GVI Jalova Expedition Phase Report Report April-June 2011 112

Global Vision International 2011 Report Series No. 002

GVI Costa RicaJalova, Parque Nacional Tortuguero

Quarterly Report 112 April June 2011GVI Costa Rica (Jalova) Programme Report 112 Submitted in whole to GVI Submitted in part to The Ministry of Environment and Energy of Costa Rica (MINAE)

Produced by Richard Phillips Field Coordinator Martha Clifford Field Staff Joo Gouveia Field Staff Sonja Kovacev Field Staff Alexander Mead Field Staff Loraine Grant Field Staff David White Intern David Halewood Intern Hannah Cooke Intern Erik Rosendahl - Volunteer AndJessica Bishop Trent Dunis Tina Andreasson Tracy Muller Amanda Zemke Amanda Broome Catherine Smeethe Rachel Miller Ian LaCroix James Pearce Michelle Ward Paul Pawlik Luis Flores Gemma Ypparila Rachel Buckley Volunteer Volunteer Volunteer Volunteer Volunteer Volunteer Volunteer Volunteer Volunteer Volunteer Volunteer Volunteer Volunteer Volunteer Volunteer Harry Goodrick Connie Tremlett Jonathan Moore Jenny Smith Gemma Doran Tim Stephen Amy Bastow Laura Fawks Shannon Andreoli Alex Fox Elizabeth Torrey Jane Orton Blythe Taylor Theresa Madrigal Lauren Knowles Volunteer Volunteer Volunteer Volunteer Volunteer Volunteer Volunteer Volunteer Volunteer Volunteer Volunteer Volunteer Volunteer Volunteer Volunteer

Edited by Stephen Meyer Country Director

GVI Costa Rica (Jalova) Email: [email protected] Web page: http://www.gvi.co.uk and http://www.gviusa.com

Executive SummaryThe sixth 10-week phase of the Costa Rican GVI Jalova Programme has now been completed. The programme has continued to work towards the gathering of important environmental scientific data whilst working with local, national and international partners. The following projects have been run during Phase 112 (April-June 2012): Canal Bird Population Study in collaboration with the Costa Rica Ministry of Environment and Energy (MINAE). Jaguar Camera Trapping in Tortuguero National Park (TNP) in collaboration with MINAE. Jaguar Predation on Marine Turtles in collaboration with MINAE. Jaguar Track Census in collaboration with MINAE. Mammal Monitoring Project in collaboration with MINAE. Incidental Species and Diversity Assessment with MINAE. Biodiversity Assessment Project with MINAE. Marine Turtle Monitoring in collaboration with Sea Turtle Conservancy. Beach Profiling in collaboration with MINAE. Great Green Macaw Project in collaboration with the Great Green Macaw Research and Conservation Project.

GVI Jalova, Parque Nacional Tortuguero, April - June 2011

i

Table of ContentsExecutive Summary ............................................................................................................. i Table of Contents ................................................................................................................ ii List of Figures .................................................................................................................... iii List of Tables ..................................................................................................................... iv 1. Introduction ................................................................................................................ 5 2. Canal Bird Population Study ..................................................................................... 6 2.1 Introduction ..................................................................................................... 6 2.2 Aim ................................................................................................................. 7 2.3 Methodology ................................................................................................... 7 2.4 Results ............................................................................................................. 7 2.5 Discussion ..................................................................................................... 11 3. Jaguar Camera Trapping Project .............................................................................. 14 3.1 Introduction ................................................................................................... 14 3.2 Aim ............................................................................................................... 14 3.3 Methodology ................................................................................................. 15 3.4 Results ........................................................................................................... 15 3.5 Discussion ..................................................................................................... 15 4. Jaguar Predation of Marine Turtles.......................................................................... 17 4.1 Introduction ................................................................................................... 17 4.2 Aim ............................................................................................................... 18 4.3 Methodology ................................................................................................. 18 4.4 Results ........................................................................................................... 18 4.5 Discussion ..................................................................................................... 20 5. Jaguar Track Census ................................................................................................ 22 5.1 Introduction ................................................................................................... 22 5.2 Aims .............................................................................................................. 22 5.3 Methodology ................................................................................................. 22 5.4 Results ........................................................................................................... 24 5.5 Discussion ..................................................................................................... 25 6. Mammal Diversity Project ....................................................................................... 27 6.1 Introduction ................................................................................................... 27 6.2 Aim ............................................................................................................... 27 6.3 Methodology ................................................................................................. 27 6.4 Results ........................................................................................................... 28 6.5 Discussion ..................................................................................................... 29 7. Incidental Species Study .......................................................................................... 31 7.1 Introduction ................................................................................................... 31 7.2 Aim ............................................................................................................... 31 7.3 Methodology ................................................................................................. 31 7.4 Results ........................................................................................................... 32 7.5 Discussion ..................................................................................................... 36 8. Biodiversity Assessment Project.............................................................................. 37 8.1 Introduction ................................................................................................... 37 8.2 Aim ............................................................................................................... 37


ii

9.

10.

11.

12. 13. 14.

8.3 Methodology ................................................................................................. 37 8.4 Results ........................................................................................................... 37 8.5 Discussion ..................................................................................................... 39 Marine Turtle Monitoring ........................................................................................ 41 9.1 Introduction ................................................................................................... 41 9.2 Methodology ................................................................................................. 41 9.3 Results ........................................................................................................... 41 Beach Profile ............................................................................................................ 42 10.1 Introduction ................................................................................................... 42 10.2 Aim ............................................................................................................... 42 10.3 Methodology ................................................................................................. 42 10.4 Results ........................................................................................................... 42 10.5 Discussion ..................................................................................................... 44 Great Green Macaw ................................................................................................. 45 11.1 Introduction ................................................................................................... 45 11.2 Aim ............................................................................................................... 45 11.3 Methodology ................................................................................................. 45 11.4 Results ........................................................................................................... 46 11.5 Discussion ..................................................................................................... 46 References ................................................................................................................ 47 Acknowledgements .................................................................................................. 50 Appendices ............................................................................................................... 51 Appendix A. Canal Bird Population Study Methodology ....................................... 51 Appendix B: List of Study Bird Species .................................................................. 54 Appendix C: Jaguar Camera Trapping Project Methodology.................................. 55 Appendix D: Jaguar Predation of Marine Turtles Study Methodology ................... 58 Appendix E: Incidental Study Species Methodology .............................................. 62 Appendix F: Species List for the Jalova Area ......................................................... 65 Appendix G: Biodiversity Assessment Methodology.............................................. 75 Appendix H: Beach Profile Methodology ............................................................... 78

List of FiguresFigure 4-1 Spatial Distribution of Turtle Carcasses ............................................. 18 Figure 4-2 Temporal Distribution of Turtle Carcass Discovery ............................ 19 Figure 4-3 Spatial Distribution of Turtle Tracks ................................................... 19 Figure 4-4 Spatial Distribution of Turtle and Jaguar Presence ............................ 20 Figure 5-1 95% confidence interval ellipsoids of the first two discriminant functions for each set ......................................................................................................... 24 Figure 10-1 Beach Profile at Marker 1 ................................................................ 42 Figure 10-2 Beach Profile at Marker 4 ................................................................ 43 Figure 10-3 Beach Profile at Marker 7 ................................................................ 43 Figure 10-4 Beach Profile at Marker 10 .............................................................. 43


iii

List of TablesTable 2-1 Overall Statistics per Canal for Phase 112 ........................................... 7 Table 2-2 Species Presence/Absence per Canal.................................................. 8 Table 2-3 Species Frequency by Canal ................................................................ 9 Table 2-4 Min/Max/Mean number of each species recorded per canal (n=number of surveys) .......................................................................................................... 10 Table 4-1 Overall Results of Phase 112 ............................................................. 18 Table 5-1 Track Classification Using Squared Mahalanobis Distances .............. 25 Table 6-1 Overall Records for Phase 112 ........................................................... 29 Table 7-1Frequency of Incidental Records by Zone ........................................... 32 Table 7-2 Frequency of Incidentals Records by Class ........................................ 35 Table 8-1 Number of Surveys and Records per Transect ................................... 38 Table 8-2 Frequency of Species by Trail ............................................................ 38 Table 11-1 Great Green Macaw Records Phase 112 ......................................... 46


iv

1. IntroductionThe Coastal Rainforest Conservation Programme at the Jalova Biological Station in Tortuguero National Park, Costa Rica has now completed its sixth phase (six times 10 weeks). For the purpose of this report, research phases are named following the last 2 digits of the year and then 1 for January to March, 2 for April to June, 3 for July to September and 4 for October to December. This report summarizes the data collected from April to June 2011, phase 112.

Since its initiation the programme has collected a considerable amount of scientific data for all its projects. This data has been submitted to the partner organisations and will go towards planning future research areas and meeting current project aims.

This data has been summarized in this report. To draw further conclusions some annual reports have been created for projects where the data set is large enough. These can be read upon request.

