Show simple item record

dc.contributor.authorWiggins, J
dc.contributor.authorBaum, D
dc.contributor.authorBroderick, AC
dc.contributor.authorCapel, T
dc.contributor.authorColman, LP
dc.contributor.authorHunt, T
dc.contributor.authorSimmons, DL
dc.contributor.authorMcGurk, J
dc.contributor.authorMortlock, L
dc.contributor.authorNightingale, R
dc.contributor.authorWeber, N
dc.contributor.authorWeber, SB
dc.date.accessioned2025-03-27T13:03:03Z
dc.date.issued2023-11-13
dc.date.updated2025-03-27T11:46:40Z
dc.description.abstractSuccessful embryonic development and offspring sex ratios of marine turtles are determined by thermal conditions experienced during incubation, rendering them potentially vulnerable to anthropogenic climate change. With the rate of projected temperature rises likely to outpace the adaptive capacity of long-lived species such as marine turtles, there is growing interest in management interventions aimed at mitigating the effects of climate change at nesting grounds. In this study, we experimentally tested the impacts of artificial nest shading on the incubation temperature, hatching success, and predicted offspring sex ratio of green turtle (Chelonia mydas) clutches at Ascension Island. Clutches (n = 97) were sampled from 2 nesting beaches with naturally contrasting thermal environments (one hot; one cool) and either left as in situ controls or relocated to shaded or unshaded hatcheries on their beach of origin. Compared to unshaded experimental clutches, shading reduced mean incubation temperatures and sex-determining temperatures (i.e., middle third of embryonic development) by 0.5–0.9°C and 0.5–1.2°C respectively, with the reduction being greater on the hotter beach. Shading also differentially affected hatchling output across the 2 sites: on the hot beach, shading significantly improved hatching success by ~23% but had minimal effects on offspring sex ratio; whereas on the cooler beach, shading did not impact hatching success but resulted in ~12% more male offspring. Interestingly, mean incubation temperatures of in situ controls did not differ significantly from shaded clutches, and were significantly cooler than unshaded experimental clutches, suggesting relocation may have negated some of the benefits of shading. Our results demonstrated that artificial shading may be a viable approach for partially offsetting climate change impacts on nesting marine turtles; however, scalability will be a major challenge in achieving conservation objectives at high-density nesting sites like Ascension Island.en_GB
dc.description.sponsorshipBlue Marine Foundationen_GB
dc.description.sponsorshipDarwin Plusen_GB
dc.identifier.citationVol. 47(4), article e1497en_GB
dc.identifier.doihttps://doi.org/10.1002/wsb.1497
dc.identifier.grantnumberDPLUS11en_GB
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/10871/140697
dc.language.isoenen_GB
dc.publisherWiley / The Wildlife Societyen_GB
dc.relation.urlhttps://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.7945081en_GB
dc.rights© 2023 The Authors. Wildlife Society Bulletin published by Wiley Periodicals LLC on behalf of The Wildlife Society. This is an open access article under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits use, distribution and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.en_GB
dc.subjectartificial shadingen_GB
dc.subjectAscension Islanden_GB
dc.subjectChelonia mydasen_GB
dc.subjectclimate changeen_GB
dc.subjectgreen turtleen_GB
dc.subjecthatching successen_GB
dc.subjectincubation temperatureen_GB
dc.subjectmarine turtleen_GB
dc.subjectnest relocationen_GB
dc.subjectsex ratioen_GB
dc.titleEfficacy of artificial nest shading as a climate change adaptation measure for marine turtles at Ascension Islanden_GB
dc.typeArticleen_GB
dc.date.available2025-03-27T13:03:03Z
dc.identifier.issn0091-7648
exeter.article-numbere1497
dc.descriptionThis is the final version. Available on open access from Wiley via the DOI in this recorden_GB
dc.descriptionData availability statement: The data and R code used in the study is available on Zenodo at https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.7945081en_GB
dc.identifier.eissn2328-5540
dc.identifier.journalWildlife Society Bulletinen_GB
dc.rights.urihttps://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0en_GB
dcterms.dateAccepted2023-10-01
rioxxterms.versionVoRen_GB
rioxxterms.licenseref.startdate2023-11-13
rioxxterms.typeJournal Article/Reviewen_GB
refterms.dateFCD2025-03-27T12:59:50Z
refterms.versionFCDVoR
refterms.dateFOA2025-03-27T13:03:07Z
refterms.panelBen_GB
refterms.dateFirstOnline2023-11-13


Files in this item

This item appears in the following Collection(s)

Show simple item record

© 2023 The Authors. Wildlife Society Bulletin published by Wiley Periodicals LLC on behalf of The Wildlife Society. This is an open access article under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits use, distribution and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
Except where otherwise noted, this item's licence is described as © 2023 The Authors. Wildlife Society Bulletin published by Wiley Periodicals LLC on behalf of The Wildlife Society. This is an open access article under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits use, distribution and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.