Phase 7 071 Science Report Final

8/14/2019 Phase 7 071 Science Report Final

1/48

GVI Costa Rica

Coastal Rainforest and Wildlife Expedition

Phase Report 071

11th January 21st March 2007


2/48

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 - Expedition ManagerJulie Jackson - Expedition StaffLuke Hicks - Expedition Staff

Brianne Smith - Expedition Staff

And

Edited byBritt Larsen - Regional Director

GVI Costa Rica Coastal Rainforest and Wildlife Expedition

Address: Estacin Biolgica Cao Palma, Tortuguero, Costa RicaTel: (+506) 709 8052

Email: [email protected]

Web page: http://www.gvi.co.uk

Tiffanie Katharine Rainville Expedition Member Soumya Sowani Expedition Member

Mary Davies Expedition Member David Marsh Expedition Member

Kelvin Lofthouse Expedition Member Ashley Sims Expedition Member

Matthew Conway Expedition Member Mary McDougal Expedition Member

Alex Woodcraft Expedition Member Caitlin McCormack Expedition MemberIan James Expedition Member Elise Walker Expedition Member

Alice Greenland Expedition Member Joanna Higson Expedition Member


3/48

3

Executive Summary

The seventh 10-week phase, phase 071, 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 071:

Jaguar Predation on Marine Turtles. In collaboration with the Costa Rica Ministry of

Environment and Energy (MINAE).

Camera Trapping in Tortuguero National Park (TNP). In collaboration with MINAE. Marine Turtle Monitoring Programme. In collaboration with the Canadian

Organization for Tropical Education and Rainforest Conservation (COTERC), MINAE

and the Caribbean Conservation Corporation (CCC)

EBCP Resident Bird Project. In collaboration with Steven Furino, Waterloo

University, Canada

Tourist Impact Assessment on Cao Palma canal.

Local Reforestation Project. In collaboration with COTERC

EBCP Incidental species recording English Language Lessons. In collaboration with the San Francisco community and

Tortuguero Canopy Tours


4/48

4

Table of Contents

Executive Summary ........................................................................................................ 31 Introduction .............................................................................................................. 72 Jaguar Predation on Marine Turtles ......................................................................... 8

2.1 Introduction ...................................................................................................... 82.2 Aim .................................................................................................................. 92.3 Methodology .................................................................................................... 92.4 Results ........................................................................................................... 102.5 Discussion ..................................................................................................... 12

3 Camera Trapping ................................................................................................... 133.1 Introduction .................................................................................................... 133.2 Aim ................................................................................................................ 143.3 Methodology .................................................................................................. 14

3.3.1 Study Site ............................................................................................... 143.3.2 Location of cameras ............................................................................... 143.3.3 Setting the Cameras .............................................................................. 153.3.4 Checking the Cameras ........................................................................... 153.3.5 Data Entering and Analysis .................................................................... 16

3.4 Results ........................................................................................................... 163.5 Discussion ..................................................................................................... 17

4 Sea Turtle Monitoring Programme ......................................................................... 174.1 Introduction .................................................................................................... 174.2 Aim ................................................................................................................ 184.3 Methodology .................................................................................................. 18

4.3.1 Study site ............................................................................................... 184.3.2 Preparations ........................................................................................... 194.3.3 Daily track census and nest surveys ...................................................... 204.3.4 Night Surveys ......................................................................................... 204.3.5 Nest Fate, Nest Survivorship and Hatching Success .............................. 224.3.6 Disguising Nests .................................................................................... 234.3.7 Collection of Human Impact Data ........................................................... 23


5 EBCP Resident Bird Project .................................................................................. 245.1 Introduction .................................................................................................... 245.2 Aim ................................................................................................................ 255.3 Method ........................................................................................................... 25

5.3.1 Area Searches ....................................................................................... 255.3.2 Incidental Observations .......................................................................... 26

5.4 Results ........................................................................................................... 265.4.1 Survey Data ........................................................................................... 265.4.2 Incidental Observations .......................................................................... 29

5.5 Discussion ..................................................................................................... 296 Tourist Impact Survey Cao Palma ....................................................................... 30

6.1 Introduction .................................................................................................... 306.2 Aims .............................................................................................................. 316.3 Methodology .................................................................................................. 316.4 Results ........................................................................................................... 316.5 Discussion ..................................................................................................... 31


5/48

5

7 Reforestation ......................................................................................................... 327.1 Introduction .................................................................................................... 327.2 Aim ................................................................................................................ 327.3 Methodology .................................................................................................. 33

7.3.1 Seed Collection ...................................................................................... 337.3.2 Sapling Collection .................................................................................. 337.3.3 Bagging Seeds and Saplings ................................................................. 337.3.4 Replanting .............................................................................................. 34


8 Incidentals ............................................................................................................. 358.1 EBCP Incidentals ........................................................................................... 35

8.1.1 Introduction ............................................................................................ 358.1.2 Aims ....................................................................................................... 358.1.3 Methodology .......................................................................................... 358.1.4 Results ................................................................................................... 36

8.2 Primates ........................................................................................................ 368.2.1 Introduction ............................................................................................ 368.2.2 Aims ....................................................................................................... 378.2.3 Methodology .......................................................................................... 378.2.4 Results ................................................................................................... 38

8.3 Discussion ..................................................................................................... 389 Teaching Community Report ................................................................................. 39

9.1 Introduction .................................................................................................... 399.2 Aims .............................................................................................................. 399.3 Methods ......................................................................................................... 40

9.3.1 Training .................................................................................................. 409.3.2 Teaching ................................................................................................ 409.3.3 Results ................................................................................................... 41

9.4 Discussion ..................................................................................................... 4110 References ............................................................................................................ 4311 Appendices ............................................................................................................ 46

Appendix A ................................................................................................................ 46Appendix B ................................................................................................................ 47


6/48

6

Figures

Figure 2-1 Beach distribution of jaguar tracks and turtle tracks along the 14.5 miles in

Tortuguero National Park. Survey Period: 19 Jan17 Mar, 2007. ................................ 11Figure 5-1 Total number of species and surveys on aquatic trails, Cao Chiquero, Cao

Harold and Cao Palma. ............................................................................................... 27Figure 5-2 Number of key species recorded during surveys of Cao Chiquero aquatic

trail ................................................................................................................................ 28Figure 5-3 Number of key species recorded during surveys of Cao Harold aquatic trail

...................................................................................................................................... 28


7/48

7

1 Introduction

The Coastal Rainforest and Wildlife Conservation Expedition at the Cao Palma

Biological Station in Tortuguero, Costa Rica has now completed its seventh phase

(seven x 10 weeks).

The expedition to date has assisted in collecting a substantial amount of scientific data.

Although this data is already helping to identify potential future research areas and

providing important data to the national and international scientific community it is still at

the preliminary stage. Methodologies continue to be improved and focused as

experience is gained and improvement to data quality is continuous. A full Annual Report

for 2007 (to be initiated in January 2008) will collate and summarize all data and enable

more descriptive and accurate analysis.


8/48

8

2 Jaguar Predation on Marine Turtles

2.1 Introduction

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

hemisphere for green turtles (Chelonia mydas mydas). In addition to the green turtle, asignificant number of leatherback turtles (Dermochelys coriacea), occasional hawksbill

(Eretmochelys imbricata), and loggerhead (Caretta caretta)turtles nest in TNP(Trong,

2000). The nesting turtle population has been monitored on the parks beach since the

1950s and continues to be monitored today by the Caribbean Conservation Corporation

(CCC).

Information on jaguar (Panthera onca) predation of marine turtles is sparse, but has

been recorded sporadically in many areas of the world. About 82 green turtles wereidentified as being predated by jaguars in Suriname from 1963-1973. On the same

beach in 1980, one individual 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 mydas agassizii), and hawksbills.

