Red list assessment questionnaire

Download 0.86 Mb.

Page	4/7
Date	03.03.2018
Size	0.86 Mb.
	#41716

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

6. RED LIST ASSESSMENT

Assess the taxon using the information and data recorded in section 4 and 5, and following the IUCN Red List Categories and Criteria: version 3.1. and current version of the Guidelines for Using the IUCN Red List Categories and Criteria for guidance on applying the IUCN criteria.

6a. Red List Category & Criteria

Tick () one of the following Red List categories, For taxa qualifying for a threatened category (CR, EN or VU), record all criteria and subcriteria met. For the NT category, record all criteria and subcriteria nearly met:

Extinct (EX)

Date last seen in wild (day/month/year)

Extinct in the Wild (EW)

Date last seen in wild (day/month/year)

Critically Endangered (CR)

Criteria met for CR

A2bd

Endangered (EN)

Criteria met for EN

Vulnerable (VU)

Criteria met for VU

Near Threatened (NT)

Criteria nearly met for NT

Least Concern (LC)

Data Deficient (DD)

Not Evaluated (NE)

Is this taxon Possibly Extinct? (applies to CR taxa only)

Yes

Unknown

6b. Rationale for the assessment

The global population of the Kemp’s ridley is represented by a single population with no known subpopulations (Bowen 1991, Bowen and Karl 2007). This species primarily occurs in the Gulf of Mexico, with approximately 71.2% of nesting for the species occurring on a single, 30.4 km stretch of nesting beach located in the western Gulf of Mexico at Rancho Nuevo, Mexico. The Kemp’s ridley qualifies as “Critically Endangered” under the IUCN Red List Assessment Criterion A2bd based on an observed population size reduction of more than 80% (estimated reduction = 88%-92%) over three generations (Bevan et al. 2016), whose causes are known and reversible, (e.g. egg collection for human consumption), but some of which have not yet ceased (e.g. incidental capture in fisheries, pollution).

Justification

The Kemp’s ridley population qualifies for “Critically Endangered” under Criterion A2bd due to a long-term reduction in population size that exceeds 80% (87.8 to 91.8%) the causes of which are known but have not ceased. This reduction in nesting is based on comprehensive nesting data since 1978 and on estimates of historic population size based on the 1947 Herrera film (Hildebrand, 1963; Bevan et al. 2016) (Fig. 2).The availability of long-term nest counts (as an index of population abundance), and their comparison to historic population estimates by Hildebrand (1963), documentation from Andres Herrera recorded in 1947, and analysis of historic and current nesting data (Bevan et al. 2016), indicate that the current population represents a greater than 80% reduction in historic population size (i.e. 87.8 to 91.8% reduction). By comparing abundance trends from recent years with an independent quantification of the estimated number of turtles in the 1947 arribada filmed by Andres Herrera (i.e. estimate of 26, 916 turtles in a single arribada, one of several that occur annually) and a previous estimate of total nesting abundance in that arribada (40,000 turtles; Hildebrand [1963]) facilitated updated estimates of total nest abundance in 1947. Using this approach, Bevan et al. (2016) estimated between 121,517 and 180,587 nests during the 1947 nesting season. In contrast, the maximum annual abundance of nests over the past several decades was 21,144 in 2009, but decreased to 12,053 in 2014, and averaged 14,885 nests from 2013 to 2015 (Fig. 2). Causes for this recent deviation from exponential recovery are unknown at present, but possibly include fisheries bycatch and impact of the 2010 Deepwater Horizon oil spill.

The causes for the decline from 1947-1985, ranging from an estimate of 99.4% to 99.6% (Hildebrand 1963; Bevan et al, 2016) were clearly understood (e.g. incidental capture by fisheries, egg harvesting, and natural predation at the nesting beach), and were reversible. The population exhibited an exponential increase from approximately mid 1990’s to 2009 due to reduction of egg harvest on key nesting beaches as well as implementation of turtle excluder devices (TEDs) in trawl gear operating in the Gulf of Mexico (NMFS et al. 2011). However, the causal basis for the change from the exponential recovery trajectory previously observed through 2009 – i.e., average annual increase in nesting of 2799 nests ± 452 nests from 2004 through 2009 -- to the recent deviation from exponential recovery– e.g. average annual decrease in nesting of 1,818 ± 6070 nests from 2009 through 2014 – is currently not understood, and historical threats (e.g., bycatch) remain. The future levels of the Kemp’s ridley are currently unclear. It is unknown whether or not the recent deviation from exponential recovery is temporary, and if the recovery of the Kemp’s ridley will regain its exponential recovery rate that was present prior to 2010.

