288 Brendan J. Godley et al.


reveal the spatial distribution and connectivity of popu- lations across international borders (Metcalfe et al., 2020) and have highlighted key inter-nesting habitats (Hart et al., 2016). These findings have led to the creation of international collaborative networks, the enhancement of regional con- servation actions, and supported the creation of marine pro- tected areas. Additional novel techniques showcased in Oryx range from the use of ultralight aircraft for turtle surveys (Jean et al., 2010) to a radio call-in network for fishers, to sup- port their activities and promote bycatch mitigation (Alfaro- Shiguetto et al., 2012). What should we do better for sea turtles? Rees et al.


(2016) analysed a decade of publications and surmised that, although variable, progress was being made towards answering key questions identified by an international group of experts in 2010. A worrying finding was, however, that inclusion of social dimensions was still lacking in what is an arena dominated by biologists and ecologists. There has been slow progress to assess cultural, legal, and socio- economic frameworks, hindering the application of research findings in supporting legislation and management, and in designing robust interventions. This lack of incorporation of social sciences is probably hindering our ability to under- stand threats and adopt sound management practices with relevant stakeholders. Nevertheless, some progress is being made, and increasing attention to interdisciplinary appli- cations in sea turtle conservation is delivering insightful results (Hancock et al., 2017; Delisle et al., 2018). Given the magnitude of effort worldwide, there is great


potential to improve our understanding of what works—or does not—in sea turtle conservation. However, monitoring and evaluation remain challenging and are often neglected despite their potential to provide much needed information. For example, assessments of the best incentives or disincen- tives for affecting compliancewith management measures, of how to allocate efforts beneficially for outreach activities, and of how our efforts translate into behavioural change and eco- logical improvements, would be game changers. Although over the last 50 years sea turtle conservation


has taken a largely protectionist, non-consumptive ap- proach, there is a clear need to adapt our conservation para- digms to bemore inclusive and to consider alternative views, including sustainable use (Delisle et al., 2018, Sardeshpande & MacMillan, 2019). Lack of holistic population demo- graphic data muddies the waters for the potential consump- tive use of apparently recovering or recovered populations. Additionally, thresholds of sustainable use, even where ex- ploitation is currently legal, are often poorly identified and lack strong scientific grounding. A key limitation relates to illegal wildlife trade, which often remains an unquantified threat because of the challenge of data collection. There have been significant efforts to understand the compound, long-lasting effects of commercial fisheries by- catch, including direct and post-release mortality. However,


research on bycatch assessments and reduction techniques for artisanal fleets and small-scale fisheries merit contin- ued attention (Nada & Casale, 2011; Mancini et al., 2012; Wildermann et al., 2018). As the majority of the life cycle of sea turtles is spent at sea, more needs to be done to moni- tor and protect all life stages, beyond the more accessible eggs, hatchlings and nesting females. Climate change remains a pervasive threat to various sea


turtle populations around the globe, with much attention focused on impacts related to temperature-dependent sex determination (Hamann et al., 2013). Studies of this mainly use indirect proxies that can generate significant error, and more work is needed to quantify this phenomenon more precisely. In addition, we know little about how a changing climate will influence turtle dispersal, growth, diet and other life history parameters. Studies of reproductive success vary across species and locations and this should be addressed for a better understanding of population viability, especially in relation to changes in climate. Attributing a meaningful conservation status to sea tur-


tles remains a challenge, as conventional categorization sys- tems, such as the IUCN Red List of Threatened Species, are a poor fit at both national and global levels (Seminoff & Shanker, 2008). Current Red List categories can lead to flawed conclusions. For example, a small positive change (e.g. increasing abundance trends) as a result of conserva- tion actions following decades of decline can be perceived as cause for reduced protection. In contrast, ill-used, the sys- tem can assign an inaccurate high risk of extinction to a spe- cies numbering in the millions per ocean basin. Because the IUCN Red List is the most comprehensive global inventory of species conservation status, and highly regarded by gov- ernments and funding bodies, assessments can impact support for conservation (Campbell, 2012). Assessments of subpopulations have alleviated some issues but there re- mains a clear need to shift from a threatened vs not threat- ened paradigm to more suitable processes of assessments, such as conservation dependent. Additionally, all current assessments focus exclusively on adult cohorts. In summary, although our reflections reveal that sea tur-


tle conservation could be further enhanced, the accomplish- ments of the sea turtle conservation community are cause for optimism. There is more to do, and much will be achieved, in no small part because sea turtles are widely loved!


This Editorial and the Oryx articles cited herein are freely available as a virtual issue of the journal at cambridge.org/ core/journals/oryx/virtual-issues.


References


ALFARO-SHIGUETO, J.,MANGEL, J.C., DUTTON, P.H., SEMINOFF, J.A. &GODLEY, B.J. (2012) Trading information for conservation:


Oryx, 2020, 54(3), 287–289 © 2020 Fauna & Flora International doi:10.1017/S0030605320000162


Page 1  |  Page 2  |  Page 3  |  Page 4  |  Page 5  |  Page 6  |  Page 7  |  Page 8  |  Page 9  |  Page 10  |  Page 11  |  Page 12  |  Page 13  |  Page 14  |  Page 15  |  Page 16  |  Page 17  |  Page 18  |  Page 19  |  Page 20  |  Page 21  |  Page 22  |  Page 23  |  Page 24  |  Page 25  |  Page 26  |  Page 27  |  Page 28  |  Page 29  |  Page 30  |  Page 31  |  Page 32  |  Page 33  |  Page 34  |  Page 35  |  Page 36  |  Page 37  |  Page 38  |  Page 39  |  Page 40  |  Page 41  |  Page 42  |  Page 43  |  Page 44  |  Page 45  |  Page 46  |  Page 47  |  Page 48  |  Page 49  |  Page 50  |  Page 51  |  Page 52  |  Page 53  |  Page 54  |  Page 55  |  Page 56  |  Page 57  |  Page 58  |  Page 59  |  Page 60  |  Page 61  |  Page 62  |  Page 63  |  Page 64  |  Page 65  |  Page 66  |  Page 67  |  Page 68  |  Page 69  |  Page 70  |  Page 71  |  Page 72  |  Page 73  |  Page 74  |  Page 75  |  Page 76  |  Page 77  |  Page 78  |  Page 79  |  Page 80  |  Page 81  |  Page 82  |  Page 83  |  Page 84  |  Page 85  |  Page 86  |  Page 87  |  Page 88  |  Page 89  |  Page 90  |  Page 91  |  Page 92  |  Page 93  |  Page 94  |  Page 95  |  Page 96  |  Page 97  |  Page 98  |  Page 99  |  Page 100  |  Page 101  |  Page 102  |  Page 103  |  Page 104  |  Page 105  |  Page 106  |  Page 107  |  Page 108  |  Page 109  |  Page 110  |  Page 111  |  Page 112  |  Page 113  |  Page 114  |  Page 115  |  Page 116  |  Page 117  |  Page 118  |  Page 119  |  Page 120  |  Page 121  |  Page 122  |  Page 123  |  Page 124  |  Page 125  |  Page 126  |  Page 127  |  Page 128  |  Page 129  |  Page 130  |  Page 131  |  Page 132  |  Page 133  |  Page 134  |  Page 135  |  Page 136  |  Page 137  |  Page 138  |  Page 139  |  Page 140  |  Page 141  |  Page 142  |  Page 143  |  Page 144  |  Page 145  |  Page 146  |  Page 147  |  Page 148