GVI Costa Rica

Coastal Rainforest and Wildlife Expedition

Phase Report 071

11th January – 21st March 2007

 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 by
Rebeca Chaverri - Country Director
James Lewis - Expedition Manager
Julie Jackson - Expedition Staff
Luke Hicks - Expedition Staff
Brianne Smith - Expedition Staff

And
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 Member
Ian James Expedition Member Elise Walker Expedition Member
Alice Greenland Expedition Member Joanna Higson Expedition Member

Edited by
Britt Larsen - Regional Director

GVI Costa Rica Coastal Rainforest and Wildlife Expedition

Address: Estación Biológica Caño Palma, Tortuguero, Costa Rica

Tel: (+506) 709 8052
Email: Costa_rica@gvi.co.uk

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

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 Estación Biológica Caño Palma (EBCP), has continued to work
towards 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 Caño 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

3
Table of Contents

Executive Summary ........................................................................................................ 3

1 Introduction.............................................................................................................. 7
2 Jaguar Predation on Marine Turtles ......................................................................... 8
2.1 Introduction ...................................................................................................... 8
2.2 Aim .................................................................................................................. 9
2.3 Methodology .................................................................................................... 9
2.4 Results........................................................................................................... 10
2.5 Discussion ..................................................................................................... 12
3 Camera Trapping................................................................................................... 13
3.1 Introduction .................................................................................................... 13
3.2 Aim ................................................................................................................ 14
3.3 Methodology .................................................................................................. 14
3.3.1 Study Site............................................................................................... 14
3.3.2 Location of cameras ............................................................................... 14
3.3.3 Setting the Cameras .............................................................................. 15
3.3.4 Checking the Cameras ........................................................................... 15
3.3.5 Data Entering and Analysis .................................................................... 16
3.4 Results........................................................................................................... 16
3.5 Discussion ..................................................................................................... 17
4 Sea Turtle Monitoring Programme ......................................................................... 17
4.1 Introduction .................................................................................................... 17
4.2 Aim ................................................................................................................ 18
4.3 Methodology .................................................................................................. 18
4.3.1 Study site ............................................................................................... 18
4.3.2 Preparations........................................................................................... 19
4.3.3 Daily track census and nest surveys ...................................................... 20
4.3.4 Night Surveys ......................................................................................... 20
4.3.5 Nest Fate, Nest Survivorship and Hatching Success .............................. 22
4.3.6 Disguising Nests .................................................................................... 23
4.3.7 Collection of Human Impact Data ........................................................... 23
4.4 Results........................................................................................................... 23
4.5 Discussion ..................................................................................................... 24
5 EBCP Resident Bird Project .................................................................................. 24
5.1 Introduction .................................................................................................... 24
5.2 Aim ................................................................................................................ 25
5.3 Method........................................................................................................... 25
5.3.1 Area Searches ....................................................................................... 25
5.3.2 Incidental Observations .......................................................................... 26
5.4 Results........................................................................................................... 26
5.4.1 Survey Data ........................................................................................... 26
5.4.2 Incidental Observations .......................................................................... 29
5.5 Discussion ..................................................................................................... 29
6 Tourist Impact Survey Caño Palma ....................................................................... 30
6.1 Introduction .................................................................................................... 30
6.2 Aims .............................................................................................................. 31
6.3 Methodology .................................................................................................. 31
6.4 Results........................................................................................................... 31
6.5 Discussion ..................................................................................................... 31
4
7 Reforestation ......................................................................................................... 32
7.1 Introduction .................................................................................................... 32
7.2 Aim ................................................................................................................ 32
7.3 Methodology .................................................................................................. 33
7.3.1 Seed Collection ...................................................................................... 33
7.3.2 Sapling Collection .................................................................................. 33
7.3.3 Bagging Seeds and Saplings ................................................................. 33
7.3.4 Replanting .............................................................................................. 34
7.4 Results........................................................................................................... 34
7.5 Discussion ..................................................................................................... 34
8 Incidentals ............................................................................................................. 35
8.1 EBCP Incidentals ........................................................................................... 35
8.1.1 Introduction ............................................................................................ 35
8.1.2 Aims ....................................................................................................... 35
8.1.3 Methodology .......................................................................................... 35
8.1.4 Results ................................................................................................... 36
8.2 Primates ........................................................................................................ 36
8.2.1 Introduction ............................................................................................ 36
8.2.2 Aims ....................................................................................................... 37
8.2.3 Methodology .......................................................................................... 37
8.2.4 Results ................................................................................................... 38
8.3 Discussion ..................................................................................................... 38
9 Teaching Community Report ................................................................................. 39
9.1 Introduction .................................................................................................... 39
9.2 Aims .............................................................................................................. 39
9.3 Methods ......................................................................................................... 40
9.3.1 Training .................................................................................................. 40
9.3.2 Teaching ................................................................................................ 40
9.3.3 Results ................................................................................................... 41
9.4 Discussion ..................................................................................................... 41
10 References ............................................................................................................ 43
11 Appendices............................................................................................................ 46
Appendix A ................................................................................................................ 46
Appendix B ................................................................................................................ 47

