The feeding habit of sea turtles influences their reaction to artificial marine debris

Abstract

Ingestion of artificial debris is considered as a significant stress for wildlife including sea turtles. To investigate how turtles react to artificial debris under natural conditions, we deployed animal-borne video cameras on loggerhead and green turtles in addition to feces and gut contents analyses from 2007 to 2015. Frequency of occurrences of artificial debris in feces and gut contents collected from loggerhead turtles were 35.7% (10/28) and 84.6% (11/13), respectively. Artificial debris appeared in all green turtles in feces (25/25) and gut contents (10/10), and green turtles ingested more debris (feces; 15.8 ± 33.4 g, gut; 39.8 ± 51.2 g) than loggerhead turtles (feces; 1.6 ± 3.7 g, gut; 9.7 ± 15.0 g). In the video records (60 and 52.5 hours from 10 loggerhead and 6 green turtles, respectively), turtles encountered 46 artificial debris and ingested 23 of them. The encounter-ingestion ratio of artificial debris in green turtles (61.8%) was significantly higher than that in loggerhead turtles (16.7%). Loggerhead turtles frequently fed on gelatinous prey (78/84), however, green turtles mainly fed marine algae (156/210), and partly consumed gelatinous prey (10/210). Turtles seemed to confuse solo drifting debris with their diet, and omnivorous green turtles were more attracted by artificial debris.

The feeding habit of sea turtles marine debris

OPEN

R A

P

Takuya Fukuoka, MisakiYamane, Chihiro Kinoshita, Tomoko Narazaki, Greg J. Marshall, Kyler J. Abernathy, Nobuyuki Miyazaki & Katsufumi Sato

Articial marine debris is now recognized worldwide as a signicant stressor for marine wildlife1. Ingestion of articial debris is one of the threats of marine pollution along with entanglement, bioaccumulation and changes to the integrity and functioning of habitats2. Articial debris ingestion can have lethal and sub-lethal eects such as gut obstruction3,4, reduced food intake5 and transfer of toxic compounds68 on marine wildlife9. Laist10 noted that 177 marine species ingested articial debris including mammals11, seabirds1214, shes1517 and sea turtles18,19.

Six of 7 species of sea turtles have been found to ingest articial debris as early as the 1980s, with exception of the atback turtles18. Since then, ingestion of articial debris by sea turtles has been investigated on local or regional scales by gut contents analyses3,20,21. The percentage of the turtles ingesting articial debris varied among the study areas19. Schuyler et al.19 suggested that this inter-regional variation might be caused by the dierence of feeding habits in each region. Therefore, it is important to study debris ingestion as a component of diet in a variety of areas.

Previous studies about the debris ingestion have been focused on examining the characteristics of articial debris ingested by sea turtles18,22. Thus, the trends of ingested debris such as material types (so plastic19) and colors (white and transparent23) have been well documented. On the other hand, reaction to articial debris and the process of the debris ingestion remained unknown because it is difficult to observe under natural conditions. There are two possible processes that could lead to ingesting articial debris: one is ingestion by confusing debris with typical diet items of sea turtles, and the other is accidental ingestion when they consumed natural diet items. In addition, Schuyler et al.19 reported that the herbivore species (green turtle) may be more likely to ingest debris than carnivorous species (loggerhead turtle). This could be because the herbivore species is more likely to eat articial debris due to its similarity to their diets. However, there is no evidence whether herbivore species are more attracted (high encounter-ingestion ratio) by debris relative to carnivorous species. Hence, investigating responses of turtles when they encounter articial debris under natural conditions is important for understanding debris ingestion by sea turtles.

National

SCIENTIFIC REPORTS

1

www.nature.com/scientificreports/

Animal-borne video cameras have been developed in recent decades24. The video cameras have been deployed on a number of taxa, including sea turtles25, cetaceans26, pinnipeds27, seabirds28,29 and sh30, and they provided novel insights into foraging behavior2527,30, foraging habitat28,30 and prey density31. Previous studies using animal-borne video cameras have focused on foraging ecology, however, it is also suitable for studying how animals react to articial debris encountered under natural conditions. For example, Narazaki et al.32 indicated one example in which a loggerhead turtle approached to a plastic bag driing in mid-water although this turtle did not bite it. It indicates that loggerhead turtles have ability to distinguish the debris from their diet. Therefore, using animal-borne video cameras, we can investigate the responses of turtles when they encounter articial debris and compare to encounter-ingestion ratios of articial debris between species.

The Sanriku Coast in the Japanese archipelago, located in a temperate area of the northwest Pacic Ocean, is a seasonal foraging area for loggerhead turtles Caretta caretta33 and green turtles Chelonia mydas34. Previous studies involving gut content analysis noted that loggerhead and green turtles in Japan are considered benthic-carnivore and herbivore, respectively35,36. However, stable isotope analysis suggested that some loggerhead and green turtles nesting in Japanese rookeries, where the turtles migrated to the Sanriku Coast was born, display omnivory37,38. On

the Sanriku Coast, although there is no detailed information about diet composition, Narazaki et al.32 reported that loggerhead turtles mainly foraged on gelatinous prey in mid-water. It is inferred that the Sanriku Coast is an abundant supply of gelatinous prey because some currents occupy this area alternatively and interact with each other39. Hence it is possible that the turtles migrating to the Sanriku Coast display more planktivory compared to other areas. Anecdotally, it is considered that sea turtles confuse marine debris with jellysh. Thus, the turtles may ingest a signicant amount of articial debris in this area. This situation oered the opportunity to examine the dierence in behavioral response between these species to encountering articial debris.

In this study, we conducted feces and gut contents analyses to understand the regional diet of loggerhead and green turtles migrating to the Sanriku Coast. Then we described the ingested articial debris in feces and gut contents. Animal-borne video cameras were used to examine their responses when they encountered articial debris. Finally, we evaluate the dierence of encounter-ingestion ratios of the debris between loggerhead and green turtles in relation to their feeding habit of each species.

