* Your assessment is very important for improving the workof artificial intelligence, which forms the content of this project
Download Climate change adaptation strategies for marine turtles - Eco
Climate sensitivity wikipedia , lookup
Climate change denial wikipedia , lookup
Climate engineering wikipedia , lookup
Climate governance wikipedia , lookup
Attribution of recent climate change wikipedia , lookup
Citizens' Climate Lobby wikipedia , lookup
Economics of global warming wikipedia , lookup
Hotspot Ecosystem Research and Man's Impact On European Seas wikipedia , lookup
Climate resilience wikipedia , lookup
Effects of global warming on human health wikipedia , lookup
Solar radiation management wikipedia , lookup
Media coverage of global warming wikipedia , lookup
Climate change in the United States wikipedia , lookup
Climate change in Saskatchewan wikipedia , lookup
Scientific opinion on climate change wikipedia , lookup
Public opinion on global warming wikipedia , lookup
Climate change and agriculture wikipedia , lookup
Climate change in Tuvalu wikipedia , lookup
IPCC Fourth Assessment Report wikipedia , lookup
Years of Living Dangerously wikipedia , lookup
Surveys of scientists' views on climate change wikipedia , lookup
Effects of global warming on humans wikipedia , lookup
Climate change and poverty wikipedia , lookup
DRAFT 2 Developing an approach to adaptation in the Insular Caribbean: the hawksbill turtle as an indicator species Climate change adaptation strategies for marine turtles a working document: draft 2 (June 2008) Outline This document is intended to outline possible adaptation strategies for marine turtles negatively affected by climate change effects such as increasing temperatures and sea level rise. This document intends to attempt to exhaustively list all such options (from highest risk, least advisable, to lowest risk, most advisable, based on best available scientific knowledge to date) and to seek comments on these strategies from a panel of experts (the ACT initiative members). Readers are invited to submit additional adaptation options for review. The result of this document would be a list of adaptation options: from those that are not recommended to those that warrant further investigation and testing. The strategies listed below are not recommended at this stage – they are merely there to catalogue all possible ideas. Contents: INTRODUCTION.................................................................................................................................................. 2 ADAPTATION – what does it mean? .......................................................................................................... 2 AVAILABLE NESTING BEACH..................................................................................................................... 3 SEX RATIOS ............................................................................................................................................................ 3 GENETIC DIVERSITY AND DEPENSATION ........................................................................................ 5 FORAGING AREAS.............................................................................................................................................. 6 DISEASE AND INFECTION ............................................................................................................................ 7 COASTAL MANAGEMENT............................................................................................................................. 7 WHAT NEXT? ........................................................................................................................................................ 9 APPENDIX.............................................................................................................................................................. 10 1. What is adaptation? ..................................................................................................................................................... 10 2. What does adaptation mean in the ACT initiative?.................................................................................... 10 3. Anything else I can read to figure out more?.................................................................................................. 11 4. Definitions......................................................................................................................................................................... 11 REFERENCES......................................................................................................................................................... 