In summary, the current population represents <20% (Bevan et al, 2016) of the historic population, or a >80% decline in abundance, and though causes for this decline are understood, they have not yet ceased. For these reasons, the Kemp’s ridley qualifies as “Critically Endangered” under the IUCN Red List Assessment Criterion A2bd.

Criterion A: Critically Endangered

Rationale: An observed population size reduction of ≥80% (estimate ranging from to 91.8% (Hildebrand, 1963; Bevan et al, 2016) to 87.8% (Bevan et al, 2016)) over three generations based on b) an index of abundance appropriate for the Kemp’s ridley (i.e. total number of nests per season), and d) actual or potential levels of exploitation. Primary factors contributing to the decline included 1) harvesting of eggs on the nesting beach (Hildebrand, 1963; Adams, 1966), 2) incidental capture by fisheries (NMFS et al., 2011; Magnuson et al., 1990), and 3) natural predation on the nesting beach (Hildebrand, 1963; Pritchard and Marquez, 1973; Marquez, 1994). The observed decline is based on a comparison to historic population estimates in Hildebrand (1963), documentation from Andres Herrera recorded in 1947, and analysis of historic and current nesting data (Bevan et al. 2016). Despite an exponential increase in abundance from the 1990s through 2009, the recent deviation from this exponential recovery rate since 2009 is currently not understood and may not be reversible. These factors are also the basis for the conclusion that the Kemp’s ridley is Critically Endangered under Criterion A2bd.

Criterion B: Least Concern

Rationale B2a: Although the Kemp’s ridley occurs throughout the coastal waters of the Gulf of Mexico and the Atlantic coast of USA, all Kemp’s belong to a single location (i.e., genetic stock). The Kemp’s ridley has shown a strong site fidelity over time for the primary nesting beach near Rancho Nuevo (at least since 1947 Herrera film). Approximately 71.2% of global Kemp’s nesting occurs on 30.4 km of beach near Rancho Nuevo, Mexico and approximately 97% of the Kemp’s ridley global population’s nesting activity occurs on a 146 km stretch of beach that includes Rancho Nuevo along the western Gulf of Mexico in the state of Tamaulipas, Mexico. Thus, the Area of Occupancy (AOO) is less than 500 km². Lower levels of nesting occur in scattered areas along the coasts of Veracruz, Mexico, and Texas, US, but these beaches serve as nesting habitat for less than 3% of the population. The occurrence of a single primary nesting beach qualifies under B2a “Severely fragmented or known to exist at only a single location” and it has an area of less than 500 km² (B2). Additionally, the Kemp’s ridley has had an unexpected deviation from its exponent recovery rate, but it is unclear whether this is actually a continued decline in population size. Therefore, this subpopulation is Least Concern under Criterion B.

Criterion C and D: Least Concern

Population of mature individuals (adult males and females) is currently estimated as 15,664 therefore, the Kemp’s ridley does not qualify for a threatened category under Criteria C or D. The current estimated number of mature individuals in the population (15,664) was calculated using standard IUCN protocol for sea turtle red list assessment. The calculation takes into account the average number of annual nests from 2013-2015 (n=14,885), an estimated clutch frequency of 2.5 clutches per year, a remigration interval of 2.0 years, and a sex ratio of 3.17 females:1.0 males (all values are reviewed in the Bi-National Recovery Plan for the Kemp’s Ridley, NMFS, USFW, & SEMARNAT, 2015).

Criterion E: Not assessed

Rationale: There have been no formal PVAs conducted

Assessment Date:

YYYY

2017

Assessors’ Names:

Given Name(s)

Family Name

Email Address

Institution

Thane

Wibbels

twibbels@uab.edu

University of Alabama at Birmingham

Elizabeth

Bevan

Libby84@uab.edu

University of Alabama at Birmingham

6c. Changes in Red List status

Check the IUCN Red List web site (www.iucnredlist.org) to find out whether the taxon has previously been assessed.

