Kyle S Van Houtan1, John M Halley. 1. Marine NOAA Fisheries Service, Pacific Islands Fisheries Science Center, Honolulu, Hawaii, United States of America. kyle.vanhoutan@gmail.com
Abstract
The long-term variability of marine turtle populations remains poorly understood, limiting science and management. Here we use basin-scale climate indices and regional surface temperatures to estimate loggerhead sea turtle (Caretta caretta) nesting at a variety of spatial and temporal scales. Borrowing from fisheries research, our models investigate how oceanographic processes influence juvenile recruitment and regulate population dynamics. This novel approach finds local populations in the North Pacific and Northwest Atlantic are regionally synchronized and strongly correlated to ocean conditions--such that climate models alone explain up to 88% of the observed changes over the past several decades. In addition to its performance, climate-based modeling also provides mechanistic forecasts of historical and future population changes. Hindcasts in both regions indicate climatic conditions may have been a factor in recent declines, but future forecasts are mixed. Available climatic data suggests the Pacific population will be significantly reduced by 2040, but indicates the Atlantic population may increase substantially. These results do not exonerate anthropogenic impacts, but highlight the significance of bottom-up oceanographic processes to marine organisms. Future studies should consider environmental baselines in assessments of marine turtle population variability and persistence.
The long-term variability of marine turtle populations remains poorly understood, limiting science and management. Here we use basin-scale climate indices and regional surface temperatures to estimate loggerheadsea turtle (Caretta caretta) nesting at a variety of spatial and temporal scales. Borrowing from fisheries research, our models investigate how oceanographic processes influence juvenile recruitment and regulate population dynamics. This novel approach finds local populations in the North Pacific and Northwest Atlantic are regionally synchronized and strongly correlated to ocean conditions--such that climate models alone explain up to 88% of the observed changes over the past several decades. In addition to its performance, climate-based modeling also provides mechanistic forecasts of historical and future population changes. Hindcasts in both regions indicate climatic conditions may have been a factor in recent declines, but future forecasts are mixed. Available climatic data suggests the Pacific population will be significantly reduced by 2040, but indicates the Atlantic population may increase substantially. These results do not exonerate anthropogenic impacts, but highlight the significance of bottom-up oceanographic processes to marine organisms. Future studies should consider environmental baselines in assessments of marine turtle population variability and persistence.
Populations from a variety of taxa and environments have long-term correlations with
climate [1], [2], [3], [4], [5]. This is
particularly true in marine ecosystems where the North Atlantic Oscillation (NAO)
and the Pacific Decadal Oscillation (PDO) have a dramatic influence on fisheries
[6], [7]. These climate
indices are correlated with population dynamics [8], [9] because they reflect
atmospheric circulation patterns which regulate large scale oceanographic processes
and ecosystem productivity [10], [11]. But, in contrast with the El Niño Southern
Oscillation index [12], the NAO and PDO operate on decadal scales, causing
extended periods of high or low population abundance [5], [7]. Though the ecological effects
of these climate oscillations have been described in various settings, the influence
of decadal indices to long-term marine turtle population trends is largely
unexplored.Anthropogenic pressures are considered the major driver of marine turtle populations
[13], [14], [15]. A recent
National Research Council (NRC) report concluded, for example, that advances in
turtle population ecology will come primarily from improvements in monitoring human
impacts [16]. At
the same time, the NRC report noted the lack of data on juveniles to be a
significant scientific challenge. After hatching loggerhead juveniles disperse to
pelagic biomes (Fig 1a)
thousands of kilometers from their nesting beaches where most studies occur.
Although juveniles are the most numerous population segment, they are also the least
accessible and least understood.
Figure 1
Pelagic habits of juvenile loggerhead turtles.
Loggerhead juveniles disperse to regions whose climatic variability is
characterized (a) in the North Atlantic by the Atlantic
Multidecadal Oscillation (AMO) and (b) in the North Pacific by
the Pacific Decadal Oscillation (PDO). In the North Pacific,
satellite-tagged juveniles forage in cyclonic (c) and
anti-cyclonic (d) feature fronts where prey are abundant.
Comparable satellite studies in the Northwest Atlantic population reveal
similar habits [18]. Tracking maps are redrawn from a previous study
[19].
