Movements of yellow-morphotype green turtles (Chelonia mydas) in the Galápagos Marine Reserve

Abstract

Introduction:

Movements of Green turtles (Chelonia mydas) around the Galápagos is known from very few studies. Two morphotypes of C. mydas exist in Galápagos: the Central Eastern Pacific (“black-morphotype”) and the putative Western Indo-Pacific (“yellow-morphotype”). While post-nesting movements of black-morphotype females have been studied, how yellow-morph females and males of either morphotype use the local habitats of Galápagos remains unknown.

Materials and methods:

We used Argos satellite telemetry to track nine adult-sized yellow-morphotype turtles (2 females, 7 males) across four islands of the Galápagos Marine Reserve over periods ranging between 45 and 418 days.

Results:

Individuals exhibited strong coastal site fidelity, with core areas concentrated in shallow nearshore habitats. Most turtles remained associated with a single island, although several undertook inter-island movements spanning tens of kilometers. Home range estimates (95% kernel utilization distributions) were highly variable among individuals (mean = 1,497.9 ± 2,913.9 km² SE), reflecting differences in movement behavior and habitat use. Despite extended tracking durations, no individuals exhibited movements beyond the archipelago.

Discussion:

Our findings underscore the importance of preserving habitat quality and connectivity among coastal and inter-island areas within the Galápagos Marine Reserve, which may function as critical movement and foraging corridors for this poorly understood morphotype.

Introduction

Green turtles (Chelonia mydas) are highly migratory marine reptiles that use geographically distinct habitats throughout their life cycle, including oceanic developmental epipelagic habitats, neritic foraging grounds, and reproductive areas (Musick and Limpus, 1997; Fuentes et al., 2023). During early life stages, hatchlings and juveniles occupy epipelagic oceanic habitats, whereas immature and adult turtles may become either coastal residents at foraging grounds or undertake long distance oceanic movements (Hirth, 1997; Musick and Limpus, 1997). Chelonia mydas has a broad distribution across tropical and subtropical oceans (Dutton et al., 2014a) and despite their high dispersal capacity, C. mydas exhibit strong population genetic structure, regional ecological specialization, and phenotypic differentiation associated with environmental conditions and natal homing behavior (Bowen and Karl, 2007; Wallace et al., 2023). Natal homing results in females returning to nest near their birthplace (Lohmann and Lohmann, 2019), although individuals from distinct nesting rookeries may overlap at shared foraging grounds or along migratory routes (Bowen and Karl, 2007). Consequently, interactions and potential mating between turtles from different rookeries may contribute to connectivity and gene flow among regional populations (Bowen et al., 2005; Roden et al., 2023). Adult C. mydas commonly exhibit fidelity to coastal foraging habitats, although movements among feeding areas and between foraging and reproductive habitats can occur across broad spatial scales (Seminoff et al., 2008; Shimada et al., 2020). Understanding movement patterns is critical for identifying biologically important habitats, evaluating connectivity among marine regions, and informing conservation strategies for C. mydas as a globally distributed species (Seminoff et al., 2008). Because conservation measures have contributed to population recoveries in some regions, the International Union for Conservation of Nature recently reclassified C. mydas from globally Endangered to Least Concern (Wallace and Broderick, 2025). However, C. mydas continues to face multiple anthropogenic threats throughout their life cycle (Fuentes et al., 2023).

Two distinct morphotypes of C. mydas occur in the Pacific Ocean: the black-morphotype (C. mydas agassizii), commonly associated with the eastern Pacific, and the yellow-morphotype (C. mydas) which has been hypothesized to possess Indo-Pacific affinities (Pritchard, 1971; Fritts, 1981; Amorocho et al., 2012; Zárate et al., 2015). Recent genomic studies support differentiation between the two morphotypes and suggest that adaptive divergence associated with environmentally contrasting Pacific regions may contribute to maintaining their distinctiveness despite the species’ high dispersal potential (Álvarez-Varas et al., 2021; Álvarez-Varas et al., 2022; Roden et al., 2023). Candidate loci associated with thermoregulation, melanism, osmoregulation, diet, morphogenesis, and reproduction further support the hypothesis that ecological specialization underlies morphotype differentiation across the Pacific basin (Álvarez-Varas et al., 2021). Similarly, studies integrating morphometric and genetic approaches indicate that foraging grounds may play an important role in shaping phenotypic and adaptive variation in green turtles, emphasizing the ecological significance of resident coastal habitats (Amorocho et al., 2012).

The Galápagos Islands, located within the Eastern Tropical Pacific Ocean region support important developmental, foraging, and nesting habitats for C. mydas and represent one of the most ecologically dynamic marine systems in the Pacific (Fiedler, 2002: Seminoff et al., 2008; Dutton et al., 2014b). Furthermore, the Galápagos Islands appear to represent a region where eastern Pacific black-morphotype turtles and yellow-morphotype C. mydas coexist within shared coastal habitats. Chelonia mydas in the archipelago are protected within the Galápagos Marine Reserve, established in 1998 and the Hermandad Marine Reserve created in 2022, which together encompass nearly 200,000 km² of protected marine habitat surrounding the archipelago (Seminoff et al., 2008; DW News, 2022; Decreto Ejecutivo, 2022). Galápagos Chelonia mydas are part of the Eastern Pacific Regional Management Unit (Wallace et al., 2010, 2023). Previous telemetry studies demonstrated that post-nesting black-morphotype female C. mydas from Galápagos may remain resident within the archipelago, migrate to coastal Central America, or move into oceanic waters southwest of the islands (Seminoff et al., 2008). Mixed-stock analyses and tag return studies further indicate connectivity between Galápagos C. mydas and foraging or nesting areas in continental Ecuador, Central America, Mexico, and other eastern Pacific regions (Green, 1984; Chaves et al., 2017; Roden et al., 2023). Unique Galápagos haplotypes have also been identified across nesting rookeries from multiple eastern Pacific localities, including Chile, Central America, Mexico, and the continental Ecuadorian coast (Chaves et al., 2017). Galápagos functions not only as a reproductive area for eastern Pacific C. mydas, but also as an important foraging and mixing ground where individuals from different geographic origins and life-history stages overlap.

