GVI Costa Rica

Coastal Rainforest and Wildlife

Research Expedition

Phase Report 081

11th January – 21st March 2008

Phase Report 082

11th April – 20th June 2008

 GVI Costa Rica Coastal Rainforest and Wildlife Research 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
David Jones – Base Manager
Rebeca Chaverri - Country Director
Diogo Verissimo – Expedition Staff
Sara Calçada – Expedition Staff
Brooke McIntyre– Expedition Staff
Tom Bregman – Expedition Intern

And

Kate Isger Expedition Member Imogen Wilson Expedition Member

Amanda King Expedition Member Will Straker Expedition Member
Michelle Miller Expedition Member Ivan Holubetz Expedition Member
Richard Phillips Expedition Member Olivia Couchman Expedition Member
William Boyko Expedition Member Felicity North Expedition Member
Gary Cook Expedition Member Kayla Nadeau Expedition Member
Sarah Keynes Expedition Member Amanda Platts Expedition Member
Sophie Pryor Expedition Member Kathleen Sims Expedition Member
Reena Nobeen Expedition Member Joseph Welch Expedition Member

GVI Costa Rica Coastal Rainforest and Wildlife Research Expedition

Address: Estación Biológica Caño Palma, Tortuguero, Costa Rica

Tel: (+506) 2709 8052
Email: costarica@gvi.co.uk

Web page:

http://www.gvi.co.uk

http://gvicostarica.blogspot.com
Executive Summary

The 12th ten-week phase (phase 082) of the Global Vision International (GVI) Costa
Rica Coastal Rainforest and Wildlife Research Expedition has now been completed. The
research 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 082:

• Marine Turtle Monitoring and Conservation Programme. In collaboration with the

Canadian Organization for Tropical Education and Rainforest Conservation
(COTERC) and the Costa Rican Ministry of Environment and Energy (MINAE) and
in association with the Caribbean Conservation Corporation (CCC).
• Monitoring of Jaguar Predation on Marine Turtles. In collaboration with MINAE.
• Jaguar Camera Trapping Study in Tortuguero National Park (TNP). In collaboration
with MINAE.
• Large Mammal Monitoring Programme. Volunteers supplied to COTERC.
• Canal Bird Monitoring Programme. In collaboration with Steven Furino from
Waterloo University, Canada.
• Caño Palma Biological Station Incidental Species Study
• Canal Boat Impact Study on Caño Palma canal.
• Meteorology and Environmental Study. In collaboration with COTERC.
• English Language and Environmental Education lessons. In collaboration with the
San Francisco community and Tortuguero Canopy.

3
Table of Contents

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

1 General introduction .................................................................................................. 8
2 Marine Turtle Monitoring and Conservation Programme ........................................ 11
2.1 Introduction...................................................................................................... 11
2.2 Aims ................................................................................................................ 12
2.3 Methodology .................................................................................................... 12
2.3.1 Study site................................................................................................. 12
2.3.2 Pre-season preparations ......................................................................... 13
2.3.3 Data collection ......................................................................................... 13
2.4 Results ............................................................................................................ 16
3 Jaguar Predation of Marine Turtles Study............................................................... 19
3.1 Introduction...................................................................................................... 19
3.2 Aims ................................................................................................................ 20
3.3 Methodology .................................................................................................... 20
3.3.1 Study site................................................................................................. 20
3.3.2 Survey technique..................................................................................... 21
3.3.3 Data collection ......................................................................................... 21
3.4 Results ............................................................................................................ 23
4 Jaguar Camera Trapping Study .............................................................................. 24
4.1 Introduction...................................................................................................... 24
4.2 Aims ................................................................................................................ 24
4.3 Methodology .................................................................................................... 25
4.3.1 Study site................................................................................................. 25
4.3.2 Survey techniques ................................................................................... 25
4.3.3 Data collection ......................................................................................... 26
4.4 Results ............................................................................................................ 27
5 Canal Bird Monitoring Programme .......................................................................... 30
5.1 Introduction...................................................................................................... 30
5.2 Aims ................................................................................................................ 30
5.3 Methodology .................................................................................................... 31
5.3.1 Study site................................................................................................. 31
5.3.2 Data collection ......................................................................................... 31
5.4 Results ............................................................................................................ 33
6 Incidental Species Study ......................................................................................... 37
6.1 Introduction...................................................................................................... 37
6.2 Aims ................................................................................................................ 37
6.3 Methodology .................................................................................................... 37
6.3.1 Data collection ......................................................................................... 37
6.4 Results ............................................................................................................ 37
7 Canal Boat Impact Study......................................................................................... 40
7.1 Introduction...................................................................................................... 40
7.2 Aims ................................................................................................................ 40
7.3 Methodology .................................................................................................... 41
7.3.1 Data collection ......................................................................................... 41
7.4 Results ............................................................................................................ 42
8 Meteorology and Environmental Study ................................................................... 45
8.1 Introduction...................................................................................................... 45
8.2 Aim .................................................................................................................. 45

4
 8.3 Methodology .................................................................................................... 45
8.4 Data collection ................................................................................................. 45
8.5 Results ............................................................................................................ 46
9 English Language and Environmental Education.................................................... 47
9.1 Introduction to English Teaching ..................................................................... 47
9.2 Introduction to Environmental Education......................................................... 47
9.3 Aims ................................................................................................................ 47
9.4 Methodology .................................................................................................... 48
9.4.1 Training.................................................................................................... 48
9.4.2 Teaching.................................................................................................. 48
9.5 Results ............................................................................................................ 49
10 References .............................................................................................................. 51

5
List of Tables

Table 2-1: Summary of Phase 082 results for Playa Norte and Nesting Season so far . 17

Table 3-1 Breakdown of main results for phase and season .......................................... 23

Table 4-1 General data ................................................................................................... 27

Table 4-2 Trapping site information ................................................................................ 27

Table 4-3 Presence / absence of known species this phase .......................................... 28

Table 5-1 Canal Bird Monitoring Study Species ............................................................. 31

Table 5-2 General phase totals for all canals.................................................................. 33

Table 5-3 Unusual recordings for phase per canal ......................................................... 34

Table 5-4 Presence/absence of species for phase ......................................................... 34

Table 5-5 Presence/absence of species per canal for phase ......................................... 35

Table 6-1 Overview of incidental totals this phase.......................................................... 37

Table 6-2 Most commonly recorded species by class for phase .................................... 38

Table 6-3 Special Interest sightings for phase ................................................................ 39

Table 7-1 Boat use restriction on Caño Palma, Tortuguero, Costa Rica. ....................... 40

Table 7-2 General Canal boat impact data for phase ..................................................... 42

Table 7-3 Average canal usage for phase by ACTo time restriction............................... 42

Table 7-4 Activity by usage type ..................................................................................... 43

Table 8-1 Weekly environmental averages for phase..................................................... 46

Table 8-2 Monthly environmental averages for year....................................................... 46

6
List of Figures

Figure 2-1 Nest Status as determined by morning census Jan – June 2008.................. 18

Figure 4-1 Gray four-eyed opossum; nine-banded armadillo.......................................... 28

Figure 4-2 Great curassow (male); common opossum ................................................... 29

Figure 4-3 Red brocket deer; paca ................................................................................. 29

Figure 6-1 Most commonly recorded species for phase (recorded ≥75% of days) ......... 38

Figure 7-1 Percentage canal usage tourist vs. non-tourist.............................................. 43

Figure 7-2 Breakdown of canal usage by Tourist Lodge................................................. 44

Figure 7-3 Total number of boat by time for phase ......................................................... 44

Figure 9-1 Community Event focusing on awareness of birds and the environment ...... 49

Figure 9-2 Community Event focusing on forests around the world and the importance of
rainforests ....................................................................................................................... 50

7
1 General introduction

Global Vision International (GVI) was formed in 1998 to provide support and services to
international charities, non-profits and governmental agencies, through volunteering
opportunities and direct funding. GVI is guided by a unique commitment to its volunteers
and to its partners. To the volunteer it offers a safe responsible travel experiences,
exceptional training and career development opportunities, and facilitates the ability to
make a real difference. To its partners it commits all research ownership rights and all
work is undertaken under their direction, in conjunction with the local community. In July
2006, GVI established the Costa Rica expedition based at Estación Biológica Caño
Palma (EBCP), Tortuguero.

