Standard Presentation (15 mins) Australian Marine Sciences Association 2022

Marine Turtle movements help identify sensitive habitats and assess connectivity between Marine Park Networks and Indigenous Sea Countries across Northern Australia (#437)

Vinay Udyawer 1 , Michele Thums 2 , Ronen Galaiduk 2 , Luciana Ferreira 2 , Ben Radford 2 , Ian Bell 3 , Hamish Campbell 4 , Sabrina Fossette 5 , Mick Guinea 4 , Mark Hamman 6 , Xavier Hoenner 7 , Rod Kennett 8 , Col Limpus 3 , Glenn McFarlane 9 , Clive McMahon 10 , Anne O'Dea 11 , Kellie Pendoley 12 , Jason Rossendell 13 , Tony Tucker 5 , Steve Winderlich 11 , Scott Whiting 5 , Claire Streten 1
  1. Australian Institute of Marine Science, Darwin
  2. Australian Institute of Marine Science, Perth
  3. Department of Environment and Science, Brisbane
  4. Charles Darwin University, Darwin
  5. Department of Biodiversity, Conservation and Attractions, Perth
  6. James Cook University, Townsville
  7. CSIRO Oceans and Atmosphere, Hobart
  8. Questacon National Science and Technology Centre, Canberra
  9. Conservation Volunteers Australia, Darwin
  10. Sydney Institute of Marine Science, Sydney
  11. Windydea Processional Services and Consultants, Ridgehaven
  12. Pendoley Environmental, Perth
  13. Rio Tinto, Perth

Marine turtles predominantly feed on the benthos, and consequently their foraging activity may be useful to identify benthic communities. Given turtles are highly migratory, their movements can also inform how connected marine ecosystems are across multiple spatial management units (SMUs).

We compiled satellite tracking data for green, flatback, hawksbill and olive ridley turtles across the North (N) and North-West (NW) Marine Regions. Tracks were used to define foraging locations and overlayed with available benthic habitat data to assess how well each species’ foraging activity indicates sensitive benthic habitats. We also built movement networks to assess level of connectivity among SMUs (State, Indigenous and Commonwealth managed Marine Parks) and nesting grounds across the N and NW.

Green and hawksbill turtle foraging locations were good indicators of sensitive habitats, and overlapped known areas of hard coral, seagrass, and filter feeders. While those for olive ridley and flatback turtles were less informative, predominantly overlapping bare substrate. Green and flatback turtles displayed a high degree of connectivity across all SMUs, between and within the N and NW, while hawksbill and olive ridley turtle displayed regionally fragmented networks. The high level of connectivity between SMUs suggests a need for collaborative management of these species between state, commonwealth, and Indigenous managers.