Has this taxon been assessed for a previous IUCN Red List?

Yes

If yes, what was the previous assessment?

Critically Endangered

Unknown

If yes, has the taxon changed category since its last assessment?

Yes

If no, have the criteria changed?

Yes

Reason for change in category:

Genuine change

New/better information available

Recent change

Non-genuine change

Taxonomic change

Change since first assessment

Incorrect application of criteria previously

Criteria thresholds changed since previous assessment

7. LITERATURE REFERENCES

Provide a list of all published and unpublished reference sources used for the information recorded above. Please provide full references, and try to avoid abbreviations (e.g., write Conservation Biology rather than Cons. Biol.).

Anonymous. 1992. First Kemp's ridley nesting in South Carolina. Marine Turtle Newsletter 59.

Bevan, E., T. Wibbels, B. M. Z. Najera, L. Sarti, F. I. Martinez, J. M. Cuevas, B. J. Gallaway, L. J. Pena, and P. M. Burchfield. Estimating the historic size and current status of the Kemp’s ridley sea turtle (Lepidochelys kempii) population. Ecosphere, in press, 32 p.

Bolton, A. B., and H. R. Martins. 1990. Kemp’s ridley captured in the Azores. Mar. Turtle Newsl 48:23.

Bowen, B., and S. Karl. 2007. Population genetics and phylogeography of sea turtles. Molecular Ecology 16:4886-4907.

Bowen, B. W. 1991. Evolutionary distinctiveness of the endangered Kemp’s ridley. Nature 352:22.

Burgess, G.L., Kazanis, E.G, and Shepard, N.K. 2016. Estimated oil and gas reserves

Gulf of Mexico OCS region. December 13, 2014. U.S. Department of the Interior,

Bureau of Ocean Energy Management. 29 p. New Orleans, LA

Caillouet Jr, C. W., R. A. Hart, and J. M. Nance. 2008. Growth overfishing in the brown shrimp fishery of Texas, Louisiana, and adjoining Gulf of Mexico EEZ. Fisheries Research 92:289-302.

Caillouet Jr, C. W., D. J. Shaver, W. G. Teas, D. B. Revera, and A. C. Cannon. 1996. Relationship between sea turtle stranding rates and shrimp fishing intensities in the northwestern Gulf of Mexico: 1986-1989 versus. Fishery Bulletin 94:237-249.

Carr, A. F. 1957. Notes on the zoogeography of the Atlantic sea turtles of the genus Lepidochelys. Rev. Biol. Trop. 5:45-61.

Carr, A. F. 1967. So excellent a fishe; a natural history of sea turtles.

Carr, A. F. 1980. Some problems of sea turtle ecology. Amer. Zool. 20:489-498.

Carr, A. F., and D. K. Caldwell. 1956. The ecology and migration of sea turtles, 1. Results of field work in Florida, 1955. Amer. Mus. Novitates 1793:1-23.

Chávez, H., E. T. P. Hernández, and M. Contreras. 1967. Aspectos biologicos y proteccion de la Tortuga Lora, Lepidochelys kempi (Garman), en la costa de Tamaulipas, Mexico.

Chavez, H., M. Contreras-G, and T. Hernandez-D. 1968. On the coast of Tamaulipas. Internat. Turt. Tort. Soc. J 2:20-29.

Chávez, H., M. Contreras, and T. Hernandez-D. 1968. On the coast of Tamaulipas. Part two. International Turtle and Tortoise Society Journal 2:16-19.

Diario Oficial de la Federación. 1973. Acuerdo por el que se establece la veda de la tortuga

marina para las especies del litoral del Golfo de México y Mar Caribe del 12 de julio al

31 de agosto de 1973 y del 1 de mayo al 31 de agosto para los años siguientes. Diario

Oficial de la Federación, México, julio 13, 1973.