The biological station is located in the southern section of the Barra del Colorado Wildlife
Refuge (BCWR) directly to the north of Tortuguero National Park (TNP). The area of
operation for the expedition covers both TNP and the BCWR; both of which are included
in the Tortuguero Conservation Area (ACTo). The area consists of a collection of
waterways running through Caribbean lowland rainforest. The coastal habitats are
generally similar in type throughout the area of operation with small variation in boarding
habitats, width of the beach and quantity and type of debris found on the beach. The
forest habitats vary more considerably with several distinct habitats being present.
Altitudinal differences of a couple metres have a large effect on both habitat and species
composition in the area. Lower areas, such as those found around the station, tend have
large areas of flooded forest whereas the drier areas associated to the national park
tend to only be submerged during times of flooding. Within ACTo there are also areas
containing higher ground of up to 311m in Lomas de Sierpe. Most of the research is
carried out within TNP and BCWR, where the highest elevation is El Cerro (119 m).
Although these are not particularly high, they do provide non-floodable habitat. The
ecological importance of the ACTo has been recognized for some time; however, the
level of active research has been minimal aside from the world-renowned turtle studies.

The EBCP was purchased in 1991 by the Canadian Organization for Tropical Education
and Rainforest Conservation (COTERC). The station’s research was intended to focus
on terrestrial ecology studies leaving the monitoring of the turtle population to the
Caribbean Conservation Corporation (CCC). Prior to GVI’s arrival a number of studies

8
had been undertaken looking at various species and habitats but no longer term
monitoring projects had been possible.

GVI’s volunteer resource made long-term studies possible and needs were assessed
and partnerships sourced. Currently GVI is working closely with MINAE, COTERC,
Waterloo University, the local community of San Francisco and the CCC.

Along with the individual needs of partners, GVI seeks to meet several of its own aims
when undertaking work in an area. These aims are:

• Document biodiversity of the area

• Increase scientific knowledge
• Encourage scientific interest in the area
• Increase community awareness and capacity building
• Support sustainable development.

The Tortuguero area has been of strong interest to the scientific community since Archie
Carr’s studies of the Marine Turtles of Tortuguero beach during the 1950’s. Archie Carr
highlighted the importance of this stretch of coast for green turtles (Chelonia mydas) and
his work promoted the TNP establishment in 1975 (Boza & Mendoza 1981).

Being a large charismatic species, green turtles tend to attract both researches and
tourists: data collected by MINAE has shown a steady increase in the number of visitors
each year to Tortuguero (Bermúdez & Hernández 2003, Allan Valverde pers. comm.
2007). Although many visitors come specifically to see the turtles, others visit TNP for its
canals and abundant wildlife. Often referred to as the Amazon of Costa Rica, Tortuguero
offers visitors a chance to view wildlife from both boats and on foot.

The impact of this human presence is becoming more obvious within ACTo. Lodges are
in need to expand and as a result they are consuming more forested areas; new homes
are being built for the workers of these hotels and associated industries; and an increase
in demand for building materials and general goods is resulting in increased use of the
canals. Areas that had previously not been visited by tourists are now beginning to open
up and although some limits are being put in place to control tourist numbers in certain
locations, many areas are uncontrolled and not monitored.

9
As tourism has increased so has job availability and as a result the population of
Tortuguero has increased and new settlements have developed. The most significant
new settlement has been the establishment of the San Francisco community. San
Francisco began its history as a home to a few families in 1989. It was not until 2000 that
the population began to increase more significantly. Now San Francisco is home to 274
people and this number is continuing to increase (Van Oudenhoven 2007).

San Francisco is increasing in size almost constantly and as a result is having an

obvious impact on the local environment. This increased demand on local resources is
demonstrating the need for management of both TNP and the BCWR as well as the
importance of the monitoring programme on Playa Norte.

The projects currently being run by GVI in ACTo aim to help raise awareness of the
effect these changes are having on the environment. This is being done in numerous
ways some of which have a direct effect on the conservation of the area whilst others
have longer-term educational benefits.

This report briefly looks at the work undertaken during Phase 082 (11th April – 20th June
2008). Its aim is to present an outline of the specific aims, methodologies and results
gained during this period. In some cases, such as the turtle-monitoring programme,
season reports are produced and therefore no results have been included. In addition to
this report, a year report is produced annually presenting in more detail findings from the
year and in some cases comparing to previous years work. Throughout this document,
those persons who have received additional training in order to be able to train and lead
others on surveys are referred to as Research Staff (RS) or Patrol Leaders (PLs), as
appropriate. Persons trained to assist the RS in all aspects of their work are referred to
as Research Assistants (RAs)

10
2 Marine Turtle Monitoring and Conservation Programme
2.1 Introduction

Over the past 20 years, there has been an extensive decline in marine turtle populations
worldwide due to illegal harvesting of meat and eggs, unsustainable fishing practices,
water contamination, and habitat destruction. As a result, the World Conservation Union
(IUCN) lists all marine turtle species as either endangered or critically endangered
(IUCN, 2006).

Having six out of the world’s seven species of marine turtles, not only is Central America
known for diversity but also for the large number of marine turtle nesting on its beaches.
Within this sub-continent, Costa Rica hosts some of the largest populations of
leatherback (Dermochelys coriacea), green and olive ridley (Lepidochelys olivacea)
turtles, assuming a pivotal role in marine turtle conservation.

Two years after its creation in 1990, COTERC was approached by the CCC with a
proposal of monitoring the marine turtle population on Playa Norte (Greg Mayne written
comm. 2007), the beach to the north of Laguna Tortuguero. Between 2004 and 2005,
COTERC undertook a feasibility study in order to establish the significance of the
nesting site on Playa Norte and to assess whether the number of marine turtles
warranted a programme (Greg Mayne written comm. 2007). Playa Norte adjoins the
aforementioned community of San Francisco, currently borders two hotels, Cabinas
Vista al Mar and Turtle Beach Lodge, approximately eight private homes and there are
plans for a larger hotel within the survey area. Existing just north of the boundary of the
National Park it has gone without the regular law enforcement and protection afforded to
Tortuguero Beach for decades.

Based on the findings of the preliminary study, in 2005 a marine turtle monitoring and
conservation programme was implemented and initiated, with the assistance of GVI in
2006.

This report is a summary account of the work developed and data collected from 11th
April – 20th June 2008.

11
2.2 Aims

The overall aims of this programme are to monitor the population dynamics of marine
turtles on Playa Norte and investigate the impact of human activities on their
conservation status.

In terms of species conservation the programme’s aims are to 1) reduce poaching rates
by constant presence on the beach, disguising and relocating nests as necessary, 2)
educate the community and tourists about marine turtle conservation and 3) manage the
beach habitat as to increase availability of nesting sites 4) investigate the impact of
human development on the marine turtle population

In terms of species monitoring the programme’s aims are to 1) gather selected biometric
data on nesting marine turtles, 2) record the spatial and seasonal distribution of nesting
turtles, 3) monitor the number of nesting emergences, 4) determine the level of illegal
poaching on turtles and their nests, 5) record survival of the nests and hatchling success
rates, 6) monitor for the apparent physical health of nesting females, 7) track re-
emergences to the nesting beach and or migration between beaches, and 8) register
tourist and human development around the nesting site.

2.3 Methodology

The methodology used for the marine turtle-monitoring programme follows the
GVI/COTERC protocols. For further, more specific methodologies, please refer to the
2008 Marine Turtle Conservation and Monitoring Programme Night and Day Protocols.

Furthermore, a logical framework for the programme was designed in March of this year
to maintain the objectives and aims through time and allow evaluation of management
practices at the end of the season.

2.3.1 Study site

The sand on Playa Norte is black and fine, typical of a high energy-beach. The width of
the nesting beach platform, or berm, varies from two to 38 meters, but the configuration
of its shape and size changes constantly in response to long shore drift and exposure
levels.

12
The dominant plants on the nesting beach are morning glory (Ipomoea pes-caprae), 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.

Playa Norte, which contains the study area of 31/8 miles long, (approximately 5 km),
extends from the Tortuguero River mouth (N10 35.673 W83 31.495) on the southern end
of the beach to Laguna Cuatro (N10 38.115 W83 32.528) to the north. Although this
beach is not located within the TNP boundaries, it is situated adjacent to the BCWR,
which, like the TNP, is managed by ACTo under the MINAE.