Results

Feces contents. During the study period from 2012 to 2015, we collected feces samples from 28 loggerhead and 25 green turtles. SCLs of turtles, from which feces samples were collected, were 74.96.8cm (range = 62.389.0cm) for loggerhead and 49.112.9cm (range= 38.090.9cm) for green turtles. Mean masses of feces sample from loggerhead and green turtles were 112.4147.1g (range=0623g, n= 28) and 40.957.5g (range=1.9210.6g, n=25), respectively. Malacostraca, Phaeophyceae, natural debris (others) and articial debris were the most frequent types of materials for loggerhead turtles, found in more than 35% of the fecal samples (equation(1)). Monocotyledoneae, Phaeophyceae, Maxillopoda, natural debris (bird feather) and articial debris were found in more than half of green turtles (equation(1), Table1). In %mass (equation(2)), Echinoidea, Maxillopoda and Gastropoda were dominant for loggerhead turtles, and Phaeophyceae and articial debris were dominant for green turtles (Table1).

Gut contents. Samples of gut contents were obtained from 13 loggerhead and 10 green turtles from 2012 to 2015. SCLs of turtles, from which gut samples were collected, were 73.7 5.6 cm (range = 65.282.3 cm) for loggerhead and 44.2 2.3 cm (range = 40.548.4 cm) for green turtles. Mean masses of gut contents collected from loggerhead and green turtles were 266.8 197.1 g (range = 16.7650.6 g, n = 13) and 278.9 180.3 g (range=24.7517.2g, n= 10), respectively. Gastropoda, Maxillopoda, natural debris (wood/leaves) and articial debris were found in more than half of loggerhead turtles (equation(1)), and Plantae, Maxillopoda and articial debris were found in most of green turtles (>80%, equation(1), Table1). In %mass (equation(2)), Echinoidea and Maxillopoda were dominant for loggerhead turtles, and Phycophyta was dominant for green turtles (Table1). In this study, no turtles exhibited gut obstruction due to the ingested articial debris.

Observed articial debris. Frequency of occurrences of articial debris (%F: equation(1)) in feces and gut contents collected from loggerhead turtles were 35.7% (10/28) and 84.6% (11/13), respectively (Table1). Articial debris was recovered from all green turtles in both feces (25/25) and gut contents (10/10) (equation(1), Table1). The turtles migrating to Sanriku Coast displayed high %F of articial debris in gut contents (loggerhead turtles: 84.6%, n= 13; green turtles: 100%, n= 10) relative to previous studies of both species around world (loggerhead turtles: 27.2%, n= 923; green turtles: 41.5%, n= 754)19,23,4043 and in Japan (loggerhead turtles: 25.9%, n= 162; green turtles: 36.6%, n=235)36,44,45.

In types of debris, so plastic debris was most frequently found in both of feces and gut contents (Table2), and there are signicant dierences between types of debris (Kruskal-Wallis rank sum test; 2=79.98, p<0.001 for feces, 2=35.31, p< 0.001 for gut contents). In term of debris color, transparent debris was most observed in both feces and gut contents (Table2). A signicant dierence was observed between colors of debris in gut contents (Kruskal-Wallis rank sum test: 2 = 11.10, p = 0.01), whereas no signicant dierence was found in feces (Kruskal-Wallis rank sum test: 2=7.39, p=0.06).

Mass percentages of articial debris in feces and gut contents (equation(2)) were 1.5% (range = 0100%, n = 28) and 3.6% (range =037.8%, n = 13) for loggerhead turtles, respectively, and 38.6% (range =6.0100%, n = 25) and 14.3% (range = 0.259.9%, n = 10) for green turtles, respectively (Table1). Wet masses of articial debris of green turtles (feces; 15.8 33.4g, gut; 39.8 51.2 g) were signicantly heavier than that of loggerhead turtles (feces; 1.6 3.7 g, gut; 9.7 15.0 g, Wilcoxon rank sum test; W = 611.5, p < 0.001 for feces, W = 105.5, p= 0.01 for gut contents).

SCIENTIFIC REPORTS

2

www.nature.com/scientificreports/

Loggerhead turtles Green turtles%F %mass %F %mass Feces

(n=28)

Category

Gut

(n=13)

Feces

(n=28)

Gut

(n=13)

Feces

(n=25)

Gut

(n=10)

Feces

(n=25)

Gut

(n=10)

Diet items Animalia

Cnidaria

Scyphozoa 0.0 15.4 0.0 7.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Mollusca

Bivalvia 32.1 23.1 10.7 8.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Gastropoda 32.1 53.9 19.1 4.5 4.0 10.0 0.0 0.0 Cephalopoda 7.1 0.0 4.9 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Arthropoda

Malacostraca 35.7 38.5 0.9 8.7 4.0 10.0 0.0 0.0 Maxillopoda 28.6 61.5 23.2 16.5 72.0 90.0 9.6 2.9 Echinodermata

Echinoidea 25.0 46.2 23.0 33.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Chordata

Osteichthyes 25.0 0.0 0.9 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Ascidiacea 3.6 0.0 2.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Others 25.0 69.2 0.5 4.0 4.0 60.0 0.0 0.9 Plantae

Phycophyta

Florideophyceae 7.1 0.0 0.2 0.0 36.0 100 3.8 20.2 Phaeophyceae 35.7 38.5 6.9 8.2 60.0 100 23.2 33.6 Ulvophyceae 10.7 15.4 0.9 0.3 12.0 80.0 3.0 12.1 Unknown 0.0 23.1 0.0 1.3 24.0 90.0 1.1 7.8 Angiospermae

Monocotyledoneae 21.4 46.2 0.5 0.3 80.0 100 14.6 6.5

Natural debrisBird feathers 25.0 46.2 0.5 0.9 64.0 60.0 4.1 0.5 Wood/Leaves 28.6 69.2 1.9 1.0 12.0 50.0 0.4 1.1 Stones 28.6 30.8 1.4 0.4 4.0 50.0 0.1 0.3 Others 35.7 46.2 0.4 1.7 36.0 40.0 1.9 0.4 Articial debris 35.7 84.6 1.5 3.6 100 100 38.6 14.3

Table 1. Percentage of frequency of occurrence (%F) and wet mass (%mass) of dierent taxa and other materials in feces and gut samples obtained at the Sanriku Coast.