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

were only two green turtles recorded as 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 turtle carcasses left by jaguars

began in 1997 as part of the Caribbean Conservation Corporations (CCC) turtle

monitoring programme. The CCC found four dead green turtles killed by jaguars in 1997.

Only fresh kills were recorded in two following years since the carcasses werent

marked, therefore a risk of counting the same kill twice. In 1998, 25 dead green turtles

were found and in 1999, 22 green turtles and two leatherback turtles were found

(Trong, 2000).

In 2002 the Costa Rican Ministry of Environment and Energy (MINAE) began a study on

the predation of marine turtles by jaguars recording all kills (new and old). They found 60

turtle carcasses in 2002 and 65 in 2003 (Magally Castro, pers. comm.). This predation

upon turtles by jaguars is not a new phenomenon but clearly seems to have been

increasing in the past 10 years within TNP (Trong, 2000; Magally Castro, pers. comm.).


9/48

9

Due to a lack of human resources, MINAE invited Global Vision International (GVI) to

continue data collection on jaguar presence and predation of marine turtles in TNP. Data

collection has been conducted by GVI since 11th July 2005. The study has found that

jaguars killed 60 turtles from July to December 2005 and 131 turtles in all of 2006. This

data, in addition to the data previously collected by MINAE, can be used to develop amore comprehensive understanding of jaguar impact on the marine turtle population of

TNP, potentially aiding in management and conservation decisions.

2.2 Aim

This project aims to document the presence of jaguars on the beach of Tortuguero

National Park and their level of predation of nesting marine turtles.

2.3 Methodology

Surveys were conducted over the 14.5 mile stretch of beach from the entrance of

Tortuguero National Park (mile 3.5) to Jalova lagoon (mile 18). At least four researchers

conducted the survey once or twice per week depending on conditions, starting from

either Tortuguero or Jalova at dawn. General data such as date, name of researchers,

and start time was noted at the beginning of the survey. Sand condition, general

weather data, and beach size was recorded every four miles (at mile 4, 8, 12, and 16).

During the survey, researchers counted the total number of fresh (one to two nights old)

turtle tracks on the beach, including both half moons (i.e. not nested) and full tracks (i.e.

nested). It should be noted that during the peak of the green turtle season these

numbers may contain some error due to the high numbers of turtle tracks present on the

beach.

When fresh jaguar tracks were encountered, the direction of the track (north or south)

and location (distance from northern mile marker and GPS coordinates) were recorded.

The track was followed until it ended (went into the vegetation or was washed away by

the tide) and the mile marker and GPS coordinates were recorded again. The

researchers also noted whether the tracks were simply lost or if there was a clear

entrance or exit point to or from the beach. Both daily and seasonal weather conditions,

such as intense and prolonged rain, severe sun exposure, high winds, variable tidal

movement and very dry sand influence the visibility of jaguar prints, therefore affecting


10/48

10

the data collected. In order to minimize this effect, jaguar surveys were undertaken

during and after periods of optimal weather conditions when possible.

Data was also collected on turtle carcasses that showed signs of jaguar predation. Data

collected includes turtle ID number (assigned at time of encounter), location (distancefrom northern mile marker and GPS coordinates), species, estimated point of attack,

estimated number of nights since kill (determined by signs of decay), parts of turtle

eaten, location of carcass relative to the vegetation, curved carapace length (CCL) and

curved carapace width (CCW), whether the turtle is on its plastron or carapace, and any

other comments/observations. A photograph was taken a few meters from each turtle,

including any vegetation in the background to distinguish its position. Photographs of

anything else relevant to the survey were also taken, such as signs of jaguar presence

(scratching posts, tracks, etc).

2.4 Results

A total of nine surveys were conducted between 19th January and 17th March, 2007

(Phase 071). The average duration of the survey was 8 hours and 12 minutes. The

longest survey was completed in 9 hours and 20 minutes and the shortest in 4 hours and

53 minutes. A total of 70 surveys have been conducted by GVI since 11 th July 2005.

No turtle carcasses showing signs of predation were observed during phase 071. Thenumber of sets of jaguar tracks found was 64 and a total of 41 turtle tracks were

recorded. This included 13 green tracks and 28 leatherback tracks. Figure 2-1 shows the

location of turtle tracks and jaguar tracks per half mile of the beach.


11/48

11

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

18

20

4 4.5 5 5.5 6 6.5 7 7.5 8 8.5 9 9.5 10 10.5 11 11.5 12 12.5 13 13.5 14 14.5 15 15.5 16 16.5 17 17.5 18

Mile

# Jag tracks

# Turtle tracks(leatherback and greenhalf moon and nests)

Figure 2-1 Beach distribution of jaguar tracks and turtle tracks along the 14.5 miles in Tortuguero

National Park. Survey Period: 19 Jan17 Mar, 2007.

During phase 071, no turtle carcasses were observed. All jaguar tracks were found

between miles 3.5 and 18. The highest concentration of tracks was found between

miles and 8 and 8.5, and between miles 10.5 and 12.

Beach conditions during this phase were fairly good in the mornings, with damp compact

sand, making jaguar track easy to identify. By late morning, the sand usually became dry

and jaguar tracks were difficult to follow.

A high level of jaguar activity was recorded on TNP beach during phase 071. Oftentimes

during the survey, there were areas of high activity in which the entire width of the

beach was covered with tracks. One jaguar was seen on 27th January this phase near

mile 15 while a camera was being placed for a separate GVI project. On 24 th February

jaguar prints were seen on the trail perpendicular to the beach at mile 15.

Phase 071 included the beginning of the leatherback season. The first turtle tracks were

seen on 9th February when both leatherback and green turtle tracks were observed.


12/48

12

2.5 Discussion

During phase 071 there was a consistently high level of jaguar activity, regardless of the

presence of turtle tracks. This suggests that the beach may be part of the jaguar range

both in and out of marine turtle nesting seasons. There were very few turtle tracks on thebeach during phase 071. Therefore, it is unlikely that a jaguar had yet encountered a

nesting turtle. As numbers of nesting turtles increases throughout the season, higher

numbers of jaguar predated turtle carcasses are expected.

The only animals that are known to kill adult sea turtles are sharks, killer whales, and

jaguars (Hirth, 1997; Oritz et al., 1997). Therefore, any green carcasses that show no

sign of being poached were presumed to have been killed by a jaguar as the other

animals are not able to kill on the beach within the study sight. Previously collected data

in TNP has shown that jaguars consume only a small percentage of the turtle meat

(Trong, 2000). In most cases of jaguar predated marine turtles, only the neck has been

consumed. Video footage obtained by TNP rangers confirms this behaviour.

There are several hypotheses to explain why jaguars kill turtles and then eat only a small

amount. One is that turtles may be used as a training tool for young jaguars, as they are

easy to approach and kill (Schaller, 1972; Eduardo Carrillo, pers. comm.). It is also

possible that jaguars exert such a small amount of energy killing turtles that not much

meat is required to replace the total energy expenditure of the kill (Magally Castro, pers.

comm.; Eduardo Carrillo,pers. comm.).

There were many other potential jaguar prey or tracks of prey seen on the beach and/or

in the bordering forest during the surveys. Other potential prey include white-nosed coati

(Nasua narica), black river turtle (Rhinoclemmys funerea), spider monkeys (Ateles

geoffroyi), white-faced capuchins (Cebus capucinus), mantled howler monkeys

(Alloutata palliata), green iguanas (Iguana iguana), great curassows (Crax rubra), agouti

( Agouti paca), white-lipped peccary (Tayassu pecari) and tayra (Eira barbara).Therefore, jaguars may be on the beach in search of any prey species and not

exclusively turtles.

