Sea Turtle Rehabilitation Success Increases with Body Size and Differs Among Species

Authors

  • Linda Baker College of Marine and Environmental Sciences, James Cook University
  • Will Edwards College of Marine and Environmental Sciences, James Cook University
  • David A. Pike

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.53607/wrb.v34.92

Keywords:

Animal hospital, endangered species, human intervention, injury, marine turtle, public engagement, sea turtle stranding, survival, veterinary care, wildlife rehabilitation

Abstract

Wildlife rehabilitation can contribute to species conservation by releasing healthy individuals back into the wild and educating the public about threatening processes. Rehabilitation has substantial financial costs, however, and thus it is important to understand the success rates of these potential conservation management actions. We quantified the success rates for 1700 sea turtles admitted to rehabilitation facilities in Florida (USA) between 1986 and 2004. Rehabilitation success was low: 61.5% of turtles died in rehabilitation and only 36.8% were released back into the wild. A further 1.6% of turtles were maintained in captivity permanently due to the severe nature of their injuries. Most mortality occurred early during the rehabilitation process (within a few weeks), and successful rehabilitation often took several months to more than 3 yr. Loggerhead turtles (Caretta caretta) were most likely to survive rehabilitation, followed by Kemp’s ridleys (Lepidochelys kempii) and green turtles (Chelonia mydas); for all three species, larger individuals had an increased chance of successful rehabilitation. At face value, the low rates of rehabilitated turtles successfully released back into the wild may contribute only modestly to conservation in terms of contributing to population viability. However, many rehabilitation facilities provide important educational experiences that increase public awareness of the threats facing animals and highlight potential conservation solutions. Media coverage highlighting the release of rehabilitated animals further extends the conservation value of these efforts. Wildlife rehabilitation provides important direct benefits that, combined with social benefits, together may justify the expense and difficulty of rehabilitating individual animals. 

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

Author Biographies

Linda Baker, College of Marine and Environmental Sciences, James Cook University

College of Marine and Environmental Sciences; Centre for Tropical Environmental & Sustainability Science James Cook University, Cairns, Queensland, Australia

Will Edwards, College of Marine and Environmental Sciences, James Cook University

College of Marine and Environmental Sciences; Centre for Tropical Environmental & Sustainability Science James Cook University, Cairns, Queensland, Australia 

David A. Pike

Centre for Tropical Environmental & Sustainability Science,  James Cook University, Cairns, Queensland; College of Marine and Environmental Sciences, James Cook University, Townsville, Queensland, Australia 

References

Agresti, A., and B. A. Coull. 1998. Approximate is Better than ‘Exact’ for Interval Estimation of Binomial Proportions. American Statistician 52: 119–126.

Allen, L. K. 2000. Protected Species and New England Fisheries: An Overview of the Problem and Conservation Strategies. Northeastern Naturalist 7: 411–418.

Bagarinao, T. U. 2011. The Sea Turtles Captured by Coastal Fisheries in the Northeastern Sulu Sea, Philippines: Documentation, Care and Release.

Herpetological Conservation and Biology 6: 353–363.

Barto, K. 2012. MuMIn Multi–model Inference Package, version 1.8.4. Available from: .

Biddle, T. M., and C. J. Limpus. 2011. Marine Wildlife Stranding and Mortality Database Annual Reports 2005–2010. Marine Turtles.

Conservation and Technical Data Report, Department of Environment and Resource Management, Brisbane, Australia.

Burnham, K. P., and D. R. Anderson. 1998. Model Selection and Inference: A Practical Information–Theoretic Approach. Springer–Verlag: New York, NY.

Cardona, L., G. Fernández, M. Revelles, and A. Aguilar. 2012. Readaptation to the Wild of Rehabilitated Loggerhead Sea Turtles (Caretta caretta) Assessed by Satellite Telemetry. Aquatic Conservation 22: 104–112.

Casal, A. B., and J. Orós. 2009. Plasma Biochemistry and Haematology Values in Juvenile Loggerhead Sea Turtles Undergoing Rehabilitation. Vet Record 164: 663–665.

Dodd, C. K., and R. A. Seigel. 1991. Relocation, Repatriation, and Translocation of Amphibians and Reptiles: Are They Conservation Strategies that Work? Herpetologica 47: 336–350.

Dutton, P. H., and D. Squires. 2008. Reconciling Biodiversity with Fishing: A Holistic Strategy for Pacific Sea Turtle Recovery. Ocean Development and International Law 39: 200–222.

Feck, A. D., and M. Hamann. 2013. Effect of Sea Turtle Rehabilitation Centres in Queensland, Australia on People’s Perceptions of Conservation. Endangered Species Research 20: 153–165.