Climate indices may provide insights into the dynamics of this key demographic.
Genetic [17] and
tracking [18],
[19] studies
have revealed pelagic hotspots where juvenile loggerheads congregate; foraging in
oceanographic features that are productive and concentrate prey (Fig. 1c-d). Decadal indices, as
they describe the variability of these hotspots, may function as proxies for
juvenile recruitment. This is the case for many marine fisheries [9]. Because
juvenile population dynamics are poorly understood, this may offer immediate
insights. But in addition, a climatic approach holds promise for understanding
population trends - of juveniles and adults - over time.
Pelagic habits of juvenile loggerhead turtles.
Loggerhead juveniles disperse to regions whose climatic variability is
characterized (a) in the North Atlantic by the Atlantic
Multidecadal Oscillation (AMO) and (b) in the North Pacific by
the Pacific Decadal Oscillation (PDO). In the North Pacific,
satellite-tagged juveniles forage in cyclonic (c) and
anti-cyclonic (d) feature fronts where prey are abundant.
Comparable satellite studies in the Northwest Atlantic population reveal
similar habits [18]. Tracking maps are redrawn from a previous study
[19].In this paper we develop models that measure climate forcing in long-term trends of
loggerheadsea turtles (Caretta caretta) nesting in Japan and
Florida. Our models capture climate dynamics through two mechanisms: juvenile
recruitment and breeding remigration. Females do not breed annually, but when ocean
conditions are sufficient for females to generate yolk [20]. Nesting activity across
species and ocean basins has thus been linked to sea surface temperatures (SST) in
the months preceding nesting [21], [22], [23]. But where SST anomalies explain some of the annual
fluctuations in nesting, recruitment variability may be the dominant driver of the
long-term dynamics. Juveniles are considered more susceptible to oceanographic
variability as they have a limited ability to exploit their environs for food [2], [6], [9], [24], [25]. In the North
Pacific we anticipate that juvenile recruitment is correlated with the PDO, as the
index is positive when atmospheric circulation is elevated [11] in the Kuroshio Bifurcation
Extension Region where juveniles congregate [19] (Fig 1b–d). In the Northwest Atlantic we
expect recruitment varies with the Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation (AMO). We use
this index instead of the NAO, as the AMO is strongly correlated with thermohaline
and atmospheric circulation patterns [26] as well as storm activity [27], [28] in the
subtropical-temperate region where Atlantic juveniles reside [17].Our study is the first to consider how both of these important climate dynamics
impact marine turtles. In doing so, a significant aspect of our models is accounting
for age to maturity. Our analysis presumes juvenile recruitment dynamics can be
detected when turtles are counted as breeding adults, several decades later [29]. In fisheries,
age to maturity is typically a few years and correlation lags are therefore
straightforward. The longest documented fisheries lag is eight years, documented
both between the AMO and striped bass (Morone saxatilis) surveys
(Bob Wood, personal communication) and between the NAO and Labrador snow crab
(Chionoecetes opilio) landings [30]. For Northwest Atlantic
loggerheads, estimates of age at first breeding range from 30–32 years [29], [31]. We therefore
fix the lag in this population at 31 years. We have no maturity estimates for North
Pacific loggerhead, however. We therefore model the lag of juvenile climate dynamics
over a plausible range of values, allowing the models to optimize the lag distance
for the Japan regional total series.We used general linear models to estimate annual nesting at two spatial scales
relevant to conservation management [31] - local and regional nesting surveys. To examine their
relative model performance, we rank the contributions from each of the climate
factors. Finally, due to the mechanistic nature of the climate forcing models, we
project historical and future nesting trajectories based on available climate data
and under different climate change scenarios.
Results and Discussion
Loggerhead nesting varies synchronously within regions suggesting that common factors
operating over large geographic regions are driving their numbers (Fig. 2). Surveys in Japan and
Florida reveal extended periods of high and low abundance, corresponding to
well-known fisheries patterns in the same ocean basins [2], [7]. Our climate forcing models
account for 18–88% (ave = 0.60) of the annual
variability at the local scale, and 66–77% (ave
= 0.71) at the regional scale when nesting data from
1954–2009 are considered (Table S1).
Figure 2
Climate forcing of loggerhead nesting.