Movements of C. mydas within the Galápagos Marine Reserve remain poorly understood. Specific foraging areas for C. mydas have been identified within the archipelago (Zárate et al., 2015), but fidelity to foraging habitats and inter-island movements remain largely unstudied, particularly for males. Mixed migratory and feeding strategies for Galápagos C. mydas seem evident, at least for nesting female black morphotype C. mydas that nest in Galápagos (Seminoff et al., 2008) but comparatively little is known about movements of resident foraging individuals. Male C. mydas are generally less accessible than are nesting females, resulting in major knowledge gaps regarding male movement ecology across most sea turtle populations (Hays and Hawkes, 2018; Fuentes et al., 2025). Knowledge of movements of male C. mydas would be particularly important given that males are potentially more vagile than are females (Fuentes et al., 2025) and could lend insights into locations of foraging grounds in Galápagos. Furthermore, understanding male movements may provide important insights into connectivity among foraging habitats and the spatial ecology of turtles within the archipelago.

Compared with black-morphotype turtles, relatively little is known about the ecology and movement patterns of yellow-morphotype C. mydas in Galápagos. Juvenile yellow-morphotype turtles exhibit faster somatic growth rates than do black-morphotype turtles within the archipelago, suggesting ecological or physiological differences between morphotypes (Green, 1993; Zárate et al., 2015). Yellow-morphotype turtles are regularly observed in shallow coastal habitats throughout Galápagos, yet their spatial ecology, site fidelity, and inter-island movements remain poorly understood. Neither female nor male yellow-morphotype turtles are known to reproduce in the Galápagos (Pritchard, 1971; Seminoff et al., 2008) and their reproductive ecology remains unresolved. To date, no studies have specifically characterized the movement ecology or breeding behavior of yellow-morphotype C. mydas, particularly males, in the Galápagos region. Telemetric studies of C. mydas in the Galápagos archipelago could reveal patterns of interconnectivity of populations along disparate land masses (Kot et al., 2022) such as interisland or island-continent migration routes and identify crucial feeding and nesting grounds (Fuentes et al., 2025).

To address gaps in our knowledge of movements of C. mydas in Galápagos, we used Argos satellite telemetry to investigate the movements and space use of nine adult-sized yellow-morphotype green turtles (seven males and two females) tagged at four islands within the Galápagos Archipelago between 2015 and 2018. Most turtles tracked in our study were males with curved carapace lengths ranging from 82.5–92.5 cm, consistent with adult male size ranges described for Pacific foraging populations, suggesting that these individuals were likely mature or near-mature turtles utilizing coastal habitats within the archipelago. Our primary objective was to characterize coastal habitat use, site fidelity, home range size, and inter-island movements within the Galápagos Marine Reserve. Based on previous studies of C. mydas foraging ecology, we expected turtles to remain strongly associated with shallow coastal habitats where macroalgal resources are abundant (Bjorndal, 1997; Carrión-Cortez et al., 2010), while exhibiting individual variability in space use and occasional inter-island movements (Seminoff et al., 2002; Webster et al., 2022). Because fidelity to foraging areas is common in green turtles, but temporal shifts in core activity areas also occur (Shimada et al., 2020; Webster et al., 2022), we anticipated that turtles would display both localized residency and travel among islands. We biased our Argos tagging efforts toward male C. mydas because movement dynamics of males remains poorly understood for most sea turtle species due to being less accessible than females (Hays and Hawkes, 2018; Fuentes et al., 2025). By documenting movement patterns of the poorly understood yellow-morphotype, our study provides new insights into the spatial ecology of C. mydas within the Galápagos Marine Reserve and contributes baseline information relevant to the conservation and management of ecologically differentiated turtle populations in the eastern Pacific.

Methods

Satellite tracking

Between August 2015 and November 2018, nine adult-sized yellow-morphotype green turtles (C. mydas; 7 males and 2 females) were captured and satellite-tagged at four islands within the Galápagos Archipelago: Española, Floreana, Isabela, and San Cristóbal Islands (Figure 1; Table 1). Turtles were collected by hand while in shallow waters at presumed foraging habitats. Tagging turtles at multiple islands allowed us to evaluate patterns of site fidelity, coastal habitat use, and inter-island movements across the Galápagos Marine Reserve.

Figure 1

For each turtle, morphotype identification was based on external coloration and morphology following previous descriptions for yellow-morphotype C. mydas in the eastern Pacific (Pritchard, 1971; Fritts, 1981; Zárate et al., 2015). Sex was determined by examining secondary sexual characteristics, especially tail length. Standard morphometric measurements included curved carapace length (CCL), curved carapace width (CCW), Total tail length (TTL), body mass (BM), and sex were recorded (Table 1). Prior to their release, each animal was scanned to determine the presence of an id-microchip. Digital images of the carapace and both sides of the head were captured for identification (Reisser et al., 2008). We also attached conventional coded metallic Inconel self-piercing sea turtle tags (National Band and Tag Company STYLE 681IC) to the rear flippers of each turtle. To document movements defined as changes in physical location over time, turtles were satellite-tagged with Wildlife Computers SPOT5 or SPOT6 satellite transmitters tags (Wildlife Computers Inc., Redmond, WA, USA) or KiwiSat S202 tags (Lotek Wireless Inc, Havelock North, New Zealand), all of which sent signals to the Argos satellite system to estimate the tag’s location (error radius 250–1500+ m) (CLS, 2011). Argos locations have estimated positional errors ranging from approximately 250 m to >1500 m depending on location class (CLS, 2011). Satellite transmitters were attached to the highest point of the carapace using marine epoxy following established attachment protocols for hard-shelled sea turtles (Hardy et al., 2023).

Statistical analysis

Argos positions flagged with location class Z (indicating an invalid location) were excluded from all analysis. Locations falling on land were identified by overlaying tracking data with a land polygon layer in QGIS and removed when considered biologically unrealistic. Retained locations included classes 3, 2, 1, 0, A, and B (following the methodology outlined in Witt et al. (2010) and Gaos et al. (2012). Remaining locations were filtered using the SDLfilter package in R, removing locations that were temporally or spatially identical to avoid pseudoreplication (Shimada, 2018). Locations were then further screened to remove fixes with unrealistic movement using the ddfilter function (Shimada et al., 2012), with default threshold parameters.

