Global

Vision International,
Seychelles - Curieuse Report No. 151-154

GVI Seychelles Curieuse

Island Conservation Expedition

Annual Report

2015
(January 2015 January 2016)


Submitted in whole to
Global Vision International
Seychelles National Parks Authority (SNPA)

Produced by
Rebecca Hodgkiss | Science Coordinator

And
Christophe Mason-Parker | Country Director
Alan Grant | Base Manager
James McClelland | Science Officer
Bridgette Rademakers |Science Officer
Cheryl Sanchez | Science Coordinator
Dan Davies | Base Manager

Special thanks
To all volunteers from January 2015 December 2015 for assisting with data collection.

GVI Seychelles Curieuse Island Conservation Expedition
Address: GVI c/o SNPA, PO Box 1240, Victoria, Mah, Seychelles
Email: seychelles@gviworld.com
Web page: http://www.gvi.co.uk and http://www.gviusa.com

Executive Summary
This report summarises the science programmes conducted by the Global Vision International (GVI)
Seychelles, Island Conservation Expedition on Curieuse Island, between January 2015 and January
2016. The total rainfall for this time period was 2748.3 (compared to the 2014 rainfall of 2472.8mm).

Bird monitoring completed a third year of data collection. Up to the end of 2015, 37 different species
have so far been recorded in 9,120 observations for coastal and mangrove sightings. The two most
commonly recorded in 2015 species were the Seychelles sunbird and the common myna, as in 2014.
Two years of data formed a baseline understanding of seasonal visits by bird species to Curieuse.
Additionally, grey herons were observed breeding on the island for the third time in a row.
Opportunistic sightings also saw visits to Curieuse by crab plover and a few other species not
regularly seen on Curieuse.

The Coco de Mer growth survey followed on from the island wide census completed in 2014. It has
now produced 20 months were of growth data and some interesting trends are becoming apparent.
While populations on Curieuse and Praslin show many differences, similarities can be seen in trends
between leaf length and trunk height. The number of nuts per tree is increasing as the project goes
on, boding well for the reproductive value of the Curieuse population and conversely there appears
to be no trends in the number of catkins seen per tree. It is possible that this is due to very low
sample size and a number of questions have been raised over the size and representativeness of the
subsample. Further to this a number of discrepancies were noticed in the data however a full review
of all previously collected information resolved a lot of anomalous results. As the project moves into
2016 it is clear that only a long-term study will provide data from which robust conclusions can be
drawn.

The third year of the annual Aldabra giant tortoise census was completed in 2015. A total of 118
individuals were successfully located throughout the island. The majority of tortoises (n=93, 80.9%)
were located at the Rangers Station with others dispersed across the island. Passive Integrated
Transponder (PIT) tags applied in a 1997 census by Mortimer (1998) allowed for individual
identification of tortoises and has resulted in growth data for 60 tortoises over 18 years. Overall, the
population seems to be healthy. Some tortoises have puncture wounds, peeling on their carapaces
and split scutes, all of which is consistent with the population on Aldabra. Only five juveniles were
located (119, 125, 126, 127 and 128), of which number 119 was later found dead. Of the remaining





four, three had not previously been encountered, pointing to hatchling survivorship despite the
presence of introduced predators on the island including rats (Rattus norvegicus). The giant tortoise
nursery currently houses 26 hatchlings and two juveniles (126 and 128). Captive tortoise hatchlings
are measured and weighed biannually and all continue to show positive growth, denoting the
success of the nursery as a means of increasing the Curieuse population of giant tortoises.

This year saw the completion of the inundation, salinity & temperature components of the
mangrove monitoring project, providing SNPA with two years worth of inundation data and three
years worth of salinity & temperature data. This data will be used to guide decision-making
regarding a mangrove nursery and replanting project. Tree growth rates continue to be monitored
by measuring girth at breast height (GBH) of one tree at each of the mangrove waypoint poles. New
permanent quadrats were set up at five locations within the mangroves with the aim of investigating
seedling recruitment and mortality, and further determining species distribution across the
mangroves.

The 2015-2016 hawksbill season is still taking place. This year saw a slow start to the nesting season,
which seems to have been not only Seychelles-wide but perhaps the same for other parts of the
Western Indian Ocean. It now appears that nesting activities have picked up, with a higher number
of hawksbill nests so far than for the whole of last season. The most popular nesting beach is still
Grande Anse. Hatchling season has just begun, and the few excavations undertaken so far point to
high reproductive success, in line with last season. Photo identification commenced in 2010 and
metal flipper tagging began during the 2013-2014 season. Both methods are being continued in the
2015-2016 season. Similarly to last year, the number of green turtle activities and nests has been
high compared to previous years.

September 2015 saw the end of season one and the beginning of season two of the juvenile sicklefin
lemon shark monitoring. The project has been hugely successful and 180 individuals have been
caught and tagged (96 in season one; 84 so far in season two) allowing us meet aims in
understanding life history traits and population size of the sicklefin lemon sharks found in the
Curieuse Marine National Park. Funding has been spent on educational initiatives targeted at both
local school children and visitors to the National Park further activities are planned for 2016.
Population assessments greatly exceed preliminary estimates and seem comparable for both
seasons along with capture rates. Recaptures have provided useful growth rate data, however
further surveying is required to draw more robust conclusions. Improved methodologies and
4





equipment have greatly benefitted the project and the handling mortality during season two has
been reduced to 0%. The project will now look to commence active acoustic tracking, to establish
movement patterns and home-ranges of the juvenile sharks.

In 2015 beach profiling was added to the portfolio of research areas undertaken by GVI Seychelles
on Curieuse Island. It is observed each year that there are substantial changes to the profile of the
beaches with the North-West and South-East monsoon seasons, but this has not been quantitatively
measured by GVI before. It is hoped that by doing so, the data collected will provide a better
understanding into these changes in profile, specifically with regards to rates of erosion and
accretion of sand. The profiling is done in two sections: Anse Jose-Anse Cimitier-Anse Caiman, and
Anse Laraie-Anse Papaie-Grand Anse. Each section is profiled every 2 months. The study was started
in October 2015 and therefore only preliminary results exist so far.

Table of Contents
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY .............................................................................................................. 3
TABLE OF CONTENTS ................................................................................................................ 6
INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................................................ 8
ISLAND CONSERVATION EXPEDITION ....................................................................................... 9
STUDY SITES ............................................................................................................................ 11
TRAINING ............................................................................................................................... 11
BIRDS ...................................................................................................................................... 13
INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................................................ 13
AIMS ..................................................................................................................................... 14
METHODOLOGY ....................................................................................................................... 14
RESULTS ................................................................................................................................. 15
DISCUSSION ............................................................................................................................ 18
CONCLUSION ........................................................................................................................... 21
COCO DE MER ......................................................................................................................... 22
INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................................................ 22
AIMS ..................................................................................................................................... 23
METHODOLOGY ....................................................................................................................... 23
RESULTS ................................................................................................................................. 24
DISCUSSION ............................................................................................................................ 25
CONCLUSION ........................................................................................................................... 27
GIANT TORTOISES ................................................................................................................... 29
INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................................................ 29
AIMS ..................................................................................................................................... 30
METHODOLOGY ....................................................................................................................... 31
RESULTS ................................................................................................................................. 33
DISCUSSION ............................................................................................................................ 35
CONCLUSION ........................................................................................................................... 39
MANGROVES .......................................................................................................................... 40
INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................................................ 40
AIMS ..................................................................................................................................... 40
METHODOLOGY ....................................................................................................................... 40
RESULTS ................................................................................................................................. 42
DISCUSSION ............................................................................................................................ 44
CONCLUSION ........................................................................................................................... 46
SEA TURTLES ........................................................................................................................... 48
INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................................................ 48
AIMS ..................................................................................................................................... 49
METHODOLOGY ....................................................................................................................... 49
RESULTS ................................................................................................................................. 51
DISCUSSION ............................................................................................................................ 54
CONCLUSION ........................................................................................................................... 56
LEMON SHARKS ...................................................................................................................... 57
INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................................................ 57
AIMS ..................................................................................................................................... 61
6

METHODOLOGY ....................................................................................................................... 61
RESULTS ................................................................................................................................. 63
DISCUSSION ............................................................................................................................ 67
CONCLUSIONS ......................................................................................................................... 70
BEACH PROFILING ................................................................................................................... 72
INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................................................ 72
AIMS ..................................................................................................................................... 72
METHODOLOGY ....................................................................................................................... 73
RESULTS ................................................................................................................................. 73
DISCUSSION ............................................................................................................................ 75
CONCLUSION ........................................................................................................................... 77
REFERENCES ........................................................................................................................... 78
APPENDICES ............................................................................................................................ 86
APPENDIX A. BIRDS .................................................................................................................. 86
APPENDIX B. COCO DE MER ....................................................................................................... 92
APPENDIX C. GIANT TORTOISES ................................................................................................... 96
APPENDIX D. MANGROVES ...................................................................................................... 100
APPENDIX E. SEA TURTLES ....................................................................................................... 103
APPENDIX F. LEMON SHARKS ................................................................................................... 106
APPENDIX G. BEACH PROFILING ................................................................................................ 109

Introduction
Global Vision International (GVI) Seychelles comprises two expeditions based on separate granitic
islands. The Island Conservation Expedition is based on a small granitic island called Curieuse located
to the north of Praslin. Base camp is located at Anse St. Jose within the Curieuse Marine National
Park. This marine national park has been established since 1979 and represents an area of 14.7km2.
All of GVIs scientific work in Seychelles is carried out on behalf of local partners and at their request,
using their methodology. GVI supplies experienced staff, trained volunteers and equipment to
conduct research in support of their on-going work. GVIs key partner is the Seychelles National
Parks Authority (SNPA).
Seychelles National Parks Authority (SNPA): A local parastatal organisation partly funded by the
government, responsible for conducting research in Seychelles and for the management and
protection of the national parks.

Island Conservation Expedition

The Seychelles Islands are the only mid-oceanic granitic islands in the world. Isolated for 75 million
years, Seychelles now hosts a unique assemblage of flora and fauna, many of them extremely
primitive. Such ancient species include endemic palm trees such as the Coco de Mer (Lodoicea
maldivica) and Aldabra Giant tortoises (Aldabrachelys gigantea). However, 200 years of human
settlement has exerted a serious influence on the native biota of these islands. Habitat loss and
fragmentation, as well as invasive species, have caused several extinctions and reduced populations
of many species to perilous levels. Natural resource exploitation continues to pose a serious threat
to Seychelles native flora and fauna (Hill 2002).
Curieuse Island is a small granitic island (2.86km2) in the Seychelles approximately 2km north of the
island of Praslin. Curieuse is notable for its bare red earth intermingled with the unique Coco de Mer
palms, one of the cultural icons of Seychelles that is only present in three populations on Praslin and
Curieuse.
In 1979, Curieuse and its surrounding waters were declared the Curieuse Marine National Park in
order to protect the native wildlife. Today it is home to approximately 130 free-ranging feral Aldabra
giant tortoises (Aldabrachelys gigantea) found mainly at the Rangers Station but also in smaller
numbers throughout the island. Sea turtles are often found in the surrounding sea grass and reef
habitats and several of Curieuses beaches are important nesting sites for female green and
hawksbill turtles, particularly during the hawksbill nesting season of October to February. Another
key part of the Curieuse marine ecosystem is the mangrove forest, a group of terrestrial trees
adapted to cope with high salinity and low oxygen environments. Mangrove trees are found most
extensively around the lagoon area at Baie Laraie and bridge the gap between the marine and
terrestrial environments, playing a key role in maintaining optimum reef building conditions for
corals (Obura and Abdulla 2005) as well as providing a vital habitat for birds and fish, including the
sicklefin lemon shark.
The objectives of the Island Conservation expedition on Curieuse for the year of 2015 focused on a
bird monitoring programme, including a new methodology examining the use of the mangrove
habitat, continuation of the Coco de Mer growth survey, an on-going mangrove monitoring project,
the third annual giant tortoise census, on-going sea turtle monitoring, and beginning the second
year of the sicklefin lemon shark monitoring programme. The fundamental goal behind all fieldwork





is to ensure data collected is relevant and valuable to our project partners. The information collected
by GVI Seychelles is available through SNPA to be used as a baseline for future study.

10

Study sites

Map of Curieuse Island showing all current survey sites as undertaken by GVI. Sea turtle nesting
beaches: 1 Anse Caiman/Cimitier, 2 Anse St. Jose, 3 Anse Mandarin, 4 Anse Laraie, 5 Anse Papaie, 6
Grande Anse, 7 Anse Badamier. Beaches currently being profiled are 1-2 and 4-6.

Training
Island Conservation Health and Safety
All Expedition Members on the Island Conservation expedition are educated through safety
precautions to work on beaches and walk off-path to study sites. Risk assessments have been carried
out for all surveys undertaken. Volunteers are provided with first aid training through the Emergency
First Response course, which is taught on-site.
Terrestrial & Marine Species identification and Field Techniques
GVI relies on volunteers to carry out all of its fieldwork. These volunteers stay for periods of four,
eight or twelve weeks. To ensure precision and continuity, all volunteers are intensively trained and
have a highly trained staff member accompany them on all field surveys. All expedition volunteers
are required to identify birds by sight, identify the various life-stages of Coco De Mer palms,
understand appropriate handling and measurements for giant tortoises, sea turtles and lemon shark
pups and learn the six species of mangrove tree present on Curieuse. They are also trained in how to
operate equipment used for each survey, which includes a GPS, PIT tag scanner, refractometer,
Abney level and fishing gear. Training is initially provided in the form of presentations, classroom
sessions and informal discussion with the expedition staff, followed by in-field training in practical
11





field techniques. Exams are given in mangrove and bird species ID. Self-study materials are also
available in the form of textbooks, field guides, journal articles and flashcards. Volunteer progress is
monitored and staff supervision remains vigilant until the volunteer demonstrates a grasp of all
procedures and is able to identify key species. To maintain reliability for bird surveys, one of the
observers is always a staff member, who is trained to a higher level and has more identification
experience than expedition volunteers.

12

Birds

Introduction
According to the Seychelles Bird Records Committee (SBRC) 268 bird species had been recorded in
the Seychelles by 1st November 2015, including resident land and water birds, breeding seabirds,
annual migrants, occasional visitors and now-extinct species. Of these 268 species, 56 species (as of
1st October 2012) had been documented on Curieuse by the SBRC. Between April 2013 and January
2016, four new records, including the black-crowned night heron (Nycticorax nycticorax), barn owl
(Tyto alba), little egret (Egretta garzetta) and garganey (Anasquer quedula) were submitted by GVI
and accepted by the SBRC, bringing the total number of bird species that have been documented on
Curieuse Island up to 59, unofficially.

At present there is a lack of readily available, published information on the bird life of Curieuse.
Considering the national park status of Curieuse Island, it is particularly important to fill this gap in
the scientific knowledge. Curieuse is not an Important Bird Area (IBA), as listed by Rocamora and
Skerrett (2001). However, it may be important for seabird, shorebird and migratory species, due to
its national park status and the presence of rare habitats, such as mangroves and Coco de Mer
forests. The presence and foraging habits of seabirds in the ocean surrounding Curieuse, particularly
inshore feeding species such as the white (fairy) tern (Gygis alba), lesser noddy (Anous tenuirostris)
and bridled tern (Sterna anaethetus) can give an indication of the health of the marine park (Burger
and Lawrence 2003). In addition, the presence of shorebirds and migratory bird species, such as the
grey plover (Pluvialis squatarola) and ruddy turnstone (Arenaria interpres) give an indication of the
importance of Curieuse as a wintering ground and as a stopover during migration.

Previous years of study have enabled the identification of species-rich and -diverse habitats on
Curieuse, providing conclusive justification as to the conservation importance of such habitats. In
particular, the importance of the coastal areas and mangrove forest, a threatened habitat on
Curieuse, has been highlighted. This information should help facilitate decision-making as SNPA
moves to the next phase of an on-going mangrove study whereby three years worth of salinity and
temperature profiling data will be used to set up a replanting project.

13

Aims
The objectives of the bird-monitoring programme have somewhat evolved over the past year from
originally aiming to establish baseline data on the bird species that visit and inhabit Curieuse, to
investigating spatial use of the mangroves by different species dependent on tide state.

Methodology
Point Count Survey
Two main habitats on Curieuse were surveyed this year: the coastline along the southern and
eastern facing beaches and the mangrove forest at Baie Laraie. The palm forests and elevated areas
were surveyed for six months from April to September 2013 following which they were no longer
surveyed due to a lack of bird sightings (Figure 1).

Bird surveys were conducted through point counts. Point counts were chosen over line transects,
because point counts are better suited to bird-habitat studies. In addition, point counts suit dense
habitats such as mangroves (Gregory et al. 2006).

From January to the beginning of April 2015, the methodology followed on from the previous year,
whereby both coastal and mangrove bird surveys were carried out. Along the coastline, vantage
points were positioned along the turtle nesting beaches and adjoining coastline and were spaced
approximately 250m apart or as near to 250m as possible given the terrain (see Sanchez et al. 2015
for further information).

After April 6th 2015, bird surveys focused solely on the mangroves. Initially, the existing methodology
was used, whereby two groups of eight points were monitored alternately. These points were set up
on existing transects (the same used for the mangrove study) 50m apart, with points 100m apart
along each transect. There were three vantage points on transects A, E, O and T and two vantage
points on transects J and Y, giving a total of 16 vantage points in the mangroves, named M1 through
to M16 (Figure 1).

As of October 2015, the methodology was adapted with the intention of allowing the comparison
between the species diversity and abundance of birds in three areas of the mangrove front,
middle and back. Therefore, three transects were monitored simultaneously by three survey teams.

14





The points used were E1, O1, Y1 (front), D4, L3, W4 (middle) and B7, M6, S5 (back) (Figure 2). Care
was taken to ensure that each transect was monitored on the same schedule to ensure direct
comparability, allowing us to determine whether birds are moving between the different areas of
the mangroves depending on the state of tide.

Each survey team was comprised of two to four individuals (one recorder and one to three
observers). The recorder was solely responsible for filling out all fields in the data sheet and ensuring
all data was recorded for each observation. The data recorded for each observation is outlined in
Table 1.

Before each observation began there was a two-minute settling time to allow for any disturbance
caused by the arrival of the survey team. A 10-minute observation period immediately followed,
where observers recorded all individual birds present. Following this, a 2-minute waiting period
ensured movement of one team did not cause disruption of birds and affect point counts being
carried out by the other two teams. To avoid pseudoreplication, observers were trained not to count
the same bird more than once at each vantage point through good communication. However, some
pseudoreplication is unavoidable, as birds are not individually marked.

Species were categorized as annual visitors, residents, endemics, or vagrants and further analysed.
As defined by SBRC, an annual visitor is a migratory species that does not breed on Curieuse, but
appears every year, outside its normal breeding season. An endemic species is one confined to the
Seychelles. A resident is a non-endemic species that breeds on Curieuse, and a vagrant species is
defined as one that, on the basis of current knowledge, is not known to occur each year on Curieuse
(Skerret and Disley 2011).

Opportunistic Sightings
When not on official bird surveys, if a rare or unusual bird was spotted, or if a bird was seen in a
habitat where it was not typically encountered, the sighting was recorded. This was kept separate
from regular survey recordings, and will be reported separately.

Results
Point Count Survey
The data presented in this report was collected between 1st January and 31st December 2015, at
mangrove (Jan-Dec 2015) and coastal vantage points (Jan-Apr 2015). In 2015, 32 different species
15





were encountered on Curieuse and the surrounding coastal areas (Table 2) in a total of 2,927
observations. Coastal and mangrove habitats had a strong overlap in species observed, with 20
species observed in both habitats (Table 3). 11 species were observed only in the mangroves, five of
which were only encountered once, and one species was encountered only on the coast. The 11
species that were seen only in the mangroves were the black crowned night heron (one
observation), common greenshank (11 observations), common sandpiper (three observations),
curlew sandpiper (five observations), eurasian curlew (one observation), garganey (four
observations), greater sandplover (one observation), lesser frigatebird (one observation), lesser
sandplover (one observation), sanderling (nine observations) and white tailed tropicbird (50
observations). The one species observed only at coastal vantage points, the bridled tern, was
observed 23 times from January to April 2015.

The most commonly recorded species on Curieuse for 2015 was the Seychelles sunbird (Cinnyris
dussumieri, 933 encounters), followed by the common myna (Acrido therestristis, 448 encounters)
and the ruddy turnstone (Arenaria interpres, 348 encounters). The most commonly recorded seabird
was the greater crested tern (Sterna bergii, 83 encounters) (Figure 3).

Of the 32 species recorded on Curieuse in 2015, 23 are known to be annual visitors to Curieuse,
seven are resident and two endemic (Table 4). The highest number of observations was from the
endemics category, comprised of only the Seychelles sunbird and Seychelles blue pigeon. The second
highest number of observations was for residents. Two species, the grey heron (Ardea cinerea) and
the fairy Tern, are currently listed on SBRC as annual visitors. However, grey herons have been
observed successfully breeding on the island for the past three years. Fairy terns were seen breeding
in 2013 and attempting to breed in 2014 and 2015. Their classification, especially for the grey
herons, may need to be re-evaluated and changed to residents. The garganey was first recorded on
Curieuse in December 2014, following which a photo was sent to SBRC and species ID was
confirmed. Since then, it has been seen on four more occasions in 2015, twice in January, once in
February and once in March. Currently, the garganey is recorded as an annual visitor to the larger
granitic islands (The First Report of the Seychelles Bird Records Committee). However, there is no
previous record of this species (or any other ducks) having been seen on Curieuse. Therefore it is not
yet known whether this particular individual is regularly visiting Curieuse. The five recorded
encounters during bird point counts were possibly of just one adult individual. However, a young
garganey was spotted by a staff member whilst not on a bird survey in October 2015. Since then,
there have been no sightings of garganeys on Curieuse.
16





Resident species tended to be encountered throughout the year, with occasionally one or two
months where encounters were not recorded. In months where certain residents were not
recorded, it is likely this is due to low effort since there may be only one or two bird surveys in some
months of the year, particularly December when volunteers are not available to assist with surveys.
(Table 5). Two species classed as annual visitors, the ruddy turnstone and whimbrel, were
encountered all year round, while others including the Common Greenshank, Common Tern, Great
frigatebird, greater crested tern, grey plover, lesser crested tern and white tailed tropicbird were
encountered during at least half of the year. The remaining 14 were only encountered sporadically.
The two endemic species, the Seychelles sunbird and Seychelles blue pigeon, were encounted in
every month of the year in high numbers.

While Curieuse is not known for its seabird breeding activity, there are past records of successful
breeding by fairy terns (Sanchez et al. 2015). Fairy terns and white tailed tropicbirds are regularly
seen flying at low elevations above Curieuse, occasionally even below the treeline. Despite this, no
seabirds were observed to have nested successfully in 2015.

Use of the mangroves by bird species dependent on tide state
The new methodology for this project was only started in late October 2015 and therefore only a
limited amount of data has been obtained. Data thus far collected consists of a total of 344
observations of 26 different species, over four sessions between 20th October and 8th December
2015 (one morning session and three afternoon sessions). A greater number of different species
were encountered during the mid-tide sessions (22) than the high-tide session (15). During the high-
tide session, the front of the mangroves had the highest encounter rate, followed by the back.
During the mid-tide session, the middle had the highest encounter rate followed by the front. The
majority of waders (including the common sandpiper, greater sandplover, grey plover and ruddy
turnstone) appear to use the front of the mangroves more often than the middle or back during a
mid-tide. On the one session during high-tide, these waders, with the exception of the Ruddy
Turnstone, were not encountered but one greenshank and one curlew sandpiper were. For both tide
states, the majority of birds encountered at the front, middle and back were landbirds with the
exception of the front at mid-tide sessions, where 42.9% of birds encountered were waders (Table
6).

17



Opportunistic Sightings

Opportunistic sightings reaffirmed the presence of a couple of species on Curieuse. Crab plovers
were seen on three occasions, once at Anse St. Jose (one individual) and twice at Grand Anse (two
individuals on one occasion, one individual on another) in November 2015. An opportunistic sighting
in the mangroves of the young garganey in October 2015, together with the three recorded sightings
at the beginning of the year and an unconfirmed sighting of an adult garganey by a volunteer,
suggests there has been at least two individual garganeys on Curieuse in 2015, one adult and one
juvenile. Apart from these two species, no unusual or vagrant species were observed on Curieuse in
2015.

Discussion
The Curieuse bird-monitoring programme was established in January 2013, resulting in a three-year
data set. With no previous long-term monitoring of the birds on Curieuse, the programme was
originally designed to provide baseline data such as number of species, distribution throughout the
island and presence of annual visitors. Since then, it has focused more on coastal areas, particularly
the Curieuse mangroves, a species-rich habitat utilised by many migratory species.