5
Figures

Figure 2-1 Beach distribution of jaguar tracks and turtle tracks along the 14.5 miles in
Tortuguero National Park. Survey Period: 19 Jan—17 Mar, 2007. ................................ 11

Figure 5-1 Total number of species and surveys on aquatic trails, Caño Chiquero, Caño
Harold and Caño Palma. ............................................................................................... 27

Figure 5-2 Number of key species recorded during surveys of Caño Chiquero aquatic
trail ................................................................................................................................ 28

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

6
1 Introduction

The Coastal Rainforest and Wildlife Conservation Expedition at the Caño 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.

7
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, a
significant number of leatherback turtles (Dermochelys coriacea), occasional hawksbill
(Eretmochelys imbricata), and loggerhead (Caretta caretta) turtles nest in TNP (Troëng,
2000). The nesting turtle population has been monitored on the park’s 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 were
identified 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 Corporation’s (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 weren’t
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
(Troëng, 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 (Troëng, 2000; Magally Castro, pers. comm.).

8
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 a
more 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
9
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 (distance
from 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 11th July 2005.

No turtle carcasses showing signs of predation were observed during phase 071. The
number 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.

10
 20

# Jag tracks
18

# Turtle tracks
16
(leatherback and green
half moon and nests)
14

12

10

0
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

Figure 2-1 Beach distribution of jaguar tracks and turtle tracks along the 14.5 miles in Tortuguero
National Park. Survey Period: 19 Jan—17 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 24th 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.

11
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 the
beach 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
(Troëng, 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

12
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 be
made.

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.

13
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.
14
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 animal’s 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 had
passed 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

15
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 19th
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 26th 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.

16
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 less
common 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) (Troëng et al. 2004) and green turtle (Chelonia mydas)
populations (Troëng & 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
17
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 (Caribbean
Conservation 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 (10º36’36,9”N -
83º31’52,1”W) at the southernmost point until Laguna Cuatro (10º37’56,3”N –
83º32’25,7”W) 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 Conservación Tortuguero) under MINAE – the
Costa Rica Ministry of Environment and Energy.

18
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 (N10º35’51” – W83º31’40”) to mile 18 (N10º21’46” –
W83º23’41”) 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.

19
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 (Troëng et al. 2004). Surveys
were conducted every couple of days beginning February 25th 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

20
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 with
the 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.

21
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. Triangulation
was 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.

22
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 sand
with 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 15th 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 tags
used 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

23
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 Estación Biológica Caño
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 Rica’s 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

24
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:
25
• 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 Caño Palma (4:00 surveys and 14:00 surveys), eight on Caño Harold
(7:00 surveys and 13:00 survey), and 5 on Caño Chiquero (5:00 surveys). A total of 20
species were recorded on the three study sites combined.

26
 20

18

16

14

12

number of surveys
10 number of species
number of records *10

0
Cano Chiquero Cano Harold Cano Palma

Figure 5-1 Total number of species and surveys on aquatic trails, Caño Chiquero, Caño
Harold and Caño Palma.