The home range and core areas for each turtle was computed using kernel density estimation in R Studio version 2023.03.0 + 386 (R Core Team, 2023) with the AdehabitatHR package (Calenge, 2011). The default reference bandwidth smoothing parameter (href) was used to generate bivariate normal kernel utilization distributions (UDs). Home range size was defined using the 95% UD contour, while core use areas were estimated using the 50% UD contour. Utilization distributions were exported and visualized in QGIS version 3.32, and terrestrial areas were removed from final area calculations. Consequently, this individual’s 50% UD was excluded from core area analyses, although the 95% UD estimate was retained. To evaluate whether turtle size influenced space use, we tested for correlations between body size (carapace length and body mass) and both home range size (95% UD) and core use area size (50% UD) using Spearman rank correlation analyses. Similarly, we used Spearman rank correlation analyses to determine if the duration of monitoring affected either home range or core area size estimates. Means are followed by ± SE and range = min – max values.

Results

Nine yellow-morphotype C. mydas (7 males and 2 females) were tracked for periods ranging from 45–418 days (mean ± SE = 280.8 ± 46.2 days). After filtering Argos locations, all tracked turtles remained within or near the Galápagos Archipelago throughout their respective monitoring periods.

Five of the nine tracked turtles remained associated primarily with a single island during the study period, exhibiting strong localized residency near their original capture locations (Figure 1 and Table 2). The five individuals generally occupied shallow coastal habitats within several km of the capture and release sites, although occasional movements along coastlines and offshore excursions from shore were observed. We are unable to ascertain the magnitude of the movements given the limited resolution of our tags.

The remaining four of the nine tracked turtles (2 females and 2 males) exhibited inter-island movements. Two turtles traveled between Isabela and San Cristóbal Islands, Bernardo in August and Sara between June–July (Figure 1). Leandro traveled between Isabela and Española Islands in October. A single female (Ainoa), originally tagged along the southeastern coast of San Cristóbal Island, subsequently moved to the coast of western Santa Cruz Island and later to western Isabela Island between April–March, the most extensive inter-island movement observed in the study (Figure 1 and Tables 3).

Home range size estimates were highly variable among individuals (Figure 1; Table 3). Mean 95% kernel utilization distribution (UD) area was 1,497.9 ± 2,913.9 km² (range = 23.9–27,316 km²; n = 9), whereas mean 50% UD area was 863.8 ± 729.1 km² (range = 1.2–5,949 km²; n = 8). We excluded the 50% UD estimate for one individual (John; Table 3) because it projected entirely onto land, likely due to limitations associated with Argos positional error and kernel smoothing.

Neither home range size nor core area size was significantly related to turtle carapace length or body mass (95% UD vs carapace length: Spearman’s ρ = -0.02, p > 0.05; 50% UD vs carapace length: ρ = 0.06, p > 0.05; 95% UD vs body mass: ρ = -0.41, p > 0.05; 50% UD vs body mass: ρ = -0.36, p > 0.05). Similarly, no significant relationship was detected between tag duration and either 95% UD or 50% UD estimates (Spearman’s ρ = -0.26 and 0.06, respectively; p > 0.05 in both cases).

Discussion

The movement patterns documented in this study indicate that yellow-morphotype C. mydas exhibit a combination of strong coastal residency and occasional inter-island connectivity within the Galápagos Marine Reserve. Most individual C. mydas remained associated with localized coastal habitats near their capture sites for extended periods, whereas a subset of turtles moved among islands during the monitoring period. Similar inter-island movements have previously been documented in post-nesting black-morphotype female green turtles in Galápagos (Seminoff et al., 2008), suggesting that movement among islands may represent a common component of green turtle spatial ecology within the archipelago regardless of morphotype or reproductive condition. Together, our findings support the hypothesis that the Galápagos functions as an important coastal foraging and mixing habitat where turtles from different geographic origins, life-history stages, and potentially distinct morphotypes overlap within shared habitats.

The variability in movement patterns and space use observed among individuals likely reflects the heterogeneous and dynamic nature of Galápagos coastal ecosystems. Growth rates of C. mydas in Galápagos are relatively slow when compared to populations elsewhere (Green, 1993) and previous studies have demonstrated that the selection of foraging areas in Galápagos can have significant consequences for somatic growth (Zárate et al., 2015). Consequently, turtles may shift among coastal habitats in response to spatial or temporal variability in food availability, habitat quality, oceanographic conditions, local turtle density or competition. Green turtles are known to exhibit fidelity to foraging areas while also making repeated movements among feeding and resting habitats at multiple spatial scales (Ogden et al., 1983; Dethmers et al., 2010; Pillans et al., 2021). Several individuals in our study remained localized near a single island, whereas others used multiple islands and apparently multiple core activity areas. Such behavioral variability likely reflects differences in resource distribution across the archipelago, where local productivity patterns are shaped by interactions among the Cromwell Current, Humboldt Current, and localized upwelling systems (Gillis et al., 2020). Resource abundance and nutritional quality may therefore vary considerably among islands and coastal sectors, potentially promoting shifts among foraging habitats over time.

Inter-island movements and home range size were not significantly related to turtle body size or body mass in our study. Although our relatively small sample size limits our ability to detect subtle relationships, the spatial configuration of the Galápagos Archipelago likely requires turtles of different sizes to traverse similar distances when moving among suitable coastal habitats. Previous studies have reported positive relationships between body size and home range size in some C. mydas populations (Pillans et al., 2022), whereas broader comparative analyses across cheloniid turtles suggest that migration distance and body size are often weakly associated (Hays and Scott, 2013). Interestingly, all inter-island movements observed in our study occurred between April and October, corresponding primarily to the cooler season in Galápagos. Seasonal shifts in sea surface temperature, productivity, and resource availability may therefore influence movement dynamics within the archipelago. Similar environmentally mediated seasonal movements have been documented in other C. mydas populations inhabiting dynamic coastal systems (Webster et al., 2024). However, longer-term telemetry studies encompassing multiple years and contrasting climatic conditions, including El Niño and La Niña events, are needed to evaluate these relationships more directly.

