiting the southern extent of the BCWR between CaoPalma and Cao Penitencia.
The projects specific objectives are to 1) estimate community composition and species
richness, 2) determine relative abundance of species and monitor its trends, 3) provide
other researchers with basic data on the arboreal and terrestrial mammal assemblage of
8/14/2019 Phase 081 Report Final Version
37/69
37
Tortuguero, and 4) spread knowledge and appreciation of local wildlife diversity and
promote the social and environmental benefits of wildlife conservation efforts in the area.
5.3 Methodology
5.3.1 Study site
The transect is a 3,050 metre transect which runs east-west between Cao Penitencia
and Cao Palma. This survey site was chosen based on the suitability of the trail for
transect use as well as the trails proximity to EBCP.
The transect is marked with flagging tape, tied securely to natural landmarks, such as
trees, every 50-meter. The number of meters from the start of the transect is written on
each tape. The markers were recorded as waypoints in a GPS. Trees were also marked
with plain tape in areas that were difficult to navigate. Surveys are conducted from Cao
Penitencia (west) to Cao Palma (east) for logistical reasons.
5.3.2 Data collection
General survey data recorded on survey was as follows:
Date (DD/MM/YYYY) Survey start and end time (24 hour clock)
Name of transect Weather conditions Team members initials (beginning with the staff member)
The categories of recording were as follows:
Visual Tracks Vocalizations Scat
Upon detection, the following data was recorded:
Encounter Time (24 hour clock) Last metre marker passed Record number Method of detection (i.e. visual, track, auditory) GPS location Species common name
8/14/2019 Phase 081 Report Final Version
38/69
38
Species scientific name Track length and width, in millimetres (as well as initials of team member
measuring track) Whether or not a photograph of the track was taken (Y or N) Photo ID Initials of photographer Direction of travel and number of individuals identified Any other relevant information such as: activity, diet, elevation, stage of
development, sex, mixed species associations, vegetation
Surveyors remained on the transect line and any movement off the transect was limited
to a maximum of three metres to ensure data validity and minimize human impact.
Photographs were taken in the lower left corner of a setsquare with an ID card showing
the common name of the species and the record number. Photographs were then
numbered, and catalogued in the data folder specified for the programme.
5.4 Results
During phase 081 eight surveys were conducted with one week between surveys for a
total of 24.4 Km. The first survey took place on January 22nd 2008 and the last one on
March 10th 2008. The survey started first light, being the earliest start at 05.47am and the
latest start at 06.15am. The shortest survey took 4hrs 39min and the longest 9hrs 10min.
The total survey time was 58hrs 54min.
One preliminary survey was conducted on mile 15 on the Tortuguero National Park.
Barra del Colorado Wildlife Refuge Transect
ID Method
TotalRecordsVisual Vocalisation Visual/Vocalistion Tracks
Totals 19 4 4 34 61
Table 5-1 Number of records per ID method on Barra del Colorado Wildlife Refuge, Costa Rica.
8/14/2019 Phase 081 Report Final Version
39/69
39
Preliminary study on mile 15 in Tortuguero National Park
ID Method
TotalRecordsVisual Vocalisation Visual/Vocalistion Tracks
Totals 2 1 0 5 8
Table 5-2 Number of individuals recorded per ID method, Tortuguero National Park, Costa Rica.
5.5 Discussion
The data collected in phase 081 indicates the presence of a variety of large mammal
species within the study area
Including the data collected during this phase 081, the database now comprises of 127
records for 16 large mammal species.
The continuing challenge of the programme has again proved to be the condition of the
transect. During the surveys conducted many other tracks were encountered that could
not be positively identified due to flooding and poor ground conditions and those
identified in the field are difficult to verify from photographs at a later date.
During this phase, in addition to surveying the original transect, there has been interest
from MINAE in establishing a new transect within Tortuguero National Park. The first
preliminary study indicated the presence of a variety of large mammals in the area. The
expansion of the research has potential to establish a long-term national partner for the
programme and a comparison of species diversity and density between TNP and
BCWR.
