Abstract
Sea turtles are vulnerable to multiple natural and anthropogenic pressures, including recreational off-road vehicle (ORV) use on nesting beaches. Previous research has primarily examined how ORV tire ruts affect hatchling movement and orientation, while the broader range and frequency of ORV-related disturbances during sea turtle nesting and hatching remain poorly understood. We characterized the types, frequency, and spatial and temporal distribution of documented ORV–sea turtle interactions using approximately 13,000 sea turtle nesting records collected from 1999 to 2023 by the U.S. National Park Service and the Network for Endangered Sea Turtles at Cape Hatteras National Seashore, North Carolina. Through content analysis of field observations, we identified 66 documented ORV–sea turtle interactions and classified them into six disturbance types: vehicles driving over marked nests, nest relocation from high-traffic ORV areas, vehicle headlights affecting nesting turtles, direct vehicle strikes, maternal disorientation from tire ruts, and hatchling disorientation from tire ruts. ORVs driving over marked nests was the most frequently documented disturbance, accounting for 62.1% of interactions, followed by nest relocation from high-traffic ORV areas at 22.7%. The remaining disturbance types were comparatively uncommon, although behavioral disturbances may have been less detectable during routine daytime patrols. Loggerhead turtles (Caretta caretta) accounted for 94% of documented interactions and green turtles (Chelonia mydas) for 6%, broadly reflecting their relative nesting abundance at the site. Interactions were concentrated in June and July and spatially clustered near Cape Point. These findings broaden understanding of ORV-related threats to nesting sea turtles beyond the effects of tire ruts on hatchling movement and highlight opportunities for targeted management during periods and in locations where interactions are most frequent. They also demonstrate the value of long-term citizen science monitoring for identifying localized wildlife-management concerns.
1 Introduction
Sea turtles are a unique group of oviparous marine reptiles that lay large clutches of eggs, often between 50 and 200 per event, typically buried on sandy beaches (Martín-del-Campo et al., 2021; Miller, 2017). Only seven sea turtle species exist globally (Robinson and Pfaller, 2022) inhabiting both temperate and tropical waters (Wyneken et al., 2013). Yet, sea turtle populations are declining worldwide and are classified globally as either vulnerable or critically endangered (IUCN, 2025). To some extent, the decline is due to increasing interactions between turtles and human activities, including activities on shore as well as at sea, such as marine pollution, marine debris, interactions with fisheries, and coastal development along with light pollution (Fuentes et al., 2023; Van de Merwe et al., 2012; Witherington and Martin, 2000).
Two of the most vulnerable stages for sea turtles, nesting and hatching, occur on beaches (Aguilera et al., 2019). Human disturbances, such as light pollution, beach furniture or noise can disturb nesting activities and lead to false crawls. which are instances in which a female comes ashore but aborts nesting. (Witherington and Martin, 2000). These events are energetically costly and may lead females to nest in lower-quality habitats or to abandon nesting entirely (Fujisaki and Lamont, 2016; Deem et al., 2007; Witherington and Martin, 2000). During the hatching process, hatchlings typically emerge from their nest at night and crawl in a straight line toward the ocean using visual cues such as a brighter and lower horizon along shorelines (Lohmann et al., 2017; Van Rhijn and Van Gorkom, 1983; Salmon et al., 1992). During this process, hatchlings face multiple natural predators, such as bird or ghost crab predation (Martins et al., 2022; Janzen et al., 2000). In addition, human disturbances such as light pollution, marine debris and noise may distract hatchlings and delay their way to the ocean (Witherington and Martin, 2000; Aguilera et al., 2018) thereby increasing the risk of mortality due to increased risk of predation as well as exhaustion and dehydration (Bourgeois et al., 2009; Witherington and Martin, 2000).
Tourism and recreational activities can contribute to disturbances of turtles during nesting, incubation and hatching stages. Off-road vehicles (ORVs), for example, are permitted on many beaches worldwide (Defeo et al., 2009), often overlapping with turtle nesting habitat (Van de Merwe et al., 2012). However, research of ORV impacts on turtles is very limited and mainly focused on the hatching process, with a focus on the impacts of tire ruts on hatchling behavior (Van de Merwe et al., 2012; Aguilera et al., 2019). Previous research found that tire rut tracks can slow hatchling movement, increase energy expenditure, and elevate predation risk (Aguilera et al., 2019; Van de Merwe et al., 2012; Lamont et al., 2002). Yet, the frequency of these impacts as well as other impacts of ORVs on turtles are unknown.
