Environmental Management (2008) 41:465–467
DOI 10.1007/s00267-007-9044-8
Against Oversimplifying the Issues on Relocating Turtle Eggs
Nicholas Mrosovsky
Published online: 5 February 2008
Ó Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2008
Abstract Translocating sea turtle eggs at risk from high
tides to safer places is one of the most widely undertaken
conservation measures on behalf of these species. Recent
research work has shown that individual female turtles
differ in their nest-site preferences. If more of the nests
saved by translocation come from turtles with tendencies to
lay near the water, might this perhaps interfere with natural
selection? This possibility adds to the controversy already
surrounding relocation of turtle nests.
Keywords Individual differences
Nest-site selection

Relocating eggs
Sea turtle
Stabilizing selection
Introduction
This exchange of views (Mrosovsky 2006, Pike 2007)
concerns the conservation practice of translocating turtle
eggs liable to be destroyed by high tides to safer places. My
earlier article (Mrosovsky 2006) was aimed at biologic, not
social or economic, ramifications. Of course, nonbiologic
considerations must be taken into account in conservation.
I do not dispute with Pike that the public relations aspects
of hands-on conservation may energize local communities
(and perhaps facilitate fund increasing). However, I cannot
agree that opportunities to do this, such as translocating
eggs, should proceed ‘‘regardless of the true biologic
importance of the conservation practice.’’ Indeed, feel-
N. Mrosovsky (&)
Department of Ecology and Evolutionary Biology,
University of Toronto, 25 Willcocks Street,
M5S 3B2 Toronto, Ontario, Canada
e-mail: mro@zoo.utoronto.ca
good conservation carries the danger that if an increasingly
sophisticated and environmentally knowledgeable public
discover that their actions had little positive biologic
impact, they might feel less good, disillusioned, and put
upon. For some of the most egregious examples of public
relations–oriented conservation with turtles, see my book
(Mrosovsky 1983a).
With regard to my proposal that eggs from nests at high
risk of destruction be sold and eaten, with the proceeds
used to support conservation, rather than being translocated
and put back into the gene pool, Pike argues that any such
practice ‘‘is bound to send a negative conservation message
by commercializing a precious and legally protected
resource.’’ For what, or for whom, one wonders, is this a
resource? However, this is not the place to get into the
‘‘black hole’’ of debate between preservationist and sus-
tainable-use approaches. Some may find Pike’s absolute
certainty on such matters naive. To see that there are
arguments on both sides, he need look no further than the
Northern Territories of Australia and the status of the salty
crocodile, a reptile that, like sea turtles, produces many
eggs, most of which do not become adults.
Turning to the biologic aspects, Pike again oversimpli-
fies: he divides female turtles into ‘‘good’’ nesters, which
always lay in areas where eggs hatch, and ‘‘poor’’ nesters,
which always lay in areas where eggs do not hatch. That is
not how I conceptualized the situation. I started by asking
why turtles might swim for hundred of kilometers and then
fail to crawl a few meters further up to lay their eggs in a
safe location. With opposing pressures against nesting too
near the water, as well as against nesting too far up on the
beach, nest-site choice is probably the outcome of stabi-
lizing selection but with the important caveat that the
beachscape is unpredictable. Some years, the seas come
unusually high up on the beach; other years, the dangers of
123
466
nesting too high on the beach may predominate (e.g.,
abundance of terrestrial predators, difficulties for hatch-
lings in reaching the sea expeditiously). Therefore, it is not
a case of female turtles being either good or poor nesters.
In some years, certain female turtles do better; in other
years, other female turtles do better.
It was never claimed that some turtles consistently
always nest in certain areas. To show this would require
information about nest sites of animals throughout their
reproductive lives. What the data showed was a tendency
for certain female turtles to move higher up the beach than
others (Kamel & Mrosovsky 2004, 2005). However, run-
ning alongside such tendencies for particular individuals to
nest more often in particular places, there was still some
scatter in nest-site selection by any given female turtle.
Nevertheless, with high repeatability values for the
hawksbill turtles studied, it was plausible to think that
genetic factors might have accounted for some of the
variability in behavior. With that in mind, it seemed of
interest to explore what might be the implications if one
made the assumption there was some genetic contribution.
In particular, what might be the consequences of moving
eggs and thereby altering the chances of survival? What
might be the consequences of interfering with the com-
plicated balances and adaptations of nest-site choice in an
unpredictable environment?
Given that the moving and reburying of turtle clutches
thought to be doomed, or even at some risk, is a widespread
practice, I welcome Pike’s interest and views; these things
merit discussion. However, such a discussion must be
based on an accurate appreciation of the facts and the
inferences made from those facts. I end here by listing
some miscellaneous errors, or misconceptions, in Pike’s
commentary:
1. Our data do not show any qualitative differences
between leatherback and hawksbill turtles. Individual
differences were significant in both species (Kamel &
Mrosovsky 2004, 2005). It was a quantitative matter of
how pronounced individual differences were, with
higher repeatability values in the hawksbill turtles.
2. Hawksbill turtles do sometimes nest so close to the sea
that their nests are inundated (Fig. 5 in Kamel &
Mrosovsky 2005). I did indeed write that few hawks-
bill turtle nests are deposited lower than the high tide
line, but I went on to indicate that with the small
numbers currently nesting at many hawksbill turtle
rookeries, the more relevant figure is the percent of
nests laid that are at risk. In any case, the important
point is not how many hawksbill turtle nests are laid
too near the water but that there are individual
differences among female turtles in their nest-site
selection.