Although more consistent collection of data is needed in the following years, the number

of marine turtles being killed in TNP by jaguars appears to be increasing. It is possible


13/48

13

that human encroachment in the areas surrounding the park has caused the jaguar

population to become more concentrated in the area, thus causing an increase in turtle

carcasses. It is also possible that poaching of typical jaguar prey has caused a necessity

for the jaguars to search for other prey, and marine turtles are plentiful during the height

of the season. Further research on this topic is needed before any conclusions can bemade.

3 Camera Trapping

3.1 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 spans from the southwestern United

States of America to northern Argentina (Seymour, 1989). However, the current range is

less than 50% what it was in 1900 (Sanderson et al., 2002). The jaguar is an elusive

animal that has been hunted greatly in the past for its pelt. In 1968 alone, more than

13,000 pelts were imported to the United States (NatureServe, 2006). The demand for

jaguar pelts has since declined but there are still many clashes between the animal and

humans.

Jaguars will occasionally kill farm animals, and are hunted by farm owners when they

are considered a problem (Nevarro-Serment et al., 2005). Today the major threats to the

jaguar are illegal hunting, prey depletion, and habitat destruction and fragmentation

(Silver et al., 2004). Jaguars depend upon a variety of ecosystems and need a wide

home-range. Scientists have now started to focus on a range-wide approach to the

conservation of the species. However, 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 six to eight

individuals currently using the beach. GVI has initiated the use of cameras to identify the

presence and habits of jaguars in TNP. In the future, the information could potentially be

used for a population study by identifying individuals and using mark/recapture models.


14/48

14

Cameras have been used before in this way to study tiger (Panthera tigris) populations

in India (Karanth, 1995; Karanth & Nichols, 1998, 2000a & 2002) and jaguar populations

in Central and South America (Silver et al., 2004). We have adopted similar methods as

used by Silver and are currently undertaking field trials.

3.2 Aim

The aim of this project is to estimate the number of jaguars using the coastal habitat

inside Tortuguero National Park. This requires the identification of individual animals. In

order to achieve this aim the objectives are 1) to determine the areas where jaguars are

present, 2) to record their hours of activity and habits, 3) to compare jaguar activity at

different sites along the beach.

3.3 Methodology

3.3.1 Study Site

The beach of TNP is 18 miles long with posts marking every half-mile (the half miles are

marked as 4/8). Tortuguero Village is located at about mile three (the north end of the

beach) and Jalova is located at mile 18 (the south end of the beach). There is a trail

parallel to the beach running from mile zero to mile 14 4/8. Along the trail there are many

paths that lead to the beach close to town, but these become fewer further south.

Tourists use the trail between mile zero and six frequently during green turtle season(June to November). During off-season tourists and local people use the trail much less.

3.3.2 Location of cameras

Cameras were placed in the forest along the edge of the TNP beach. GVI has recorded

data on jaguar presence on the TNP beach for over a year during jaguar predation

surveys (see section 2 above). Based on these surveys, the areas of high activity and

known entrance and exit points of jaguars (observed during jaguar predation surveys)

were used to assist in selection of camera sites. 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 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.


15/48

15

3.3.3 Setting the Cameras

The cameras used were motion-activated Stealth Cam Model MC2-GWMV. During this

phase we started working with trapping stations (two cameras per station). When he

purpose is to use the animals flanks for identifications, both sides must be pictured(Karanth & Nichols 2000b).

One camera was set on the time and the other one on the date stamp function. The

cameras were set one meter off the trail where a jaguar is expected to pass and 30-60

cm above the ground as recommended in Silver et al. (2004).

The Stealth Cams have a time-out function. This means they can be programmed to

pause for 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.

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.

Once a location was chosen, the camera was secured to a tree or a post using a strap.

After setting the cameras, a tampon or silica gel packet was placed inside the camera

case to absorb moisture. The edges of the camera were then sealed with silicone gel.

Finally, a few drops of a feline odour bait called Wildcat #2, was placed on a log between

the cameras to attempt to attract any jaguars in the area to the exact camera location.

3.3.4 Checking the Cameras

The cameras were checked at least once a week to change the film if necessary and

ensure they were still functioning correctly. Depending on the activity level, the duration

between inspections varied and the research team kept track of how many nights hadpassed between checks.

When films were almost finished, the cameras were removed and replaced. The film was

then removed in a dark room in order to prevent any overexposure due to problems with


16/48

16

film not rewinding completely. The film was labelled with the camera location, name and

date.

3.3.5 Data Entering and Analysis

The following data was recorded for each camera station: Site Number, Mile, GPS, Date,

Time, and Camera Numbers.

The following data was recorded when a camera site was checked: Site Number, Date,

Camera Numbers, Number of photos on each camera, plus any relevant task performed

(for example replacing a nonfunctioning camera).

3.4 Results

During phase 071 cameras were set up at three sites. Three rolls of film were developed.

One roll of film contained three pictures of an ocelot (Leopardus pardalis) while the

others contained no pictures of animals.

Site 001 was located 420m before mile 14 4/8. Two cameras were placed there on 19 th

January 19th January and taken down on 14th February. Two cameras were put up again

on 24th February and replaced by two better functioning cameras on 2nd March. These

two cameras were taken down on 17th March.

Site 002 was located 192m after mile 16. Two cameras were put up on 26th January and

taken down on 24th February.

Site 003 was located 226m after mile 15. Two cameras were put up on 26 th January and

taken down and replaced on 24th February and again on 2nd March. They were finally

taken down on 17th March. Film from this site contained three pictures of an ocelot.

In all three sites many problems arose with the cameras. Problems included the film not

winding on, the cameras turning off, the cameras showing error and the motion sensors

not activating.


17/48

17

3.5 Discussion

Phase 071 included the first photos of mammals (the ocelot) that have been taken in this

project. It is a positive indication that there are felines in the area. It is hoped that if this

individual is captured on film again that we will be able to identify it. Jaguars may be lesscommon or more wary than ocelots and therefore may need more camera trapping

nights in order to catch them on film.

There were many photos taken without any animals in them. It is possible that vegetation

moving with the wind could have set them off. Another possibility is that an animal did

pass by the cameras but the cameras were too slow to take the photos and the animal

had already passed when the photo was finally taken.

Much has been learned about the site selection and the operation of the cameras. The

project will continue to be developed and methods revised according to data collected.

4 Sea Turtle Monitoring Programme

4.1 Introduction

Over the past 20 years there has been a large decline in both leatherback turtle

(Dermochelys coriacea) (Trong et al. 2004) and green turtle (Chelonia mydas)

populations (Trong & Ranking, 2005) due to illegal harvesting of meat and eggs,

fishing, contamination, and habitat alteration. Due to these pressures leatherback turtles

are classified as critically endangered and green turtles as endangered on the IUCN Red

List (IUCN, 2003). The town of Tortuguero, situated just north of the Tortuguero National

Park (TNP), has a long history of both using and protecting marine turtles.

Tortuguero National Park (TNP) was established in 1975 with the main purpose of

protecting sea turtles and nearby areas of humid lowland forest and beach (A. Castro,

pers. comm.) While its protection is contributing to the stability of sea turtle populations,

the high level of poaching on the surrounding beaches, including North Beach (located

just north of Laguna Tortuguero) is still a problem (J. Daigle,pers. comm.). In response

to this, the Canadian Organization for Tropical Education and Rainforest Conservation

(COTERC) started a five-year feasibility study in 2004. The aim of the study was to


18/48

18

determine nesting populations and poaching rates of green, leatherback, hawksbill and

loggerhead turtles on North Beach.

In July 2005 GVI joined COTERC in data collection and analysis of the unprotected

North Beach turtle population. GVI and COTERC share data with the CCC (CaribbeanConservation Corporation) in order to gain more knowledge about tagged turtles and to

compare poaching rates with turtles nesting on the protected National Park beaches.