To address these knowledge gaps, this study investigates (1) the diversity of ORV-related impacts on sea turtle nesting and hatching activities, (2) the frequency with which these impacts occur, and (3) the temporal and spatial distribution of these impacts in the Cape Hatteras region of North Carolina based on data collected by the U.S. National Park Service and the Network for Endangered Sea Turtles (NEST) citizen science program.
2 Methods
2.1 Study site: Cape Hatteras National Seashore
Cape Hatteras National Seashore is a federally protected area of approximately 30,000 acres in the Outer Banks, North Carolina, USA (Figure 1), managed by the National Park Service (NPS) (Smith, 2007). The area consists of multiple barrier islands and over 67 miles of coastline.
Figure 1
While five species of sea turtles have been documented to nest at Cape Hatteras, the loggerhead (Caretta caretta) and green (Chelonia mydas) sea turtles are most common. Also within the protected area are eight unincorporated villages which are largely supported by tourism related industries (Landry et al., 2016).
Prior to 2006, beach driving at Cape Hatteras National Seashore was largely unrestricted, with vehicles permitted to access most areas of the beach without formal permit requirements or designated routes. In December 2006, the NPS initiated the formal planning process for off-road vehicle (ORV) management at Cape Hatteras National Seashore by publishing a Notice of Intent to prepare an ORV Management Plan and Environmental Impact Statement (National Park Service, 2006). The plan was intended to guide ORV management for approximately 10 to 15 years and to serve as the basis for a special regulation governing ORV use at the seashore. In January 2006, while the long-term plan was still under development, the NPS released an Interim Protected Species Management Strategy to guide the protection of beach-nesting shorebirds, sea turtles, and a threatened beach plant species. In April 2008, a federal court approved a consent decree that modified this interim strategy and established temporary ORV management measures until the NPS completed a long-term ORV management plan and special regulation (National Park Service, 2009). The major regulatory change occurred in 2012, when the NPS finalized a special regulation for ORV management at Cape Hatteras, requiring ORV users to obtain permits and limiting vehicle use to designated ORV routes (National Park Service, 2012). In 2016, the NPS amended the 2012 rule by extending certain seasonal ORV routes in front of village beaches and the Ocracoke Campground area, modifying the size and location of some vehicle-free areas, revising morning opening times for beaches with nighttime ORV restrictions during sea turtle nesting season, and adjusting ORV permit duration rules (National Park Service, 2016).
2.2 Data on off-road vehicles and sea turtle nesting
To assess ORV-turtle interactions, we analyzed about 13,000 records on turtle nesting activities collected by the National Park Service with the help of NEST, a long-standing citizen science group that collaborates closely with the U.S. National Park Service to monitor sea turtle nesting activity along Cape Hatteras National Seashore. Patrols are conducted jointly by NPS resource management staff and trained volunteers from the Network for Endangered Sea Turtles (N.E.S.T.), a permitted nonprofit organization operating within the Cape Hatteras National Seashore under protocols established by the North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission (NCWRC). Together they patrol all 99.8 km of CAPE HATTERAS oceanside beaches daily during nesting season, recording observations in a standardized spreadsheet-based datasheet (Thompson et al., 2019). Each entry includes geographic coordinates, identification of a nest or false crawl, date, sea turtle species involved—identified primarily from track width, body pit dimensions, and crawl pattern in the sand, with direct visual confirmation when the nesting female is present—and additional field notes that provide context to observations, including impacts on nesting or hatching activities. These detailed records span from 1999 to 2023 and represent one of the most comprehensive historical datasets available for sea turtle nesting in the region. Because patrols are conducted during daylight hours, disturbance types that leave clear physical evidence, such as ORVs driving over nests (broken fencing, tire tracks across marked nests), are likely to be detected more reliably than behavioral disturbances such as headlight disorientation or maternal false crawls, which typically require direct nighttime observation. Readers should therefore interpret the relative frequencies of disturbance types as reflecting observation probability as much as actual occurrence.
2.3 Data analysis
We conducted a content analysis of field notes in the sea turtle nesting datasets to identify interactions between sea turtles and ORVs. In total, we found 66 instances of ORV-turtle interactions among 13,000 entries. Based on the field note entries, we identified 6 types of disturbance, including direct impacts on turtles, disturbances of nests due to driving over nests or high traffic areas, and disturbances of maternal sea turtles and hatchlings due to tire ruts and ORV headlights. Field note observations were coded accordingly into one of the 6 categories (Table 1).