Loggerhead turtles Green turtles%F %mass %F %mass Feces

(n=28)

Category

Gut

(n=13)

Feces

(n=28)

Gut

(n=13)

Feces

(n=25)

Gut

(n=10)

Feces

(n=25)

Gut

(n=10)

Type

Hard plastic 3.6 15.4 2.0 3.1 16.0 30.0 0.3 0.6 So plastic 28.6 53.9 67.6 52.7 92.0 100 76.7 88.9 Styrofoam 0.0 30.8 0.0 44.1 20.0 30.0 1.3 0.6 Fishing line/Rope 7.1 7.7 19.1 0.1 52.0 80.0 19.9 5.9 Rubber 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 4.0 40.0 0.1 0.4 Others 3.6 0.0 11.3 0.0 20.0 40.0 1.7 3.7 Color

Transparent 28.6 53.9 61.5 51.0 80.0 100 46.2 55.6 White 7.1 30.8 20.4 45.8 64.0 100 29.3 18.6 Black 3.6 0.0 11.3 0.0 64.0 70.0 10.3 6.5 Colored 10.7 23.1 6.7 3.2 72.0 90.0 14.2 19.4

Table 2. Percentage of frequency of occurrence (%F) and wet mass (%mass) of dierent types and colors of articial debris in gut and feces samples obtained at the Sanriku Coast.

SCIENTIFIC REPORTS

3

www.nature.com/scientificreports/

Durationof video

data (hours)

N of feeding events

on food items

N of encountered

articial debris

N of ingested

articial debris

Loggerhead turtle

L0704 2007 70.0 60.5 U C1+3D 4.5 1 0 0 0 L0705 2007 80.0 83.0 U C1+3D 3 1 0 1 0 L0708 2007 73.0 54.5 U C1+3D 4.5 20 0 1 0 L0711* 2007 85.0 94.5 U C1+3D 1 0 0 1 0

L0711* 2007 85.0 94.5 U C1+3D 5 0 0 0 0 L0801 2008 77.8 63.0 U C2+3D 3 2 0 0 0 L0947 2009 78.1 77.0 M C2+3D 3.5 47 0 2 0 L1401 2014 72.4 54.0 U DVL+3D 12 0 0 1 0 L1410 2014 80.4 65.0 M DVL+3D 11.5 4 0 4 2 L1411 2014 80.7 65.0 M DVL+3D 12 6 1 2 0 Total 60 81 1 12 2 Green turtleG0718 2007 81.0 70.5 U C1+3D 3 12 0 0 0 G0812 2008 60.4 31.0 U C2+3D 3.5 21 0 1 0 G1354 2013 44.5 10.5 U DVL+3D 12 19 7 1 1 G1356 2013 48.4 14.0 U DVL+3D 11.5 104 1 0 0 G1454 2014 47.3 16.0 U DVL+3D 11 4 6 17 11 G1514 2015 49.3 19.0 U DVL+3D 11.5 4 11 15 9 Total 52.5 164 25 34 21

Table 3. Summary of deployments on loggerhead and green turtles at the Sanriku Coast, Iwate, Japan, between 2007 and 2015. *L0711 was used for the study twice because it was recaptured by a set net aer the rst deployment. **Abbreviations were used for logger type: C1 (Crittercam Gen. 5.5), C2 (Crittercam Gen. 5.7), DVL (DLV400L) and 3D (W1000-3MPD3GT).

Animal-borne video cameras were attached on the carapace of 15 loggerhead and 10 green turtles, however, in the case of 5 loggerhead turtles and 4 green turtles, we did not obtain the video data because of problems before video recording started (the data loggers displaced/detached from 7 turtles and 2 turtles were recaptured). As a result, a total of 60 and 52.5hours of video data were obtained from 10 loggerhead and 6 green turtles, respectively (Table3). SCLs of the instrumented turtles were 78.2 5.1 cm (range = 70.085.0 cm, n = 10) for loggerhead turtles and 55.2 13.8 cm (range = 44.581.0 cm, n= 6) for green turtles.

In the loggerhead turtles, a total of 84 feeding events were recorded from 6 turtles (Table3). Mean feeding depth was 18.3 8.5 m (n = 84). Seventy-eight out of the 84 events were associated with gelatinous prey, such as Hydrozoa (67 events) and Scyphozoa (11 events) (Table4). One loggerhead turtle (L1410) chased a blue crab (Portunus sp.) from 20 m to 70 m deep and fed (Fig.1, Movie S1). Mean swim speed of this turtle during the chasing period was 0.88 0.27 m s1 (Maximum 1.26 m s1) while mean cruise speed was 0.49 m s1. The same individual fed on gooseneck barnacles on a Styrofoam buoy over a period of 20minutes (Fig.2, Movie S2). Loggerhead turtles also fed on seaweed (1 time), natural debris (leaf; 1 time) and articial debris (2 times).

For green turtles, a total of 210 feeding events were recorded from all 6 turtles (Table3). Mean feeding depth was 5.44.8m (n= 210), and it is signicantly shallower than feeding depth of loggerhead turtles (Wilcoxon rank sum test: W=2613.5, p< 0.001). 156 out of the 210 events were marine algae (Table4), such as Florideophyceae (73 events), Phaeophyceae (29 events), Ulvophyceae (8 events) and unknown (46 events). In addition, three green turtles (G0718, G1454, G1514) fed on jellysh (Scyphozoa: 6 events, Movie S3), and one green turtle (G1514) fed on salps near the surface (Thetys vagina: 2 events, Movie S4). Green turtles also ingested natural debris such as bird feather and wood (25 times) and articial debris (21 times, Movie S5).