4.2 Aim

The aim of the project is to assist in the long term conservation of marine turtles in the

area of North Beach by 1) gathering selected biometric data on nesting marine turtles, 2)

recording the spatial and seasonal distribution of nesting females, 3) keeping track of the

number of nesting emergences, 4) determining the level of illegal poaching on turtles

and their nests, 5) recording survival of the nests and hatchling success rates, 6)

monitoring the apparent physical health of nesting females, 7) tracking re-emergences to

the nesting beach or migration between beaches, and 8) registering tourist and human

development around the nesting sites.

4.3 Methodology

The methodology used for the marine turtle monitoring programme follows the COTERC

and GVI protocol which is adapted from the CCC. This methodology was used for all of

phase 071 (11 Jan to 21 March) and will be used for all of 2007 nesting season. For

further, more specific methodologies please refer to the 2007 Marine Turtle Monitoring

Programme Night and Day Protocols.

4.3.1 Study site

The North Beach, which encompasses the study area, is 3 1/8 miles long (approximately

five kilometers), and extends from the Tortuguero River mouth (103636,9N -833152,1W) at the southernmost point until Laguna Cuatro (103756,3N

833225,7W) in the north. Although this beach is not located within the TNP

boundaries, it is situated within the Barra del Colorado Wildlife Refuge, which, like the

TNP, is managed by ACTo (Area de Conservacin Tortuguero) under MINAE the

Costa Rica Ministry of Environment and Energy.


19/48

19

The limits of the study area are Mile 0 at the Tortuguero River mouth and Mile 3 1/8 just

north of Laguna Cuatro. The entire study area is divided and marked with mile markers

at each 1/8 of a mile (200 meters). The mile markers run in ascending order to allow for

the documentation of spatial distribution from south to north and density of nests along

the beach.

The nearest village to the study site is San Francisco, situated south of mile 0, a

constantly growing community of about 275 residents. Two hotels, Cabinas Vista al Mar

and Turtle Beach Lodge, and a few ranchos and houses are located along the study

beach. On the southern side of the Tortuguero River mouth is Tortuguero beach which

the CCC monitors from mile 0 (N103551 W833140) to mile 18 (N102146

W832341) at Jalova lagoon.

The sand of the study beach is black and fine, typical for a high energy-beach. The width

of the nesting beach platform (berm) varies from two to 38 meters, but the configuration

of the shape and size of the berm changes constantly in response to long shore drift and

exposure levels.

The dominant plants on the nesting beach are members of the morning glory family

(Ipomoea pescaprae), 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.

The beach is littered with a variety of debris including logs, coconut husks and a large

amount of trash such as plastic and glass bottles, old shoes, rope, plastic bags, etc.

4.3.2 Preparations

Before the season began, each mile-marker was repaired or replaced if necessary.

Many beach cleans were completed in the hopes of creating better nesting sites for

leatherback turtles. Each volunteer and patrol leader was trained thoroughly in the

classroom and in the field in order to ensure competent data collection and ethical

behaviour on the beach.


20/48

20

4.3.3 Daily track census and nest surveys

Sea turtles found in this area are leatherback turtles, nesting from March to mid-July,

green turtles, nesting from June to November, and the occasional hawksbill and

loggerhead turtle, both nesting from June to September (Trong et al. 2004). Surveyswere conducted every couple of days beginning February 25 th and by March 3rd were

conducted every day until the end of the phase on March 21st.

The daily track surveys started at approximately 5:00 to 6:00 am and lasted for up to

three hours depending on the volume of data to collect. The survey involved walking the

beach between mile 0 and 3 1/8, recording and monitoring tracks and nests from the

night before. The day team identified tracks as full tracks (turtle nested), half moons

(non-nesting emergences), or a lifted turtle (no tracks going back into the sea). The

vertical position of the nest on the beach was identified either as Open (O area of

beach which receives 100% sunlight), Border (B - area where nest is partially shaded by

vegetation) or Vegetation (V - area where nest is constantly shaded by vegetation).

Nests were then identified as natural (if remained in its original state), poached (when

egg shells or a cavity is found), eroded or predated by an animal. It was marked as

unknown if the nest had many signs of poaching but no egg shells or cavity.

4.3.4 Night Surveys

Night surveys began on March 8th once the first leatherback track was found on the

morning census. Each night a minimum of one survey team walked the beach between

mile 0 and mile 3 1/8 for a minimum of four hours each. If only one team was patrolling,

they were on the beach between 21:30 and 01:30. When two teams patrolled the first

team was on 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 Patrol Leader (PL) determined if the turtle was still on

the beach or not. If not, then the PL determined if the track was a half moon, nest, or

lifted turtle. If it was deemed a half moon, then the species, GPS, closest northern mile-

marker, and time track was seen were all recorded. If deemed a nest then the species,

GPS, closest northern mile-marker, time track was seen, vertical position, and nest


21/48

21

status was recorded. If deemed a lifted turtle, the species, GPS, closest northern mile-

marker, time track was seen, vertical position (if it had nested), were recorded.

When a turtle was encountered, all efforts were taken not to disturb the turtle before

oviposition (egg-laying process). All patrol members who were to come in contact withthe 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

checked for tags, and OTNs (Old Tag Notches) and OTHs (Old Tag Holes) and tagged if

necessary. Leatherback turtles were tagged in the thin skin between the rear flippers

and the tail using Monel #49 tags (National Band & Tag Co., Newport, USA). Green,

loggerhead, and hawksbill turtles were tagged on the front flippers before the first scale

using Inconel #681 tags.

Once tagging was finished, the CCL (curved carapace length) and CCW (curved

carapace width) was taken to the nearest millimeter three times each. For leatherbacks,

CCL was taken from the nuchal notch where the skin touches the carapace along the

back next to the central ridge until the end of the caudal projection. It was also noted if

the caudal projection was complete or not. For green, loggerhead, and hawksbill turtles

CCL was taken from where the skin touches the carapace along the back until the

posterior notch (not the longest length of the carapace). Curved carapace width was

always taken along the widest part of the turtle.

Once tagging and measurements were taken, the turtle was checked for abnormalities

such as missing flippers, damages to the carapace, and fibropapillomas tumors among

others. All irregularities were recorded.

The GPS, closest northern mile marker, phase the turtle was in when found (1-emerging

from the sea, 2-selecting nest site, 3-digging body pit, 4-digging egg chamber, 5-

oviposition, 6-covering egg chamber, 7-camouflaging, 8-returning to the sea), encounter

time, direction while nesting, and vertical position were also recorded.


22/48

22

4.3.5 Nest Fate, Nest Survivorship and Hatching Success

Nests were triangulated during oviposition whenever possible and triangulation was

attempted at times even when the egg chamber was not seen to gather as much

information about the poaching rate and hatchling success as possible. Triangulationwas done in order to locate and excavate the nests five days after the estimated

hatching time or 70 days after the nest was laid for green, loggerhead, and hawksbill

turtles or 75 days after the nest was laid for leatherback turtles.

Triangulation is conducted using three pieces of flagging tape (tags) which are attached

to the vegetation behind the nest. The distance from the center of the egg chamber to

each of these tags is measured to the nearest cm whilst the turtle is laying eggs. The

distance to the most recent high tide line is also recorded. Triangulation allows finding

the location of the egg chamber where the three tag lines cross when the nest is due to

be excavated. Three tags are used to compensate for the loss of any points of

reference. If one tag is lost it is still possible to locate the nest using the other two tags.

In addition to triangulated nests, all nests found because hatchlings or hatchling tracks

were seen on the beach during morning or night surveys were excavated five days after

the first hatchling tracks were encountered. For all excavations, the number of live and

dead hatchlings, egg shells accounting for more than 50% of an egg, unhatched eggs

with no sign of development, unhatched eggs with embryos and predated eggs by crabs

or other animals were counted and recorded.

For all accurately marked and measured nests a nest fate was determined. Nests which

were not marked or unable to be excavated were excluded from analysis. The following

nest fate categories were applied: hatched, poached, predated, eroded or flooded.