12 1 DRAFT 2 INTRODUCTION Climate change is now well documented. Modern conservation practices, however, frequently do not yet include considerations for climate change and how to manage biodiversity protection under future climate scenarios. For this reason, the MacArthur Foundation made a grant to the World Wildlife Fund to try to investigate some adaptation options that could be tested and recommended in marine turtle conservation programmes. A workshop was held in Miami in December 2007 to convene upon the latest understanding of climate change effects on marine turtle ecology and to recommend where the most important research gaps lie. Following on from this workshop, the ACT initiative now intends to create some recommendations for marine turtle “adaptation strategies” to cope with the negative effects of climate change. ADAPTATION – what does it mean? Simply any means by which the negative effects of climate change on marine turtles can be mitigated. Complicating adaptation, particularly for marine turtles, is the relative lack of understanding of the effects of climate change, species biology and the social / cultural system, which means that some adaptation ideas could compound the negative effects of climate change, or inhibit adaptation to positive effects of climate change. What if we do nothing? Ultimately, we cannot as yet predict with any certainty what effect inaction would have on marine turtles under future climate scenarios that are warmer, with stronger storms, rising sea levels and altered precipitation patterns. However, published anthropogenic threats to marine turtles, such as bycatch, boat strikes, direct harvest for eggs, meat and shell, pollution (both chemical and physical causing illnesses and entanglement) and coastal development, could all be compounded by climate change, if climate change threatens human socio-economic and infra-structure systems as expected (IPCC, 2007). Likewise, published non-anthropogenic threats to marine turtles, such as predation, disease, and prey availability could be altered by future climate change (Hamann, Limpus & Read, 2007). The magnitude and direction of such compounding effects are, however, very complex to predict with any confidence as yet. Logic would suggest that a future scenario in which human coastal populations were less likely or able to protect coastal natural resources due to effects of climate change on humans (e.g. droughts, flooding, altered crop production, food production and disease) leading to impaired anthropogenic function (e.g. infrastructure, health care, economic development and education), and where natural systems were altered from their current state would not be positive for marine turtle conservation. Some new foraging or nesting habitats may also be created or existing ones improved. It is important to also look at the potential positives of climate change (such as improved population performance). Turtles may adapt by changing nesting sites, to newly formed sites or already available sites which have become more favourable for nesting and incubation. These areas may face more/less anthropogenic impacts than currently used nesting sites. Turtles may adapt to new foraging areas, or changes to oceanic chemistry or temperature may provide new foraging opportunities (e.g. through changes to sponge biodiversity abundance etc). So should we do something? Available scientific literature suggests that climate conditions may affect some turtle behavioural patterns (Hawkes et al., 2007; Pike, Antworth & Stiner, 2006; Saba et al., 2007; Saba et al., 2008; Van Houton & Bass, 2007). For example, turtles can begin nesting earlier if spring sea surface temperatures are warmer (Weishampel, Bagley & Ehrhart, 2004) and if such behavioural change reduces negative effects of climate change, it may confer an advantage. However, for other currently published threats of climate change to marine turtles, such as temperature dependent sex determination (TSD; (Hawkes et al., 2007; Janzen, 1994; Mrosovsky, 1984), behavioural and / or physiological response may not occur on time scales that match the expected pace of climate change (IPCC, 2007). Adaptation options may therefore be prudent to investigate, particularly given that many marine turtle populations are at levels of concern, as listed by the World Conservation Union (IUCN, 2007). Adaptation options will likely be novel and at times controversial. At their best, they should pose least risk: for example, a strategy for reducing nesting beach erosion by replanting coastal mangrove forests in non-nesting areas along shore from the nesting beaches would not likely negatively impact turtles if the strategy did not work. If “no risk” strategies could be developed to mitigate effects that we expect are likely to happen then they could be recommended for 2 DRAFT 2 immediate implementation and explored further through a monitoring and evaluation programme. Such monitoring should occur both locally and regionally, such that adjustments could be made as needed and conservation impact is maximised and documented. AVAILABLE NESTING BEACH Turtles require sufficient dry beach above the high tide line for nesting. Ideally beaches should have a sufficient depth of non compacted sand, free from excessive vegetation roots, rocks and other items. They should also be free of artificial light, beach obstacles (such as beach furniture) and other disturbances caused by people, vehicles and predators while providing suitable temperature and moisture levels. Sea level rise could cause a net loss of nesting beaches, particularly in the low lying insular Caribbean that have little potential spatial refugia. Coastal development may also cause a net loss of available nesting