Table 1
| Impact type | Impact description |
|---|---|
| Direct impacts | Nesting sea turtles struck by vehicles |
| Impacts on nests | ORVs drove over nests (with or without egg damage) |
| Turtles nested in high traffic areas and had to be relocated | |
| Impacts on nesting and hatching behavior | Nesting sea turtle was disoriented from tire ruts left by ORV |
| Hatchlings were disoriented from tire ruts left by ORV | |
| ORV headlights disturbed nesting sea turtle |
Different types of documented off-road vehicle beach driving impacts on sea turtle nesting activities.
After defining the disturbance categories, we calculated the total number of documented ORV–sea turtle interactions and summarized them by disturbance type, month, turtle species, affected activity, and year. Quantitative analysis was conducted in IBM SPSS 27. In addition, we mapped the location of these incidents based on provided geographic coordinates in the data set. Spatial analysis of incident locations was conducted in ArcGIS pro. To account for changes in nesting abundance over the study period, we also calculated a normalized ORV interaction rate by dividing the annual number of documented ORV interactions by the total number of sea turtle nests recorded in that year, expressed as interactions per 100 nests. This normalization allows temporal trends in ORV disturbance to be interpreted relative to overall nesting activity rather than in absolute terms alone.
3 Results
3.1 ORV–sea turtle interaction typology
Our analysis revealed 66 incidents between off-road vehicles (ORVs) and sea turtles between 1999 and 2023. The most common interaction involved ORVs driving over nests, with or without documented egg damage, which was 62.1% of all recorded disturbances (Figure 2). In most of these cases, vehicles drove through previously established nest barricades and fencing, installed by N.E.S.T. volunteers as part of their standard nest protection protocol. The second most frequent interaction involved nest relocation due to nests being located in high-traffic ORV areas (22.7%). Less frequent interactions included disturbance from vehicle headlights (6.1%), direct vehicle strikes involving adult or juvenile turtles, and maternal turtle (3%) and hatchling disorientation (1.5%) caused by tire ruts.
Figure 2
Out of the five turtle species nesting in the Outer Banks, these incidents affected two sea turtle species including loggerhead (Caretta caretta) (94% of incidents) and green turtles (Chelonia mydas) (6%) over the study period (Figure 3). Loggerhead turtles experienced all six disturbance types, with ORVs driving over the nests and relocation of nests due to high traffic areas being the most common disturbances for loggerhead turtles. Green turtles were affected by two disturbance types including ORVs driving over nests and vehicle strikes.
Figure 3
3.2 Temporal distribution of ORV disturbances
ORV-related sea turtle interactions occurred most frequently during the summer season in June (47%) and July (36%), followed by August (15.5%) and May (1.5%) (Figure 4).
Figure 4
Temporal analysis of disturbances showed that the frequency of disturbances varied greatly over the study period. Most of the disturbances occurred in 1999 (19.7%), 2002 (27.3%) and 2016 (12%) (Figure 5). The disturbance rate in all other years was much lower. The composition of disturbance types further varied across peak years. In 1999, the main disturbance was relocation of nests due to being in high traffic areas. In 2002, all disturbances involved ORVs driving over nests. In most years only one to two disturbance types occurred (Figure 5), whereas five types of disturbances occurred in 2016, indicating a broader range of ORV–turtle interactions during that year. The years directly after the implementation of ORV regulations and subsequent amendments had higher rates of disturbances than the years directly before the implementation of regulations. Yet, overall, the time period after the implementation of ORV regulations had fewer disturbances compared to the period before any regulations, which included the peak years 1999 and 2002.
Figure 5
We also assessed raw disturbance counts alongside total annual nesting activity. Using the full N.E.S.T. dataset (n ≈ 12,975 records), annual nest counts at Cape Hatteras increased substantially over the study period, from 92 nests in 1999 to a peak of 937 in 2019, a roughly ten-fold increase (Figure 6a). When ORV disturbances are expressed as a rate per 100 nests, the early years of the dataset (1999–2002) show interaction rates of 3.5–18.6 per 100 nests, whereas post-2012 rates are consistently below 0.7 per 100 nests and below 0.35 per 100 nests from 2018 onward (Figure 6b).
Figure 6
3.3 Spatial distribution of off-road vehicle-sea turtle interactions
The spatial distribution of ORV–sea turtle interactions was highly clustered around Cape Point involving ORVs driving over nests particularly concentrated in this region (Figure 7). Secondary clusters of disturbances were also evident east of Hatteras Inlet and north of Cape Point near the community of Avon. Fewer disturbances were recorded elsewhere within Cape Hatteras National Seashore, suggesting localized centers of disturbances of ORV use on sea turtles. Besides the accumulation of nest disturbances in the three peak incident areas, no pattern was apparent for the other five types of disturbances.