Most turtles concentrated their movements within relatively restricted coastal core areas but occasionally made movements beyond these areas either along coastlines or into offshore waters. Strong fidelity to coastal foraging habitats has been widely documented in C. mydas and other cheloniids (López-Castro et al., 2010; Baldi et al., 2023; Hays et al., 2024; Maurer et al., 2025). The predominance of nearshore movements in our study is consistent with the tendency of C. mydas to forage in shallow coastal habitats where macroalgae and other benthic resources are abundant (Bjorndal, 1997; Seminoff et al., 2002, 2008; Ballorain et al., 2013). In Galápagos, C. mydas commonly forage within highly productive surf-zone habitats dominated by macroalgae (Carrión-Cortez et al., 2010; Zárate et al., 2015). However, C. mydas inhabiting regions influenced by cool-water upwelling systems may also incorporate animal prey into their diets (Esteban et al., 2020). Although animal matter represents a relatively minor dietary component in Galápagos C. mydas overall (Carrión-Cortez et al., 2010), marine algae can exhibit low and variable nutritional quality (8.75% by volume and 26.15% by frequency of occurrence; Carrión-Cortez et al., 2010), the nutritional content of marine algae is low and variable (Bjorndal, 1985; McDermid et al., 2007). Consequently, occasional offshore excursions observed in our study may reflect exploratory movements, transitions among foraging areas, or opportunistic feeding on pelagic or benthic animal prey such as jellyfish, comb jellies, or other invertebrates (Heithaus et al., 2002; González Carman et al., 2014). Mixed diets including both algae and animal prey may enhance digestive efficiency and maximize energy acquisition in nutrient-variable environments (Bjorndal, 1991).

Home ranges of our yellow-morph C. mydas in Galápagos were large relative to most values previously reported for C. mydas and highly variable which likely reflect the dispersed configuration of islands, the patchy distribution of coastal resources, and the establishment of multiple core activity areas by some individuals. The average and highly variable home ranges of C. mydas in our study (95% UD: 1,497.9 km², 23.9–27,316 km²) was smaller than the average minimum convex polygons (MCP) reported by Blanco et al. (2012) for another Eastern Pacific population from coastal Costa Rica (4,895 km², 315–18,335 km²; calculated from their Table 1). Hart and Fujisaki (2010) also reported a large average MCP value for C. mydas in the expansive Florida Everglades region (1,004.9 ± 618.8 km², 374.1–2,060.1 km²). However, most studies have reported far smaller average home ranges for C. mydas throughout its distribution with average MCPs or 95% UD values less than 85 km² (Seminoff et al., 2002; Craig et al., 2004; Fujisaki et al., 2016; Shimada et al., 2016; Lamont and Iverson, 2018; Webster et al., 2022) and most much less than 5 km² (MacDonald et al., 2012; Eguchi et al., 2020; Pillans et al., 2021; Hardy et al., 2023) but also see Seminoff et al. (2002) and Hart and Fujisaki (2010) for summaries of space use statistics for C. mydas. Some of the variation in home range size is likely due to habitat dimensions (small bays or confined reefs versus relatively open coastal or island areas in more open ocean situations) and resource distribution within habitats (Seminoff et al., 2002). Similarly, because our home range size and core areas were positively correlated, core area size for our C. mydas considerably exceeded values reported in other studies (MacDonald et al., 2012; Fujisaki et al., 2016; Lamont and Iverson, 2018; Hardy et al., 2023; Hays et al., 2024). Habitat dimensions and a broad distribution of discrete resources, but largely restricted to the coastal zones, may have been a primary determinant of relatively large home range and core area size of our yellow-morphotype C. mydas in Galápagos.

An important result of our study was that all tracked yellow-morphotype turtles remained within or near the Galápagos Marine Reserve throughout their monitoring periods, including individuals tracked for more than one year. In contrast, previous telemetry studies showed that some black-morphotype post-nesting females migrate from Galápagos to coastal Central America, South America, or oceanic habitats southwest of the archipelago (Seminoff et al., 2008). Although the presence of yellow-morphotype turtles suggests that the archipelago functions as an important coastal foraging habitat for this poorly understood morphotype, our results should not be interpreted as evidence that these turtles do not undertake trans-oceanic reproductive migrations. Several individuals may not have been physiologically prepared to migrate during the tracking period, and despite their adult-sized body dimensions (82.5–92.5 cm curved carapace length), some turtles could have been near-mature individuals rather than fully reproductive adults. Size at maturity in C. mydas is highly variable with male turtles maturing at curved carapace lengths of >90 cm, with maturation occurring over prolonged developmental periods (Limpus and Chaloupka, 1997). Consequently, body size alone may not reliably indicate reproductive status in Galápagos yellow-morphotype turtles. In addition, tracking durations may still have been insufficient to encompass complete remigration intervals, particularly if yellow-morphotype turtles reproduce asynchronously or at multi-year intervals like other populations of C. mydas. Although yellow-morphotype turtles have been hypothesized to possess Indo-Pacific affinities based on morphometric and genomic evidence (Amorocho et al., 2012; Álvarez-Varas et al., 2021), neither nesting nor reproductive activity by this morphotype has been documented in Galápagos, and the location of natal rookeries remains unresolved. Importantly, most turtles tracked in our study were males, a demographic group that remains underrepresented in global sea turtle telemetry studies due to the logistical difficulty of accessing males outside reproductive aggregations (Hays and Hawkes, 2018; Fuentes et al., 2025). Consequently, our findings provide rare insights into the spatial ecology of male yellow-morphotype C. mydas and highlight the ecological importance of Galápagos coastal habitats as potential long-term resident foraging areas for this morphotype.

