The infertility rate among clutches of leatherback sea turtle (Dermochelys coriacea) eggs

incubated in the hatchery at Rantau A bang, Malaysia is estimated at 22%. Variance in hatchability

among fertile clutches ranges from 35.7- 96. 7% (x = 78%) for eggs handled with maximum care.

For such eggs hatchability did not show a correlation with the time between oviposition and reburial.

Leatherback eggs can tolerate rough handling only up to 5 hours after oviposition. Beyond this

threshold, careful handling to prevent rolling, bumping, rotation and disorientation of the vertical

axis will enhance hatch rates

Chan, Eng Heng

Liew, Hock Chark

Salleh , H. U.

Universiti Putra Malaysia Institutional Repository

Pertanika 8(2), 265 - 271 (1985)Effects of Handling on Hatchability of Eggs of theLeatherback Turtle, Dermochelys coriacea (L.)E.H. CHAN, H.D. SALLEH and H.C. LIEWFaculty of Fisheries and Marine Science,Universiti Pertanian Malaysia,Mengabang Telipot, Kuala Terengganu, Terengganu, Malaysia.Key words: Leatherback turtle; hatchery; infertility rate; handling; hatchability;ABSTRAKKadar ketidaksuburan di antara kumpulan telur penyu belimbing (Dermochelys coriacea)yang telah dieramkan di Pusat Penetasan Penyu di Rantau A bang, Malaysia, dianggarkan sebanyak22%. Varians penetasan di antara kumpulan telur yang subur berjulat antara 35.7- 96. 7% (x =78%) bagi telur yang telah dikendalikan dengan penuh teliti. Untuk telur-telur ini kadar penetasantidak menunjukkan korelasi masa di antara peneluran dan menimbus semula. Telur-telur penyubelimbing hanya boleh menahan pengendalian secara kasar selama 5 jam selepas ovzposisi. Selepasdari tempoh ini cara penjagaan yang teliti untuk menahan darzpada penggulingan, pelanggaran,pusingan dan penyahorientasipaksi tegak dapat meninggikan kadar penetasan.ABSTRACTThe infertility rate among clutches of leatherback sea turtle (Dermochelys coriacea) eggsincubated in the hatchery at Rantau A bang, Malaysia is estimated at 22%. Variance in hatchabilityamong fertile clutches ranges from 35.7- 96. 7% (x = 78%) for eggs handled with maximum care.For such eggs hatchability did not show a correlation with the time between ovzposition and reburial.Leatherback eggs can tolerate rough handling only up to 5 hours after ovzposition. Beyond thisthreshold, careful handling to prevent rolling, bumping, rotation and disorientation of the verticalaxis will enhance hatch rates.INTRODUCTIONHatchery operation is an important tool insea turtle conservation. Protected incubationunder natural conditions, coupled with releaseof hatchlings after emergence is considered byturtle conservationists as a safe and effectiveconservation technique (Ehrenfeld, 1981). InRantau Abang, Malaysia, natural hatching isnonexistent because of 100% commercial har-vesting of eggs of the leatherback turtle Dermo-chelys coriacea. A hatchery is critically im-portant. The one described by Siow (1982) wasset up by the Terengganu State Fisheries Depart-ment in 1961 and since then has released morethan 500,000 hatchlings into the sea.One of the major problems in hatcherywork is the inconsistency of hatch rates. SiowandMoll (1981) reported that annual hatching ratesin the Rantau Abang Turtle Hatchery have fluc-tuated from 32% to 71 % between 1961 and1978, with an overall average of 51.6%. InPuerto Rico, in situ hatching success of naturalclutches of leatherback eggs averages 72%(Tucker & Hall, 1984). Low hatch success ofhatchery eggs has been attributed to movementinduced mortality (Bustard, 1972; Limpus et al.,1979; Parmenter, 1980)..Blanck and Sawyer(1981) suggested that the most critical period inthe handling of sea turtle eggs occurs from 2 daysto 2.5 weeks. In Chelonia mydas, transportationof eggs to the final destination within 3 hoursE.H. CHAN, H.D. SALLEH AND H.C. LIEWafter oviposition would enhance hatching rates.The most sensitive period was reported to occurfrom 1 - 7 days after oviposition (Parmenter,1980). Sensitivity to movement has not beenreported for leatherback turtle eggs. This paperdiscusses the effects of different handlingmethods