A total of 46 articial debris were encountered by 7 loggerhead and 4 green turtles, and 23 out of the 46 articial debris were ingested (Table5). Twenty-two out of 23 ingestion events were deliberate ingestion of isolated driing debris. In the remaining case, a loggerhead turtle (L1410) ingested Styrofoam incidental to feeding on gooseneck barnacles (Fig.2, Movie S2). Mean encounter depth of articial debris were 14.0 19.5 m for loggerhead turtles (n = 12) and 1.6 2.3 m for green turtles (n = 34). Mean ingestion depth of debris were 2.9 0.8 m for loggerhead turtles (n = 2) and 1.5 1.6m for green turtles (n= 21). So plastic debris (17/23) and transparent debris (15/23) were most ingested (Table5). When the loggerhead and green turtles approached the debris, the movement pattern resembled that when they foraged on gelatinous prey (Fig.3, change of travelling direction and reduced swim speed as described by Narazaki et al.32). Hourly encounter ratio of articial debris in both loggerhead and green turtles were 0.2 times and 0.65 times, respectively. The GLM revealed that encounter ratio of articial debris was related to species (AIC = 89.17, Table S1). The encounter-ingestion ratios of loggerhead and green turtles were 16.7% (2/12) and 61.8% (21/34), respectively, and this ratio was signicantly dierent between species (Fishers exact test: p=0.02).

Turtle ID Year SCL (cm) BM (kg) Sex

Logger

type**

N of ingested

natural debris

SCIENTIFIC REPORTS

4

www.nature.com/scientificreports/

Loggerhead

turtles (n=10)

Green turtles

(n=6)

Category

%F

N of

events %F

N of

events

Diet items

Animalia

Cnidaria

Scyphozoa 50.0 11 50.0 6

Hydrozoa 40.0 67 0.0 0Arthropoda

Malacostraca 10.0 1 0.0 0

Maxillopoda 10.0 1 0.0 0Chordata

Thaliacea 0.0 0 16.7 2

Plantae

Phycophyta

Florideophyceae 0.0 0 33.3 73

Phaeophyceae 0.0 0 83.3 29Ulvophyceae 0.0 0 33.3 8Unknown 10.0 1 66.7 46Natural debris

Bird feathers 0.0 0 33.3 4

Wood/Leaves 10.0 1 66.7 21Articial debris 10.0 2 50.0 21

Table 4. Percentage of frequency of occurrence (%F) and number of feeding events of dierent taxa and other materials in animal-borne video camera for the turtles released at the Sanriku Coast.

The feces and gut contents analyses indicated that loggerhead and green turtles at the Sanriku Coast were primarily benthic carnivore and herbivore, respectively, which coincided with previous studies in Japan35,36. However, the loggerhead turtles with animal-borne video camera did not forage on benthic animals during the recorded periods, but instead foraged primarily on gelatinous prey (78 times in 60hours) in mid-water. Although the green turtles mainly foraged on marine algae (156 times in 52.5hours), they also foraged on gelatinous prey (8 times in 52.5 hours). These feeding habits in two species (loggerhead turtles: planktivore, green turtles: omnivore) were similar throughout the study period from 2007 to 2015. Previous studies have shown evidence of gelatinous prey feeding in loggerhead and green turtles using animal-borne video camera25,32,46. Recent stable isotope analyses indicated that the gelatinous prey was more important diet for loggerhead and green turtles than that previously thought37,38,47,48. Therefore, our results and a previous study32 indicated that feces and gut contents analyses underestimated the importance of gelatinous prey in the diet. The Sanriku Coast is known as one of the highest productivity marine areas in Japan because the Tsugaru Warm Current owing southward, the cold nutrient-rich Oyashio water, and the warm Kuroshio water occupy this area alternatively and interact with each other39. It is inferred that there is an abundant supply of gelatinous prey, and hence, the turtles could forage on large numbers of these organisms. Additionally, it is noted that the loggerhead turtle which foraged on a blue crab in midwater invested a relatively large amount of eort to capture this one prey item. This suggests that blue crab is an attractive diet item (e.g. nutrient-rich relative to gelatinous prey) for loggerhead turtles, worth the extra foraging cost.

This study revealed that the transparent so plastic was the major debris ingested by sea turtles along the Sanriku Coast. This trend is similar to previous results of gut contents analyses19,23. In addition, video data in this study indicated that the turtles usually ingested driing debris deliberately, and the movement pattern was similar to approaches on gelatinous prey by loggerhead turtles (change of travelling direction and decelerating swim speed as described by Narazaki et al.32). There is evidence that sea turtles primarily use visual cues to locate prey32. Our results indicate that the turtles confused articial debris with gelatinous prey visually. Additionally, we found that both species of turtles migrating to the Sanriku Coast had higher %F of debris ingestion than other study areas. This high ingestion rate may be due to a higher ratio feeding on gelatinous prey. Video data suggested that loggerhead turtles foraged frequently on gelatinous prey at the Sanriku Coast. Although green turtles mainly consumed marine algae in this study, stable isotope analysis suggests that green turtles in this area also fed on jellysh considerably (Fukuoka et al. unpublished data). The transparent driing so plastic debris which is the most ingested by turtles has similar characteristics to gelatinous prey (e.g. colors, driing in mid-water), and thus, the turtles might ingest lots of debris in this area. Additionally, it was reported that loggerhead turtles in this area foraged on gelatinous prey during the travelling period32. In this study, green turtles foraged on gelatinous prey when they were swimming near the surface (Fig.3a). Furthermore, both loggerhead and green turtles released in this area travelled more than hundreds to thousands of kilometers seasonally33,34. Especially for green turtles, these movements are much longer than seen in other areas34. If the turtles are particularly prone to mistake debris

SCIENTIFIC REPORTS

5

www.nature.com/scientificreports/

Figure 1. A loggerhead turtle (L1410) pursuing a blue crab. (a) Time-series data and (b) 3D path movement during a loggerhead turtle chasing a blue crab. Red and blue arrows indicate the time when the turtle encountered and captured the crab, respectively. Black arrow shows the direction of the movement. (c) A picture of a blue crab eaten by the loggerhead turtle.

for gelatinous prey during the travelling period, these migration patterns could also be related to the high %F of debris found in turtles in this area.