Nest surveys are positive (blue) and negative (red) annual anomalies plotted
against the survey year on the bottom x axis. The upper
x axis is the year of the decadal oscillation (grey
line) represented by the PDO and the AMO lagged 25 and 31 years,
respectively. Highest-ranked climate forcing model (black line) incorporates
the decadal series including (←) or without (x) the winter SST series.
Scatter plots display relationships of the winter SST to residuals from the
decadal series models alone. Regional total series (yellow panel)
accumulates nests from all locations; Japan total provided by the Sea Turtle
Association of Japan, Florida total accumulates nests from 15 index nesting
beach surveys. Model correlation coefficients and p-values
are provided.
Climate forcing of loggerhead nesting.
Nest surveys are positive (blue) and negative (red) annual anomalies plotted
against the survey year on the bottom x axis. The upper
x axis is the year of the decadal oscillation (grey
line) represented by the PDO and the AMO lagged 25 and 31 years,
respectively. Highest-ranked climate forcing model (black line) incorporates
the decadal series including (←) or without (x) the winter SST series.
Scatter plots display relationships of the winter SST to residuals from the
decadal series models alone. Regional total series (yellow panel)
accumulates nests from all locations; Japan total provided by the Sea Turtle
Association of Japan, Florida total accumulates nests from 15 index nesting
beach surveys. Model correlation coefficients and p-values
are provided.The models capture both annual and decadal time series patterns, including those that
have raised concerns with modelers and conservationists. As an example, surveys in
Japan indicated a greater than three-fold (linear scale) increase from
2007–2008. While a purely demographic model could not reproduce this trend,
our climate forcing model that combines the PDO and winter SST, captures this
dramatic increase (Fig. 2).
Likewise, the historical decline in Kamouda, Japan from its historical peak in the
late 1950s appears to have a climatic component. We note that the Kamouda series
does not consistently decline from its first recorded value, but oscillates in
concert with the PDO for more than four decades. The declines across Florida from
1998–2007, as well as the increase in the most recent few years, also appear
tied to climatic conditions. Importantly, the models perform well locally where most
turtles nest. In both ocean basins, nesting abundances at local beaches may vary by
an order of magnitude. Since 2000, Inakahama and Maehama represent 36% of all
North Pacific nests. Since records began in 1989, South Brevard accounts for
37% of all peninsular Florida nests. The models from these three locations
explain on average two–thirds of the annual nesting variability.The model results also have important demographic implications. As juveniles are the
most numerous population segment, we might expect factors regulating their survival
could produce a signal detected later in adult surveys. Though Fig. 2 displays the model contributions from each
climate factor, Fig. 3a
calculates those contributions explicitly and includes the remaining model error. In
both populations, the lagged decadal oscillations amount to 70% of the model
performance when the results from each series are averaged. Thus, climatic factors
in the hatching year are the single most important variable in our forcing models.
The influence of juvenile climate factors in explaining nesting abundances may
suggest neophyte breeders are a greater proportion of the breeding population than
has been recognized. This is consistent with two recent tagging studies in Florida
loggerheads which show that most nesting females were first-time breeders [32] and
survivorship of recaptured adults was inexplicably low [33]. Though tag loss [34] influences the
interpretation of these Florida studies, the research nonetheless corroborates our
findings. While our aim in this analysis is a purely climatic population model,
future studies might seek to incorporate anthropogenic influences, from direct [35] and
indirect harvests [15], for example, or from disease [36]. Time series of such
influences, however, can be elusive [37] especially at regional or
basin-wide scales. Viewed in context with the present study, factors influencing
juvenile recruitment appear to have a dominant role in long-term population trends,
something suggested by the renowned sea turtle biologist Archie Carr almost six
decades ago [38] and
by fisheries biologists beginning a century ago [24].
Figure 3
Model factor contributions and population forecasts.
(a) Pie charts calculate the model contributions from each
climate factor, plus error. Percentage values are the sum of squares (SS)
improvements from each factor, expressed as an average weighted by the mean
annual nest count. (b) Nesting anomalies during the historical
(blue) and surveyed (black) period, modeled from available climate records.