Figure 7
4 Discussion
Sea turtles are affected by multiple human activities, including driving of ORVs on beaches. Beyond impacts of tire ruts (e.g., Van de Merwe et al., 2012; Aguilera et al., 2019), impacts of ORVs on turtles are not well understood. Our study finds diverse impacts of ORV on sea turtles based on NPS records on nesting activities in Cape Hatters in the Outer Banks in North Carolina.
While previous studies have focused primarily on disturbances to nesting females and hatchlings caused by tire ruts and artificial light (Aguilera et al., 2019; Van de Merwe et al., 2012; Lamont et al., 2002; Reine 2022; Vandersteen et al., 2020), the most frequently documented disturbance in our study was ORVs driving over nests, often through marked nest barricades or symbolic fencing. In contrast, maternal and hatchling disorientation caused by tire ruts was among the least frequently recorded disturbances. These findings suggest that disorientation may not be the primary documented impact of beach driving on sea turtles at Cape Hatteras. However, the apparent rarity of behavioral disturbances, including headlight and tire-rut disorientation, should be interpreted cautiously. Because these events are difficult to detect during routine daytime patrols, they are likely underrepresented relative to disturbances that leave visible physical evidence, such as tire tracks across nests or damaged barricades.
Because nests are generally clearly marked, the frequency of nest overruns suggests possible noncompliance with existing protective measures. One potential response would be increased enforcement of ORV regulations. However, enforcement can be difficult in protected areas with limited management resources (Gill et al., 2017). Other strategies could include clearer nest signage and targeted visitor education, which may help reduce nest-overrun events (Nolte, 2016), particularly where sea turtle nesting coincides with periods of intensive tourism. This seasonal overlap remains a recurring conservation challenge because summer is both a critical period for nesting sea turtles and a period of high recreational beach use (Schofield et al., 2021). Expanded turtle-focused ecotourism opportunities may also help increase visitor awareness, as turtle-based ecotourism has been shown to promote environmental learning and strengthen visitors’ desire to protect sea turtles (Tisdell and Wilson, 2005).
False crawls associated with maternal disorientation, as well as hatchling disorientation caused by tire ruts or ORV headlights, were infrequently documented in our dataset. The low number of these observations suggests that ORV use may contribute to false crawls but may not be their primary cause. However, the observational limitations of the dataset prevent firm conclusions about the relative importance of ORVs. Additional research is needed to examine the relationship between beach driving and false crawls and to compare ORV-related effects with other potential drivers, including beach revetments, subsurface sand temperature (Byrd, 2022), seawalls, and human presence on beaches (Herren, 2010).
Spatially, ORV–sea turtle interactions were highly clustered, with many disturbances occurring near Cape Point and secondary clusters near local communities. This pattern likely reflects the intersection of several factors, including popular ORV access areas, suitable sea turtle nesting habitat, and dynamic beach geomorphology. Cape Point, in particular, is a popular driving and fishing destination, but it also contains wide sandy beach areas that may be attractive to nesting turtles. Previous research has shown that beach morphology can influence nest-site selection through characteristics such as beach width, elevation, and slope (Culver et al., 2020; Zhang et al., 2025). The concentration of disturbances near Cape Point suggests that ORV management may be most effective when spatially targeted rather than applied uniformly across the entire Seashore. Adaptive management approaches that identify high-risk areas of overlap between ORV use and sea turtle nesting could help reduce conflicts while maintaining recreational access in lower-risk areas.
Species-specific patterns likely reflect differences in nesting abundance, habitat use, and seasonal timing at Cape Hatteras. Loggerheads are the dominant nesting species at the site and use a broad range of beach habitats, including areas frequently accessed by ORVs. Green turtles nest at much lower densities and generally select sites higher on the beach profile with wider areas of dry sand, which may overlap less with ORV corridors. Green turtles at this latitude also tend to nest later in the season, when some seasonal ORV restrictions may already be in effect.
Loggerheads accounted for approximately 94–97% of all sea turtle nests recorded at Cape Hatteras during the study period and 94% of documented ORV interactions. This proportionality suggests that the difference in incident frequency between species was driven primarily by relative nesting abundance rather than by greater per-nest vulnerability among loggerheads. The restriction of documented green turtle interactions to nest overruns and vehicle strikes may similarly reflect their lower overall abundance, exposure, and nesting distribution.