Diario Oficial de la Federación. 1977. Acuerdo que establece como Zona de Refugio y de Veda

para la protección de la tortuga lora marina Lepidochelys kempi la comprendida en la

playa Rancho Nuevo, Mpio. Villa Aldama, Tam. Diario Oficial de la Federación,

México, julio 4, 1977.

Diario Oficial de la Federación. 1986. Decreto por el que se determinan como Zonas de

Reserva y Sitios de Refugio para la protección, conservación, repoblación, desarrollo y

control de las diversas especies de tortuga marina, los lugares donde anida y desovan

dichas especies. Diario Oficial de la Federación. México, octubre 29, 1986.

Diario Oficial de la Federación. 1990. Acuerdo por el que se establece veda total para todas las

especies y subespecies de tortugas marinas en aguas de jurisdicción nacional de los

litorales del Océano Pacífico, Golfo de México y Mar Caribe. Diario Oficial de la

Federación, México, mayo 31, 1990.

Diario Oficial de la Federación. 1993. Norma Oficial Mexicana 002-PESC-1993, para ordenar

el aprovechamiento de las especies de camarón en aguas de jurisdicción federal de los

Estados Unidos Mexicanos. Diario Oficial de la Federación, México, diciembre 31,

1993.

Diario Oficial de la Federación. 1997. Modificación a la Norma Oficial Mexicana 002-PESC-

1993. Para ordenar el aprovechamiento de las especies de camarón en aguas de

jurisdicción federal de los Estados Unidos Mexicanos, publicada el 31 de diciembre de

1993. Diario Oficial de la Federación, México, julio 30, 1997.

Diario Oficial de la Federación. 2002b. Acuerdo por el que se determinan como áreas naturales

protegidas, con la categoría de santuarios, a las zonas de reserva y sitios de refugio para

la protección, conservación, repoblación, desarrollo y control de las diversas especies de

tortuga marina, ubicadas en los estados de Chiapas, Guerrero, Jalisco, Michoacán,

Oaxaca, Sinaloa, Tamaulipas y Yucatán, identificadas en el decreto publicado el 29 de

IV-8 octubre de 1986. Diario Oficial de la Federación, México, Julio16, 2002.

Diario Oficial de la Federacion. 2006. Acuerdo mediante el cual se aprueba la actualizacion de la

Carta Nacional Pesquera. Diario Oficial de la Federacion. Mexico. Viernas 25 de agosto de

2006.

Diario Oficial de ala Federacion. 2007. NOM-29-PESC-2006. Pecas responsable de tiburones y rayas.

Especificaciones para su aprovechamiento. Diaraio Oficial de la Federaction. 14 de febrero de

2007.

Dobie, J. L., L. H. Ogren, and J. F. Fitzpatrick, Jr. 1961. Food notes and records of the Atlantic ridley turtle (Lepidochelys kempi) from Louisiana. Copeia 1961:109-110.

Foote, J., and T. Mueller. 2002. Two Kemp's ridley (Lepidochelys kempii) nests on the central Gulf coast of Sarasota County Florida (USA). Pages 252-253 in Proceedings of the 20th Annual Symposium on Sea Turtle Biology and Conservation.

Johnson, S. A., A. L. Bass, B. Libert, M. Marshall, and D. Fulk. 1999. Kemp's ridley (Lepidochelys kempi) nesting in Florida. Florida Scientist 62:194-204.

Garman, S. 1880. On certain species of Chelonioidae. Bulletin of the Museum of Comparative Zoology 6:122-126.

Hart, Rick A., J. M. Nance. 2013. Three decades of US Gulf of Mexico white shrimp, Litopenaeus setiferus, commercial catch statistics. Mar. Fish. Rev. 75(4):43-47.

Henwood, T. W. Stuntz, and N. Thompson. 1992. Evaluation of U.S. protective turtle measusres under existing TED regulations. Including estimates of shrimp trawler related mortality in the wider Carribean. NOAA Technical Memorandum. NMFS-SEFSC-303 15pp.

Heppell, S. S., D. T. Crouse, L. B. Crowder, S. P. Epperly, W. Gabriel, T. Henwood, R. Marquez, and N. B. Thompson. 2005. A population model to estimate recovery time, population size and management impacts on Kemp’s ridley sea turtles. Chelonian Conservation and Biology 4:767-773.