The study area is marked as mile marker (MM) 0 at the Tortuguero River mouth and MM
31/8 just north of Laguna Cuatro. The length of the beach is divided and marked with mile
markers at every eighth of a mile (approximately 200 m), to allow for the documentation
of spatial distribution and density of nests along the beach.

The nearest village to the study site is San Francisco, situated south of MM 0. On the
southern side of the Tortuguero river mouth is Tortuguero beach, which the CCC
monitors from MM -3/8 to Jalova lagoon at MM 18.

2.3.2 Pre-season preparations

Before the season began, each mile-marker was repaired or replaced if necessary. Each
volunteer and patrol leader was trained thoroughly both in the classroom and in the field
in order to ensure competent data collection and ethical behaviour on the beach. At the
end of the training, all RAs and PLs were submitted to a test. For RAs the passing mark
was 95%. Patrol Leaders were subject to more intense and thorough training with
corresponding testing, for which the passing mark was 100%.

2.3.3 Data collection

Daily track census and nest surveys

A track census and nest survey was conducted every day, beginning on 22nd February
for the season. It started between 5:00 and 6:00 am, depending on the specific time of

13
sunrise, and lasted up to two and a half hours depending on the volume of data to collect
and the need to disguise nests or tracks. The survey involved walking the beach
between MM 0 and MM 31/8, recording and monitoring tracks and nests from the night
before. The survey team identified tracks as nests, half moons (non-nesting
emergences) or a lifted turtle (no tracks going back into the sea).

All tracks not seen the night before were documented using Global Positioning System
(GPS) coordinates, the northern mile marker and vertical position. The nests seen by the
night team the previous night were monitored on the two days after they were first
discovered and identified as natural, poached, predated or unknown (if the nest had
many signs of poaching, such as an accumulation of flies, stick holes, and human and or
dog prints, but no egg shells or cavity).

Night surveys

Night surveys were conducted every night beginning 29th February for the season. Each
night at least one survey team walked the study area a minimum of four hours. If one
team was on the beach, they patrolled around 22:00 to 02:00. When two teams
patrolled, the first team patrolled 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 PL determined whether the turtle was still on the
beach. If not, the PL determined if the track was a half moon, nest, or lifted turtle. If it
was deemed a half moon, the species, GPS coordinate, closest Northern mile-marker,
and time track was seen were all recorded. If deemed a nest, the species, GPS
coordinate, closest Northern mile-marker, time the track was seen, vertical position, and
nest status were recorded. If deemed a lifted turtle the species, GPS coordinate, closest
Northern mile-marker, time the track was seen and vertical position (if it had nested),
were recorded.

When a turtle was encountered, the PL tried to determine what stage of the nesting
process she was in (emerging, selecting a nest site, digging a body pit, digging the egg
chamber, oviposition, covering the egg chamber, disguising the nest or returning to sea).

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
14
separately) and triangulation of the nest was completed. When the turtle completed
oviposition and began to cover her egg chamber, she was then checked for tags, Old
Tag Notches (OTNs) and Old Tag Holes (OTHs) 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 turtles were tagged on the front
flippers before the first scale using Inconel #681 tags (National Band & Tag Co.,
Newport, USA).

Once tagging, was finished, and if appropriate, the minimum curved carapace length
(CCLmin) and maximum curved carapace width (CCWmax) were taken to the nearest
millimetre, three times each. If the measurements were not within three millimetres of
each other more were taken until the data was consistent. For leatherbacks, CCLmin
was taken from the nuchal notch where the skin touches the carapace, along the back to
the right of the central ridge until the end of the caudal projection. It was also noted
whether the caudal projection was complete or not. For green, loggerhead (Caretta
caretta), and hawksbill (Eretmochelys imbricata) turtles, CCLmin was taken from where
the skin touches the carapace along the back until the posterior notch (not the longest
length of the carapace). For all species, CCWmax was always taken along the widest
part of the turtle.

Once tagging and measurements were completed, the turtle was checked for bite marks,
abnormalities and fibropapillomas tumours. All abnormalities were recorded.

The GPS coordinates of the egg chamber, closest northern mile marker, stage the turtle
was encountered in, encounter time, direction whilst nesting, and vertical position were
also recorded.

Nest fate, nest survivorship and hatching success

Nests were triangulated during oviposition whenever possible in order to gather as much
information about the poaching rate and hatchling success as possible. Triangulation
was done in order to enable the excavation of the nests 70 days after the nest was laid
for green turtles or 75 for leatherback turtles. Triangulation was conducted using three
pieces of flagging tape that featured the direction (north, centre, and south) and the
station name. These were attached to the vegetation behind the nest. The distance from

15
the centre of the egg chamber to each of these tags was measured to the nearest
centimetre whilst the turtle was laying eggs. The distance to the most recent high tide
line was also recorded. Three triangulation points were used to compensate for the loss
of any points of reference: if one point is lost it is still possible to locate the nest using the
other two points.

Disguising nests

For all leatherback nests, 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. For green
turtles, although the body pit was always obvious, some disguising efforts, like erasing
the tracks, were also put into place.

Collection of human impact data

During each night survey, the number of red and white mobile lights, fires, locals and
tourists on the beach were recorded. Furthermore, each month during the new moon the
number of stationary white and red lights were also recorded.

Habitat management

Sixteen beach cleans were completed this phase to increase the availability of nesting
sites. After mid-phase a new management scheme was implemented where the morning
census teams evaluated the condition of each eighth of a mile of the study area and
passed that information to the beach clean teams as to allow for more effective beach
cleans.

2.4 Results

During phase 082, 70 morning surveys and 140 night surveys were completed. A total of
1500 miles were walked on morning surveys and night surveys together this season for
a total of 834 hours of survey.

16
This phase we have recorded the presence of leatherback, green and hawksbill turtles
nesting on Playa Norte.

Table 2-1: Summary of Phase 082 results for Playa Norte and Nesting Season so far

Status of nests found this phase 79% Natural; 16% Unknown; 5% Poached

Status of nests found this season 79% Natural; 15% Unknown; 6% Poached

Number of nests recorded this phase Dc: 50; Cm: 6; Ei: 1; Cc: 0

Number of nests recorded this season Dc: 84; Cm: 9; Ei: 6; Cc: 0

Area of highest nesting this phase Mile 7/8 ; 2 1/8

Area of highest nesting this season Mile 1 2/8; 1 5/8

Number of relocations this phase Dc: 6; Ei: 0

Number of relocations this season Dc: 9; Ei: 0

Hour with the most encountered turtles this phase 22:00 - 23:00

Hour with the most encountered turtles this season 23: 00 - 00: 00

Number of REC this phase Dc: 5; Cm: 1; Ei: 0; Cc: 0

Number of REM this phase Dc: 23; Cm: 2; Ei: 1; Cc: 0

Number renesting turtles this phase Dc: 7; Cm: 1; Ei: 0; Cc: 0

Area of highest HLF this phase Mile 3

Number of hatched nests this season Dc: 13; Cm: 1; Ei: 0; Cc: 0

Number of hatchlings this phase Dc: 619; Cm:87 ; Ei: 0; Cc: 0

Number of hatchlings this season Dc: 654; Cm: 87; Ei: 0; Cc: 0

17
Status of excavated nests this phase 100 % Natural; 0% Partially Poached; 0% Poached; 0% Predated;
0% Unknown

Status of excavated nests this season 100 % Natural; 0% Partially Poached; 0% Poached; 0% Predated;
0% Unknown

Percentage success rate for normal nests this Dc: 66% ; Cm: 100% ; Ei: N/A ; Cc: N/A
season

Percentage success rate for relocated nests this N/A

season

Number of LIF records 0

Number of DEC records 0

Figure 2-1 Nest Status as determined by morning census Jan – June 2008

Nest Status Jan - June 2008

Sum of Percentage

Unknown

Nest status
Poached

Natural

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90

18
3 Jaguar Predation of Marine Turtles Study
3.1 Introduction

The only species that are known to kill adult marine turtles are sharks (i.e. Carcharhinus
leucas, Carcharodon carcharias and Galeocerdo cuvier), orca (Orcinus orca), crocodiles
(Crocodylus acutus and Crocodylus porosus) and jaguars (Panthera onca) (Hirth, 1997;
Oritz et al., 1997 in Troëng 2000). Information on jaguar predation of marine turtles has
been recorded sporadically in different areas of the Neotropics.

