Skip to main content
PLOS One logoLink to PLOS One
. 2023 Aug 9;18(8):e0289167. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0289167

Evaluation of sea turtle morbidity and mortality within the Indian Ocean from 12 years of data shows high prevalence of ghost net entanglement

Katrina Himpson 1,*, Simon Dixon 1, Thomas Le Berre 1
Editor: Graeme Hays2
PMCID: PMC10411791  PMID: 37556405

Abstract

Anthropogenic activities can negatively affect sea turtle populations. Quantifying the effect of human actions on these threatened species can help guide management strategies to reduce adverse impacts. However, such assessments require extensive effort and resources and as such have not been carried out in many areas of important sea turtle habitat, including the Republic of the Maldives (Maldives). Here, we utilise 12 years of data (2010–2022) collected from marine turtle stranding and rehabilitation cases from across the Maldives to identify the key threats in this region. Olive ridley turtles were found stranded or injured most frequently (74.7% of total cases), along with hawksbill (15.2%), and green (10.1%) turtles. Anthropogenic factors were the primary cause of injury or stranding in 75.2% of cases with entanglement in ghost fishing gear being the most common (66.2% of all cases). Other causes of morbidity, such as from turtles being kept as pets (5.6%), boat strikes (<1%), bycatch (<1%), and poaching (<1%) were recorded less frequently. Olive ridley turtles were more likely to have injuries associated with entanglement than other species and showed a peak in admissions during the northeast monsoon, in the period following the known arribada nesting season in nearby India. Turtles admitted to rehabilitation following entanglement were released a mean of 70 days sooner and had 27.5% lower mortality rates than for other causes of admission. This study highlights the high prevalence of ghost net entanglement of sea turtles within the Maldives. The topic of ghost fishing is of global importance and international cooperation is critical in tackling this growing issue.

Introduction

Human activities have substantial impacts on the worlds’ oceans and the species which live in them [1]. Anthropogenic factors such as overexploitation, habitat loss, climate change, invasive species, disease, and pollution can negatively affect wildlife populations and contribute to species declines or extinctions [1,2]. The impacts of these activities are more pronounced in large bodied species which are subject to more intense pressures, for example through overexploitation, and are vulnerable to extinction due to slow life histories [3,4]. As marine megafauna convey a variety of environmental, economic, cultural and social benefits disproportionate to the overall percentage of species they represent, and can additionally act as umbrella species for conservation, they should be considered a priority for protection [3,5].

Marine turtles are one group of marine megafauna under threat of extinction through human activities; primarily through interactions with the fishing industry, overexploitation, and marine pollution [68]. Although six of the seven species of marine turtle are considered to be under threat of extinction, through extensive conservation efforts populations are stable or increasing in many regions [911]. However, as the type and magnitude of threats to marine turtles varies between geographic regions, it is important to consider that management decisions to mitigate anthropogenic impacts in one location may not be effective in another [1214]. To safeguard against future losses and facilitate further population recovery it is critical to identify and quantify threats to marine turtles on a regional scale.

Regardless of the importance of assessing threats to marine turtles, the process remains challenging: all species are elusive with pelagic life stages, making gathering the large datasets required for accurate evaluations labour intensive and costly [15]. Given the extensive resources required to assess threats, these have been performed only within certain well-studied populations; namely of green turtles in the Americas and Australia, and loggerhead turtles in the Mediterranean [8,12,1618]. However, threats to marine turtles remain unassessed in many regions, including areas with significant populations [15].

The Republic of the Maldives (Maldives) is one region of important marine turtle habitat where a comprehensive evaluation of threats has not been conducted [11]. However, a rapidly expanding and increasingly environmentally focused tourism industry over the past few decades has facilitated the collection of comprehensive and long-term data across many areas of marine science in the Maldives. [19,20]. Here, we utilise data collected from stranded turtles and those admitted into rehabilitation centres to evaluate the threats to marine turtles in this region.

Stranding data is a common method of assessing causes of morbidity and mortality in marine turtles [8,12,21]. Although stranded turtles found on beaches or floating on the ocean’s surface only represent a small proportion of total deaths and injuries; strandings are considered representative of threats and allow estimations of the scale of local hazards to be made [14,21]. Where stranded individuals are found alive and admitted to rehabilitation centres, longitudinal observations made on progress and recovery can provide additional data towards a more comprehensive overview of threats to marine turtle populations in a region [22].

Five of the seven globally recognised species of marine turtle have been recorded in the Maldives. Green (Chelonia mydas) and hawksbill (Eretmochelys imbricata) turtles are permanent residents and are sighted frequently throughout the region [23]. Both species hold neritic foraging grounds which are established after an initial pelagic life-stage as young juveniles. Nesting is reported in several atolls with animals known to migrate from the Chagos archipelago; indicating that the Maldives provides important nesting habitat for turtles in the region [2427]. A recent regional IUCN evaluation has classified hawksbill turtles as ‘critically endangered’ and green turtles as ‘endangered’, matching global assessments, although a recent evaluation suggests that populations in the area are stable [11,28].