8/14/2019 Phase 081 Report Final Version
40/69
40
6 Canal Bird Monitoring Programme
6.1 Introduction
Growing concerns about the status of birds in the rainforests of Central America has lead
to the establishment of long-term monitoring programmes and has in part lead to theinitiation of this study. The Estacin Biolgica Cao Palma (EBCP) Canal Bird
Monitoring Programme aims to quantify diversity and abundance of the species which
live and breed in the area of Caribbean Lowland Rainforest around EBCP, 7 km North of
Tortuguero National Park.
The nature of Costa Ricas bird life has meant that it has been a popular location to
study behaviour and diversity for many years. Much of this focus has been directed
towards migratory birds and the information on resident species is still in need ofconsiderable research.
The aquatic environment is of major importance to the tourism and ecology of the
tortuguero area. This habitat is being increasingly utilized and it is expected that this use
will, in time, have an impact on the avian population it supports.
The, EBCP Resident Bird Project monitoring survey began in July of 2005 and has been
developed into the current incarnation which is an ongoing project. Further collection of
data is important in order to establish reliable population trends for local bird species.
The GVI protocol is modified from the original protocol created by Steven Furino of
Waterloo University Canada. The modifications have been made to the protocol so that
data collectors with minimal field experience are able to collect high quality data suitable
for the study. This has involved reducing the number of species and study areas as well
as limiting the amount of technical data collected on species. In all other aspects the
research follows the original protocol.
6.2 Aims
This research programme is intended to accumulate data that will help researchers
examine long-term changes in specific bird population. The specific aims of the project
are 1) to identify study species use of the study areas, 2) monitor long-term changes in
8/14/2019 Phase 081 Report Final Version
41/69
41
use of these areas, and 3) to aid in the collection of both resident and migratory avian
population data sets for wider public use.
6.3 Methodology
The study species were selecting based on two characteristics. Firstly, they occupy a
range of habitat within the aquatic environment, thus act as an indicator of disturbance.
Secondly, the study species are all relatively easily visualised and identified making
them ideal species for studies using low experience data collectors.
6.3.1 Study site
Within each area, sectors have been selected to aid with data collection and analysis.
These sectors have been selected to include a broad variation of habitats within thestudy areas.
6.3.2 Data collection
The method of survey used in the study is an area search, which records all positively
identified study species seen or heard whilst searching a predetermined area. See
appendix A for exact locations of each sector.
For each survey the following general data was recorded:
Name of study site
Name of primary surveyor
Date of survey
Start time (using a 24 hour clock)
End time (using a 24 hour clock)
8/14/2019 Phase 081 Report Final Version
42/69
42
The study species targeted for data collection were as follows:
Common name Scientific name
Agami heron Agamia agami
Amazon kingfisher Chloroceryle amazona
American pygmy kingfisher Chloroceryle aenea
Anhinga Anhinga anhinga
Bare-throated tiger-heron Tigrisoma mexicanum
Belted kingfisher Ceryle alcyon
Boat-billed heron Cochlearius cochlearius
Cattle egret Bubulcus ibis
Great blue heron Ardea herodias
Great rgret Casmerodius albus
Green heron Butorides s. virescensGreen ibis Mesembrinibis cayennensis
Green kingfisher Chloroceryle americana
Green-and-rufous kingfisher Chloroceryle inda
Gray-necked wood-rail Aramides cajanea
Least bittern Ixobrychus exilis
Limpkin Aramus guarauna
Little blue heron Egretta caerulea
Neotropical cormorant Phalacrocorax olivaceus
Northern jacana Jacana spinosa
Purple gallinule Porphyrula martinica
Reddish egret Egretta rufescens
Ringed kingfisher Ceryle torquata
Rufescent tiger-heron Tigrisoma lineatum
Snowy rgret Egretta thula
Sunbittern Eurypyga helias
Sungrebe Heliornis fulica
Tricoloured heron Egretta tricolour
White-throated crake Laterallus albigularis
Yellow-crowned night heron Nyctanassa violacea
Table 6-1 Canal bird monitoring program study species
8/14/2019 Phase 081 Report Final Version
43/69
43
For each ea search only positively identified species were recorded. For each positive
record made the following data was collected:
Sector code at which species was observed
Number seen or heard (S: seen only, H: heard only, SH: seen and heard) Any comments e.g. breeding plumage or behaviour
6.4 Results
During phase 081 a total of 27 surveys were undertaken, nine on each of the study sites.