Future forecasts are calculated from observed, lagged oceanographic indices
and with stochastic simulations of winter SST (see Methods). Forecast range (pink) and model average (red)
are shown. A significant advantage of this climate-based model is the
ability to estimate historical and future populations.
Model factor contributions and population forecasts.
(a) Pie charts calculate the model contributions from each
climate factor, plus error. Percentage values are the sum of squares (SS)
improvements from each factor, expressed as an average weighted by the mean
annual nest count. (b) Nesting anomalies during the historical
(blue) and surveyed (black) period, modeled from available climate records.
Future forecasts are calculated from observed, lagged oceanographic indices
and with stochastic simulations of winter SST (see Methods). Forecast range (pink) and model average (red)
are shown. A significant advantage of this climate-based model is the
ability to estimate historical and future populations.Age at sexual maturity is an important component in documenting the impact of climate
on juvenile recruitment. However, as empirical studies are limited we have no
a priori global estimate, and we might expect significant
geographic variation or demographic stochasticity [39], [40]. In the Florida population,
available studies [29], [31] allowed us to fix the lag at 31 years. In the Japan
population, without comparable demographic studies, we optimized the lag length
using the regional nesting series and fixed all subsequent lags in the Japan
population to that value. The optimized lag, in this respect, is a climate-based
approximation of age at first breeding. The optimal lag length was calculated to be
25 years for the Japan population (Fig. S1), six years shorter than in Florida.
Though demographic information is limited, published records [41] show females breeding in Japan
are considerably smaller than those in Florida. As size is positively correlated
with age [29],
smaller breeding turtles may be younger breeding turtles, other things being equal.
In addition, over the past two decades, the number of annual nests in Japan is an
order of magnitude below Florida. If this reflects overall population size, lower
population densities in the North Pacific may indicate less intraspecific
competition, faster growth, and perhaps earlier maturity. Future studies might
compare the ocean resources available to each loggerhead population, as has been
done elsewhere [42], and examine their influence on population dynamics.Model relationships calibrated with the empirical survey data are the basis for
historical and future nesting projections. Figure 3b uses available climate data to
reconstruct historical nesting and available and modeled climate data to forecast
future trends. We project forward the lag length, with real PDO and AMO data that
have already occurred, but have not yet manifested themselves in nesting
populations. Future winter SST is modeled under two scenarios (Fig. S2) based
on the historical time series and the IPCC A2 projections [43]. The hindcast projections in
Japan approximate the declines observed from 1960–1990 in the longest survey
(Kamouda) and predict continued losses extending past 2030. In Florida, unpublished
historical surveys (S.J. Epperly personal communication) are consistent with our
modeled hindcasts that suggest a population increase from the 1960s through the
1980s. The future outlook in Florida is positive, and shows continued increases in
nesting loggerheads to 2040, a result of the AMO signal. We do not project the
climate indices beyond the lag periods, but models of the Pacific [44] indicate
broad declines. In the North Pacific, projections under anthropogenic climate
scenarios indicate a 34% decrease in both the area and primary production of
the temperate oceanic biome, which would impact juvenile loggerheads from Japan. We
do not have similar projections for the Atlantic and forecasting the oscillation
indices themselves has not been possible [26].The stewardship of marine biodiversity relies on accurate population assessments.
While subsistence and commercial harvests preceded large historical declines of
marine turtles [13] it is unknown how climatic and anthropogenic forces
together regulate the trends of many protected species [45]. Our analysis demonstrates
that changes in loggerhead nesting over at least the last several decades are
strongly correlated with ocean oscillations. We observed these results in both the
Atlantic and Pacific basins, using independent climate series, and when both
regional and local population surveys are tested. Our models suggest that
oceanographic influences to juvenile recruitment are a major factor, decades later,
in breeding populations (Fig. 2)
and appear robust to estimate past and future population changes (Fig. 3b).There are immediate implications for marine turtle population ecology and management.