Olive ridley turtles are found more frequently in pelagic habitats than neritic and are known to have large nesting populations along the east coast of India [29]. In the Maldives they are most frequently sighted offshore and have no known resident or nesting populations [23]. However, olive ridley are found entangled in ghost nets;fishing nets which have been lost or discarded, with relatively high frequency within the atolls, particularly during the northeast monsoon (January to March) where mass nesting (also known as arribada behaviour) along the east coast of India overlaps with a peak in trawl fishing in the same area [3032]. The strong monsoon currents then wash injured and entangled turtles into the Maldives [3032].

Although both loggerhead and leatherback turtles have been reported within the Maldives, both species are infrequent and transient visitors with no known resident populations [23].

This study represents the first long-term, multi-species analysis of sea turtle morbidities and mortalities in this area of the Indian Ocean. Using 12 years of stranding and rehabilitation data collected within the Maldives we aim to: analyse initial status and cause of injury in stranded animals, compare these between species and life stages, determine overall mortality rate of animals found alive, and identify seasonal patterns in strandings.

Methods

Background

The Maldives is a chain of coral atolls running along a north-south axis around 400km to the southwest of India (07°06’N—00°41’S, 72°32’E—73°45’E) (Fig 1). The climate of the Maldives is tropical and has 2 distinct seasons: a hot dry period during the northeast monsoon (January to March), and a hot rainy season during the southwest monsoon (July to September) [33]. Although the Maldives exclusive economic zone (EEZ) covers an area of over 90,000km2, only 0.3% of this is above sea level, principally as small, low-lying islands [34]. Arranged in 26 geographic atolls, the 1192 islands of the Maldives are mostly undeveloped with only 194 islands inhabited and a further 150 developed as tourist resorts The remainder are undeveloped or are used for industries such as agriculture [35]. Tourism, which was initiated in the early 1970’s, has rapidly expanded to become the largest economic sector, driven by the tropical climate and high diversity of marine life which attracts high numbers of international visitors every year [35]. Both human population densities and visitor numbers are higher around the more accessible central atolls [36]. Surrounding the coral-built islands and covering around 8900km2 the shallow reefs of the Maldives are the 7th largest and 5th most biodiverse in the world [37]. This system supports a broad diversity of species, including numerous which are endemic, rare or threatened species including corals, elasmobranchs, cetaceans, and marine turtles [35].

Fig 1.

Fig 1

(a) Location of the Republic of the Maldives on a global scale, (b) within the Indian Ocean and (c) the geographic structure of the Maldives showing the double chain of atolls, locations of strandings recorded between 2010 and 2022 and the 2 rehabilitation centres.

The Maldives Sea Turtle Conservation Program (MSTCP) was established in 2010 to support threatened marine turtle populations in the Maldives. The program is a collaboration between marine consultancy company Reefscapers Ltd and Four Seasons Hotels and Resorts and operates under Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Protected Species Research Permit number EPA/2020/PSR/T02. The MSTCP conducts sea turtle rehabilitation and research in 2 locations: Landaa Giraavaru in Baa atoll and Kuda Huraa in Male (Kaafu) atoll (Fig 1).

Data collection and processing

Data was recorded from injured or stranded turtles which were reported to the MSTCP between March 2010 and September 2022. Animal handling and husbandry practices during this process followed recommended and best practice sea turtle care and management guidelines [3841]. Turtles reported to the MSTCP had a standard set of information recorded: species, curved carapace length (CCL), life stage, sex, date found, identity of the reporting party, initial status, cause of injury or mortality, details of injuries or abnormalities present, final outcome, and date of final outcome. This information, excluding data pertaining to the final outcome of the case, was recorded on admission for rehabilitation. In cases where admission did not occur data was recorded from verbal descriptions and visual media (photos and videos) provided by the discoverers of the turtle.

Life stages were categorised as ‘pelagic-stage juvenile’, ‘neritic-stage juvenile’, and ‘adult’ for green and hawksbill turtles. Life stage was determined by CCL with 30cm used as the delineation between the 2 juvenile stages. In the Maldives green and hawksbill turtles are seen to return to neritic feeding grounds from approximately 30cm in length [23]. Green turtles with CCL greater than 95cm (males) and 100cm (females) were classed as adults [42], with 75cm used as the cut-off for hawksbill [43]. The life stages of olive ridley turtles were divided into ‘juveniles’ and ‘adults’ as all life stages are primarily pelagic in nature, with 60cm CCL used as the divide between groups [44,45]. As adult turtles are sexually dimorphic, sex was determined in mature individuals using distinctive physical characteristics such as tail length. No attempt was made to determine sex in juvenile animals.