When ORV disturbances were examined relative to annual nesting activity, the results suggested that management interventions may have reduced the proportional risk of documented ORV disturbance over time. The decline following the introduction of the Interim Protected Species Management Strategy and subsequent amendments is consistent with the possibility that these measures reduced the per-nest probability of ORV disturbance (National Park Service, 2016, 2012). However, the relationship between policy changes and disturbance frequency was not uniform across years. Raw disturbance counts varied considerably, whereas the rate-based analysis showed a substantial decline in documented disturbances relative to total nesting activity. This distinction is important because raw counts alone can obscure changes in proportional risk when the number of nests increases over time.
Nevertheless, the decline in the interaction rate may partly reflect the rapidly increasing number of nests used as the denominator rather than an absolute reduction in ORV disturbance events. Without a statistical model that accounts for nest abundance, patrol effort, ORV use, and other relevant factors, the observed decline cannot be attributed to regulatory changes with certainty. Future research could use annual NPS ORV permit sales or traffic counts as indicators of ORV activity and examine whether changes in vehicle pressure correspond with documented disturbance rates.
The potential effectiveness of ORV regulations is especially relevant given recent federal policy changes affecting ORV management on public lands. For more than five decades, Executive Order 11644 and Executive Order 11989 provided the foundational federal framework directing land management agencies to designate ORV routes and minimize damage to natural resources, harassment of wildlife, and conflicts among users. On May 29, 2026, a new executive order rescinded Executive Orders 11644 and EO 11989 and directed relevant federal agencies to initiate rulemaking to revise or rescind regulations previously adopted to implement those orders (The White House, 2026). The 2012 ORV special regulation governing Cape Hatteras National Seashore is also grounded in NPS statutory authority and site-specific rulemaking, so the immediate implications for Cape Hatteras remain uncertain. Nevertheless, this policy shift could affect ORV management frameworks on other federal lands, including coastal sites where sea turtles nest. The declining disturbance rates observed in this study are consistent with the potential value of ORV management measures and highlight the importance of carefully evaluating ORV–wildlife interactions before existing protections are weakened.
This study also demonstrates the value of long-term citizen science data for wildlife management, particularly in protected areas with limited staff capacity (Gill et al., 2017). Citizen science programs can expand the spatial and temporal extent of monitoring, fill important data gaps, and contribute to conservation decision-making when supported by standardized protocols, expert oversight, and consistent data management (e.g., Chandler et al., 2017; Alfonso et al., 2022). Recent studies similarly show that structured volunteer monitoring, dedicated reporting platforms, and validated public observations can help document nesting events, identify threats, and inform spatial conservation models (Massey et al., 2023; Fong et al., 2025). At Cape Hatteras, the long-term commitment of N.E.S.T. volunteers made it possible to reconstruct patterns of ORV disturbance that would otherwise have been difficult to identify.
Several limitations should be considered when interpreting these findings. First, the dataset was not designed specifically to evaluate ORV impacts, meaning that interactions may have gone undocumented when they were not directly observed or recorded in field notes. Disturbances that left visible physical evidence were also more likely to be detected than short-lived behavioral disturbances. Second, changes in volunteer participation, patrol coverage, and reporting practices may have influenced the number and types of disturbances documented over time.
The causal effects of specific policy changes cannot be assessed without additional information on ORV traffic volume, enforcement effort, beach closures, visitor use, patrol effort, and annual nesting habitat conditions. In particular, the observed decline in disturbance rates may partly reflect the substantial increase in annual nest abundance rather than an absolute reduction in disturbance risk. An interrupted time-series analysis or regression model incorporating appropriate covariates, such as annual nest counts, patrol records, ORV traffic data, and enforcement intensity, would substantially strengthen causal inference. Where available, ORV permit records or traffic counts from Cape Hatteras National Seashore could provide useful measures of vehicle pressure and help contextualize the disturbance trends documented here. Future research should therefore combine field-note analysis with additional environmental and anthropogenic datasets, including spatial ORV-use data, beach morphology, enforcement records, and policy timelines, to better estimate the influence of management interventions on ORV–sea turtle interactions.
Statements
Data availability statement
The original contributions presented in the study are included in the article/supplementary material. Further inquiries can be directed to the corresponding author.
Ethics statement
Ethical approval was not required for the study involving animals in accordance with the local legislation and institutional requirements because secondary data from field notes about sea turtle nesting locations and observations of ORVs was used.