Empty egg chambers were classified as poached nests. If there was any doubt about the

fate of a nest it was categorized as unknown.

During all excavations, the distance from the top of the sand to the top of the eggs as

well as the top of the sand to the bottom of the egg chamber were measured.


23/48

23

4.3.6 Disguising Nests

For all leatherback and hawksbill nests found a 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 sandwith a coconut leaf, placing logs and other debris on top of the nest and remove them

later, etc. At times, the efforts were abandoned due to people approaching or dogs

barking.

4.3.7 Collection of Human Impact Data

During each night survey the number of red and white mobile lights, fires, locals, and

tourists was recorded. It was noted when there were tour groups of more than ten on the

beach. Each month during the New Moon phase the number of stationary white and red

lights was recorded.

4.4 Results

During phase 071, 21 morning surveys and 24 night surveys were completed. A total of

64 miles were walked on morning surveys and 196 miles were walked on night surveys.

Two leatherback turtles were encountered during the survey period. The first was

observed digging her body pit within the high tide line on the 15 th of March. After

unsuccessfully attempting to dig an egg chamber, she abandoned her nesting attempt

and returned to the sea without laying. She had not been tagged.

The second turtle observed on the 16th of March, a leatherback, again laid within the

high tide line. She attempted to nest twice, on the second occasion she laid five fertile

eggs, however the nest, as the first attempt, was below the high tide line and was

collapsing as she was laying eggs. As stated in the protocol, once she had completed

laying she was tagged, as no previous tags were present, nor signs of old tags. The tagsused were numbers VA8254 and VA8255.

In addition to the above, two turtles and another half moon were recorded for the night of

the 17th of March, and another nest was recorded for the night of the 7th of March. The

nest showed signs of poaching, including a couple of yolkless eggs, stick holes and


24/48

24

human prints. The nest was triangulated and will be excavated to attempt to confirm

whether the above assumption is correct.

4.5 Discussion

Since the data collection from this phase only covers the very beginning of the nesting

season for leatherback turtles, there is only preliminary data from one worked turtle, and

21 day and 24 night surveys (conducted over 14 nights).

In order to obtain better results from nesting female turtles, the aim of the project is to

continue collecting data from the entire nesting season of both leatherbacks and green

turtles. Final results will be able to give an indication of nesting behaviour, nest success,

and the level of poaching as well as comparing this data to past and future years of

research.

5 EBCP Resident Bird Project

5.1 Introduction

Growing concerns about the status of birds in the rainforests of Central America has lead

to the establishment of long-term monitoring programs. The Estacin Biolgica Cao

Palma (EBCP) resident bird project aims to quantify diversity and abundance of the

species which live and breed in the area of Caribbean Lowland Rainforest around

EBCP, 7km north of Tortuguero National Park.

The nature of Costa Ricas bird life has meant that it has been a popular location to

study behavior 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 of

considerable research.

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


25/48

25

as limiting the amount of technical data collected on species. In all other aspects, the

research follows the original protocol.

5.2 Aim

This research program is intended to accumulate data that will help researchers answer

the following questions.

How frequently do pelagic species visit the Caribbean Coast? Is there any pattern to

their visits?

When, exactly, do resident birds breed in coastal areas and swamp forests?

What can be learned about the breeding and nesting behaviour of resident birds?

Are breeding activities and climate correlated?

5.3 Method

This project has adopted standard survey techniques so that suitable comparisons can

be made against data sets gathered by other researchers.

For each Resident Bird Project (RBP) survey the following general data is 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)

5.3.1 Area Searches

An area search records all study species seen or heard while searching a predetermined

area. See appendix A for exact locations of each area.

Within each area, sectors have been selected to aid with data collection and analysis.

These sectors have been selected on broad variation in habitats within the study areas.

For each area search only positively identified species were recorded. For each positive

record made the following data was collected:


26/48

26

Station code at which species was observed

Number seen or heard (S: seen only, H: heard only, SH: seen and heard)

The number of males, females, and juveniles

Any notes on breeding plumage or behaviour

5.3.2 Incidental Observations

An incidental observation is made while one is not engaged specifically in area

searches. Incidental observations cover all of the other times of day and night when

birds might be observed. Only species that have been classed as uncommon, rare or

vagrant in the Widdowson and Widdowson Tortuguero species checklist 2004

(author?) were recorded.

5.4 Results

5.4.1 Survey Data

During phase 071 a total of 19 RBP surveys were undertaken. Of these six were

undertaken on Cao Palma (4:00 surveys and 14:00 surveys), eight on Cao Harold

(7:00 surveys and 13:00 survey), and 5 on Cao Chiquero (5:00 surveys). A total of 20

species were recorded on the three study sites combined.


27/48

27

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

18

20

Cano Chiquero Cano Harold Cano Palma

number of surveys

number of species

number of records *1

Figure 5-1 Total number of species and surveys on aquatic trails, Cao Chiquero, Cao

Harold and Cao Palma.

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

America

nPy

gmyKi

ngfishe

r

Ringed

king

fishe

r

Limpkin

Trico

loredHe

ron

Great

Egret

Anhin

ga

Green

-and

-Rufou

sKi

ngfishe

r

Green

Ibis

CattleEg

ret

Green

kingfishe

r

Sungrebe

Bare

-throated

Tiger

-Heron

North

ernJacana

Green

-backe

dHe

ron

Snow

yEg

ret

LittleBl

ueHeron


28/48

28

Figure 5-2 Number of key species recorded during surveys of Cao Chiquero aquatic trail

The top five most frequently observed species in the Cao Chiquero aquatic trail survey

were: little blue heron (Egretta caerulea), snowy egret (Egretta thula), green-backed

heron (Butorides virescens), northern jacana (Jacana spinosa) and bare-throated tiger-

heron (Tigrisoma mexicanum).

The rare species observed during the survey on Cao Chiquero were the green Ibis

(Mesembrinibis cayennensis) and the limpkin (Aramus guarauna).

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

America

nPy

gmyKing

fishe

r

Cattle

Egret

Yello

w-Crow

nedNi

ght-He

ron

Boat-billed

Heron

Sungrebe

GreatEgret

Gree

n-an

d-Ru

fous

King

fishe

r

Ringed

king

fishe

r

Gree

nIbis

Green

king

fishe

r

An

hinga

North

ernJacana

Snowy

Egret

Bare

-throated

Tiger-

Heron

Green

-backed

Heron

LittleBlue

Heron

Figure 5-3 Number of key species recorded during surveys of Cao Harold aquatic trail

The five most frequently observed species in the afternoon survey on Cao Harold were:

little blue heron (Egretta caerulea), green-backed heron (Butorides virescens), bare-

throated tiger-heron (Tigrisoma mexicanum), snowy egret (Egretta thula) and northern

jacana (Jacana spinosa).

The only rare species observed during the survey on Cao Harold was the green ibis

(Mesembrinibis cayennensis)


29/48

29

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

Amazon

Kingfisher

American

Pygmy

Kingfisher

Belted

Kingfisher

Great Egret Little Blue

Heron

Bare-

throated

Tiger-Heron

Ringed

kingfisher

Green

kingfisher

Anhinga Green Ibis Green-

backed

Heron

Yellow-

Crowned

Night-Heron

Figure 5-4 Number of key species recorded during surveys on Cao Palma

The top five most frequently observed species on Cao Palma survey were: yellow-

crowned night-heron (Nyctanassa violacea), green-backed heron (Butorides virescens),

green ibis (Mesembrinibis cayennensis), anhinga ( Anhinga anhinga), and green

kingfisher (Chloroceryle americana).

The only rare species observed during the survey on Cao Palma was the green ibis

(Mesembrinibis cayennensis).

5.4.2 Incidental Observations

For the incidental species observed during this phase, see appendix B.

5.5 Discussion

The EBCP Resident Bird Project monitoring survey began in July of 2005 and is an

ongoing project. Further collection of data is important in order to establish reliable

trends for local bird species.