Initial status was defined as the state in which the stranded or injured turtle was found. Cases were divided into one of 5 categories; entangled (turtles ensnared in marine debris such as ghost nets, ropes, or other anthropogenic debris), beached (debilitated animals found on the shoreline), floating (those found on the oceans’ surface but not entangled), kept as a pet (animals previously held in captivity and subsequently seized or surrendered), and unknown (where the initial status had not been recorded).

Cause of injury or mortality was determined by several means: initial status, clinical examination, and post-mortem examination of deceased individuals. Injuries and abnormalities were described and categorised into likely causes using previously published descriptions of gross lesions caused by different means [6,22]. For example, linear lacerations to the proximal limbs and neck as well as linear abrasions to the carapace or plastron were considered characteristic of entanglement in netting or analogous materials. Similarly, parallel linear damage to the carapace, or less frequently the plastron, associated with severe internal trauma was attributed to propellor injury from a boat strike. The discovery of a complete carapace or plastron with toolmarks was considered to be indicative of poaching. Injuries were classified as abrasions (surface damage to the skin or shell not involving deeper tissues), lacerations (more severe damage to soft tissues involving underlying muscle and connective tissue), fractures (broken bone), missing (previous traumatic amputation of a limb), and carapacial damage.

Causes of morbidity were then categorised as natural or anthropogenic in origin. Natural causes included infection or cachexia (emaciation with no discernible primary cause, as determined by Body Condition Index (BCI) [46]), whilst anthropogenic causes of injury incorporated entanglement, boat strikes, hook injuries, and, for animals kept as pets, poor husbandry.

The difference between date found and date of final outcome, i.e., when the turtle was released or died, gave the time taken to reach an outcome in days.

To assess seasonal differences in frequency of stranding reports the year was split into four seasons: northeast monsoon (January and March), first inter-monsoon period (April to June), southwest monsoon (July- September), and the second inter-monsoon period (October- December) [47].

Statistical analysis were carried out in R version 2022.07.0 using the ‘epitools’ package [48]. Odds ratios were used to assess relative probability of turtles being found in the various initial statuses. Chi-squared tests were used to test for variation in mean mortality rates, season of admission, and time spent in rehabilitation between groups. A 2-sample t-test was used to determine whether the time taken to reach an outcome varied between turtles which died and those that were released.

Results

In total, 459 turtles were reported as stranded or injured between 2010 and 2022 from 18 different atolls with the central, more densely populated atolls (Male, Baa, Ari) over-represented (Fig 1). Most turtles were found alive (86.7%, n = 398) and the majority of these were admitted into rehabilitation centres (80.1%, n = 319) with others being released immediately (19.9%, n = 79). Olive ridley turtles were the most frequently recorded species (n = 343), followed by hawksbill, (n = 70) then green turtles (n = 46). No loggerhead or leatherback turtles were recorded (Fig 1).

Juvenile turtles were more commonly reported than adults with a juvenile: adult ratio of 2.5:1 in olive ridley, 14:1 in green turtles, and no adult hawksbill being recorded. This was reflected in mean curved carapace lengths (CCL) of 51.28cm (SD 12.44, n = 275), 41.03cm (SD 11.65 n = 56), and 24.98cm (SD 25.89, n = 39) for olive ridley, hawksbill, and green turtles respectively (Fig 2).

Fig 2. Size distribution of turtles admitted into rehabilitation or found stranded within the study period.

Fig 2

The adult sex ratio, in turtles where this was recorded, was female biased in olive ridley and green turtles with a female: male ratio of 2.75:1 and 2:1 respectively. As no adult hawksbill turtles were recorded it was not possible to determine an adult sex ratio for this species (Fig 3A).

Fig 3.

Fig 3

(a) Proportions of the sex and life stage of marine turtle species found injured or stranded within the Maldives between 2010 and 2022, (b) proportion of the initial status of animals between species and (c) pount of initial status between life stages.

Tourist resorts were responsible for reporting 84.1% of turtles (n = 269/320) with smaller proportions originating from non-government organisations (5.0%, n = 16), scuba diving outfits (4.0%, n = 13), local stakeholders, (4.0%, n = 13) and other miscellaneous sources (2.8%, n = 9).

Initial status

Turtles were most frequently found whilst entangled in ghost nets (61.0% of all reports, n = 280) or floating (25.0%, n = 115). Others were reported after having been illegally kept as pets (5.6%, n = 26), were found beached (3.9%, n = 18), after being struck by boats (1.1%), poached (0.4%, n = 2), fished unintentionally (0.2%, n = 1), or did not have their initial status recorded (2.6%, n = 12) (Fig 3B).

However, the initial status of injured or stranded turtles varied between species, with olive ridley turtles more likely to be found entangled than other species (OR = 19.04; 95%CI: 8.34–52.09; p = <0.0001), hawksbill more likely to be found floating (OR = 9.67; 95%CI: 2.78–18.72; p = <0.0001) and green turtles were more likely to be kept as pets (OR = 64.96; 95%CI: 12.60–1603.45; p = <0.0001) (Fig 3B).