beach since they can prohibit landward regression of coastal areas (“coastal squeeze”), stopping natural accretion of beaches and evolution of beach morphology. An ACT task group is reviewing the knowledge of nest site selection for marine turtles, but it seems likely that turtles may be able to gradually shift their nesting locations (as evidenced by the fact that the distribution of turtle nesting spreads as far north as thermal conditions will allow, albeit at low levels). It is therefore important to consider not just existing nesting beaches but potential future nesting beaches further south and north of the current nesting range. Suggested adaptation options for mitigating against loss of nesting habitat are: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Detail Transplanting nesting populations to alternative, more “suitable” nesting areas; Use erosion control/beach build-up strategies such as sandbags, beach re-nourishment, groynes, wave attenuation (note: un-altered coral reefs do this naturally) to mitigate beach loss and encourage beach expansion; Move existing infrastructure landward to make available more area for existing nesting beaches to shift as sea level increases; Alter existing infra-structure management for current nesting and non nesting beaches to make developed beach front areas more turtle friendly (e.g. reduced lighting, move beach furniture off the beach at night, reduce access at night); Regulate new development at current nesting and non nesting beaches to be more turtle friendly (e.g. turtle friendly lights, turtle friendly beach furniture, reduced beach use at night, appropriate setbacks); Coastal set backs at current nesting and non nesting beaches used as part of coastal development planning and regulations (a variety of options, informed by a GIS tool, (Fish et al., 2008) Focus efforts on specific nesting rookeries for a population to maintain overall genetic diversity Revise coastal management and use recommendations / regulations Establish sea turtle nurseries so that more turtles can use the same stretch of beach without digging up each other’s nests or laying on top of each other Conduct captive breeding and hatching programmes Use engineering solutions to create new habitat or enhance eroded habitat, beaches or islands using techniques such as sand replenishment Monitor physical and environmental parameters at a regional scale to better predict natural adaptation of turtles to altered habitats – i.e. turtles shifting nesting beaches naturally Inv. Risk 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 SEX RATIOS Marine turtle primary sex ratios reported in peer reviewed science literature are presented in figure 1. Despite significant conservation effort at a wide range of nesting locations, the translation of the sex ratio of hatchlings produced from nests into effective adult sex ratios and the accompanying population dynamics are little understood. This means that a comprehensive understanding of what constitutes an “ideal” primary sex ratio is 3 DRAFT 2 not yet available. Current reported primary sex ratios, coupled with nesting metrics from a variety of nesting rookeries suggests that marine turtles can maintain viable population fertility with proportionally few males at large in the population (between 5 and 10%), but likely depend on exchange of individuals between rookeries or even subpopulations that may have slightly different primary sex ratios (Bowen & Karl, 1997). Suggested adaptation options for mitigating against extremely skewed sex ratios that could prevent fertilisation of nesting females from adequately occurring, and against hatchling mortality from overheating, include: 1 2 3 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Detail Artificially incubate, ex-situ in controlled temperature (CT) rooms all marine turtle eggs for desired sex ratios at a variety of rookery and stock levels Artificially incubate, in beach hatcheries, all marine turtle eggs for desired sex ratios by manipulating: i) beach substrate albedo ii) beach substrate ventilation (grain size) iii) Shading (artificial and vegetation) iv) Precipitation (using watering) v) Clutch size (fewer eggs = less metabolic heat to likely maximum 1°C) vi) Flooding / water table Alter in situ, all marine turtle eggs for desired sex ratios by manipulating: i) beach substrate albedo ii) beach substrate ventilation (grain size) iii) Shading (artificial and vegetation) iv) Precipitation (using watering) v) Clutch size (fewer eggs = less metabolic heat to likely maximum 1°C) vi) Flooding / water table Use beach hatcheries and measure the incubation temperatures of all clutches, report results and move nests to different thermal regimes accordingly to desired sex ratio Measure the incubation temperatures of all clutches, report results and move nests to hatcheries with different thermal conditions to natural nests according to desired sex ratio Transplant all nests from hottest parts (or lethally hot conditions) of the nesting season and of the nesting beach to hatcheries with cooler conditions or incubators to produce viable hatchlings Head start selected rookeries of nesting populations that are known to produce a higher proportion of male offspring