and duration the eggs were held afteroviposition.MATERIALS AND METHODSThe experiments were conducted in theRantau Abang Turtle Hatchery from 29 July1984 to 13 October 1984. All experimental eggswere collected from 29 July to 6 August 1984.Eggs from each nesting or clutch were collectedimmediately after oviposition and divided into 3lots prior to transportation to the Hatchery,about 1 km from the collection site. Number ofeggs per lot ranged from 20 - 36, depending onthe clutch size. These lots were designated AI,A2 and A3.Al eggs were held in plastic pails filled withabout 4 cm of sand. There was very little rollingof eggs during transportation. When ready forreplanting, these eggs were removed singly fromthe pail and placed carefully in the sand-nests tomaintain their vertical orientation.A2 and A3 eggs were transported in sugarsacks which is the normal practice in theHatchery. The vertical orientation of the A2eggs was carefully maintained when replanted insand-nests. A3 eggs, the control lot, were rolledonto the sand by inverting the sugar sack andthen placed in the sand-nests. These eggs werehandled quite roughly and their vertical axis wasnot maintained. This is the usual practice in theHatchery.Clutches were held for varying times in theircontainers before replanting to determine thethreshold of sensitivity to rough handling. Thesetime treatments were:-B1: replanted within I hour of ovipositionB2: replanted at 3 hours after ovipositionB3: replanted at 5 hours after ovipositionB4: replanted at 7 hours after ovipositionB5: replanted at 9 hours after ovipositionB6: replanted at 11 hours after ovipositionThere was a total of 18 treatments (TableI). Eggs from a total of 18 nesting turtles wereused. The three lots from each clutch or turtlewere held for the same time before reburial.Each combination of handling and time wasreplicated three times.In the Hatchery each lot was incubated inan individual open-air sand-nest at a depth ofabout 70 cm. The incubation period rangedfrom 54 to 62 days with most of the hatchlingsemerging between 56 to 58 days.RESULTSInfertile Eggs and Variation in HatchabilityA mong ClutchesOf the 18 clutches of eggs used for the expe-riments, four clutches were found to producezero hatch rates. Two of these clutches had beenreburied within one hour of oviposition while theother two had been reburied 11 hours after ovi-position (Table 1). When these unhatched eggswere excavated at the end of the experimentalperiod, i.e. after more than 70 days of incuba-tion, they were found to be in good conditionwith no signs of moulding on the external surfaceof the egg-shell. On opening, no embryonic stageswere detected. The eggs yolks were intact andsurrounded by thick albumin as in fresh eggs.These clutches with zero hatch rates were pro-bably infertile. If this is true, the infertility rate ofclutches in Rantau Abang can be estimated to be22%.Different clutches of eggs produced diffe-rent hatch rates. By considering only Al lotswhere eggs were' handled with maximum careand the vertical orientation eggs was maintain-ed, variance in hatchability among lots rangedfrom 0 - 96.67% (Table 1). Hatchability did notshow a correlation with the time between layingand reburial for the Al lots. The average hatch-ing success for all Al eggs was 59%. If infertile266 PERTANlKA VOL. 8 NO.2, 1985TABLE 1Summary of data and results for treatments.Al A2 A3 Dateof ::r::;l>Time treatment Total no. Total no. % hatch Total no. Total no. % hatch Total no. Total no. % hatch Replicate nesting Zt:lplanted emerged rate planted emerged rate planted emerged rate r'Z029 0 0 26 0 0 26 0 0 1 4.8.84 tTl"'1"'1Bl 22 0 0 20 0 0 20 0 0 2 4.8.84 tTl(')...,34 31 91.18 35 31 88.57 36 29 80.56 3 6.8.84 '"0Z21 11 52.24 20 13 65.00 22 14 63.64 1 29.7.84 ::r::'";l>rT1 B2 30 29 96.67 30 27 90.00 30 24 80.00 2 30.7.84...,;<l (')>-l ::r:::> 30 21 70.00 25 20 80.00 26 20 76.92 3 31.7 .84 :>z~ ttl:> F<: 34 27 79.41 35 29 82.86 34 27 79.41 1 29.7.84 ::j0-<t'"' 000 B3 33 19 87.88 30 21 70.00 30 17 56.67 2 31.7.84"'1z tTl0 24 16 66.67 22 9 40.91 21 16 76.19 3 1.8.84 0!" 