At least eighty-two green turtles, three leatherbacks and seven olive ridley were
identified as being predated by jaguars in Suriname from 1963-1973. In 1980, 13 green
turtles were killed within only a few days close to this nesting beach (Autar, 1994).

Koford (1983) mentions that jaguars prey on marine turtles in Costa Rica, although no
specific species are mentioned. On the Pacific coast of this country, jaguars have been
recorded preying upon olive ridley, black (Chelonia mydas agassizii), and hawksbill
turtles (Carrillo et al., 1994, Chinchilla, 1997). Although much research has been carried
out on turtles in TNP, data collection methods on jaguar predated turtles in TNP has
been inconsistent. From 1971, the CCC began regular track census along Tortuguero
beach. Before 1997 only two green turtles were recorded as being killed by jaguars, one
in 1981 (Carrillo et al., 1994) and another in 1984 (J. Mortimer pers. comm. in Troëng
2000).

In 1997, the CCC began collecting specific information on turtles predated by jaguars
during their weekly track censuses (Troëng 1997, Troëng et al. 1999). That year, four
green turtles killed by jaguars were recorded, both fresh and old kills (Troëng 1997).
During 1998 and 1999 only fresh kills, i.e. those killed within the last 24 hours were
recorded. In 1998, 25 dead green turtles were found, and in 1999, 22 green and two
leatherback turtles were found (Troëng, 2000). In 2002, Magally Castro Alvarez, in
conjunction with MINAE and WCS began a study on the predation of marine turtles by
jaguars in TNP. Castro Alvarez recorded all kills, both fresh and old. In 2002, 60 turtle
carcasses were encountered, and in 2003, 65 (M. Castro Alvarez, unpublished data).

In 2005, MINAE invited GVI to continue data collection on jaguar presence and
predation of marine turtles in TNP on their behalf. GVI began data collection on 11th July

19
2005, modifying the MINAE protocols in line with agreed aims and available resources.
The study found 60 turtle carcasses from July to December 2005 and 131 turtles in the
first full year, 2006. In 2007, 144 dead turtle carcasses were recorded as jaguar quarry.

Though predation upon turtles by jaguars is not a new phenomenon, from the CCC and
Magally Castro Alvarez studies it can be inferred that the level of predation has been
increasing over the past years within TNP, but the magnitude of this apparent increase
may be due to changes in data collection methods. Troëng (2000) counted only fresh
carcasses with evidence of jaguar predation for two out of the three years of his study,
whilst Castro Alvarez study considered all carcasses with no contrary evidence to be
jaguar predated.

These studies identified a phenomenon within Tortuguero beach and GVI’s personnel
carry regular surveys with an established methodology and aims at conducting them
over a greater period of time in order to understand its implications on a larger scale

3.2 Aims

This project aims to 1) document the magnitude of jaguar predation on the nesting
population of marine turtles and 2) increase knowledge of jaguar ecology in Tortuguero
National Park.

This information can be used to help MINAE develop management strategies that cross
the multiple habitats contained within the National Park, benefiting both the turtles and
the jaguars.

3.3 Methodology
3.3.1 Study site

The beach of TNP, which contains the study area, is 18 miles long (approximately 29
kilometres), and extends from the Tortuguero River mouth on the northern end of the
beach to the Jalova River mouth at the Southern end. The park is managed by ACTo
under MINAE

The study area is Mile 34/8 at the southern border of Tortuguero village to mile 18 at the
Jalova river mouth. The length of the beach is divided and marked with mile markers at

20
every eighth of a mile (approximately 200 meters) until mile five, and is marked at every
half mile thereafter. The mile markers run in ascending order from mile zero at the
Tortuguero River mouth to mile 18 at the Jalova river mouth.

During the marine turtle nesting seasons, there is a high level of human activity between
mile zero and mile five-and-a-half of Tortuguero Beach. This area is the focus of the
CCC’s marine turtle work where they conduct one morning survey and two night surveys
per day in season; it also hosts a large number of tourists on turtle watching tours. At the
southern end of the study site is a large cattle and coconut farm. These areas of human
activity may affect jaguar behaviour.

3.3.2 Survey technique

Weekly surveys were conducted over the 14½-mile study site, beginning at dawn. one
team surveyed the entire study site, between Mile 34/8 (Tortuguero) and Mile 18 (Jalova)
when possible. The average team consisted of one RS and three RAs collecting the data
outlined below.

3.3.3 Data collection

General data

For each survey, the following general information was recorded:

• Research team initials

• Starting point
• Start and end time
• Weather data (recorded at mile markers 4, 8, 12 and 16): time, sand condition (dry,
moist, wet), percentage cloud cover, precipitation (none, light, medium or heavy) and
beach width (measured from the mile marker to the high tide line)
• Comments e.g. jaguar tracks not clearly visible due to a very high tide

Turtle track data

The number of full turtle tracks (indicating the presence of a nest) and half moons
(indicating no nesting has occurred) were recorded at every half mile. These definitions

21
have been standardised due to the vast number of tracks present on the beach during
the peak times. A “full track” was defined as a set of ascending and descending tracks
that traversed more than half the width of the beach. Tracks that traversed less than half
the width of the beach were classified as “half moons”. For every half-mile section, full
tracks were recorded using a manual clicker-counter or Maria, and half moons
remembered. Only those tracks deemed fresh (from the previous night) were counted
and, during leatherback season (March-July), the species of turtle was distinguished. In
line with previous studies and the continuing protocol of the CCC track surveys, tracks
were recorded as leatherback or green, with hawksbill and loggerhead, which nest in
much fewer numbers, included in the green count.

Jaguar track data

When fresh, intact tracks were positively identified, the following information was
recorded:

• Presence / absence per half mile

• Entrance / exit was recorded for a track clearly entering the beach from the
vegetation or a track clearly exiting the beach into the vegetation

Dead turtle data

Marine turtle carcasses were recorded as jaguar predated if no contradictory evidence

was present. The following data was recorded on all jaguar predated marine turtles
where relevant:

• Species (leatherback, green, hawksbill or loggerhead)

• Turtle ID number (species initials and record number for the season e.g. Cm001)
• Locality (distance from Northern mile marker and GPS coordinates)
• Vertical position (open, border or vegetation)
• Point of attack
• Parts of turtle eaten by jaguar
• Estimated number of nights since kill (determined by signs of decay)
• Curved carapace length (CCL)
• Whether the turtle was resting on its plastron or carapace (front or back)

22
• Any other comments e.g. drag marks, jaguar prints near the carcass, high vulture
activity, tag numbers

Due to rapid rates of decay and the activity of scavengers, point of attack, parts eaten
and CCL were recorded on fresh cadavers only (within 1-2 days). Photographic records
were taken for evidence of predation, turtle identification and location. These records
also provide an additional method of ensuring against double counting.

3.4 Results

Six surveys were conducted this phase covering a total of 82 miles, resulting in a total of
507.5 miles for the season (Jul 07-Jun 08).

Table 3-1 Breakdown of main results for phase and season

Jag sightings 2

Number of full turtles tracks this phase: 1076

Number of full turtles tracks this season:

47027

Number of newly recorded dead turtles this phase 35

Number of dead turtles this year 37

Number of dead turtles this season (Jul - Jun): 146

Area of highest turtle activity this phase 6 1/2

Area of highest jag activity this phase Mile 6; 7.5 ; 8.5 - 9.5; 10.5; 11.5 - 12;
13.5 - 15;

Area of highest turtle predation this phase Mile 6.5; 9; 10

23
4 Jaguar Camera Trapping Study
4.1 Introduction

The jaguar is the third largest felid in the world and the largest in all of North and South
America (Silver, 2004). Its range used to span from the South-western United States of
America to Northern Argentina (Seymour, 1989). However, the current known, occupied
range is about 54% what it was in 1900 (Sanderson et al., 2002), ranging from northern
Mexico to northern Argentina and are considered threatened across much of this range
(Aranda 2000, Sanderson et al., 2002).

The jaguar is an elusive animal that has been hunted greatly in the past for its pelt
(Weber & Rabinowitz 1996). In 1968 alone, more than 13,000 pelts were imported to the
USA (NatureServe, 2006). Today the major threats to the jaguar are illegal hunting, prey
depletion, and habitat destruction and fragmentation (Silver et al., 2004, Miller &
Rabinowitz 2002). Scientists have started to focus on a range-wide approach to the
conservation of the species. 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 at least five
individuals currently using the beach (Eduardo Chamorro comm. pers. 2008). GVI has
initiated the use of cameras to estimate the population size of jaguars in the park’s
coastal habitat.

Cameras have been used before to study secretive carnivore species such as tiger
(Panthera tigris) populations in India (Karanth & Nichols 1998, Karanth & Nichols 2000,
Karanth et al., 2004), and jaguar populations in the Neotropics (Silver 2004, Silver et al.,
2004, Salom-Pérez et al., 2007). We have adopted similar methods as used by Silver et
al., (2004) and are currently undertaking field trials.

4.2 Aims

The aim of this project is to estimate the minimum number of jaguars using the coastal
habitat inside TNP. This requires the identification of individual animals. The objectives

24
are 1) to determine the areas where jaguars are present, 2) to record their hours of
activity and other habits, 3) to compare jaguar activity at different sites along the coastal
forest.

4.3 Methodology
4.3.1 Study site

TNP beach is described in detail in section 3.3.1. There is a trail parallel to the beach
running from mile zero to mile 15, known locally as Sendero Jaguar. Along the trail close
to Tortuguero there are many paths that lead to the beach, slowly becoming more
dispersed the further south you travel. Tourists use the trail between miles zero and six
frequently during green turtle season (June to November). During off-season tourists
and local people use the trail much less.

4.3.2 Survey techniques

Location of cameras

Camera sites were selected in the forest along the edge of the TNP beach based upon
data collected by GVI on location and number of jaguar tracks and jaguar predated
marine turtles. This data has been recorded for over two years during Jaguar Predation
on Marine Turtles surveys (see section 3).

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 sites
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 and photos of humans.

Setting the cameras

DS-06 Camtrakker

The Camtrakkers are heat and motion-activated digital cameras. They were set on high
sensitivity and with a ten-second delay to take two pictures each time motion was

25
detected. The date and time of activation was automatically recorded. A silicone sachet
was placed inside the casing and cameras were secured to trees with a chain or cable.

Both types of camera were set up off the trail, in a location where a jaguar might be
expected to pass. Trapping stations of two cameras per site were used; one camera was
set on the time function and the other one on the date function. Since the purpose is to
use the animal’s flanks for identifications, both sides must be pictured (Silver et al.,
2004, Karanth & Nichols 2000). Cameras were secured to trees two to four meters apart,
at a height of 30-60 cm above the ground (Silver et al, 2004).

Once a location was chosen and the cameras secured, they were directed at each other
and sticks were used to adjust the angle of the camera sight to 30 to 60 cm from the
ground. After setting the cameras, a tampon or silica gel packet was placed inside the
camera case to absorb moisture. As problems of water seepage have been encountered
whilst using the Stealth Cams, silicone sealant and duct tape were used to close all
seams and prevent water from entering. A few drops of feline bait, Wildcat #2, was
placed on a log or coconut husk between the cameras in an attempt to attract any
jaguars in the area to the exact camera location.

Checking the cameras

The cameras were checked once every two weeks to minimise human disturbance of
the camera sites. At this time, the memory card and/or batteries were replaced as
necessary and cameras checked for proper functioning. When several photos had been
taken (minimum of nine non-test photos), or the cameras were non-functional, they were
removed and replaced. Digital photographs were saved into the database and labelled
by site location.

4.3.3 Data collection

The following information was recorded for each camera site:

• Site number
• Nearest northern mile marker,
• GPS co-ordinates
• Physical description of the site
26
 • Date of first instalment

The following information was recorded when a camera site was checked, installed or
removed:

• Site number
• Date
• Survey team initials
• Camera numbers
• Number of photos taken and species recorded on each camera
• Action taken with each camera i.e. checked, installed or removed
• Problems encountered and any other relevant information (e.g. number of test
photographs registered).

4.4 Results

Table 4-1 General data

Number of cameras deployed in field

12

Number of trapping sites

10

Table 4-2 Trapping site information

Cam site one Cam site two

Position (MM) 15 Position (MM) 14.5
Date set 20-Apr-08 Date set 20-Apr-08

Cam site three Cam site four

Position (MM) 6 Position (MM) 5.5
Date set 23-Apr-08 Date set 23-Apr-08

Cam site five Cam site six

Position (MM) 7 Position (MM) 8
Date set 17-May-08 Date set 17-May-08

Cam site seven Cam site eight

27
Position (MM) 8.5 Position (MM) 14
Date set 17-May-08 Date set 18-May-08

Cam site nine Cam site ten

Position (MM) 13 Position (MM) 6
Date set 18-May-08 Date set 26-May-08

Table 4-3 Presence / absence of known species this phase

Species Presence/Absence
Baird's tapir (Tapirus bairdii) 0
Central American spider monkey (Ateles geoffroyi) 0
Collared peccary (Tayassu tajacu) 1
Common opossum (Didelphis marsupialis) 1
Gray four-eyed opossum (Philander opossum) 1
Great curassow (Crax rubra) 1
Great tinamou (Tinamus major) 1
Jaguar (Panthera onca) 0
Mantled howler monkey (Alouatta palliata) 0
Margay (Leopardus wiedii) 0
Nine-banded armadillo (Dasypus novemcinctus) 1
Northern racoon (Procyon lotor) 0
Paca (Agouti paca) 1
Red brocket deer (Mazama americana) 1
Tayra (Eira barbara) 0
White-faced capuchin (Cebus capucinus) 0
White-lipped peccary (Tayassu pecari) 0
White-nosed coati (Nasua narica) 1
White-tailed deer (Odocoileus virginianus) 0

Figure 4-1 Gray four-eyed opossum; nine-banded armadillo

28
Figure 4-2 Great curassow (male); common opossum

Figure 4-3 Red brocket deer; paca

29
5 Canal Bird Monitoring Programme
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 programmes and has in part lead to
the initiation of this study. The Canal Bird Monitoring Programme aims to quantify
diversity and abundance of the species that live and breed in the area of Caribbean
Lowland Rainforest around EBCP, 7km North of TNP.

The nature of Costa Rica’s bird life has meant that it has been a popular location to
study behaviour 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 aquatic environment is of major importance to the tourism and ecology of the
tortuguero area. This habitat is being increasingly utilized and it is expected that this use
will, in time, have an impact on the avian population it supports.

The, EBCP Resident Bird Project monitoring survey began in July of 2005 and has been
developed into the current incarnation which is an ongoing project. Further collection of
data is important in order to establish reliable population trends for local bird species.

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
as limiting the amount of technical data collected on species. In all other aspects the
research follows the original protocol.

5.2 Aims

This research programme is intended to accumulate data that will help researchers
examine long-term changes in specific bird population. The specific aims of the project
are 1) to identify study species use of the study areas, 2) monitor long-term changes in
use of these areas, and 3) to aid in the collection of both resident and migratory avian
population data sets for wider public use.
30
5.3 Methodology

The study species were selecting based on two characteristics. Firstly, they occupy a
range of habitat within the aquatic environment, thus act as an indicator of disturbance.
Secondly, the study species are all relatively easily visualised and identified making
them ideal species for studies using low experience data collectors.

5.3.1 Study site

Within each area, sectors have been selected to aid with data collection and analysis.
These sectors have been selected to include a broad variation of habitats within the
study areas.

5.3.2 Data collection

The method of survey used in the study is an area search, which records all positively
identified study species seen or heard whilst searching a predetermined area. For each
survey the following general data was 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)

The study species targeted for data collection were as follows:

Table 5-1 Canal Bird Monitoring Study Species

Common name Scientific name

Agami heron Agamia agami
Amazon kingfisher Chloroceryle amazona
American pygmy kingfisher Chloroceryle aenea
Anhinga Anhinga anhinga
Bare-throated tiger-heron Tigrisoma mexicanum
Belted kingfisher Ceryle alcyon

31
Boat-billed heron Cochlearius cochlearius
Cattle egret Bubulcus ibis
Great blue heron Ardea herodias
Great egret Casmerodius albus
Green heron Butorides s. virescens
Green ibis Mesembrinibis cayennensis
Green kingfisher Chloroceryle americana
Green-and-rufus kingfisher Chloroceryle inda
Gray-necked wood-rail Aramides cajanea
Least bittern Ixobrychus exilis
Limpkin Aramus guarauna
Little blue heron Egretta caerulea
Neotropical cormorant Phalacrocorax olivaceus
Northern jacana Jacana spinosa
Purple gallinule Porphyrula martinica
Reddish egret Egretta rufescens
Ringed kingfisher Ceryle torquata
Rufescent tiger-heron Tigrisoma lineatum
Snowy egret Egretta thula
Sunbittern Eurypyga helias
Sungrebe Heliornis fulica
Tricoloured heron Egretta tricolour
White-throated crake Laterallus albigularis
Yellow-crowned night heron Nyctanassa violacea

For each area search only positively identified species were recorded. For each positive
record made the following data was collected:

• Sector code at which species was observed

• Number seen or heard (S: seen only, H: heard only, SH: seen and heard)
• Any comments e.g. breeding plumage or behaviour

32
5.4 Results

Table 5-2 General phase totals for all canals

Canal Number of surveys

Caño Harold 7
Caño Palma 7
Caño Chiquero 7

Number of species recorded Phase Total

All canals 22
Caño Palma 15
AQTs 18
Caño Chiquero 14
Caño Harold 14

Number of individuals recorded Phase Total

Caño Palma 106

AQTs 188
Caño Chiquero 66
Caño Harold 119
Total 479

Most commonly recorded species this phase

Caño Palma Green ibis
AQTs Little blue heron
Caño Harold Green heron
Caño Chiquero Sungrebe, bare-throated tiger-heron
Overall Green ibis (65), green heron (60)

Number of hours on survey Phase Total

Caño Palma
23:55
Caño Chiquero
22:04
Caño Harold
31:54
Total number of hours on survey
77:53

33
Table 5-3 Unusual recordings for phase per canal

Unusual sightings recorded

Canal
Caño Palma Cattle egret, gray-necked wood-rail, little blue heron
AQTs Purple gallinule
Caño Chiquero Northern jacana, rufescent tiger-heron
Caño Harold Agami heron, rufescent tiger-heron

Table 5-4 Presence/absence of species for phase

Key
Uncommonly recorded
Uncommonly recorded on indicated canal

Species recorded for Phase

1/0
Agami heron 1
Amazon kingfisher 1
American pygmy kingfisher 1
Anhinga 1
Bare-throated tiger-heron 1
Belted kingfisher 1
Boat-billed heron 1
Cattle egret 1
Great blue heron 0
Great egret 1
Green heron 1
Green ibis 1
Green kingfisher 1
Green-and-rufus kingfisher 1
Gray-necked wood-rail 1
Least bittern 0
Limpkin 0
Little blue heron 1
Neotropical cormorant 0
Northern jacana 1
Purple gallinule 1
Reddish egret 0
Ringed kingfisher 1
Rufescent tiger-heron 1
Snowy egret 1

34
Sunbittern 0
Sungrebe 1
Tricoloured heron 0
White-throated crake 0
Yellow-crowned night heron 1
Total Species 22

Table 5-5 Presence/absence of species per canal for phase

Species Species Species Species

recorded for recorded for recorded for recorded for
Palma 1/0 AQTs 1/0 Chiquero 1/0 Harold 1/0
Agami heron 0 Agami heron 0 Agami heron 0 Agami heron 1
Amazon Amazon Amazon Amazon
kingfisher 1 kingfisher 1 kingfisher 1 kingfisher 1
American American American pygmy American
pygmy pygmy kingfisher pygmy
kingfisher 1 kingfisher 0 0 kingfisher 1
Anhinga 1 Anhinga 1 Anhinga 1 Anhinga 1
Bare-throated Bare-throated Bare-throated Bare-throated
tiger-heron 1 tiger-heron 1 tiger-heron 1 tiger-heron 1
Belted Belted Belted kingfisher Belted
kingfisher 1 kingfisher 1 1 kingfisher 1
Boat-billed Boat-billed Boat-billed Boat-billed
heron 0 heron 1 heron 1 heron 1
Cattle egret 1 Cattle egret 1 Cattle egret 0 Cattle egret 0
Great blue Great blue Great blue Great blue
heron 0 heron 0 heron 0 heron 0
Great egret 1 Great egret 1 Great egret 0 Great egret 0
Green heron 1 Green heron 1 Green heron 1 Green heron 1
Green ibis 1 Green ibis 1 Green ibis 1 Green ibis 1
Green Green Green kingfisher Green
kingfisher 1 kingfisher 1 1 kingfisher 1
Green-and- Green-and- Green-and-rufus Green-and-
rufus kingfisher 1 rufus kingfisher 1 kingfisher 1 rufus kingfisher 1
Gray-necked Gray-necked Gray-necked Gray-necked
wood-rail 1 wood-rail 0 wood-rail 0 wood-rail 0
Least bittern 0 Least bittern 0 Least bittern 0 Least bittern 0
Limpkin 0 Limpkin 0 Limpkin 0 Limpkin 0
Little blue Little blue Little blue heron Little blue
heron 1 heron 1 1 heron 1
Neotropical Neotropical Neotropical Neotropical
cormorant 0 cormorant 0 cormorant 0 cormorant 0
Northern Northern Northern jacana Northern
jacana 0 jacana 1 1 jacana 0
Purple Purple Purple gallinule Purple
gallinule 0 gallinule 1 0 gallinule 0
Reddish egret 0 Reddish egret 0 Reddish egret 0 Reddish egret 0
Ringed 1 Ringed 1 Ringed 1 Ringed 1
35
kingfisher kingfisher kingfisher kingfisher
Rufescent Rufescent Rufescent tiger- Rufescent
tiger-heron 0 tiger-heron 0 heron 1 tiger-heron 1
Snowy egret 0 Snowy egret 1 Snowy egret 0 Snowy egret 0
Sunbittern 0 Sunbittern 0 Sunbittern 0 Sunbittern 0
Sungrebe 0 Sungrebe 1 Sungrebe 1 Sungrebe 0
Tricoloured Tricoloured Tricoloured Tricoloured
heron 0 heron 0 heron 0 heron 0
White-throated White-throated White-throated White-throated
crake 0 crake 0 crake 0 crake 0
Yellow- Yellow- Yellow-crowned Yellow-
crowned night crowned night night heron crowned night
heron 1 heron 1 0 heron 0
Total Species 15 Total Species 18 Total Species 14 Total Species 14

36
6 Incidental Species Study
6.1 Introduction

The EBCP Incidental Species Study was initiated during phase 071 (January – March
2007). The project has gone through various changes over the phases in order to
simplify the data collection methods and ensure each species is positively identified and
accurately recorded. By keeping a daily record of the occurrence of species found
around base, we can determine which species are seen most frequently and determine if
there any changes in the frequency of sightings of certain species over time. This is
important to determine if the presence of people around base for the majority of the year
is having an effect on the wildlife present.

6.2 Aims

The aim of the study is to maintain a formal, accurate record of the daily occurrences of
birds, mammals, reptiles and amphibians sighted within the property boundaries of the
station.

6.3 Methodology
6.3.1 Data collection

Laminated, picture cards of the different types of birds, amphibians, reptiles and
mammals commonly found around base were posted on the kitchen wall of the station.
Each day of phase 081, all persons on base marked off the appropriate photo if they
saw, heard, and could accurately identify one or more of the species listed. Positive IDs
of any species not displayed on the boards were written in the space provided. Species
presence was recorded for a 24-hour period.

6.4 Results

Table 6-1 Overview of incidental totals this phase

Number of species recorded this phase 168

Total number of records this phase 2662

37
Table 6-2 Most commonly recorded species by class for phase

Birds Mammals Amphibians Reptiles

Days Days Days Days
recorded recorded recorded recorded
Species (%) Species (%) Species (%) Species (%)
White-
collared Mantled howler Strawberry
manakin monkey poison frog Green basilisk
(Manacus (Alouatta (Dendrobates (Basiliscus
candei) 97 palliata) 93 pumilio) 88 plumifrons) 81
Montezuma Brazilian long-
oropendola nosed bat Marine toad Green iguana
(Psarocolius (Rhynchonycteris (Bufo (Iguana
montezuma) 96 naso) 55 marinus) 83 iguana) 78
Olive-backed Central Smoki jungle Yellow-
euphonia American frog headed gecko
(Euphonia spider monkey (Leptodactylus (Gonatodes
gouldi) 93 (Ateles geoffroyi) 30 pentadactylus) 39 albogularis) 72
Great White-faced Green Festive
kiskadee capuchin climbing toad jungle-runner
(Pitangus (Cebus (Bufo (Ameiva
sulphuratus) 93 capucinus) 26 coniferus) 20 festiva) 70
Slaty-tailed Neotropical Red-eyed Black river
trogon River Otter tree frog turtle
(Trogon (Lutra (Agalychnis (Rhinoclemmys
massena) 91 longicaudis) 10 callidryas) 9 funerea) 42

Figure 6-1 Most commonly recorded species for phase (recorded ≥75% of days)

White-collared Manakin
Montezuma Oropendola
Mantled Howler Monkey
Olive-backed Euphonia
Great Kiskadee
Slaty-tailed Trogon
Strawberry Poison Frog
Short-billed Pigeon
Purple-throated Fruitcrow
Clay-colored Robin
Black Vulture
Mealy Parrot
Chestnut-mandibled Toucan
Turkey Vulture
Marine Toad
Green Basilisk
Long-billed Hermit
Keel-billed Toucan
Green Iguana

50 52 54 56 58 60 62 64 66 68 70

38
Table 6-3 Special Interest sightings for phase

Sightings of special interest this phase Number of records

Broad-winged hawk (Buteo platypterus) 1
Collared forest falcon (Micrastur semitorquatus) 1
Giant cowbird (Molothrus oryzivorus) 1
Great-tailed grackle (Quiscalus mexicanus) 1
Mexican tree frog (Smilisca baudinii) 1
Peregrine falcon (Falco peregrinus) 1
Rufescent tiger-heron (Tigrisoma lineatum) 1
Scarlet webbed tree frog (Hyla rufitela) 1
Snail kite (Rosthramus sociabilis) 1
Two-toed sloth (Choloepus hoffmanni) 1
Eyelash viper (Bothriechis schlegelii) 2
Northern raccoon (Procyon lotor) 4

39
7 Canal Boat Impact Study
7.1 Introduction

Although not an official part of the national park, Caño Palma is included in the
Management Plan for Visitors to TNP as it provides a suitable alternative to the national
park for wildlife viewing, thus helping to reduce the demand on other canals within the
park’s boundaries (Bermúdez and Hernández, 2004). Restrictions on the number of
boats allowed into TNP per day were put into place on the 24th of April 2006, See Table
7-1 for a breakdown of allowed boat usage on Caño Palma. Thus, this change is likely
to have resulted in an increase in the number of tourist boats using Caño Palma. Boat
surveys were initiated in phase 061 (January16th - March 27th, 2006) before these
changes took place. With tourist numbers rising (now approaching 90,000 visitor per
year), (MINAE Tortuguero National Park Headquarters, 2007) continuing to monitor the
number of boats associated with tourist activity utilizing Caño Palma is imperative to
gauge any changes in intensity of activity and potential impact this may have on the
wildlife in this area.

Table 7-1 Boat use restriction on Caño Palma, Tortuguero, Costa Rica.

ACTo Time restriction Number of boats allowed

06:00 – 08:00 10
08:00 – 10:00 10
10:00 – 12:00 10
12:00 – 14:00 10
14:00 – 16:00 10
10
16:00 - 18:00

7.2 Aims

The Canal Boat Impact survey conducted from EBCP aims to monitor the number of
boats frequenting Caño Palma in order to estimate the intensity of tourist activity within
the greater Tortuguero area. It is an ongoing study and aims to collect consistent data
throughout the entire phase of each expedition.

40
7.3 Methodology

Surveys were conducted once a week between 06:00 and 18:00. As possible, all days of
the week are surveyed throughout the phase. Two personnel conduct surveys, each
taking a six-hour shift, between either 06:00 and 12:00 or 12:00 and 18:00.

7.3.1 Data collection

• Survey date - recorded for each entry

• Time – Time that the boat passes by the station (24 hour)
• Direction – Direction that the boat is travelling when passing the station (N or S)
• Boat Name – Name or number of boat as written on the boat
• Lodge – Lodge that owns the boat. These data will fall into one of the following
categories, Turtle Beach, Vista al Mar, Pachira, Evergreen, Samoa, Tortuga,
Jungle or Laguna Lodge. If it is owned by the biological station, “Caño Palma” is
recorded. If it is public transport, it is recorded as "taxi". All other personal
watercraft (or any unknown, unnamed boats) are recorded as Private.
• Tourism – Whether or not the boat is associated with tourism. For a boat to be
associated with tourism, it must fall into any one of these categories: Be from a
tourist lodge; be a taxi carrying tourists; or be a private boat carrying tourists. A
tourist is defined as a short-term visitor to the area (domestic or international).
• Number of People aboard the boat –Includes the driver and any guides.
• Motor –Four-stroke engine, two-stroke engine or none (canoe or kayak).
• Return Time – Time when the boat returns past the station (if it returns).
• Comments – Any additional comments pertaining to the nature of the study.

41
7.4 Results

Table 7-2 General Canal boat impact data for phase

Number of surveys this phase 8

Average number of boats per day for the phase 30

Average number of passengers per tourist boat for phase 9

Average number of passengers per private boat for phase 3

Average number of people per day 198

Most commonly recorded tourist boat for phase Scarlet (Vista al Mar)

Most commonly recorded private boat for phase

Kinkajou (EBCP canoe)

Most commonly recorded lodge for phase

Vista al Mar

Table 7-3 Average canal usage for phase by ACTo time restriction

Av Number of boats 06:00 – 08:00 5

Av Number of boats 08:00 – 10:00 6

Av Number of boats 10:00 – 12:00 4

Av Number of boats 12:00 – 14:00 4

Av Number of boats 14:00 – 16:00 7

Av Number of boats 16:00 – 18:00 4

Total number of boats for the phase 241

42
Table 7-4 Activity by usage type

Total number of tourist boats 142

Total number of non-tourist boats 98

Total number of passengers in tourist boats 1276

Total number of passengers in non-tourist boats 304

Percentage of boats using 4s engines 96%

Figure 7-1 Percentage canal usage tourist vs. non-tourist

41% Nº of tourist boats

Nº of non-tourist boats
59%

43
Figure 7-2 Breakdown of canal usage by Tourist Lodge

Laguna
LL
Mawamba
ML

Lodge Pachira
Pachira Lodge
Turtle Beach
TBL
Vista al Mar
DE's

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80

Number of records for phase

Figure 7-3 Total number of boat by time for phase

16:00 – 18:00

14:00 – 16:00

12:00 – 14:00

10:00 – 12:00

08:00 – 10:00

06:00 – 08:00

0 20 40 60
Number of Boats

44
8 Meteorology and Environmental Study
8.1 Introduction

COTERC have been recording weather information at the Biological Station to varying
degrees since 1991. Since January 2007, GVI Costa Rica have been assisting COTERC
in the collection and compilation of set data into the climatological and environmental
conditions experienced at EBCP each day.

8.2 Aim

To compile a consistent, long-term data set of climatic conditions at the station.

8.3 Methodology

Weather data are to be collected at 06:00 and 18:00 hours, daily. The total precipitation,
temperatures, relative humidity and percentage cloud cover are collected. The river
variables are recorded from the right hand side of the boat dock.

8.4 Data collection

• Rainfall (mm)
• Air Temperature (maximum, minimum and current) (°C)
• Relative humidity (%)
• Percentage cloud cover
• River direction (north / south)
• Canal colour (black, brown or green)
• Canal depth (cm)

45
8.5 Results

Table 8-1 Weekly environmental averages for phase

Week Rainfall (mm) Max Temp Min Temp Average Humidity (%) Average Canal Depth
(6PM) (6AM) (cm)
one 20.2 29.4 23.7 85 88
5.2 30.7 25.3 83 111
two
5 29.7 23.6 84 91
three
2.4 30 24.3 81 87
four
6 30.4 25.6 82 97
five
3.1 29.7 24.7 85 88
six
3.6 29.4 24.1 86 90
seven
0.8 29.6 23.6 85 86
eight
13.5 28 24.4 89 98
nine
3.9 30.6 25.4 84 101
ten

Table 8-2 Monthly environmental averages for year

Month Rainfall (mm) Max Temp Min Temp Average Humidity (%) Average Canal Depth
(6PM) (6AM) (cm)
Jan 6.3 28.6 22.5 82.1 110.4
3.8 28.8 22.6 83.4 87.2
Feb
3.2 30 23 79.8 89.1
March
4.8 30.1 24.3 82.5 93.2
Apr
3.5 30 24.5 83.4 90
May
Jun
July
Aug
Sept
Oct
Nov
Dec

46
9 English Language and Environmental Education
9.1 Introduction to English Teaching

Worldwide, comprehension of the English language is becoming increasingly important

as a means to further local livelihoods through the tourism industry. 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 Introduction to Environmental Education

In a continually developing village, such as San Francisco, environmental education can

help to raise awareness and sensitivity to the area that is depended upon of all aspects
of life, from housing and water through to employment. This education is most efficiently
integrated into the community when it is directed toward the children. In this way, the
children will grow up with a better knowledge and appreciation for their environment,
identify problems and help prevent new ones.

9.3 Aims

The overall aim of the teaching programme in San Francisco and surrounding area is to
provide a service of environmental education and English teaching in order to provide
the residents with the skills they need to protect their environment and improve their
employment opportunities.

The specific aims of the programme are 1) to provide local community training/capacity
building, 2) to help generate local community commitment to environment conservation
and sustainable development, 3) to provide language and cultural exchange 4) to
attempt to provide authentic opportunities for local students to practice listening and
speaking English with native speakers.

47
9.4 Methodology
9.4.1 Training

Teaching training was integrated into the weekly schedule within the ten weeks. All EMs
were briefed on the previous curriculum and material covered by past expeditions.
Training was through pre-class organization sessions in which the teaching team would
create a lesson plan and prepare the various props needed. More training took place
after the class, with a casual review of what went well during the lesson and what
needed improvement. All Expedition Members received fundamental training in teaching
English as a foreign language utilizing the ‘Introduction to TEFL’ course adapted by GVI
and presentations made by staff and interns. A staff member guided the EMs through
the lesson planning process and organization of a children’s English class, and a
children’s environmental science class and an intercambio (language exchange) class
with local guides at the local evergreen lodge.

9.4.2 Teaching

Children’s classes were held on Mondays at 14:30. Three expedition members met
before each class to plan the lesson, gather props and discuss how it was to be run.
Classes were based on a curriculum created by expedition members, which reviewed
and supplemented what had previously been taught. Generally, each class was divided
into smaller groups to give the children more individual attention when possible. Classes
lasted 45 minutes, then an activity pertaining to the topic taught and some general
conversation took place.

Due to a lack of Community Intern or fluent Spanish speaking staff member both Adult
and Environment Education classes were cancelled this phase.

In addition to its commitment to San Francisco, GVI also continued to work with the
locally run Canopy Tour connected to Evergreen Lodge. An Intercambio program, which
took place on Fridays from 16:00-17:00 allowed volunteers to learn Spanish from and
teach English to the guides. We also pursued our relationship with our neighbours at
Cabinas Vista al Mar, but intercambios were limited due to their work commitments.

48
9.5 Results

During Phase 082, eight English classes were taught to an average of seven children in
San Francisco. The topics covered were places and directions, animals, opposites, food,
body parts and clothes.

Intercambios took place six times with an average of four staff of Evergreen Canopy
Tours and once with two staff of our neighbouring Vista al Mar lodge.

Whilst formal classes were limited this phase due to lack of personnel we maintained
contact in the community with two Community Events. The first focused on rainforest
and the second on birds. The chosen model was to give an introductory lecture followed
by a series of activities. Approximately 35 children attended the events. During the first
event, an interactive presentation was given in Spanish and gained positive interaction
from the children. To further this, in the second event, in addition to an introductory talk
the children were made up to look like birds using face paints and beaks and help to
decorate a green Ibis collage out of litter.

Figure 9-1 Community Event focusing on awareness of birds and the environment

49
Figure 9-2 Community Event focusing on forests around the world and the importance of rainforests

50
10 References

Aranda, J.M. 2000. Huellas y otros rastros de los mamíferos grandes y medianos de
México. Instituto de Ecología, A.C. Veracruz, México.

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

Bermúdez, F. & Hernández, C. 2003.

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

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

Boza, M.A. & Mendoza, R. 1981. The National Parks of Costa Rica. Incafo, Madrid.

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(1): 48-49.

Chinchilla, F.A. 1997. La dieta del jaguar (Panthera onca), el puma (Felis concolor) y el
manigordo (Felis pardalis) en el Parque Nacional Corcovado, Costa Rica. Revista de
Biologia Tropical 45: 1223-1229.

Hirth, H. 1997. Synopsis of the biological data on the green turtle Chelonia mydas
(Linnaeus 1758). USFWS Biological Report 97(1): 46-49.

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

Accessed on 21 March 2008.

Karanth, K.U. & Nichols, J.D. 1998. Estimation of tiger densities in India using
photographic captures and recaptures. Ecology 79(8): 2852-2862.

Karanth, K.U. & Nichols, J.D. 2000. Camera trapping big cats: some questions that
should be asked frequently. Unpublished document.

51
Karanth, K.U., Nichols, J.D., Kumar, N.S., Link, W.A., Hines, J.E., & Orians, G.H. 2004.
Tigers and their prey: Predicting carnivore densities from prey abundance. Proceedings
of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America 101(14): 4854-
4858.

Koford, C.B. 1983. Felis onca. In: Janzen, D.H. (ed). Costa Rican Natural History. Pages
484-485. The University of Chicago Press. USA.

Miller, B. & Rabinowitz, A. 2002. ¿Por qué conservar el jaguar? In: Medellín, R.A.,
Equina, C. Chetkiewicz, C.L., Crawshaw Jr, P.G., Rabinowitz, A., Redford, K.H.,
Robinson, J.G., Sanderson, E.W. & Taber, A.B. (eds). El jaguar en el nuevo milenio,
pages 303-315. Ediciones Científicas Universitarias. Fondo de Cultura Económica/
Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México/ Wildlife Conservation Society. México, D.F.
México.

NatureServe Explorer. 2006. Online encyclopaedia of plants, animals, and ecosystems

[http://www.natureserve.org Accessed 30 November 2006].

Oritz, R.M., Plotkin, P.T, & Owens, 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): 1-15.

Salom-Pérez, R. Carrillo, E., Sáenz, J.C. & Mora, J.M. 2007. Critical condition of the
jaguar Panthera onca population in Corcovado National Park, Costa Rica. Oryx 41(1):
51-56.

Seymour, K.L. 1989. Panthera onca. Mammalian Species, 340: 1-9.

Silver, S. 2004. Assessing jaguar abundance using remotely triggered cameras. Wildlife
Conservation Society. New York, USA.

52
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. 1997. Report on the 1997 Green Turtle Program at Tortuguero, Costa Rica.
Unpublished report to the Caribbean Conservation Corporation.

Troëng, S., Zanre, R., Singer, C., Pinion, T., Castro, J., Harrison, E., Ayala, D.,
Hinestroza, L., Polo, A., Quijada, A., Castillo, A., Ho, P. & Rankin, T. 1999. Report on
the 1998 Green Turtle Program at Tortuguero, Costa Rica. Unpublished report to the
Caribbean Conservation Corporation and the Ministry of Environment and Energy of
Costa Rica.

Troëng, S. 2000. Predation of green (Chelonia mydas) and Leatherback (Dermochelys

coriacea) turtles by Jaguars (Panthera onca) at Tortuguero National Park, Costa Rica.
Chelonian Conservation Biology 3(4): 751-753.

Van Oudenhoven, F.J.W. 2007. Of turtles and tactics. M.Sc. thesis, York University,
Ontario, Canada.

Weber, W. & Rabinowitz, A. 1996. A global perspective on large carnivore conservation.

Conservation Biology 10(4): 1046-1054.

53