30/48

30

The EBCP Resident Bird Project surveys undertaken during phase 071 have assisted in

increasing the overall data set. They have also helped in identifying areas where

continued improvement to the methodology is required in order to gain the most useful

and accurate data.

The original aim was to achieve an equal number of surveys per study site and an equal

number of dawn and dusk surveys within each study site. The complexities of the

expedition meant that this was not always possible however the numbers were kept

relatively constant.

Data collected on individual study sites will be used over time to assess how certain

populations are changing, if at all, and how they use the specific habitat over the course

of a year. The findings from this phase do not highlight any unexpected or unusual

patterns in the local bird populations.

6 Tourist Impact Survey Cao Palma

6.1 Introduction

Cao Palma canal is located within the Barra Colorado Wildlife Refuge, immediately

north of the river Penitencia, 7 km northwest of Tortuguero village and National Park.Although not part of the National Park, at the time of the report this cao (canal) was

included in the Management Plan for Visitors for Tortuguero National Park, as it provided

a suitable alternative to the National Park for wildlife viewing and thus helped reduce the

demand on other caos that were within the parks boundaries (Bermdez & Hernndez,

2004).

Proposed restrictions on the number of boats allowed into the national park were put in

place in 2006. This likely has caused an increase in the number of tourist boats using

Cao Palma and thus data collection before and after the restriction was important.

Further data collection will continue in order to monitor any change in tourist activity.


31/48

31

6.2 Aims

The Tourist Impact survey on Cao Palma aims to estimate the intensity of tourist

activity within the national park boundaries.

6.3 Methodology

The Boat Dock Survey commenced at 06:00 and continued for 12 consecutive hours.

The following data was collected for all aquatic vehicles that pass and/or turn into the

boat dock of the biological station:

Time of observation

Whether the boat was used by tourists and by which lodge

Number of passengers/tourists on each boat Boat name and/or number

Direction the boat was heading

Time spent on canal/Return Time

Engine type

Any additional information potentially significant at a later date was recorded in notes.

6.4 Results

Five Boat Dock Surveys were undertaken during phase 071. The distribution of boats

carrying tourists relative to boats occupied by the local population was almost equal.

Boats carrying tourists accounted for 55.79% (n=106) of traffic whereas non-tourist boats

accounted for 43.68% (n=83). One mixed boat was recorded. The total number of boats

was 190 and the average number of boats per day was 38. The average number of

passengers in each boat was 8.1.

6.5 Discussion

The boat dock survey began in 2006 to collect baseline data. As data collection

continues, trends will be revealed with regards to high and low traffic times and areas

and types of canal users.


32/48

32

With increased restrictions in the TNP, it was presumed that tourist traffic would increase

on Cao Palma and therefore have an impact on local species. As the presence of rare

and sensitive species had been recorded by the Cao Palma Biological Station, it was

important to note that tourist presence could have a significant impact on local flora and

fauna and therefore require further attention and management. It is expected that thiswill be compared among bird surveys for 2006 and 2007 in the annual report due in

2008, although changes in the methodology may make this goal unfeasible.

7 Reforestation

7.1 Introduction

The Reforestation project was started in 2006 by Mario Quesada of the Canadian

Organisation for Tropical Education and Rainforest Conservation (COTERC). Seeds

from the area were collected, harvested, and then replanted in the San Francisco area.

The project is now based around collecting seeds and saplings from key native species

in the area and replanting them on the Biological Station property as well as in the San

Francisco community.

One species that was selected as a key species was the almendro de montaa (Dypterix

panamensis). This tree was identified as a tree depended upon by great green macaws

(Ara ambigua) for nesting and feeding and habitat for other endangered species. It is

also the primary used hard wood for truck beds, woods flooring and other such uses

(Chassot & Arias, 2002). Due to this it has been heavily logged in the Tortuguero area.

7.2 Aim

This project aims to collect seeds and saplings from key species of plants in the area,

harvest them, and then replant the species on Cao Palma property and in the San

Francisco community in order to increase the number of native fruiting and hardwood

trees used by local species of wildlife.


33/48

33

7.3 Methodology

7.3.1 Seed Collection

When a seeding tree was found, as many seeds as possible were collected. Seeds were

put into a plastic bag with the species name written on the outside and planted asquickly as possible after collection. If there was no time to plant them right away, they

were stored in the bags. Seeds covered with flesh could not be stored in plastic bags

due to rotting, therefore they were stored in a pot, or container where there was more

airflow.

7.3.2 Sapling Collection

When collecting saplings, they were put into large black plant bags. Organic soil was

mixed half and half with soil from the ground. When possible, all equipment was brought

along in order to bag saplings at the site where they were taken out of the ground. If

equipment could not be brought along, saplings were bagged immediately upon arrival

at the station.

When saplings were taken out of the ground, care was taken not to tear the roots. A

spade was used to dig around the sapling and carefully removing it from the soil. Any

excess soil was shaken off and the sapling was planted into the bag using the organic

mix.

7.3.3 Bagging Seeds and Saplings

Every new species bagged was given a number and recorded in the Reforestation Log

Book along with the date and the number of the particular species bagged that day. If

the species had previously been recorded the originally assigned number was

continued. The species number and date was also written on a piece of duct tape and

stuck to the outside of the bag. Seeds were put roughly one inch below the surface of

the soil when bagged and any saplings roots were completely covered. Bagged plants

were stored in crates if possible, organized together with others of the same species,

and kept a plant table located on the west side of the upper bodega.


34/48

34

7.3.4 Replanting

Replanting took place after seeds had sprouted and saplings had grown new roots.

Areas were designated for planting before planting could take place. When a seedling

or sapling was planted, a hole was dug deep enough so that the entire root ball wascovered. The plant was taken out of the bag and placed into the hole, which was then

filled. Plants were placed in an area where they were most likely to survive and would

not be trampled. When the planting was finished, the plant was watered. Most of the

replanting took place on private property so interested land owners were contacted

before planting was started in order to inform them about the species and needs of the

plant.

7.4 Results

In this phase the seeds of guanabana ( Annona muricata) and almendro de montaa

were collected, and the saplings of the ojoche (Brosimum lactescens). In total, 37

guanbana, 87 almendro de montaa, and 134 ojoche were collected and bagged. At

the completion of phase 071, five almendro de montaa had sprouted taking around

three weeks.

7.5 Discussion

This project began this phase and research is still continuing on species that are

important and have been depleted in the area. The project in still being developed and

methodology will change as more research is done.

During the next phase we will be able to start planting the seeds and saplings that were

collected this phase. This will involve the community in order to help re-establish

populations of the species in the San Francisco area.


35/48

35

8 Incidentals

8.1 EBCP Incidentals

8.1.1 Introduction

The EBCP Incidental project was initiated during phase 071 at the request of the EBCPmanagement in order to help gain a greater knowledge of the species using the

property.

8.1.2 Aims

The project aim was to help gain an understanding of the type of species using the

station property and to help observe the impact caused by the presence of more people

at the station.

8.1.3 Methodology

Each day all species of wildlife were recorded in a log book. If possible the following data

was collected for all species;

Numbers of individuals (with the exception of birds)

Sex

Location Stage of development

Any other relevant notes

In addition the following information was recorded for the primates observed from the

canal within 100m north and south of the Cao Palma boundary line.

Position in habitat (High, Medium, Low)

Position, East or West side of the canal

GPS position

Observed behaviour

Observed behaviour was divided into broad categories such as climbing, eating, tail use,

grooming, vocalizing, and whether there was a juvenile on their front or back. Multiple


36/48

36

observations were taken whilst the individual remained in view, and the amount of time

observed was recorded.