Different life stages were also more likely to be found in certain conditions. Pelagic stage juveniles were significantly more likely to be kept as pets than other life stages (OR = 124.56; 95%CI: 34.33–862.49; p = <0.0001) and juvenile animals were more likely to be found entangled than adults (OR = 1.92; 95%CI:1.07–3.58; p = 0.028). No significant relationship was found between life stage and odds of being found beached, floating, or for animals with an unknown status (Fig 3C).

Causes of morbidity and mortality

Of the injured turtles (n = 379), anthropogenic factors were considered the primary cause of morbidity or mortality in 75.2% of cases (n = 285). The most common source of injury was entanglement in ghost fishing nets or similar materials (66.7%, n = 253) with wounds characteristic of extended periods of net or line entrapment identified in both entangled turtles (n = 215), and in those found floating or beached (n = 38), indicating previous entanglement. Wounds associated with entanglement commonly included lacerations to one or more of the flippers (63.6%, n = 124 of 195 turtles where flipper injuries were characterised), as well as traumatic amputations (29.7%, n = 58), abrasions (29.2%, n = 57), and other injuries (4.6%, n = 9). Damage to the carapace or plastron was also common (59.4%, n = 116/195 records) and consisted of surface abrasions (41.0%, n = 80) or more severe damage (12.3%, n = 24) including missing scutes or shell fractures. Head injuries were less common (19.9%, n = 38/191 records) and were predominantly abrasions (14.1%, n = 27) with some deeper lacerations (5.7%, n = 11). Abnormal positive buoyancy was also recorded in 52.6% of entangled turtles (n = 93/171 records) (Fig 4).

Fig 4. Summary of injuries caused by entanglement.

Fig 4

NB. Injuries to flippers were recorded based on the presence of a particular injury type on one or more flippers. If multiple injury types were present on different flippers both were recorded.

Turtles found floating or beached were mostly stranded for unknown reasons (47.7% n = 64/134 cases). Excluding those stranded as a result of previous entanglement (29.8%, n = 40) causes of stranding were varied and included cachexia (n = 8), infection (n = 6), gastrointestinal obstruction (n = 1), congenital abnormality (n = 1), and tar ingestion (n = 1).

Of the 26 turtles kept as pets, 67.8% had health issues associated with poor husbandry (n = 19) including bites from conspecifics (n = 15), infections (n = 13), nutritional deficiencies (n = 3), shell deformities (n = 2), gastro-intestinal blockages (n = 1), and limb fractures (n = 1).

In total, 9 turtles showed evidence of boat strike. In 5 cases this was considered the primary cause of stranding with the remainder occurring concurrently with entanglement. Injuries associated with boat strikes were characterised as often severe damage or lacerations to the carapace (100%, n = 7/7 cases where injuries were characterised), and wounds to the flippers, (71%, n = 5) such as abrasions (28%, n = 2) and traumatic amputations (42%, n = 3).

Additionally, 4 turtles were found with hook injuries (0.87% of total cases) and 2 were found dead after being poached (0.43%).

Outcomes of injuries

Overall, 65.1% of turtles found alive were released (n = 259/398), 6.3% were transferred to other facilities (n = 25) and 4.6% did not have their outcomes recorded (n = 18). Of the 303 rehabilitation cases with a recorded outcome there were 100 mortalities, giving an overall mortality rate during rehabilitation of 33%.

Of the 57 turtles which were found dead, 47.4% were mortalities of unknown cause (n = 27), 38.6% were associated with entanglement, and the remainder had varied causes including poaching (3.5%, n = 2), boat strike (3.5%, n = 2), cachexia (3.5%, n = 2), and blunt trauma (1.7%, n = 1).

Entanglement carried a better prognosis (OR = 3.58; 95%CI;2.16–5.95; p = <0.0001, 19.9% mortality rate, n = 57/286) than for other causes of injury. There was no significant difference in mortality rates between other groups (X2 = 0.136, df = 3, p = 0.99) (Turtles found floating 48.1% mortality, n = 25/52, beached 50.0%, n = 3/6, kept as pets 44.4%, n = 12/27, boat strike 50%, n = 3/6).

Turtles found alive reached an outcome on average 70 days after being found (0–1434 days, SD:153.1). Time taken to reach an outcome was not significantly different between turtles which were re-released and those which died (t = 0.79, df = 375, p = 0.425). However, time taken to reach an outcome varied between causes of admission (X2 = 704.65, df = 8, p = <0.0001) with cases of entanglement (mean time in rehabilitation = 68 days), and animals kept as pets (mean = 52 days) reaching an outcome more quickly than floating turtles (mean = 111 days), boat strikes (mean = 120 days), and beached turtles (mean = 239 days).