When juvenile and adult life stages are decoupled, population size often has a weak
affect on recruitment [4]. Instead, as is the case with many marine fisheries [2], [5], [6], [7], [9], [10], [11] climate forcing
seems to dominate population dynamics. By contrast, turtle population assessments
often rely on models of adult population growth, entirely independent of
environmental factors [31]. Our observation of strong environmental forcing
challenges this view. As reptiles with a significant pelagic component, marine
turtles may resemble marine fisheries more than terrestrial populations. Future
research that addresses the physical and ecological processes that influence pelagic
juvenile turtles may provide environmental baselines of population variability. As
we demonstrate here, climate models provide new insights into the historical,
current, and future populations of marine turtles and provide a mechanistic modeling
framework for considering anthropogenic climate change. Our results also add to the
ongoing debate on top-down versus bottom-up regulation of wild populations [46], [47], [48], [49].
Materials and Methods
Data
Population counts are provided by nest surveys from the Florida Fish and Wildlife
Research Institute (FWRI) and published reports, which provide further details
[50],
[51],
[52],
[53]. We used linear models of climate variables to estimate
ln-transformed [49], [54] nest surveys. PDO series is the calendar year average
of the monthly index values, supplied by the Joint Institute for the Study of
the Atmosphere and Ocean (JISAO). AMO series is the normalized annual SST
anomaly series derived from the Kaplan SST series of the North Atlantic [55], from the
NOAA Earth System Research Laboratory (ESRL). SST data are the
2°×2° cell ERSSTv3b series from 1950–1981 and
1°×1° cell OIv2 series from 1981-present [56], from the National Climatic
Data Center (NCDC). Japan winter SST is averaged over 8–28°N,
120–128°E [21] during the November–January before the nesting
season. Florida winter SST is averaged over 22–38°N, 72–84°W
in the previous December [22]. Regional temperature forecasts under the A2 scenario
are from the IPCC [43]. We ranked models using the corrected Akaike
Information Criterion (AICc) for small samples [57].
Climate forcing models
Nest counts series were estimated with the following general linear models:Here N is the annual nesting activity predicted by
the i
th model. Also
x(t,λ) is the
oceanographic oscillation index in year t lagged by
λ years and z(t) is
the SST from the previous winter. The numbers
β
0, β
1,
β
2, β
3, are
the fitted model parameters. Nesting activity is defined as the normalized value
of the ln-transformed annual nest counts (Kamouda records crawls, not nests).
This transformation is consistent with the observed pattern of variability of
wild populations [35], [38]. We excluded annual counts <20 (2 of 595 total
observations) as such extreme lows skewed the normalization procedure. Model (1)
is linear and (2) is a curvilinear relationship to the oceanographic
oscillations. Model (3) and (4) add winter SST as a model factor.We lagged the effect of x on N as the
variability of x influences juvenile turtles, only a portion of
which breed λ years later and are observed nesting. Though
we fix this value at 31 years for the Northwest Atlantic population, we have no
estimates for the North Pacific population. A recent study [24] hypothesizes 30 years as the
global mean time between hatching and first breeding for loggerheads. As we
expect this to vary geographically we fit the above models to the observed data
for the Japan Total nesting series, separately using lags from 20–40
years. We fix the subsequent local beach series models in Japan to the optimal
lag derived from the regional total series.To rank model performance, we used the corrected Akaike Information Criterion
(AICc) for small populations, where:where k is the number of
model parameters, n is the series length and D
is the mean square deviation between the data and the model [57]. In
determining the optimal lag for the Japan Total series, we average the
AICc values from models (1–4) for each lag length and
select the lag with the lowest average AICc (Fig. S1).
For the remaining models where the lag length is fixed, the highest-ranked model
has the lowest AICc value of the four tested models. The model
contributions from each variable are calculated from their sum of squares.
Population forecasts
We estimated historical and future nesting in each series using the fitted model
relationships. We calculate hindcasts from 1950- using the selected model for
each series, including historical oscillation indices and available winter SST
data. Because of the lagged influence of the oceanographic indices, we already
possess real climate data that has yet to manifest itself in nesting females,
N. Therefore we forecast nest surveys from 2010 forward,
for a period equal to the optimum lag, λ. When the models
include winter SST, we forecast two scenarios for its change. The first
extrapolates from the fitted linear 1950–2010 trend for each region. The
second uses an ensemble forecast of multiple Atmosphere-Ocean General
Circulation Models (AOGCMs) under the A2 emissions scenario from the IPPC Fourth
Assessment Report [43]. The A2 scenario reflects continued global population
growth with decentralized ecomonic and technological changes and forecasts more
extreme warming than most emission scenarios. The ensemble A2 forecasts show
both geographic regions (Fig. S2) have an approximate linear increase
of 0.0275°C yr−1 during 2010–2040 [43]. To model the
uncertainty in the forecast for both scenarios, we added autocorrelated noise
based on the power spectrum of noise from the 1950–2010 merged ERSST
series [58].