Head start selected rookeries of nesting populations that are known to consist of different genetic stocks to maintain genetic diversity within the population as a whole Recreate cooler thermal conditions at some beaches by replanting native coastal vegetation in areas where it has been removed, such that shady conditions with a cooling effect on incubation are restored. Create “thermal refugia” (selected portions of beach that have different beach aspect, sand albedo, grain size, shading, precipitation patterns, flooding patterns, distance to high water mark) that would provide cooler incubation conditions on portions of known nesting beaches that turtles could nest in. Monitor use of these refugia and report results For populations with too few males, raise captive populations of males and release until a “sufficient” proportion of males exist within the population. Inv. Risk 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 4 DRAFT 2 Figure 1: reported pivotal temperatures (top panel), threshold range of temperatures (middle panel) and primary sex ratios (reported as percent female, bottom panel) for five species of marine turtles. A list of the supporting references from this figure can be obtained from Lucy Hawkes [email protected] . GENETIC DIVERSITY AND DEPENSATION The loss of genetic diversity within a rookery can decrease fitness and contribute towards risk of extinction, particularly so for populations at dramatically reduced levels (the ‘depensation’ effect’) where growth rate may be impaired (Stephens & Sutherland, 1999). A rookery that contains a genetically representative portion of all colonies of the population is therefore likely the best choice to ensure resilience after an impact and should confer better likelihood for population recovery. Suggested options for adaptation strategies could be: 1 2 Detail Inv. Risk If security of stock(s) is seriously threatened, breed in captivity and head start a mixture genetic stocks to maintain desired diversity Head start specific genetic stocks of hawksbills to promote relative abundance of different haplotypes in the populations 5 DRAFT 2 3 4 5 6 7 Translocate small numbers of eggs, incubated at male producing temperatures to breeding areas with different haplotype combinations Identify and differentially protect a representation of different haplotypes of hawksbill turtles Identify and differentially protect a replication of different haplotypes of hawksbill turtles Effectively ban illegal direct take of different genetic stocks of hawksbill turtles Improve current knowledge on the mtDNA and microsatellite genetic variability for the whole region to understand historical changes and investigate resilient haplotypes and to use these data as a baseline for any adaptive strategies. FORAGING AREAS The foraging habits and dietary preferences of marine turtles differ between the 7 species of turtle (Bjorndal, 1997). In this document, we will focus on hawksbill turtles, which, in the Caribbean, are thought to mainly forage on sponge species, such as the sponge orders Astrophorida and Hadromerida (Leon & Bjorndal, 2002; Meylan, 1988). Although coral reefs are known to respond to excessively high water temperatures by bleaching (Hoegh-Guldberg, 1999) and that macro-algae may increase in abundance in response to disturbed coral reef systems (Mumby, Hastings & Edwards, 2007), little is known about the effects of such altered dynamics on the diversity and abundance of sponge species (Hill, 1998). Healthy reefs are normally defined as those in which one observes a high proportional live coral cover, presence of crustose corraline algae (which facilitate coral seeding), a good diversity of coral species and high biomass of fish species (Burke & Maidens, 2004; HoeghGuldberg, 1999; Hoegh-Guldberg et al., 2007; Hughes, 1994; Mumby, Hastings & Edwards, 2007). Although some coral species (e.g. Acropora, pocillopora) are fast growing and early maturing (Baird & Maynard, 2008), the majority of coral species are not (Hoegh-Guldberg et al., 2008). Alternative natural responses of corals to climate change could be physiological acclimation and formation of symbioses with multiple species of thermally tolerant dinoflagellates. However, there have been climate related mass coral mortalities in paleontological past (Hoegh-Guldberg et al., 2008), suggesting that the ability of corals to adapt may be limited. Some interesting studies, suitable for PhD or MSc work (Mark Hamann) could be i) to determine how known hawksbill prey species will be affected by projected climate change and what capacity hawksbill turtles have to shift their diet to more resilient sponge species; ii) to determine whether hawksbill turtles could shift to an entirely new diet (e.g. hawksbill turtles in Australia forage mainly on macro algae); iii) the relative response of different minor dietary sponge species to projected change in temperatures, light regimes or water chemistry to potentially become more important prey species. One assumption could be that current reef biodiversity and dynamics host sufficient prey diversity and abundance to maintain hawksbill foraging (as evidenced by the presence of foraging hawksbills on reefs). Under this assumption, suggested