Seasonality

Frequency of stranded and injured turtles varied between seasons (X2 = 82.88, df = 3, p = <0.0001) with more reports occurring during the northeast monsoon (Jan-Mar, n = 196) than in other seasons (Apr-June inter-monsoon period, n = 100, southwest monsoon (Jul-Sept), n = 97, Oct-Dec inter-monsoon period n = 66) (Fig 5). However, whilst frequency of reports varied between seasons for olive ridley turtles (X2 = 129.62, df = 3, p = <0.00001) with 51.0% of admissions occurring during the northwest monsoon, rates of hawksbill morbidity and strandings remained constant throughout the year (X2 = 0.971, df = 3, p = 0.808). Although reports of green turtles appeared to vary throughout the year (X2 = 14, df = 3, p = 0.0029), this was biased by 14 turtles which were confiscated on the same day after having been kept as pets and which originated from a single source. When these were counted as a single event there was no variation in frequency between seasons for this species (X2 = 1.75, df = 3, p = 0.626).

Fig 5. Stranding and rehabilitation cases by month reported and species.

Fig 5

Discussion

By evaluating causes of morbidity and mortality in stranded sea turtles, we present important information regarding threats to local populations. The use of data gathered from the post-stranding rehabilitation process in this study supplements long-term stranding records to provide a more complete assessment of anthropogenic threats and facilitates the first comprehensive evaluation of sea turtle morbidity and mortality in this region of the Indian Ocean over a protracted time period. The inclusion of injury outcomes, along with causes of morbidity and mortality not covered by stranding data, i.e., turtles which had been kept as pets, provides a more complete picture of the nature and magnitude of threats to local sea turtle populations, and will facilitate more informed conservation planning within the region.

Here, we show the overall demographics of stranded turtles concur with findings from other global regions. Juvenile animals were recorded more frequently than adults and, within the group of adult animals whose sex was determined, females were more abundant than males. These trends are common to strandings and in-water observations of marine turtles in multiple regions, including the Maldives, and represent overall population demographics [27,31,45]. Although a predominance of juveniles within turtle populations is a common finding, our study recorded no adult hawksbill turtles. Size of adult turtles is known to vary between regions, and it has been suggested that both green and hawksbill adults may be smaller in the Maldives than in surrounding regions [23]. However, as no definitive measurements of nesting adults are available for this region, utilising measurements taken in other regions, as was done here, may result in an underestimation of adults. Comparatively, proportions of adult green turtles found here correspond to a large dataset collected from Mexico, suggesting that the adult: juvenile ratio for this species may be representative [13]. Further work is required to confirm these observations.

Despite not residing within the Maldives, olive ridley turtles were found stranded at a significantly higher frequency than green and hawksbill turtles. The most abundant of all marine turtle species, olive ridley are known to have large breeding populations around India and Sri Lanka [29,44,49]. It has previously been suggested that the high numbers of stranded olive ridley turtles seen in the Maldives are the result of a large offshore population coinciding with the strong monsoon currents which sweep through the atoll chain, carrying any debilitated animals caught in them into the atolls [31,32].

Globally, fisheries are considered the greatest threat to sea turtle populations [32]. Bycatch is recorded as a key cause of morbidity and mortality of marine turtles in many regions with interactions with trawl, longline, or gillnet operations considered to have the highest overall impacts [50]. However, as these practices are not permitted within the study area [51], here reports of bycatch are very low. Instead, we find entanglement in discarded fishing gear to be the most frequent cause of turtle injuries and mortalities overall (66.2% of all cases). Comparatively, most other studies investigating causes of sea turtle morbidity report lower rates of entanglement [5255].

Entanglement rates here are also higher for olive ridley turtles than other species. Predisposition of olive ridley turtles in the Indian Ocean to entanglement has previously been attributed to mass nesting aggregations (arribadas) which occur on an annual basis along the east coast of India between December and March, coinciding with peaks in fishing activity in the same area to create “entanglement hotspots” [32,49]. As a predominantly pelagic-living species, olive ridley turtles also encounter accumulations of marine debris which occur within the ocean fronts used to migrate and forage, increasing their risk of entanglement [31,32,49]. Green and hawksbill turtles are found entangled less frequently most likely as they spend the majority of their time on neritic reefs where densities of marine debris are lower, only transiting through pelagic fronts as young juveniles and as adults during breeding migrations [25,56].

Although the very low rates of bycatch and injuries caused by active fishing found here are inconsistent with global findings, these do correspond with national records [51]. In the Maldives, strict regulations limit commercial fisheries almost exclusively to bait, handline, and pole-and-line operations targeting predominantly tuna species. These techniques are associated with low levels of bycatch in comparison with other fishing methods [51,57]. In many other global regions, fishing techniques associated with high levels of bycatch, such as trawl, gillnet, and longline fishing, predominate [58]. Although reports of turtle bycatch are rare in the Maldives, this is not the case in other species. A recent study of sublethal injuries in Maldivian reef manta rays (Mobula alfredi), which examined over 73,000 photo-identification images, found hook and line injuries to be the leading cause of morbidity in this species [59]. The large body size and high mobility of reef manta rays may increase the likelihood of encountering fishing lines compared with turtles. However, as poor compliance has previously been noted in Maldivian fisheries, resulting in the repeated suspension of longline fishing [51], it is also possible that turtle bycatch is under-reported and, therefore, under-represented here.