Author contributions
SF: Methodology, Project administration, Validation, Data curation, Conceptualization, Writing – review & editing, Investigation, Visualization. AV: Data curation, Methodology, Writing – original draft, Investigation, Formal analysis, Visualization. JM: Supervision, Writing – review & editing. NH: Project administration, Validation, Methodology, Data curation, Investigation, Supervision, Writing – review & editing, Conceptualization.
Funding
The author(s) declared that financial support was not received for this work and/or its publication.
Acknowledgments
We are grateful to the Network for Endangered Sea Turtles (N.E.S.T.) for generously providing the long-term sea turtle nesting dataset used in this study. We also thank the U.S. National Park Service staff and the many N.E.S.T. volunteers whose sustained monitoring efforts over more than two decades made this analysis possible.
Conflict of interest
The author(s) declared that this work was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest.
The authors SF and NH declared that they were an editorial board member of Frontiers at the time of submission. This had no impact on the peer review process and the final decision.
Generative AI statement
The author(s) declared that generative AI was not used in the creation of this manuscript.
Any alternative text (alt text) provided alongside figures in this article has been generated by Frontiers with the support of artificial intelligence and reasonable efforts have been made to ensure accuracy, including review by the authors wherever possible. If you identify any issues, please contact us.
Correction note
This article has been corrected with minor changes. These changes do not impact the scientific content of the article.
Publisher’s note
All claims expressed in this article are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of their affiliated organizations, or those of the publisher, the editors and the reviewers. Any product that may be evaluated in this article, or claim that may be made by its manufacturer, is not guaranteed or endorsed by the publisher.
References
1
AguileraM.Medina-SuárezM.PinósJ.Liria-LozaA.BenejamL. (2018). Marine debris as a barrier: assessing the impacts on sea turtle hatchlings on their way to the ocean. Mar. pollut. Bull.137, 481–487. doi: 10.1016/j.marpolbul.2018.10.054
2
AguileraM.Medina-SuárezM.PinósJ.LiriaA.López-JuradoL. F.BenejamL. (2019). Assessing the effects of multiple off-road vehicle (ORVs) tyre ruts on seaward orientation of hatchling sea turtles: implications for conservation. J. Coast. Conserv.23, 111–119. doi: 10.1007/s11852-018-0641-x
3
AlfonsoL.GharesifardM.WehnU. (2022). Analysing the value of environmental citizen-generated data: complementarity and cost per observation. J. Environ. Manage.303, 114157. doi: 10.1016/j.jenvman.2021.114157
4
BourgeoisS.Gilot-FromontE.ViallefontA.BoussambaF.DeemS. L. (2009). Influence of artificial lights, logs and erosion on leatherback sea turtle hatchling orientation at Pongara National Park, Gabon. Biol. Conserv.142, 85–93. doi: 10.1016/j.biocon.2008.09.028
5
ByrdB. (2022). “ Effects of environmental and anthropogenic factors on loggerhead sea turtle (Caretta caretta) false crawl rates on Jekyll Island, Ga,” ( University of North Florida, Jacksonville, FL). Available online at: https://digitalcommons.unf.edu/etd/1147 (Accessed May 4, 2026).
6
ChandlerM.SeeL.CopasK.BondeA. M. Z.LópezB. C.DanielsenF.et al. (2017). Contribution of citizen science towards international biodiversity monitoring. Biol. Conserv.213, 280–294. doi: 10.1016/j.biocon.2016.09.004
7
CulverM.GibeautJ. C.ShaverD. J.TissotP.StarekM. (2020). Using lidar data to assess the relationship between beach geomorphology and Kemp’s ridley (Lepidochelys kempii) nest site selection along Padre Island, TX, United States. Front. Mar. Sci.7, 214. doi: 10.1177/0002716286487001025
8
DeemS. L.BoussambaF.NguemaA. Z.SounguetG.-P.BourgeoisS.CiancioloJ.et al. (2007). Artificial lights as a significant cause of morbidity of leatherback sea turtles in Pongara National Park, Gabon. Mar. Turtle Newslett.116, 15–17.