options for mitigating against dramatic alteration to current foraging sites of hawksbills could be: 1 2 3 4 5 6 Detail Inv. Risk Screening / sprinkling / shading reef areas to mitigate effects of increased surface 1 temperatures and UV light penetrance Using coral nurseries of known resilient species to re-seed reef areas impacted by localised 2 warming events Increase the biomass of herbivorous fish species on coral reefs using nurseries / screening 3 to prevent algal overgrowth Reduce the harvesting of herbivorous fish species on coral reefs and surrounding areas 4 Effectively protect from non-climate stressors (using MPA’s, effluent reduction and other 5 mitigating measures) a network of coral sites to enhance transport and replenishment of coral polyps between areas Identify and protect critical “refugia” that are protected from bleaching by natural factors 6 (e.g. shading, currents) and are exposed to a good source of replenishment 6 DRAFT 2 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Identify and protect a representation of different types and species of corals Identify and protect a replication of different types and species of corals Effectively manage coral reef areas (reduce threats, enhance recruitment and recovery) Identify and support sponge populations that are resistant/resilient to the negative effects of climate change Develop and implement sponge aquaculture of key sponge species in the lab and create artificial feeding stations for turtles on real or fabricated reefs Create artificial substrate for sponges in areas where corals are too degraded to support sponges Explore / identify potential dietary shifts as a response to decline in sponge abundance and quality and provide protection to possible “new” dietary items 7 8 9 DISEASE AND INFECTION The prevalence and transmission of infectious diseases is thought to occur at increased rates in warmer conditions, although the thresholds for this are as yet unknown. In turtles, the etymology and spread of well recorded diseases such as Fibropapillomatosis (FP; reviewed in (Chaloupka & Balazs, 2005) are little understood at present. There may be some relationships between agro-chemical run off from reefs and impaired reef health (REF) and this effect can be compounded by warmer water temperatures, which can lead to coral bleaching. Potential adaptation options for this threat could be: 1 2 3 4 Detail Inv. Risk Improved agricultural practices using less chemicals Managing nutrients and effluents from agricultural practices Develop treatments for diseases that can be used on turtles in the wild Develop disease monitoring programs and immediately remove any turtles with infectious diseases from the wild. Depending on the disease, these turtles might be treated and released (for curable diseases), or maintained in captivity if they have a transmissible, incurable disease. COASTAL MANAGEMENT Although climate change is a well known and documented anthropogenic threat, little coastal management policy, especially in the Caribbean, has climate change adaptation components. Further, coastal management may be compounded by climate change threats (e.g. sea level rise, coastal development and salt water intrusion) such that many aspects of current anthropogenic function would be impaired: for example increased frequency and severity of both severe droughts and flooding could occur, affecting crop production and potentially causing food shortages. Altered severity of extreme storm events and conditions afterwards could increase the spread of diseases and affect health care and damage infrastructure such that economic development and educational facilities could also be affected. In the case of marine turtles and climate change, coastal management encompasses the conservation of adequate beach space for nesting (see section 1), the protection of nesting females and their eggs, which could be more preferentially harvested for meat and shell products if a coastal livelihood crisis ensure from climate change, the reduction of pollutant run off in known nesting areas and the reduction of accidental capture of juvenile and adult turtles in the fisheries of coastal waters. Suggestions for adaptation options to mitigate such an effect could be: 1 Detail Inv. Risk Move existing infrastructure landward to make available more area for nesting beaches to shift as sea level rises 7 DRAFT 2 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Alter existing infrastructure management to make developed beach front areas more turtle friendly (e.g. reduced lighting, move beach furniture off the beach at night, reduce access at night) Regulate new development to be more turtle friendly (e.g. turtle friendly lights, turtle friendly beach furniture, reduced beach use at night, appropriate setbacks) Coastal set backs used (a variety of options, informed by a GIS tool, (Fish et al., 2008) Legal protection of key nesting sites in place and conservation and monitoring programmes up and running Increased presence of beach guards to prevent illegal take of nesting females Increased presence of beach guards to prevent illegal take of turtle eggs Use of beach hatcheries to protect incubating clutches Improved agricultural practices using less chemicals Managing effluents from agricultural practices Reducing / banning the use of unselective fishing gear that have high by-catch in the vicinity of turtle nesting beaches and juvenile foraging grounds Use of community-based nest monitoring/protection (community members “own” nests that they find, and are paid a set amount of money for each egg in their nests, more for eggs that hatch; this way the community members become the “beach guards.”) Fence off nesting beaches, either just at night or permanently, to prevent not just human use, but use by dogs as well. Create new coastal management policy and legislation Improve stability of beaches / islands Move / protect clutches located at areas that are prone to cyclonic activities, to areas that are less vulnerable 8 DRAFT 2 recommendation WHAT NEXT? The adaptation strategies in this document should be compiled, edited and completed by the WWF MacArthur ACT initiative members and the strategies later reviewed by a different panel of experts. The reviewing audience should rank and rate the adaptation strategies and suggest which of the strategies they most recommend and which they suggest are inappropriate. A form will be given to each audience reviewer to add their comments and to rate the adaptation options. To ease the process, each audience reviewer could only review one section of the seven listed, and this would be chosen at random. The reviewing could take place by email submission from interested parties, or by online form submission at the WWF panda ACT website. Another suggested way to achieve this is to present the adaptation strategies for review to the next International Symposium on Sea Turtle Biology and Conservation in Brisbane, Australia (February 2009). A sponsored side session could be hosted, in which participants are invited to sample randomly from the seven adaptation themes and to appraise the adaptation strategies. Each strategy should be scrutinised for a number of different factors: i) Suitability – how suitable is this adaptation strategy? Do you think it is a good idea? Would you recommend it? Do you think it would work and would work well? Add a ranking between 0 and 10 (where 0 means you expressly do NOT recommend that the strategy is used, 5 means you recommend it as much as not and 10 means you think it is an excellent idea); ii) Feasibility – do you think we could actually do this? Logistically and financially, is it just way too resource intensive? Add a ranking between 0 and 10 (where 0 means you think it just would never happen, 5 means you think it could as easily as not work out and 10 means you think it would be simple to implement, maybe even using existing infrastructure, or it is already underway!). The suitability and feasibility scores can be multiplied to obtain a composite score that reflects the overall best and worst marine turtle adaptation strategies. CHEAPEST AND MOST RECOMMENDED MOST RECOMMENDED BUT MOST EXPENSIVE CHEAPEST BUT LEAST RECOMMENDED NOT HIGHLY RECOMMENDED AND EXPENSIVE cost (time and money) Figure 2: Chart showing potential scoring matrix for suggested adaptation strategies. Axis units are representative and do not have units. Next steps could be: 1. Circulate this document round all ACT initiative members for additional adaptation options; 2. Create a questionnaire with each adaptation strategy, grouped into the seven sections; 3. Sponsor a session at the ISTS / create online form submission / solicit response online. 9 DRAFT 2 APPENDIX 1. What is adaptation? To many biologists, “adaptation” is synonymous with beneficial evolutionary responses of species of animals and plants; to wildlife managers it can be aligned with conservation techniques (such as adaptive management); to donors / funding agencies / climate change institutions it can even be mitigation measures. In general, the definitions, in the context of climate change, seem to have in common a change in a variety of processes and practices to cope with climate change impacts, all seem to imply the inclusion of humans and all are fairly general. Most of all they are rather vague - some definitions require definitions of their composite words (e.g. vulnerability, resistance, resilience) and are not specific. What does and does not constitute adaptation is hard to understand from even this set of 5 definitions. This is a problem – not only do scientists, conservationists and managers not seem to understand the term well, funding agencies and trusts also seem to find it problematic in terms of what it specifically refers to, which could lead, in worst case scenarios, to an underfunding of legitimate adaptation work. Hence definitions of “adaptation” are novel and can be ambiguous. Inherently as scientists we need to quantify and give reasoning for conservation goals and targets, yet if the pace of climate change occurs as in high emissions scenarios, we might not have time to collect the evidence that would normally make us comfortable in proceeding with recommendations. In short, we are charting new territory and are being hurried for a decision by ongoing climate change. We may need to make uncomfortable decisions without exhaustive supporting data and recommendations and try to think about how risky each adaptation strategy could be if it went wrong versus how beneficial it might be if it worked AND deal with a lack of evidence to be sure about that risk. Tricky stuff… 2. What does adaptation mean in the ACT initiative? Plainly, we mean: What things can be done to help turtles cope with adverse effects of climate change? So in longer terms, these would be activities that would help turtle populations and their habitats to be more resistant and resilient to climate change effects, where resistance is the ability to withstand change, and resilience is the ability to recover after change (see section 4.). For example, an adaptation activity could include securing spatial refugia for turtles to be able to cope with climate change without additional intervention, e.g. effectively managed beaches and networked protected areas with sufficient marine turtle habitats; reducing pollution and run off from agricultural practices (examples of non-climate stressors); intervening to maintain diverse gene pools for increased resilience by prioritizing conservation at a variety of genetic sources. Adaptations may be direct (e.g. hatcheries and manipulating sex ratios to mitigate the impact of overheating) or indirect (e.g. Marine Protected Areas to increase the resilience of feeding sites). Adaptations may take place over a variety of spatial scales. Based on the above and from discussions at the WWF/MacArthur Miami workshop in December 2007 and the WWF / Hewlett Packard Climate Camp workshop in February 2008, some specific suggestions for a marine turtle adaptation agenda are: 1. Integrating climate change into written management policy (e.g. coastal and MPA management) 2. Integrating the strengthening of resilience into coastal management by creating / protecting a) Refugia (“lucky” sites that are naturally more resistant or tolerant to CC) b) Representation and replication (protect turtles and habitats of a variety of types) 10 DRAFT 2 c) Connectivity (incorporate knowledge about connectivity to make sure that hatchling dispersal, developmental areas etc. are incorporated into networks of protected areas) d) Good conditions (good water quality, lack of diseases) 3. Reduce local stressors (usually non climate, e.g. direct harvest for meat and/or shell) 4. Protect, maintain or enhance conditions that promote ecosystem recovery (e.g. healthy reefs) 5. Engage stakeholders that benefit from marine turtles (e.g. community conservation programs) Supporting adaptation efforts should be work to mitigate climate stressors (e.g. WWF lobbying for emissions reductions). Note that mitigation options should be considered separate to adaptation, but are essential to the long term success of adaptation strategies. 3. Anything else I can read to figure out more? WWF has made significant inroads into incorporating adaptation into conservation work. There are several excellent sources of information available to support this work, which give more information about the nature of adaptation. “Buying time” (http://assets.panda.org/downloads/buyingtime_unfe.pdf) is a manual for natural resource managers and conservationists to cope with climate change effects and has some core information about adaptation. WWF has also produced a leaflet about marine turtles and adaptation work that can be used to guide and shape the work in the ACT initiative (http://www.panda.org/about_wwf/where_we_work/latin_america_and_caribbean/index.cfm) as well as a library of different information about climate change and WWF’s climate change work (http://www.panda.org/about_wwf/what_we_do/climate_change/index.cfm). For even more information, see http://www.adaptationnetwork.org. This page (a non-profit organization and project of the Earth Island Institute) has a short but handy discussion of adaptation. Its goal is to promote adaptation in concert with mitigation to build resilience in future changing climate. It has some helpful publications and presentations. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s Adaptation site, http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/effects/adaptation.html has links to a variety of good documents, and a new Wiki site (https://climadapt.pbwiki.com/) is currently providing a forum for discussion of adaptation concepts, follow the link to request access to the Wiki. 4. Definitions Resistance: the ability to withstand change Resilience: the ability to recover from change Adaptation: anything that increases a (biological or anthropogenic) community’s ability to remain intact and functional in the face of climate change Vulnerability: Patwardhan (2006) defines vulnerability in 5 key steps, the amount of data required to estimate, and understanding of vulnerability, increases through the list: i. The degree of exposure – a measure of the potential hazards, e.g. a likely range ii. The degree of effects – a measure of the physical impacts caused by the hazards iii. The degree of loss – a measure of the change in benefits caused by the hazards when nothing is done to mitigate iv. The degree of least loss - a measure of the change in benefits caused by the hazards when the optimal amount is done to mitigate v. The opportunity cost of inaction – the difference in loss between (v) and (iv) 11 DRAFT 2 REFERENCES Baird, A. & Maynard, J.A. (2008) Coral adaptation in the face of climate change. Science, 320, 316-16. Bjorndal, K.A. (1997). Foraging Ecology and Nutrition of Sea Turtles. In The Biology of Sea Turtles (eds P.L. Lutz & J.A. Musick), Vol. 1, p 432. CRC Press, Boca Raton. Bowen, B.W. & Karl, S.A. (1997). Population Genetics, Phylogeography, and Molecular Evolution. In The Biology of Sea Turtles (eds P.L. Lutz & J.A. Musick), Vol. 1, p 432. CRC Press, Boca Raton. Burke, L. & Maidens, J. (2004). Reefs at risk in the Caribbean. In (ed W.R. Institute), p 80, Washington, D.C. Chaloupka, M. & Balazs, G. (2005) Modelling the effect of fibropapilloma disease on the somatic growth dynamics of Hawaiian green sea turtles. Marine Biology, 147(5), 1251-60. Fish, M.R., Cote, I.M., Horrocks, J.A., Mulligan, B., Watkinson, A.R. & Jones, A.P. (2008) Construction setback regulations and sea level rise: mitigating sea turtle nesting beach loss. Ocean and Coastal Management, 51, 330-41. Hamann, M., Limpus, C.J. & Read, M.A. (2007). Chapter 15 Vulnerability of marine reptiles in the Great Barrier Reef to climate change. In Climate change and the Great Barrier Reef: a vulnerability assessment (eds J.E. Johnson & P.A. Marshall), Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority and Australia Greenhouse Office, Australia. Hawkes, L.A., Broderick, A.C., Godfrey, M.H. & Godley, B.J. (2007) Investigating the potential impacts of climate change on a marine turtle population. Global Change Biology, 13, 1-10. Hill, H.M. (1998) Spongivory on Caribbean reefs releases corals from competition with sponges. Oecologia, 117, 143-50. Hoegh-Guldberg, O. (1999) Climate change, coral bleaching and the future of the worlds coral reefs. Marine and freshwater research, 50, 839-66. Hoegh-Guldberg, O., Mumby, P.J., Hooten, A.J., Steneck, R.S., Greenfield, P., Gomez, E., Harvell, C.D., Sale, P.F., Edwards, A.J., Caldeira, K., Knowlton, N., Eakin, C.M., Iglesias-Prieto, R., Muthiga, N., Bradbury, R.H., Dubi, A. & Hatziolos, M.E. (2007) Coral reefs under rapid climate change and ocean acidification. Science, 318, 1737. Hoegh-Guldberg, O., Mumby, P.J., Hooten, A.J., Steneck, R.S., Greenfield, P., Gomez, E., Harvell, C.D., Sale, P.F., Edwards, A.J., Caldeira, K., Knowlton, N., Eakin, C.M., Iglesias-Prieto, R., Muthiga, N., Bradbury, R.H., Dubi, A. & Hatziolos, M.E. (2008) Coral adaptation in the face of climate change: Response. Science, 320, 315-16. Hughes, T.P. (1994) Catastrophes, phase shifts and large scale degradation of a Caribbean coral reef. Science, 265, 1547-51. IPCC. (2007). Summary for policymakers. In Climate change 2007: Impacts, adapation and vulnerability. Contributions of working group II to the Fourth Assessment report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (eds M.L. Parry, O.F. Canziani, J.P. Palutikof, P.J. van der Linden & C.E. Hanson), pp. 7-22, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. IUCN. (2007) 2007 red list of threatened species (WWW document). URL: http://www.iucnredlist.org (accessed 14 May 08). Janzen, F.J. (1994) Climate-Change And Temperature-Dependent Sex Determination In Reptiles. Proceedings Of The National Academy Of Sciences Of The United States Of America, 91(16), 7487-90. Leon, Y.M. & Bjorndal, K.A. (2002) Selective feeding in the hawksbill turtle, an important predator in coral reef ecosystems. Marine ecology progress series, 245, 249-58. Meylan, A.B. (1988) Spongivory in hawksbill turtles: a diet of glass. Science, 239(4838), 393-95. Mrosovsky, N. (1984) Editorial. Marine Turtle Newsletter, 28, 1-2. Mumby, P.J., Hastings, A. & Edwards, H.J. (2007) Thresholds and the resilience of Caribbean coral reefs. Nature, 450(7166), 98-101. 12 DRAFT 2 Pike, D.A., Antworth, R.L. & Stiner, J.C. (2006) Earlier nesting contributes to shorter nesting seasons for the Loggerhead Seaturtle, Caretta caretta. Journal of Herpetology, 40(1), 91-94. Saba, V.S., Santidrian-Tomillo, P., Reina, R.D., Spotila, J.R., Musick, J.A., Evans, D.A. & Paladino, F.V. (2007) The effect of the El Nino Southern Oscillation on the reproductive frequency of eastern Pacific leatherback turtles. Journal of Applied Ecology, 44, 395-404. Saba, V.S., Spotila, J.R., Chavez, F.P. & Musick, J.A. (2008) Bottom up and climatic forcing on the worldwide population of leatherback turtles. Ecology, 89(5), 1414-27. Stephens, P.A. & Sutherland, W.J. (1999) Consequences of the Allee effect for behaviour, ecology and conservation. Trends in Ecology and Evolution, 14(10), 401-05. Van Houton, K.S. & Bass, O.L. (2007) Stormy oceans are associated with declines in sea turtle hatching. Current Biology, 17(15), R590. Weishampel, J.F., Bagley, D.A. & Ehrhart, L.M. (2004) Earlier nesting by loggerhead sea turtles following sea surface warming. Global Change Biology, 10(8), 1424-27. Dr Lucy Hawkes Marine Turtle and Climate Change Programme Leader World Wildlife Fund 1061 Queen Helmut Street Belize City, Belize, Central America T: (501) 223-7680 / 7684 F: (501) 223-7681 M: (501) 669-8280 E: [email protected] Belize City, March 11, 2008 This draft was contributed to by: Carlos Drews Mariana Fuentes Mark Hamann Lucy Hawkes Jennie Hoffman Matthew Witt 13