The second most frequent stranding presentation, after entanglement, was of floating and beached turtles. Whilst a cause of morbidity is attributed to some of these cases, such as previous entanglement or boat strikes, cause of stranding for the majority remains undetermined. Causes of marine turtle strandings are often difficult to discern due to rapid autolysis of dead animals, limited access to resources such as diagnostic medical equipment, and financial or time constraints. As a result, sea turtle stranding studies frequently report a high proportion of cases with an unknown cause of morbidity or mortality [12,60]. Here, however, this proportion is small with cause of stranding remaining unknown in only 12.8% of cases. Comparative studies report between 20 and 86% of strandings as having an undetermined cause (average between studies48.6%) [12,22,6063]. Here, the high proportion of cases with distinctive entanglement injuries leaves smaller numbers with their root cause undetermined.

Turtles which had been kept as pets were the third most frequent presentation. Although freshwater turtles are commonly kept as pets around the world [64], records of sea turtles kept domestically are scarce [65]. In the Maldives however, the practice of collecting turtle hatchlings from nesting beaches, raising them for several months and subsequently releasing them has historically been commonplace (pers comm, EPA). Despite both green and hawksbill turtles nesting in the Maldives only green turtles were recorded as being kept as pets. This is potentially explained by green turtles being less adverse to nesting in and around areas of human disturbance, making their nests more easily locatable [27]. As protected species, keeping turtles in a captive environment was banned under the Environmental Protection and Preservation Act of the Maldives (2016) with the exception of registered rehabilitation centres. Despite this, the practice continues to an extent (pers comm, EPA). Turtle hatchlings held in inappropriate environmental conditions can develop a variety of health complications, resulting in their admittance to rehabilitation.

Boat strikes are a commonly noted cause of anthropogenic injuries in marine turtles, particularly in areas with high levels of water-based traffic [8,12,66]. Here we find boat strikes account for 2.4% of injuries overall, a figure comparable to other regions [8,12]. The not-insignificant risk posed by boat strikes to sea turtles has led to restrictions of water-traffic movements in areas of high turtle activity in several countries [67,68]. Although similar policies are currently implemented in the Maldives for other megafauna species, eg. manta rays and whale sharks [69], currently no such delineations exist for turtles. Further work is required in this regard to identify areas with high turtle activity and establish the risk presented by boat strikes within these zones.

Records also note several cases of poaching. Targeted exploitation of marine turtles to produce commercial products or for consumption is a contributing factor in the decline of all assessed marine turtle species [9]. In Mexico’s Bahia Magdalena region, where sea turtle meat is considered a delicacy, intensive over-exploitation throughout the mid 1900’s led to a dramatic reduction in turtle populations. Despite a complete ban on turtle catch, use and trade in 1990, in 2006 it was estimated targeted exploitation still accounted for between 63 and 91% of total mortalities. Similarly, in the Maldives turtle meat and products form part of the traditional culture and diet. Although exploitation historically occurred on a much smaller scale than was seen in Mexico, the practice was still considered to negatively affect population numbers and was banned in 2016. However, a 2020 survey conducted by researchers from the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) found that turtle meat and egg consumption is still prevalent, particularly among younger generations [70]. It is likely that the very low numbers of poached carcasses recorded here are an under-representation due to discrete disposal of carcasses limiting numbers of confirmed cases and low observation effort due to difficulties policing such an extensive and sparsely populated region.

Despite the common occurrence of conditions such as fibropapillomatosis (FP) and spirorchiid infection in global sea turtle populations, no evidence of either condition was recorded here [12,7173]. FP is an emergent herpesvirus first documented in Florida in the 1980’s [74] which affects all species of marine turtle and has spread over time to multiple regions including the Americas, Australia, Indonesia, and East Africa [6,71,73]. The virus can affect a large proportion of a population and is implicated as both a contributing and causal factor of sea turtle strandings, morbidity, and mortality through the production of internal and external neoplasms [71]. Although spread is thought to occur through direct contact or fomites and the disease is present in neighbouring populations [16], as yet no cases have been reported within the Maldives. As the virus produces highly characteristic and often conspicuous pathology it is likely that the condition is not currently present within this region. However, as future introduction is possible, surveillance for the virus is recommended.

Similarly, no cases of spirorchiid infection are observed here. Spirorchiid trematode infection is a bloodborne parasite with high prevalence in sea turtle populations in multiple global regions [[14,75]. Pathology is primarily associated with vascular lesions including aneurysm, arteritis, endocarditis, haemorrhage, thrombosis, and granulomatous inflammation [75]. However, the true significance of spirorchiidosis in sea turtles remains unclear; whilst some sources cite infection as a major cause of debilitation and stranding [14], others surmise burdens are largely incidental [76]. Although spirorchiid infection has never been reported in the Maldives and no evidence was found of it in this study, clinical signs are generalised and pathology subtle. As veterinary pathology is in its infancy in the region it is possible that spirorchiidosis is present but remains undetected. As with FP, active monitoring for this condition is recommended.

