Headstarting is an effort to raise hatchlings in artificial enclosures (captivity) until they reach a certain size that (in theory) will protect them from the high predation risks faced during the early stages of their life. The idea is that these hatchlings will have a higher chance of survival once released into the ocean.
Raising Hatchlings in Tanjung Benoa, Bali
Hatchling rearing in Tanjung Benoa Bali
Headstarting has always been a controversial topic among turtle experts worldwide (notably discussed by Dodd, Ehrenfeld, Klima and McVey, and Reichad). Despite this, in the countries where sea turtles are found, people often engage in headstarting activities. Donnelly (1994) extensively reviewed such cases and presented a detailed evaluation of why the three largest and longest-running hatchling headstarting programs should be concluded. These are the following programs:
- Green turtle headstarting program in Florida (1959 – 1989)
- Kemp’s ridley headstarting program in the United States (1978 – 1993)
- Hawksbill turtle headstarting program in Palau (1982 – 1991)
Criticism often targets that headstarting has never been proven as an effective management method (conservation technique), and it may even be potentially harmful to turtles. Biologists are concerned about food shortages and the changes in natural behaviors occurring in the hatchling rearing pools (including inappropriate physical training for hatchlings, inadequate or improper stimulus sensors, and the lack of natural food), which may affect the success of headstarted hatchlings in adapting to open ocean life and surviving. Another issue is that hatchlings must also undergo imprinting, which helps guide them in returning home during their breeding migrations (Mrosovsky 1983; Mortimer 1988; National Research Council 1990; Woody 1990, 1991; Taubes 1992; Donnelly 1994; Eckert et al. 1994). Additionally, there are disease concerns, as up to 27 types of diseases (most of which are serious) have been found in headstarted hatchlings (Leong et al. 1989). In crowded conditions, hatchlings may bite or prey on each other, causing wounds that usually lead to infections and body part loss (Mortimer 1998). The concern grows because headstarted hatchlings can transmit diseases to wild hatchlings in the environment shortly after being released (Woody 1981; Jacobson 1993; Donnelly 1994).
Dead hatchlings in the hatchling rearing pond. Photo: PROFAUNA
Dead Hatchling in a Headstarting Pool. Photo: PROFAUNA
The headstarting program that has received the most funding, particularly at the Galveston Lab of NMFS and the Cayman Turtle Farm (both supported by multi-million-dollar funding), has provided valuable information about turtle farming efforts, behavior, and psychology (Caillouet and Landry 1989; Caillouet 1993). Some argue that headstarting has contributed to the conservation of turtles and raised public awareness about them (Allen 1990, 1992). Others argue that if the goal is only to gather important information (about turtle behavior and psychology), there is no need to involve so many hatchlings, and the sense of comfort about headstarting (by humans) has drained resources that could have been used for other more effective, though less popular, turtle conservation programs (Mortimer 1988; Woody 1990, 1991; Donnelly 1994).
Ultimately, the success of headstarting as a conservation technique will be proven when the proportion/number of female turtles produced through headstarting that successfully nest is greater than that of non-headstarted (wild) turtles (Mrosovsky 1983; Mortimer 1988; National Research Council 1990; Eckert et al. 1994). What is most important is that headstarted turtles should nest on the same beaches, thereby contributing to the preservation of the species in that particular population (Bowen et al. 1994). Headstarting is always considered an experimental activity, but to this day, it continues without clear structure and control. To address this, following the recommendation of Wibbels et al. (1989) and Eckert et al. (1994), the headstarting program for Kemp’s ridley turtles was followed by tagging wild hatchlings (as a control) and monitoring the released headstarted Kemp’s ridleys (Byles 1993; Williams 1993; Donnelly 1994).
Pilot studies based on breeding value analysis (Crouse et al. 1987) suggest that headstarting is unlikely to achieve its primary goal, which is to increase populations by minimizing hatchling and juvenile mortality in the wild (National Research Council 1990). Hepel and Crowder (1994) evaluated Kemp’s ridley populations by age and life stage, and concluded that headstarting cannot be considered a conservation method because the number of raised hatchlings will not be enough to replace the loss of productive adult turtles. Headstarting activities only focus on reducing natural hatchling mortality without addressing the main causes of the decline of turtle species, such as exploitation of turtles and their eggs, turtle-unfriendly fishing gear, and habitat destruction. Headstarting is not a viable option for conservation programs with limited funding.
- Allen, C. H. Guest editorial: Give headstarting a chance. Marine Turtle Newsletter 51: 12-16. It’s time to give Kemp’s ridley head-starting a fair and scientific evaluation! Marine Turtle Newsletter 56: 21-24.
- Bowen, B. W.; T. A. Conant; and R. Hopkins-Murphy, Where are they now? The Kemp’s ridley headstart project. Conservation Biology 8: 853-856.
- Byles, R. 1993. Head-start experiment no longer rearing Kemp’s ridleys. Marine Turtle Newsletter 63: 1.3.
- Caillouet, C. W. 1993. Publications and Reports On Sea Turtle Research by the NMFS Galveston Laboratory 1979-1992. NOAA Technical Memorandum NMFS-SEFC-328.
- Caillouet, C. W., and A. M. Landry, Jr., editors. Proceedings of the First International Symposium on Kemp’s Ridley Sea Turtle Biology, Conservation and Management. Texas A&M University, Sea Grant College Program, TAMU-SG-89-105.
- Crouse, D. T.; L. B. Crowder; and H. Caswell 1987. A stage-based population model for loggerhead sea turtles and implications for conservation. Ecology