We showed that the yellow-morphotype C. mydas, most of them males, remained within the Galápagos Marine Reserve, presumably as a foraging area, during the timeframe of our study. Some black-morphotype C. mydas leave Galápagos to foraging areas along Central America or South America (Green, 1984; Seminoff et al., 2008) while others may travel to oceanic areas to the southwest of Galápagos (Seminoff et al., 2008) far beyond boundaries of the Galápagos Marine Reserve. Yellow-morphotype C. mydas are not known to mate nor to nest in Galápagos and, while we assume that natal rookeries are elsewhere in the Pacific, their location remains to be determined. Several limitations should be considered when interpreting our findings. Seasonal oceanographic variability associated with cold and warm seasons, as well as El Niño events, may strongly influence primary productivity, food availability, and movement behavior of green turtles within Galápagos (Gama et al., 2016; Mestre et al., 2025). In addition, the relatively coarse spatial resolution of Argos telemetry likely influenced home range estimates and limited our ability to examine fine-scale habitat use within coastal foraging areas. Previous studies have shown that home range estimates derived from lower-quality Argos location classes may be inflated compared with estimates generated using Fastloc-GPS telemetry (Thomson et al., 2017; Kale et al., 2025). Higher-resolution tracking approaches integrating horizontal and vertical movement data would improve understanding of habitat use, diel movement patterns, and potential dietary differences between yellow- and black-morphotype turtles within the archipelago (Fuentes et al., 2025). Such information may be particularly important for understanding ecological mechanisms underlying differences in growth rates and habitat use previously documented between the two morphotypes of C. mydas (Green, 1993; Zárate et al., 2015). Overall, our findings highlight the ecological importance of the Galápagos Marine Reserve as a coastal foraging and mixing habitat for yellow-morphotype C. mydas and provide one of the first movement-based descriptions of adult-sized males of this poorly understood morphotype.

Clearly, many questions remain regarding the spatial ecology of C. mydas in Galápagos. Seasonal variations in water temperature and El Niño conditions could greatly impact primary production and variations in food types (Gama et al., 2016), feeding rates (Mendonca, 1983) and therefore movements of C. mydas (Mestre et al., 2025) over time in Galápagos. The resolution of our Argos-based tags very likely influenced the quality of our space use estimators. For instance, space use estimators based on relatively low-quality classes of Argos locations may be inflated relative to those based on high-quality classes of Argos locations or the high resolution Fastloc-GPS data (Thomson et al., 2017; Kale et al., 2025). Argos-based data also prevented the examination of movement patterns within foraging grounds due to the low resolution of our tags and the relatively small foraging ground areas. Chelonia mydas are known to migrate between foraging areas and resting sites (Ogden et al., 1983; MacDonald et al., 2013; Hardy et al., 2023) and between shallow and deep-water areas possibly for the purposes of foraging on different food items (Seminoff et al., 2002). Even within-day movements between, and fidelity to, diel and nocturnal activity areas are known to occur in C. mydas (Hays et al., 2024). High resolution information on microgeographic movements both horizontally and vertically (Fuentes et al., 2025) along foraging grounds could lend insights into differences in diets or other aspects of the life histories that contribute to differences in growth rates between yellow-morphotype and black-morphotype C. mydas (Green, 1993; Zárate et al., 2015).

Overall, our findings highlight the ecological importance of the Galápagos Marine Reserve as a resident coastal foraging and mixing habitat for yellow-morphotype green turtles and provide one of the first movement-based descriptions of adult-sized males of this poorly understood morphotype. The combination of localized coastal fidelity, inter-island connectivity, and prolonged residency observed in this study underscores the importance of maintaining habitat quality and ecological connectivity among islands within the Galápagos Marine Reserve.

References

• 1

  Álvarez-VarasR.Rojas-HernándezN.HeidemeyerM.RiginosC.BenítezH. A.Araya-DonosoR.et al. (2021). Green, yellow or black? Genetic differentiation and adaptation signatures in a highly migratory marine turtle. Proc. R. Soc B. Biol. Sci.288. doi: 10.1098/rspb.2021.0754

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar
  • View reference in article

• 2

  Álvarez-VarasR.MedranoC.BenítezH. A.GuerreroF.León MirandaF.ViannaJ. A.et al. (2022). Genetics, morphometrics and health characterization of green turtle foraging grounds in mainland and insular Chile. Animals12, 1473. doi: 10.3390/ani12121473

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar
  • View reference in article

• 3

  AmorochoD. F.Abreu-GroboisF. A.DuttonP. H.ReinaR. D. (2012). Multiple distant origins for green sea turtles aggregating off Gorgona Island in the Colombian Eastern Pacific. PloS One7, e31486. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0031486

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar
  • View reference in article

• 4

  (2022). Decreto Ejecutivo No. 319. 2022. Gobierno de la república del Ecuador. Available online at: https://www.comunicacion.gob.ec/decreto-ejecutivo-no-319/ (Accessed July 21, 2024).

  • Google Scholar
  • View reference in article

• 5

  BaldiG.FuriiG.Del VecchioM.SalveminiP.ValliniC.AngeliniV.et al. (2023). Behavioural plasticity in the use of a neritic foraging area by loggerhead sea turtles: insights from 37 years of capture–mark–recapture in the Adriatic Sea (Mediterranean Sea). ICES J. Mar. Sci.80, 210–217. doi: 10.1093/icesjms/fsac227

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 6

  BallorainK.BourjeaJ.CiccioneS.KatoA.HanuiseN.EnstippM.et al. (2013). Seasonal diving behaviour and feeding rhythms of green turtles at Mayotte Island. Mar. Ecol. Prog. Ser.483, 289–302. doi: 10.3354/meps

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 7

  BjorndalK. A. (1985). Nutritional ecology of sea turtles. Copeia1985, 736–751. doi: 10.2307/1444767

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar
  • View reference in article

• 8

  BjorndalK. A. (1991). Diet mixing: nonadditive interactions of diet items in an omnivorous freshwater turtle. Ecology72, 1234–1241. doi: 10.2307/1941097

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar
  • View reference in article

• 9

  BjorndalK. A. (1997). “ Foraging ecology and nutrition of sea turtles,” in The Biology of Sea Turtles. Eds. LutzP. L.MusickJ. A. ( CRC Press, Boca Raton, FL), 199–232.