Finally, no cases of cold shock are recorded here. Cold shock is a condition physiologically similar to hypothermia in which turtles become immobilised and stranded when exposed to low water temperatures [77]. Most frequently reported in the more temperate waters of Europe and North America, the tropical climate of the Maldives does not reach cold enough temperatures for cold shock to occur [77,78].

In addition to investigating causes of morbidity and mortality, we also identified a seasonal pattern in strandings with an overall peak during the northeast monsoon (Fig 4). Variation in the frequency of sea turtle strandings can be caused by various mechanisms including natural seasonal variation in turtle distribution, environmental events such as storms, or peaks in anthropogenic threats such increased risk of bycatch during fishing seasons or boat strikes during tourist high seasons [13,22,52,60,77]. An increase in the frequency of olive ridley strandings has previously been recorded within the Maldives and attributed to the peak of the northeast monsoon currents coinciding with arribada nesting on the east coast of India [31].

One further notable point concerns the identity of the people reporting stranded or injured turtles. Overall, 93% of turtles were reported by parties directly involved in tourism, with only 4% originating from local stakeholders (e.g. fishermen). This large disparity may be a result of differences in environmental awareness, including of conservation issues and options for reporting, between the 2 groups [79]. Many tourist operations in the Maldives are environmentally aware, promote sustainability, and are aligned with conservation objectives [80]. Conversely, other sectors such as fisheries are more economically focused and may therefore be less likely to report stranded or injured animals [34].

As the first comprehensive, long term, and multispecies analysis of morbidity and mortality in the region, this study has identified several points of critical importance to marine turtle conservation in the Indian ocean. In contrast to other stranding studies, here we identify ghost nets as the leading cause of injuries and mortalities, implicated in 66.2% of all reported cases. Abandoned, lost, or discarded fishing gear contributes significantly to marine plastic pollution, estimated to make up around 10% of all marine litter, and is a major global threat to all types of marine megafauna [81,82]. As the Maldives covers a comparatively tiny area of the Indian ocean, and reported turtles account for a small proportion of those affected, the scale of ghost fishing will be far more extensive than reported here [21]. Although it is important to note that entanglement cases are likely to be over-represented in this study as the often-buoyant ghost nets will increase the likelihood of affected individuals being recovered compared with other causes of debilitation, it should also be considered that this bias will equally affect other global regions. The comparative scale of entanglement cases identified here should not be underestimated. Tackling the global issue of ghost fishing requires extensive international legislation and co-operation to clean up current pollution and limit further additions.

In addition to highlighting the impacts of ghost nets, this study has also identified several key gaps in current knowledge. Determining the morphology of adult animals, evaluating the true scale of both bycatch and targeted capture of marine turtles, and developing disease surveillance strategies for both FP and spirorchiidosis have all been identified as areas for future study. Further work in these areas will help to build a more accurate picture of the status of sea turtle populations in this region. Additional work to identify causes of and address low stakeholder engagement could help increase the numbers of injured and stranded turtles which are reported and treated.

To conclude, the Indian Ocean is a region containing important sea turtle habitat but which remains comparatively under-studied. This work has identified the major causes of morbidity and mortality within the Maldives and has determined several avenues for future study which will greatly improve understanding of local populations to assist in their conservation. However, for this work to impact practical conservation, it is critical that relevant findings are applied to procedure and policy both nationally and internationally.

Supporting information

S1 Appendix. Dataset.

(XLSX)

Acknowledgments

The authors would like to extend their gratitude to Four Seasons Resorts Maldives at Landaa Giraavaru and Kuda Huraa for their continued support of the Maldives Sea Turtle Conservation Program and other research conducted under the Marine Savers initiative.

Data Availability

All relevant data are within the manuscript and its Supporting Information files.

Funding Statement

The author(s) received no specific funding for this work.