In the feces and gut contents analyses, green turtles ingested more articial debris compared to loggerhead turtles. This trend was also reported in gut content analysis in previous studies19, however, the reason for the inter-specic dierence in the amount of debris ingestion was not known. Our video data demonstrated that green turtles encountered more debris and that they were more attracted by the debris than loggerhead turtles. The encounter ratio dierence between species is believed to be related to the vertical distribution of their diet. Video data indicate that the feeding depth of green turtles is shallower than that of loggerhead turtles. Most debris encountered by the turtles was driing near the surface. Therefore, it is suggested that the green turtles encountered more debris because of their shallow feeding depths. Interestingly, the encounter-ingestion ratio also diered signicantly between two species. It is thought to be causally related to shape and movement of their typical diet components. The loggerhead turtles mainly foraged on siphonophores, which are long thin organisms, and benthic animals, such as sea urchins and gastropods. On the other hand, the green turtles mainly foraged on marine algae and some scyphomedusa and salps, which are passively swaying and driing materials. Moreover, their shapes are similar to transparent so plastic debris. Hence, we suggested that loggerhead turtles could distinguish the articial debris from actual food items when they approached due to the shape and movement of

SCIENTIFIC REPORTS

6

www.nature.com/scientificreports/

Figure 2. A loggerhead turtle (L1410) feeds on gooseneck barnacles on a Styrofoam buoy. (a) A picture when the turtle encounter the buoy at 09:05 on August 18, 2014. (b) Twenty-two minutes later, the turtle consumed almost all of the barnacles.

Type

Hard plastic 1 0 0 0 So plastic 8 0 26 17 Styrofoam 1 1 1 0 Fishing line/Rope 2 1 5 3 Rubber 0 0 2 1 Color

Transparent 5 0 23 15 White 4 1 4 2 Black 1 0 1 1 Colored 2 1 6 3 Buoyancy

Sinking debris 2 0 0 0 Driing debris 10 2 34 21

Table 5. Number of encounter/ingested debris of dierent types, colors and buoyancy.

these items, whereas passively driing debris might be hard to distinguish from common dietary elements for green turtles.

Articial debris ingestion is considered as a signicant stress for sea turtles18,19. However, it should be noted that ingestion of articial debris does not necessarily have immediate lethal eect, as it appears that sea turtles frequently ingested natural debris such as stones, bird feathers and leaves, and a lot of natural and articial debris

Loggerhead turtles (n=10) Green turtles (n=6)

N of encountered N of ingested N of encountered N of ingested

Category

SCIENTIFIC REPORTS

7

www.nature.com/scientificreports/

Figure 3. Time-series data and horizontal movements during feeding events. A green turtle (G1454) fed on a jellysh (a,b) and ingested a plastic bag (c,d). Black arrows indicate the moment of capture/ingest.

are able to pass and excrete them. Despite these results, there is still considerable potential sub-lethal eect such as reduced food intake5 and transfer of toxic compounds68. Therefore, further research is required to understand the threat of debris ingestion on the health of sea turtles. Recently in the European Community, International standardized protocol for articial debris characterization has been established49. This protocol is geared toward gut content and feces analysis, therefore it is possible that this protocol could not reect the amount of debris which turtles encountered under natural condition. In addition to feces and gut content analyses, animal-borne video data can provide complementary information regarding debris ingestion under natural condition. This study documented that the gelatinous preys were more important diet for loggerhead and green turtles migrating to the Sanriku Coast which could be related to the high %F of debris found in turtles in this area. Additionally, we also demonstrated that the risk of debris ingestion was dierent between the species due to their dierent feeding habits. Our novel methodology which becomes important data for understanding the debris ingestion is directly applicable to various species, regions and seasons, and it could connect to establishing an eective mitigation plan.

Materials and Methods

This study was performed in accordance with the guidelines of the Animal Ethic Committee of the University of Tokyo, and the protocol of the study was approved by this committee (A12-13, P13-6, P14-3, P15-7). This study was conducted as a part of tag and release program in which loggerhead and green turtles caught by set net as by-catch in the Sanriku Coast, were turned over by sherman to researchers.

Feces and gut samples were collected during July and October between 2012 and 2015. We collected turtles from shermen when they were incidentally captured in coastal set-nets between Ofunato and Miyako on the Sanriku Coast (38553940N, 1414014205E). All turtles were brought to the International Coastal Research Center (ICRC), Atmosphere and Ocean Research Institute, The University of Tokyo (392105N, 1415604E) in Otsuchi town, Iwate prefecture, Japan. Turtles captured alive were kept in separate concrete tanks (3.61.5 1.0m) for 1day to up to 3 months and we checked these tanks every day. When feces were present in the tanks, they were collected using a net. To avoid missing of any pieces of feces on the bottom of tank, the drainpipe was placed near the surface. In addition, the water in the tank discharged into the drainpipe through the lter (1cm). Dead turtles, only 2% and 5% of captured loggerhead and green turtles, respectively33,34, were dissected, and any materials found inside of the whole digestive tracts were collected. In addition, we also collected gut contents of dead turtles which had been released in the study area and subsequently recaptured by sheries nets or stranded on beaches within 2 months aer release. Feces and gut samples were either preserved frozen or in 99% ethanol. Samples were classied as diet items, natural debris and articial debris. Diet items were identied to the class level by visual examination. Articial debris were classied by types (hard plastic, so plastic, Styrofoam, shing line/rope, rubber and others) and colors (transparent, white, black