We applied this characteristic noise pattern to the projected annual trends and
generated 100 simulations for each scenario. All forecasted SST series were
pooled and for each calendar year the forecasted nest abundances is the model
average for the ensemble of 200 simulations, essentially, deterministic models
within a stochastic shell [59]. We select the upper and lower 2.5% of the
simulation forecasts to serve as the upper and lower bounds of the forecast.Climate lag optimization For North Pacific (Japan) population.
Residual mean square (RMS) values for each model at each lag length. Green
lines are two linear models, red lines are two curvilinear models (see Methods). Black line is the average of
the two best series. Blue rectangle identifies the optimum lag length
according to the data, for the most numerous, the longest, and the regional
total series. All three series agree on a 25 year optima.(EPS)Click here for additional data file.Winter sea-surface temperature series. 1950–1980 data are
from the ERSSTv3b series (green) and 1981–2010 are from the OIv2
series (green) provided by NOAA (see Methods). Japan series measures November–January records
over 5–28°N, 120–128°E; Florida winter SST measures
December records over 22–38°N, 72–84°W – regions
shaded green in the inset maps. Future winter SST forecasts are projected
linear trends with an added stochastic component derived from the empirical
noise. The blue line is forecast according the linear trend of the
1950–2010 data, the red line is according to the Intergovernmental
Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) A2 emissions scenario. Both lines are the
ensemble average of 100 simulations, given the characteristic noise of the
ERSST series.(EPS)Click here for additional data file.Details on the surveys and forcing models. This table describes
the nesting beach series and key statistics from the highest-ranked models.
DPS is the distinct population segment, a genetic population division made
for conservation and management. Optimum lags for each winning model are
weighted by local nesting population size in Fig. 3a, separately for Japan and
Florida. The R and P values for forcing
models report on goodness-of-fit and statistical significance, respectively.
One series (MacArthur, Florida) has a weak statistical correlation.(DOC)Click here for additional data file.
Authors: Johan Nyberg; Björn A Malmgren; Amos Winter; Mark R Jury; K Halimeda Kilbourne; Terrence M Quinn Journal: Nature Date: 2007-06-07 Impact factor: 49.962
Authors: Pilar Santidrián Tomillo; Vincent S Saba; Rotney Piedra; Frank V Paladino; James R Spotila Journal: Conserv Biol Date: 2008-07-15 Impact factor: 6.560
Authors: Geir Ottersen; Benjamin Planque; Andrea Belgrano; Eric Post; Philip C Reid; Nils C Stenseth Journal: Oecologia Date: 2001-06-01 Impact factor: 3.225
Authors: Calandra N Turner Tomaszewicz; Jeffrey A Seminoff; Larisa Avens; Lisa R Goshe; S Hoyt Peckham; Juan M Rguez-Baron; Kalyn Bickerman; Carolyn M Kurle Journal: Biol Conserv Date: 2015-06-01 Impact factor: 5.990
Authors: D K Briscoe; D M Parker; G H Balazs; M Kurita; T Saito; H Okamoto; M Rice; J J Polovina; L B Crowder Journal: Proc Biol Sci Date: 2016-06-15 Impact factor: 5.349
Authors: Michael D Arendt; Jeffrey A Schwenter; Blair E Witherington; Anne B Meylan; Vincent S Saba Journal: PLoS One Date: 2013-12-05 Impact factor: 3.240
Authors: T Todd Jones; Brian L Bostrom; Mervin D Hastings; Kyle S Van Houtan; Daniel Pauly; David R Jones Journal: PLoS One Date: 2012-10-05 Impact factor: 3.240
Authors: Kyle S Van Houtan; Devon L Francke; Sarah Alessi; T Todd Jones; Summer L Martin; Lauren Kurpita; Cheryl S King; Robin W Baird Journal: Ecol Evol Date: 2016-03-08 Impact factor: 2.912