35

30

25

20

15

10

0
t
r

on
t

t
in

is

be

na
r

r
on

on

on

re
re

re
he

he

he

he
ng

Ib
pk

er
re

Eg
er

ca
er

er
Eg

Eg
fis

fis

fis

fis
hi
m

en

H
g

r-H
H

H
Ja
ng

An
ng

ng

ng

un

y
at

tle
Li

re

ue
d

ow
ge
re

n
Ki

ki

Ki
re

ke
ki

S
at
G

er

Bl
Sn
G
o

Ti
C
d

en

ac
y

th
ol
ge
gm

ou

e
ed
re

-b

ttl
or
ic
in

uf
Tr
Py

en
G

Li
N
at
R

-R

ro

re
an

nd

-th

G
ic

-a

re
er

en

Ba
Am

re
G

27
Figure 5-2 Number of key species recorded during surveys of Caño Chiquero aquatic trail

The top five most frequently observed species in the Caño 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 Caño Chiquero were the green Ibis
(Mesembrinibis cayennensis) and the limpkin (Aramus guarauna).

70

60

50

40

30

20

10

0
t
on
r

on

on
t

et

is
be

na
r

on

on
re
re
he

he

he

he

ng
Ib
gr
er

er

er
re

Eg

er
ca

er
Eg
fis

fis
fis

fis

hi
tE

en
t-H

H
ng

r-H

H
Ja
ng

An
ng

ng

ng

y
tle

ea

re
d

ue
d
ow
Su
gh

ge
n
ille
Ki

Ki

ki

ke
ki
at

G
r

er

Bl
Ni

Sn
G

Ti
C

en

ac
y

s
-b

th
ge
gm

ou

e
d

ed
at

re

-b

ttl
or
ne

in
uf
Bo
Py

en
G

Li
N

at
R
-R
w

ro

re
ro
an

nd

-th

G
-C
ic

-a

re
er

en

Ba
llo
Am

re
Ye

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

The five most frequently observed species in the afternoon survey on Caño 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 Caño Harold was the green ibis
(Mesembrinibis cayennensis)

28
 16

14

12

10

0
Amazon American Belted Great Egret Little Blue Bare- Ringed Green Anhinga Green Ibis Green- Yellow-
Kingfisher Pygmy Kingfisher Heron throated kingfisher kingfisher backed Crowned
Kingfisher Tiger-Heron Heron Night-Heron

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

The top five most frequently observed species on Caño 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 Caño 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.

29
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 Caño Palma

6.1 Introduction

Caño 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 caño (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 caños that were within the park’s boundaries (Bermúdez & Hernández,
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
Caño 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.

30
6.2 Aims

The Tourist Impact survey on Caño 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.

31
With increased restrictions in the TNP, it was presumed that tourist traffic would increase
on Caño Palma and therefore have an impact on local species. As the presence of rare
and sensitive species had been recorded by the Caño 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 this
will 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 montaña (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 Caño 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.

32
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 as
quickly 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.

33
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 was
covered. 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 montaña
were collected, and the saplings of the ojoche (Brosimum lactescens). In total, 37
guanábana, 87 almendro de montaña, and 134 ojoche were collected and bagged. At
the completion of phase 071, five almendro de montaña 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.

34
8 Incidentals
8.1 EBCP Incidentals
8.1.1 Introduction

The EBCP Incidental project was initiated during phase 071 at the request of the EBCP
management 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 Caño 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

35
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 to
commercial 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

36
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
Caño 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 a
primate 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)

37
• 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 Caño 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

38
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 were
made 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

39
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 on
the 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 children’s 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 GVI’s 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.

Children’s 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;

40
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 the
locally 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 children’s 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 Cariari in a local football match in
San 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.

41
The intercambio at the Canopy also proceeded successfully, allowing both EMs and
Canopy staff to learn foreign languages and enjoy each other’s company.

GVI’s teaching and community involvement programs are invaluable tools in maintaining
relations between GVI and the local residents. These initiatives provide unique
opportunities and foster both cultural and environmental awareness.

42
10 References

Autar, L., 1994. Sea turtles attacked and killed by Jaguars in Suriname. Marine Turtle
Newsletter 67,11-12.

Bermúdez, F., Hernández, C. 2004. Estudio de factibilidad para el desarrollo de

actividades ecoturísticas en el Cerro Tortuguero, REBACO. Ministerio del Ambiente y
Energía, Sistema Nacional de Áreas de Conservación, Área de Conservación
Tortuguero.

Carrillo E., Morera R., Wong G., 1994. Depredación 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
Report 97 (1), 46-49.

IUCN, 2006. 2006 IUCN Red List of Threatened Species. <www.iucnredlist.org>.

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.

43
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., López-González, C.A., Gallo-Reynoso, J.P. 2005. Occurrence of

jaguar. The Southwest Naturalist 50(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 Biology 2, 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 Biology 16,1-15.