8.1.4 Results

The most commonly recorded bird species were the rufous-tailed hummingbird (Amazilia

tzacatl), recorded on 41 days, the white-collared manikin (Manacus candei), recorded on

40 days and the great kiskadee (Pitangus sulphuratus), recorded on 35 days.

The most commonly recorded amphibians were the marine toad (Bufo marinus),

recorded on 10 days, and the strawberry poison frog (Dendrobates pumilio), recorded on

9 days.

In the reptile family the festive jungle runner (Ameiva festiva) was recorded on 21 days,and next was the yellow-headed gecko (Gonatodes albogularis) recorded on 12 days.

Around the biological station base the most commonly recorded primate was the

mantled howler monkey (Allouata palliata) recorded on 32 days followed by the spider

monkey (Ateles geoffroyi) recorded on 18 days.

8.2 Primates

8.2.1 Introduction

The Primate Monitoring Project was initiated by the Canadian Organization for Tropical

Education and Rainforest Education (COTERC) in 2006. It was a behavioural study of

the three species of primates found on the Caribbean slope; mantled howler monkey,

( Alouatta palliata), spider monkey ( Ateles geoffroyi), and the white faced capuchin

(Cebus capucinus).

All species suffer from habitat destruction, the spider and mantled howler monkey are

hunted for food, and both the howler and white-faced capuchin are subject tocommercial export (Nowak, 1999). Research on these primates is essential for their

conservation.

A preliminary study was conducted within the boundaries of the biological station, with a

large scope of information recorded. As the project develops further, it is expected that


37/48

37

the information gathered will become more specific in order to meet the aims which were

yet to be finalized.

8.2.2 Aims

The aim of this project was to collect data for future study on Caribbean slope primate

behaviour.

8.2.3 Methodology

The survey was conducted from a kayak or canoe, over a two hour period along the

Cao Palma waterway. The EBCP property lines indicated the boundary of the study,

which consisted of recording every primate seen and recording individual behaviours.

Researchers moved slowly along the canals when surveying for primates. When aprimate was observed, researchers remained in the vicinity until all possible data was

collected.

Equipment needed:

Notebook and pencil

Handheld GPS (with charged batteries)

Binoculars

The following was recorded on each survey:

Date: DD/MM/YY

Start Time

End Time

Survey Team

The following was recorded for each primate sighting:

Start time

Finish time

Species

Stage (Adult, Sub Adult or Juvenile)


38/48

38

GPS position

Orientation (recorded as W or E to indicate whether the sighting was on the west or

east side of the canal)

Habitat (G-ground, L-low, M-medium, H- high)

The categories of behaviour recorded were as follows:

Eating, recorded as F-fruit, L-leaves, or UK-unknown

Resting

Climbing

Tail use

Juvenile on front

Juvenile on back Grooming

Vocalizing

Auto-grooming

8.2.4 Results

All three species of primates found on the Caribbean slope were observed during

incidental observations: the white-faced capuchin, Central American spider monkey, and

the mantled howler monkey. There were a total of 93 observations of primates, 42 of

these were from Cao Palma Biological Station. There were 62 observations from the

canal, of which 50% were on the west and 48% on the east side of the canal.

The spider monkey (n= 22) was the most frequently observed. Of the observed

behaviours (Eating, Resting, Climbing, Tail Use, Juvenile on Front, Grooming, Auto-

grooming, Vocalizing) the most frequent were climbing (n=21), and tail use (n=16). The

spider monkeys were seen eating leaves four times and fruit three times.

8.3 Discussion

Although the project was in its early days, it progressed well and new areas of study

developed with the experience of the surveyors. The species journal could be used as a

way to keep track of species in the area, but it very much depended on the people


39/48

39

around the station to maintain consistent data. Quality of record keeping varied because

the observations were highly dependent on the daily schedule. More sightings may have

taken place than what was reflected in the data. Due to the diversity of species in the

area and their habitat within the vegetation it was also possible that species were seen

that could not be identified. Identification cards and introductory presentations weremade to make this process easier.

We will continue to collect incidental data as a baseline for species in the area. With a

more comprehensive database, information can be used as a guide to potential changes

in species populations within the area.

9 Teaching Community Report

9.1 Introduction

People of different nations increasingly utilize English as a common language in order to

communicate with one another. Costa Rica, and in particular Tortuguero, hosts a

growing number of international visitors each year. The people living in this area rely

heavily on the international community and the tourism market. Acquisition of English

language skills will therefore provide locals with better access to the growing market.

9.2 Aims

The main aims of the teaching program are as follows:

Community training/capacity building

Increase sustainable revenue to the local communities

Generate community commitment to environment conservation and sustainable

development

Language and culture exchange

Provide authentic opportunities for local students to practice listening to and

speaking English with native speakers


40/48

40

9.3 Methods

9.3.1 Training

In the first five weeks of the expedition, the teaching program was a collaborative effort

of the eight expedition members (EMs), and four staff members. All EMs were briefed onthe previous curricula and material covered by past expeditions. In the second five

weeks of the expedition, a TEFL certified community development intern was introduced

to run community events and further develop the English program. All Expedition

Members received fundamental training in teaching English as a foreign language

utilizing the Introduction to TEFL course adapted by GVI. The community intern guided

the EMs through the lesson planning process and organization of a childrens class, an

adult class, and an intercambio (language exchange) class with local guides. EMs

scheduled to teach met prior to each class to discuss material and delivery methods.

9.3.2 Teaching

All English lessons were adapted to the needs of a community hosting an English

speaking tourist industry. All levels of English proficiency were served, and personally

catered to. Students ranged from children with no previous exposure to English, to local

guides with a basic fluency in the language.

Initially, adult classes were held in the community of San Francisco on Thursday nights.In the second five weeks, the community intern was able to conduct classes four nights a

week, giving the students constant practice and EMs more opportunities to get involved

in the community. Classes were based on GVIs Tulum, Mexico University accredited

TEFL curriculum. Each hour and a half class was conversation based, and stressed

speaking skills useful for local tourism. One class a week was devoted solely to speaking

and conversing, giving students the necessary oral practice and confidence for achieving

fluency in a foreign language.

Childrens classes were held in San Francisco each Thursday afternoon. Each week, the

EMs decided on class material and used a team-teaching approach. Before each lesson,

the EM teachers and the community teaching intern met for a briefing on teaching

methods and organization of the students. Generally, each class was divided into

smaller groups to give the children more individual attention. Classes were one hour;


41/48

41

followed by a recreation period where anything from football, field games, personal

tutoring, and general conversation took place. In the second five weeks of adult classes,

the focus was on the most important and useful lessons in the curriculum.

In addition to its commitment to San Francisco, GVI also continued to work with thelocally run Canopy connected to Evergreen Lodge. An Intercambio program allowed

volunteers to learn Spanish from and teach English to the guides at the Canopy at the

same time.

9.3.3 Results

A total of 19 Expedition Members and staff participated in English teaching and

language Intercambios. Overall, 25 children and 28 adults participated for a total of 32

formal classroom contact hours and 13.5 informal Intercambio hours.

GVI has increased its commitment to San Francisco by holding adult classes four nights

a week and devoting a staff member to the social development of the community. GVI is

now discussing the appointment of an intern to live in San Francisco, creating further

opportunities for the development of English language skills in the community.

9.4 Discussion

This phase has seen the appointment of a community intern to the expedition whose

primary role is to help expand the community work which the expedition is currently

undertaking.

In addition to conducting 47 hours of English classes, GVI also coordinated multiple

community events. One day was devoted to planting previously deforested tree species

in San Francisco, followed by a childrens football match. GVI included the children in

beach cleans and educated them about the needs of endangered sea turtles. GVI also

witnessed its first football team, defeat the taxistas de Cariariin a local football match inSan Francisco. These community events have been fun for all, and have allowed the

community of San Francisco to understand and benefit from its neighbors at the

Biological Station. We recommend that English lessons continue and that GVI continues

to both work and play in San Francisco.