SCIENTIFIC REPORTS

8

www.nature.com/scientificreports/

and colored). Wet mass of each sample was weighed to 0.1g using a digital scale. Then we determined percentages of frequency of occurrence (%F) and wet mass (%mass) for each type of item as follows:

=

%mass {Total wet mass of the item type ( )/

Total wet mass of all items ( )} 100 (2)

To record foraging behavior of turtles, including the response behavior when they encountered articial debris, animal-borne devices were attached to the carapace of 15 loggerhead and 10 green turtles in September and October during 2007 and 2015. Two types of video cameras were used in this study. One was the National Geographic Crittercam (76 mm in diameter, 350 mm in length, 1.5 kg in air for Gen. 5.5; and 57mm in diameter, 230mm in length, 0.8kg in air for Gen. 5.7; National-Geographic Remote Imaging, Washington DC, USA24,50,51) which was used between 2007 and 2009 (the data set of loggerhead turtles were coincided with the data of Narazaki et al.32). The other was DVL400L (23mm in diameter, 145mm in length, 115 g in air; Little Leonardo Co, Tokyo, Japan) which was used between 2013 and 2015. In addition to these animal-borne video cameras, a 3D logger (W1000-3MPD3GT; 26 mm in diameter, 166mm in length, 132g in air, Little Leonardo Co, Tokyo, Japan) was used in all deployments to record tri-axial magnetism (1 Hz) and acceleration (16 or 32 Hz), swimming speed (1 Hz), depth (1 Hz) and temperature (1 Hz). The turtles were released around the Otsuchi Bay (3920N, 14156E) from 463 days aer rst by-catch. Data loggers were retrieved using auto-releasing system5254.

Time-series data obtained from 3D loggers were analyzed using IGOR Pro ver 6.22 (WaveMatrics, Lake Osawago, OR, USA). 3D paths were calculated using data on depth, swim speed, acceleration, and magnetism obtained from the 3D loggers, as described by previous studies5355. The 3D paths were reconstructed every 1sec using a dead-reckoning method53,5658. Video data were checked by using VLC media player (VideoLAN project: https://www.videolan.org) to identify any feeding events. The target of each feeding event was identied and the number of events for each type of item was counted. Aer linking 3D logger data, the depth of every event was noted. We also tallied both encounter and ingestion for articial debris, and they were classied into types, colors and buoyancy (driing or sinking).

Fishers exact test was used to examine whether the debris encounter-ingestion ratios of logger-head and green turtles diered signicantly. We examined the relationship between the articial debris encounter rate and turtle species using generalized linear model (GLM). The dependent variable was the articial debris encounter rate (encounters per hour), and the explanatory variable was the species (loggerhead or green turtles). We used the log link function. The most parsimonious model was selected on the basis of Akaike Information Criterion (AIC). All statistical analyses were performed using R59. Mean s.d. are presented unless otherwise indicated. The signicance level of all statistical tests was set at <0.05.

1. Moore, C. J. Synthetic polymers in the marine environment: a rapidly increasing, long-term threat. Environ. Res. 108, 131139 (2008).

2. Vegter, A. et al. Global research priorities to mitigate plastic pollution impacts on marine wildlife. Endanger. Species Res. 25, 225247 (2014).

3. Bjorndal, K. A., Bolten, A. B. & Lagueux, C. J. Ingestion of marine debris by juvenile sea turtles in coastal Florida habitats. Mar. Pollut. Bull. 28, 154158 (1994).

4. Pierce, K. E., Harris, R. J., Larned, L. S. & Pokras, M. A. Obstruction and starvation associated with plastic ingestion in a northern gannet Morus bassanus and a greater shearwater Puffinus gravis. Mar. Ornithol. 32, 187189 (2004).

5. McCauley, S. J. & Bjorndal, K. A. Dietary dilution from debris ingestion: sublethal eects in post-hatchling loggerhead sea turtles. Conserv. Biol. 13, 925929 (1999).

6. Teuten, E. L. et al. Transport and release of chemicals from plastics to the environment and to wildlife. Philos. Trans. R. Soc. Lond. B. Biol. Sci. 364, 20272045 (2009).

7. Yamashita, R., Takada, H., Fukuwaka, M. A. & Watanuki, Y. Physical and chemical eects of ingested plastic debris on short-tailed shearwaters, Puffinus tenuirostris, in the North Pacic Ocean. Mar. Pollut. Bull. 62, 28452849 (2011).

8. Tanaka, K. et al. Accumulation of plastic-derived chemicals in tissues of seabirds ingesting marine plastics. Mar. Pollut. Bull. 69, 219222 (2013).

9. Mller, C., Townsend, K. & Matschullat, J. Experimental degradation of polymer shopping bags (standard and degradable plastic, and biodegradable) in the gastrointestinal uids of sea turtles. Sci. Total Environ. 416, 464467 (2012).

10. Laist, D. Impacts of marine debris: entanglement of marine life in marine debris including a comprehensive list of species with entanglement and ingestion records. In Marine debris: sources, impacts, and solutions (eds. Coe, J. M. & Rogers, D. B.) 99139 (Springer New York, 1997).

11. Baulch, S. & Perry, C. Evaluating the impacts of marine debris on cetaceans. Mar. Pollut. Bull. 80, 210221 (2014).12. Day, R., Wehle, D. & Coleman, F. Ingestion of plastic pollutants by marine birds. In Proceedings of the workshop on the fate and impact of marine debris (eds Shomura, R. & Yoshido, H.) 344386 (U.S. Dept. Commerce, 1985).

13. Van Franeker, J. A. et al. Monitoring plastic ingestion by the northern fulmar Fulmarus glacialis in the North Sea. Environ. Pollut. 159, 26092615 (2011).

14. Watanuki, Y. Ingestion of plastics and its eects on seabird. Aquabiology 36, 596605 (2014).15. Kubota, T. Synthetic materials found in the stomachs of longnose lancetsh collected from Suruga Bay, Central Japan. In Proceedings of the second international conference on marine debris (eds. Shomurs, R. & Godfrey, M.) 710717 (Comer, NOM Tech, 1990).