123
Environmental Management (2008) 41:465–467
3. I did not say translocation should not be undertaken. I
said it depends on the circumstances. If a population is
seriously depleted, the relocation of eggs seems
reasonable. I also recommended that if it is done, then
it be undertaken after more discussion, regulation,
monitoring, and documentation than has sometimes
been the case.
4. Campbell and Smith (2006) surveyed volunteers who
were not engaged in helping moving eggs, so citing
them in support of using relocation to inspire volun-
teers is inappropriate. The study by Lee and Snepenger
(1992) is also irrelevant; it does not concern or even
mention relocation. In contrast, articles bearing on this
matter, not entirely supportive of Pike’s views, go
unmentioned (e.g., Almeida and Mendes 2007).
5. Pike seems to think survival of translocated eggs is too
low to make much difference; in his example, 0.03%
of eggs hatch and survive to adulthood. However, we
need to compare this value with the survival rate of
eggs left in situ. Evolution can work with small
differences over long time periods. Therefore, saving
tidally doomed eggs might perhaps alter gene pools in
favor of promoting turtles with tendencies to lay eggs
in unsafe places.
6. Pike stated, ‘‘Unless hundreds of sea turtle nests are
relocated annually, the probability that any relocated
eggs will result in adult turtles is extremely low.’’ I
am unsure about the absolute numbers, but on some
beaches the proportion of relocated nests has been
high. In North Carolina from 1998 to 2002, approx-
imately 30% to 55% of nests were relocated each
year (Godfrey & Cluse in press, personal commu-
nication 2007). In Broward County, FL, in 1989, 82%
of nests were moved (Mattison and others 1990). The
reason for relocation was not always risk of flooding.
However, whatever the rationale, these are major
interventions, and there are many other places where
relocation of some nests is common and likely to
continue to be so. Pike’s dismissal of potential
downsides to translocation, on the grounds that few
eggs will ever produce adults, seems premature or
uninformed.
7. Pike says: ‘‘Before discussing drastic changes to
current conservation practices, the feasibility of alter-
native programs should be evaluated.’’ I say: Before
assuming current practices are the best available, they
should be evaluated to determine whether we need to
change course. The question of what, if anything, to do
with doomed eggs has been with us for a long time
(e.g., Mrosovsky 1983b, Schulz 1975). Little guidance
was available because of the scarcity of information
about nest-site selection and whether a turtle that laid
in an unpropitious place was liable to do so again,
Environmental Management (2008) 41:465–467
more so than a turtle that had nested in a suitable place
previously. But now we have some new data. These
are limited to a few beaches and species, but at least
we have some data, i.e., those tenaciously collected by
Kamel and colleagues. The essential finding was that
individual turtles, nesting multiple times in a season,
differed in their choice of nest sites. It would be remiss
not to discuss this and to learn if it has any bearing on
what may well be the most common conservation
intervention on behalf of sea turtles.
References
Almeida AP, Mendes SL (2007) An analysis of the role of local
fishermen in the conservation of the loggerhead turtle (Caretta
caretta) in Pontal do Ipiranga, Linharea, ES, Brazil. Biological
Conservation 134:106–112
Campbell LM, Smith C (2006) What makes them pay? Values of
volunteer tourists working for sea turtle conservation. Environ-
mental Management 38:84–98
Godfrey MH, Cluse WM (in press) Relocation rates of sea turtle nests
in North Carolina. Wildlife Resources Commission. Proceedings
of the 24th Annual Symposium on Sea Turtle Biology and
Conservation, San Jose, Costa Rica. NOAA Technical
Memorandum
467
Kamel SJ, Mrosovsky N (2004) Nest site selection in leatherbacks,
Dermochelys coriacea: individual patterns and their conse-
quences. Animal Behaviour 68:357–366
Kamel SJ, Mrosovsky N (2005) Repeatability of nesting preferences
in the hawksbill sea turtle, Eretmochelys imbricata, and their
fitness consequences. Animal Behaviour 70:819–828
Lee DNB, Snepenger DJ (1992) An ecotourism assessment of
Tortuguero, Costa Rica. Annals of Tourism Research 11:367–
370
Mattison C, Burney CM, Fisher L (1990) Sea turtle nesting and
hatching success in Broward County, Florida, 1989. in Richard-
son TH, Richardson JI, and M. Donnelly (compilers),
Proceedings of the 10th Annual Workshop on Sea Turtle Biology
and Conservation. NOAA Technical Memorandum NMFS-
SEFC-278. pp 165–166
Mrosovsky N (1983a) Conserving sea turtles. The British Herpeto-
logical Society, London, UK
Mrosovsky N (1983b) Ecology and nest-site selection of leatherback
turtles Dermochelys Coriacea. Biological Conservation 26:47–
56
Mrosovsky N (2006) Distorting gene pools by conservation: assessing
the case of doomed turtle eggs. Environmental Management
38:523–531
Pike DA (2007, in press) The benefits of nest relocation extend far
beyond recruitment: a rejoinder to Mrosovsky. Environmental
Management
Schulz JP (1975) Sea turtles nesting in Surinam. Nederlandsche
Commissie voor Internationale Natuurbescherming, Mededelin-
gen No. 23, Stichting Natuurbehoud Suriname (Stinasu),
Verhandeling Nr. 3
123