0'";;;96.67 31 21 67.74 1 29.7.84 000 31 26 83.87 30 29U'"'1B4 21 17 80.94 22 17 77.27 22 15 68.18 2 5.8.84 I::::i!:l*3 4.8.84 ~0C'"l28 10 35.71 28 8 28.57 26 7 26.92 1 31.7.84 ::x:ttlt""B5 32 30 93.75 27 24 88.89 27 20 74.07 2 4.8.84 ~'"C'"l*3 30.7.84 0~5:30 25 83.33 31 26 83.87 28 22 78.57 1 5.8.84 ~B6 30 0 0 30 0 0 32 0 0 2 5.8.8432 0 0 36 0 0 25 0 0 3 6.8.84N>*Rejected replicates because of errors in treatment assignment.'"...,E.H. CHAN, H.D. SALLEH AND H.C. LIEWclutches were excluded, hatchability ranged from35.7 to 96.7% (x = 78.16%). Thus if infertileclutches can be identified before replanting,hatchery productivity may increase by about20 %. This is significant considering that eggsare purchased at $1.50 per piece for hatcherywork.Handling and Time EffectsThere was a very large variance amongclutches. The hatch rate data was neithernormally distributed, nor did it satisfy theassumption of homogeneity of variances. Para-metric statistical analysis was inappropriate.TABLE 2Normalised and ranked values for handling and time treatments.Normalised value, N = (x - x) for each treatment-time combination.S.DRanked values were assigned in ascending order based on the normalised data.Handling TreatmentTimeTreatmentNormalisedvalueAlRankedvalueNormalisedvalueA2RankedvalueNormalisedvalueA3Rankedvalue268Bl0.80 27.5 0.33 22.0 -1.12 4.0-1.15 1.5 0.67 25.5 0.48 23.5B2 0.93 32.0 0.13 17.0 -1.06 8.0-1.10 7.0 0.85 31.0 0.25 18.0-0.58 12.5 1.16 36.0 -0.58 12.5B3 1.04 34.0 -0.10 15.0 -0.95 10.00.30 20.0 -1.12 4.0 0.82 29.00.08 16.0 0.96 33.0 -1.04 9.0B4 0.83 30.0 0.28 19.0 -1.11 6.01.14 35.0 -0.39 14.0 -0.75 11.0B5 0.80 27.5 0.32 21.0 -1.12 4.00.48 23.5 0.67 25.5 -1.15 1.5B6PERTANlKA VOL. 8 NO.2, 1985HANDLING EFFECTS ON HATCHABILITY OF EGGS OF DERMOCHELYS CORIACEADISCUSSION0.50 > P > 0.20; A2 = A3, 0.001 > p). Thisshows that the usual practice of rough handlingand rolling the eggs into the nest can causedecreased hatchability if eggs are replantedmore than 5 hours after oviposition.Fig. 1. Relationship between normalised hatch ratesand time treatment for Ai (dots bounded byfull line); A2 (crosses bounded by brokenline) and A3 (open circles bounded bydotted line) handling techniques, See text forexplanation of AI, A2 and A3,,"",~~~~-!._-----~ ....',. ,..,",TIM( Tfl[~TM[NTlAPSED AFTER OVIPOSITION)",",It is generally understood that not all turtleeggs deposited on the beach are fertile (Ehrhart,1981). Fertility rates have been reported to rangebetween 80 - 90 % annually (Hughes et at.,1967; Hughes, 1970; Ehrhart, 1981), which is inagreement with the infertility rate of 22 %estimated in the present. study. Fertility studieson turtle eggs have been neglected. It is still notpossible to distinguish an infertile egg from onewhich had died from early embryonic death(Owens, 1981). Blanck and Sawyer (1981) foundthat all fertile eggs of Caretta caretta develop awhite circle on the shell during the first day ofincubation. This circle enlarges during incuba-tion until the egg is entirely white. Infertile eggson the other hand remain a creamy beige colourthroughout. The formation of the white ring isrelated to the adherence of the shell membraneHence the percent hatch rates were normalisedfor each clutch, using the formula «x - X)/S. D.) and the resulting values were ranked(Table 2). Two replicates were rejected becauseof errors in treatment assignment. Infertileclutches were also excluded in the analysis. Thedata were then analysed using the Kruskal-Wallis test (Zar, 1974) to test the hypothesis thatthe rank of the normalised values was random.To a high degree of probability, it was not. Asignificant difference was detected between thehandling effects (H = 8.237, d.f. = 2 and 0.025> P > 0.01). Using the nonparametric multiplecomparison test (Zar, 1974), it was found thatthe hatch rates for lots Al and A2 were the same,but different for the A3 lots (AI = A3, 0.05 >P > 0.025; Al = A2, P > 0.50; A2 = A3, P <0.001). This indicates that careful handling ofthe turtle eggs to prevent bumping and rollingand disorientation from the vertical axis as theywere placed