Ferraro, P. J., and S. K. Pattanayak. 2006. Money for Nothing? A Call for Empirical Evaluation of Biodiversity Conservation Investments. PLoS Biology 4: e105.

Foley, A. M., B. A. Schroeder, A. E. Redlow, K. J. Fick–Child, and W. G. Teas. 2005. Fibropapillomatosis in Stranded Green Turtles (Chelonia mydas) from the Eastern United States (1980–98): Trends and Associations with Environmental Factors. Journal of Wildlife Diseases 41: 29–41.

Goldberg, D.W., J. Wanderlinde, I. M. A. Freire, L. C. P. da Silva, and N. R. P. Almosny. 2011. Serum Biochemistry Profile Determination for Wild Loggerhead Sea Turtles Nesting in Campos dos Goytacazes, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil. Ciências Rurais 41: 143–148.

Greenland, J. A., and C. J. Limpus. 2006. Marine Wildlife Stranding and Mortality Database Annual Report 2004. III. Marine Turtles. Conservation Technical and Data Report. Environmental Protection Agency: Brisbane, Australia.

Greenland, J. A., and C. J. Limpus. 2008. Marine Wildlife Stranding and Mortality Database Annual Report 2003. III. Marine Turtles. Conservation Technical and Data Report. Environmental Protection Agency: Brisbane, Australia.

Greenland, J. A., C. J. Limpus, and K. J. Currie. 2004. Queensland Marine Wildlife Stranding and Mortality Database Annual Report 2001–2002. III. Marine Turtles. Conservation Technical and Data Report. Environmental Protection Agency: Brisbane, Australia.

Haines, J. A., and C. J. Limpus. 2001. Marine Wildlife Stranding and Mortality Database Annual Report, 2000. III. Marine Turtles. Conservation Technical and Data Report. Queensland Parks and Wildlife Service: Brisbane, Australia.

Haines, J.A., C. J. Limpus, and S. Flakus. 2000. Marine Wildlife Stranding and Mortality Database Annual Report, 1999. III. Marine Turtles. Conservation Technical and Data Report. Queensland Parks and Wildlife Service: Brisbane, Australia.

IUCN—International Union for Conservation of Nature.1995. A Global Strategy for the Conservation of Marine Turtles. IUCN Species Survival Commission Marine Turtle Specialist Group, Cambridge.

Karesh, W. B. 1995. Wildlife Rehabilitation: Additional Considerations for Developing Countries. Journal of Zoo and Wildlife Medicine 26: 2–9.

Mestre, F., M. P. Braganca, A. Nunes, and M. E. dos Santos. 2014. Satellite Tracking of Sea Turtles Released After Prolonged Captivity Periods. Marine Biology Research 10: 996–1006.

Moore, M., G. Early, K. Touhey, S. Barco, F. Gulland, and R. Wells. 2007. Rehabilitation and Release of Marine Mammals in the United States: Risks and Benefits. Marine Mammal Science 23: 731–750.

R Development Core Team. 2012. R: A Language and Environment for Statistical Computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna.

Shaver, D. J., and W. G. Teas. 1999. Stranding and Salvage Networks. Pp. 152–155n in Research and Management Techniques for the Conservation of Sea Turtles (K. L. Eckert, K. A. Bjorndal, F.A. Abreu– Grobois, and M. Donnelly, editors). Publ. No. 4, IUCN/ SSC Marine Turtle Specialist Group, Washington, DC.

Teas, W. G. 1993. Species Composition and Size Class Distribution of Marine Turtle Strandings on the Gulf of Mexico and Southeast United States Coasts, 1985–1991. NOAA Tech Memo NMFS–SEFSC–409, Miami, FL.

Tribe. A., and P. R. Brown. 2000. The Role of Wildlife Rescue Groups in the Care and Rehabilitation of Australian Fauna. Human Dimensions of Wildlife 5: 69–85.

Wallace, B. P., A. D. DiMatteo, A. B. Bolten, and M. Y. Chaloupka. 2011. Global Conservation Priorities for Marine Turtles. PLoS ONE 6: e24510.

Wimberger, K., C. T. Downs, and R. S. Boyes. 2010. A Survey of Wildlife Rehabilitation in South Africa: Is There a Need for Improved Management? Animal Welfare 19:481–499.

Downloads

Published

2015-11-01

How to Cite

Baker, L., Edwards, W. ., & Pike, D. (2015). Sea Turtle Rehabilitation Success Increases with Body Size and Differs Among Species. Wildlife Rehabilitation Bulletin, 34(1), 26–35. https://doi.org/10.53607/wrb.v34.92