9
DefeoO.McLachlanA.SchoemanD. S.SchlacherT. A.DuganJ.JonesA.et al. (2009). Threats to sandy beach ecosystems: a review. Estuar. Coast. Shelf Sci.81, 1–12. doi: 10.1016/j.ecss.2008.09.022
10
FongC.-L.HohD. Z.SuH.ChenP.-Y.TsaiC.-C.TsengK. W. H.et al. (2025). Crowdsourcing conservation: unveiling Taiwan’s sea turtle foraging grounds, emerging threats, and residency with broad societal engagement. BMC Ecol. Evol.25, 27. doi: 10.1186/s12862-025-02354-2
11
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. Endanger. Species Res.52, 303–341. doi: 10.3354/esr01278
12
FujisakiI.LamontM. M. (2016). The effects of large beach debris on nesting sea turtles. J. Exp. Mar. Biol. Ecol.482, 33–37. doi: 10.1016/j.jembe.2016.04.005
13
GillD. A.MasciaM. B.AhmadiaG. N.GlewL.LesterS. E.BarnesM.et al. (2017). Capacity shortfalls hinder the performance of marine protected areas globally. Nature543, 665–669. doi: 10.1038/nature21708
14
HerrenR. M. (2010). Habitat conservation plan for the protection of sea turtles on the eroding beaches of Indian river county, florida. 22. Available online at: https://indianriver.gov/Document%20Center/Services/Public%20Works/Coastal%20Engineering%20Devision/Report%20Archive%20By%20Year/HCP2010.pdf?t=202308311428300.
15
IUCN (2025). The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species. Version 2025-2. Available online at: https://www.iucnredlist.org/search?query=Sea%20Turtles&searchType=species (Accessed July 2026).
16
JanzenF. J.TuckerJ. K.PaukstisG. L. (2000). Experimental analysis of an early life‐history stage: avian predation selects for larger body size of hatchling turtles. J. Evol. Biol.13, 947–954. doi: 10.1046/j.1420-9101.2000.00234.x
17
LamontM. M.PercivalH. F.ColwellS. V. (2002). Influence of vehicle tracks on loggerhead hatchling seaward movement along a northwest Florida beach. Florida Field Nat.30, 77–109.
18
LandryC. E.LewisA. R.LiuH.VogelsongH. (2016). Addressing onsite sampling in analysis of recreation demand: economic value and impact of visitation to Cape Hatteras National Seashore. Mar. Resour. Econ.31, 301–322. doi: 10.1086/686892
19
LohmannK. J.WitheringtonB. E.LohmannC. M. F.SalmonM. (2017). “ Orientation, navigation, and natal beach homing in sea turtles,” in The Biology of Sea Turtles, Volume I, 1st ed. Eds. LutzP. L.MusickJ. A. (Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press), 108–135.
20
Martín-del-CampoR.Calderón-CampuzanoM. F.Rojas-LleonartI.Briseño-DueñasR.García-GascaA. (2021). Congenital malformations in sea turtles: puzzling interplay between genes and environment. Animals11, 444. doi: 10.3390/ani11020444
21
MartinsR.MarcoA.Patino-MartinezJ.YeomanK.VinagreC.PatrícioA. R. (2022). Ghost crab predation of loggerhead turtle eggs across thermal habitats. J. Exp. Mar. Biol. Ecol.551, 151735. doi: 10.1016/j.jembe.2022.151735
22
MasseyL. M.PennaS.ZahnE.LawsonD.DavisC. M. (2023). Monitoring green sea turtles in the San Gabriel River of Southern California. Animals13, 434. doi: 10.3390/ani13030434
23
MillerJ. D. (2017). “ Reproduction in sea turtles,” in The Biology of Sea Turtles, Volume I, 1st ed. Eds. LutzP. L.MusickJ. A. (Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press), 51–81.
24
National Park Service (2006). Notice of intent to prepare a draft environmental impact statement for an off-road vehicle management plan for Cape Hatteras National Seashore. Fed. Regist.71, 71552–71553.
25
National Park Service (2009). “ Cape Hatteras National Seashore: Status of off-road vehicle management plan and negotiated rulemaking,” ( . Cape Hatteras National Seashore). Available online at: https://parkplanning.nps.gov/document.cfm?parkID=358&projectID=10641&documentID=26580.
26
National Park Service (2012). Special regulations, areas of the National Park System, Cape Hatteras National Seashore—Off-road vehicle management; final rule. Fed. Regist.77, 3123–3144.
27
National Park Service (2016). Special regulations; areas of the National Park System, Cape Hatteras National Seashore—Off-road vehicle management; final rule. Fed. Regist.81, 93600–93606.
28
NolteB. (2016). Can tourism promote regional development in protected areas? Case studies from the biosphere reserves Slovensky Kras and Polana, Slovakia. In Protected Areas and Regional Development in Europe. Routledge, 55–74.
29
ReineK. J. (2022). A literature review of beach nourishment impacts on marine turtles. Available online at: https://erdc-library.erdc.dren.mil/entities/publication/8b0af29f-d52d-492b-b921-743419b73272.