in the nest had a significant'effecton hatchability. There was no difference, how-ever, in hatchability if the eggs were transportedin sugar sacks or in pails, provided that they werehandled carefully on replanting.Normalised values for each lot were plottedagainst the time of planting. Figure 1 shows thatfor eggs planted at 1, 3 and 5 hours after ovi-position, normalised values for AI, A2 and A3handling techniques seem to overlap over a widerange. Beyond 5 hours after oviposition, nor-malised values for all A3 lots separate into acluster of negative values while A2 and A3 lotscontinue to overlap in a cluster of higher values.The normalised data were divided into twogroups according to time treatments, i.e. Bl toB3 in one group and B4 to B6 in the other. Thenormalised values were then reranked and theKruskal- Wallis test performed for the respectivegroups to test the handling effects. No signifi-cant difference was detected for the B1 to B3group (H = 1.241, d.f. = 2,0.75> P >,0.5)while a significant difference was found forhandling effects in the B4· to B6 group (H =9.78, d.f. = 2,0.01 > P > 0.005). For the B4 toB6 group, it waS found that the relative hatch-ability of lots Al equal A2 but do not equal A3using the nonparametric multiple comparisontest (AI = A3, 0.01 > P > 0.005; Al = A2,PERTANlKA VOL. 8 NO, 2,1985 269E.H. CHAN, H.U. SALLEH AND H.C. LIEWto the shell during early embryonic developmentand appears to apply to all turtle eggs duringincubation (Harless and Morlock, 1979). Furtherwork on leatherback eggs is being conducted todetermine when this white patch appears andthe possibility of holding the eggs till the patchappears so that those that remain a uniformbeige colour can be rejected for hatchery workand returned to egg collectors for reimburse-ment. Such eggs can subsequently be resold forconsumption.Natural variance in hatchability amongclutches has been observed in sea turtles. Siow(1982) examined 100 natural clutches of leather-back eggs in Rantau Abang and found the hatchrate to range from 0 - 95%, with a mean rate of65.06%. In St. Croix, U.S. Virgin Islands, meanhatching success ofleatherback nests surviving toterm was 59.1 % with a range of 0 - 97.3%(Eckert and Erkert. 1984). Our range of 0-96.67% in hatchability for eggs handled withmaximum care falls within these values. We stilldo not understand why this natural varianceoccurs.Results from the handling and time-effectexperiments show that leatherback turtle eggscan withstand rough handling only up to 5 hoursafter oviposition. This threshold seems signifi-cantly shorter than reported by other workers(Blanck and Sawyer, 1981; Parmenter. 1980).Beyond this threshold, extreme care must beexercised on replanting to prevent undue rota-tion. rolling. bumping and disorientation of thevertical axis of eggs. The sensitivity of eggs tomovement can be explained by events whichoccur in early embryological development.When an egg has remained stationary for aperiod after oviposition, the yolk rises throughthe albumin to a position at the top of the egg(Fisk & Tribe. 1949). The turtle embryo deve-lops at the top of the egg, just underneath theegg-shell. Such an orientation may be crucial forthe survival of the developing embryo.Sensitivity to rolling. bumping and rotationhas been attributed to the disruption of sometype of early membrane formation. Blanck andSawyer (1981) found that two extra-embryonicmembranes were formed in Caretta caretta eggsbetween 36 hours and 45 days of incubation.These delicate membranes encompass theeIIlbryo and attach it precariously to the top ofthe shell and any tearing would result in death.The timing of extra-embryonic membraneformation may differ from species to species.Hence while Blanck and Sawyer (1981) indicatedsensitive periods for C. caretta to occur between36 hours and 45 days of incubation. Parmenter(1980) found that in Chelonia mydas, sensitivitywas greatest from 1 to 7 days of incubation anddid not totally abate till after 20 days. Further,he recommended that C. mydas eggs should betransported to the final destination within 3I