Heppell, S. S., P. M. Burchfield, and L. J. Pena. 2007. Kemp's Ridley Recovery. Biology and Conservation of Ridley Sea Turtles:325.

Hildebrand, H. H. 1963. Hallazgo del area de anidacion de la tortuga marina "lora", Lepidochelys kempi (Garman), en la costa occidental del Golfo de Mexico (Rept., Chel.). Ciencia, Mexico 22:105-112.

Hildebrand, H. H. 1982. Biology and Conservation of Sea Turtles. Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington, D.C.

Hildebrand, H. H. 1987. A reconassaince of beaches and coastal waters from Belize to the Mississippi River as habitat for marine turtles Report Reproduced by USFWS, Region 2, Albuquerque, NM., Report Prepared for NOAA NMFS, SEFC Panama City Laboratory, Contract No. NA-CF -84A-134.

Lazell Jr, J. D. 1980. New England waters: critical habitat for marine turtles. Copeia:290-295.

Marquez, R. 1984. Kemp's ridley turtle overview of biology. Pages 96-100 in Proceedings of the Western Atlantic Turtle Symposium. University of Miami Press, Miami.

Marquez-M., R., A. Villanueva, and P. Burchfield. 1989. Nesting population and production of hatchlings of Kemp's ridley sea turtle at Rancho Nuevo, Tamaulipas, Mexico. Pages 16-19 in Proceedings of the First International Symposium on Kemp's Ridley Sea Turtle Biology, Conservation, and Management. Department of Commerce, Galveston, Texas.

Magnuson, J. J., K. A. Bjorndal, W. D. Dupaul, G. L. Graham, D. W. Owens, C. H. Peterson, P. C. H. Pritchard, J. I. Richardson, G. E. Sual, and C. W. West. 1990. Decline of the sea turtles. National Academy Press, Washington, D.C.

Marquez, M. R. 1994. Synopsis of Biological Data on the Kemp's Ridley Sea Turtle, Lepidochelys kempi (Garman, 1880). NOAA Technical Memorandum NMFS-SEFC-343:91p.

Marquez, M., R. Byles, P. Burchfield, M. Sánchez, J. DÍAZ, A. Carrasco, A. Leo, and M. Jimenez-O. 1996. Good news! Rising numbers of Kemp's ridleys nest at Rancho Nuevo, Tamaulipas, Mexico. Marine Turtle Newsletter 73:2-5.

Morreale, S. J., A. B. Meylan, S. S. Sadove, and E. A. Standora. 1992. Annual occurrence and winter mortality of marine turtles in New York waters. Journal of Herpetology:301-308.

Mowbray, L. S., and D. K. Caldwell. 1958. First Record of the Ridley Turtle from Bermuda, with Notes on Other Sea Turtles and the Turtle Fishery in the Islands. Copeia 1958:147-148.

Musick, J. A., and C. J. Limpus. 1997. Habitat utilization and migration in juvenile sea turtles.in P. L. Lutz and J. A. Musick, editors. The biology of sea turtles. CRC Press, New York, New York.

NMFS, USFWS, and SEMARNAT. 2011. Bi-National Recovery Plan for the Kemp's Ridley Sea Turtle (Lepidochelys kempii), Second Revision. National Marine Fisheries Service, Silver Spring, Maryland, 156 p.

NMFS, and USFWS. 2007. 5-Year Review of Kemp's Ridley Sea Turtle.

NMFS and USFWS. 2015. Kemp’s ridley sea turtle (Lepidochelys kempii) 5-year review: summary and evaluation, 50 p.

Ogren, L. H. 1989. Distribution of juvenile and subadult Kemp’s ridley turtles: Preliminary results from the 1984-1987 surveys.in Proceedings from the 1st Symposium on Kemp’s ridley Sea Turtle Biology, Conservation, and Management. Sea Grant College Program, Galveston, TX.

Ogren, L. H., and C. McVea, Jr. 1982. Biology and Conservation of Sea Turtles. Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington, D.C.

Osburn, H., M. Ray, and R. Riechers. 2003. Integrating turtle conservation into shrimpo management strategies: a Texas case history. NOAA Technical Memorandum, NMFS-SEFSC-503: 7-8.