16. Boerger, C. M., Lattin, G. L., Moore, S. L. & Moore, C. J. Plastic ingestion by planktivorous shes in the North Pacic Central Gyre. Mar. Pollut. Bull. 60, 22752278 (2010).

%F (Number of individuals for which an item of a specific type was found/Total number of individuals) 100 (1)

=

g

g

SCIENTIFIC REPORTS

9

www.nature.com/scientificreports/

17. Lusher, A. L., McHugh, M. & Thompson, R. C. Occurrence of microplastics in the gastrointestinal tract of pelagic and demersal sh from the English Channel. Mar. Pollut. Bull. 67, 9499 (2013).

18. Balazs, G. Impact of ocean debris on marine turtles: entanglement and ingestion. In Proceedings of the workshop on the fate and impact of marine debris (eds Shomura, R. & Yoshido, H.) 387429 (National Marine Fisheries Service, 1985).

19. Schuyler, Q., Hardesty, B. D., Wilcox, C. & Townsend, K. Global analysis of anthropogenic debris ingestion by sea turtles. Conserv. Biol. 28, 129139 (2014).

20. Casale, P. et al. Foraging ecology of loggerhead sea turtles Caretta caretta in the central Mediterranean Sea: evidence for a relaxed life history model. Mar. Ecol. Prog. Ser. 372, 265276 (2008).

21. Lazar, B. & Graan, R. Ingestion of marine debris by loggerhead sea turtles, Caretta caretta, in the Adriatic Sea. Mar. Pollut. Bull. 62, 4347 (2011).

22. Schuyler, Q., Hardesty, B. D., Wilcox, C. & Townsend, K. To eat or not to eat? debris selectivity by marine turtles. PLoS One 7, e40884 (2012).

23. Camedda, A. et al. Interaction between loggerhead sea turtles (Caretta caretta) and marine litter in Sardinia (Western Mediterranean Sea). Mar. Environ. Res. 100, 2532 (2014).

24. Marshall, G. J. Crittercam: an animal borne imaging and data logging system. J. Mar. Technol. Soc. 32, 1117 (1998).25. Heithaus, M. R., McLash, J. J., Frid, A., Dill, L. M. & Marshall, G. J. Novel insights into green sea turtle behaviour using animal-borne video cameras. J. Mar. Biol. Assoc. UK 82, 10491050 (2002).

26. Calambokidis, J. et al. Insights into the underwater diving, feeding, and calling behavior of blue whales from a suction-cup-attached video-imaging tag (Crittercam). Mar. Technol. Soc. J. 41, 1929 (2007).

27. Bowen, W. D., Tully, D., Boness, D. J., Bulheier, B. M. & Marshall, G. J. Prey-dependent foraging tactics and prey protability in a marine mammal. Mar. Ecol. Prog. Ser. 244, 235245 (2002).

28. Ponganis, P. J., Van Dam, R. P., Marshall, G., Knower, T. & Levenson, D. H. Sub-ice foraging behavior of emperor penguins. J. Exp. Biol. 203, 32753278 (2000).

29. Yoda, K., Murakoshi, M., Tsutsui, K. & Kohno, H. Social interactions of juvenile brown boobies at sea as observed with animal-borne video cameras. PLoS One 6, e19602 (2011).

30. Heithaus, M., Dill, L., Marshall, G. & Buhleier, B. Habitat use and foraging behavior of tiger sharks (Galeocerdo cuvier) in a seagrass ecosystem. Mar. Biol. 140, 237248 (2002).

31. Watanabe, Y. Y. & Takahashi, A. Linking animal-borne video to accelerometers reveals prey capture variability. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 110, 21992204 (2013).

32. Narazaki, T., Sato, K., Abernathy, K. J., Marshall, G. J. & Miyazaki, N. Loggerhead turtles (Caretta caretta) use vision to forage on gelatinous prey in mid-water. PLoS One 8, e66043 (2013).

33. Narazaki, T., Sato, K. & Miyazaki, N. Summer migration to temperate foraging habitats and active winter diving of juvenile loggerhead turtles Caretta caretta in the western North Pacic. Mar. Biol. 162, 12511263 (2015).

34. Fukuoka, T., Narazaki, T. & Sato, K. Summer-restricted migration of green turtles Chelonia mydas to a temperate habitat of the northwest Pacic Ocean. Endanger. Species Res. 28, 110 (2015).

35. Ishihara, T. Life history. In Natural history of sea turtles in Japan. (ed. Kamezaki, N.) 5783 (University of Tokyo Press, 2012).36. Kameda, K. & Ishihara, T. Gut contents analysis of green turtles (Chelonia mydas) in Japan. UMIGAME Newsl. JAPAN 81, 1723 (2009).

37. Hatase, H. et al. Size-related dierences in feeding habitat use of adult female loggerhead turtles Caretta caretta around Japan determined by stable isotope analyses and satellite telemetry. Mar. Ecol. Prog. Ser. 233, 273281 (2002).

38. Hatase, H., Sato, K., Yamaguchi, M., Takahashi, K. & Tsukamoto, K. Individual variation in feeding habitat use by adult female green sea turtles (Chelonia mydas): are they obligately neritic herbivores? Oecologia 149, 5264 (2006).

39. Hanawa, K. & Mitsudera, H. Variation of water system distribution in the Sanriku coastal area. J. Oceanogr. Soc. Japan 42, 435446 (1987).

40. Di Beneditto, A. P. M. & Awabdi, D. R. How marine debris ingestion diers among megafauna species in a tropical coastal area. Mar. Pollut. Bull. 88, 8690 (2014).

41. Mascarenhas, R., Santos, R. & Zeppelini, D. Plastic debris ingestion by sea turtle in Paraiba, Brazil. Mar. Pollut. Bull. 49, 354355 (2004).