The two habitats surveyed, mangroves and coast, demonstrated similar species richness, with 23
and 22 species present in each habitat respectively from January to April 2015. However, the species
composition between the habitats differed slightly. A greater number of species of waders and
shorebirds were seen in the mangroves (n=11) than the coast (n=6), whereas the coast had more
species of seabird (n=8) than the mangroves (n=4). The waders and shorebirds visiting the
mangroves are annual visitors, migrating from their breeding grounds in the northern hemisphere.
Their presence in the mangrove habitat indicates the mangroves being utilized as a wintering and
feeding ground. In addition, a large proportion of all the species recorded on Curieuse were annual
visitors, perhaps providing further evidence for the importance of Curieuse as a wintering ground.

For the third year in a row, grey herons have been seen nesting in the mangroves at the south end of
the Turtle Pond in the area known to GVI Seychelles as Pats Pool. Similarly to in 2014, at least two
nests were successful this year with at least four chicks fledging. It appears that successful nesting is
taking place each year, suggesting that the area is particularly suitable to successful nesting of this
species, and should be further monitored.

18





The palm forests and elevated areas were surveyed for six months in 2013, and only 19 species were
observed, all of which were seen on the coast or in the mangroves. The forested and upland areas
were species poor, compared with coastal and mangrove habitats, likely due to habitat degradation
caused by fire and erosion (Hill 2002). This might change with recent replanting efforts for the
10,000 trees initiative, whereby native plants are being replanted across the island. This may have a
large, and positive, impact on the bird species found on the island. However, surveys within the
upland area are no longer carried out in order to focus on the areas with higher diversity.

Two of the most commonly observed bird species (Figure 3), the Seychelles sunbird and the
Seychelles blue pigeon, are both endemics and were seen regularly on the coast and in the
mangroves. Notably, two other species endemic to the Seychelles still have not been observed: the
black parrot (Coracopsis barklyi) and Seychelles bulbul (Hypsipetes crassirostris). The Seychelles
black parrot has reportedly been seen on Curieuse in the past (Hill 2002) but was not seen on
Curieuse the last three years, despite bird surveys having been regularly carried out year-round. In
fact, Reuleaux et al. carried out a study in 2013 whereby they aimed to determine the status of the
black parrot on Curieuse, and despite point counts and 2-5hour long watches over 4 days in areas
where they had previously been seen, no black parrots were encountered. They concluded that
Curieuse does not and probably cannot support a population of black parrots. The Seychelles bulbul
is a very common species on other islands and does not visit Curieuse (Woods 2013). Two species,
known as pests on other Seychelles islands, the Madagascan fody and common myna, are listed as
resident by the SBRC and are abundant on Curieuse in both habitat types. They are thought to
outcompete endemic species such as the Seychelles fody and the Seychelles magpie robin and
Seychelles scops owl respectively. There are also concerns over hybridisation between the
Madagascan fody and its endemic counterpart. Currently, the potential damage they could cause on
Curieuse is limited due to the absence of these endemic species on Curieuse. However, nearby
populations of Seychelles magpie robins due to reintroductions to three islands Cousin, Cousine and
Aride (BirdLife International 2012) may be affected if the number of common myna was to reach
carrying capacity on Curieuse, leading to birds spilling over to other islands. Therefore, it would be
wise to continue to monitor the presence and abundance of common myna and Madagascan fody
on Curieuse.

The Ruddy Turnstone is the third most observed species on Curieuse, and is seen in coastal areas
and in the mangroves all year round. Clearly, Curieuse is clearly an important wintering ground for
this species and since ruddy turnstones have been known show to have a high site fidelity towards
19





wintering grounds (Metcalfe & Furness, 1985), they may be used by the same individuals year round.
The quality of wintering grounds used by migratory birds has been shown to affect their
reproductive success at breeding grounds (Norris et al. 2004), highlighting the importance of the
Curieuse mangroves forest for ruddy turnstones.

Preliminary results from the mangrove habitat use study show some differences in the use of
different areas of the mangroves at different tide states, with differences in number of species and
types of birds encountered. It appears that waders are more likely to use the front of the mangroves
during a mid-tide than a high-tide and more likely to use the middle at high-tide. This could suggest
they move into the mangroves as the tide rises, when the mudflat at the front is no longer exposed.
This unique habitat is not present to the same extent on other islands within the Inner Granitics, and
offers an area for foraging and resting birds. Previous monthly observations at the lowest tide, as
well as opportunistic sightings, have shown the mudflats to be dominated by many wading and
seabirds. Continuation of the current methodology across a wider range of tide states will hopefully
confirm how waders are using the different areas at different tides and shed light on the role the
Curieuse mangroves play in their foraging ecology.

An important observation is that two of the most dominant species recorded on bird surveys are
endemic to the Seychelles. The fact that these species are restricted to Seychelles means that they
are at a higher risk of extinction than widely distributed species, but also that relatively little is
known about them. It has been the intension of expedition staff over the past 6 months to begin
behavioural and reproductive studies on the two endemic species on Curieuse, but failure to locate
nests, and a lack of time to focus on bird surveys due to sea turtle nesting and shark pupping season,
has meant that this was not commenced. Giant tortoise census season, beginning in April 2016,
whereby census teams search the whole island for tortoises, should facilitate the locating of nests
and allow more time to undertake additional behavioural studies of birds by GVI Seychelles staff and
volunteers.

The uniqueness of the mangroves provides a platform for further studies into the birdlife that
utilizes and depends on this particular habitat. If the mangrove habitat continues to change (as
discussed in the Mangrove section of this report), this data will help document what effects it will
have on the birdlife. While we know from previous years of bird monitoring that the mangroves on
Curieuse support the greatest level of bird diversity and abundance, and provide an important
habitat for annual migratory species, little is understood about how it used spatially and temporally
20





by different species. The new methodology should allow for us to investigate how birds are moving
between the different areas of the mangroves at different tide states.

Conclusion
The data collected so far has given great insight into the bird life on and around Curieuse. There
remain to be differing accounts of what species are actually present on Curieuse, due to the close
proximity to Praslin and assumptions of similar bird species on both islands. Only 37 species of the
possible 59 species listed on the SBRC website for Curieuse have been observed, but more
monitoring will improve and validate the dataset. Further monitoring will most likely reveal
additional migratory and vagrant species (Woods 2013). Although Curieuse does not have an
abundance of seabird nesting, as other surrounding islands have, Curieuse provides important
habitats for foraging and resting.

In regards to possible mangrove rehabilitation, a priority for SNPA, the diversity and abundance of
birds should be included in any decision-making as the forest of Baie Laraie is utilized year round by
numerous species. Use of the mangroves and the mudflat at low tide is evident in the data being
collected but little is understood about the role these habitats play in the ecology of species present
on Curieuse. The new methodology for bird surveys implemented in October 2015 will hopefully
allow further investigation into how the mangroves are being used by different species.

21

Coco de Mer
Introduction
Coco de Mer (Lodoicea maldivica), despite its latin name, is a palm endemic to Seychelles carrying
the largest seedpod in the world. It is a classic example of island gigantism, holding four records in
leaf length, fruit size and weight, and largest female flowers of any palm (Edwards et al. 2003,
summarized in Fleischer-Dogley 2006). The Coco de Mer (CdM) forest on Curieuse is one of three
remaining global populations, with the other two found on nearby Praslin Island, at Fond Ferdinand
(FF) and the Vale de Mai (VM), a UNESCO World Heritage site. It is classified as endangered
according to IUCN criteria (Fleischer-Dogley et al. 2011a), which in itself makes it an important study
species, but it is also iconic to Seychelles. As a renowned flagship species for Seychelles, this palm
provides revenue through tourism, nut harvesting, and sale.
The CdM seed pods (known as nuts) are popular tourist souvenirs and the suggestive shape adds to
their appeal. Nuts are harvested legally on Praslin and Curieuse, in numbers thought to be
sustainable. They are sold by licensed vendors for 150-400 and come with an individual
identification card to verify origin. The Seychelles government keeps strict control over the trees in
order to protect the genetic heritage of the islands and it is illegal to collect or sell unlicensed nuts.
However, nuts have a high demand on the black market and poaching is still a significant concern for
all populations. Unfortunately, these trees have certain life history traits, such as a late age at
reproduction (20-40 years to reach sexually maturity) and long gestation period of nuts (6-7 years to
ripen) making it difficult for the species to rebound if it becomes vulnerable (Edwards et al. 2003).
Coco de Mers have been the subject of numerous studies however; few have investigated the
Curieuse population. GVI Seychelles and SNPA conducted a 5 year census of the islands CdM
population (2009-2014). The census produced a population count and basic life stage information
(Shanchez et al 2014; Dunn et al 2015) however, little is known about the growth rate of these palms
and how long it takes to transition between life stages.
Koch and Kaiser-Bunbury (2010) conducted a growth rate study on Praslin however, Coco de Mer
trees on Curieuse show distinct differences to the two populations on Praslin (Fleischer-Dogley et al.
2011b) the results are not necessarily applicable. To harmonise data collection between the three
populations, GVI Seychelles initiated a long-term growth rate study, following the same
methodology as Koch and Kaiser-Bunbury (2010), in April 2014. The initial set-up and first
monitoring phase highlighted variation between Curieuse and Praslin (Sanchez et al 2015) but

22





provided no useful growth data as the project was still in its infancy. Monitoring has continued
throughout 2015 and the 20 months of study to date has now produced some more interpretable
data. A number of concerns have arisen about certain aspects of the methodology, and these are
currently in review.

Aims
The main goal of the growth survey is to compare survivorship by documenting the time spent in
each life stage. By determining leaf and trunk growth rates, we can compare difference between life
stages and between populations, which will allow us to elucidate visual differences. Additionally,
assessing inflorescence production between female trees will allow us to assess variation in nut
production between populations; looking at inflorescences in male trees will allow us to determine
seasonal variation in catkin production. Understanding the amount of time trees remain in each life
stage will assist in keeping the population protected.

Methodology
75 trees (15 of each life stage - male, female, immature, juvenile, and seedling) were selected in the
area overlooking Baie Laraie (Figure 4). Seedlings are young plants displaying three or fewer leaves,
juvenilles have more than three leaves but no trunk and immature trees have more than three
leaves and a visible trunk or defined swell; Adult trees poses trunks, and produce sexual
characteristics, female nuts or male catkins. Methodology and life stage classification mirrors that
used on Coco de Mer trees studied at VM (see Koch and Kaiser-Bunbury 2010).

Trees were selected based on tree groupings; each grouping has a mixture of life stages. Another
influence on tree selection was whether it would be accessible for researchers. Some trees were not
used as part of the survey simply because they were too tall and researchers could not access the
crown of the palm. Each tree was given a unique code and their exact position was recorded with a
GPS.

Each tree is revisited every monitoring phase (approximately every three months). During the initial
setup the three youngest (most central) leaves of each tree are identified and labelled L1 L3
according to age (oldest-youngest respectively). The total length of each leaf was recorded and a
mark painted 40cm above the base of the leaf. Referred to as mark A, it is re-measured on each
visit to determine leaf growth. The total length of bayonets (central growing new leaves that have
not yet opened up) is also recorded at each encounter. Once open, a bayonet is now considered a
23





leaf; it is setup as above and given a leaf code (sequential from the previous youngest leaf e.g. L4,
L5 etc). Measurements for a specific leaf will be discontinued when it stops growing, that is, when no
change is seen in leaf length after three visits (Koch and Kaiser-Bunbury 2010). Since trees will not be
measured exactly every three months, growth was calculated as growth per day.

Additional data are collected for each tree including the number of green leaves, trunk height and
Girth at Breast Height (GBH) of trunk. During setup, or once they reach size, immature and adult
trees are marked with paint 10cm below the swell of the oldest green leaf and GBH of the trunk is
marked and measured at a height of 150cm above the ground level. Each measurement is retaken
on subsequent visits.

Reproductive information is also collected for adult trees. The number of catkins in flower (male
trees) and the number and classification (primary, maturing or ripe) of nuts per inflorescence
(female trees) are also recorded

Results
To date, 6 phases of post-setup monitoring have been completed (most recently Q6 was completed
in January 2016) and will be reported upon. These phases ranged from 63-140 day in duration (mean
91 25), due to variation in volunteer numbers and available manpower. The longest of these, Q6, is
due in part to the 1 month break in volunteers over Christmas and New Year, and also to a full
review of all trees and data collection which has just been completed.

A number of issues have been noticed with methodology and explanations have been sought for
historical data anomalies. For example, significant variation was recorded in GBH of tree I14,
between 67cm and 72cm. During the review two GBH marks were identified, one at 150cm height
measuring 67cm and a second, incorrectly placed marker at 200cm height measuring 72cm. The
incorrect mark was removed from the tree and incorrect measurements of 72cm were removed
from the data set. The review called into question some earlier tree measurements, so we have
focused on data we are confident in, reviewing measurements taken over the last year (Q2-Q6).

At setup initial leaf length was similar among most life stages with the exception of seedlings, which
have smaller leaves. On average, female trees were taller and had a larger GBH than males (Sanchez
et al 2015). These similarities have continued throughout the monitoring.

24





In Q2, females had taller and wider trunks than males, 344.1cm vs. 188.8cm and 86.6cm vs. 84.3cm
respectively; the same is true in Q6 with 350.8cm vs. 192.1cm and 87.4cm vs. 84.3cm respectively.
Throughout the project immature plants unsurprisingly have the smallest average trunk size
(114.4cm in Q2 increasing to 118.7cm in Q6) however GBH for Q2 falls between females and males
(86.0cm) and is narrower than both males and female in Q6 (84.0cm) (Table 7).

Over the year females also show a greater increase in trunk height and width, +6.7cm and +0.8cm
respectively, than males, +3.3cm and +0.3cm respectively; immature trees fall between the two for
height (+4.3cm) yet displays negative growth in GBH (-2.0cm).

Juvenile trees produce the longest average leaf length (421.5cm) followed by immature (418.5cm),
male (365.9cm), female (353.8cm) then seedlings with the smallest (225.7cm); a negative correlation
can clearly be seen between trunk height and leaf length (Figure 5). Similarly, with the exception of
seedlings, overall total leaf length (TLL) also appears to be negatively correlated to leaf growth per
day (Figure 6). Females have the fastest daily growth rate (up to 3.24cm/day) while juveniles (up to
1.32cm/day) and then seedlings (up to 1.06cm/day) have the slowest.

The number of green leaves per tree shows little variation between phases. Some trees appear to be
more productive than others. Females produce the most leaves (mean s.d = 15.83.0) then males
(13.82.0), immature (10.62.5), juvenile (5.32.0) and lastly seedlings (2.40.6).

Female nut production appears to increase over time, with the average number of nuts per tree
increasing from 0.93 in Q2 to 1.53 in Q6 (Table 8). Number of nuts per tree also shows a positive
correlation to trunk height (Figure 7).

Male inflorescence production showed no clear trends towards month (Figure 8.), seasonality or
monitoring phase. It also shows no correlation towards rainfall (Figure 8). To date, the mean number
of flowering catkins recorded per tree varied from 0.33 to 0.87, maximum number recorded on a
single tree was two and the minimum was zero (Table 9).

Discussion
A comparison of Curieuse data against the two Praslin populations, Fond Ferdinand (FF) and Valle
de Mai (VM) shows some distinct differences (summarised in Sanchez et al. 2015) which can be

25





attributed to varying environmental factors and high phenotypic plasticity of L. maldivica (Fleischer-
Dogley et al. 2011).

Despite this there are also many similarities, as you would expect given the limited genetic
differentiation. The data suggests that initially total leaf length increase as palms move from
seedlings to juveniles and reach for the canopy. However, once a maximum leaf length is achieved
they then begin to produce a trunk, moving towards sexual maturity and a dominant position in the
canopy. At this juncture leaf length begins to decrease proportional to trunk height. This follows the
same trends recorded at VM (Edwards et al 2003). Savage and Ashton (1984) reported that petiole
length in juveniles was positively correlated to the above canopy height, indicating that the leaves
are reaching for the canopy. This follows the previous rationale, as once the canopy is reached
trees need only to maintain this position. They can therefore afford to reduce leaf length as trunk
height increases. Edwards et al (2003) report that L. maldivica found in open scrub land generally
have petiole lengths of less than 2m, presumably because they have no need to strive for sunlight.
This clearly explain why female trees, despite being the most productive life stage, with most green
leaves and fastest growth rates, have shorter leaves compared to males, immature and juveniles. As
the study continues we will gain further insight into these changes, particularly when we see
individuals progress to the next life stage.

To date, only one tree has been seen to change life stage moving from immature to male with the
production of its first recorded catkin. There are however some questions over this tree, which with
a trunk height of approximately 250cm is significantly taller than the male mean, produced its first
catkin after one monitoring phase. There is the possibility it was incorrectly identified during set-up.
Additionally, immature trees display negative GBH growth across the year, this is likely due to
human error during surveying.

Average number of nuts shows a steady rise over the last year, however still remains low compared
to Praslin populations. On Curieuse the current average of 1.53 nuts per tree recorded within our
subsample falls very short of the females in FF & VM which exhibit 8.86 and 6.38 nuts per tree
respectively (Fleisher-Dogley 2006). Silverton (1987) suggested that the energy expended in seed
production could explain the reduced size of female trees on Praslin, in comparison to males. With
females investing large amounts of energy in fast leaf and trunk growth on Curieuse, could it be that
there is comparatively less available for nut development?

26





There is however a correlation between trunk height and nut production suggesting that as trees age
and grow, greater numbers of nuts per tree should be expected. This is perhaps due to the long
gestation period of the nuts. Given that it takes up to 7 years for a nut to reach maturity, it is
unsurprising that with continual nut production, even at a slow rate, trees gradually carry larger
number of nuts. This would go some way to explaining the observed difference between Curieuse
and FF and VM. On Praslin female trunk height was 7.79m and 9.26m respectively (Fleisher-Dogley
2006) compared to approximate 3.5m on Curieuse, so it follows that more nuts should be expected.
With continued tree growth, it is hoped that in time females on Curieuse will be shown to bear
greater numbers of nuts than at present.

It is however worth noting that there are some highly productive trees on Curieuse, bearing vastly
more nuts than those within our subsample. These are larger individuals and it is therefore possible
that the selection of trees to allow easy access by researchers, i.e. shorter trees, is negatively
biasing our estimates for the island. This is a problem that extends across the subsample. All trees
are located around the 50m contour line, on a north-easterly facing hillside, behind the Baie Laraie
mangroves and as such are in reality only representative of this locality, not necessarily the whole
island.

Unlike the female inflorescences, there is no clear correlation to be seen in the number of frequency
of flowering catkins displayed by male trees. There is not suspected to be any seasonal variation, and
they appear unaffected by rainfall, however it would not be wise to draw such conclusions yet. In
some months zero flowering catkins may be recorded on male trees, this may however not be
representative of the population, because in these periods perhaps only one or two males may be
surveyed, producing a very limited sample size. It is likely that to be able to draw any robust
conclusions regarding male inflorescences, the sample size or frequency of sampling must be
increased.

Conclusion
After 20 months the growth study has already produced some useful information relating to leaf
lengths and trunk height, reinforcing work by Edwards et al (2003) and highlighting some
transferability of information between Praslin and Curieuse. Trends in growth rates between
lifestages are starting to become visible however they will require time and further study before
more definite conclusions can be drawn. There are clear trends visible in female nut production and
this information alongside growth patterns is critical to effective management of the species. Some
27





nut harvesting has been conducted on Curieuse over the last year and this information will help
Seychelles National Parks Authority to determine sustainable levels. The project must continue as
there are a number of questions still pending and pro-longed data collection provides the only way
to answer them. Additionally, to further validate the data and increase output regarding male
inflorescences it may be worth expanding the sub-sample size, or re-evaluating the current sub-
sample.

28

Giant tortoises
Introduction
Currently, the only natural wild population of the Aldabran giant tortoise (Aldabrachelys gigantea) is
believed to be found on the Aldabra atoll (Bourne and Coe 1978). Most islands in the Western Indian
Ocean, including the inner granitic islands of Seychelles, hosted wild populations of giant tortoises in
the past (Stoddart et al. 1979). However, populations declined the 1700s and 1800s as settlers
exploited the giant tortoises for food and trade and exported them aboard ships (reviewed by
Gerlach et al. 2013), and all members of the species remaining in the Inner Granitics have been
relocated from Aldabra.

Between 1978 and 1982, The Curieuse Experiment saw approximately 250 Aldabra giant tortoises
transferred from Aldabra to Curieuse Island (Stoddart et al. 1982), in an attempt to boost tourism,
encourage scientific studies and protect a species that is currently listed as Vulnerable (Tortoise and
Freshwater Turtle Specialist Group 1996). The first stage of introductions was in 1978, with 95 giant
tortoises brought to Curieuse (Stoddardt et al. 1982). Hatchlings were found in 1980, indicating
successful breeding of the introduced population, as so an additional 78 tortoises were introduced in
1980, followed by 74 more in 1982. Three other tortoises (unknown origin) were released on
Curieuse in 1983 and 2000 (Gerlach et al 2013).

Initially, the giant tortoises were released on Curieuse near the Rangers Station on Baie Laraie.
While a majority of the tortoise population remains near the Rangers Station, some tortoises have
migrated and individuals can now be found throughout the island (Sanzhez et al. 2015, Samour et al.
1987).

Since the giant tortoises were relocated to Curieuse, several population censuses have been
completed with varying results. In 1986, the Zoological Society of London found 144 individuals, but
a few months later a survey by the warden only located 102 and attributed the decline in numbers
to theft and rat predation (Samour et al. 1987). In 1990, 117 tortoises were re-spotted during a
census by Hambler (1994), and in 1997 a less complete census coordinated by Mortimer (1998)
found 110 tortoises. There is evidence that tortoises are reproducing on Curieuse in the form of
hatchlings found by SNPA Rangers each year, but poaching and predation by rats could be damaging
the population. Increased efforts to increase recruitment into the population and hatching survival
have been taken by SNPA. A nursery was set up, protecting hatchlings found by Rangers and GVI

29





Seychelles staff from any predators, poaching, and over handling by tourists. At the age of
approximately five years old, at which point they are large enough to not be threatened by
predation by rats, the tortoises are PIT tagged and released into the population.

In 2013, the first annual census with GVI Seychelles and SNPA was undertaken. Tortoises were given
passive integrated transponder (PIT) tags as a permanent means of identification, and different
techniques were used to assist in identifying each individual. Specifics of those methods can be
found in Dunn et al. (2014). In 2013 a total of 125 tortoises were found, many of which were
identified from previous surveys. However, unless tortoises have gone unnoticed, the total of 125 is
much less than the 250 that were originally released on the island over 30 years ago. The overall
decrease in population size is alarming, and stresses the importance of conducting an annual census
and monitoring the population.

Aims
The main aim of the census is to reveal how many of the original tortoises brought over from
Aldabra are still on Curieuse, as well as their basic movements across the island. Over time, this
census will also show tortoise growth rates, home range, age (when followed from hatchling size)
and size at which tortoises begin to display sexual characteristics. Aldabra tortoises have been
researched on the Aldabra atoll, however, the climatic differences between the atoll and the inner
granitic islands most likely has an impact on the habits and growth rates of the tortoises. This census
will also provide baseline data that can be expanded upon to further investigate areas like food
preferences and activity cycles. The lack of an increase in the population size raises questions as to
population recruitment and hatchling survival. The census will hopefully increase the chances of
discovering any hatchlings that have successfully hatched in the wild. In addition, the aim is to locate
as many tortoise nests as possible, and subsequently carry out excavations in an attempt to shed
light on rates of hatching success.

In addition to the yearly census of the free-ranging tortoises, there is also a biannual census of the
hatchlings in the nursery, where similar growth measurements are taken to allow us to track growth
of the hatchlings.

30

Methodology
Giant Tortoise Census
Efforts in searching for tortoises in 2015 was concentrated to several areas where tortoises have
been known to wander in previous surveys: the Rangers Station, Anse Papaie, Grand Anse, Fond
Blanc, Point Rouge, the North and South mangroves, Anse Badamier, and the North Coast.
Additional locations were surveyed ad-hoc and in combination with other surveys conducted by GVI
Seychelles. The outer, northwest and northeast edges of the island are inaccessible to staff and
volunteers, and are most likely also inaccessible to tortoises. Teams walked around each location,
with the initial aim of conducting ten hours of searching per area over several months (April through
September), with teams often splitting up in order to increase survey effort. If the number of new
tortoises encountered had not dropped after ten hours of searching, then survey teams continued
their search in that area until new tortoises were no longer encountered. If tortoises were not
encountered and there was no evidence of tortoise droppings after the initial five hours, then
surveys were no longer conducted in that area.