Pritchard, P. C. H., and R. Marquez-M. 1973. Kemp's ridley turtle or Atlantic ridley. International Union for the Conservation of Nature and Natural Resources.

Putman, N. F., K. L. Mansfield, R. He, D. J. Shaver, and P. Verley. 2013. Predicting the distribution of oceanic-stage Kemp's ridley sea turtles. Biology letters 9:20130345.

Sarti, L., S. A. Eckert, N. Garcia, and A. R. Barragan. 1996. Decline of the world’s largest nesting assemblage of leatherback turtles. Marine Turtle Newsletter 74:2-5.

Shaver, D. 1997a. Kemp's ridley turtles from international project return to Texas to nest. Pages 38-40 in Sixteenth Annual Gulf of Mexico Information Transfer Meeting. University of New Orleans, New Orleans, LA.

Shaver, D. 1997b. Padre Island National Seashore Kemp's ridley sea turtle project 1996 report. U.S. Geological Survey, Department of the Interior.

Shaver, D. 1999. Padre Island National Seashore Kemp's ridley sea turtle project and Texas sea turtle nesting and strandings 1998 report. Department of the Interior, U.S. Geological Survey.

Shaver, D. 2000. Padre Island National Seashore Kemp's ridley sea turtle project and Texas sea turtle nesting and stranding 1999 report. U.S. Geological Survey, Department of the Interior.

Shaver, D. 2001. Padre Island National Seashore Kemp's ridley sea turtle project and Texas sea turtle nesting and stranding 2000 report. U.S. Geological Survey, Department of the Interior.

Shaver, D. 2002. Kemp's ridley project at Padre Island National Seashore and Texas sea turtle nesting and stranding 2001 report. U.S. Geological Survey, Department of the Interior.

Shaver, D. 2004. Kemp's ridley project at Padre Island National Seashore and Texas sea turtle nesting and stranding 2002 report. National Park Service, Department of the Interior.

Shaver, D. 2005a. Kemp's ridley project at Padre Island National Seashore and Texas sea turtle nesting and stranding 2003 report. National Park Service, Department of the Interior.

Shaver, D. 2006a. Kemp's ridley project at Padre Island National Seashore and Texas sea turtle nesting and stranding 2004 report. National Park Service, Department of the Interior.

Shaver, D. 2006b. Kemp's ridley project at Padre Island National Seashore and Texas sea turtle nesting and stranding 2005 report. National Park Service, Department of the Interior.

Shaver, D., and P. Plotkin. 1998. Marine debris ingestion by sea turtles in South Texas: pre-and post-MARPOL ANNEX V. Byles, R. and Y.

Shaver, D. J., D. W. Owens, A. H. Chaney, C. W. Caillouet, P. Burchfield, and R. Marquez-M. 1988. Styrofoam box and beach temperatures in relation to incubation and sex ratios of Kemp's ridley sea turtles. Pages 103-108 in Proceedings of the Eighth Annual Workshop on Sea Turtle Biology and Conservation.

Shaver, D. J. 1989. Results from eleven years of incubating Kemp's ridley sea turtle eggs at Padre Island National Seashore. Pages 163-165 in Proceedings of the 9th Annual Workshop on Sea Turtle Conservation and Biology.

Shaver, D. J. 1990. Kemp's ridley project at Padre Island enters a new phase. Park Science 10:12-13.

Shaver, D. J. 1994. Relative abundance, temporal patterns, and growth of sea turtles at the Mansfield Channel, Texas. Journal of Herpetology:491-497.

Shaver, D. J. 2005b. Analysis of the Kemp's ridley imprinting and headstart project at Padre Island National Seashore, Texas, 1978-88, with subsequent nesting and stranding records on the Texas coast. Chelonian Research Foundation.

Shaver, D. J., and C. W. Caillouet Jr. 1998. More Kemp's ridley turtles return to south Texas to nest. Marine Turtle Newsletter 82:1-5.

Shaver, D. J., and C. Rubio. 2008. Post-nesting movement of wild and head-started Kemp's ridley sea turtles Lepidochelys kempii in the Gulf of Mexico. Endangered Species Research 3:13.