30
RobinsonN. J.PfallerJ. B. (2022). Sea turtle epibiosis: global patterns and knowledge gaps. Front. Ecol. Evol.10, 844021. doi: 10.3389/fevo.2022.844021
31
SalmonM.WynekenJ.FritzE.LucasM. (1992). Seafinding by hatchling sea turtles: role of brightness, silhouette and beach slope as orientation cues. Behaviour122, 56–77. doi: 10.1163/156853992x00309
32
SchofieldG.DicksonL. C. D.WestoverL.DujonA. M.KatselidisK. A. (2021). COVID‐19 disruption reveals mass‐tourism pressure on nearshore sea turtle distributions and access to optimal breeding habitat. Evol. Appl.14, 2516–2526. doi: 10.1111/eva.13277
33
SmithL. (2007). Cape hatteras: birth of the national seashore. Historical Geogr.35, 38–55.
34
The White House (2026). Removing Unnecessary and Counterproductive Restrictions on Access to Federal Lands. Executive Order. Available online at: https://www.whitehouse.gov/presidential-actions/2026/05/removing-unnecessary-and-counterproductive-restrictions-on-access-to-federal-lands/ (Accessed May 4, 2026).
35
ThompsonW.DoshkovP.LoschK.WrightJ.CampbellC.SweeneyN.et al. (2019). “ Cape Hatteras National Seashore sea turtle monitoring and management program: 2018 annual report,” ( National Park Service, Cape Hatteras National Seashore, Manteo, NC).
36
TisdellC.WilsonC. (2005). Do Open-Cycle Hatcheries Relying on Tourism Conserve Sea Turtles? Sri Lankan Developments and Economic–Ecological Considerations. Environ. Manage.35 (4), 441–452.
37
VandersteenJ.KarkS.SorrellK.LevinN. (2020). Quantifying the impact of light pollution on sea turtle nesting using ground-based imagery. Remote Sens.12 (11), 1785.
38
Van de MerweJ. P.WestE. J.IbrahimK. (2012). Effects of off-road vehicle tyre ruts on the beach dispersal of green sea turtle Chelonia mydas hatchlings. Endanger. Species Res.18, 27–34. doi: 10.3354/esr00436
39
Van RhijnF.Van GorkomJ. (1983). Optic orientation in hatchlings of the sea turtle, Chelonia mydas. III. Sea‐finding behaviour: the role of photic and visual orientation in animals walking on the spot under laboratory conditions. Mar. Freshw. Behav. Phy9, 211–228. doi: 10.1080/10236248309378594
40
WitheringtonB. E.MartinR. E. (2000). “ Understanding, assessing, and resolving light-pollution problems on sea turtle nesting beaches,”, 3rd ed. revised ( Florida Marine Research Institute Technical Report TR-2). Available online at: https://dlc.dlib.indiana.edu/dlc/bitstreams/73f74e47-6941-451f-b31b-06d98f7973da/download.
41
WynekenJ.LohmannK. J.MusickJ. A. (2013). The Biology of Sea Turtles (Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press).
42
ZhangT.AnX.ZhangC.LiuY.LiY.YuY.et al. (2025). Nest site selection by green sea turtles (chelonia mydas) and implications for conservation on qilianyu, xisha islands, south China sea. Ecol. Evol.15, e70841. doi: 10.1002/ece3.70841
Summary
Keywords
beach driving, citizen science, coastal management, National Park Service, sea turtles
Citation
Farquhar S, Van Benthuysen A, Morley J and Heck N (2026) Different types of off-road vehicle beach driving impacts on sea turtle nesting activities. Front. Ecol. Evol. 14:1928946. doi: 10.3389/fevo.2026.1928946
Received
05 July 2026
Revised
04 August 2026
Accepted
10 August 2026
Published
04 September 2026
Corrected
09 September 2026
Volume
14 - 2026
Edited by
Hector Barrios-Garrido, University of Zulia, Venezuela
Updates
Copyright
© 2026 Farquhar, Van Benthuysen, Morley and Heck.
This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY). The use, distribution or reproduction in other forums is permitted, provided the original author(s) and the copyright owner(s) are credited and that the original publication in this journal is cited, in accordance with accepted academic practice. No use, distribution or reproduction is permitted which does not comply with these terms.
*Correspondence: Nadine Heck, heckn19@ecu.edu
Disclaimer
All claims expressed in this article are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of their affiliated organizations, or those of the publisher, the editors and the reviewers. Any product that may be evaluated in this article or claim that may be made by its manufacturer is not guaranteed or endorsed by the publisher.