Global Conservation Priorities for Marine Turtles

Type Article
Date 2011-09
Language English
Author(s) Wallace Bryan P.1, 2, 3, Dimatteo Andrew D.1, 4, Bolten Alan B.1, 5, Chaloupka Milani Y.1, 6, Hutchinson Brian J.1, 2, Abreu-Grobois F. Alberto1, 7, Mortimer Jeanne A.1, 8, 9, Seminoff Jeffrey A.1, 10, Amorocho Diego1, 11, Bjorndal Karen A.1, 5, Bourjea JeromeORCID1, 12, Bowen Brian W.1, 13, Briseno Duenas Raquel1, 14, Casale Paolo1, 15, 16, Choudhury B. C.1, 17, Costa Alice1, 18, Dutton Peter H.1, 19, Fallabrino Alejandro1, 20, Finkbeiner Elena M.1, 3, Girard Alexandre1, 21, Girondot Marc1, 22, Hamann Mark1, 23, Hurley Brendan J.1, 2, Lopez-Mendilaharsu Milagros1, 24, 25, Angela Marcovaldi Maria1, 24, Musick John A.1, 26, Nel Ronel1, 27, Pilcher Nicolas J.1, 28, Troeng Sebastian1, 2, 29, 30, Witherington Blair1, 31, Mast Roderic B.1, 2
Affiliation(s) 1 : IUCN SSC Marine Turtle Specialist Grp, Burning Issues Working Grp, Arlington, VA USA.
2 : Conservat Int, Global Marine Div, Arlington, VA USA.
3 : Duke Univ, Div Marine Sci & Conservat, Beaufort, NC USA.
4 : Duke Univ, Marine Geospatial Ecol Lab, Durham, NC USA.
5 : Univ Florida, Dept Biol, Gainesville, FL USA.
6 : Univ Queensland, Ecol Modelling Serv Pty Ltd, Brisbane, Qld, Australia.
7 : Univ Nacl Autonoma Mexico, Unidad Acad Mazatlan, Inst Ciencias Mar & Limnol, Mazatlan, Sinaloa, Mexico.
8 : University of Florida, department of Biology, Gainesville, Florida, United States of America
9 : NOAA, Natl Marine Fisheries Serv, Marine Turtle Ecol & Assessment Program, SW Fisheries Sci Ctr, La Jolla, CA USA.
10 : Isl Conservat Soc, Victoria, Mahe, Seychelles.
11 : Ctr Invest Medio Ambiente & Desarrollo, Cali, Colombia.
12 : IFREMER, Lab Ressources Halieut, Ile De La Reunion, France.
13 : Hawaii Inst Marine Biol, Kaneohe, HI USA.
14 : Univ Nacl Autonoma Mexico, Inst Ciencias Mar & Limnol, Banco Informac Tortugas Marinas BITMAR, Unidad Mazatlan, Mazatlan, Sinaloa, Mexico.
15 : Univ Roma La Sapienza, Dept Biol & Biotechnol Charles Darwin, Rome, Italy.
16 : World Wildlife Fund Italy, WWF Mediterranean Turtle Programme, Rome, Italy.
17 : Wildlife Inst India, Dept Endangered Species Management, Dehra Dun, Uttarakhand, India.
18 : World Wildlife Fund Mozamb, Maputo, Mozambique.
19 : Natl Ocean & Atmospher Adm, SW Fisheries Sci Ctr, Natl Marine Fisheries Serv, La Jolla, CA USA
20 : Karumbe, Montevideo, Uruguay.
21 : Assoc RENATURA, Pointe Noire, Congo.
22 : Univ Paris 11, Lab Ecol Syst & Evolut, Orsay, France.
23 : James Cook Univ, Sch Earth & Environm Sci, Townsville, Qld, Australia
24 : Fundacao Pro Tamar, Projeto Tamar ICMBio, Salvador, BA, Brazil.
25 : Univ Estado Rio de Janeiro, Dept Ecol, Inst Biol, BR-20550011 Rio De Janeiro, Brazil.
26 : Virginia Inst Marine Sci, Coll William & Mary, Gloucester Point, VA 23062 USA.
27 : Nelson Mandela Metropolitan Univ, Sch Environm Sci, Summerstrand Campus, South Africa.
28 : Marine Res Fdn, Sabah, Malaysia.
29 : Lund Univ, Dept Anim Ecol, S-22362 Lund, Sweden.
30 : Sea Turtle Conservancy, Sci Advisory Comm, Gainesville, FL USA.
31 : Florida Fish & Wildlife Conservat Commiss, Melbourne Beach, FL USA.
Source Plos One (1932-6203) (Public Library Science), 2011-09 , Vol. 6 , N. 9 , P. 1-14
DOI 10.1371/journal.pone.0024510
WOS© Times Cited 305
Abstract Where conservation resources are limited and conservation targets are diverse, robust yet flexible priority-setting frameworks are vital. Priority-setting is especially important for geographically widespread species with distinct populations subject to multiple threats that operate on different spatial and temporal scales. Marine turtles are widely distributed and exhibit intra-specific variations in population sizes and trends, as well as reproduction and morphology. However, current global extinction risk assessment frameworks do not assess conservation status of spatially and biologically distinct marine turtle Regional Management Units (RMUs), and thus do not capture variations in population trends, impacts of threats, or necessary conservation actions across individual populations. To address this issue, we developed a new assessment framework that allowed us to evaluate, compare and organize marine turtle RMUs according to status and threats criteria. Because conservation priorities can vary widely (i.e. from avoiding imminent extinction to maintaining long-term monitoring efforts) we developed a "conservation priorities portfolio" system using categories of paired risk and threats scores for all RMUs (n = 58). We performed these assessments and rankings globally, by species, by ocean basin, and by recognized geopolitical bodies to identify patterns in risk, threats, and data gaps at different scales. This process resulted in characterization of risk and threats to all marine turtle RMUs, including identification of the world's 11 most endangered marine turtle RMUs based on highest risk and threats scores. This system also highlighted important gaps in available information that is crucial for accurate conservation assessments. Overall, this priority-setting framework can provide guidance for research and conservation priorities at multiple relevant scales, and should serve as a model for conservation status assessments and priority-setting for widespread, long-lived taxa.
Full Text
File Pages Size Access
Publisher's official version 14 551 KB Open access
Top of the page

How to cite 

Wallace Bryan P., Dimatteo Andrew D., Bolten Alan B., Chaloupka Milani Y., Hutchinson Brian J., Abreu-Grobois F. Alberto, Mortimer Jeanne A., Seminoff Jeffrey A., Amorocho Diego, Bjorndal Karen A., Bourjea Jerome, Bowen Brian W., Briseno Duenas Raquel, Casale Paolo, Choudhury B. C., Costa Alice, Dutton Peter H., Fallabrino Alejandro, Finkbeiner Elena M., Girard Alexandre, Girondot Marc, Hamann Mark, Hurley Brendan J., Lopez-Mendilaharsu Milagros, Angela Marcovaldi Maria, Musick John A., Nel Ronel, Pilcher Nicolas J., Troeng Sebastian, Witherington Blair, Mast Roderic B. (2011). Global Conservation Priorities for Marine Turtles. Plos One, 6(9), 1-14. Publisher's official version : , Open Access version :