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.,
Gómez, H., Ayala, G. 2004. The use of camera traps for estimating jaguar Panthera
onca abundance and density using capture/recapture analysis. Oryx 38(2),148-154.

Troëng, 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.

Troëng, S., Chacón, D., Dick, B. 2004. Possible decline in Leatherback Turtle
Dermochelys coriacea nesting along the coast of Caribbean Central America. Oryx 38
(4), 395-403.

Troëng, S., Rankin, E. 2005. Long-term conservation efforts contribute to positive Green
Chelonia mydas nesting trend at Tortuguero, Costa Rica. Biological Conservation 121,
111-116.

44
Widdowson, W.P., Widdowson, M.J. 2004. Checklist to the birds of Tortuguero, Costa
Rica. Caribbean Conservation Corporation.

45
11 Appendices

Appendix A

Aquatic Trails:

Distance Distance from start

AQT 01 1110 0
AQT 02 303 1110

CAÑO HAROLD
CHA 01 604 1413
CHA 02 1248 2017
CHA 03 718 3127
CHA 04 0 4003

CAÑO CHIQUERO
CCH 01 703 1413
CCH 02 343 2127
CCH 03 0 2470

CAÑO 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

46
 Appendix B

Station
Date Common name Latin name Status S S/H H # Recorder
Code
28/12/2006 CPA Sunbittern Eurypyga helias R 1 1 James Lewis
Mesembrinibis James Lewis
13/01/2007 CPA Green Ibis R 2
cayennensis 2
13/01/2007 CPA Agami Heron Agamia agami R 1 James Lewis
1
Mesembrinibis James Lewis
15/01/2007 CPA Green Ibis R 3
cayennensis 3
17/01/2007 CPA Agami Heron Agamia agami R 1 James Lewis
1
Barra James Lewis
del
22/01/2007 Hook-billed Kite #N/A #N/A 1
Colarad
o 1
Barra James Lewis
del
22/01/2007 Greater Yellowlegs Tringa melanoleuca R 1
Colarad
o 1
Barra James Lewis
del Black-crowned Night-
22/01/2007 #N/A #N/A 1
Colarad heron
o 1
25/01/2007 CPA Agami Heron Agamia agami R 1 James Lewis
1
Mesembrinibis James Lewis
26/01/2007 CPA Green Ibis R
cayennensis 1 1
15/02/2007 CPA Snail Kite #N/A #N/A 1 James Lewis
1
Yellow-bellied James Lewis
15/02/2007 CPA #N/A #N/A 1
Sapsucker 1
17/02/2007 CPA Rufescent Tiger-Heron Tigrisoma lineatum R 1 James Lewis
1
17/02/2007 CPA Agami Heron Agamia agami R 1 James Lewis
1
24/02/2007 TO NP Tricolored Heron Egretta tricolor U 3 James Lewis
3
2 2 James Lewis
24/02/2007 TO NP Pumbelous Kite #N/A #N/A
3 3
Mesembrinibis James Lewis
25/02/2007 TO NP Green Ibis R 7
cayennensis 7
25/02/2007 TO NP Green honeycreeper Chlorophanes spiza U 8 James Lewis
8
Notharchus James Lewis
25/02/2007 TO NP White-necked Puffbird U 1
macrorhynchos 1
south of Mesembrinibis James Lewis
28/02/2007 Green Ibis R 1
ebcp cayennensis 1
South of James Lewis
03/03/2007 Tricolored Heron Egretta tricolor U 1
EBCP 1
South of Mesembrinibis James Lewis
07/03/2007 Green Ibis R 1
EBCP cayennensis 1
07/03/2007 EBCP Purple-crowned fairy Heliothryx barroti R 2 James Lewis
2
Cano James Lewis
17/03/2007 Bi-colored hawk #N/A #N/A 1
Palma 1
17/03/2007 Jalova Blue winged teal #N/A #N/A 4 James Lewis
4

47
 Station
Date Common name Latin name Status S S/H H # Recorder
Code
Cano James Lewis
17/03/2007 Agami Heron Agamia agami R 1
Palma 1
Cano James Lewis
17/03/2007 Tricolored Heron Egretta tricolor U 1
Negro 1
Cano James Lewis
18/03/2007 Agami Heron Agamia agami R 1
Palma 1

48