42/48

42

The intercambio at the Canopy also proceeded successfully, allowing both EMs and

Canopy staff to learn foreign languages and enjoy each others company.

GVIs teaching and community involvement programs are invaluable tools in maintaining

relations between GVI and the local residents. These initiatives provide uniqueopportunities and foster both cultural and environmental awareness.


43/48

43

10 References

Autar, L., 1994. Sea turtles attacked and killed by Jaguars in Suriname. Marine Turtle

Newsletter67,11-12.

Bermdez, F., Hernndez, C. 2004. Estudio de factibilidad para el desarrollo de

actividades ecotursticas en el Cerro Tortuguero, REBACO. Ministerio del Ambiente y

Energa, Sistema Nacional de reas de Conservacin, rea de Conservacin

Tortuguero.

Carrillo E., Morera R., Wong G., 1994. Depredacin de tortuga lora (Lepidochelys

olivacea) y de tortuga verde (Chelonia mydas) por el jaguar (Panthera onca). Vida

Silvestre Neotropical 3, 48-49.

Hirth, H. 1997. Synopsis of the biological data on the green turtle. USFWS Biological

Report97 (1), 46-49.

IUCN, 2006. 2006 IUCN Red List of Threatened Species. .

Accessed on 09 March 2007.

Karanth, K.U. 1995. Estimating tiger (Panthera tigris) populations from camera-trap data

using capture-recapture models. Biological Conservation, 71, 333-338.

Karanth, K.U., Nichols, J.D. 1998. Estimation of tiger densities in India using

photographic captures and recaptures. Ecology, 79, 2852-2862.

Karanth, K.U., Nichols, J.D. 2000a. Ecological Status and Conservation of Tigers in

India. Final Technical Report to the Division of International Conservation, US Fish and

Wildlife Service, Washington DC and Wildlife Conservation Society, New York. Centre

for Wildlife Studies, Bangalore, India.

Karanth, K.U., Nichols, J.D. 2000b. Camera trapping big cats: some questions that

should be asked frequently. Wildlife Conservation Society International Programs. New

York.


44/48

44

Karanth, K.U., Nichols, J.D. 2002. Monitoring Tigers and their Prey: A Manual for

Researchers, Managers and Conservationists in Tropical Asia. Centre for Wildlife

Studies, Bangalore, India.

Navarro-Serment, C.J., Lpez-Gonzlez, C.A., Gallo-Reynoso, J.P. 2005. Occurrence ofjaguar. The Southwest Naturalist50(1), 102-106.

Oritz, R.M., Plotkin, P.T, Owents, D.W. 1997. Predation upon olive ridley sea turtles

(Lepidochelys olivacea) by the American Crocodile (Crocodylus acutus) at Playa

Nancite, Costa Rica. Chelonian Conservation and Biology2, 585-587.

Sanderson, E.W., Redford, K.H., Chetkiewicz, C.B., Medellin, R.A., Rabinowitz, R.A.,

Robinson, J.G., Taber, A.B. 2002. Planning to save a species: the jaguar as a model.

Conservation Biology16,1-15.

Seymour, K.L. 1989. Panthera onca. Mammalian Species, 340, 1-9.

Schaller, G.B. 1972. The Serengeti Lion. University of Chicago Press, Chicago, USA.

480 pp.

Silver, S.C., Ostro, L.E.T., Marsh, L.K., Maffei, L., Noss, A.J., Kelly, M.J., Wallace, R.B.,

Gmez, H., Ayala, G. 2004. The use of camera traps for estimating jaguar Panthera

onca abundance and density using capture/recapture analysis.Oryx38(2),148-154.

Trong, S. 2000. Predation of green (Chelonia mydas) and Leatherback (Dermochelys

coriacea) turtles by Jaguars (Panthera onca) at Tortuguero National Park, Costa Rica.

Chel. Cons. Biol.3(4), 751-753.

Trong, S., Chacn, D., Dick, B. 2004. Possible decline in Leatherback Turtle

Dermochelys coriacea nesting along the coast of Caribbean Central America. Oryx38

(4), 395-403.

Trong, S., Rankin, E. 2005. Long-term conservation efforts contribute to positive Green

Chelonia mydas nesting trend at Tortuguero, Costa Rica. Biological Conservation121,

111-116.


45/48

45

Widdowson, W.P., Widdowson, M.J. 2004. Checklist to the birds of Tortuguero, Costa

Rica. Caribbean Conservation Corporation.


46/48

46

11 Appendices

Appendix A

Aquatic Trails:

Distance Distance from start

AQT 01 1110 0

AQT 02 303 1110

CAO HAROLD

CHA 01 604 1413

CHA 02 1248 2017

CHA 03 718 3127

CHA 04 0 4003

CAO CHIQUERO

CCH 01 703 1413

CCH 02 343 2127

CCH 03 0 2470

CAO PALMA

CPA 01 1000 0

CPA 02 1000 1000

CPA 03 1000 2000

CPA 04 1000 3000

CPA 05 0 4000

Notes: All the distances are measured in meters


47/48

47

Appendix B

DateStationCode

Common name Latin name Status S S/H H # Recorder

28/12/2006 CPA Sunbittern Eurypyga helias R 1 1 James Lewis

13/01/2007 CPA Green Ibis Mesembrinibiscayennensis

R 2 2James Lewis

13/01/2007 CPA Agami Heron Agamia agami R 1 1James Lewis

15/01/2007 CPA Green IbisMesembrinibiscayennensis

R 3 3James Lewis


22/01/2007

BarradelColarado

Hook-billed Kite #N/A #N/A 1

1

James Lewis

22/01/2007

BarradelColarad

o

Greater Yellowlegs Tringa melanoleuca R 1

1

James Lewis

22/01/2007

BarradelColarado

Black-crowned Night-heron

#N/A #N/A 1

1

James Lewis


26/01/2007 CPA Green IbisMesembrinibiscayennensis

R 1 1James Lewis

15/02/2007 CPA Snail Kite #N/A #N/A 1 1James Lewis

15/02/2007 CPAYellow-belliedSapsucker

#N/A #N/A 1 1James Lewis

17/02/2007 CPA Rufescent Tiger-Heron Tigrisoma lineatum R 1 1James Lewis

17/02/2007 CPA Agami Heron Agamia agami R 1 1 James Lewis

24/02/2007 TO NP Tricolored Heron Egretta tricolor U 3 3James Lewis

24/02/2007 TO NP Pumbelous Kite #N/A #N/A23

23

James Lewis

25/02/2007 TO NP Green IbisMesembrinibiscayennensis

R 7 7James Lewis

25/02/2007 TO NP Green honeycreeper Chlorophanes spiza U 8 8James Lewis

25/02/2007 TO NP White-necked PuffbirdNotharchusmacrorhynchos

U 1 1James Lewis

28/02/2007south ofebcp

Green IbisMesembrinibiscayennensis

R 1 1James Lewis

03/03/2007South ofEBCP Tricolored Heron Egretta tricolor U 1 1 James Lewis

07/03/2007South ofEBCP

Green IbisMesembrinibiscayennensis

R 1 1James Lewis

07/03/2007 EBCP Purple-crowned fairy Heliothryx barroti R 2 2James Lewis

17/03/2007CanoPalma

Bi-colored hawk #N/A #N/A 1 1James Lewis

17/03/2007 Jalova Blue winged teal #N/A #N/A 4 4James Lewis


48/48

DateStationCode

Common name Latin name Status S S/H H # Recorder

17/03/2007CanoPalma

Agami Heron Agamia agami R 1 1James Lewis

17/03/2007CanoNegro

Tricolored Heron Egretta tricolor U 1 1James Lewis

18/03/2007

Cano

Palma Agami Heron Agamia agami R 1 1James Lewis

Phase 7 071 Science Report Final

Documents

Transcript of Phase 7 071 Science Report Final