  • Google Scholar
  • View reference in article

• 10

  BlancoG. S.MorrealeS. J.BaileyH.SeminoffJ. A.PaladinoF. V.SpotilaJ. R. (2012). Post-nesting movements and feeding grounds of a resident East Pacific green turtle Chelonia mydas population from Costa Rica. Endang. Spec. Res.18, 233–245. doi: 10.3354/esr

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar
  • View reference in article

• 11

  BowenB. W.BassA. L.SoaresL.ToonenR. J. (2005). Conservation implications of complex population structure: lessons from the loggerhead turtle (Caretta caretta). Molec. Ecol.14, 2389–2402. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-294X.2005.02598.x

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar
  • View reference in article

• 12

  BowenB. W.KarlS. A. (2007). Population genetics and phylogeography of sea turtles. Molec. Ecol.16, 4886–4907. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-294X.2007.03542.x

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar
  • View reference in article

• 13

  CalengeC. (2011). Home Range Estimation in R: the adehabitatHR Package. Available online at: https://cran.r-project.org/web/packages/adehabitatHR/vignettes/adehabitatHR.pdf (Accessed February 21, 2024).

  • Google Scholar
  • View reference in article

• 14

  Carrión-CortezJ. A.ZárateP.SeminoffJ. A. (2010). Feeding ecology of the green sea turtle (Chelonia mydas) in the Galapagos Islands. J. Mar. Biol. Assoc. Unit. King.90, 1005–1013. doi: 10.1017/S0025315410000226

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar
  • View reference in article

• 15

  ChavesJ.PeñaM.Valdés-UribeJ.Muñoz-PérezJ.VallejoF.HeidemeyerM.et al. (2017). Connectivity, population structure, and conservation of Ecuadorian green sea turtles. Endang. Spec. Res.32, 251–264. doi: 10.3354/esr00809

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar
  • View reference in article

• 16

  CLS (2011). Argos User's Manual, 62 Pp. Available online at: http://www.argos-system.org/manual/ (Accessed 9 May 2012).

  • Google Scholar
  • View reference in article

• 17

  CraigP.ParkerD.BrainardR.RiceM.BalazsG. (2004). Migrations of green turtles in the central South Pacific. Biol. Cons.116, 433–438. doi: 10.1016/S0006-3207(03)00217-9

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar
  • View reference in article

• 18

  DethmersK. E.JensenM. P.FitzSimmonsN. N.BroderickD.LimpusC. J.MoritzC. (2010). Migration of green turtles (Chelonia mydas) from Australasian feeding grounds inferred from genetic analyses. Mar. Fresh. Res.61, 1376–1387. doi: 10.1071/MF10084

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar
  • View reference in article

• 19

  DuttonP. H.JensenM. P.FreyA.LaCasellaE.BalazsG. H.ZárateP.et al. (2014b). Population structure and phylogeography reveal pathways of colonization by a migratory marine reptile (Chelonia mydas) in the central and eastern Pacific. Ecol. Evol.4, 4317–4331. doi: 10.1002/ece3.1269

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar
  • View reference in article

• 20

  DuttonP. H.JensenM. P.FrutcheyK.FreyA.LaCasellaE.BalazsG. H.et al. (2014a). Genetic stock structure of green turtle (Chelonia mydas) nesting populations across the Pacific islands. Pac. Sci.68, 451–464. doi: 10.2984/68.4.1

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar
  • View reference in article

• 21

  DW News (2022). Ecuador expands Galapagos Marine Reserve [WWW DocumentDw News. Available online at: https://www.dw.com/en/ecuador-expands-galapagos-marine-reserve/a-60436043 (Accessed 10.12.22).

  • Google Scholar
  • View reference in article

• 22

  EguchiT.BredvikJ.GrahamS.LeRouxR.SaundersB.SeminoffJ. A. (2020). Effects of a power plant closure on home ranges of green turtles in an urban foraging area. Endang. Spec. Res.41, 265–277. doi: 10.3354/esr

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar
  • View reference in article

• 23

  EstebanN.MortimerJ. A.StokesH. J.LaloëJ.-O.UnsworthR. K. F.HaysG. C. (2020). A global review of green turtle diet: sea surface temperature as a potential driver of omnivory levels. Mar. Biol.167, 183. doi: 10.1007/s00227-020-03786-8

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar
  • View reference in article

• 24

  FiedlerP. C. (2002). Environmental change in the eastern tropical Pacific Ocean: review of ENSO and decadal variability. Mar. Ecol. Prog. Ser.244, 265–283. doi: 10.3354/meps

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar
  • View reference in article

• 25

  FrittsT. (1981). Marine turtles of the Galapagos Islands and adjacent areas of the eastern Pacific on the basis of observations made by SR Slevin 1905–1906. J. Herpetol.15, 293–301. doi: 10.2307/1563432

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar
  • View reference in article

• 26

  FuentesM.BealM.PatricioA. (2025). The elusive sex: satellite tracking contributions to male sea turtle spatial ecology. Endang. Spec. Res.57, 273–287. doi: 10.3354/esr

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar
  • View reference in article

• 27

  FuentesM. M. P. B.McMichaelE.KotC. Y.Silver-GorgesI.WallaceB. P.GodleyB. J.et al. (2023). Key issues in assessing threats to sea turtles: knowledge gaps and future directions. Endang. Spec. Res.52, 303–341. doi: 10.3354/esr

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar
  • View reference in article

• 28

  FujisakiI.HartK. M.Sartain-IversonA. R. (2016). Habitat selection by green turtles in a spatially heterogeneous benthic landscape in Dry Tortugas National Park, Florida. Aquat. Biol.24, 185–199. doi: 10.3354/ab

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar
  • View reference in article

• 29

  GamaL. R.DomitC.BroadhurstM. K.FuentesM. M.MillarR. B. (2016). Green turtle Chelonia mydas foraging ecology at 25 S in the western Atlantic: evidence to support a feeding model driven by intrinsic and extrinsic variability. Mar. Ecol. Prog. Ser.542, 209–219. doi: 10.3354/meps

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar
  • View reference in article

• 30

  GaosA. R.LewisonR. L.WallaceB. P.YañezI. L.LilesM. J.NicholsW. J.et al. (2012). Spatial ecology of critically endangered hawksbill turtles Eretmochelys imbricata: implications for management and conservation. Mar. Ecol. Progr. Ser.450, 181–194. doi: 10.3354/meps