Shaver, D. J., K. M. Hart, I. Fujisaki, C. Rubio, A. R. Sartain, J. Peña, P. M. Burchfield, D. G. Gamez, and J. Ortiz. 2013. Foraging area fidelity for Kemp's ridleys in the Gulf of Mexico. Ecology and Evolution 3:2002-2012.

Shaver, D. J., K. M. Hart, I. Fujisaki, C. Rubio, A. R. Sartain-Iverson, J. Peña, D. G. Gamez, R. de Jesus Gonzales Diaz Miron, P. M. Burchfield, H. J. Martinez, and J. Ortiz. 2016. Migratory corridors of adult female Kemp's ridley turtles in the Gulf of Mexico. Biological Conservation 194:158-167.

TEWG. 2000. Assessment Update for the Kemp's Ridley and Loggerhead Sea Turtle Populations in the Western North Atlantic. U.S. Dep. Commer. NOAA Tech. Mem. NMFS-SEFSC-444:115 p.

Tomás, J., Á. Formia, M. Fernández, and J. A. Raga. 2003. Occurrence and genetic analysis of a Kemp's Ridley sea turtle (Lepidochelys kempii) in the Mediterranean Sea. Scientia Marina 67:367-369.

Tomás, J., and J. Raga. 2008. Occurrence of Kemp's ridley sea turtle (Lepidochelys kempii) in the Mediterranean. Marine Biodiversity Records 1:e58.

Wallace, B.P., DiMatteo, A.D., Hurley, B.J., Finkbeiner, E.M., Bolten, A.B., Chaloupka, M.Y., Hutchinson, B.J., Abreu-Grobois, F.A., Amorocho, D., Bjorndal, K.A., Bourjea, J., Bowen, B.W., Duenas, R.B., Casale, P., Choudhury, B.C., Costa, A., Dutton, P.H., Fallabrino, A., Girard, A., Girondot, M., Godfrey, M.H., Hamann, M., Lopez-Mendilaharsu, M., Marcovaldi, M.A., Mortimer, J.A., Musick, J.A., Nel, R., Pilcher, N.J., Seminoff, J.A., Troeng, S., Witherington, B. and Mast, R.B. 2010. Regional management units for marine turtles: a novel framework for prioritizing conservation and research across multiple scales. PLoS ONE 5: e15465.

Witt, M. J., R. Penrose, and B. J. Godley. 2007. Spatio-temporal patterns of juvenile marine turtle occurrence in waters of the European continental shelf. Marine Biology, 151: 873-885 p.

Witzell, W. N., and J. R. Schmid. 2005. Diet of immature Kemp's ridley turtles (Lepidochelys kempi) from Gullivan Bay, Ten Thousand Islands, southwest Florida. Bulletin of Marine Science 77:191-200.

Table 1. Three generation change in the amount of nesting by the Kemp’s ridley sea turtle. Past and current amount of nesting are shown for each location and for the entire Gulf of Mexico (GoM). Estimates of a three generation change for nesting in Texas and at Tecolutla were not possible due to the lack of historic data dating back three generations.

Directory: 2017
2017 -> 2017 afoCo Landmark Scholarship Program
2017 -> Florida Supplement to the 2015 ibc chapters 1-35 icc edit version note 1
2017 -> Florida Supplement to the 2015 ibc chapters 1-35 icc edit version note 1
2017 -> 2017 global korea scholarship korean Government Scholarship Program Application Guidelines for Undergraduate Degrees
2017 -> Department of natural resources
2017 -> Kansas 4-h shooting Sports Committee Application
2017 -> Astronomy (C) Teams will demonstrate an understanding of stellar evolution and Type Ia supernova. Bottle Rocket (B)
2017 -> Alabama Association of Educational Opportunity Program Personnel College Scholarship Competition
2017 -> Alabama Association of Educational Opportunity Program Personnel Survivor Scholarship Competition
2017 -> Recitals 2 Article 1 General Provisions 4 a 1 Purpose 4 b 2 Applicable Law and Regulation 4

Download 0.86 Mb.

Share with your friends:

1 2 3 4 5 6 7