GVI - Jalova, Parque Nacional Tortuguero, April - June 2011

Page 5

2. Canal Bird Population Study2.1 Introduction

Mesoamerica is a very important hotspot for biological diversity (Myers et. al., 2000). With over 830 species of avifauna alone, Costa Rica is a very rich country for nature (Stiles & Skutch, 1989). One of the reasons for this richness is the array of habitats available in such a small space. These include two very different coastlines, highland and lowland forests, forest swamps, marshes, rivers, lagoons, and subalpine pramos (Stiles & Skutch, 1989). The aquatic environment is of major importance to the tourism industry and ecology of the Tortuguero area. This habitat is being increasingly utilized, as tourism in the Tortuguero area is increasing. It is expected that this use will, in time, have an impact on the avian population it supports. Growing concerns about the status of birds in the rainforests of Costa Rica have led to the establishment of long-term monitoring programmes. The nature of Costa Ricas birdlife has meant that it has been a popular location to study behaviour and diversity for many years. Much of this focus is directed towards migratory birds, neglecting research on resident species. The Canal Bird Monitoring Programme was established to help fill this gap. The project was initially set up to quantify diversity and abundance of the species that live and breed in the area of Caribbean Lowland Rainforest around Estacin Biolgica Cao Palma (EBCP), 7km North of Tortuguero National Park. It now operates along the southern edge of Tortuguero National Park in the vicinity of Jalova (24km South of Tortuguero). The EBCP Resident Bird Project monitoring survey began in July 2005, developing in recent years into the current incarnation, which is still ongoing. Further collection of data is important in order to establish reliable population trends for local bird species. In 2010 it was necessary to relocate the survey to the current location due to the demands of the GVI Costa Rica expedition. The GVI protocol is modified from the original protocol created by Steven Furino of Waterloo University, Canada. Modifications to the protocol were made so that data collectors with minimal field experience are able to collect high quality data. This has involved reducing the number of species and study areas as well as limiting the amount of technical data collected on species.


Page 6

2.2

Aim

This research programme intends to collect data that will help researchers examine longterm changes in specific bird populations. 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. 2.3 Methodology The methodology for this survey has remained constant since the production of the previous report, where the methodology is mentioned in full. For further details of the methodology used please see Appendix A. 2.4 Results Canal California Sierpe Viejo Sirena Central # of Surveys 5 6 6 5 # of Species 17 19 12 12 # of Records 146 261 30 60

Table 2-1 Overall Statistics per Canal for Phase 112


Page 7

Table 2-2 Species Presence/Absence per Canal

Species Agami Heron Amazon Kingfisher American Pygmy Kingfisher Anhinga Bare-throated Tiger-heron Belted Kingfisher Boat-Billed Heron Cattle Egret Gray-necked Wood-rail Great Blue Heron Great Egret Green Heron Green Ibis Green Kingfisher Green-and-rufous Kingfisher Limpkin Least Bittern Little Blue Heron Neotropical Cormorant Northern Jacana Purple gallinule Reddish Egret Ringed Kingfisher Rufescent Tiger-Heron Snowy Egret Sunbittern Sungrebe Tricoloured Heron White-throated Crake Yellow-crowned Night-heron

California N Y N Y Y N N Y Y N Y Y Y N N N N Y N Y N N Y N Y N Y Y Y Y

Central N Y Y Y Y N N N Y N N Y N Y N N N Y N Y N N Y N N N Y N Y N

Sierpe Viejo Y N Y Y Y N Y Y N Y Y Y Y Y Y N N Y N Y N N Y N N N Y Y Y Y

Sirena N Y Y N Y Y N N N N N Y Y Y Y N N Y N N N N Y N Y N N N Y N

Overall Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y N N Y N Y N N Y N Y N Y Y Y Y


Page 8

Table 2-3 Species Frequency by Canal

Species Agami Heron Amazon Kingfisher American Pygmy Kingfisher Anhinga Bare-throated Tiger-heron Belted Kingfisher Boat-Billed Heron Cattle Egret Gray-necked Wood-rail Great Blue Heron Great Egret Green Heron Green Ibis Green Kingfisher Green-and-rufous Kingfisher Little Blue Heron Northern Jacana Purple gallinule Ringed Kingfisher Rufescent Tiger-Heron Snowy Egret Sungrebe Tricoloured Heron White-throated Crake Yellow-crowned Night-heron

California 0% 40% 0% 100% 100% 0% 0% 20% 60% 0% 60% 100% 40% 80% 0% 80% 100% 0% 40% 0% 40% 60% 60% 20% 20%

Central 0% 20% 20% 100% 80% 0% 0% 0% 40% 0% 0% 40% 0% 20% 0% 80% 100% 0% 40% 0% 0% 20% 0% 40% 0%

Sierpe Viejo 33% 0% 17% 83% 83% 0% 83% 33% 0% 17% 67% 83% 17% 83% 33% 83% 100% 0% 17% 0% 0% 33% 67% 83% 17%

Sirena 0% 17% 67% 0% 33% 17% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 17% 17% 50% 33% 17% 0% 0% 83% 0% 17% 0% 0% 67% 0%


Page 9

Table 2-4 Min/Max/Mean number of each species recorded per canal (n=number of surveys)

Species

California (n=5) Min Max 0 1 0 7 4 0 0 16 0 1 7 2 2 0 2 3 6 0 1 0 7 2 2 1 1 Mean 0.0 1.0 0.0 4.4 2.4 0.0 0.0 16.0 0.0 1.0 4.8 2.0 1.8 0.0 1.3 2.3 2.4 0.0 1.0 0.0 4.0 1.7 1.3 1.0 1.0

Sierpe Viejo (n=6) Min 1 0 1 1 1 0 1 30 1 1 1 3 1 1 0 1 8 0 1 0 0 1 1 1 1 Max 1 0 1 4 4 0 6 31 1 1 4 3 3 1 0 3 20 0 1 0 0 2 2 3 1 Mean 1.0 0.0 1.0 3.0 1.6 0.0 3.6 30.5 1.0 1.0 2.2 3.0 1.4 1.0 0.0 2.0 16.3 0.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 1.5 1.3 2.0 1.0

Sirena (n=6) Min 0 1 1 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 1 2 1 1 0 1 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 1 0 Max 0 1 1 0 2 1 0 0 0 0 1 2 1 1 0 1 0 0 2 0 1 0 0 2 0 Mean 0.0 1.0 1.0 0.0 1.5 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 2.0 1.0 1.0 0.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 1.2 0.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 1.3 0.0

Central (n=5) Min 0 2 1 2 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 1 1 1 0 1 0 0 1 0 1 0 Max 0 2 1 3 2 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 1 0 3 1 8 0 1 0 0 1 0 1 0 Mean 0.0 2.0 1.0 2.2 1.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.5 0.0 1.0 0.0 2.0 1.0 4.6 0.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 0.0 1.0 0.0

Agami Heron Amazon Kingfisher American Pygmy Kingfisher Anhinga Bare-throated Tiger-Heron Belted Kingfisher Boat-billed Heron Cattle Egret Great Blue Heron Great Egret Green Heron Green Ibis Green Kingfisher Green and Rufous Kingfisher Gray-necked Wood-Rail Little Blue Heron Northern Jacana Purple Gallinule Ringed Kingfisher Rufescent Tiger-Heron Snowy Egret Sungrebe Tricoloured Heron White-throated Crake Yellow-crowned Night-heron

0 1 0 3 1 0 0 16 0 1 3 2 1 0 1 1 3 0 1 0 1 1 1 1 1


Page 10

2.5

Discussion

There have been no changes in terms of protocol with the Canal Bird Surveys. The number of surveys per canal is fairly consistent with Cao California and Central totalling five surveys and Cao Sirena and Sierpe Viejo totalling six. Compared to last year the number of surveys has decreased slightly and this was mostly due to poor weather conditions and other circumstances. As for the number of species being recorded there was a clear division between the four canals. Cao Sirena and Central had the lowest number of records, while California and Sierpe Viejo averaged much higher records. This phase we had seven species that were not recorded; Least Bittern (Ixobrychus exilis), Limpkin (Aramus guarauna), Neotropical Cormorant (Phalacrocorax brasilianus), Purple Gallinule (Porphyrio martinica), Reddish Egret (Egretta rufescens), Rufescent Tiger-Heron (Tigrisoma lineatum) and the Sunbittern (Eurypyga helias). This is a major increase from last phase where we only had four species that were not recorded. The Sunbittern, Neotropical Cormorant, Purple Gallinule and Rufescent Tiger-Heron have all been seen around the Jalova area. The possible reason why the Purple Gallinule and Rufescent Tiger-Heron havent been seen on the canals could just result from the fact that they are uncommon in the area and also seasonality. These species are more conspicuous when breeding. The Least Bittern, Limpkin and Reddish Egret are considered rare and have not yet been seen on any of the Canal Bird Surveys.

Cao California was surveyed a total of five times with 17 species that were recorded 146 times, compared to last phase where we had more surveys of the canal and there were 19 species recorded 421 times. California offers the widest survey site and also gives us a variety of ecological niches in which various avian species flourish. This phase we had the Green Heron as the most recorded species. With all the usual sightings we also had one rare sighting of a White-throated Crake which was seen low in the reed beds before it quickly moved away from the survey team. This canal is heavily influenced by migratory species. This accounts for the large variation in record numbers this phase compared to last.


Page 11

Cao Sierpe Viejo was surveyed a total of six times with 19 species being recorded 261 times; this phase it was the canal with the most records. Last phase there were 367 records in which 20 species were recorded. So while there were more records the species counts were roughly the same. A potential reason for the high amounts of species recorded would have to do with the times the canals were surveyed. Last phase we had one juvenile Agami Heron sighting, this phase in the dense foliage we spotted an adult Agami Heron. This was an amazing sighting and the individual was not only seen once but twice on two different surveys. There is potential of a possible Agami nesting site on Sierpe Viejo and this will be explored for the next few phases.

Cao Sirena was surveyed a total of six times with 12 species and 30 records; last phase there were 15 species with 73 records. This phase there was an average of five records per survey; the majority of these being kingfishers. Sirena is a very narrow canal that is on the outskirts of the Tortuguero National Park. It does not encompass the ecological diversity of California and the presence of local boats does not help the population any more. We have also witnessed a house along a side opening of the canal; there is potential of a person living in the canal and on previous occasions survey teams have heard chainsaws while on the survey. While we are not aware of any activity going on along the canal, the bird species could be affected by the noise and constant presence of people working near the canal.

Cao Central has been surveyed five times with 12 species that have been recorded 60 times. Along with Sirena it had the least amount of species, however it was only two less than last phase. The decrease in species recorded, which last phase was 60, is due primarily to the number of times the canal was surveyed. As was witnessed last phase this canal does not receive the same abundance of migratory species that California does simply because of its location.

From last phase to this phase the most dramatic difference we have seen has been with the number of species recorded per surveys. This can be explained by the fact that last phase there were more surveys in the ten weeks than there were this phase; the average surveys of canals last phase was eight and this phase it was an average of five surveys. Whilst this does give us the chance to record more species we also have to take into


Page 12

account the time of year. In the first quarter of this year we were at a high point for migratory species. This is not the case now and thus a possible contributor. This was also the second phase in which we observed boats usage from the canals. We have recorded a lot less boat usage on the canals than what we saw last phase. Out of the boats that we saw two belonged to MINAE and the rest were local boats; we saw no tourist boats using the canals, as opposed to last phase where there were a number of them.


Page 13

3. Jaguar Camera Trapping Project3.1 Introduction The Jaguar is the third largest cat 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% of 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). Although there has been much research done on turtles in the area, little is known about the population of Jaguars in TNP. The Tortuguero Conservation Area covers a total area of 180,925 hectares of which Tortuguero National Park covers a total area of 80,574 hectares, including marine territory (Bermudez, Plan de Manejo, 2004). 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 parks coastal habitat. Cameras have been used by the Sea Turtle Conservancy in the past with successful results. A camera trap left with a freshly killed turtle recorded 58 minutes of video of a male Jaguar feeding on a turtle (Harrison et al. 2005). We will adopt similar methodology and undertake field trials.

3.2 Aim The aim of this project is to use camera trapping as a means of estimating the abundance of Jaguars using the coastal habitat inside TNP and to increase ecological awareness. The objectives 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 beach 4. to identify individual Jaguars by their rosette pattern


Page 14

3.3 Methodology The methodology for this project is explained in detail in report 104 and can also be found in Appendix C. 3.4 Results A total of 55 cameras were deployed in the field in a total of 157 trapping days, distributed throughout 5 sites (including two dead turtles). 17,187 photos were collected, 98 were used to identify 5 different individuals so far. We also collected 141 videos with 2 videos of jaguar footage feeding on a marine turtle. 13 other species were also recorded while waiting for jaguar captures.

List of animals captured by the camera traps:Jaguar (Panthera Onca) Marine Toad (Bufo marinus) Common Opossum (Didelphis marsupialis) Paca (Agouti paca) Grey-Necked Wood-rail (Aramides cajanea) Nine-Banded Long-Nosed Armadillo (Dasypus novemcinctus) Black Vulture (Coragyps atratus) Central American Whiptail (Ameiva festiva) Northern Raccoon (Procyon lotor) Red Brocket Deer (Mazama americana) White-Lipped Peccary (Tayassu pecari) Great Curassow (Crax rubra) Ocelot (Leopardus pardalis) Baird's Tapir (Tapirus bairdii)

3.5 Discussion Phase 112 was very prolific. Following the same ideas as last phase, we had numerous jaguar sightings and also many photos and videos. These instances provided us with one re-capture and also 2 new captures. From the fact that over the last 9 months we have recaptured four adults we can put forward the idea that there are 4 resident jaguars, potentially 2 male and 2 female. This phase we also captured one other adult (new to our database) and a cub. Hopefully in the phase to come we will have further evidence of these individuals to add to our knowledge of the Jalova jaguars.


Page 15

A spreadsheet was created to keep track of all the IDs of the different jaguars and a folder with all the relevant photos of the rosette patterns that allow us to identify all the individual jaguars. This spreadsheet is now updated with site locations and GPSs and it begins to form a pattern of movement of the different animals and where they hunt and patrol. Recent jaguar scratch marks found on the north trail suggest that jaguars patrol these areas and mark them for other individuals to know its presence.

A bigger camera park should allow us to extend our knowledge about the surrounding areas of Jalova and to determine the closed population of South TNP or if the coastal area is just common grounds for several jaguars that come here to feed on marine turtles because of declining population of other prey in the forest.

For the coming phase we propose to continue with the current methodology. The next quarter also coincides with the beginning of the green turtle season and so we hope that there will be the potential for more sites utilising the turtles that are predated upon by the jaguar.

The use of video collection was also trialled in phase 112. Whilst this provided an interesting insight into the world of the jaguar we found that the still collected from this method were not of the same quality as those from photography. Therefore we shall concentrate on using the camera traps for their original purchase to try and maximise the opportunities that present themselves to us.


Page 16

4. Jaguar Predation of Marine Turtles4.1 Introduction Tortuguero National Park (TNP) is the most important nesting ground in the western hemisphere for Green Turtles (Chelonia mydas). In addition to the C. mydas there are also a significant number of Leatherbacks (Dermochelys coriacea) and the occasional Hawksbill (Eretmochelys imbricata) and Loggerhead (Caretta caretta) (Trong 2000). The nesting turtle population has been monitored on the parks beach since the 1950s and continues to be monitored today by the Sea Turtle Conservancy (STC).

Information on Jaguars (Panthera onca) predating on marine turtle is sparse. In TNP and many other areas, marine turtle predation by Jaguars has been recorded sporadically. 82 C. mydas were identified as being predated by Jaguars in Suriname from 1963-1973. On the same beach in 1980 one Jaguar killed 13 turtles within only a few days (Autar, 1994). On the Pacific coast of Costa Rica Jaguars have been recorded preying upon Olive Ridley Turtles (Lepidochelys olivacea), Black Turtles (Chelonia agassizii), and E. imbricata. Although, there has been much research done on turtles in TNP, from 1956 to 1995 there were only two C. mydas recorded to be killed by a Jaguar, one in 1981 and another in 1984 (Carrillo et al. 1994). Weekly walks on the beach to record the number of dead turtles killed by Jaguars began in 1997 as part of the STC turtle monitoring programme. The STC found four dead C. mydas killed by Jaguars in 1997, 25 in 1998, 22 in 1999, and two Leatherbacks in 1999 (Trong 2000). This predation upon turtles by Jaguars is not a new phenomenon but seems to have been increasing in the past 10 years within TNP (Trong 2000; Magally Castro, pers. comm.)

Due to a lack of human resources the Costa Rican Ministry of Environment and Energy (MINAE) invited GVI to continue data collection on Jaguar presence and predation of marine turtles in TNP. Data collection has now been conducted by GVI since 11 th July 2005. Together with the data previously collected by MINAE, a more comprehensive understanding of Jaguar impact on the turtle population of TNP can be developed.


Page 17

4.2 Aim The Jaguar project aims to document the presence of Jaguar on the beach of Tortuguero National Park and their predation of nesting marine turtles. 4.3 Methodology The methodology for this project is explained in detail in report 082 and can also be found in Appendix D. The methodology used has remained unchanged since its last complete mention. 4.4 Results

Table 4-1 Overall Results of Phase 112

Summary Number of Surveys this Phase Number of Green Turtle Tracks Number of Leatherback Tracks Newly Recorded Dead Green Turtles Newly Recorded Dead Leatherbacks Newly Recorded Dead Hawksbills Dead Turtles this Season (Jul-Jun) Phase Area of Highest Turtle Activity by Mile Area of Highest Jaguar Activity by MileFigure 4-1 Spatial Distribution of Turtle Carcasses

Result 9 82 76 15 3 3 196 13.5, 15.5, 17 10.5-13.5

3

Number of Carcasses

2

1

0 3.5 4.5 5.5 6.5 7.5 8.5 9.5 10.5 11.5 12.5 13.5 14.5 15.5 16.5 17.5 Nearest Northern Mile Marker


Page 18

Figure 4-2 Temporal Distribution of Turtle Carcass Discovery

7 6 5 Carcasses 4 3 2 1 0

Week Of Death

Figure 4-3 Spatial Distribution of Turtle Tracks 9 8 7 Number of Tracks 6 5 4 3 2 1 0 3.5 4.5 5.5 6.5 7.5 8.5 9.5 10.5 11.5 12.5 13.5 14.5 15.5 16.5 17.5 Nearest Northern Mile Marker Cm Tracks Dc Tracks


Page 19

Figure 4-4 Spatial Distribution of Turtle and Jaguar Presence 12 10 8 6 4 2 0 3.5 4.5 5.5 6.5 7.5 8.5 9.5 10.5 11.5 12.5 13.5 14.5 15.5 16.5 17.5 Nearest Northern Mile Marker

Jaguar Activity Total Tracks

4.5 Discussion Surveys continued in phase 112 using the same methodology that has been in place for 5 years. This consistency allows us to make some interesting conclusions for this season compared to previous years. When considering the data involving leatherback turtles we can see that despite a low presence of the species this year, there were many more kills than ever previously reported by GVI. The most predated leatherbacks in one year previously were one. To have seen that figure rise to three is quite alarming. Added to this we can report that there was a further dead leatherback discovered on the beach this quarter; however its demise cannot be attributed to a jaguar and therefore is not included in this data. A possible theory for this activity could well be linked to the drop in activity of both the leatherback and green turtle species. By seeing fewer greens on the beach we could well consider that jaguars have been forced to consider the leatherback as a more viable food source. Consulting figures 4-1 and 4-2 leads us to an interesting point in that we can see a positive cluster of activity of both spatial and temporal distribution of the kills. Miles 11.5-15 have been highly active this quarter, whilst the week May 26th June 1st is also a considerable peak in kills. By looking at figure 4-4 we can see that whilst these trends coincide with jaguar presence on the beach it is not the highest area of green turtle activity (figure 4-3). However more leatherbacks have been seen here. We perhaps hypothesize that the


Page 20

reason for this is that the leatherback activity had been peaking here and thus the jaguars were concentrating their efforts on this stretch of beach. All of these thoughts are conjecture and further analysis would be necessary to draw any statistical conclusions. Going into phase 113 we will keep the methodology constant and continue our study to see whether after a two year levelling period in predated carcasses, 2011 will see a rise consistent with the activity identified through both this and the camera trapping studies.


Page 21

5. Jaguar Track Census5.1 Introduction The jaguar (Panthera onca) is a mystical creature that inhabits the wetlands and low forest. Areas like the Tortuguero National Park are a perfect setting for this cryptic mammal. Categorized as Near Threatened by the IUCN Red List (IUCN, 2003) its the largest felid in the western hemisphere and the third largest felid in the world. Not much is known about the population of jaguars living and using the coastal area of the TNP. Initial estimates seem to point to 5 individuals (Eduardo Chamorro comm. pers. 2008) but much is unknown about the closed or open population of this area. A potential growing population might be both exciting and dangerous due to the fact of cattle breeders and communities to the north and also to the south. The jaguars in the TNP are confined to an area of 80,574 hectares, including marine territory (Bermudez, Plan de Manejo, 2004), so a growing population might present a risk to nearby communities. In order to formulate a conservation strategy and protection we need vital population estimates of how many individuals are present in this area.

From the work of GVI in the Jalova area of TNP, it has become clear that jaguars frequently use the beach and prey on marine turtles. The sand of the beach provides an ideal resource to collect samples of pugmarks. Over recent years, techniques have been developed to identify feline individuals from their tracks (Sharma & Wright 2005) and this methodology has been adapted to trial the technique for our jaguar population. 5.2 Aims The overall aim of the survey is to utilise the pugmarks left on the beach to make an estimate of the jaguar population using the study site. Other objectives are: 1. To collect and take photos of jaguar pugmarks on the beach. 2. To observe Jaguars in their coastal habitat. 3. Learn more about the habits and spatial distribution of the population. 5.3 Methodology This survey had a change in methodology from Phase 111 and so it is listed in full here. During implementation of the previous protocol it was found that the large number of tracks required greatly reduced the size of our data set. Following the example of Isasi-Catal we


Page 22

reduced this number and also adapted the rest of the methodology to the example set in literature.

When a track series was encountered during track counting it was photographed if there were at least four prints which were considered clear enough to be used. Then a ruler with centimetre markings was placed on the side of the track as a scale and the nearest northern mile marker, set number and print number of the set was written on a note placed by the print or written in the sand. A minimum of four and a maximum of six different prints were photographed per track series to create a track set. Photographs were only taken once per length of track. Photographs were only taken of tracks that were identified as being produced by the back left paw, identified as such by being narrower and slightly smaller than the front paw and the placement of the print. This was due to back paws being considered better than front paws at discriminating between tracks in sand (IsasiCatal et al 2008) All photographs were taken using digital cameras. Outlines of tracks were drawn using the photographs. Outlines were then rotated and baselined and support lines were drawn to aid measuring (DeAngelo et al., 2010). All image editing was done on a computer using GIMP 2.6.10 (http://www.gimp.org/). Photographs and sets were evaluated to determine if they were viable to be used. Photographs would be considered viable if an outline could be drawn using the photograph and the outlines drawn did not differ visibly from other outlines within the set. A set would be considered viable to be used if at least 4 usable outlines could be drawn using the photographs of the set and the outlines did not differ visibly within the set. Following Isasi-Catal et al (2008), 13 measurements were measured to be used for statistical analysis: area of toe 1 (A1), area of toe 2 (A2), area of toe 3 (A3), area of toe 4 (A4), area of heel pad (AHP), total length of print (TPL), total width of print (TPW), heel pad length (HPL), heel pad width (HPW), length of toe 2 (L2), width of toe 2 (W2), length between toe 2 and heel pad (L 2-HP) and angle between toe pairs (Angle). Measurements were taken from the outlines using ImageJ 1.44p (http://rsweb.nih.gov/ij/). Following IsasiCatal et al (2008) three ratios were calculated using some of the measurements taken: TLP/TWP, TWP/HPW and AHP/A2.

The area for this study was the beach running between mile markers 15 and 18 as laid out by Sea Turtle Conservancy for their turtle monitoring project.


Page 23

5.4 Results A total of 20 sets, composed of a total of 113 photographs, were collected. 14 sets composed of 72 photographs were considered viable to be used for statistical analysis.Figure 5-1 95% confidence interval ellipsoids of the first two discriminant functions for each set

In this figure the number in the ellipse solely represents track set number; the placement of the number does not represent ellipse centroid.


Page 24

Table 5-1 Track Classification Using Squared Mahalanobis Distances

Actual Set1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14

14 1

23

3

4

Predicted set 5 6 7 8

91

10

11

12

13

14

4 4 5 4 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 3 3 4 4 1 1 1

1

1

5 4 3 1 1 5

5.5 Discussion All statistical analysis done on the collected track sets was performed using the methods outlined by Isasi-Catal et al, 2008. From figure 5-1, 6 separate aggregations of ellipsoids can be discerned. However when looking at table 5-1 it can be seen that one of the outlines from set 3 is predicted to come from set 11 and one outline from set 11 is predicted to come from set 5. Closer investigation of the squared Mahalanobis distances for each outline to the closest and second closest set centroids and a table of set membership probabilities suggest that all three could originate from the same individual although it is unlikely. If sets 3, 5 and 11 were to come from the same individual considered then it would appear that the tracks originate from 4 individuals. Table 5-1 also shows that set 2 and 7 as well as set 12 all have outlines that are closer to set 9. However set membership probabilities and Mahalanobis distances to centroids suggest that neither of sets 2, 7 and 12 originate from the same individual as set 9. Therefore an estimation of minimum of 4 and a maximum of 6 jaguars is arrived at.


Page 25

The confidence interval ellipsoids of sets 13 and 14 have a very clear overlap, but the sets where collected on the same day from two track series running parallel to each other. It has been seen by GVI that a pair of jaguars in the area have been travelling together and even feeding together. Previous studies have found presumed mother-daughter pairs that have associated closely (Schaller et al, 1980). Thus it is possible for these tracks to have come from two very closely related individuals. A similar method to the one used here developed to discriminate between tracks from mountain lions has been shown to be able to discriminate between tracks from individuals that were assumed to be closely related (Grigione et al, 1999). It would however be interesting to do a validation study of this method using prints from known related individuals to see if it could discriminate between these. Another interesting possibility would be to devise a method to ascertain the gender of an individual from the print, similar to the one for tigers (Sharma et al 2003). Therefore statistically we cannot change out estimate to four to seven jaguars, but maybe our inside knowledge of the population has revealed another.


Page 26

6. Mammal Diversity Project6.1 Introduction Tortuguero National Park is situated on the Caribbean coast of Costa Rica, 80km north of Limon, which is the capital of the province. Many species of mammals are known to reside within the park. However, data on species diversity and abundance is sparse because many of these animals are nocturnal and are not often seen by people.

In an effort to better understand mammal usage of the area, GVI has undertaken a survey to begin categorizing mammal species diversity. This is accomplished through general visual confirmation while walking the trail, but more importantly, the survey focuses on track identification. The project began in July of 2010 with the surveying of a 1km long section of the Juana Lopez Trail. This is a maintained trail which begins on the beach and continues through the forest until it reaches a canal in the northern section of the park. A second trail opened in March 2011, named the Kingfisher Trail, which transects the forest between the Jalova River mouth and the Jalova Base. 6.2 Aim The research program intends to collect information on mammal species diversity and usage of the Juana Lopez and Kingfisher trails in Tortuguero National Park. 6.3 Methodology Mammal surveys are conducted over a 1km transect of the Juana Lopez Trail and 700m transect of the Kingfisher Trail, always starting at the same location and travelling in one direction. The Juana Lopez transect begins at mile 15 along the northern trail. As the transect is 2.5 miles away from the Jalova base, surveyors have to walk for approximately 1 hour to reach the starting destination. The Kingfisher transects entrance opens onto the Coconut Plantation directly behind Jalova Base, continuing until it meets Kingfisher Creek: a small creek which meets the Jalova Rivers mouth. Both transects begin at first light and require a survey team comprising one staff member and three volunteers. Each transect is surveyed once each week depending on the weather and the physical conditions of the trail. General data such as date, transect location, name of researchers, weather conditions, and start and end times are noted at the beginning of the survey. The surveys start at the same locations and are carried out in one direction.


Page 27

The team walks very slowly in pairs to the sides of the trail, but not off it, with patrol leader in front. Each person scans their half of the trail from the edge to the centre looking for tracks. Additionally, surveyors scan into the forest and canopy in case mammals are visible. Upon discovering a track, the team assesses whether it can be identified, whether a clear photo is possible, and whether there are any other better examples of the track type in the immediate vicinity. A track ID card is then filled out with the transect number, date,

transect section and record number. A scale is placed around the track with the ID card above or next to the track in order to take a clear photo and properly record the data. If a track cannot be identified immediately, it is recorded as unknown along with a width measurement and number of toes in the print. The image can be identified at a later time based on usage of GVIs photo library of mammal tracks. If mammals are encountered during the survey visually, the priority is to identify the species. Data recorded will also include the number of individuals seen, and if possible, a photo will be taken for the database records. 6.4 Results During phase 112, a total of 15 Mammal Diversity Surveys were conducted from April 05, 2011 through until June 09, 2011. The Juana Lopez transect received 10 surveys, whereas the Kingfisher transect received 5. There were 166 records of mammals recorded, of those a total of 127 were identified through tracks, with the remaining 39 being visual sightings confirmed during the surveys. Table 5-1 provides the combined details of the species recorded and whether or not they were confirmed through track or visual identification for both transects.


Page 28

Table 6-1 Overall Records for Phase 112

Common Name Mantled Howler Monkey Central American Spider Monkey White-Throated Capuchin Monkey Hoffman's Two-Toed Sloth Central American Agouti Paca Nine-Banded Armadillo Common Opossum Neotropical River Otter Ocelot Red Brocket Deer White-Tailed Deer Jaguar Variegated Squirrel Baird's Tapir White-Lipped Peccary Total

Species Name Alouatta palliate Ateles geoffroyi Cebus capucinus Choloepus hoffmanni Dasyprocta punctata Agouti paca Dasypus novemcinctus Didelphis marsupialis Lutra longicaudis Leopardus pardalis Mazama Americana Odocoileus virginianus Panthera onca Sciurus variegatoides Tapirus bairdii Tayassu pecari

Records Tracks Sightings 7 7 19 19 11 11 1 1 7 7 2 2 1 1 4 4 1 1 3 3 12 12 2 2 68 68 1 1 10 10 17 17 166 127 39

A total of 137 records where obtained from the Juana Lopez transect, of which 34 were visual, with the remaining 29 records having been obtained from Kingfishers transect 4 of which were visual. Additionally, the location of the tracks or visual records were recorded based along meter increments of the transects. The section with the highest activity on the Juana Lopez transect was 250-275 were a total of 14 records were obtained, with sections 350-375 and 375-400 both having total of 9 records each. The section with the highest activity on the Kingfisher transect was 450-475, were 9 records where obtained. 6.5 Discussion Mammal monitoring continued in phase 112 with the addition of an extra trail on the southern side of the base in Jalova. The use of this trail will hopefully add information about both our effect on this sensitive area of forest as well as the seasonal movements of mammal species, many of which have previously been recorded on the South Trail. It is thought that many mammals come through the area in a cycle, following the fruiting trees and any temporal trends we can conclude will be an interesting insight. The Jaguar continued to be the most recorded species this phase, by a considerable margin to any other species. This fact tallies with the appearance of the marine turtle


Page 29

species on the beach and also the many sightings of jaguars seen in person by volunteers and staff in the forest, canal and beach. The Juana Lopez trail produced results consistent with previous quarters and the addition of the Kingfisher trail will hopefully provide useful comparison in the future.


Page 30

7. Incidental Species Study7.1 Introduction The Incidental Species Study is an ongoing recording of animal species found in and around the Jalova Biological Station, occupied by Global Vision International, Costa Rica. Data is collected on a casual basis each day, rather than as part of an organized survey. Currently, the study only records mammals, birds, amphibians and reptiles as these groups have excellent publications to enable identification of them. It is currently impossible to identify invertebrates to a species level with the resources that GVI possesses, but taking photos of any species seen is encouraged particularly with butterflies and moths, so that a photo library can be maintained with the possible long-term goal of identifying them all.

7.2 Aim The primary aim of the study is to build a species list of mammals, birds, amphibians and reptiles that are present in the Jalova area of Tortuguero National Park. Secondary aims are as follows: Obtain an estimate of abundance of species based on the frequency of sightings. Identify which habitats in the Jalova area are being used by each species. Identify seasonal trends in species sighting frequencies, particularly with migratory species. It may also be possible to assess the quality of the habitat by using some species as indicator species e.g. the Central American Spider Monkey is common here and indicates a healthy forest habitat. The long-term plan is to expand the dataset now that there is a complete year of basic data and to start collecting data on species abundance by counting individuals seen, and also to collect information on breeding success by recording breeding behaviour (singing, nesting, displaying etc.) or sightings of young. 7.3 Methodology The methodology for this project is explained in detail in report 111 and can also be found in Appendix E.


Page 31

7.4

Results

There were 2636 records taken for this project this Phase. For a full species list of species noted by GVI in Jalova, please see Appendix FTable 7-1Frequency of Incidental Records by Zone

Overall

Species Name Great Kiskadee Four-lined Whiptail Striped Basilisk Common Tody-Flycatcher Variable Seedeater Rufous-tailed Hummingbird Passerini's Tanager Clay-colored Robin Green Iguana Marine ToadZone A (Base)

Scientific Name Pitangus sulphuratus Ameiva quadrilineata Basiliscus vittatus Todirostrum cinereum Sporophila americana Amazilia tzacatl Ramphocelus passerinii Turdus grayi Iguana iguana Bufo marinus

% of Days seen 92.8 91.3 85.5 79.7 76.8 76.8 75.4 75.4 75.4 66.7

Species Name Great Kiskadee Four-lined Whiptail Common Tody-Flycatcher Rufous-tailed Hummingbird Variable Seedeater Green Iguana Clay-colored Robin Passerini's Tanager Marine Toad Striped Basilisk

Scientific Name Pitangus sulphuratus Ameiva quadrilineata Todirostrum cinereum Amazilia tzacatl Sporophila americana Iguana iguana Turdus grayi Ramphocelus passerinii Bufo marinus Basiliscus vittatus

% of Days seen 91.3 86.9 79.7 76.8 76.8 75.4 75.4 72.5 63.8 63.8


Page 32

Zone B. (Beach)

Species Name Striped Basilisk Whimbrel Spotted Sandpiper Four-lined Whiptail Common Black-Hawk Black Vulture Sanderling Common Pauraque Great Kiskadee Turkey VultureZone C. (Coconut Plantation)

Scientific Name Basiliscus vittatus Numenius phaeopus Actitis macularia Ameiva quadrilineata Buteogallus anthracinus Coragyps atratus Calidris alba Nyctidromus albicollis Pitangus sulphuratus Cathartes aura

% of Days seen 39.7 36.2 36.2 29.3 25.9 24.1 17.2 8.6 6.9 6.9

Species Name Montezuma Oropendola Great Kiskadee Clay-colored Robin Variable Seedeater Passerini's Tanager Rufous-tailed Hummingbird Striped Basilisk Groove-billed Ani Common Black-Hawk Pale-vented PigeonZone D. (Dense Forest)

Scientific Name Psarocolius montezuma Pitangus sulphuratus Turdus grayi Sporophila americana Ramphocelus passerinii Amazilia tzacatl Basiliscus vittatus Crotophaga sulcirostris Buteogallus anthracinus Columba cayennensis

% of Days seen 86.9 65.2 50.7 42.0 42.0 36.2 34.8 34.8 30.4 28.9

Species Name Mantled Howler Monkey Slender Anole Western Slaty Antshrike Striped Basilisk Central American Whiptail Great Tinamou White-collared Manakin Pug-nosed Anole Central American Spider Monkey Chestnut-backed Antbird

Scientific Name Allouatta palliata Norops limifrons Thamnophilus atrinucha Basiliscus vittatus Ameiva festiva Tinamus major Manacus candei Norops capito Ateles geoffroyi Myrmeciza exsul

% of Days seen 62.7 44.1 42.4 42.4 38.9 37.3 28.8 28.8 25.4 20.3


Page 33

Zone E (River Mouth/Estuary)

Species Name Little Blue Heron American Crocodile Snowy Egret Osprey Spotted Sandpiper Cattle Egret Anhinga Tricolored Heron Chestnut-mandibled Toucan Bare-throated Tiger-HeronZone F. (Flyover)

Scientific Name Egretta caerulea Crocodylus actus Egretta thula Pandion haliaetus Actitis macularia Bubulcus ibis Anhinga anhinga Egretta tricolor Ramphastos swainsonii Tigrisoma mexicanum

% of Days seen 34.2 29.3 26.8 21.9 19.5 19.5 12.2 12.2 9.8 9.8

Species Name Brown Pelican Magnificent Frigatebird Turkey Vulture Black Vulture Montezuma Oropendola Common Black-Hawk Chestnut-mandibled Toucan White-crowned Parrot Laughing Gull King Vulture

Scientific Name Pelecanus occidentalis Fregata magnificens Cathartes aura Coragyps atratus Psarocolius montezuma Buteogallus anthracinus Ramphastos swainsonii Pionus senilis Larus atricilla Sarcoramphus papa

% of Days seen 70.9 53.2 35.5 30.7 19.4 8.1 4.8 1.6 1.6 1.6

The following table shows the most frequently recorded species by Class.


Page 34

Table 7-2 Frequency of Incidentals Records by Class

Amphibians

Species Name Marine Toad Olive Snouted Treefrog Green Climbing Toad Red-eyed Treefrog Smokey Jungle Frog Common Mexican Treefrog Litter Frog spp Wet Forest Toad Vaillant's Frog Brandsfords LitterfrogBirds

Scientific Name Bufo marinus Scinax elaeochroa Bufo coniferus Agalychnis callidryas Leptodactylus pentadactylus Smilisca baudinii Eleutherodactylus polyptychus Bufo melanochlorus Rana vaillanti Eleutherodactylus brandsfordii

% of Days seen 66.7 17.4 15.9 13 10.1 7.3 4.4 2.9 1.5 1.5

Species Name Great Kiskadee Common Tody-Flycatcher Variable Seedeater Rufous-tailed Hummingbird Passerini's Tanager Clay-colored Robin Groove-billed Ani Great-tailed Grackle Social Flycatcher Blue-gray TanagerMammals

Scientific Name Pitangus sulphuratus Todirostrum cinereum Sporophila americana Amazilia tzacatl Ramphocelus passerinii Turdus grayi Crotophaga sulcirostris Quiscalus mexicanus Myiozetetes similis Thraupis episcopus

% of Days seen 92.8 79.7 76.8 76.8 75.4 75.4 62.3 59.4 44.9 44.9

Species Name Mantled Howler Monkey Central American Spider Monkey White-throated Capuchin Jaguar Hoffmanns Two-toed Sloth Central American Agouti Common Opossum White-Tailed Deer White-nosed Coati Three-toed Sloth

Scientific Name Allouatta palliata Ateles geoffroyi Cebus capucinus Panthera onca Choloepus hoffmanni Dasyprocta punctata Didelphis marsupialis Odocoileus Virginianus Nasua narica Bradypus variegatus

% of Days seen 55.1 23.2 16.0 7.3 5.8 4.4 2.9 2.9 2.9 2.9


Page 35

Reptiles

Species Name Four-lined Whiptail Striped Basilisk Green Iguana Slender Anole Central American Whiptail Pug-nosed Anole Eyelash Palm Pitviper American Crocodile Bronze-Backed Climbing-Skink Litter Skink

Scientific Name Ameiva quadrilineata Basiliscus vittatus Iguana iguana Norops limifrons Ameiva festiva Norops capito Bothreichis schlegelii Crocodylus actus Mabuya unimarginata Sphenomorphus cherrei

% of Days seen 91.3 85.6 75.4 52.2 40.6 30.4 17.4 17.4 14.5 13.0

7.5 Discussion There were no new changes with the Incidentals protocol this phase. We had a total of 2636 recorded sightings this phase, which compared to last phase was fairly similar. We are seeing a steady rise of Incidental sightings each phase. This can be attributed to the enthusiasm of the volunteers and field staff.

The break-down of the data in the results section shows us that the most commonly seen species within all of the species classes will be those that are found on base. These include the Marine Toad (Bufo marinus), Four-lined Whiptail (Ameiva quadrilineata), Great Kiskadee (Pitangus sulphuratus) and the Mantled Howler Monkey (Allouatta palliata). This is not unusual as these species are found base and are therefore easier to mark down.

An interesting addition to the Incidentals this phase was the mammals that were seen throughout the ten weeks. The three species of monkeys in our area occupied the top three spaces. The fourth highest seen mammal of phase was the Jaguar (Panthera Onca); this was an amazing phase for mammals, especially for Jaguar sightings on the beach. The top ten most recorded bird species were also those that were frequently seen around the Jalova base, such as the Blue-grey Tanager (Thraupis episcopus) and the Variable Seedeater (Sporophila americana).


Page 36

8. Biodiversity Assessment Project8.1 Introduction

The Biodiversity Assessment Survey is a survey that was based upon the Incidentals Species Study. It is a more structured survey that notes recordings of animal species found in and around the Jalova Biological Station, occupied by Global Vision International, Costa Rica. Data is collected almost every day by scheduled surveys that take part on four trails. Currently, the study only records mammals, birds, amphibians and reptiles as these groups have excellent publications to enable identification of them. It is currently impossible to identify invertebrates to a species level with the resources that GVI possesses, but taking photos of any species seen is to be encouraged particularly with butterflies and moths, so that a photo library can be maintained with the possible long-term goal of identifying them all.

8.2

Aim

To collect more information about abundance, behaviour and distribution locally of mammal, bird, reptiles and amphibian species. The numbers gathered on the number of sightings will be compared against the different trails on a yearly basis as well as by phases, which run every ten weeks. Potential aims are to start collecting data on species abundance by counting individuals seen, and also to collect information on breeding success by recording breeding behaviour or sightings of young.

8.3

Methodology

The methodology for this project is explain in detail in report 111 and can also be found in Appendix G. 8.4 Results

There were 85 surveys completed in Phase 112. Within these, 1318 records were made.


Page 37

Table 8-1 Number of Surveys and Records per Transect

Site Number of Surveys Number of Records

North Trail 17-15 11 417

North Trail 17-16 15 334

North Boundary 15 100

South Trail 14 176

Coconut Plantation 14 176

South Boundary 15 115

Table 8-2 Frequency of Species by Trail

North Trail 17 15 Common Name Scientific Name % of Surveys # of Records

Western Slaty AntshrikeCentral American Spider Monkey Eyelash Palm Pitviper Chestnut-backed Antbird Central American Whiptail North Trail 17-16 Common Name

Thamnophilus atrinucha Ateles geoffroyi Bothreichis schlegelii Myrmeciza exsulAmeiva festiva

100% 73% 73% 91% 73%

36 27 25 22 21

Scientific Name

% of Surveys

# of Records

Central American Spider Monkey Ateles geoffroyi Western Slaty Antshrike Thamnophilus atrinucha Eyelash Palm Pitviper Bothreichis schlegeliiMantled Howler Monkey Striped Basilisk North Boundary Common Name Scientific Name Alouatta palliate Basiliscus vittatus

100% 100% 87% 80% 93%

39 34 23 22 20

% of Surveys

# of Records

White-collared ManakinGreat Tinamou Slender Anole Pug-nosed Anole Western Slaty Antshrike

Manacus candei Tinamus major Norops limifronsNorops capito Thamnophilus atrinucha

80% 67% 60% 40% 40%

14 11 9 7 7


Page 38

South Trail Common Name Scientific Name % of Surveys # of Records

Striped BasiliskSlender Anole Western Slaty Antshrike White-collared Manakin Mantled Howler Monkey Coconut Plantation Common Name

Basiliscus vittatus Norops limifrons Thamnophilus atrinuchaManacus candei Alouatta palliate

86% 100% 71% 86% 71%

23 16 13 12 10

Scientific Name

% of Surveys

# of Records

Variable SeedeaterClay-Colored robin Great Kiskadee Montezuma Oropendola Band-backed Wren South Boundary Common Name

Sporophila americana Turdus grayi Pitangus sulphuratusPsarocolius Montezuma Campylorhynchus zonatus

79% 71% 71% 57% 64%

20 17 12 11 11

Scientific Name

% of Surveys

# of Records

Great TinamouSlender Anole Mantled Howler Monkey Chestnut-backed Antbird Montezuma Oropendola

Tinamus major Norops limifrons Allouatta palliataMyrmeciza exsul Psarocolius montezuma

80% 53% 47% 33% 40%

12 9 8 8 8

8.5 Discussion This was the second phase in which the Biodiversity Assessment Surveys were conducted, and as such we will be able to get more data from the comparisons to last phase. This phase we had a total of 85 surveys conducted over four trails, within these we gathered 1318 records. It was attempted to survey all of the sites an equal number of times, however the sixth survey site, North Trail 17-15, was only surveyed 11 times. This was due to a number of unforeseen circumstances that did not allow us to continue our survey. There were also a number of fallen trees that also prevented us from completing the full survey length.

Although the North Trail from 17-15 was surveyed the least amount of times it was still able to produce the most amount of records, 417. North Trail 17-15 produced the second


Page 39

highest amount with 334 records. As was seen last phase, the North and South Boundary Trails produced the least amount of species recorded with 100 and 115 records respectively.

There have been a number of notable sightings this phase, the majority of which were mammals. Among these sightings were the Red Brocket Deer (Mazama americana), White-lipped Peccaries (Tayassu pecari), Tayra (Eira barbara), White-nosed Coatis (Nasua narica) and a Crested Owl (Lophostrix cristata). A number of these species, such as the Red Brocket Deer, the Tayra and the Coatis were spotted in groups and on multiple occasions. On one survey, North Trail 17-16, a group of six Coatis were spotted and did not seem to be disturbed by the survey team.

A note should be made regarding both the North and South Boundary trails in terms of species abundance that is being recorded on a daily basis. When these trails were first opened up and we began to survey them not many species were being recorded. Those that were included whiptails, anoles and a number of audio records that included the Great Tinamou. What we have noticed is that towards the end of this phase there have been many more species to record, this is especially true for the avian population. We are no longer solely recording audio records for these birds but are witnessing them in situ. Another observation is that some of these species have been recorded building nests along the boundary trails. While no clear explanation can be given, a few possibilities can come into play. This pattern can be attributed to seasonal changes that we did not see previously because we only started surveying this trail a few months prior. Another explanation could be our continued presence on these trails creating an impact on the abundance of biodiversity that we see.


Page 40

9. Marine Turtle Monitoring9.1 Introduction The Sea Turtle Conservancy (STC) run a long term marine turtle study in the Tortuguero area of the Caribbean coast of Costa Rica. Since 2010 GVI has been able to offer assistance to the STC in the form of extra man power and trained patrol leaders to extend the possible time spent patrolling Tortuguero National Parks beaches during leatherback and green turtle nesting seasons. In 2011 GVI renewed their relationship with the STC and managed the surveying of 4 miles coastline in the southern end of TNP. The agreement has been put in place for GVI to conduct night walks, nest checks and nest excavations from March December 2011. 9.2 Methodology The overall scientific management of this project is undertaken by the STC. For in depth methodology please consult the STC Leatherback Turtle Protocol 2011. GVI conducts night walks in order to tag turtles for identification, collect biometric data and also to mark nests for hatching success monitoring. Nest checks are performed to monitor the status of the nests and assess poaching, predation and beach erosion rates. Nest Excavations are performed of marked nests in order to assess success of nests and account for the reasons behind this. 9.3 Results For results of GVIs turtle monitoring April June 2011 please see the 2011 Leatherback Season Report produced by the STC. STC reserve the right to the access of all data collected by GVI and as such are responsible for the data analysis. All available season reports can be found online at www.conserveturtles.org/costarica.php?page=season-reports During this season GVI conducted one night walk and one nest check every day. As a result of these endeavours 22 leatherback nests were marked in the survey area of Miles 14 18 of TNP. Also one green turtle nest was marked.


Page 41

10. Beach Profile10.1 Introduction Following a conference hosted by the WWF in Junquillal, Costa Rica, January 2010, GVI have started to take measurements of the beach directly outside of base. This conference discussed the implications of global warming on the nesting habits of marine turtles. Many turtle organisations from Costa Rica were brought together with the aim that they will assess their own beaches and then share data with each other. As a result of this conference GVI have started to follow the methodology suggested by WWF to monitor the beach at Jalova. 10.2 Aim The aim of this study is to monitor the change in shape of the beach and as a result the condition of the nesting habitat available to marine turtles. As a result we can theorise whether climatic conditions are having a detrimental effect on the chances of nesting for marine turtles. 10.3 Methodology The methodology for this project is explained in detail in report 104 and can also be found in Appendix H. 10.4 ResultsFigure 10-1 Beach Profile at Marker 1 140 120 Elevation (cm) 100 80 60 40 20 0 0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 3500 4000 4500 Distance Along Beach (cm) Start of Phase End of Phase


Page 42

Figure 10-2 Beach Profile at Marker 4 120 100 Elevation (cm) 80 60 40 20 0 0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 Distance Along Beach (cm) Figure 10-3 Beach Profile at Marker 7 100 Elevation (cm) 80 60 40 20 0 0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 3500 4000 Distance Along Beach (cm) Start of Phase End of Phase Start of Phase End of Phase

Figure 10-4 Beach Profile at Marker 10 200 Elevation (cm) 150 100 50 0 0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 Distance Along Beach (cm) Start of Phase End of Phase


Page 43

10.5 Discussion We can see from all four figures in the results that over the phase the beach in front of base underwent a period of construction. The weather during this time was fairly settled overall, with few storms which allowed the beach to extend in many areas. This is good news for the nesting leatherbacks of this quarter which nest relatively closely to the high tide line. In fact this year we recorded a lower number of nests that were washed by the tide. Hopefully this will result in a higher hatching rate of the leatherback nests.


Page 44

11. Great Green Macaw11.1 Introduction The Great Green Macaw (Ara ambiguus) is classified as endangered on the IUCN Red List and protected under Appendix I of CITES. The estimated population for Costa Rica is approximately 35 reproductive pairs, leading to the idea that this population depends on the larger macaw population in the Indio-Maz Biological Reserve in Nicaragua.

The growing concerns about the status of the Great Green Macaw have led to the creation of the Great Green Macaw Research and Conservation Project - started by conservation biologist Dr. George V. N. Powel. This project has been working in Costa Rica since 1994 to raise awareness and carry out research into this species. It is currently being run by Centro Cientfico Tropical in association with several organisations, including GVI Costa Rica, the National University of Costa Rica (UNA) and the Scientific Committee of the Costa Rican Ornithological Association (AOCR).

Between Jan 2007 and July 2008, GVI Costa Rica recorded 14 records of Great Green Macaws at Estacin Biolgica Cao Palma as part of the Incidental Special Study. During the Mesoamerican Conference for Biology and Conservation in El Salvador in November 2008, we were invited to assist in the collection of data for Centro Cientfico Tropicals Great Green Macaw Research and Conservation Project for the San Juan La Selva Biological Corridor, first beginning collecting data for the Tortuguero area under their requirements at the end of November 2008.

11.2 Aim This project aims to create a better understanding of the population of Great Green Macaws through incidentally recording sightings. This will enable us to get a broader picture of how and when the species use the lowland rainforest of Tortuguero National Park and surrounding areas.

11.3 Methodology This project does not have constructed surveys. Whenever sightings of Great Green Macaws are made, information is recorded regardless of time and location. The following data is recorded for each sighting:


Page 45

Date (dd/mm/yyyy) Time (hh:mm) Location (Name of place and GPS where possible [ddmmss.ss]) Number of individuals Activity Habitat (Primary/Secondary Forest, Open area, Forest edge, Plantation, Other) Weather (Rain, Cloudy, Other) Tree Type Other Comments

11.4 ResultsTable 11-1 Great Green Macaw Records Phase 112 Date 30-5-2011 Place Canal Sierpe Central #Macaws 2 Activity Flying

11.5 Discussion In phase 112 there was only one sighting of Great Green Macaws. This is consistent with the number seen in the previous phase, however is still disappointing overall. Since GVIs move to Jalova there have been many fewer sightings than when located to the North of the National Park. It is however not unusual for there to be a low number of sightings in this phase as that is consistent with the trend of the previous years of record collection. It will be interesting to see how the numbers vary in the coming autumn season. This brings our total number of sightings to 71 and the total number of individuals recorded to 169. For the same period of 2010 we had the same amount of records. At the previous base in 2009 only 4 individuals were recorded. The 36 of our 71 sightings have been of flying macaws and so it is not abnormal for our recordings of phase 112 to have been of flying macaws. This is probably due to the fact that the majority of our sightings have been recorded while travelling on canals. Whilst moving in a boat, it is much easier to see flying birds than it is to see ones in a tree. The average number of individuals recorded per sighting is 3.36. Our sighting during phase 112 is not too far from this average.


Page 46

12. ReferencesGarrigues, R. & Dean, R., 2007 the Birds of Costa Rica: A Field Guide. Zona Tropical Publications.

Myers, N., Mittermeier, R.A., Mittermeier, C.G., da Fonseca, G.A.B. & Kent, J., 2000 Biodiversity hotspots for conservation priorities. Nature, 403, 853-858.

Stiles, F.G. & Skutch, A.F., 1989. A guide to the birds of Costa Rica. Comstock Publishing Associates, vii.

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

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

Sanderson et al., 2002. Planning to save a species: the Jaguar as a model. Conservation Biology, 16(1), 58-72

Aranda, 2000. Huellas y otros rastros de los mamferos grandes y medianos de Mxico. Instituto de Ecologa, A.C., Xalapa, Mxico, pp 212

Bermdez F. A., 2004. Plan de Manejo del Parque Nacional Tortuguero

Harrison E., Trong S., Fletcher M., Jaguar Predation of Green Turtles (Chelonia mydas) in Tortuguero, Costa Rica Current Trends and Conservation Implications. Caribbean Conservation Corporation. Costa Rica 2BBC Natural History Unit Rexstad, E., Burnham, K.P., 1991. Users guide for interactive program CAPTURE. Abundance estimation of closed populations.

Sharma, S., Wright, B., 2005. Monitoring Tigers in Ranthambhore using the Digital Pugmark Technique. Wildlife Protection Society of India.


Page 47

Isasi-Catal, E., Barreto G.R. 2008. Identificacin de individuos de jaguares (Panthera onca) y pumas (Puma concolor) a partir de morfometra de sus huellas. Carnivora: Felidae, Rev. Biol. Trop., 56(4), 1893-1904,

De Angelo, C., Paviolo, A., Di Bitetti, M.S., 2010. Traditional versus multivariate methods for identifying jaguar, puma and large canid tracks. Journal of Wildlife Management 74(5), 11411153 Grigione M.M., Burmanb, P., Bleich, V.C., Pierce B.M., 1999. Identifying individual mountain lions (Felis concolor) by their tracks: refinement of an innovative technique. Biological Conservation 88, 25-32 Sharma, S., Jhala, Y., Sawarkar, V.B., 2003. Gender discrimination of tigers by using their pugmarks. Wildlife Society Bulletin, 31(1), 258-264

Harrison R. L., 1997. Chemical Attractants for Central American Felids. Wildlife Society Bulletin, Vol. 25, No. 1, International Issues and Perspectives in Wildlife Management, pp. 93-97.

Trong S., 2000. Predation of Green (Chelonia mydas) and Leatherback (Dermochelys coriacea) Turtles by Jaguars (Panthera onca) at Tortuguero National Park, Costa Rica. Chelonian Conservation and Biology 3(4), 751-753

Widdowson, W. P. & Widdowson, M. J., 2000. Checklist to the Birds of Tortuguero, Costa Rica. Website.

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

Carrillo et al, 1994. Depredacin de Tortuga Lora (Lepidochelys olivacea) y de Tortuga Verde (Chelonia mydas) por el Jaguar (Panthera onca). Vida Silvestre Neotropical 3, 4849

Miller C., 2001. Measurement of Jaguar Tracks: a promising means to identify individuals.


Page 48

Schaller G.B., Crawshaw P.G., 1980. Movement Patterns of Jaguar. Biotropica, 12(3), 161-168


Page 49

13. AcknowledgementsGVI would like to acknowledge the work done by volunteer Erik Rosendahl on the Jaguar Track Census project. All of the statistical analysis and data manipulation done for this project was performed by him as part of his Bachelors research project. The results in this report have been taken from his thesis A study of Jaguar (Panthera Onca) activity on the beach of Tortuguero National Park, Costa Rica.


Page 50

14. AppendicesAppendix A. Canal Bird Population Study Methodology Team Structure and Roles One participant is nominated data collector and will be sat at the back of the canoe near to the staff member. They must ensure that a fresh data book page is laid out exactly like the sample page in the data book, ready to be used. All team members must be familiar with the data to be collected and how to record it. Another participant is nominated spotter their task is to sit at the front of the boat and to note which birds fly up in front of the canoe and further down the canal and ensure that birds are not double counted if possible. This is a difficult task but a good procedure to practice is not to count the bird until you have passed it in the canoe. Also do not count birds that fly in from behind you unless of a different species or is obviously a different individual.

All other participants will be looking to their respective side of the boat and searching for birds as the survey progresses.

The survey leader must sit at the back of the canoe and paddle the boat. They must be trained to be able to steer and manoeuvre the canoe correctly in order to avoid collisions and accidents whilst out on the canal. They must also ensure that the data is being recorded correctly and ensure that everyone is participating fully in the survey. They must also be of sufficient competency that they can identify the study species very quickly and accurately, even without binoculars, to ensure that the survey participants are correctly identifying the study species. This is particularly important with the kingfisher species and with the egrets (and juvenile Little Blue Heron) Survey Protocol There are two parts to the survey. On the outward journey, only the survey leader paddles the canoe at a steady pace of approximately 2km per hour, enabling the other five participants to search for birds. The canoe can stop or slow in order to make a difficult identification or observe something exciting or interesting but the survey leader should ensure that time is not being wasted. The survey leader follows the route set and marked


Page 51

on the GPS (see Using the GPS in the GVI Handover document). The end time of the survey is recorded at the end of the outward leg, as are the weather conditions that have been experienced. On the return leg of the survey, up to two further people paddle whilst the survey leader steers. The speed can be increased in order to return more quickly. The person at the bow of the boat never paddles as they act as the main bird spotter. The roles of the survey participants have already been outlined above. When a bird is spotted, alert the rest of the group and decide on an identification. Staff member will make the final judgement if no decision can be reached but only if they are 100% sure. Be sure to remind everyone that when talking to other survey members that are behind you in the boat to speak over their shoulder otherwise it is hard to hear them. Due to the length of the surveys, it is natural that volunteers will become distracted from the task. Whilst short comments are acceptable, conversation should be discouraged (unless of course it is related to identifying a bird). This is to enable maximum concentration and to ensure that birds are not scared by our appearance. Food is allowed in the Canoe during survey. However, it is suggested that it is only eaten at the furthest point when it is time to turn the Canoe around. This means that minimal disturbance is caused by the rummaging that it will cause. Data collection General data collected for each survey includes: Survey site (Cao California, Sirena, Sierpe Central or Sierpe Viejo) Date of survey Start time (using 24 hour clock) End time (using 24 hour clock) Initials of all participants Weather use the following categories: Clear (less than 25% cloud cover); Cloudy (up to 75% cloud cover); Overcast (more than 75% cloud cover); Rain (then use the follow sub-categories: CONSTANT (or majority of survey time) or INTERMITTENT (showers or on and off) and then LIGHT (drizzle or misty rain), MEDIUM (inconvenient but still able to see), HEAVY (downpour, hard to see, boat starting to fill up, probably need to cancel survey).


Page 52

Only positively identified species are recorded. For each positive record of a single individual or a group made, the following data are collected: Number of individuals seen in one group. Gender: see table 1 below. Age: Adult or Juvenile (see table 1 below), Nesting: Y or N. Evidence of nesting includes gathering nesting material, on the nest, or building the nest. Breeding: Y or N. Evidence of breeding includes displaying or mating or nest with chicks. Any comments, including notes on plumage or behaviour On the return leg of the survey, individual birds are only recorded if that species was not recorded on the outward journey or if it is clear that the individual is different (e.g. male instead of female), If the species was recorded on the survey and more individuals are seen on the return and the team are 100% positive of this (i.e. one Green Ibis was seen on survey and on the return, a flock of four flies over), then record the additional individuals. The rationale behind this is that the return journey is faster and the survey effort is not the same yet we still want to record low-density or rare species such as the Kingfishers or Agami Herons. These species are too important to ignore because the official survey is complete and by recording them on the way back we can still establish the presence of them on that canal (see Appendix B: Table 1 for species marked with an asterisk (*) to indicate a rare species or one that occurs at a low-density).


Page 53

Appendix B: List of Study Bird SpeciesSpecies Name Agami heron * Amazon kingfisher* American pygmy kingfisher* Anhinga Bare-throated tiger-heron Belted kingfisher* Boat-billed heron* Cattle egret Great blue heron* Great egret* Green heron Green ibis* Green kingfisher* Green-and-rufous kingfisher* Gray-necked wood-rail* Least bittern* Limpkin* Little blue heron Neotropical cormorant* Northern jacana Purple gallinule* Reddish egret* Ringed kingfisher* Rufescent tiger-heron* Snowy egret Sunbittern* Sungrebe * Tricoloured heron White-throated crake* Yellow-crowned night heron* Scientific name Agamia agami Chloroceryle amazona Chloroceryle aenea Anhinga anhinga Tigrisoma mexicanum Ceryle alcyon Cochlearius cochlearius Bubulcus ibis Ardea herodias Ardea alba Butorides virescens Mesembrinibis cayennensis Chloroceryle americana Chloroceryle inda Aramides cajanea Ixobrychus exilis Aramus guarauna Egretta caerulea Phalacrocorax brasilianus Jacana spinosa Porphyrio martinica Egretta rufescens Ceryle torquata Tigrisoma lineatum Egretta thula Eurypyga helias Heliornis fulica Egretta tricolor Laterallus albigularis Nyctanass

Documents

GVI Jalova Expedition Phase Report Report April-June 2011 112