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar
  • View reference in article

• 31

  GillisA. J.WildermannN. E.CerianiS. A.SeminoffJ. A.FuentesM. M. (2020). Evaluating different spatial scales of forage item availability to determine diet selection of juvenile green turtles (Chelonia mydas). Mar. Biol.167, 170. doi: 10.1007/s00227-020-03782-y

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar
  • View reference in article

• 32

  González CarmanV.BottoF.GaitánE. (2014). A jellyfish diet for the herbivorous green turtle Chelonia mydas in the temperate SW Atlantic. Mar. Biol.161, 339–349. doi: 10.1007/s00227-013-2339-9

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar
  • View reference in article

• 33

  GreenD. J. (1984). Long-distance movements of Galápagos green turtles. J. Herpetol.18, 121–130. doi: 10.2307/1563739

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar
  • View reference in article

• 34

  GreenD. (1993). Growth rates of wild immature green turtles in the Galápagos Islands, Ecuador. J. Herpetol.27, 338–341. doi: 10.2307/1565159

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar
  • View reference in article

• 35

  HardyR. F.MeylanA. B.GrayJ. A.MeylanP. A. (2023). Daily, seasonal, and long-distance movements inferred from Fastloc-GPS telemetry of immature green turtles (Chelonia mydas) at a high latitude, mid-ocean developmental site. PloS One18, e0292235. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0292235

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar
  • View reference in article

• 36

  HartK. M.FujisakiI. (2010). Satellite tracking reveals habitat use by juvenile green sea turtles Chelonia mydas in the Everglades, Florida, USA. Endang. Spec. Res.11, 221–232. doi: 10.3354/esr

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar
  • View reference in article

• 37

  HaysG. C.HawkesL. A. (2018). Satellite tracking sea turtles: Opportunities and challenges to address key questions. Front. Mar. Sci.5. doi: 10.3389/fmars.2018.00432

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 38

  HaysG. C.RattrayA.ShimadaT.EstebanN. (2024). Individual variation in home-range across an ocean basin and links to habitat quality and management. J. Appl. Ecol.00, 1–11. doi: 10.1111/1365-2664.14599

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 39

  HaysG. C.ScottR. (2013). Global patterns for upper ceilings on migration distance in sea turtles and comparisons with fish, birds and mammals. Funct. Ecol.27, 748–756. doi: 10.1111/1365-2435.12073

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 40

  HeithausM. R.McLashJ. J.FridA. L.DillM.MarshallG. J. (2002). Novel insights into green sea turtle behaviour using animal-borne video cameras. J. Mar. Biol. Ass. Unit. King.82, 1049–1050. doi: 10.1017/S0025315402006689

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 41

  HirthH. F. (1997). Synopsis of the biological data on the green turtle, Chelonia mydas (Linnaeus 1758). U. S. Fish. Wild. Ser. Biol. Rep.97, 1–120.

  • Google Scholar

• 42

  KaleN.StokesK. L.HaysG. C.EstebanN. (2025). Separating biological signal from methodological noise in home range estimates. Meth. Ecol. Evol.16, 2131–2144. doi: 10.1111/2041-210X.70112

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 43

  KotC. Y.ÅkessonS.Alfaro-ShiguetoJ.Amorocho LlanosD. F.AntonopoulouM.BalazsG. H.et al. (2022). Network analysis of sea turtle movements and connectivity: A tool for conservation prioritization. Div. Distrib.28, 810–829. doi: 10.1111/ddi.13485

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 44

  LamontM. M.IversonA. R. (2018). Shared habitat use by juveniles of three sea turtle species. Mar. Ecol. Prog. Ser.606, 187–200. doi: 10.3354/meps

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 45

  LimpusC.ChaloupkaM. (1997). Nonparametric regression modelling of green sea turtle growth rates (southern Great Barrier Reef). Mar. Ecol. Progr. Ser.149, 23–34. doi: 10.3354/meps149023

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 46

  LohmannK. J.LohmannC. M. (2019). There and back again: natal homing by magnetic navigation in sea turtles and salmon. J. Exper. Biol.222, jeb184077. doi: 10.1242/jeb.184077

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 47

  López-CastroM. C.KochV.Mariscal-LozaA.NicholsW. J. (2010). Long-term monitoring of black turtles Chelonia mydas at coastal foraging areas off the Baja California Peninsula. Endang. Spec. Res.11, 35–45. doi: 10.3354/esr

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 48

  MacDonaldB. D.LewisonR. L.MadrakS. V.SeminoffJ. A.EguchiT. (2012). Home ranges of East Pacific green turtles Chelonia mydas in a highly urbanized temperate foraging ground. Mar. Ecol. Prog. Ser.461, 211–221. doi: 10.3354/meps

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 49

  MacDonaldB. D.MadrakS. V.LewisonR. L.SeminoffJ. A.EguchiT. (2013). Fine scale diel movement of the east Pacific green turtle, Chelonia mydas, in a highly urbanized foraging environment. J. Exper. Mar. Biol. Ecol.443, 56–64. doi: 10.1016/j.jembe.2013.02.033

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 50

  MaurerA. S.HorrocksJ. A.BelliniC.EckertK. L.FiremanA. L.FuentesM. M.et al. (2025). Habitat fidelity in hawksbill sea turtles. Ecology106, e70224. doi: 10.1002/ecy.70224

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 51

  McDermidK. J.StuerckeB.BalazsG. H. (2007). Nutritional composition of marine plants in the diet of the green sea turtle (Chelonia mydas) in the Hawaiian Islands. Bull. Mar. Sci.81, 55–71.

  • Google Scholar

• 52

  MendoncaM. T. (1983). Movements and feeding ecology of immature green turtles (Chelonia mydas) in a Florida lagoon. Copeia, 1013–1023. doi: 10.2307/1445104

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 53

  MestreJ.PatrícioA. R.SidinaE.SenhouryC.El’barN.BealM.et al. (2025). Movement patterns of green turtles at a key foraging site: the Banc d’Arguin, Mauritania. Mar. Biol.172, 1–17. doi: 10.1007/s00227-024-04558-4

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 54

  MusickJ. A.LimpusC. J. (1997). “ Habitat utilization and migration in juvenile sea turtles,” in The Biology of Sea Turtles. Eds. LutzP. L.MusickJ. A. ( CRC Press, Boca Raton, FL), 137–163.