Each time a tortoise was encountered, it first needed to be identified to determine whether or not it
had been already been encountered previously that year. Each previously encountered tortoise has
a number of ways of identifying it. This includes a unique ID number between 001 and 128, which is
applied to the carapace of the tortoise using a yellow Sharpie MeanStreak permanent marking stick
on the 4thor 5thdorsal scute (Figure 9). This allows for quick identification of individual tortoises
without the need to scan for PIT tags. However, this mark is not permanent and lasts only weeks or
months. Therefore, if a tortoise is unmarked, it was scanned for an existing PIT tag using a Trovan
scanner.

When tortoises were initially relocated to Curieuse, and then again during a census on Curieuse in
1997, a metal disc was attached to the 4th dorsal (D4) carapace. A plastic disc was also attached to
D4 to a majority of the tortoises in 2013. If any discs were still present, the numbers were recorded.
If it was obvious there once was a tag, due to left over glue even though the disk was missing, MD
for missing disc was written down. If neither the tag nor glue from the Aldabra and/or the Curieuse
census discs were present, then an N for never was recorded.

If it was determined that a tortoise that had not yet been encountered that year, the day, month
and time was recorded. In order to aid future surveys, and to monitor the movement of PIT tags
throughout the tortoises body, the PIT Tag Location (where the PIT tag was picked up by the
31





Trovan scanner, e.g. left rear hip or tail) and Scan Method (how the reading was obtained, e.g.
through the carapace or from underneath the plastron) was also recorded. The location of each
tortoise encounter was recorded using a GPS. Additionally, the location was matched to an Area
Number on a map from a previous census in 1990 (Figure 10) in order to allow current data to be
collated with historical data.

Various measurements were taken for each individual tortoise encountered to allow for growth
studies. The carapace width and the over-the-curve carapace length (OCCL), as well as the width of
the 3rd dorsal scute, were measured (Figures 9 & 11). Three categories (tail, plastron, toenails) can be
indicative of sex. Therefore, plastron was defined as being concave, slightly concave or flat. The
length of the tail was recorded as being long or short, with long tails being those that extended
past the midline of the 11th marginal (Figure 9) and short tails being those that didnt. A
measurement of the second toenail from the rear of a back leg (Figure 12) was taken.

A scale to determine the thickness of the white lines between scutes was developed, with the theory
that a thick white line indicates that a tortoise is not yet fully grown. After all data has been collected
and the yellow ID number repainted if needed, a photo of the ID number is taken to identify the
tortoise along with a photo of the 3rd dorsal scute and any distinguishing marks and injuries.

Sexually mature males will typically have long tails, concave plastrons and short toenails while
females have the opposite. The apparent sex of a tortoise is determined by the criteria defined in
Table 10. Only sexually mature males can be sexed by visual characteristics alone; a small tortoise
with a short tail and flat plastron could either be an immature male or a female. Only a tortoise that
has been seen digging a nest, laying eggs or cooperatively engaging in copulation can be confidently
sexed as female; these events are not seen often. Juveniles were classed as having an OCCL of less
than 70cm. Therefore, for the purpose of data analysis, tortoises are classed as: full male, potential
male (those starting to display male sexual characteristics, specifically a slightly concave plastron),
reproductive female, juvenile and unknown (immature male or female).

Monitoring of captive hatchlings
Similar growth data is collected for the hatchlings kept in the nursery at the Rangers Station every 6
months, in May and June each year. These are classed by age based on when they were found and
whether they were obviously new-born hatchlings from the most recent season. An age class of 0.5
in May 2014, for example, indicates they were found as new-borns during the previous hatching
32





season around the end of 2013. Hatchlings were measured (width, OCCL, width of 3rd dorsal),
weighed and marked with MeanStreak Sharpie on a specific marginal scale for future identification.
Photos were taken of the carapace, plastron and any distinguishing marks such as extra/missing
scutes.

Results
In this years census, a total of 118 individual giant tortoises were located, three of which were only
encountered dead. An additional tortoise (ID 119) was initially found alive, but was then found very
recently deceased five months later. This leaves nine tortoises at large, of which two were also not
found in the 2014 census, indicating that they may have died or left the island. The other seven were
encountered in 2014 and therefore could have simply evaded the census teams and are on the
island somewhere. Of the three tortoises that were found dead, two of them had not been found in
the 2014 census; one was found in an advanced state of decomposition in a fairly inaccessible
location and therefore was most likely already dead during the 2014 census, whereas the other was
found recently deceased near the Rangers Station plant nursery and probably just evaded census
teams in 2014.

The majority of tortoises (n=93, 80.9%) were located at the Rangers Station, as has been the case
since they were first released there. The second highest concentration of 6.1% (n=7) was found at
Grand Anse. Although a few individuals have moved to, and apparently taken up residency in, areas
as far as Anse Badamier in the north, and Anse St Jose in the south-west, the majority of tortoises
have shown little tendency for dispersal or migration. However, the exceptions to this rule indicate
that dispersal of the tortoises across the island is not prevented by impassable terrain.

Based on external characteristics alone (Table 10), the population includes a total of 70 full males, 26
potential males and four juveniles (Table 11). The remaining 15 did not show any male sexual
characteristics and therefore could be females or immature males. When the data from 2015 is
compared with data from the 2014 census, three males that were previously displaying slight signs
of male sexuality (slight male) then displayed full male sexual characteristics in 2015. Conversely,
two males described as being full male in 2014 were described as being a potential male in 2015.
This is most likely due to the subjective nature of classifying the plastron as concave or slightly
concave. One tortoise that was classified as female in the 2014 census (based on different criteria
for classing tortoises as female) was then displaying full male sexual characteristics in the 2015

33





census. This highlights the issue with sexing tortoises as female due to the fact that they have a flat
plastron and short tail.

Table 11 displays the average width, OCCL, 3rd dorsal width and toenail length for each of the
age/sex classes. Full males have the largest average OCCL, width, 3rd dorsal and toenails. However,
when comparing toenail length as a percentage of OCCL, unknown has the longest toenails (3.91%),
followed by potential males (3.72%) full males (3.60%) and juveniles (2.32%). There was a strong
relationship (R2=0.98) between the length and width measurements of all tortoises (Figure 13).

Growth in the form of average increase in OCCL, width and 3rd dorsal were calculated between 2014
and 2015 for each of the age/sex classes (Table 12). Juveniles had the highest growth for all
measurements, while full males had the lowest.

With regards to loss of identity discs, four tortoises had lost their plastic discs since the census in
2014. In total, since the tags were administered in 2013, it appears that just over half (62 of 123,
50.4%) of the tortoises have lost their plastic discs. It is somewhat harder to determine loss of the
metal Aldabra (applied when they were first transferred) and Curieuse (applied during the 1997
census) discs since there are contrasting accounts of which individuals were given discs. However,
there has been no loss of metal discs since the 2014 census.

As of November 2015 there were 26 hatchlings of age class 3 (two of which were found May 2014 as
non new-borns i.e. were from the 2012 hatching season, and one of which was found in Nov 2014 as
a non new-born and was probably from the same hatching season), eight age class 2 (found as
newborns in May 2014) and 15 age class 1 (found as new-borns in May/July 2015). One age class 2
hatchling present in the nursery in May 2015 was missing, presumed poached. There were also two
juveniles of approximately 5 years of age kept in a separate pen, awaiting PIT tagging and release. Of
these 28 tortoises, 11 have been in the nursery since at least May 2014. One was measured for the
first time in Nov 2014. In May 2015, there were an additional 14 hatchlings were measured. One
more was found behind the Rangers Station in July and added to the nursery. Juveniles 126 and 128
were then found and added in June and November respectively. All 26 of the hatchlings have shown
consistent positive growth (Figure 14). Growth rates for the 26 hatchlings range from 1.00-3.94mm
per month, with an average monthly growth rate of 3.06mm, translating to an annual average
growth rate of 3.7cm. Growth rates for the two juveniles are not yet available as theyve only been
in the nursery for a few months.
34

Discussion
The seven tortoises found in the last census in 2014, but not found this year ranged in size in 2014
from 77.0cm to 136.4cm OCCL and included those in the male, potential male and unknown
age/sex classes. It is unlikely due to insufficient searching in one particular area since the unfound
tortoises were fairly spread out in 2014 in areas 1, 2, 3, 4 and 11.

The location of initial encounters has varied during past population census, including survey data
from 1986 (Samour et al.), 1991 (Lewis et al.) and the 2013 and 2014 GVI Seychelles censuses (Table
13). In the past, an uneven distribution of tortoises has been attributed to rocky terrain and
poaching losses (Hambler 1994, Samour et al. 1987). However, the majority of tortoises that have
left the Rangers Station have had to traverse steep, rocky ground showing that they are able to
move all around Curieuse (Hambler 1994, Samour et al. 1987, Stoddart et al. 1982). In each census,
tortoises were observed on Anse Papaie and in the North Mangroves. These two sections are in
close proximity to the Rangers Station although by land they are both separated from it by steep,
rocky terrain. Occasionally, tortoises were observed on the beach that appears between the
Rangers Station and the North Mangroves as well as on the beach that appears between Anse
Laraie and Anse Papaiee at especially low tides. They were also observed along the paths GVI
Seychelles uses to get from the Rangers Station to Grand Anse. These paths can get steep at certain
areas, yet tortoises are regularly seen at the top of these hills. Perhaps the most surprising location
that tortoises have regularly been known to visit is Anse Badamier, which is separated from the
Rangers Station by the North Ridge. Another tortoise was reported to regularly move between the
South Mangroves and Anse St. Jose by Lewis et al (1991). Additionally, tortoise #014 traversed the
path from the South Mangroves to the Doctors house in 2014 where he was regularly fed by
tourists. SNPA attempted to move him back to the Rangers Station (after the tortoise was there for
several months), and he made his way back to the picnic tables within a month. This year, an
additional tortoise, the biggest on the island #095, made the same journey over to the Doctors
House over a period of a few months.

Since it is not known at what age or size tortoises on Curieuse show sexual characteristics, it is not
possible to say for sure how many males and females there are. According to Lewis et al. (1991),
giant tortoises on Aldabra reach sexual maturity when they reach a size corresponding to an OCCL
greater than 70cm and a 3rd dorsal width greater than 21cm. If this is the case for Curieuse, then all
15 of our tortoises classed as unknown are females, since they are greater than 70cm OCCL and
35





show no signs of male sexuality. This would result in an adult male:female ratio of approximately
5:1, i.e. there are far more males than females. However, tortoises that showed any sign of being
male, i.e. slightly concave plastron, were all above 80cm OCCL and 24cm 3rd dorsal width. Therefore,
it is possible that tortoises on Curieuse only show signs of male sexuality above 80cm OCCL. If this
was the case, it would be due to either a) reaching sexual maturity at a later age, or b) growing at a
faster rate. It was hypothesised that tortoises might grow quicker on Curieuse than on Aldabra,
based on growth data from tortoises where their age was apparently known (Sanchez et al. 2015).
However, the unreliability of reports of the age of these tortoises means that we cannot be
confident that this is the case. Only with long-term studies tracking the growth of hatchlings where
the approximate date of hatching is known, can we determine whether or not they are growing
quicker on Curieuse, and at what size and age they display sexual characteristics. A few of the
hatchlings in the nursery were found very recently after hatching; in four years or so we should be
able to shed some light on this matter.

There is some support, based on the data from this year, of the theory that females have longer
toenails relative to males (when body size is taken into account). The largest toenails were seen on
those tortoises of the unknown age/sex class, a good proportion of which are likely to be females.
In comparison, full males had smaller toenails. However, the smallest toenails were seen on the
juveniles, suggesting that perhaps males, as well as females, benefit in some way from having long
toenails as adults. Overall, the differences in toenail length between the age/sex classes were small.

The size of tortoises of each age/sex class can be compared to data collected in the 1997 census
completed by Mortimer (1998) to obtain growth rates during this period (Table 14). Since width was
not taken until the 2014 census, only OCCL and 3rd dorsal information is available. Of the four
tortoises of unknown sex i.e. showing no signs of male sexual characteristics, three grew 28.3cm,
55.6cm and 12.8cm. However, the fourth has shown zero growth since the 1997 census and has
stopped growing at a size of approximately 99cm. It can be safely assumed, therefore, that this
individual is a female. The other three were all less than 80cm OCCL in 1997, and whilst they showed
initial growth between 1997 and 2013, there was no further growth between 2013 and 2015 and
they all stopped growing at a similar age (96cm, 94cm and 89cm). Therefore, tortoises 033, 050, 056
and 111 would all appear to be female and perhaps should be classified as such from this point
onwards. Unfortunately, long term growth data is not available for the other 11 unknown tortoises
in order to determine their sex based on whether or not they are have stopped growing.

36





Growth rates for tortoises since the last census shows that juveniles show the highest growth rates
in terms of OCCL, followed by potential males, then the unknowns. As expected, full males have
displayed the lowest increase in OCCL in the past year of all age/sex classes. Interestingly, when
looking at width and 3rd dorsal growth, unknowns show higher growth rates than potential males.
This would suggest that males beginning to show sexual characteristics are growing substantially in
length and less so in width, whereas females grow more in width and 3rd dorsal width with
increasing age.

Tagging techniques have been somewhat effective. Tortoises were easily identified by reading of
their PIT tags (internal, permanent tags). The drawbacks of PIT tags include the high cost of tags,
reader and the possible movement of tags (Plummer and Ferner 2012). However, the majority of
tags were found in the area they were applied. Three (known) tortoises on Curieuse remain without
a PIT tag due to a previous lack of equipment and staff trained in the procedure; these tortoises will
receive PIT tags during the 2016 census. Those two that were found this year are awaiting PIT
tagging in the nursery, the third was found the 2014 census. It will easily be identified in the future
due to unique scale patterns on the carapace. With regards to Curieuse discs (from the 1997 census),
four were lost since the 2014 census. However, many of the discs are missing as evidenced by
leftover glue. As part of the 2013 census, plastic discs were attached using araldite. Some of these
discs lasted no longer than 1-4 weeks, and there has been an overall loss rate of approximately 50%.
Of those still on the tortoises, many are heavily scratched making them unreadable. Therefore, no
external tags have been applied since the 2015 census. Should an effective method of externally
tagging tortoises be developed and made available to us, it could be beneficial for additional studies
such as behavioural analyses. Until then, painting their 3-number identity on the 4th dorsal with the
Sharpie MeanStreak Yellow Marker, in conjunction with the PIT tag, is sufficient to allow for quick
identification of tortoises already counted in the census each year.

The population on Curieuse is thought to have healthy reproduction rates as the first hatchlings
were observed in 1980, just two years after translocation (Stoddart et al. 1982). The percentage of
hatchlings emerging from nests on Curieuse per year was found to be slightly lower than Aldabra,
which was attributed to soil acidity (Hambler 1992). Additionally, the wetter conditions on Curieuse
have been linked to larger clutches, larger eggs and a prolonged mating season, which is basically
continuous throughout the year as opposed to Aldabra where mating is rare in the dry season
(Hambler 1992, Hambler 1994, Lewis et al. 1991, Swingland 1977). However, the abundance of fresh

37





water has also been linked to an increase in the impact of feral mammals on Curieuse (Hambler
1994).

Based on the above information, and the fact that the tortoises were introduced from Aldabra more
than 30 years ago, we should theoretically by now have a substantial population of sub-adults and
juveniles. Unfortunately, this is not the case and the population has shown little evidence of growing
in size. It was estimated by (Hambler 1994) that by 1993, a probable 2,100-3,900 tortoises had
hatched on Curieuse. Three new juveniles tortoises were found this year, along with 15 new-born
hatchlings from the 2014 hatching season. So far, no hatchlings from the 2015 hatching season have
been found. It may be that some of the smaller juveniles are simply never encountered by us, since
juvenile giant tortoises are notoriously difficult to locate because of their tendency to hide under the
leaf litter, their small size (Grubb 1971, Mcfarland et al. 1974, Swingland and Coe 1979) and the fact
that they may move away from plateau areas and climb uphill to avoid predators (Hambler 1994).
However, it is thought that they move back to plateau areas upon reaching maturity, and yet very
few new sub-adults have been encountered on the island during the last three years of census.
Overall, it seems that the low number of juveniles reflects the high mortality rate giant tortoise
hatchlings face in their first five years (Gibson and Hamilton 1984). There are currently no known
mortality rates on Curieuse, however, Swingland and Coe (1979) reported an 81% mortality rate on
Malabar and a 94% on Grande Terre islands in Aldabra during a hatchlings first year. Curieuse is
home to a large population of rats (Rattus norvegicus). This species have been linked to causing the
extinction of giant tortoise populations on islands in the West Indian Ocean and in the Galapagos
(Hambler 1992, Mcfarland et al. 1974, Swingland and Coe 1984). Recent reports of giant tortoises in
the Galapagos are showing that only after eradicating rats on the island of Pinzn, were hatchlings
found. The study is still taking place, but it is thought the rats may have been keeping the population
from expanding (Nicholls 2015). Due to the fact that tortoises on Curieuse are estimated to lay a
maximum of one clutch per year (Lewis et al. 1991), predation by rats could negate the reproductive
output of giant tortoises (Rainbolt 1996).

The aim of the tortoise nursery on Curieuse is to a) allow tortoise hatchlings found in the wild to
remain in a predator-free environment until they reach a size large enough to not be threatened by
predation by rats and b) allow growth studies to be undertaken on the hatchlings. Hambler (1992)
concluded that hatchlings on Curieuse were heavier and therefore were better equipped than those
on Aldabra. The hatchlings in the nursery are all showing signs of healthy development, and
consistent increases in size throughout their time spent in the nursery. Since sub-adult and adult
38





tortoises have no predators on this island, there should be in approx. 4 years time an additional 26
juveniles added to the Curieuse population.

Conclusion
The aim of this study was to census the Aldabra giant tortoise population on Curieuse. A total of 118
tortoises were located, with a majority remaining near the Rangers Station, the original site of
translocation. The fact that several tortoises were not located in the 2015 census is not a significant
cause for concern. Based on data from previous censuses, it is likely that many of them eluded
census teams and are still on the island. However, at least five tortoises have been confirmed
deceased, though this does not necessarily mean they died this year. The population does not
appear to be significantly decreasing in size year after year since the first GVI Seychelles census in
2013, but with three years of thorough searching, it can be said with certainty now that the majority
of the original tortoises brought over from Aldabra are no longer on the island. In addition to this,
there has been little if any increase in the population size. Fifteen hatchlings from the 2014 hatching
season were found in 2015, therefore there is definitely successful reproduction taking place. It
appears that this lack of increase in the population is due to either, or more likely a combination of,
lack of survival of hatchlings and the inability of census teams to locate the majority of young
tortoises. By collecting hatchlings and raising them in a predator free environment, the head-starting
program at the nursery, if guarded and monitored well, should help rectify the former. The nursery
has existed for many years, however recent improvements, such as containing them behind a
padlocked fence, will help to ensure hatchlings are safe not only from rats, but also from humans.

A Global Climate Change Initiative by SNPA has commenced plans to plant 10,000 native trees
around the island. In addition to planting native species, plans to get rid of invasive plants may help
keep tortoises from ruining restoration efforts. Hambler (1994) noted that the giant tortoises have
been dispersing seeds of Cocoplum (Chrysobalanus icaco), which smothers native vegetation around
Curieuse. However, giant tortoises have also been championed for their free help in dispersing
native vegetation and tortoise re-introductions have been described as an important conservation
tool on various islands (Pemberton and Gilchrist 2009, Hansen et al. 2010). On Cousine, tortoises are
said to help plateau vegetation by opening areas through grazing and trampling (Samways et al.
2010). The way tortoises interact with landscapes, plant seeds and change food webs makes them a
keystone species in many ecosystems (Hansen et al. 2010). With an additional 10,000 plants, and the
shade and food they provide, tortoises may disperse further into upland areas.

39

Mangroves

Introduction
Seven species of mangrove are present in the Seychelles, of which six were once present on Curieuse
(SNPA 2012) and five currently, along with a mangrove associate species. Mangrove systems play an
important part in ensuring a high level of water quality and clarity, essential for corals to thrive in, by
trapping sedimentation and land run-off. Mangroves are vital nurseries for fish, sharks and
crustaceans and they are an important habitat for birds, algae and bryozoans. Mangroves supply
essential nutrients for marine creatures such as fish and shrimp. Additionally, they are a crucial
buffer zone for protecting inland areas from high wave action such as tsunamis (Lewis 2005,
Yoshihiro et al. 2002).

The mangrove forest on Curieuse is of particular interest. In 1910, a causeway was built at Baie
Laraie in a failed endeavour to rear sea turtles. The wall had a lasting impact on the bay as it reduced
wave intensity, providing a suitable environment for mangrove seedlings to settle and grow. In
December 2004, a tsunami damaged the wall allowing bigger waves to enter the bay more
frequently, causing an influx of sediment. This is altering the mangrove population structure by
decreasing abundance and species richness (SNPA 2012).

Aims
The main aim of the surveys is to provide baseline data, which will help facilitate decision-making
regarding the placement of mangrove nurseries in the near future. Current surveys were developed
in an effort to determine the mangrove distribution pattern in relation to hydrology and salinity,
along with growth and mortality rates and mangrove recruitment. Mangrove nurseries are needed
to rehabilitate the mangrove forest on Curieuse, as the forest is thought to be decreasing in
abundance and species richness.

Methodology
In February 2013, 28 permanent transects were placed in the mangroves and monthly data
collection began in March 2013. Twenty-eight transects were placed 10m apart, spanning Baie Laraie
in a north-westerly direction perpendicular to the coastline (Figure 15). Along each transect PVC
pipes mark waypoints every 50m. A total of 157 physical waypoints were set up on permanent
40





transects. Since then, ten waypoints have been uprooted due to weather damage and tortoise
trampling. Waypoints have not been replaced once lost.

Annual GBH Survey
At each waypoint, the girth at breast height (GBH; 130 cm from the ground) of one mangrove tree
located within 4m of the waypoint marker was measured and marked. Once a tree was chosen, a
nail was placed 120cm up the trunk and made more visible with a bowtie. Ten centimetres up from
the nail, the girth of the tree trunk was measured.

Quadrat Survey
In the past, non-permanent 1m x 1m (2013) and 3m x 3m (2014) quadrats at each waypoint within
the mangroves were used, however there were issues with inconsistent data collection due to
varying positions of the quadrats. The previous quadrats were also found to be too small to obtain
the data required. As a result, larger permanent quadrats with fixed positions are now used.
Five 10m x 10m permanent quadrats were set up in June 2015 in various locations throughout the
mangroves. The locations of these quadrats were chosen by SNPA and all lie within the seaward half
of the mangrove forest (Figure 15). The abundance and growth rate of individuals within these
quadrats is measured biannually. Within each 10m x 10m quadrat are four 1m x1m quadrats
positioned at each corner.

The total number of mangrove trees (>1m high; >4cm Girth at Breast Height (GBH)) and their species
are recorded within the 10m x 10m quadrat. Within each 1m x 1m quadrat, all species of mangrove
seedlings (< 1m high), saplings (>1m high; <4cm GBH, measured beneath the first stem) and trees
are counted. All mangrove trees within the 1m x 1m quadrats also have their GBH measured, which
was set at 130cm from trunk base during the initial survey in June 2015 or beneath the first stem if
the trunk is less than 130cm. When no seedlings, saplings or trees were present inside of the 1m x
1m quadrat, the species of roots present were recorded, or in some cases, the lack of mangroves
was noted.

Salinity, Temperature, and Inundation Surveys
Salinity and temperature was measured monthly at each waypoint pole in order to monitor changes
over time. To measure soil salinity, a 10cm hole was dug next to each pole. A soil sample from the
bottom of the hole was placed in a syringe fitted with filter paper and the water was squeezed onto
the slide of a refractometer to get a clear salinity reading. Since this method requires water to be
41





extracted from the soil, occasionally the soil would be too dry to obtain a salinity reading, in which
case Too dry was recorded. Soil temperature readings were also taken at every waypoint using a
thermometer inserted approximately 10cm into the ground.

Inundation measurements ceased in March 2015 after completion of a two-year data set, with only
data from February and March of this year being collected. Measurements were taken in the 30
minutes proceeding and following the highest (spring) tide of the month spring tide, along seven
transects only. Teams went to each waypoint on transects C, F, I, L, N, P and R and measured from
the substrate level to the surface of the water. These transects were chosen specifically by SNPA in
order to sample areas that covered all major mangrove species, as well as raised, bare areas of the
mangrove forest. These transects show the relationship between inundation, and species diversity
and abundance of mangroves. Time constraints in relation to monitoring during the relatively small
window of high tide lead to the decision to only monitor seven transects for inundation.

Results
Annual GBH Survey
Ninety-seven trees were measured as part of the GBH study including 36 Avicennia marina, 22
Bruguiera gymnorhiza, 15 Lumnitzera racemosa, 23 Rhizophora mucronata, and one Xylocarpus
moluccensis. The remaining poles (where measurements were not recorded) either had no trees
within 4m of the poles, therefore did not have original measurements, or contained only dead trees.
Two trees died between 2014 and 2015 measurements, they were both Rhizophora mucronata and
found in the front of the mangrove forest (poles M1 & V1). Five Avicennia marina were incorrectly
identified as Xylocarpus moluccensis in 2014, but have since been corrected (N4, O6, T1, U1 & Z3).
There was a small degree of annual average growth for all species apart from Avicennia marina,
which appears to have stagnated (Table 15).

Quadrat Survey
Results from the 10m x 10m quadrats show that R. mucronata is the dominant tree species in all the
quadrats, expect quadrat 3 where A. Marina is most abundant (Figure 16). Quadrat 3 is the most
landward quadrat, which is likely to be the reason for this difference is species distribution. In the
quadrats where R. mucronata is the most prevalent trees species there has been a noticeable
increase in the number of R. mucronata trees from the June/July 2015 survey and December 2015
survey (Figure 16). None of the quadrats contained Xylocarpus trees and only quadrat 1 contained L.
racemosa, however these had decreased from five to three trees between June/July and December
42





2015 (Figure 16). The second most abundant tree species throughout the quadrats in the most
recent survey (December 2015), after R. mucronata (total n=303), was B. gymnorhiza (total n=45)
followed by A. marina (total n=37).

The seedling and sapling data from the 1m x 1m quadrats indicate that quadrat 2 has the most
seedlings with an average of 34, which is considerably more than the other quadrats, it is also the
only quadrat to contain saplings (n=15) (Table 15). All the seedlings and saplings within quadrat 2
were located in the eastern corner 1m x 1m quadrat, resulting in this one quadrat accounting for
89.1% of all seedlings and saplings. Quadrats 1, 4 and 5 all had an average of two seedlings and
quadrat 3 had no seedlings. There was little difference in the total number of seedlings and saplings
between June/July 2015 and December 2015.

R. mucronata and B. gymnorhiza were the only species to have seedlings and/or saplings present in
the 1m x 1m quadrats (Table 16). R. mucronata has the most saplings with an annual average of 12
compared to three for B. gymnorhiza. Overall B. gymnorhiza however, has the most seedlings and
saplings with a combined annual average of 31. For the 1m x 1m quadrats that contained no
seedlings, saplings or trees the roots for A. Marina, R. mucronata and B. gymnorhiza were detected.
The substrates for quadrats that contained no roots, seedlings, saplings or trees were recorded as
sand and pond. There is insufficient data at this early stage to be able to compare the growth
rate of the mangrove trees located within the 1m x 1m quadrats.

Salinity, Temperature, and Inundation Surveys
Average salinity readings near the seaward side were higher than waypoints on the landward edge
of the mangrove forest (ranging from 29.97ppt to 3.41ppt) (Table 17), however each section was
highly variable. A steady decrease in salinity occurred as waypoints moved further from the ocean
and closer to the landward edge. These results are similar to those of 2014.

Temperature, on the other hand, did not seem to follow a pattern for location within the forest nor
for species composition near the waypoint. The average annual temperature was 27C & 28C
throughout the forest (Table 17). The highest temperature recorded was 38C and the lowest 21C.
Temperature data from August through to December was unreliable due to faulty eqipment and has
therefore been discarded.

43





Inundation measurements were collected during February and March 2015 on seven transects
including C, F, I, L, N, P and R during spring tide when the high tides averaged at 1.90m (Table 18).
The average inundation heights are slightly higher than those of the previous two years (2013 &
2014 combined), this is likely however to be a result of the average tide height also being higher at
1.90m in 2015 compared to 1.83m in 2013/2014.

Discussion
Data from the annual GBH survey showed a continued pattern of dying R. mucronata trees at the
seaward edge of the mangrove forest. In 2013, two R. mucronata trees were found dead, with an
additional four in 2014, bringing the total now to eight. The fact that all the dead mangroves are R.
mucronata is to be expected, as this species dominates the front of the forest and is therefore more
susceptible to damage from increased wave action. High mortality was also recorded for this zone by
Daig (2013). While the continued mortality of R. mucronata along the seaward edge is concerning if
it is to act as a buffer for the rest of the forest, the remaining R. mucronata surveyed had all
increased in GBH with the average growth rate being more than that of last year. The results from
the 10m x 10m quadrat survey also indicated a noticeable increase in the number of R. mucronata
trees in the last 6 months, including quadrat 5, which is the closest in proximity to the seaward edge
of the forest. These results may indicate a positive rebound of this species since the increased
amount of wave action due to the partial destruction of the seawall. Continued monitoring is
required to be able to assess whether the seaward edge of the forest will continue to degrade or
whether a natural state of equilibrium has been reached.

The quadrat survey using the 10m x 10m plots did not reveal much, as it is too early to be able to
obtain growth rate data from this survey. The species abundance results were as to be expected
based on previous 1m x 1m and 3m x 3m surveys carried out in 2013 and 2014, with R. mucronata
and B. gymnorhiza being the dominate species in this part of the forest. This is likely to account for
why R. mucronata and B. gymnorhiza were the only species to have seedlings and saplings present.
It is unclear why exactly the eastern 1m x 1m plot within quadrat 2 was so productive (accounting
for 89.1% of the seedling & sapling data). It is located on a slightly raised sandy bank surrounded by
a channel that is often inundated; the elevation of this area may offer a substrate for the seedlings
to establish themselves on with less tidal disturbance, and the channel may act as a funnel to direct
propagules towards this location. Furthermore, this concentration of seedlings may be self-
propagating as more seeds become trapped within the stems of the existing bunched seedlings and
saplings. A concentration however, of juvenile mangroves in one particular area increases the risk of
44





high juvenile mortality rates from threats such as giant tortoise grazing and tree fall. We are unable
to reveal whether there are any seasonal changes in seedling and sapling mortality rates; this should
become more evident with time. Moving forward, while the current positioning of the quadrats
allows us to collect consistent data on the mangroves in the seaward half of the forest, they exclude
the middle and rear sections of the forest. As a result of this, species such as Xylocarpus, L.
Racemosa and A. Marina are underrepresented. The seaward edge of the forest for the most part is
also excluded, which is the area of highest concern as it is where we are seeing the highest mortality
rates. To undertake future assessments of mortality rates, and understand whether or not this
phenomenon has penetrated further into the forest, it is vital that more permanent quadrats are set
up along the seaward edge and in the middle and rear section of the forest. Having quadrats
spatially distributed throughout the full range of the forest will also provide more information on
seedling and sapling distribution, along with species abundance and growth rates for all the species
that inhabit the Curieuse mangrove forest.

This year saw the completion of the salinity, temperature and inundation surveys. These surveys
have provided SNPA with 3 years (2013-2015) worth of data, and have given us an indication as to
the spatial distribution of each of the six species of mangrove present on Curieuse, and the habitat
conditions in which they can survive (refer to the 2015 Annual Report for further details). This data,
along with the data currently being collected on mortality, growth and recruitment, will be used by
SNPA to help determine where replanting efforts should take place and the most suitable species to
use for future mangrove rehabilitation plans.

Mangroves perform many environmental services. These include providing vital nursery grounds for
fisheries, ensuring a high water quality, supplying essential nutrients for surrounding sea grass beds
and coral reefs and mitigating coastal erosion (Manson et al. 2005). Since the partial destruction of
the seawall in the December 2004 tsunami, there have been concerns that the increased wave
action and influx of sediment may be resulting in the degradation of the forest. Therefore,
establishing a mangrove nursery with the aim of rehabilitating the forest has been a priority for
SNPA.

If restorative planting of mangrove habitats is to go ahead it has been recommended that the
removal of stress should be looked at prior to attempting restoration (Lewis 2005). There have been
ongoing discussions about whether or not to rebuild the seawall. When considering the options, it is
important to think of the implications that this may have on not only the mangroves, but also on the
45





multitude of species that inhabit this area, including the neonate sicklefin lemon sharks that appear
to use this area as a nursery ground. One of the options would be to not rebuild the seawall and
allow the mangrove forest to return to the state it was most likely in before the wall was built in
1910. The concern surrounding this option is that it may lead to a decrease in the currently high level
of biodiversity found within the mangrove forest.

Another alternative to rebuilding the seawall would be to create natural buffer zones using R.
Mucronata, enhanced sea grass beds and coral reef restoration. Planting hypocotyls from R.
mucronata using the Rileys Encasement Method (REM) as outlined by SNPA (2012) could create a
natural seawall. REM was developed to facilitate planting where shorelines have high-energy waves
and in an effort to overcome the limitations of other mangrove planting schemes (Johnson and
Herren 2008). Restoring the buffer zone near the wall, with R. mucronata, if successful, would
restore the hydrology of the mangrove system, which may allow the forest to naturally rebound.
Increasing the sea grass cover within the turtle pond may also assist in reducing the impacts of wave
action and sediment influxes on the mangroves. Studies in Florida have used combinations of
eastern oysters (Crassostrea viginica) and smooth cordgrass (Spartina altinaflora) to diffuse and
absorb wave energy, thus creating less erosion and sediment intake into coastal habitats (Manis
2008). Carrying out coral reef restoration beyond the seawall would also assist in alleviating wave
action on the mangrove forest. With a new coral nursery project currently underway on Curieuse
Island, there is potential that the project may in the future include restoring the reef beyond the
seawall.

Conclusion
Current mangrove monitoring is part of a long-term regeneration project aimed at maintaining the
ecological function of the mangrove habitat. This year has seen the completion of the salinity,
temperature and inundation surveys which have now provided three years worth of data on which
to base sound decisions for future rehabilitation plans. This year also saw changes to the quadrat
survey methodology, with the establishment of five permanent 10m x 10m quadrats within the
seaward half of the mangrove forest. These quadrats have provided us with an insight into seedling
and sapling distribution and abundance. Not enough data has been collected yet to analyse growth
rates and seasonal mortality rates. The data that has been collected has indicated that it is important
to also establish permanent quadrats throughout the forest in order to represent all mangrove
species present and provide sufficient insight into the changes occurring throughout the forest. The
annual GBH survey has shown a continued pattern of dying R. mucronata trees at the seaward edge
46





of the forest. However there may be a rebound of this species based on positive annual GHB growth
rates and an increase in R. mucronata trees within the permanent quadrats over the last six months.
Continued monitoring is required to be able to assess whether the seaward edge of the forest will
continue to degrade or whether a natural state of equilibrium has been reached.

The mangrove forest of Curieuse Island is an integral landscape for multiple faunal communities as
well as neighbouring ecosystems such as the adjacent sea grass beds and coral reefs. Additionally,
the area is heavily visited by tourists and school groups, with most island visitors walking through
the mangroves where there are educational signs along the boardwalk. Many tour guides also stop
their groups in this area to point out flora and fauna of interest. Moving forward, this high
biodiversity area may benefit from the development of natural buffer zones, such as the planting of
R. mucronata to act as a natural seawall, increasing seagrass cover and carrying out coral reef
restoration to help mitigate the impact of increased wave action and sediment movement since the
partial destruction of the seawall in 2004. Considering the holistic value of the mangrove forest and
the potential to aid in its ability to flourish, it is vital that mangrove monitoring continues in order to
better understand, protect and rehabilitate the area.

47

Sea Turtles

Introduction
Seychelles hosts globally important populations of sea turtles including one of the five largest
nesting populations of the critically endangered hawksbill turtle (Eretmochelys imbricata) remaining
in the world (Mortimer and Donnelly 2008). Green turtles (Chelonia mydas) also nest in Seychelles,
mostly on Aldabra Atoll and a few in the inner granitic islands. Other sea turtle species that can be
found in Seychelles waters include the leatherback (Dermochelys coriacea), loggerhead (Caretta
caretta) and olive Ridley (Lepidochelys olivacea).

The largest hawksbill populations remaining in the Western Indian Ocean occur in Seychelles, where
an estimated average of 1,500 females nested annually in the early 1980s (Mortimer 1984). Since
then, populations have suffered declines due to the nearly complete harvest of nesting females from
the 1960s to the 1990s (Mortimer 1998), following which a total ban on turtle harvesting was
implemented in 1994. An exception to this downward trend was noted at Cousin Island, which has
been well protected since 1970. The Cousin population has seen an eight-fold increase in annual
nesting numbers over the past 20 years (Allen et al. 2010). The exploitation of hawksbill turtles in
Seychelles became particularly intense after the mid-1960s with the advent of the mask and snorkel,
spear guns, underwater lights, outboard engines, and the high prices paid for raw shell (Mortimer
1984). Mortimer (1984) estimated that 4771% of the total estimated annual nesting population in
the granitic Seychelles Islands was killed during the 198082 nesting seasons. Although it is now
illegal to harvest any species of turtle in Seychelles, a small degree of poaching does still occur. In
addition, destruction of breeding and foraging habitat, especially in the granitic islands, is an
increasingly serious problem (Mortimer 1998).

There are also small numbers of nesting females of the endangered green turtle on Curieuse
(Seminoff 2004, Burt et al. 2015). Green turtles have been heavily exploited for their meat since the
17th century and are a now very rare in the Inner Islands (Mortimer 1984), although there is some
evidence to suggest they may have started to recover following protection of all turtles in Seychelles
in 1994 (see Discussion).

The waters surrounding Curieuse are home to both green and hawksbill turtles, as the surrounding
reefs and sea grass beds provide ample food sources. The beaches also provide a nesting habitat for

48





both species, with Curieuse hosting one of the most important nesting hawksbill populations in the
Inner Granitic islands (Burt et al. 2015). This alone is enough to highlight the importance of the
Curieuse Marine National Park for sea turtles. There is also evidence to suggest that the number of
hawksbills nesting on Curieuse has increased by as much as 100% since 1984. It should be noted
however, that this increase is substantially lower than on several other islands that have benefitted
from a much higher level of protection than Curieuse, such as special reserves Aride and Cousin
(Burt et al. 2015).

Hawksbill turtles in Seychelles, and along the East African coast, nest primarily during daylight hours
in contrast to hawksbill turtle populations elsewhere, which tend to nest either strictly or primarily
at night (Mortimer and Bresson 1999). Green turtles, on the other hand, nest primarily at night
(Mortimer 1984). Historical data gathered in Seychelles shows that both hawksbill and green turtles
can nest during any month of the year. However, hawksbill turtles show a distinct peak in nesting
from October to February (Mortimer 1998).

Aims
Curieuse is an important sea turtle nesting rookery in the inner granitic islands of Seychelles. Sea
turtle patrols are carried out in an effort to identify the annual nesting female population. There
were few estimates for the annual number of nesting sea turtles on Curieuse before GVI Seychelles
began beach patrols. Another objective of the sea turtle surveys is to measure hatchling success rate
on each of the nesting beaches through nest excavations. GVI Seychelles aims to continue to
monitor nesting beaches and expand on current methodology.

Methodology
In the Inner Granitic islands of the Seychelles, the hawksbill sea turtle nesting season is at its height
from October to February, with small numbers of females nesting in the months either side of this
period. Small numbers of green turtles nest all year round with a peak in June to August. Therefore,
beach patrols of the main nesting beaches are conducted four to five days a week from October to
February, with a minimum of weekly checks on all other nesting beaches. Outside of hawksbill
season, all beaches are checked at least once a week so that green turtle nesting is sufficiently
monitored.

49





Turtle patrols involve walking along the high-tide line and recording any sea turtle activities. For all
nesting activity, the date, time, recorder, beach and turtle species are recorded. Track width is
measured perpendicular to the direction of the track at its widest point. Estimated time of
emergence is recorded as 0, 1 or 2 where: 0 identifies the activity as having been made within the
past 12 hours, 1 equals 12-24 hours old and 2 the activity has been present for longer than 24 hours.
The time of an emergence can be estimated by a) knowing when the last patrol occurred, b) looking
at the clarity of the track in the sand and c) how much of the track has been washed away by the
tide. Each track is further classified as one of nine emergence types (Table 19). If attempts at nesting
have occurred, the number of attempts is recorded. For all activities, a GPS waypoint is taken using
the code TUN for a nest, and TUA for other types of activities. For nests where eggs are located, the
location is triangulated and marked with flagging tape, with the distance from each mark (L, C and
R) recorded in the data book. This facilitates nest excavations at a later date, following emergence
of hatchlings.

When a nesting turtle is encountered on a beach
patrol, expedition members follow appropriate
behaviour in line with training in order to not
disturb the turtle. The turtle is observed until
she begins laying, at which point she goes into a
trance-like state and can be slowly approached
from behind. Depending on number of staff and
volunteers, one person may be assigned to
count the number of eggs she lays, using a

Figure 17. Measurements taken for each turtle encountered

manual click counter. Once the turtle is at least halfway through laying, measurements can be taken
including two over-curve carapace lengths: mid to tip (M-T) and tip to tip (T-T), and width of the
carapace at the widest point, usually across the third vertebral scute (see Figure 17 above). Each
measurement is taken three times to check for accuracy. Photographs of each cheek are taken
(without a flash) as well as photos of any distinguishing features. Tag numbers (if she is tagged), tag
scars, evidence of disease/injuries or other distinguishing features are also recorded. If the turtle is
untagged, the field team wait until she has almost finished covering her eggs before administering
two tags, one on each of the front flippers in the fleshy part just before the first scute. Tags
administered during both the 2014-2015 and 2015-1016 season are SCA series. The location of the
eggs is triangulated as above; this can be done while she is laying if enough people are on hand to
assist, or after all other data has been taken.
50





Once an activity has been recorded, all evidence of tracks, body pits and egg chambers are erased so
that it cannot be mistaken for a new activity at a later date.

Hatchling Success
Hatchling success can be difficult to measure since hatchlings usually emerge at night. However,
success rates can be determined by excavating recently hatched nests. When hatchlings emerge
they leave behind a sinkhole, the result of the sand sinking down to fill the space the hatchlings had
occupied. Teams monitor each nest around its due date and look for this sinkhole.

When teams excavate a nest, they record the number of hatched eggs, any pipped (half in, half out
of the egg) hatchlings, live or dead hatchlings in the nest, as well as the number of unhatched eggs.
Unhatched eggs are broken open and recorded as either undeveloped, stage one, stage two or stage
three. Definitions of each excavation category can be found in Table 20. Nest depth is measured
before the contents are replaced and reburied. Hatchling success rate is calculated by dividing total
number of hatched eggs by total number of eggs laid. This indicated how many turtles successfully
hatched from their eggs. Additionally, emergence success is calculated by subtracting the number of
hatchlings found in the nest, either dead or alive, and dividing this by total number of eggs,
indicating how many hatchlings successfully emerged from the nest. Often, a small number of live
hatchlings are found in the nest; these are released onto the beach approximately 1m from the
waters edge.

Results
This report contains a summary of the 2014 2015 nesting season, since the last annual report was
written in January 2015 before the completion of the season. It also covers the results from the 2015
2016 nesting season up until 1st January 2016. The next annual report will contain a summary of
the 2015 2016 season.

Nesting Adults - Hawksbills
2014 2015 nesting season:
The total number of activities for the 2014-2015 season was 428, of which 225 were nests (Table
21). The height of the nesting season is during November and December, with over 56% of all
activities recorded during these two months (Figure 18). Grand Anse was by far the most popular
nesting beach for the 2014 2015 season with 71% of all nests on this beach (Figure 19). The least
popular beach was Anse Laraie with only 1% of nests.
51

Beach suitability can be measured by looking at nesting success on each beach. The higher the
proportion of successful nesting attempts versus aborted nesting attempts (i.e. non-nests), the
higher the suitability. The most suitable beach for nesting was Anse Jose, with a nesting success rate
of 58% (Figure 20). The least suitable beach was Anse Mandarin, with a nesting success of 35%. It
should be noted, however, that small sample numbers from Anse Jose (n=3) and Anse Laraie (n=4)
are likely skewing the data for these two beaches.

2015 2016 nesting season:
The total number of recorded emergences of nesting hawksbills from June through December 2015
was 380, and of these 245 were recorded as nests. Already for this season there have been more
nests laid than for the entire of last season. In line with last season, December is so far showing the
highest number of activities (n=201). Our encounter rate for turtles picked up in November (19 and
22 turtles encountered during November and December respectively). Grand Anse remains the most
popular nesting beach, with 78.7% (n=193) of all Hawksbill nests for 2015-2016 thus far. The pattern
of beach preference remains similar for the previous five seasons, although this year the least
popular beach was Anse Jose with only 1% of nests (Figure 19).

The least suitable beach for 2015-2016 (up to December 31st 2015) was Anse Badamier with a
success rate of 36% (Figure 20). This is likely due to sand erosion rendering a large portion of the
beach plateau inaccessible. This is supported by the fact that it had the most number of activities
classified as ESBO Sand cliff i.e. emergence stopped by sand cliff, than any other beach (n=3). The
two beaches with the highest success rate (100%) were Anse Jose and Anse Laraie. However, again
low sample numbers (n=4 and 3 respectively) are likely skewing the data. It may be that as the 2015
2016 season continues, the overall success rates of Anse Jose and Anse Laraie decrease.

Nesting Adults Greens
2014 2015 nesting season:
Green sea turtles lay nests throughout the year in the inner granitic islands but low numbers of
tracks give a poor indication of the nesting population (Table 21). Green sea turtles lay at night and
infrequently throughout the entire year, making tagging and photo identification on Curieuse
impractical. For the 2014 2015 season, there was a total of 53 activities, of which 22 were nests. Of
these 22 nests, 18 were on Grande Anse, three on Anse Papaie, and one on Anse Caiman.
2015 2016 nesting season:
52





So far from June to December 2015, a total of 41 green turtle activities were recorded, 23 of which
were nests. Of these 23 nests, 22 were laid on Grand Anse, and one was laid on Anse Papaie. Once
the season is completed, further analyses will be performed.

Hatching Success
2014 2015 nesting season:
A total of 135 hawksbill nests, and 17 Green nests were excavated in the 2014 2015 season (Table
22). Hatching success was higher for hawksbills (81.49%) than for greens (67.47%). However, the
first two green nests on Grand Anse appeared to be inundated with water causing drowning of Stage
2 and 3 eggs, resulting in hatching success rates of 9% and 0%. Not counting these two nests,
average hatching success for the remaining 15 nests was 76.46%. Overall, hawksbill hatching success
was fairly similar across beaches (where enough excavations were done to obtain a reliable result):
Grand Anse (84.6%, n=82), Anse Papai (87.7%, n=17), Anse Caiman/Cimitier (87.2%, n=15) and Anse
Badamir (86.4%, n=12). Only one excavation was done on Anse Mandarin (77.7%) and two on Anse
Jose (0.0%).

2015 2016 nesting season:
Since the 2015-2016 hatching season (typically November April) has just recently begun, only 12
successful excavations have been carried out for hawksbill nests (Table 23). This small sample so far
has provided an average hatchling success rate of 89.4%. Excavations have been carried out on
Grand Anse (n=10), Anse Mandarin (n=1) and Anse Papai (n=1).

The high level of green activities seen on Curieuse during the past few seasons has allowed for
hatchling success rates to be calculated. However, this year several nests could not be successfully
excavated due to not being able to locate eggs, including several that had been triangulated. From
observations by staff, and preliminary results from the beach profiling project, it appears that this is
due to movement of sand along the beach, with some areas being completely washed away and
others increasing in height by more than 1m. Only five green nests were successfully excavated,
resulting in an average hatching success rate of 74.75% (Table 23). As the season continues, a higher
number of excavations, both hawksbill and green, will allow for further analysis and a more reliable
calculation of hatching success for each species.

Nesting Hawksbill Identification
2014 2015 nesting season:
53





There were a total of 67 encounters last season, of which 48 had old or new (i.e. administered by us
that season) tag numbers recorded. Of these, 30 turtles were already tagged with at least one tag,
and 18 were untagged and were given new tags by us. For those turtles where tag numbers were
recorded, the majority were only encountered once, however four were encountered at least twice,
and another four at least three times.
2015 2016 nesting season:

So far this season we have had 42 encounters, of which 32 had old or new tag numbers recorded. Of
these, 12 already had at least one tag, while the remaining 20 were untagged and were given new
tags by us. Of the 32 encounters where tag numbers were recorded, the majority have been of new
turtles that have not yet been encountered this season. However, four individuals have been
encountered at least twice. No turtles encountered last season have been seen this year (as
expected in line with biennial reproduction of sea turtles).

Discussion
Although we had a slow start to the year, this season appears set to be a good season for sea turtles,
with more nests in the past 6 months, for both species, than the 12 months previously.

It was estimated that 71-94 individual hawksbills nested on Curieuse during the 2012-2013 season,
32-43 during the 2013-2014 season and 56-75 during the 2014-2015 season. Estimations will be
made for the 2015-2016 season once completed (Table 21).

This is the third consecutive season that metal tags have been applied to turtles by staff members.
Tags seen this season have again included tags placed on turtles on other islands in Seychelles,
indicating the possibility of movement of females between islands within a nesting season. The
above-mentioned population size estimates are based on the assumption that hawksbills lay an
average of 3-4 clutches per season (Burt et al. 2015), and that all these clutches were laid on
Curieuse. Therefore, if there is indeed movement of nesting females between islands within a
season, then this is an underestimation of the number of females nesting on Curieuse annually. The
continuation of metal flipper tagging and recording of tag numbers will hopefully allow for a better
understanding of the degree of inter-nesting. This may lead to more accurate estimates of number
of nesting females, though this requires collaboration and sharing of data between islands. The
Photo ID system will continue in order to compare newly tagged females with previously identified
individuals. Once all Photo ID individuals are given metal tags, photo ID will supplement flipper tag
54





numbers as a backup system. It may also allow for the identification of turtles that are encountered
but not tagged (such as those already leaving the nesting site).

Green turtle activities for the past two seasons have been remarkably higher than previously seen
on Curieuse (Table 21). Annual fluctuations of over 70 turtles have been recorded on various islands
(Mortimer 2004). However, few green turtles are estimated to nest in the Inner Granitic islands. A
study from the 2001-2002 and 2002-2003 nesting population on Curieuse estimated that 1-2 greens
nest on Curieuse annually (Mortimer 2004). Data from 2012-2014 indicates a similar number
annually (Burt et al. 2015). However, data from the past two seasons suggests a significantly higher
number (5-7) of nesting green turtles on Curieuse. With only a few years of year-round, regular
beach surveying, and unknown remigration intervals (time between nesting periods) for greens in
Seychelles, it is impossible to yet draw any conclusions from this with regards to changes in
population size. However, if green turtles in the Inner Granitic islands are indeed recovering, it is
imperative that nesting females are protected and nests are monitored consistently.

A study of hawksbill hatching success was carried out on Curieuse for the 2001-2002 and 2002-2003
nesting seasons for a selection of nests (n=65). Overall the hatching success (number of hatched
eggs) was approximately 60% (Mortimer 2004). This differs somewhat from the current
approximation although excavation categories also differ slightly. The overall hawksbill hatching
success rate of 81.49% for the 2014-2015 nesting season (n=82) seem high when compared with
past data and other islands. This is despite many nests that had low nesting success rates of as little
as 17.7%. Hatching success for green turtle nests was substantially lower (67.47%) due to inundation
of several nests that had been laid below the high tide line, resulting in 0% success rates. It is
possible that our tendency to select nests to excavate based on presence of a sink-hole, which is
more likely to occur when the majority of egg have hatched, and the fact that nests that werent
located and triangulated are only excavated if a dip is present, biases our results towards a higher
nesting success rate. In order to test this theory, we must compare our current hatching success of
all excavated nests with only triangulated nests that are excavated regardless of presence or
absence of a dip. If hatching success differs between the two, only triangulated nests should be
excavated, and should be selected for excavation prior to presence or absence of a dip.

While in the past turtle nests were more evenly distributed across Curieuses beaches, they are now
mostly concentrated on 480m of beach at Grand Anse and Anse Papaie, resulting in an annual
nesting density of 34 clutches per 100m (Burt et al. 2015). Last season, Grande Anse continued to be
55





by far the most popular nesting beach, followed by Anse Papaie, with 81% of nests laid on these two
beaches. The other beaches are less suitable for a variety of reasons including erosion (Anse
Mandarin, Anse Badamier, Anse Cimitier), high levels of disturbance from tourists/residents (Anse
Laraie, Anse Jose, Anse Caiman) and a limited area of plateau area behind the beach (Anse
Badamier). In light of the recent discussions of further developing Curieuse for tourism, it is
imperative that Grand Anse and Anse Papaie remain safe, undisturbed havens for nesting hawksbills
and greens in the Inner Islands. Burt et al. (2015) state a number of recommendations in line with
this, including preventing access by tourists to Anse Papaie and Grand Anse, and installing
educational boards to inform tourists of the appropriate code of conduct if encountering turtles on
those beaches populated by tourists during the day. Also as recommended, GVI Seychelles staff and
volunteers, with the help of SNPA rangers, will be attempting to clear areas of Grand Anse that are
currently inaccessible to turtles due to fallen trees, in the hopes that this reduces the number of
unsuccessful nesting attempts due to obstacles. It may also potentially reduce the number of nests
laid below the high tide line and increase hatching success for greens in particular, since distance
from the high-tide line can be correlated with hatching success if the beach is prone to inundation by
storm swells (Mortimer 1990).

Conclusion
Protection at the nesting beaches may be the most critical component of any sea turtle conservation
program (Mortimer 2004). The knowledge that Curieuse Island may be used by 75 or more nesting
hawksbills, and up to seven green turtles, annually shows that it is essential to monitor these nesting
populations and maintain high standards of conservation. It is possible that large-scale annual
fluctuations occur in the number of females arriving at nest sites (Limpus and Nicholls 1988) and
therefore long-term monitoring is essential to document true population change (Meylan and
Donnelly 1999). Therefore, the existing monitoring schedule of four times a week during peak
hawksbill nesting season, and at least once a week outside of hawksbill season, will be continued to
ensure reliable monitoring of Green turtle nesting. The fact that the Curieuse population of nesting
hawksbills has not experienced the degree of recovery witnessed at other more protected islands
stresses how imperative it is that Curieuses turtle nesting beaches are not subjected to further
development, and that instead a higher level of protection should be implemented to ensure the
future of Curieuse as a vital hawksbill rookery.

56

Lemon Sharks

Introduction
Global shark populations face a number of threats including overfishing and habitat loss, and in
recent years there has been an unsustainable decline of most shark species, with annual estimates
of fishing mortality of up to 7.9% of the total global shark population, a rate which most species are
unable to sustain (Worm et al. 2013). Significant decreases in shark numbers have been shown to
upset the trophic balance in many ecosystems and cause cascading effects, leading to population
declines in other parts of the food web (Jackson et al. 2001, Myers et al. 2007). Once depleted, shark
populations do not recover easily due to their slow growth rates, late sexual maturity, low fecundity
and long gestation periods (Compagno 1990, Cortes 2000). The coastal habitat preference of many
species also leads to further challenges of fishing pressure and habitat degradation (Holland et al.
1999). In order to effectively conserve, manage or rebuild populations of sharks, it is essential to
have a reasonable knowledge of the status of a species, and of its reproductive and life history
patterns, therefore any new information resulting from the scientific study of sharks will aid in their
conservation.

The sicklefin lemon shark (Negaprion acutidens; Ruppell 1835) is one of two extant species of lemon
shark. Known regionally as simply the lemon shark, it is a large shark of the family Carcharhinidae
(requiem sharks) and generally grows to a length of about 3.0m (Carpenter and Niem 1998). It is
distinguished by the almost equal size of the two dorsal fins, and by the pale yellow tinged
colouration which gives rise to the name lemon shark.

Distribution and Habitat
The sicklefin lemon shark is known to inhabit coastal waters throughout the Indian and southwest
Pacific Oceans (Bester 2014; Figure 21). The range has also recently been found to extend further to
the northeast in the Pacific, with the discovery of several individuals at Palmyra Atoll in the central
Pacific (Papastamatiou 2014), and was historically found in the Persian Gulf (Moore et al. 2010 cited
in Sanchez et al 2015). The range spans most of the islands throughout the Indian Ocean, including
many islands in Seychelles.

N. acutidens is known to inhabit coastal waters up to 92m depth, including coral reefs, shallow
sandy-bottom lagoons, and mangrove swamps (Bester 2014). The high biomass of prey items on

57





coral reefs and in mangroves provides a food-rich environment, and in the closely related N.
brevirostris (presumably also applicable to N. acutidens), juvenile preference for very shallow waters
is a predator avoidance strategy, since the only natural predators of lemon sharks are other larger
sharks.

Conservation Status
The sicklefin lemon shark is one of 58 shark species known to inhabit the waters of Seychelles (Seret
2002). Categorised as vulnerable (IUCN 2014), in part due to its coastal preference and consequent
proximity to human activity, it faces many threats to its continued survival. The last assessment date
of the global conservation status of the species was 2003 and it is currently due for review. The
species is fished throughout its range (Compagno 1990), and its small habitat range and limited
movement patterns make it susceptible to local depletion (Stevens 1984, Stevens et al. 2000).
Schultz et al. (2008) also showed that the seascape of the Indo-Pacific results in particularly limited
dispersal across the range of the species. High fishing pressure in Southeast Asia and Indonesia has
led to locally extinct populations in India and Thailand and to very low numbers in Indonesia. Other
threats to the conservation of N. acutidens come from habitat loss (coral reefs and mangroves), a
threat of wider global concern (IUCN 2014), and the shark finning trade to supply fins for the Chinese
delicacy of shark fin soup, whereby sharks are captured and their fins removed, with the rest of the
usually still living shark discarded.

There have been more recent efforts to highlight the economic importance of shark species in areas
other than removal of sharks from the population, e.g. ecotourism. Gallagher and Hammerschlag
(2011) comprehensively examined the worldwide distribution, frequency and economic value of
shark-based ecotourism, including four operations in the Seychelles. They found that when sharks
were used as subjects of ecotourism (e.g. shark feeding or viewed by divers), the value of a live shark
to a countrys economy is many times its value if it is killed by fishing for sale. The sicklefin lemon
shark supports a successful shark feeding ecotourism activity in Moorea Island, French Polynesia
(Clua et al. 2011), where the contribution of each individual shark to the local economy during its
lifespan was calculated to be up to USD 2.64 million.

In 2007, the government of Seychelles produced a National Plan of Action for the Conservation and
Management of Sharks (NPOA; Seychelles Fishing Authority 2007). The plan was updated in 2016
and recognises Seychelles commitment to, and sets out national strategies for, conservation of all
species of sharks in Seychelles waters. The key aim is that shark stocks in the Seychelles EEZ are
58





effectively conserved and managed so as to enable their optimal long-term sustainable use, and
one of the main mechanisms to achieve that aim is to collect more information on these shark
species. The assessment of the NPOA confirmed that shark stocks in Seychelles have followed a
similar pattern of decline over the past few decades as seen in most other global shark populations.

Current Knowledge of the Sicklefin Lemon Shark
A comprehensive review of the scientific literature on lemon sharks has revealed a significant
difference in the level of knowledge of the two species of lemon shark. There are approximately 200
publications on the closely related Atlantic and eastern Pacific lemon shark (N. brevirostris) on a
wide variety of topics. In contrast, there are only approximately 35 publications relating to N.
acutidens, from a very limited number of populations in specific geographical locations
(MooreaIsland in French Polynesia, Viti Levu in Fiji, St. Joseph and Aldabra Atolls in Seychelles, Heron
and Lizard Islands, Darwin, Shark Bay, and Ningaloo Reef in Australia), on a much narrower range of
topics. Studies relating to N. acutidens are restricted to a single study on a single population on a
single topic in most cases, and the knowledge of topics in N. brevirostris cannot be assumed to
always apply to N. acutidens.

Certain behavioural characteristics, such as home range and site fidelity, displayed by the sicklefin
lemon shark, make it more susceptible in areas with high human pressure. The home range of N.
acutidens has been broadly assessed by Stevens (1984) at Aldabra Atoll, Seychelles, where 91% of
recaptured sharks were found within 2km of their initial tagging location, suggesting a very limited
range of activity. Morrissey and Gruber (1993) measured the home range of juvenile N. brevirostris
at Bimini, Bahamas, and found a similarly small range covering an average of 0.68km2.

Similar to several published studies on N. brevirostris (e.g. Chapman et al. 2009, DiBattista et al.
2008, Edren and Gruber 2005, Feldheim et al. 2014, Freitas et al. 2006, Morrissey and Gruber 1993,
Wetherbee et al. 2007), N. acutidens has also been shown to display a high degree of site fidelity,
from studies of populations in Fiji (Brunnschweiler et al. 2014), St. Joseph Atoll (Filmalter et al. 2013)
and Aldabra Atoll (Stevens 1984) in Seychelles, French Polynesia (Mourier et al. 2013), Australia
(Speed et al. 2011), and range-wide (Schultz et al. 2008).

Studies on the activity patterns of N. acutidens have been published, and they have been found to
display movement patterns on a diel and tidal basis. Filmalter et al. (2013) suggested that the lemon
sharks of St. Josephs Atoll, Seychelles refuge in cooler waters during the day, contrary to DiGirolamo
59





et al. (2012), who suggested N. brevirsostris in Bimini, Bahamas seek out areas of higher
temperature during the day. It was also suggested (but not tested) that the same population follows
a similar crespuscular and nocturnal foraging behaviour as N. brevirostris, as shown by DeMarignac
(2000) and Gruber et al. (1988), that tidal cycles has a strong influence on their movements.

Only a very small number of studies have examined the habitat preference of N. acutidens (Speed et
al. 2011, Stevens 1984, White and Potter 2004), and only one which has specifically assessed the role
of mangroves as habitat (White and Potter 2004). In contrast, there are a multitude of studies which
have confirmed the importance of mangrove habitat as nursery areas for N. brevirostris (e.g.
DeAngelis et al. 2008, Gruber et al. 2001, Morrissey and Gruber 1993, Murchie et al. 2010, Yeiser et
al. 2008), and it is highly likely that mangroves are also an important nursery habitat for N.
acutidens.

The Sicklefin Lemon Sharks of Curieuse Island
Through observations by staff and volunteers from SNPA and GVI Seychelles, it has been known for
many years that juvenile lemon sharks are present in the Curieuse mangroves and Turtle Pond.
There appears to be a clear annual cycle of parturition beginning in September and lasting for three
or four months (similar to observed parturition times on other Indian Ocean islands; Stevens 1984),
with an influx of many small lemon sharks. Population numbers appear to decline throughout the
year with very few individuals observed by August each year.

The current study on the Curieuse N. acutidens population began in October 2014 and is currently in
its second season. This presents an opportunity to improve our overall knowledge of the species in
order to aid in conservation efforts whilst working towards project objectives relating to increased
understanding of the mangrove habitat on Curieuse. With funding provided by Seychelles British
High Commission, GVI Seychelles is working alongside SNPA, our primary partner, to achieve this
objective.

In addition, a part of the funding is to be directed towards education initiatives. Throughout
Seychelles, public knowledge of the importance of keystone species such as sharks to overall
ecosystem health is often limited. In 2015 fixed information boards were installed alongside the
board walk through the Curieuse mangroves, detailing parameters and aims of the project.
Additionally we hosted Green Island Foundation, assisting with a shark education fun day for local
school children. Finally we have hosted Seychelles Broadcasting Corporation (SBC) who filmed our
60





survey sessions to produce a national news article on the project. There are additional plans to
commission a professionally produced educational video for airing in schools and on national
television.

Aims
The project aims to gather baseline life history data for the Curieuse lemon shark population,
allowing us to estimate population size and establishing size parameters. In doing, so we will
contribute to meeting the key aim of the Seychelles National Plan of Action for sharks by increasing
knowledge on local shark populations. We will also use this knowledge to educate the local
population on the importance of sharks and the value of Curieuse Marine National Park

Methodology
Study Site:
The study is being conducted within the Turtle Pond and fringing mangrove forest (Figure 22). The
Turtle Pond is 40-acre shallow lagoon resulting from the construction of a wall across Baie Laraie in
1910 and was originally intended for the farming of hawksbill turtles (Eretmochelys imbricata),
however this was unsuccessful and quickly abandoned. The wall, now partially destroyed by the
2004 Indian Ocean Tsunami, has created a unique environment that allowed the lagoons fringing
mangrove forest to flourish into one of the largest and most diverse remaining in the Inner Islands.

The lagoon was chosen as based on previous studies of nursery areas and site fidelity in N. acutidens
and N. brevirostris it was believed the shallow waters and mangroves would provide a distinct
nursery area for neonates. It is also easily accessible even with large nets and sampling equipment.
The seaward edge of the mangrove forest comprises predominantly Rhizophora mucronata, which is
inundated up to 1.24m during spring tides (unpublished data: Global Vision International,
Seychelles). Sand flats form the land make up the landward ward edge of the pond which are
exposed at low tides and sea grass beds located in the central area are only partially exposed at the
lowest tides. There are several deeper sections abutting the wall, with sandy bottom and sporadic
patches of coral. At tides below 0.7m, the southern section of the Pond is isolated, forming a pool
approximately 25x50m, referred to as Pats Pool (Figure 21)

Capture Methods
Surveying was conducted at dawn (05:00-08:00) and dusk (17:00-19:00). Due to the heterogeneous
nature of the study area and sampling limitations, several methods of capture were devised:
61

1. Seine nets 90x0.75m and 10x1.5m with a stretched mesh of 10mm. The 90m seine was
designed to be deployed in the open waters of the Turtle Pond and used either as a purse or
beach seine, or placed at the mouth of a channel draining the mangroves (coined the
lemon shark highway). The 10m seine was designed for blocking narrow channels and
openings.
2. Gill nets 18x1.5m and 10x1.5m with a stretched mesh of 60mm. Gill nets are used under
constant observation, either static or dragged slowly in the shallows.
3. Hook and line size 14 barbless circle hooks, with fish used as bait
a. NB. These were used in the first season but discontinued in April 2015 due to
concerns over welfare of hooked individuals
4. Cast net 3m in diameter, similar mesh to the gill nets. This method is proving most useful
in very shallow water in the Turtle Pond or in restricted areas within the mangroves.
5. Dip nets 60cm diameter, similar mesh to the seine nets.

Tagging and data collection
Upon capture each individual is transported to the work-up station by hand, dip net or in a small
water filled transfer crate, then placed in a large water filled holding crate. During the work-up
sharks are transferred to a water filled PVC trough with integral measuring tape (100mm diameter
October 2014 September 2015; 150mm September 2015 onwards). This method greatly reduces
stress by allowing the sharks to respire in the water whilst tagging and data collection is taking place.
Each new capture is firstly tagged with both an internal Passive Integrated Transponder (PIT) tag
injected into the musculature beneath the first dorsal fin on the left side of the shark. For most of
the first season a uniquely numbered external spaghetti tag (Floy Long T-Bar Anchor) with a phone
number for reporting capture by any external parties was applied to the right side of the shark
below the first dorsal. Double tagging with both PIT and Floy tags was chosen as a PIT tag shedding
rate of 12.1 % has been previously recorded in Negaprion sharks (Feldheim et al 2002). Furthermore
it was hoped it would provide other useful information. Floy tagging was discontinued in March
2015, following concerns over its impact on the sharks. The Floy tag number was used as the ID
number for each individual so sequential ID numbering continued accordingly from March onwards.

After tagging, the following measurements are taken to the nearest mm: pre-caudal length (PCL,
from the tip of the snout to the caudal pit in front of the caudal fin), fork length (FL, from the tip of
the snout to where the tail begins to fork) and total length (TL). A DNA sample was taken either
using a fin punch from a pectoral fin (October 2014 - September 2015) or later a fin snip was taken
62





from the trailing edge of the anal fin (September 2015 onwards) as this proved faster and offered a
more permanent indication of prior sampling should PIT tag shedding occur. All samples were
immediately fixed in 100% ethanol. These DNA samples will allow for extensive genetic analysis of
the overall population. Weight is also taken, using a sling and hanging scale, accurate to 50g before
returning the shark to the holding crate. The shark was then turned and held by hand to expose the
ventral region to ascertain sex and state of umbilical scar closure (recorded as: Open, Open,
Open, Open, Closed (fresh) or Closed). Any injuries were recorded and photographed along with
genital region and umbilical scar. Care was taken to ensure the mouth and gills were submerged
during this time. The shark was then released and each individual followed to monitor recovery. For
recaptured individuals, length, weight, sex, umbilical scar closure and injuries data was collected as
above. Additionally a GPS reading was taken for each individual capture location and recorded
alongside capture method. When possible, temperature and salinity was measured.

Results
In 2015 a new cohort of pups was first observed in September, and surveying began at increased
levels immediately after. September 1st is therefore being used as the starting point for the new
2015/2016 season i.e. season one ran from October 2014-August 2015 and season two will run
September 2015-August 2016.

2014/2015 season:
Season one began with a first session on 14/10/2014 and saw 40 sampling sessions up to
15/08/2015. During this period a total of 128 captures were made. 96 individuals were captured, 19
of these were recaptured between one and three times (totalling 32 recaptures). From this the
population has been estimated at 313 (range: 211-550; 95% CI) using a Jolly-Seber estimate. Much
less robust estimates of 381 and 376 can be achieved from simple Lincoln-Peterson and Chapman
estimators respectively, however they do fall well within the estimate from the Jolly-Seber
calculation, further supporting a population size of early to mid 300s.

The size range (TL) was 59.3-91.6cm, mean 65.2cm and weight of 1.0-4.45kg, mean 1.60kg. The male
to female ratio was 53:42. 79 DNA samples were taken. With the exception of a single sub-adult
shark, ID 75 (TL of 91.6cm, 4.45kg), all sharks captured were newborns; therefore removing shark 75
from the data reveals the statistics for the 2014/2015 newborn population.

Newborn (year-0):
63





PCL 46.267.2cm, mean 50.8cm, FL 51.167.2cm, mean 64.9cm, TL 59.380.4cm, mean 64.9cm,
weight 1.03.2kg, mean 1.57kg.

From the 18 recaptured individuals (excluding shark 75), it is possible to calculate growth rate
estimates. Some recaptures were discounted if they were taken within two weeks of the previous
sampling. The time at large between tagging and most recent measurements ranged from 10 to 133
days. Total growth between capture dates was measured to be from -0.9cm to +6.30cm TL, and -
0.28kg to +0.45kg in weight. Annual growth rates were calculated to range from -20.9cm/year to
+34.3cm/year TL, mean +2.72cm/year, and -5.2kg/year to +3.7kg/year for weight, mean -
0.54kg/year.

Growth rates initially appear low, and of 19 sets of growth measurements taken between October-
January 37% (n=7) indicated negative growth (TL) while 68% (n=13) indicate weight loss. In
comparison, from February onwards there are five more sets of measurements. 80% (n=4) indicate
growth (TL) with a different 80% (n=4) indicating weight gain. This is reflected in average TL and
weight measurements which stay fairly consistent from October 2014-January 2015 after which a
clear upward trend in noticeable (Figure 23)

Shark no. 75:
This larger individual demonstrated significant positive growth from the outset (Figure 24). She was
first captured on January and following that at approximately even intervals of March and May and
room this an annual growth rate (TL) of 28.1cm/year can be calculated. Growth appears to be quite
consistent so by applying this figure in reverse to initial capture length, a previous TL of 68cm can be
assumed for January 2014.

Captures:
Capture rates appear to vary across the year with a peak from October 2014-Early January 2015.
Following this, a dramatic drop-off in the number of captures occurs around mid-January and with
the exception of May 2015, rates stay low until season two (Figure 25). May 2015 shows
considerably higher capture rates than surrounding months, however effort is very low with only
one session so an average capture rate/session/month is not necessarily representative. The first
zero capture session was 19/1/2015 followed by four consecutive more. In February and March 2015
effort was maintained at a reasonable level (n=4/month) however capture rates were very low, so
effort was reduced.
64

These trends coincide with visual observations. Sharks were generally noticed in large numbers from
September onwards, however in January sightings became rarer and more significantly the group
sizes spotted was very much reduced.

Mortality:
During sampling, five individuals failed to recover from capture and handling which from a total of
127 captures, produces a handling mortality of 3.9% (n=5). One additional shark was found deceased
in the mangroves the day following capture and work up. Including this individual in calculations
produces a mortality rate of 4.7% (n=6). However, while the work-up process could have heavily
stressed the individual and may be responsible, exact cause of death cannot be confirmed and the
shark cannot be assumed to have suffered direct handling mortality.

2015/2016 season:
The first two sessions of season two produced zero captures and around that time no pups had been
spotted in the mangroves. Pups were first spotted in mid September and the first successful session
was 24th September 2015. At the time of writing (January) we have conducted a total of 31 sessions.
To date this season, a total of 109 have been made. 84 individuals were captured, 18 of these were
recaptured between 1 and 3 times (totalling 25 recaptures). It is too early to calculate a robust
estimation of population size however, vague estimates of 367 and 359 were gained through simple
Lincoln-Peterson and Chapman estimators respectively. A more robust Jolly-Seber estimate will be
calculated at the end of the season.

The size range (TL) was 59.1-86.46cm, mean 64.7cm and weight 1.0-3.45kg, mean 1.57kg. The male
to female ratio so far is 37:47. 84 DNA samples were taken. With the exception of a single juvenile
shark, ID 134 (TL 86.46cm, weight 3.45kg), all sharks captured were newborns; therefore removing
shark 134 from the data reveals the statistics for the 2015/2016 newborn population.

Newborn (year-0):
PCL 46.153.8.cm, mean 50.2cm, FL 44.759.3cm, mean 55.2cm, TL 59.169.4cm, mean 64.4cm,
weight 1.01.9kg, mean 1.55kg.

From the 25 recaptured individuals it is possible to calculate initial growth rates, although it is still
early in the season for this. Four recaptures provided no data because sharks were released without
65





workup, either because they were over stressed or had been caught within the last few days. This
leaves 21 workable sets of recapture measurements. The time at large between tagging and most
recent measurements ranged from 6 to 88 days. Total growth between capture dates was measured
to be from -0.8cm to +4.5cm total length and -0.45kg to +0.2kg in weight. Annual growth rates were
calculated to range from -48.7cm/year to +54.0cm/year total length, mean +5.4cm/year, and -
12.17kg/year to +9.12kg/year for weight, mean -1.10kg/year.

Of the 21 sets of measurements 38% (n=8) display negative growth (TL) while 52% (n=11) show
weight loss. Mean monthly total length shows a slight increase across the period September 2015 to
January 2016, while monthly mean weight stays consistently around 1.5kg (Figure 26).

Shark 134:
Shark 134 and was captured on 22nd October 2015 and due to a closed nature of its umbilical scar it
is classified as a Juvenile (Feldheim et al 2002) and does not come from the current 2015 cohort. Due
to size it is most likely to be from the 2014 cohort, making it now a year-1 shark. No subsequent
recaptures have been made of this individual.

Captures:
Capture rates were generally low in September offering a slow start to the season. Numbers
increase in September but stayed fairly modest (n=1-6) before reaching a peak in mid October
(n=11). Catch rates were very varied in October (n=0-11) however the month proved successful
catching a lot of sharks (n=49). Rates stay consistent into November (n=1-11), they then appear to
decline in December (n=0-4) and onwards into January (Figure 25).

Methods:
Small plastic external T-bar Floy tags were used in season one and it was expected they would
provide useful extra data. This did indeed prove correct with the report that individual number 09
had been caught and killed by a fisherman. Furthermore it allowed for visual sightings of tagged
sharks outside the Pond providing useful home range information. Unfortunately there were
instances of the tagging wounds not healing and instances the Floy tags themselves deteriorated and
became covered in algal growth. This would have significantly increased drag caused by the tag and
shark number 38 shed its Floy tag. Subsequently concerns over the accuracy of the information, the
small number of returns (only one in tagged sharks), and the health and fitness of the sharks lead to
the discontinuation of Floy tags from March 2015 onwards.
66

Hook and line, while used in many elasmobranch studies, was found to be a very aggressive form of
capture method. Five of eight sharks captured by this method suffered from awkward hooking,
requiring a great deal of effort to remove. For these reasons it was discontinued as a capture
method in April 2015.

Handling mortality for season one was 3.9%. Handling mortality for season two to date has been
0.0%.

Discussion
Considering the lack of prior scientific knowledge pertaining to sicklefin lemon sharks of
Curieuse/Granitic Islands, this project has already proved extremely successful in producing baseline
information on population size, cohort structure, size at birth and sex ratio; alongside more limited,
however still useful, information on growth, distribution, and habitat use. It has also provided insight
into the effectiveness and suitability of some capture and tagging methods.

Life history:
No study has previously detailed full parameters of year-0 N. acutidens, however the population
parameters seem loosely comparable to information available from Aldabra Atoll, where the
smallest individuals identified by Stevens (1984) was 65cm (TL) and size at birth estimated to be 55-
60cm (TL), compared to year-0 size ranges of 59.1- 80.4cm (TL) across the two seasons on Curieuse.
It is worth noting that the higher end of the Curieuse values comes from sharks captured towards
the end of the 2014/2015 season, which are likely to have increased in TL since birth.

Sex ratios appear to be a little more balanced on Curieuse, (52.6% female), where the male bias in
2014/2015 (m:f = 53:42) and opposing female bias in 2015/2016 (m:f = 37:47) even out, when
compared to Aldabra.

Capture numbers and population size has been shown to be vastly greater than initially expected
from such a small nursery area based on other studies from the scientific literature. The Jolly-Seber
calculates a useable estimate, while the simpler Lincoln-Peterson and Champan estimates are useful
at this stage, as an indication to compare between years. There is a general feeling, based on
observations, that the population size of the year-0 sharks is lower this season, compared to season
one. This is supported by differences in capture rates, which are seen to have been higher in season
67





one (Figure 25). Relative to this point in season one, where new captures and recaptures were 88
and 18 respectively (Sanchez et al. 2015), season two has produced less captures but more
recaptures, 84 and 25 respectively, across more sampling sessions (s-1= 25, s-2=31). Furthermore no
zero capture sessions were recorded until January 2015 in season one, yet in season two, despite
improved knowledge and ability of staff, the first zero capture session was recorded in October
2015. Despite this perception, the simple population calculations produce comparable numbers
between the two cohorts, and it will be later in the season before the Jolly-Seber estimate can
provide further insight.

Season one displays a clear peak in capture rates in November, while in season two this is spread
evenly across October and November. Subtle variations in the time of parturition would be
unsurprising, given that that some females may breed annually while other reproduce biennially
(Mourier et al 2013). It is also extremely likely that as season one began in October 2014, it took
some time to formulate effective techniques for the capture of sharks and as such, initial sessions
were less productive than they could have been. Regardless, capture rates remained high until the
drop in January 2015, which raises questions over population trends and use of the Turtle Pond and
mangrove habitat by N. acutidens.

It has been suggested that the study area alone is not capable of sustaining such large numbers of
juvenile lemon sharks indefinitely and indeed for the period of high capture in September-January
(and assumed high population size) recapture data indicates slow or negative growth. Furthermore
at the point of reduced capture (and assumed reduced population size) growth rates are seen to
have increased. One hypothesis is that intra-specific competition for limited food resources within
the study area, results in levels of food intake below maintenance rations. Resultantly a select few
fittest individuals may be able to maintain or increase size over this period, while a significant
proportion of the population depletes stored energy reserves until reaching a fatal point, after
several months. This would also explain why a number of individuals have been seen to increase in
length while reducing in weight. The sharp drop in capture rate may be indicative of a high natural
mortality and the discovery of two dead neonate sharks on the 19th of January (one tagged, one un-
tagged) acts to support this. Furthermore, the fact that in each season, only one year-1 shark has
been captured supports high year-0 mortality.

However for N. brevirostris at Bimini in the Bahamas, high year-0 mortality has also been observed,
with a survival rate of 38-65% of the population (Gruber et al 2001). In this population however,
68





there is no evidence for starvation and predation is believed to be the main driver of mortality
(Huepel et al, 2007). This seems more plausible for a number of factors. Firstly, around 10% of sharks
in the 2015/2016 season display fresh wounds or scarring indicative of predation. Secondly, there
have been a number of sightings of larger sub-adult sharks within the Pond and hunting behaviour
has been witnessed. Thirdly, the shark reportedly caught by a fisherman in Anse Volbert, Praslin, and
individuals with visible Floy tags spotted at other locations around the island (ranging from Grand
Anse in the north to Anse Jose in the south), provide clear evidence of movement in and out of the
Turtle Pond. Whether this is driven by a lack of food, or purely because home ranges are larger than
previously assumed, it means that a wider range of food sources are available to pups, not just the
limited stocks offered within the Pond.

With this in mind, it is very possible that the decline in numbers begins when the population is no
longer being replenished, i.e. parturition spread across the pupping season from September to
November would maintain the population at a high level, with the most recent neonates replacing
predated individuals in the population. When this replenishment ceases and no more newborns
enter the population, numbers will then begin to decline from this point onwards due to predation.
This doesnt however account for the sudden observed drop in January 2015, so we must wait and
see if a similar drop is observed in this season, or if a different population trajectory is followed,
before drawing any further conclusions. One final consideration regarding reduced capture rates is
the use of gill nets. N .brevirostris at Bimini learn to avoid gill nets when sampling episodes occur
more frequently than every 6months. It would therefore take each new litter some time to learn to
avoid nets throughout the season, however at some point after the final parturition, the whole
population would be beginning to avoid the nets and corresponding decline in capture rates may
follow.

Migration outside of the turtle pond due to range expansion could also be a contributing factor to
declines in capture rates yet the sightings of tagged individuals outside the turtle pond and a
continuous high proportion of untagged individuals could suggest that homeranges already
occupied a larger area than the study site. Further investigation is needed to determine home range
parameters and the project has now attained five acoustic transmitters and a manual receiver. The
next phase of the project will be active tracking of individuals over 75cm (TL) to determine the size
of home ranges.

69

Methodology:
Handling mortality in season one was 3.9%. This is within the range of handling mortality reported
by Gruber et al (2001) of 0.0-4.5% across five seasons. Handling mortality for season two has to date
been 0.0% and a number of factors are likely to have achieved this reduction. Firstly, moving from a
100mm diameter to 150mm diameter provides a significantly increased amount of room and
therefore oxygenated water available to sharks whilst being sampled. A larger storage crate
purchased for season two gives sharks more room while waiting for workup. Discontinuation of Floy
tags reduces the work-up time and reduces impact on sharks while a change in DNA sampling
technique achieves the same. Finally staff have on a number of occasions made the decision to
release captured sharks without workup, if they appear to be suffering from excessive stress or are
carrying significant existing injuries.

Conclusions

The project has been hugely successful so far, catching and tagging a total of 180 individual sharks.
This has provided a wealth of data relating to size, weight and sex ratios and allowed us to calculate
robust population estimates for season one. Recapture data across the seasons has allowed us
estimate growth rates for sharks and a number of trends have became apparent in season one,
regarding capture and growth rates of individual sharks. A similar trend is seemingly apparent in
season two, however we will have to wait until later in the season to have a clearer understanding of
these.

Population size and home range appear to be larger than originally expected, and the population
seems to suffer from a very high year-0 mortality. We will be able to calculate a robust population
estimate for season two, but for now it seems comparable with season one. To fully establish the
extent of individual movement patterns and home-ranges, the project is now moving to incorporate
active tracking of sharks and it is our hope that 2016 will yield some exciting results. Also, by
establishing the whereabouts of year-1 sharks, it is hoped to be able to gain more valuable recapture
data, contributing to a better understanding of growth rates.

70





We have also been able to refine our methodology making important improvements in streamlining
the capture and workup process and it is believe these are the main factors in being able to reduce
handling mortality from 3.9% in season one, to 0% in season two.

In order to share our findings regarding the Curieuse population, an article is currently in authorship
detailing population parameters, with the aim of publishing in a peer-reviewed journal.

71

Beach Profiling

Introduction
Curieuse Island is located on the Seychelles Bank, where coastal plateaus are comprised of
calcareous sand that has accumulated from fringing reefs surrounding the granitic islands (Nentwig
et al. 2014). Throughout the year the island is subjected to changes in wind and wave direction.
During the Southeast Monsoon wave energy comes from the southeast between May and
September, after which it then switches to the northwest between November and March when the
Northwest Monsoon sets in. Between the monsoon periods, wind direction fluctuates and the sea
tends to be calmer.

Since GVIs permanent arrival on Curieuse Island in 2010, substantial seasonal morphologically
changes to the beaches have been observed. However there has been no continuous quantifiable
data collection until now. In the past Seychelles has been impacted by significant storm events such
as the 2004 Tsunami and Tropical Cyclone Felleng in 2013. The collection of baseline data is
therefore vital in our ability to be able to measure the impact that any future storm events or
changes to sea level may have on Curieuses beaches.

The beaches of Curieuse also provide important nesting habitats for the critically endangered
hawksbill turtle and the endangered Green Sea Turtle (IUCN Redlist). Having an understanding of the
changing morphology of these nesting beaches, particularly during peak hawksbill nesting season
from October to February (Mortimer, 1998), will guide GVI Seychelles and SNPA in future habitat
protection measures.

Aims
The over-arching aim of this survey is to monitor the changes to the beach profiles of six beaches on
Curieuse Island. Monitoring these changes will allow us to assess the rate of erosion and accretion
along the beaches and investigate how this corresponds with changes in wind and wave direction
between the SE and NW monsoon season. In turn this should give us a better understanding of any
net loss or gain of beach sediment annually, as well as on longer timescales in years to come.

72

Methodology
A total of 19 transects are surveyed on six of Curieuses beaches (Anse Caiman (2), Anse Cimitiere (1),
Anse Jose (7), Anse Laraie (4), Anse Papaie (2), Grand Anse (3). The number of transects on each
beach is dependent on the beach length, with bigger beaches having more transects. The positions
of the transects were chosen by SNPA. Currently only beaches located along the eastern, southern
and western coastline are being surveyed due to time and resource constraints (Figure 27).

Individual transects are surveyed once every two months, two hours either side of the lowest low
tide of the month. Surveying at low tide was chosen as it normally permits the access to the offshore
step. The beaches have been separated into two groups so that Anse Caiman, Anse Cimitiere and
Anse Jose are all surveyed in the same month and Anse Laraie, Anse Papaie and Grand Anse all
surveyed in the subsequent month. Each transect has a fixed reference mark painted on a tree,
rock, building etc. Each reference mark has had its GPS position recorded. The trajectory of the
transect from the reference mark towards the sea is then given by a fixed compass bearing, which
ensures minimal variations due to altering trajectories.

Surveying each transect involves the following steps: a photo is taken of the reference mark and the
beach profile (perpendicular to the beach); the height of the reference mark from the ground is
measured (all measurements are taken in metres and measured to the nearest centimetre); a
compass and the fixed bearing is then used to establish the transect trajectory; the transect is then
surveyed in segments using an Abney Level from the reference mark to the sea; for each segment
surveyed the angle, horizontal distance and any obstacles/substrates of interest are recorded e.g.
rocks, logs; a sketch of the beach profile noting the rough positions of the ranging poles is also
drawn. No segment exceeds a 10m horizontal distance. For very short segments where we are
unable to use the Abney Level, an Inclinometer is used and the angle converted to degrees and
minutes.

All data is uploaded to Beach Profile Analysis (Version 3.2) software which is used to produce our
profile graphs and provide beach width (m) and area (m) measurements.

Results
Some of our initial results have been excluded from further analysis for numerous reasons. This
includes results from AJ07 transect, as we were only able to collect data for this transect in the initial
set up in June/July, with this point being physically inaccessible in the subsequent months due to
73





beach erosion. This point may be able to be included in future analyses once more data has been
collected from it. The two transects along Anse Caiman and one transect along Anse Cimitiere have
also been excluded as the initial set up of these transects was in October 2015, once it was deemed
valuable to have data for this part of the coastline as well. Data was collected in September for Anse
Laraie, Anse Papaie and Grand Anse, however due to uncertainties with the data it has been
excluded. The remaining results give us a good initial indication as to what is occurring at each
transect, however it is important to note that Beach Profile Analysis (version 3.2) has extrapolated
the data for some profiles which may lead to some inaccuracies (this issue is currently still being
investigated with the assistance of SNPA, and the aim is to resolve it for future calculations).

On average, the beach area and width for Anse Jose is increasing from June/July through to October
(with the exception of the Southernmost tip of the beach), with small increases seen at the northern
end of the beach and the most amount of accumulation occurring around transects AJ04 (Figure 39)
and AJ05 (Figure 38) at the southern end (Figure 28 & 29). The southernmost tip however, has seen
a substantial amount of erosion at a rate of 53.7m per month over this period (Figure 37).

The results for Grand Anse reveal that so far there hasnt been much change to the beach profile
apart from the northernmost transect (GA03) gradually accumulating sand at an accretion rate of
7.25m per month (57.09m June to 93.33m November) and increasing in width (29.41m June to
57.59m November) (Figure 30 & 31). The remaining beach to the south has seen small fluxes but
remained relatively stable.

Anse Laraie and Anse Papaie have also seen small fluxes in accretion and erosion between June and
November but overall the beaches have remained in similar states in terms of area and width. The
greatest changes for Anse Laraie occurred between June and August along transect AL01 where
there was an accumulation 8.54m and an increase in width of 13.97m (Figure 32 & 33). It is
important to note that transects AL01 & AL02 are separated from AL03 & AL 04 by a rocky headland.
Anse Papaie saw the greatest difference in area along transect AP01 with an accumulation of
13.39m between June and August (Figure 35). The greatest changes in beach length also occurred
between June and August, however it was a shortening of length by 7.83m along transect AP02
(Figure 36).

It is too early in our beach profiling survey to be able to calculate net losses and gains to our beaches
on an annual scale. These initial surveys, however, indicate that there has been a net gain in
74





sediment for the beaches of Grand Anse, Anse Papaie and Anse Lararie over the last six months. It is
important to note that net gains and losses to beach sediment do not denote sediment budget
changes (please refer to the Discussion section for further explanation).

Discussion
The changes seen in Anse Jose beach profiles indicate a shift of sediment from the southernmost tip
(AJ06) in a north-westerly direction towards AJ05 & AJ04. The wind and wave direction for this
period of time (June through to October) is predominately from the southeast as this is when the
Southeast Monsoon occurs. This results in longshore drift occurring in a north-westerly direction,
which is the likely transport mechanism for this shift of sediment towards AJ05 & AJ04. It will be
interesting to see whether this north-westerly movement of sediment will continue beyond October,
as this is typically when the Southeast Monsoon ends before the Northwest Monsoon begins in
November. It is predicted that when the predominant wind and wave direction changes, the
movement of sediment will also reverse towards to the southernmost tip of Anse Jose (AJ06 &
AJ07).

There is no obvious erosion or accretion trends occurring along the Grand Anse, Anse Papaie and
Anse Laraie. Over a one year cycle this may change as the surveys are yet to cover both the
Southeast and Northwest monsoon periods. It is uncertain as to why the northern transect of Grand
Anse is accreting over the period surveyed while the rest of the beach remains relatively stable. The
prevailing SE winds over this period would be approaching the beach at an approximate right angle,
however slight differences in orientation of the beach to the prevailing wind and wave direction may
be one of the influencing factors. The direction of any longshore currents is unknown, but if these
are moving in a northerly direction then this would be a logical explanation for the accretion seen.
Another factor to consider is also the surrounding substrates. There is a raised rocky ledge at the low
tide mark that extends part way across the middle of Grand Anse which affects transect GA03 but
not that of GA01 or GA02. Hence this ledge may be assisting in naturally trapping sediment in this
part of the beach. Further investigation into longshore drift currents, effects of surrounding
substrates, and sediment movements at the northern end of the beach is required in order to get a
clearer indication as to why this accumulation may be occurring.

Given that the reference marks for each transect are not at a consistent setback distance from the
beach it is impossible to make direct comparisons between transects in regards to beach width and
volume. This will continue to be the case. Once one years worth of data has been collected we
75





should be able to better assess erosion and accretion rates, how this corresponds with changes in
wind and wave direction between the SE and NW monsoon season, and get an idea of any net loss
or gain of beach sediment on annual scale.

Currently we are unable to calculate the sediment budget (defined as the balance between sediment
gains and losses, within a specified control area/cell, over a given time (Rosati, 2005)) for the
beaches of Curieuse as in order to do this you need to be able to identify all the sediment sources
and sinks of your defined system (coastal cell). Sources are sediment inputs, such as sediment from
land erosion/river outputs/coral reef erosion etc., and sinks are a point/area where beach sediment
is irretrievably lost from the system such as an estuary, sand dunes or deep seabed channel (Rosati
2005). Sediment transport rates for these source and sinks also need to be estimated. Due to the
many variables and uncertainties associated with this, it is often difficult to provide accurate
sediment budget estimates (Rosati 2005) and it would require a much more intense analysis of the
littoral sediment movements around the island.

Recommendations for the future include considering assessing the spatial distribution of transects,
collecting data of sediment grain size/sorting/distribution and capturing the effects of significant
storm events. In regards to transect distribution, the most beneficial change would be to add a
another transect to the northern end of Grand Anse as this area is currently not being represented
but may be able to provide us with a better understanding of the accretion patterns that we have
seen on this beach so far. Repositioning the second transect on Anse Laraie (AL02) more towards the
centre of the beach in front of the Rangers Station may also provide more representative data for
this section of the beach. Currently, none of the northern coastline of Curieuse Island is being
monitored due to time and resource constraints; if this were to change in the future it may be
beneficial to carry out beach profiles on Badamier Beach in order to provide a fuller picture of
sediment movements around the entire island.

Sediment characteristics such as grain size, sorting and distribution are one of the major factors that
determine the profile of a beach slope (Hanson n.d.). Therefore, collecting data on this would
provide further insight as to why some of the changes we are seeing in our profiles are occurring.
Classifying monthly beach profiles into reflective/intermediate/dissipative beach morphologies may
also help to clarify what changes are occurring. Other major factors that influence beach profiles are
wave climate (wave length/period/height) and wave generated currents (e.g. longshore drift), tides,
strength of swash and backwash which is in turn affected by sediment characteristics, and sediment
76





availability (Hanson n.d.). Where possible, third party will need to be relied upon for this data, as it is
currently beyond the scope of our beach profile monitoring program.

Currently, beach profiling does not occur specifically after significant storm events that can result in
a considerable amount of beach erosion (Morton, 2002). It would be greatly beneficial to be able to
capture the impacts of storm events on the beaches of Curiuese, so that these changes can be
attributed accurately to the major influencing factors and not be construed as part of day to day
changes seen at other times of the month. However, given the unpredictable nature of these events,
it would often be difficult to capture these events as time/scheduling constraints mean that we may
not be able to be this reactive in our approach.

Conclusion
The commencement of the beach profiling survey in June this year has given us an indication into
some of the trends we may expect to see from further monitoring. While it is too early in the
program to be able to satisfy our aims, the project is off to a good start. Currently there are some
issues with the use of Beach Profile Analysis software but this should be resolved in the coming
months following additional training. Moving forward it may be beneficial to look into the
distribution of the transects along Curieuses beaches, collect sediment characteristic data and
capture the affects of significant storm events, in order to give us a better understanding of the
changes that are occurring. Having baseline data is not only vital in the ability to assess future
impacts of any sea level changes, tsunami events etc. on Curieuse Island but is also a useful tool in
guiding SNPA in future habitat protection measures for the nesting sea turtles that use these
beaches.

77

References
Allen AC, Shah NJ, Grant A, Derand GD, Bell D. 2010. Hawksbill turtle monitoring in Cousin Island
Special Reserve, Seychelles: an eight-fold increase in annual nesting numbers. Endangered Species
Research 11:195-200

Bester C. 2014.Sicklefin lemon shark. Florida Museum of Natural History.
http://www.flmnh.ufl.edu/natsci/ichthyology/gallery/Descript/SicklefinLemonShark/sfLemonShark.
html

BirdLife International. 2012. Copysychus sechellarum. The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species.
Version 2014.3.www.iucnredlist.org. Downloaded on 25 January 2015.

Blackmore S, Chin S, Chong Seng L, Christie F, Inches F, Utami P W, Watherston N and Wortley A H.
2011. Observations on the morphology, pollination and cultivation of Coco de Mer (Lodoicea
maldivica (J F Gmel.) Pers., Palmae) Journal of Botony

Bourn D, Coe M. 1978.The size, structure and distribution of the Giant Tortoise Population of
Aldabra. Phil. Trans. R. Soc. Lond. 282: 139-174.

Brunnschweiler JM, Abrantes KG, Barnett A. 2014. Long-term changes in species composition and
relative abundances of sharks at a provisioning site. PLoS ONE 9:e86682

Burger A E and Lawrence A D 2003 Seabird monitoring handbook for Seychelles 2nd Edition. Nature
Seychelles, Mahe

Burt AJ 2013. Census of white-tailed tropicbird, white tern, lesser noddy, brown noddy, sooty tern,
bridled tern, tropical shearwater and wedge-tailed shearwater breeding colonies on Cousin Island,
July 2013. Unpublished report, Nature Seychelles, Republic of Seychelles.

Burt AJ, Dunn N, Mason-Parker C, Antha S & Mortimer JA. 2015. Curieuse National Park, Seychelles:
Critical Management Needs for an Important Nesting Habitat. Marine Turtle Newsletter 147: 6-11.

Carpenter KE and Niem VH. 1998. FAO species identification guide for fishery purposes: The living
marine resources of the Western Central Pacific. Volume 2. Cephalopods, Crustaceans, Holothurians
and Sharks. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, Rome, 1998.

Chaloupka M, Bjorndal KA, Balazs GH, Bolten AB, Ehrhart LM, Limpus CJ, Suganuma H, Troeng S,
Yamaguchi M. 2007. Encouraging outlook for recovery of a once severely exploited marine
megaherbivore. Global Ecology and Biogeography 17:297-394

Chapman DD, Babcock EA, Gruber SH, Dibattista JD, Franks BR, Kessel SA, Guttridge T, Pikitch EK,
Feldheim KA. 2009. Long-term natal site-fidelity by immature lemon sharks (Negaprion brevirostris)
at a subtropical island. Molecular Ecology 18:3500-3507

Clua E, Buray N, Legendre P, Mourier J, Planes S. 2011. Business partner or simple catch? The
economic value of the sicklefin lemon shark in French Polynesia. Marine and Freshwater Research
62:764-770
Compagno LJV. 1990. Shark exploitation and conservation. Pratt HL Jr., Gruber, SH, and Taniuchi T
(Eds) Technical Report NMFS 90, 391-414. 1990. Honolulu, Hawaii, National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration. NOAA.
78






Cortes E. 2000. Life history patterns and correlations in sharks. Reviews in Fisheries Science 8:299-
344

Daig. 2013. A baseline study of the distribution and abundance of mangrove species in the proximal
zone (outermost fringe) of Curieuse wetland. University of London, Dissertation.

DeAngelis BM, McCandless CT, Kohler NE, Recksiek CW, Skomal GB. 2008. First characterization of
shark nursery habitat in the United States Virgin Islands: Evidence of habitat partitioning by two
shark species. Marine Ecology Progress Series 358:257-271

deMarignac JRC. 2000. Home range and diel movement pattern of sub-adult lemon sharks in Bimini,
Bahamas. Master of Science The Faculty of Moss Landing Marine Laboratories

Dibattista JD, Feldheim KA, Thibert-Plante X, Gruber SH, Hendry AP. 2008.A genetic assessment of
polyandry and breeding-site fidelity in lemon sharks. Molecular Ecology 17:3337-3351

DiGirolamo AL, Gruber SH, Pomoroy C, Bennett WA. 2012. Diel temperature patterns of juvenile
lemon sharks Negaprion brevirostris, in a shallow-water nursery. Journal of Fish Biology 80:1436-
1448

Dunn N, Mason-Parker C, Davies D, Quinton K, Portal B, Ward C, Lang R, Woods P, Jones Z, Parker-
Jurd F, Lovell P. 2014. GVI Seychelles - Curieuse Terrestrial Conservation Expedition Annual Report.

Edren SMC, Gruber SH. 2005. Homing ability of young lemon sharks, Negaprion brevirostris.
Environmental Biology of Fishes 72:267-281

Edwards PJ, Kollmann J, Fleischmann K. 2003. Life history evolution in Lodoicea maldivica
(Arecaceae). Nord. J. Bot. 22:227-237. Copenhagen

Feldheim KA, Gruber SH, Ashley MV. 2001. The breeding biology of lemon sharks at a tropical
nursery. Proc. R. Soc. Lond. B 269:1655-1661

Feldheim KA, Gruber SH, Dibattista JD, Babcock EA, Kessel ST, Hendry AP, Pikich EK, Ashley MV,
Chapman DD. 2014. Two decades of genetic profiling yields first evidence of natal philopatry and
long-term fidelity to parturition sites in sharks. Molecular Ecology 23:110-117

Filmalter JD, Daghorn L, Cowley PD. 2013. Spatial behaviour and site fidelity of the sicklefin lemon
shark Negaprion acutidens in a remote Indian Ocean Atoll. Marine Biology 160:2425-2436

Fleischer-Dogley F, Huber MJ, Ismail S. 2011a. Lodoicea maldivica. In: IUCN 2012. IUCN Red List of
Threatened Species. Version 2012.2. www.iucnredlist.org. Downloaded on 29 May 2013

Fleischer-Dogley F, Kettle CJ, Edwards PJ, Ghazoul J, Mtnen K, Kaiser-Bunbury CN. 2011b.
Morphological and genetic differentiation in populations of the dispersal-limited coco de mer
(Lodoicea maldivica): implications for management and conservation. Diversity and Distrib. 17:235-
243

Fleischer-Dogley F. 2006. Towards sustainable management of Lodoicea maldivica (Gmelin) Persoon.
PhD Thesis. University of Reading UK
79






Fleischmann K, Edwards P J, Ramseier D, Kollman J. 2005. Stand structure, species diversity and
regeneration of an endemic palm forest on the Seychelles. African Journal of Ecology.43:291-301.

Freitas RHA, Rosa RS, Gruber SH, Wetherbee BM. 2006. Early growth and juvenile population
structure of lemon sharks Negaprion brevirostris in the Atol das Rocas Biological Reserve, off North-
East Brazil. Journal of Fish Biology 68:1319-1332

Gallagher AJ, Hammerschlag N. 2011. Global shark currency: The distribution, frequency, and
economic value of shark ecotourism. Current Issues in Tourism 14:797-812

Gaymer R. 1968. The Indian Ocean giant tortoise Testudo gigantean on Aldabra. J. Zool. Lond
154:341-363

Gerlach J, Rocamora G, Gane J, Jolliffe K, Vanherck L. 2013. Giant tortoise distribution and
abundance in the Seychelles islands: past, present, and future. Chelonian Conservation and Biology
12(1):70-83

Gibson CD, Hamilton J. 1984. Population processes in a large herbivorous reptile: the giant tortoise
of Aldabra atoll. Oecologia 61:230-240.

Gregory RD, Gibbons DW, Donald PF. 2006. Bird survey and census techniques. In: Sutherland WJ
(ed) Ecological census techniques: A Handbook. Cambridge University Press, pp 17-55

Grubb P. 1971. The growth, ecology and population structure of giant tortoises on Aldabra. Phil
Trans R SocLond 260:327-372.

Gruber SH, de Marignac JRC, Hoenig JM. 2001. Survival of juvenile lemon sharks at Bimini, Bahamas,
estimated by mark-depletion experiments. Transactions of the American Fisheries Society 130:376-
384

Gruber SH, Nelson DR, Morrissey JF. 1988. Patterns of activity and space utilization of lemon sharks,
Negaprion brevirostris, in a shallow Bahamian lagoon. Bulletin of Marine Science 43:61-76

Hambler C. 1992. Giant Tortoise Reproduction and recruitment of Curieuse Island. Inform: Reports
from the Conservation and National Parks Service of Seychelles. Victoria: 1-18.

Hambler C. 1994. Giant Tortoise Geochelone gigantean Translocation to Curieuse Island (Seychelles):
Success or Failure Biological Conservation 69(3):293-299.

Hansen DM, Donlan CJ et al. 2010. Ecological history and latent conservation potential: large and
giant tortoises as a model for taxon substitutions. Ecography 33(2):272-284.

Hanson, L. n.d. Beach Profile: Influencing factors. Retrieved 15 January 2016 from
http://w3.salemstate.edu

Heupel MR, Simpfendorfer CA, Bennett MB. 1998. Analysis of tissue responses to fin tagging in
Australian Carcharhinids. Journal of Fish Biology 52:610-620

80





Heupel MR, Carlson JK, Simpfendorfer C. 2007. Sharks Nursery Areas: Concepts, Definition,
Characterization and Assumptions. Marine Ecology Progress Series 337:287-297

Hill MJ. 2002. Biodiversity surveys and conservation potential of inner Seychelles islands. Atoll
research bulletin No 495. Issued by National Museum of Natural History Smithsonian Institution.
Washington D.C.

Hitchins PM, Bourquin O, Hitchins S. 2004. Nesting success of hawksbill turtles (Eretmochelys
imbricata) on Cousine Island, Seychelles. J. Zool., Lond. 264:383389

IUCN. 2014. Negaprion acutidens (sharptooth lemon shark). International Union for the
Conservation of Nature Red List of Threatened Species.

Johnson LK, Herren LW. 2008. Management of Fringing Mangrove Habitat in the Indian River Lagoon.
Florida Department of Environmental Protection.

Koch B, Kaiser-Bunbury C. 2010. Long term survey of CDM growth in Fond Pepper: materials and
methods.

Leighton PA, Horrocks JA, Kramer DL. 2009. How depth alters detection and capture of buried prey:
exploitation of sea turtle eggs by mongooses. Behavioural Ecology 20(6):1299-1306

Lewis M, Adams D, Hill P, Heaney V. 1991. Findings of the Oxford University Expedition Study of the
Giant Tortoise Population on Curieuse Island.

Lewis R. 2005. Ecological engineering for successful management and restoration of mangrove
forests. Ecological Engineering 24:403-418

Limpus CJ, Nicholls N. 1988. The Southern Oscillation regulates the annual numbers of green turtles
(Chelonia mydas) breeding around northern Australia. Aust. J. Wildl. Res. 15:157-161

Lunardi VO, Macedo RH, Granadeiro JP, Palmeirim JM. 2012. Migratory flows and foraging habitat
selection by shorebirds along the north-eastern coast of Brazil: the case of Baia de Todosos Santos.
Estuarine, Coastal and Shelf Science. 96(1):179-187

Manis, JE.2013. Assessing the effectiveness of living shoreline restoration and quantifying wave
attenuation in mosquito lagoon, Florida. Masters Thesis.

Manson FJ, Loneragan NR, Skilleter GA, Phinn SR. 2005. An evaluation of the evidence for linkages
between mangroves and fisheries: a synthesis of the literature and identification of research
directions. Oceanography and Marine Biology: an Annual Review 43:485-515

McFarland CG, Villa J et al. 1974. The Galapagos Giant Tortoises (Geochelone elephantopus) Part 1:
Status of the Surviving Populations Biological Conservation 6(2):118-133

Meylan AB, Donnelly M. 1999. Status Justification for Listing the Hawksbill Turtle (Eretmochelys
imbricata) as Critically Endangered on the 1996 IUCN Red List of Threatened Animals. Chelonian
Conservation and Biology. 3(2):200224

81





Morrissey JF, Gruber SH. 1993. Home range of juvenile lemon sharks, Negaprion brevirostris. Copeia
1993:425-434

Mortimer JA, Bresson R. 1994. The hawksbill nesting population at Cousin Island, Republic of
Seychelles: 1971-72 to 1991-92. Pp. 115-118, in Schroeder, B.A. & Witherington, B.E. (compilers).
Proceedings of the 13th Annual Symposium on Sea Turtle Biology and Conservation. NOAA Technical
Memo. NMFS-SEFSC-341

Mortimer JA, Bresson R. 1999. Temporal distribution and periodicity in hawksbill
turtles (Eretmochelys imbricata) nesting at Cousin Island, Republic of Seychelles, 1971-
1997.Chelonian Conservation and Biology 3(2): 292-298

Mortimer JA, Donnelly M. 2008. Eretmochelys imbricata. In: IUCN 2012. IUCN Red List of Threatened
Species. IUCN SSC Marine Turtle Specialist Group. Version 2012.2.www.iucnredlist.org.

Mortimer JA. 1984. Marine Turtles in the Republic of Seychelles: Status and Management.
Publication of the IUCN Conservation Library: Gland, Switzerland.

Mortimer JA. 1990. The influence of beach sand characteristics on the nesting behaviour and clutch
survival of Green turtles (Chelonia mydas). Copeia. 3:802-817

Mortimer JA. 1998. Turtle & Tortoise Conservation. Project J1: Environmental Management Plan of
the Seychelles. Final report to the Ministry of Environment Republic of Seychelles and the Global
Environment Facility (GEF). Volume 1 (82pp) and Volume 2 (Appendices 1-50)

Mortimer JA. 2004. Seychelles Marine Ecosystem Management Project (SEYMEMP): Turtle
Component. GEF Final Report, Vol 1: 243 pp. Vol 2: Appendix 1-11, 158 pp

Morton, RA. 2002. Factors Controlling Storm Impacts on Coastal Barriers and Beaches: A Preliminary
Basis for near Real-Time Forecasting, Journal of Coastal Research. 18(3): 486-501.

Mourier J, Buray N, Schultz JK, Clua E, Planes S. 2013. Genetic network and breeding patterns of a
sicklefin lemon shark (Negaprion acutidens) population in the Society Islands, French Polynesia. PLoS
ONE 8:e73899

Murchie KJ, Schwager E, Cooke SJ, Danylchuk AJ, Danylchuk SE, Goldberg TL, Suski CD, Philipp DP.
2010. Spatial ecology of juvenile lemon sharks (Negaprion brevirostris) in tidal creeks and coastal
waters of Eleuthra, The Bahamas. Environmental Biology of Fishes 89:95-104

Metcalfe NB & Furness RW. 1985. Survival, winter population stability and site fidelity in the
Turnstone Arenaria interpres , Bird Study, 32:3, 207-214, DOI: 10.1080/00063658509476881
https://dx.doi.org/10.1080%2F00063658509476881

Nentwig, V., Bahlurg, H., & Monthy, D. 2014. Sedimentology of Coastal Deposits in the Seychelles
Islands - Evidence of the Indian Ocean Tsunami 2004, Pure and Applied Geophysics. 172(2015):641-
656

Nicholls H. 2012. Conservationists report the exciting recovery of the Pinzn tortoise in the
Galapagos. The Guardian. <http://www.theguardian.com/science/animal-magic/2015/jan/16/rat-
eradication-galapagos-tortoise-pinzon>. Accessed 24 January 2015.
82






Norris RD, Marra PP, Kyser TK, Sherry TM, Ratcliffe LM. 2004. Tropical winter habitat limits
reproductive success on the temperate breeding grounds n a migratory bird. Proceeding of the Royal
Society London B 271:59-64.

Obura D, Abdulla A. 2005. Assessment of tsunami impacts on the marine environment of the
Seychelles. Seychelles Ministry of Environment

Papastamatiou YP, Wood CL, Bradley D, McCauley DJ, Pollock AL, Caselle JE. 2014. First records of
the sicklefin lemon shark, Negaprion acutidens, at Palmyra Atoll, Central Pacific: A Recent
Colonization Event? Marine Biodiversity Records 7:1-3

Pemberton JW, Gilchrist JS. 2009. Behavior and Diet Preferences of a Released Population of Giant
Tortoises in the Seychelles. Chelonian Conservation and Biology 8(1):57-65.

Plummer MV, Ferner JW. 2012. Marking Reptiles In Foster M and McDiarmid R (Eds) Reptile
Biodiversity (pp. 143-150). Berkeley and Los Angeles, CA: University of California Press.

Rainbolt RE 1996 Geochelone gigantean (Aldabra Giant Tortoise) Predation Herpetological Review
27(4): 1999.

Reuleaux A, Bunbury N, Villard P and Waltert M. 2013. Status, distribution and recommendations for
monitoring of the Seychelles black parrot Coracopsis (nigra) barklyi

Rist L, Kaiser-Bunbury CN, Fleischer-Dogley F, Edwards P, Bunbury N, Ghazoul J. 2010. Sustainable
harvesting of coco de mer, Lodoicea maldivica, in the Vallee de Mai, Seychelles. Forest Ecology and
Management 260:2224-2231

Rocamora G, Skerrett A. 2001. Important bird areas in Africa and associated islands Seychelles.
Bird Life International
http://www.birdlife.org/datazone/userfiles/file/IBAs/AfricaCntryPDFs/Seychelles.pdf. Accessed 15th
January 2013

Rosati, J.D. 2005. Concepts in sediment budgets, Journal of Coastal Research. 21(2): 307-322. West
Palm Beach (Florida).

Samour HJ, Spratt DMJ, Hart MG, Savage B, Hawkey CM. 1987. A survey of the Aldabra Giant
Tortoise Population Introduced on Curieuse Island, Seychelles Biological Conservation 41:147-148

Samways MJ, Hitchens PM et al. 2010. Restoration of a tropical island: Cousine Island, Seychelles.
Biodiversity Conservation 19(2):425-434.

Sanchez C, Davies D, Grant A, Hodgkiss R, McClelland J, Kovacev S, Howard J, Dunn N. 2015. GVI
Seychelles - Curieuse Island Conservation Expedition Annual Report.

Sanyal P. 1998. Rehabilitation of degraded mangrove forests of the Sunderbans of India. In: Program
of the International Workshop on Rehabilitation of Degraded Coastal Systems, Phuket Marine
Biological Center 19-24 January 1998, Phuket, Thailand. Pp.25

83





Savage JP and Ashton PS. 1984. The Population Structure of the Double Coconut and Some Other
Seychelles Palms. Biotropical 19: 282-283

Schultz JK, Feldheim KA, Gruber SH, Ashley MV, McGovern TM, Bowen BW. 2008. Global
phylogeography and seascape genetics of the lemon shark (Genus Negaprion). Molecular Ecology
17:5336-5348

Seminoff J (Southwest Fisheries Science Center US). 2004.Chelonia mydas In: IUCN 2012. IUCN Red
List of Threatened Species. Version 2012.2. www.iucnredlist.org.

Seret B. 2002) Shark fisheries and conservation in the Seychelles. Consultancy Report for the
Seychelles Fishing Authority. December 2002.

Seychelles Fishing Authority. 2007. Seychelles national plan of action for the conservation and
management of Sharks. Government of the Seychelles.

Seychelles National Parks Authority (SNPA). 2012. Curieuse mangroves a manual for field study.
Seychelles. Print.

SIF unpub. 14 January 2015. Facebook post at 8pm.<https://www.facebook.com/pages/Seychelles-
Islands-Foundation-SIF/1414466072110654>.

Silverton J. 1987. Possible sexual dimorphism in the Double Coconut: Reinterpretation of the data of
Savage and Ashton. Biotropical 19: 282-283

Skerret A, Disley T. 2011. Birds of Seychelles. Christopher Helm. London.

Speed CD, Meekan MG, Field IC, McMahon CR, Stevens JD, McGregor F, Huveneers C, Berger Y,
Bradshaw CJA. 2011. Spatial and temporal movement patterns of a multi-species coastal reef shark
aggregation. Marine Ecology Progress Series 429:261-275

Stevens JD (1984) Life-history and ecology of sharks at Aldabra Atoll, Indian Ocean. Proceedings of
the Royal Society of London B: Biological Sciences 222:79-106

Stevens JD, Bonfil R, Dulvy NK, Walker PA (2000) The effects of fishing of sharks, rays, and chimeras
(Chondrichthyans), and the implications for marine ecosystems. ICES Journal of Marine Science
57:476-494

Stoddart DR, Cowx D, Peet C, Wilson JR. 1982. Tortoises and tourists in the Western Indian Ocean:
The Curieuse experiment. Biological Conservation. 24:6780

Stoddart DR, Peake JF, Gorden C, Burleigh R. 1979.Historical Records of Indian Ocean Giant Tortoise
Populations.Phil. Trans. R. Soc. Lond. B286: 147-161

Swingland IR, Coe M. 1979.The natural regulation of giant tortoise populations on Aldabra Atoll.
Reproduction J. Zool. Lond 186:285-309.

Swingland IR. 1977. Reproductive effort and life history strategy of the Aldabra Giant tortoise.
Nature, Lond. 269 402-404

84





The IUCN SSC Invasive Species Specialist Group Impacts of the common myna (Acridotheres tristis)
on native bio-diversity, crops and human health

Tortoise & Freshwater Turtle Specialist Group. 1996. Geochelone gigantea. The IUCN Red List of
Threatened Species. Version 2014.3.www.iucnredlist.org. Downloaded on 25 January 2015.

Van Vessem J, Draulans D. 1986. The adaptive significance of colonial breeding in the grey heron
Ardea cinerea: inter- and intra-colony variability in breeding success. Ornis Scandinavica 17:356-362

Wetherbee BM, Gruber SH, Rosa RS. 2007. Movement patterns of juvenile lemon sharks Negaprion
brevirostris within Atol das Rocas, Brazil: A nursery characterized by tidal extremes. Marine Ecology
Progress Series 343:283-293

White WT, Potter IC. 2004. Habitat partitioning among four Elasmobranch species in nearshore,
shallow waters of a subtropical embayment in western Australia. Marine Biology 145:1023-1032

Woods
PJ.
2013.
The
Birds
of
Curieuse
Island,
Seychelles.
http://www.seychellesbirdrecordscommittee.com/other-articles.html

Worm B, Davis B, Kettemer L, Ward-Paige CA, Chapman DD, Heithaus MR, Kessel ST, Gruber SH.
2013. Global catches, exploitation rates, and rebuilding options for sharks. Marine Policy 40:194-204

Yeiser BG, Heupel MR, Simpfendorfer CA. 2008. Occurrence, home range and movement patterns of
juvenile bull (Carcharhinus leucas) and lemon (Negaprion brevirostris) sharks within a Florida
estuary. Marine and Freshwater Research 59:489-501

Yoshihiro M, Michimasa M, Hitonori Nanao, Motohiko K, Toyohiko M, Nobuyuki K and Daijiro K.
2002.Coastal erosion due to long-term human impact on mangrove forests. Wetlands Ecology and
Management 10:1-9

85

Appendices
Appendix A. Birds

Figure 1. Curieuse Island with previously used vantage points for bird survey point counts. Points A1-
A12 are situated along low lying coastal plateau, points B1-B24 are situated inland or in elevated
areas and points M1-M16 and are situated within the North mangroves.

Figure 2. Google Earth image of the Curieuse mangroves, with the location of point counts for bird
surveys from October to December 2015.

86




Table 1. The categories to be completed in the field by the recorder for each observation.
Category
Weather and Tide
Survey Area
Point Number
Start Time/End Time
Time
Species
Number
Distance From Point
Observation Type
Behaviour
Photo
Comments

Description
Brief weather description, tide height checked before leaving base.
E.g. Mangroves, name of the beach
E.g. A1-A12, M1-22
Time 10 minutes of observations starts and ends
Time of each observation
Species name ideally, family if unsure e.g. tern
Number of individuals of that species
Distance of individual from observers
Identified using sight or sound
Resting, foraging, flying over, social interaction or escaping
To be encouraged if unsure of identification
Any additional information

Table 2. The species recorded on Curieuse Island during the monitoring programme in 2015. The
common names and scientific names are given. The status of the species on Curieuse is also given.
Endemic is a species confined to the Seychelles. Resident is a non-endemic species that breeds on
Curieuse. Annual visitor is a migratory species that does not breed on Curieuse, but appears every
year outside its normal breeding season. A vagrant is a species that, on the basis of current
knowledge, is not known to occur each year on Curieuse.

Common Name
Scientific Name
Status on Curieuse
Barred Ground Dove
Geopelia striata
Resident
Black Crowned Night Heron Nycticorax nycticorax
Annual visitor
Bridled Tern
Sterna anaethetus
Annual Visitor
Brown Noddy
Anous stolidus
Annual Visitor
Common Greenshank
Tringa nebularia
Annual Visitor
Common Moorhen
Gallinula chloropus
Resident
Common Myna
Acridotheres tristis
Resident
Common Sandpiper
Actitis hypoleucos
Annual Visitor
Common Tern
Sterna hirundo
Annual Visitor
Crab Plover
Dromas ardeola
Annual Visitor
Eurasian Curlew
Numenius arquata
Annual Visitor
Curlew Sandpiper
Calidris ferruginea
Annual Visitor
Fairy Tern
Gygis alba
Annual Visitor
Garganey
Anas querquedula
Annual Visitor
Great Frigatebird
Fregata minor
Annual Visitor
Greater Crested Tern
Sterna bergii
Annual Visitor
Greater Sandplover
Charadrius leschenaultii
Annual Visitor
Green Backed Heron
Butorides striata
Resident
Grey Heron
Ardea cinerea
Resident
Grey Plover
Pluvialis squatarola
Annual Visitor
Lesser Crested Tern
Sterna bengalensis
Annual Visitor
Lesser Frigatebird
Fregata ariel
Annual Visitor
87

Lesser Noddy
Lesser Sandplover
Madagascan Fody
Madagascan Turtle Dove
Ruddy Turnstone
Sanderling
Seychelles Blue Pigeon
Seychelles Sunbird
Whimbrel
White Tailed Tropicbird

Anous tenuirostris
Charadrius mongolus
Foudia madagascariensis
Streptopelia picturata
Arenaria interpres
Calidris alba
Alectroenas pulcherrima
Cinnyris dussumieri
Numenius phaeopus
Phaethon lepturus

Annual Visitor
Annual Visitor
Resident
Resident
Annual Visitor
Annual Visitor
Endemic
Endemic
Annual Visitor
Annual Visitor

Table 3. Number of encounters (sight and sound) for each species in either the mangroves or on the
coast. Species encountered in both the mangroves and coast are highlighted in orange, those only
encountered in the mangroves in green, and coast in blue. Since mangroves were surveyed year
round but coastal areas were only surveyed from January to April, numbers of encounters for each
species are not directly comparable.

2015 Encounters

Mangroves (Jan-Dec '15) Coast (Jan-Apr '15)
Total
Barred Ground Dove
63
4
67
Black Crowned Night Heron
Bridled Tern
Brown Noddy
Common Greenshank
Common Moorhen
Common Myna
Common Sandpiper
Common Tern
Crab Plover
Curlew Sandpiper
Eurasian Curlew
Fairy Tern
Garganey
Great Frigatebird
Greater Crested Tern
Greater Sandplover
Green Backed Heron
Grey Heron
Grey Plover
Lesser Crested Tern
Lesser Frigatebird
Lesser Noddy
Lesser Sandplover
Madagascan Fody

1
0
14
11
39
307
3
4
1
5
1
4
4
63
78
1
42
48
22
22
1
2
1
147

0
23
6
0
8
141
0
6
1
0
0
24
0
1
5
0
17
6
2
6
0
21
0
18

1
23
20
11
47
448
3
10
2
5
1
28
4
64
83
1
59
54
24
28
1
23
1
165
88

Madagascan Turtle Dove
Ruddy Turnstone
Sanderling
Seychelles Blue Pigeon
Seychelles Sunbird
Whimbrel
White Tailed Tropicbird

89
290
9
152
788
143
50

15
58
0
6
145
9
0

104
348
9
158
933
152
50

1000

Number of encounters

900
800
700
600
500
400
300
200

Grey Heron

Green Backed Heron

Great Frigatebird

Barred Ground Dove

Greater Crested Tern

Madagascan Turtle Dove

Whimbrel

Seychelles Blue Pigeon

Madagascan Fody

Ruddy Turnstone

Common Myna

Seychelles Sunbird

100

Species


Figure 3. The total number of encounters (sight and sound) for the twelve most common species
were observed on Curieuse, while on point count surveys in 2015. Total number of observations was
2921.

Table 4. Number of species and number of encounters (sight and sound) for endemic species,
residents, annual visitors and vagrants.

Status on Curieuse
Endemics
Residents
Annual Visitors

Number of Species Number of Observations

2
1091
7
944
23
892

Table 5. The presence of bird species on Curieuse by month in 2015

89

Black Crowned Night

Heron
Bridled Tern
Brown Noddy
Common Greenshank
Common Moorhen
Common Myna

Common Sandpiper
Common Tern
Crab Plover
Curlew Sandpiper
Eurasian Curlew
Fairy Tern
Garganey
Great Frigatebird
Greater Crested Tern
Greater Sandplover
Green Backed Heron
Grey Heron
Grey Plover
Lesser Crested Tern
Lesser Frigatebird
Lesser Noddy
Lesser Sandplover
Madagascan Fody
Madagascan Turtle
Dove
Ruddy Turnstone
Sanderling
Seychelles Blue Pigeon
Seychelles Sunbird
Whimbrel
White Tailed Tropicbird

Dec-14

Nov-14

Oct-14

Sep-14

Aug-14

Jul-14

Jun-14

May-14

Apr-14

Jan-14

Barred Ground Dove

Mar-14

Feb-14

90





Table 6. Number of landbirds, seabirds, and waders seen, and proportion of each bird group as a
percentage of total number of bird encountered, in the front, middle and back areas of the
mangrove, at high and mid tides. N represents the number of sessions at that tide state.

High Tide (n=1)

Total
Landbird
Seabird
Wader/Shorebird
Area of Mangrove

No.
%
No.
%
No.
%
Front
42
19
45.24%
11
26.19%
12
28.57%
Middle
16
11
68.75%
0
0.00%
5
31.25%
Back
22
18
81.82%
0
0.00%
4
18.18%


Area of Mangrove
Front
Middle
Back

Total

98
105
61

Tide (n=3)

Mid
Landbird
Seabird
No.
%
No.
%
39
39.80%
17
17.35%
69
65.71%
17
16.19%
44
72.13%
12
19.67%

Wader/Shorebird
No.
%
42
42.86%
19
18.10%
5
8.20%

91

Appendix B. Coco de Mer

Length (cm)

Figure 4. Map of tree distribution for the Coco de Mer growth survey.

450
400
350
300
250
200
150
100
50
0

Mean total
leaf length
Mean trunk
height

Immature

Male

Female

Lifestage

Figure 5. Mean leaf length (including bayonet) and trunk height of Immature, Male and Female
trees.

92

450
400
350
300
250
200
150
100
50
0

0.40
0.35
0.30
0.25
0.20
0.15
0.10
0.05
0.00
Female

Male

Immature

Juvenile

Daily growth (cm)

Length (cm)

Mean
total
leaf
length
Mean
growth
per day

Seedling

Lifestage

Figure 6. Mean leaf length (including bayonet) compared to mean growth rate per day to all life
stages.

600

Trunk height (cm)

500
400
300
200
100
0
0

Number of nuts

Figure 7. Mean number of nuts against trunk height for all female trees across Setup Q6.

93

Mar-14
Apr-14
May-14
Jun-14
Jul-14
Aug-14
Sep-14
Oct-14
Nov-14
Dec-14
Jan-15
Feb-15
Mar-15
Apr-15
May-15
Jun-15
Jul-15
Aug-15
Sep-15
Oct-15
Nov-15
Dec-15

number of catkins

1.4
1.2
1
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
0

Month

700
600
500
400
300
200
100
0

rainfall (mm)

Flowering
catkins/tree
Monthly
rainfall (mm)

Figure 8. Average number of flowering catkins (inflorescences) recorded each month male trees
compared to corresponding monthly rainfall.

Table 7. Averages ( standard deviation) of growth parameters taken for male, female, immature,
juvenile, and seedling Coco de Mers. Total leaf length includes bayonets.
Q2
Q6
Annual change
Parameters



Male trees
188.8 87.4
192.1 74.2
+3.3cm
Trunk height (cm)
84.3

9
.2
84.6

8
.0
+0.3
Girth at breast height (GBH) (cm)
361.5 127.1
453.6 95.8
+92.1cm
Total leaf length (cm)
Green leaves per tree
14.1 2.0
13.6 1.9
-0.5



Female trees
361.1 99.7
350.8 101.2
+6.7
Trunk height (cm)
86.6

1
1.6
87.4

1
1.4
+0.8
GBH (cm)
352.3 121.3
421.6 63.6
+69.3cm
Total leaf length (cm)
16.3
15.5 3.3
-0.8
Green leaves per tree



Immature plants
114.4 65.3
118.7 75.03
+4.3
Trunk height (cm)
86.0 (n=1)
84.0 (n=1)
-2
GBH (cm)
405.0 152.1 511.3 109.2
+106.3cm
Total leaf length (cm)
10.5 2.75
10.9 2.5
+0.4
Green leaves per tree



Juvenile plants
-
-

Trunk height (cm)
-
-

GBH (cm)
399.7 174.11 484.0 137.9
+84.3cm
Total leaf length (cm)
5.4 1.9
5.2 2.0
-0.2
Green leaves per tree



Seedlings
-
-

Trunk height (cm)
-
-

GBH (cm)
216.9

9
6.4
256.7

6
4.3
+39.8cm
Total leaf length (cm)
2.4 0.6
2.4 0.5
0
Green leaves per tree

94




Table 8. Average ( standard deviation) of the number of nuts per tree for Setup Q6

No. of
nuts

Setup

Q1

Q2

Q3

Q4

Q5

Q6

Mean

0.931.22 0.81.21 0.931.39 1.131.51 1.361.55 1.531.51 1.531.51 1.171.40

Table 9. Average ( standard deviation) and maximum of the number of flowering catkins recorded
per tree for Setup Q6
No. o f
catkins
Max no.
catkins

Setup

Q1

Q2

Q3

Q4

Q5

Q6

Mean

0.870.64 0.600.63 0.670.72 0.870.64 0.870.74 0.430.51 0.330.49
0.660.65
2.00

2.00

2.00

2.00

2.00

1.00

1.00

2.00

95

Appendix C. Giant tortoises

Figure 9. A diagram of a tortoise carapace (upper shell). The over-the-curve carapace length (OCCL)
is measured as demonstrated by dotted line a. Additionally, the width of the 3rd dorsal scute is
measured, dotted line b. Tail length was determined to be long if it passed one and a half marginal
scutes as demonstrated by dotted line c on right marginal scute, RM11. Any distinguishing marks on
tortoise shells were noted and photographed.

Figure 10. Map of Curieuse Island used by the Oxford Expedition team in 1990 (Lewis et al. 1991).
Areas are separated according to ease of accessibility for giant tortoises. The outer, northwest and
northeast edges of the island are inaccessible due to steep terrain and most likely also inaccessible
to tortoises.

96

Figure 11. Over the curve width measurement. Figure from Gaymer 1968.

Figure 12. The second toenail from the back on a rear leg was measured on each tortoise for the
population census. Toenails are believed to be one of three visual characteristics indicative of sex.

Table 10. Visual characteristics that may be indicative of the sex or life stage of giant tortoises. Only
tortoises showing qualities of a Full Male are guaranteed to have the same characteristics year after
year.
Full Male

Potential
male

Reproductive
female

Juvenile

Unknown (immature
male or female)

*L=long

n/a

S=short

S=short

S=short

*C=concave

SC = slightly
concave

F=flat

F=flat

F=flat

OCCL-mid

70 cm

70 cm

70 cm

*<70 cm

70 cm

White Line

n/a

n/a

n/a

2-3

n/a

Growth since the

1997 census?

n/a

No

n/a

n/a

Fem Repro Act

n/a

n/a

*NB or CoCop

n/a

n/a

Tail
Plastron

* Indicates a character that is definitive independent of other characters

Grey background - Indicates a supporting character
NB - Nesting behaviour is defined as nest digging or egg laying

97

CoCop - Cooperative copulation defined by observed penetration

Table 11. Averages and standard deviation of measurements taken for each of the age/sex classes in
the 2015 census.
Juvenile
(n=4)

Unknown
(n=15)

Potential Male
(n=26)

Full Male
(n=69)

OCCL (cm)
Width (cm)

Mean
45.98
48.05

SD
19.58
20.11

Mean
90.52
95.13

SD
11.57
10.82

Mean
97.97
101.37

SD
10.24
9.36

Mean
131.10
126.28

SD
10.20
8.60

3rd Dorsal (cm)

14.48

6.08

26.83

2.64

29.12

2.62

34.76

2.95

Toenail length (cm)

1.67

0.59

3.57

0.84

3.62

0.73

4.70

0.59

180.0

2015 Width
2015 OCCL

Length (cm)

160.0
140.0
120.0
100.0

R2 = 0.98

80.0
60.0
20.0

127
096
021
111
118
056
027
097
090
091
080
065
004
052
060
011
020
010
048
045
034
051
093
099
103
087
071
061

40.0

Individual Tortoises

Figure 13. Relationship between the OCCL and Width for tortoises in the 2015 census.

Table 12. Average growth in centimetres for each of the age/sex classes between the 2014 and 2015
censuses.

OCCL (cm)
Width (cm)
3rd Dorsal (cm)

Juvenile
(n=2)

Unknown
(n=13)

Potential Male
(n=25)

Full Male
(n=67)

Mean
1.90

SD
1.27

Mean
0.97

SD
1.77

Mean
1.34

SD
1.54

Mean
0.65

1.16

4.25
0.80

0.07
0.00

2.75
0.42

5.54
0.59

1.56
0.39

2.50
0.38

0.83
0.08

1.92
1.38

SD

98

Tracked OCCL of the 27 capdve hatchlings

24
22
OCCL (cm)

20
18
16
14

Nov-15

Oct-15

Sep-15

Aug-15

Jul-15

Jun-15

May-15

Apr-15

Mar-15

Feb-15

Jan-15

Dec-14

Nov-14

Oct-14

Sep-14

Aug-14

Jul-14

Jun-14

10

May-14

12

Figure 14. Growth displayed as changes in OCCL for the 27 captive hatchlings in the nursery.

Table 13. Sections of Curieuse where tortoises were found initially in each census.
Oxford Area Number
and Section
1 - Grand Anse
2 - Anse Papaie
3+4 - Ranger's Station
5 - North Mangroves
6 - South Mangroves
8 - Anse St Jose
9 - Anse Badamier
11 - North of Grand Anse
12 - Mt Libine
13 - Fond Blanc
14 - North Coast
17 - North Ridge
Total

Samour et
al. (1986)

Lewis et al.
1991

2013 Initial
encounter

2014 Initial
encounter

2015 Initial
encounter

8
1

0
6

9
3

8
3

7
4

109
7
0
0

84
18
0
0

104
3
0
0

97
3
1
0

93
2
0
1

0
6

3
0
5
0

0
1
2
2

1
1
1
3

1
2
4
1

1
1
118

0
1
125

0
0
118

0
0
115

12
0
1
144

Table 14. Average growth in centimetres for each of the age/sex classes between the 1997 and 2015
censuses. Growth data for this period is only available for 60 individuals.
Unknown
(n=4)

OCCL (cm)
rd

3 Dorsal (cm)

Potential Male
(n=11)

Full Male
(n=45)

Mean
24.03

SD
24.14

Mean
14.49

SD
15.44

Mean
29.47

29.01

7.27

8.43

2.80

4.20

9.74

7.02

SD

99

Appendix D. Mangroves

Figure 15. Twenty-eight transects, placed 10m apart, span the mangrove forest in a north-westerly
direction perpendicular to the coastline. Numbers in blue show the approximate location of the five
permanent 10m x 10m quadrats.

Tree species within each quadrat for the periods June/July 2015 and
December 2015

No. of trees

120
100
80

Jun/July-15

60
40

Dec -15

2
3
4
Mangrove species within each quadrat

Rhizophora mucronata

Bruguiera gymnorhiza

Rhizophora mucronata

Bruguiera gymnorhiza

Rhizophora mucronata

Bruguiera gymnorhiza

Avicennia marina

Rhizophora mucronata

Avicennia marina

Rhizophora mucronata

Lumnitzera racemosa

Bruguiera gymnorhiza

Avicennia marina

20

Figure 16. Mangrove tree abundance and species distribution throughout the five 10m x 10m
quadrats, for the periods of June/July 2015 and December 2015.

100





Table 15. Number of mangrove seedling and saplings located within the 1m x 1m quadrats of the five
permanent quadrats, for the periods of June/July 2015 and December 2015. Quadrat 3 contained no
seedlings or saplings.

Table 16. Seedling and sapling abundance based on species, for the periods of June/July 2015 and
December 2015.


R. mucronata
B. gymnorihiza


Seedlings


June/July
9
28

December
15
27

Annual Average
12
28
Saplings

June/July
December
Annual Average

13
11
12

3
3
3

Combined Average

24

31

Table 17. Average annual salinity for sections of the mangrove forest in 2015 (n denotes the
number of surveyed waypoint poles). Average, miniumum and maxium temperature from January to
August 2015 (temperature data from August 2015 onwards was unreliable and has been discarded).
Section 1 denotes the front of the mangroves where the forest and Baie Laraie meet, and Section 8
denotes the landward edge of the forest.
Salinity (ppt)

Temperature (C)

Section
of
Forest

23

29.97

7.54

28.21

25

38

14

24.36

9.15

28.21

23

35

17

23.66

7.88

28.21

21

36

16

16.86

6.68

28.23

24

37

Salinity
Std.
Average Deviation Average Minimum Maximum

101

18

11.04

6.32

28.27

23

37

17

7.05

3.8

28.24

25

34

6.31

3.28

28.39

22

32

8
2
3.41
1.65
27.78
24
32

Table 18. Average inundation height and standard deviation for each section of the mangrove forest
(February & March 2015). Section 1 denotes the front of the mangroves where the forest and Baie
Laraie meet, and Section 8 denotes the landward edge of the forest.
Section Avg. Inundation Height (cm)

Std. Dev. of Height (cm)

Avg. Tide Height (m)

88.57

21.5

1.90

27.7

32.12

1.90

26.14

19.95

1.90

12.63

15.09

1.90

20.75

14.52

1.90

12.32

13.11

1.90

10.67

17.28

1.90

28

15.56

1.90

102

Appendix E. Sea Turtles

Table 19. Nest excavation categories and definitions.
Hatched
Empty eggshells.
Live pipped
Hatchling has broken through eggshell but not entirely emerged.
Dead pipped As above, though hatchling is no longer living.
Undeveloped No discernable embryo.
Stage one
Discernable embryo; eyes, spine, blood development but mostly yolk.
Stage two
Partially developed embryo. Yolk sac is larger than the turtle fetus.
Stage three
Mostly developed embryo. Turtle fetus is larger than yolk sac.
Predated
Egg obviously consumed by crabs or dogs.
Predated
Maggot and/ bacteria predation beyond stage recognition.
beyond
*When a small amount of maggots, bacteria or fungus is within an egg and the stage
recognition
is still recognizable, the number of eggs with predation are accounted for in [ ].

Example: Stage one: 5 [2]
*5 is the total number of eggs within the stage one category

Green

Hawksbill

*2 of those eggs contained maggots, fungus and/or bacteria

Table 20. Nine categories of sea turtle emergence types.
A. Wandering (but no digging) below high tide line
Half Moon
B. Wandering (but no digging) above high tide line
ESBO. Emergence stopped by obstacle
C. Considerable disturbance, evidence of digging (body pit & egg
chamber) but no covering.
Did Not Lay
D. Evidence of body pitting, but no digging of egg chamber or
covering.
Laid
E. Considerable disturbance, evidence of digging and covering.
F. Prob DNL. Probably Did Not Lay
Variations
G. Prob Laid. Probably Laid
?. Cannot tell if laid or not

Table 21. The total number of hawksbill nests recorded for the past five nesting seasons, 2010-2015.
*Population estimate is calculated by dividing total number of nests by a bracketed mean of 3-4
clutches per female per season for Hawksbills, and 3-5 clutches per female per season for Greens, in
line with Burt et al. (2015). Numbers in red indicate years where monitoring was not consistent.
2010-
2011-
2012-
2013-
2014-
2015-2016
Nesting Season

2011
2012
2013
2014
2015
(incomplete)
Activities

312

367

522

323

428

380

Total nests

151

186

282

128

225

245

* Population
estimation

38-50

47-62

71-94

32-43

56-75

Activities

14

53

41

Total nests

22

23

*Population
estimation

1-2

1-2

1-2

1-2

5-7

103

2014-2015 Hawksbill Season

2015-2016 Hawksbill Season (incomplete)

250

200

Nest

150

Non-nest

100

All Acvies

50

# Acdvides

# Acdvides

250

200

Nest

150

Non-nest

100

All Acvies

50

Figure 18. The number of activities by month (nest, non-nests and all activities) for the 2014-2015
and 2015-2016 seasons. The 2015-2016 season shows activities up until 1st January 2016.

90%
80%

2010-2011

70%

2011-2012

60%
50%

2012-2013

40%

2013-2014

30%

2014-2015

20%

2015-2016

10%
0%

Figure 19. The percentage of total nests laid on each of the seven nesting beaches of Curieuse over
the past four seasons. The 2015-2016 season shows activities up until December 31st 2015.

2015 - 2016 Hawksbill season (incomplete)

100
80
60
40
20
0

Nesdng Success (%)

Nesdng Success (%)

2014 - 2015 Hawksbill season

100
80
60
40
20
0

Figure 20. Beach suitability for the 2015 2016 expressed in nesting success (number of nests
divided by total number of activities) for each beach.
104






Table 22. Hawksbill and Green turtle excavation parameters collected for the 2014-2015 season.

Number of Excavations
Hatching Success (%)
Average Clutch Size
Average Nest Depth
Total Hatched Eggs

Hawksbill
135
81.49
158
49.6
17592

Green turtle
17
67.47
109
66.4
1377

Table 23. Hawksbill and Green turtle excavation parameters collected for the 2015-2016 season thus
far.

Number of Excavations
Hatching Success (%)
Average Clutch Size
Average Nest Depth
Total Hatched Eggs

Hawksbill
12
89.4
152.2
50.5
1640

Green turtle
5
74.75
104
72.2
394

105

Appendix F. Lemon Sharks

Figure 21. Distribution of the sicklefin lemon shark, Negaprionacutidens.

Figure 22. Curieuse lemon shark study area within the Turtle Pond.

106

3.00

76.00
74.00
72.00

2.00

70.00
68.00

1.50

66.00

1.00

Weight (kg)

Length (cm)

Weight (kg)

2.50

64.00
TL (cm)

62.00

0.50

60.00

0.00

58.00

Month

Figure 23. Mean total length and weight of captures by month for season one.

102.0

8.00

100.0

7.00

98.0

6.00

96.0

5.00

94.0

4.00

92.0

3.00

90.0

2.00

88.0

1.00

86.0

01/01/2015 01/02/2015 01/03/2015 01/04/2015 01/05/2015

Weight (kg)

Total length (cm)

TL/cm
Weight/kg

0.00

Date of capture

Figure 24. Change in total length and weight measurements for shark number 75 between January
and June 2015



107

12.00

10

10.00
7

No.
Sessions
Dec-15

Nov-15

Oct-15

Captures
per session
3

Sep-15

Mar-15

Feb-15

Jan-15

Dec-14

Nov-14

0.00

Oct-14

2.00

Jan-16

Aug-15

4.00

Jul-15

Jun-15

May-15

6.00

Apr-15

8.00

Month-Year

Figure 25. Mean capture rates per session and no. of sessions by month for season one and season
two.

2
1.9
1.8
1.7
1.6
1.5
1.4
1.3
1.2
1.1
1

72
70
68
66
64
62
60

Mean Totsl Length (cm)

Mean weight (kg)

Mean
Weight
Mean TL

58
Sep-15

Oct-15

Nov-15

Dec-15

Jan-16

Month

Figure 26. Mean total length and mean weight for captures in season two.

108

Appendix G. Beach Profiling

Figure 27. Curieuse Island and the approximate positions on the beach profiling transects along Anse
Caiman, Anse Cimitiere, Anse Jose, Anse Laraie, Anse Papaie and Grand Anse in 2015.


Anse Jose Beach Width, June-October 2015
120

Length (m)

100
80
60

Jun/July

40

August
October

20
0
AJ01

AJ02

AJ03

AJ04

AJ05

AJ06

Survey Transects

Figure 28. Beach width of Anse Jose, Curieuse Island, at each transect for the months of June/July,
August & October 2015, with AJ01 being the northern end and AJ06 the southern end of the beach.

109

Anse Jose Beach Area, June-October 2015

300
Volume (m)

250
200
150

Jun/July

100

August

50

October

0
AJ01

AJ02

AJ03

AJ04

AJ05

AJ06

Survey Transects

Figure 29. Beach area of Anse Jose, Curieuse Island, at each transect for the months of June/July,
August & October 2015, with AJ01 being the northern end and AJ06 the southern end of the beach.

Grand Anse Beach Width, June-November 2015

70

Length (m)

60
50
40

June

30

August

20

November

10
0
GA01

GA02

GA03

Survey Transects

Figure 30. Beach width of Grand Anse, Curieuse Island, at each transect for the months of June,
August & November 2015, with GA01 being the southern end of the beach and GA03 the
northernmost transect.

110

Volume (m)

Grand Anse Beach Area, June-November 2015

100
90
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0

June
August
November

GA01

GA02

GA03

Survey Transects

Figure 31. Beach area of Grand Anse, Curieuse Island, at each transect for the months of June,
August & November 2015, with GA01 being the southern end of the beach and GA03 the
northernmost transect.

Anse Laraie Beach Area, June-November 2015

80

Volume (m)

70
60
50

June

40

August
November

30
20
AL01

AL02

AL03

AL04

Survey Transects

Figure 32. Beach area of Anse Laraie, Curieuse Island, at each transect for the months of June,
August & November 2015, with AL01 being the western end and AL04 the eastern end of the
beach.

111

Anse Laraie Beach Width, June-November 2015

55

Length (m)

50
45
40

June

35

August

30

November

25
20
AL01

AL02

AL03

AL04

Survey Transects

Figure 34. Beach width of Anse Laraie, Curieuse Island, at each transect for the months of June,
August & November 2015, with AL01 being the western end and AL04 the eastern end of the
beach.

Anse Papaie Beach Area, June-November 2015

60

Volume (m)

50
40
30

June

20

August
November

10
0
AP01

AP02

Survey Transects

Figure 35. Beach area of Anse Papaie, Curieuse Island, at each transect for the months of June,
August & November 2015, with AP01 being the western end and AP02 the eastern end of the
beach.

112

Anse Papaie Beach Width, June-November 2015

35

Length (m)

30
25
20

June

15

August

10

November

5
0
AP01

AP02
Survey Transects

Figure 36. Beach width of Anse Papaie, Curieuse Island, at each transect for the months of June,
August & November 2015, with AP01 being the western end and AP02 the eastern end of the
beach.

Figure 37. Beach profile at transect AJ06 on Anse Jose, Curieuse Island, for June, September and
October 2015. Profile was generated with Beach Profile Analyses (version 3.2). Horizontal axis
depicting distance (m) and the vertical axis depicting depth (m).

113

Figure 38. Beach profile at transect AJ05 on Anse Jose, Curieuse Island, for June, September and
October 2015. Profile was generated with Beach Profile Analyses (version 3.2). Horizontal axis
depicting distance (m) and the vertical axis depicting depth (m).

Figure 39. Beach profile at transect AJ04 on Anse Jose, Curieuse Island, for June, August and October
2015. Profile was generated with Beach Profile Analyses (version 3.2). Horizontal axis depicting
distance (m) and the vertical axis depicting depth (m).

114