42. Schuyler, Q., Wilcox, C., Townsend, K., Hardesty, B. D. & Marshall, N. J. Mistaken identity? Visual similarities of marine debris to natural prey items of sea turtles. BMC Ecol. 14, 17 (2014).

43. Hoarau, L., Ainley, L., Jean, C. & Ciccione, S. Ingestion and defecation of marine debris by loggerhead sea turtles, Caretta caretta, from by-catches in the South-West Indian Ocean. Mar. Pollut. Bull. 84, 9096 (2014).

44. Moriya, F. Strandings of sea turtles on the Pacic coast of the Boso Peninsula, central Japan, in 20062008. Nat. Hist. Res. 1, 4752 (2010).

45. Kamezaki, N. Review of quantitative data on plastic debris found in the intensitine of sea turtle. UMIGAME Newsl. JAPAN 22, 914 (1994).

46. Arthur, K. E., Neil, J. M. O. & Limpus, C. J. Using animal-borne imaging to assess green turtle (Chelonia mydas) foraging ecology in Moreton Bay, Australia. Mar. Technol. Soc. J. 41, 913 (2008).

47. McClellan, C. M., Braun-McNeill, J., Avens, L., Wallace, B. P. & Read, A. J. Stable isotopes conrm a foraging dichotomy in juvenile loggerhead sea turtles. J. Exp. Mar. Bio. Ecol. 387, 4451 (2010).

48. Gonzlez Carman, V. et al. A jellysh diet for the herbivorous green turtle Chelonia mydas in the temperate SW Atlantic. Mar. Biol. 161, 339349 (2014).

49. Galgani, F. et al. Litter in biota. In Guidance on monitoring of marine litter in European seas. (ed. MSFD Technical Subgroup on Marine Litter (TSG-ML)) 6893 (European Commission, 2013).

50. Marshall, G. J. Video-collar to study aquatic fauna: a view from the animals back. in Spirit of enterprise: the 1990 rolex awards (ed. Reed, D.) 5759 (Rolex, 1990).

51. Marshall, G. et al. An advanced soild-state animal-borne video and environmental data-logging device (Crittercam) for marine research. J. Mar. Technol. Soc. 41, 3138 (2007).

52. Watanabe, Y., Baranov, E. A., Sato, K., Naito, Y. & Miyazaki, N. Foraging tactics of Baikal seals dier between day and night. Mar. Ecol. Prog. Ser. 279, 283289 (2004).

53. Narazaki, T., Sato, K., Abernathy, K. J., Marshall, G. J. & Miyazaki, N. Sea turtles compensate deection of heading at the sea surface during directional travel. J. Exp. Biol. 212, 40194026 (2009).

54. Nakamura, I., Goto, Y. & Sato, K. Ocean sunsh rewarm at the surface aer deep excursions to forage for siphonophores. J. Anim. Ecol. 84, 590603 (2015).

55. Narazaki, T. & Shiomi, K. Reconstruction of 3-D path (ThreeD_path). (2010). Available at http://bre.soc.i.kyoto-u.ac.jp/bls/index. php?3D_path. (Accessed: 29th January 2016).

56. Mitani, Y. et al. A method for reconstructing three-dimensional dive proles of marine mammals using geomagnetic intensity data: results from two lactating Weddell seals. Polar Biol. 26, 311317 (2003).

57. Wilson, R. P. et al. All at sea with animal tracks; methodological and analytical solutions for the resolution of movement. Deep. Res. Part II Top. Stud. Oceanogr. 54, 193210 (2007).

SCIENTIFIC REPORTS

10

www.nature.com/scientificreports/

58. Shiomi, K. et al. Eect of ocean current on the dead-reckoning estimation of 3-D dive paths of emperor penguins. Aquat. Biol. 3, 265270 (2008).

59. R. Core Team. The R Foundation for Statistical Computing. (2015). Available at https://www.r-project.org/. (Accessed: 20th January 2016).

We are grateful to all volunteers from the Fisheries Cooperative Association of Funakoshi Bay, Hirota Bay, Kamaishi Bay, Kamaishi-Tobu, Michishita, Miyako, Ofunato, Okirai, Omoe, Otsuchi, Ryori, Sanriku-Yamada, Sasaki, Toni, Yamaichi, and Yoshihama, who provided us with wild-caught sea turtles. Special thanks to M. Kurosawa, K. Morita, J. Takada, M. Hirano, T. Abe, T. Tashiro, H. Shozushima, K. Takahashi and T Kikuchi, for their great assistance in retrieving the data loggers. We also thank Y. Fujiwara, S. Takuma, H. Murasaki, K. Onitsuka, I. Nakamura, N. Miyata, S. Nobata, T. Iwata, H. Nishizawa, and T. Abe who assisted in the eld. Field sampling was nancially supported by the Tohoku Ecosystem-Associated Marine Sciences (TEAMS), the Bio-Logging Science, the University of Tokyo (UTBLS), and the Japanese Society for the Promotion of Science (24241001).

Author Contributions

T.F., M.Y., C.K., T.N. and K.S. conserved the study and performed the eld work. M.Y. and C.K. provided the feces and gut content data of loggerhead turtles. G.J.M. and K.J.A. supplied the animal-borne video cameras (Crittercam). G.J.M., K.J.A, N.M. and K.S. oversaw the manuscript structure and analysis techniques. T.F. analyzed data and wrote the manuscript.

Additional Information

Supplementary information accompanies this paper at http://www.nature.com/srep

Competing nancial interests: The authors declare no competing nancial interests.

How to cite this article: Fukuoka, T. et al. The feeding habit of sea turtles inuences their reaction to articial marine debris. Sci. Rep. 6, 28015; doi: 10.1038/srep28015 (2016).

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the articles Creative Commons license, unless indicated otherwise in the credit line; if the material is not included under the Creative Commons license, users will need to obtain permission from the license holder to reproduce the material. To view a copy of this license, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/

SCIENTIFIC REPORTS

11