International Journal of Marine Science, 2017, Vol.7, No.33, 316-343
329
As there was not a significant genetic structure over time for most WC rookeries (Leroux et al., 2012), the Nr in
the present study is annual, and the cumulative haplotype frequencies of the rookeries can exceed the Nr biasing
the true number of annual nesting females; for all MSAoa we selected the same haplotype frequencies in each
rookery but these being equivalent to the corresponding value of the one year of genetic sampling, keeping the
haplotype proportions of the original publications and always taking the larger annual sample (Supplementary
Material 2). In addition, the haplotypes reported in other nesting seasons but absent in the chosen sample by us,
were also included. Under this criterion, the haplotype frequencies of many rookeries were divided by the number
of nesting seasons. Thus, the haplotype frequencies of Jumby Bay, Pearl Cays and Buck Island according to
Leroux et al. (2012) were divided by two, eight and six respectively (see the number of nesting seasons in the
Supplementary Material of these authors). In Tortuguero the frequencies were divided by four due to the original
values came from 2000-2003 nesting seasons (Troëng et al., 2005) and the population size (Nr=10) is under the
number of reported haplotypes (N=42). For both, Mexican y Barbados leeward beaches rookeries, we took the
original Genetic data because they are the greater regional populations. In Doce Leguas the haplotype composition
was completed with data from final report in 2004 of the project WWF-Canada: Population genetics of hawksbill
Eretmochelys imbricata
: new data for its conservation in Cuba and the Caribbean region.
3.3.3 Rookery sizes
Rookery sizes were generally taken from the tables for nesting sites of continental or insular Caribbean by
Mortimer and Donnelly (2007) and other studies (Supplementary Material 2). In the case where Nr intervals
appeared, the larger value was selected. In the Mexican source Nr was taken from Campeche data because they
reflected the temporal growth of this source (Garduño-Andrade et al., 1999) and the larger Nr is maintained with
respect to the other WC rookeries. The Nr
1990s
in Doce Leguas was selected from Moncada et al. (1999) given this
was the only nesting season where 100% of the nesting beaches were sampled (1997/1998). Thus, if there were
198 nests in total, and nest number/female in Doce Leguas ranged from 1 to 5 (Moncada et al., 2010) being 3 the
median value, the Nr
1990s
and Nr
1980s
were estimated in 66 nesting females/year. For this rookery Moncada et al.
(2010) determined that there were 150 nests/year between 1997/1998 and 2008/2009 nesting seasons, representing
the 50% of the total nesting in Doce Leguas (300 nests/year), the Nr
2000s
was 100 nesting females/year. The Nr
1980s
and Nr
1990s
from both Dominican rookeries were assumed higher and similar values than the Nr
2000s
respectively,
based on the reported decline during these two decades. Nrs were recalculated for the Barbadian rookeries
assuming that: 1) according to Browne et al. (2010) the nesting on the leeward coast is 87.5% of the value
informed in Beggs et al. (2007), and 2) this proportion has been temporally maintained. As the Nr
1980s
is not
reported for Gales Point (Belize), we assumed the same value for the 1990s, and similarly the Nr
1980s
and Nr
1990s
of the Tobago rookery corresponded with the Nr
2000s
. The Nr
1990s
of Cayos Perla (Nicaragua) was the average of
the other decades as well, as in Tortuguero (Costa Rica).
3.4 Contribution
versus
maritime distance
To determine if the contributions were affected by the distance between sources and aggregation we calculated the
shortest maritime distance between these entities (SMD), and the distance from the source to the aggregation in
accordance with the trajectory of passive dispersion of particles (TMD) reported in Blumenthal et al. (2009a).
These distances were obtained in Google Earth version 5.1 (Google, 2009). Contribution, SMD and TMD were
tested with a Pearson correlation analysis using the software Statistica version 8.0 (StatSoft, 2007).
Authors’ contributions
EPB worked in sample processing, genetic analysis, mixed stock analysis and drafted the manuscript. In fact, this study is part of the
PhD thesis of EPB. ARU conceived, designed and directed the study, drafted the manuscript and took fishery data. LRG and GEL
participated in genetic analysis, critical revision of manuscript and contributed to the study design. ILG actively participated taking
the fishery data and conducing many statistical analysis. BP drafted the manuscript and critically analyzed the grammatical and
spelling in it. All authors read and approved the final manuscript. All authors read and approved the final manuscript and do not have
conflict of interest in any aspect.