  • Google Scholar

• 55

  OgdenJ. C.RobinsonL.WhitlockK.DaganhardtH.CebulaR. (1983). Diel foraging patterns in juvenile green turtles (Chelonia mydas L.) in St. Croix United States Virgin Islands. J. Exper. Mar. Biol. Ecol.66, 199–205. doi: 10.1016/0022-0981(83)90160-0

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 56

  PillansR. D.FryG. C.HaywoodM. D. E.RochesterW.LimpusC. J.PattersonT.et al. (2021). Residency, home range and tidal habitat use of Green Turtles (Chelonia mydas) in Port Curtis, Australia. Mar. Biol.168, 88. doi: 10.1007/s00227-021-03898-9

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 57

  PillansR. D.WhitingS. D.TuckerA. D.VanderkliftM. A. (2022). Fine-scale movement and habitat use of juvenile, subadult, and adult green turtles (Chelonia mydas) in a foraging ground at Ningaloo Reef, Australia. Aquat. Conservation: Mar. Freshw. Ecos.32, 1323–1340. doi: 10.1002/aqc.3832

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 58

  PritchardP. C. H. (1971). Galápagos sea turtles – preliminary findings. J. Herpetol.5, 1–9. doi: 10.2307/1562836

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 59

  R Core Team (2023). R: A language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna, Austria. Available online at: https://www.R-project.org/ (Accessed April 1, 2026).

  • Google Scholar

• 60

  ReisserJ.ProiettiM.KinasP.SazimaI. (2008). Photographic identification of sea turtles: method description and validation, with an estimation of tag loss. Endang. Spec. Res.5, 73–82. doi: 10.3354/esr

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 61

  RodenS. E.HorneJ. B.JensenM. P.FitzSimmonsN. N.BalazsG. H.FarmanR.et al. (2023). Population structure of Pacific green turtles: a new perspective from microsatellite DNA variation. Front. Mar. Sci.10, 1116941. doi: 10.3389/fmars.2023.1116941

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 62

  SeminoffJ. A.ResendizA.NicholsW. J. (2002). Home range of green turtles Chelonia mydas at a coastal foraging area in the Gulf of California, Mexico. Mar. Ecol. Progr. Ser.242, 253–265. doi: 10.3354/meps

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 63

  SeminoffJ. A.ZárateP.CoyneM.FoleyD. G.ParkerD.LyonB. N.et al. (2008). Post-nesting migrations of Galápagos green sea turtles, Chelonia mydas, in relation to oceanographic conditions of the Eastern Tropical Pacific Ocean: integrating satellite telemetry with remotely-sensed ocean data. Endang. Spec. Res.4, 57–72. doi: 10.3354/esr00066

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 64

  ShimadaT. (2018). Sdlfilter: R Package for Filtering and Assessing the Sample Size of Tracking Data. (Geneva: Zenodo). doi: 10.5281/zenodo.3631115

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 65

  ShimadaT.JonesR.LimpusC.GroomR.HamannM. (2016). Long-term and seasonal patterns of sea turtle home ranges in warm coastal foraging habitats: implications for conservation. Mar. Ecol. Prog. Ser.562, 163–179. doi: 10.3354/meps

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 66

  ShimadaT.LimpusC. J.HamannM.BellI.EstebanN.GroomR.et al. (2020). Fidelity to foraging sites after long migrations. J. Anim. Ecol.89, 1008–1016. doi: 10.1111/1365-2656.13157

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 67

  ThomsonJ. A.BörgerL.ChristianenM. J. A.EstebanN.LaloëJ.-O.HaysG. C. (2017). Implications of location accuracy and data volume for home range estimation and fine-scale movement analysis: comparing Argos and Fastloc-GPS tracking data. Mar. Biol.164, 204. doi: 10.1007/s00227-017-3225-7

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 68

  WallaceB. P.DiMatteoA. D.HurleyB. J.FinkbeinerE. M.BoltenA. B.ChaloupkaM. Y.et al. (2010). Regional management units for marine turtles: a novel framework for prioritizing conservation and research across multiple scales. PloS One5, e15465. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0015465

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 69

  WallaceB. P.PosnikZ. A.HurleyB. J.DiMatteoA. D.BandimereA.RodriguezI.et al. (2023). Marine turtle regional management units 2.0: an updated framework for conservation and research of wide-ranging megafauna species. Endang. Spec. Res.52, 209–223. doi: 10.3354/esr

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 70

  WallaceB. P.BroderickA. C. (2025). Chelonia mydas. The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species. 2025:e.T4615A285108125. doi: 10.2305/IUCN.UK.2025-2.RLTS.T4615A285108125.en

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 71

  WebsterE. G.DuceS.HamannM.MurrayN.ShimadaT.LimpusC. (2024). Should I stay or should I go? The influence of environmental conditions on green turtle residence time and outward transit in foraging areas. Mar. Biol.171, 144. doi: 10.1007/s00227-024-04450-1

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 72

  WebsterE. G.HamannM.ShimadaT.LimpusC.DuceS. (2022). Space-use patterns of green turtles in industrial coastal foraging habitat: Challenges and opportunities for informing management with a large satellite tracking dataset. Aquat. Conserv. Mar. Freshw. Ecosyst.32, 1041–1056. doi: 10.1002/aqc.3813

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 73

  WittM. J.ÅkessonS.BroderickA. C.CoyneM. S.EllickJ.FormiaA.et al. (2010). Assessing accuracy and utility of satellite-tracking data using Argos-linked Fastloc-GPS. Anim. Behav.80, 571–581. doi: 10.1016/j.anbehav.2010.05.022

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 74

  ZárateP. M.BjorndalK. A.SeminoffJ. A.DuttonP. H.BoltenA. B. (2015).  Somatic growth rates of green turtles (Chelonia mydas) and hawksbills (Eretmochelys imbricata) in the Galápagos Islands. J. Herpetol.49, 641–648. doi: 10.1670/14-078

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar