seaturtle.org : MTN : ARCHIVES : Sign In

The specimen belongs to the most vulnerable life stage to tarballs, hatchlings and post-hatchlings. This vulnerability is related to their relative small size; to their low motility, that lead them to concentrate in convergence zones, where the oil also tends to concentrate; and to their swimming mode, surface swimming, which increases their chances of interaction. In Florida convergence zones, from 103 post-hatchling analyzed, tar was found in 65 individuals (Lohoefener et al. 1989). Witherington (1994) showed that 34% of post-hatchling at “weed lines” off the Florida coast had tar in their mouths or esophagi. Lutz (1989) reported that hatchlings have been found dead, apparently starved to death, with their beaks and esophagi blocked with tarballs.
This specimen also represents a register of the occurrence of a size class that has not been found in Paraíba yet. The mean CCL size of green turtles found stranded in this area was 56.5 cm (2002-2003) and the smallest was 29.3 cm (Mascarenhas et al. 2005). Until the current specimen was found, there were only unpublished fishermen reports regarding the presence of individuals of this size class, captured in entanglement nets in the reefs close to the coast. The CCL of green turtles recruiting to the neritic zone is between 20-35 cm (Bjorndal 1997; Musick & Limpus 1997) with smaller individuals thought to reside in the pelagic zone (Carr 1987). The occurrence of this specimen and the fishermen reports Mandate further investigation as to the possibility of small juvenile green turtles in the neritic.
Acknowledgements: Thanks to Louisa Sousa for English support. We thank the editors and the two anonymous referees for their relevant suggestions.
BJORNDAL, K.A. 1997. Foraging ecology and nutrition of sea turtles. In: Lutz, P.L. & J.A. Musick (Eds). The Biology of Sea Turtles. CRC Press, Boca Raton, FL. pp. 199-231.
CARR, A. 1987. New perspectives on the pelagic stage of sea turtle development. Conservation Biology 1: 103-212.
LOHOEFENER, R. R., W. HOGGARD, C.L. RODEN, K.D. MULLIN, & C.M. ROGERS. 1989. Petroleum structures and the distribution of sea turtles. In: Proceedings: Spring Ternary Gulf of Mexico Studies Meeting, Minerals Management Service, U.S. Department of the Interior, New Orleans, La. pp. 31-35.
LUTZ, P. L. 1989. Methods for determining the toxicity of oil and dispersants to sea turtles. In: T. W. Duke & G. Petrazzuolo (Eds). Oil and Dispersant Toxicity Testing: Proceedings of a Workshop on Technical Specifications Held in New Orleans, LA. Prepared under MMS contract 14-12-0001-30447, OCS Study MMS 89-0042, pp. 97–101.
MASCARENHAS, R., R.G. SANTOS & D. ZEPPELINI. 2005. Stranded sea turtles on the coast of Paraíba, Brazil. Marine Turtle Newsletter 107:13-14.
MUSICK, J.A. & C.J. LIMPUS. 1997. Habitat utilization and migration in juvenile sea turtles. In: Lutz, P.L. & J.A. Musick (Eds). The Biology of Sea Turtles. CRC Press, Boca Raton, FL. pp. 137-163.
NMFS 1991. Recovery Plan for U.S. Population of Atlantic Green Turtle. National Marine Fisheries Service. Washington, D.C.
NOAA 2003. Oil and Sea Turtles – Biology, Planning and Response. NOAA’s National Ocean Service, Office of Response and Restoration. Washington, D.C.
WITHERINGTON, B.E. 1994. Flotsam, jetsam, post-hatchling loggerheads, and the advecting surface smorgasbord. In: Proc. 14th Ann. Symp. Sea Turtle Biology and Conservation, K. A. Bjorndal, A. B. Bolten, D. A. Johnson, and P. J. Eliazar, compilers. NOAA Tech. Memo. NMFS-SEFSC-351, Miami, Fla. p. 166.