hours after oviposition.It is clear that hatchery operation can beoptimised only on the basis of an understandingof the fundamental processes of developmentalbiology of the species concerned. This prelimi-nary work has now prompted us into studiesaimed at developing criteria for selection offertile and viable eggs for hatchery work; normaldevelopmental biology of leatherback turtles;and properties of fresh. developing and un-hatched eggs.ACKNOWLEDGEMENTSThis work was funded by the State Govern-ment of Terengganu. The authors wish to thankthe Fisheries Department of Terengganu for useof the facilities at the Rantau Abang TurtleHatchery. Our sincere thanks are also extendedto Prof. Richard Phillips. visiting Fulbright-Hayes Professor for his suggestions and reviewingof our manuscript; Dr. Khoo Khay Huat ofUniversiti Sains Malaysia for reading our manu-script and the field assistants for their untiringhelp.REFERENCESBLANCK, C.E. and SAWYER, R,H, (1981): Hatcherypractices in relation to early embryology of theloggerhead sea turtle. Caretta caretta (Linne). j.expo mar. Biol. Ecol, 49: 163 -177,BUSTARD, H.R. (1972): Sea turtles. Natural historyand conservation. London. Collins. 220 pp.270 PERTANlKA VOL. 8 NO.2, 1985HANDLING EFFECTS ON HATCHABILITY OF EGGS OF DERMOCHELYS CORIACEAEHRENFELD, D. (1981): Options and limitations in theconservation of sea turtles. Pp. 457 - 463 inBjorndal, K.A. (ed.) 1981. Biology and conserva·tion of sea turtles. Proc. World Conf. Sea TurtleConserv. Washington, D.C. Smithsonian Institu·tion Press. 583 pp.EHRHART, L.M. (1981): A review of sea turtle repro-duction. Pp. 29 - 38 in Bjorndal, K.A. (ed.)1981. Biology and conservation of sea turtles.Proc. World Conf. Sea Turtle Conserv. Washing·ton, D.C. Smithsonian Institution Press. 583 pp,ERKERT, K. and ECKERT, S. (1984): St. Croix leather·back project - 1984 season_ Marine TurtleNewsletter. 31: 4 - 6.FISK, A. and TRIBE, M. (1949): The development ofthe amnion and chorion in reptiles. Proc. zool.Soc. Lond. 119: 83 - 114.HARLESS, M. and MORLOCK, H. (1979): Turtles.Perspectives and research. New York. John Wileyand Sons. 695 pp.HUGHES, C.R. (1979): Further studies on marineturtles in Tongaland, 3. Lamnergeyer. 12: 7 - 25.HUGHES, C.R., BASS, A.J. and MENTIS, M.T. (1967):Further studies on marine turtles in Tongaland,1. Lamnelgeyer. 3: 5 - 54.LiMPUS, C.J., BAKER, V. and MILLER, J.D. (1979):Movement induced mortality of loggerhead eggs.Herpetologica, 35(4): 335 - 338.OWENS, D. (1981): The role of reproductive physiologyin the conservation of sea turtles. Pp. 37 - 44 inBjorndal, K.A. (ed.) 1981. Biology and conserva·tion of sea turtles. Froc. World Conf. Sea TurtleConserv. Washington, D.C. Smithsonian Institu·tion Press. 583 pp,PARMENTER, C.J. (1980): Incubation of the eggs of thegreen sea turtle, Chelonia mydas in Torres Strait,Australia: the effect of movement on hatch-ability. Aust. Wild I. Res., 7: 487 -491.SlOW, K.T. (1982): Leathery turtle (Dermochelyscorz"acea) conservation programme in RantauAbang, Terengganu, Malaysia. Pp, 83 - 90 inOng, K.S. & A,A. Jothy (Eds.) 1982. Proc. Fz"rstMar. Sc. Conf., Malaysian Soc. Mar. Sc.,Penang, Malaysia. 90 pp.SlOW, K.T. and MOLL, E.O. (1981): Status and con·servation of estuarine and sea turtles in WestMalaysian waters. Pp. 339 - 348 in Bjorndal,K.A. (ed.) 1981. Biology and Conservation of seaturtles. Proc. World Conf. Sea Turtle Conserv.Washington, D.C. Smithsonian Institution Press.583 pp.TUCKER, T. and HALL, K. (1984): Leatherback tagg-ing study: Isla de Culebra, Puerto Rico. MarineTurtle Newsletter. 31: 6 -7.ZAR, J.H. (1974): Biostatistical analysis. Inc., N.J.Prentice-Hall. 620 pp.(Received 10 April, 1985)PERTANlKA VOL. 8 NO.2, 1985 271

Effects of Handling on Hatchability of Eggs of the Leatherback Turtle, Dermochelys coriacea (L.)

http://psasir.upm.edu.my/2325/1/Effects_of_Handling_on_Hatchability_of_Eggs_of_the.pdf

Effects of Handling on Hatchability of Eggs of the Leatherback Turtle, Dermochelys coriacea (L.)

Abstract

Similar works

Full text

Available Versions

Universiti Putra Malaysia Institutional Repository