With the exception of one dusk Cao Palma survey, all were conducted at dawn.
Data collected on the aquatic trails entrance to Caos Chiquero and Harold has been
listed separately due to habitat differences. The waterway is much wider and contains agreater amount of grasses and floating vegetation in comparison to the Caos
themselves, so would be expected to yield different species. Twenty-three species were
recorded on the four study sites, see Figure 6-1 for a summary of the number of species
seen for each study area.
Figure 6-1 Total number of species on Cao Chiquero, Cao Harold and Cao Palma, Tortuguero,
Costa Rica.
0
5
10
15
20
25
Cao Chiquero Cao Harold Cao Palma
8/14/2019 Phase 081 Report Final Version
44/69
44
The number of each study species recorded during surveys on Cao Chiquero, Cao
Harold, the aquatic trails entrance and Cao Palma are illustrated in figures 6-2, 6-3,6-4
and 6-5 respectively.
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
Bare-thr
oated
Tiger-H
eron
GreenH
eron
GreenKingfishe
r
Little
Blue
Hero
n
Sungreb
e
GreenIbis
Green-a
nd-rufou
sKingfishe
r
SnowyE
gret
Amazon
King
fishe
r
AmericanP
ygmy
King
fishe
r
Anhin
ga
Ringed
King
fishe
r
Grey-necked
Wood-R
ail
Rufes
centTig
er-he
ron
Species
P
ercentageofSurveysObserved
Figure 6-2 Study species recorded per survey on Cao Chiquero aquatic trail. Tortuguero National
Park, Costa Rica.
Fourteen different study species were identified on Cao Chiquero aquatic trail surveys.
The two most frequently observed species were the bare-throated tiger-heron and green
heron. The green kingfisher was recorded on 78% of surveys, and the little blue heron
and sungrebe on 67%.
8/14/2019 Phase 081 Report Final Version
45/69
45
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
GreenH
eron
GreenKing
fisher
Green-and-rufousKing
fisher
Little
Blue
Heron
Bare-throated
Tige
r-Heron
AmericanPygmyKing
fisher
Boat-billedH
eron
Ringed
King
fisher
SnowyEgret
Sungrebe
Amazon
King
fisherAnhin
ga
Yellow-crowned
Nigh
t-Heron
AgamiH
eron
GreatEgret
GreenIbis
Grey-neckedW
ood-Rail
beltedking
fisher
NorthernJacana
Rufescent
Tiger-Heron
Sunbittern
Species
PercentageofSurveysObserved
Figure 6-3 Study species recorded per survey on Cao Harold aquatic trail. Tortuguero National
Park, Costa Rica.
Twenty-one different study species were identified on Cao Harold aquatic trail surveys.The most frequently observed species (identified on 100% of surveys), were the green
heron, green kingfisher, green-and-rufous kingfisher, and little blue heron. The bare-
throated tiger-heron was recorded on 89% of surveys and the American pygmy
kingfisher was seen on 67% of surveys
8/14/2019 Phase 081 Report Final Version
46/69
46
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
Little
BlueHeron
Snowy
Egre
t
Green
Hero
n
Bare-
throated
Tiger-H
eron
Gree
nIbis
GreatE
gret
Anhin
ga
NorthernJ
acana
Belte
dKing
fishe
r
Amazon
King
fishe
r
Ringed
Kingfisher
Gree
n-and
-rufou
sKingfisher
Sungrebe
GreenKing
fishe
r
Yello
w-cro
wned
Night-Heron
Cattle
Egret
Gray
-necked
Wood
-Rail
Tricolored
Heron
Species
PercentageofSurveysObse
rve
Figure 6-4 Study species recorded per survey on the aquatic trails (AQT) entrance
Eighteen different study species were identified on the aquatic trails preceding the
Caos. The most commonly sighted species were the little blue heron and snowy egrets,
observed on 100% of surveys, along with the green heron, observed on 89% of surveysand the bare-throated tiger-heron and green ibis, recorded for 83% of surveys.
8/14/2019 Phase 081 Report Final Version
47/69
47
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
Green
Kingfisher
Yellow-
crowned
Night-
Heron
Anhinga Green
Heron
Green Ibis Ringed
Kingfisher
American
Pygmy
Kingfisher
Amazon
Kingfisher
Bare-
throated
Tiger-
Heron
Grey-
necked
Wood-Rail
Great
Egret
Green-
and-rufous
Kingfisher
Species
PercentageofSurveysObser
ved
Figure 6-5 Study species recorded per survey on Cao Palma, Barra del Colorado Wildlife Refuge,
Costa Rica.
Twelve different study species were identified on Cao Palma during aquatic trail
surveys. The most frequently sighted species were the green kingfisher and yellow-
crowned night heron observed on 100% of surveys, followed by the anhinga and green
heron observed on 89% of surveys and the green ibis and ringed kingfisher seen on
78% of surveys.
6.5 Discussion
Of all the areas surveyed only Cao Harold and the aquatic trails had species exclusive
to them as the tricolored heron was only sighted on the AQTs and the agami heron and
the sunbittern were only sighted on Cao Harold. Furthermore, Cao Harold was thearea with the most uncommon/rare species (see Widdowson and Widdowson 2004) with
four, followed by Cao Chiquero and the AQTs with two and Cao Palma with one.
The data collected to date highlights the previous derth of informations pertaining to the
classification of certain species in the area One such species is the green ibis, which
8/14/2019 Phase 081 Report Final Version
48/69
48
despite being classified in Widdowson and Widdowson (2004) as rare, was consistently
recorded on all study area over the phase. The occurrence of this species will be
reassessed in detail next phase to see whether the species abundance has changed
since the Widdowson list was created in 2004 and whether its status in the area should
be reclassified. For the following phases, it would be an interesting development to theprogramme to compare species abundancies recorded with those classifications
available for the area.
Further uses of the current data collection include investigating anthropogenic
disturbance of the area by using the current study species as indicators.
Determination of the extent to which ecological systems are experiencing anthropogenic
disturbance and change in structure and function is critical for the long-term conservation
of biotic diversity in the face of changing landscapes and land use (Canterbury et al.,
2000). This baseline study focused on counts of individual species within the specific
Caos of the National Park and reserve in order to give an indication of the key species
compositions found there.
It has been argued that continuous or frequent high intensity activities such as the use of
motorized power boats constantly throughout the day cause more disturbance than
continuous low intensity disturbance. It has also been said that in general birds appear
to habituate to continual noises so long as there is no large amplitude startling
component (Hocken et al., 1992; cited in Hill 1997). Another suggestion by Hill et al,
states that most water based recreation generates medium intensity, continuous or high
intensity infrequent disturbance. It is thus believed that medium disturbance may cause a
site to become unattractive to the more susceptible species whilst the latter could result
in displacement of the birds for short periods.
Data collected on individual study sites could be used over time to assess how certain
populations are changing, if at all, and how they use the specific habitat over the courseof a year.
The surveys undertaken during phase 081 have assisted in increasing the overall data
set. Whilst the findings from this phase do not highlight any unexpected or unusual
patterns in the local bird populations they have helped identify areas where continued
8/14/2019 Phase 081 Report Final Version
49/69
49
improvement to the methodology is required in order to gain the most useful and
accurate data.
8/14/2019 Phase 081 Report Final Version
50/69
50
7 Incidental Species Study
7.1 Introduction
The EBCP Incidental Species Study was initiated during phase 071 (January March
2007). The project has gone through various changes over the phases in order tosimplify the data collection methods and ensure each species is positively identified and
accurately recorded. By keeping a daily record of the occurrence of species found
around base, we can determine which species are seen most frequently and determine if
there any changes in the frequency of sightings of certain species over time. This is
important to determine if the presence of people around base for the majority of the year
is having an effect on the wildlife present.
7.2 Aims
The aim of the study is to maintain a formal, accurate record of the daily occurrences of
birds, mammals, reptiles and amphibians sighted within the property boundaries of the
station.
7.3 Methodology
7.3.1 Data collection
Laminated,