References

  • 1.Dulvy N.K., Sadovy Y., Reynolds J.D. Extinction vulnerability in marine populations. Fish Fish. 2003;4:25–64. [Google Scholar]
  • 2.Kappel CV. Losing pieces of the puzzle: threats to marine, estuarine, and diadromous species. Front Ecol Environ. 2005;3(5):275–82. [Google Scholar]
  • 3.Payne JL, Bush AM, Heim NA, Knope ML, McCauley DJ. Ecological selectivity of the emerging mass extinction in the oceans. Science. 2016;353(6305):1284–6. doi: 10.1126/science.aaf2416 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 4.Purvis A, Gittleman JL, Cowlishaw G, Mace GM. Predicting extinction risk in declining species. Proc R Soc Lond B Biol Sci. 2000;267(1456):1947–52. doi: 10.1098/rspb.2000.1234 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 5.Pimiento C, Leprieur F, Silvestro D, Lefcheck JS, Albouy C, Rasher DB, et al. Functional diversity of marine megafauna in the Anthropocene. Sci Adv. 2020. Apr 17;6(16):eaay7650. doi: 10.1126/sciadv.aay7650 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 6.Orós J, Torrent A, Calabuig P, Déniz S. Diseases and causes of mortality among sea turtles stranded in the Canary Islands, Spain (1998–2001). Dis Aquat Organ. 2005;63(1):13–24. doi: 10.3354/dao063013 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 7.Koch V, Nichols WJ, Peckham H, De La Toba V. Estimates of sea turtle mortality from poaching and bycatch in Bahia Magdalena, Baja California Sur, Mexico. Biol Conserv. 2006;128(3):327–34. [Google Scholar]
  • 8.Casale P, Affronte M, Insacco G, Freggi D, Vallini C, Pino d’Astore P, et al. Sea turtle strandings reveal high anthropogenic mortality in Italian waters. Aquat Conserv Mar Freshw Ecosyst. 2010;20(6):611–20. [Google Scholar]
  • 9.IUCN. IUCN Red List of Endangered Species- Sea Turtles [Internet]. 2022. Available from: https://www.iucnredlist.org/search?query=sea%20turtle&searchType=species. [Google Scholar]
  • 10.Mazaris AD, Schofield G, Gkazinou C, Almpanidou V, Hays GC. Global sea turtle conservation successes. Sci Adv. 2017;3(9):e1600730. doi: 10.1126/sciadv.1600730 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 11.Hudgins JA, Hudgins EJ, Köhnk S, Mohamed Riyad E, Stelfox MR. A brighter future? Stable and growing sea turtle populations in the Republic of Maldives. Plos One. 2023;18(4):e0283973. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0283973 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 12.Chaloupka M, Work TM, Balazs GH, Murakawa SK, Morris R. Cause-specific temporal and spatial trends in green sea turtle strandings in the Hawaiian Archipelago (1982–2003). Mar Biol. 2008;154(5):887–98. [Google Scholar]
  • 13.Mancini A, Koch V. Sea turtle consumption and black market trade in Baja California Sur, Mexico. Endanger Species Res. 2009. Mar 5;7:1–10. [Google Scholar]
  • 14.Flint M, Patterson-Kane JC, Limpus CJ, Mills PC. Health surveillance of stranded green turtles in Southern Queensland, Australia (2006–2009): an epidemiological analysis of causes of disease and mortality. EcoHealth. 2010;7(1):135–45. doi: 10.1007/s10393-010-0300-7 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 15.Wallace BP, DiMatteo AD, Bolten AB, Chaloupka MY, Hutchinson BJ, Abreu-Grobois FA, et al. Global Conservation Priorities for Marine Turtles. Bograd SJ, editor. PLoS ONE. 2011. Sep 28;6(9):e24510. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0024510 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 16.Foley AM, Schroeder BA, Redlow AE, Fick-Child KJ, Teas WG. Fibropapillomatosis in stranded green turtles (Chelonia mydas) from the eastern United States (1980–98): trends and associations with environmental factors. J Wildl Dis. 2005;41(1):29–41. doi: 10.7589/0090-3558-41.1.29 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 17.Mascarenhas R., Santos R., Zeppelini D. Stranded Sea Turtles on the Coast of Paraíba—Brazil. Mar Turt Newsl. 2005;(107):13–4. [Google Scholar]
  • 18.Flint J, Flint M, Limpus CJ, Mills PC. Trends in marine turtle strandings along the East Queensland, Australia Coast, between 1996 and 2013. J Mar Biol. 2015;2015. [Google Scholar]
  • 19.Cowburn B, Moritz C, Birrell C, Grimsditch G, Abdulla A. Can luxury and environmental sustainability co-exist? Assessing the environmental impact of resort tourism on coral reefs in the Maldives. Ocean Coast Manag. 2018. May;158:120–7. [Google Scholar]
  • 20.Zubair S, Bowen D, Elwin J. Not quite paradise: Inadequacies of environmental impact assessment in the Maldives. Tour Manag. 2011;32(2):225–34. [Google Scholar]
  • 21.Epperly SP, Braun J, Chester AJ, Cross FA, Merriner JV, Tester PA, et al. Beach strandings as an indicator of at-sea mortality of sea turtles. Bull Mar Sci. 1996;59(2):289–97. [Google Scholar]
  • 22.Orós J, Montesdeoca N, Camacho M, Arencibia A, Calabuig P. Causes of Stranding and Mortality, and Final Disposition of Loggerhead Sea Turtles (Caretta caretta) Admitted to a Wildlife Rehabilitation Center in Gran Canaria Island, Spain (1998–2014): A Long-Term Retrospective Study. Ambrósio CE, editor. PLOS ONE. 2016. Feb 22;11(2):e0149398. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0149398 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 23.IUCN. Marine Turtles of the Maldives [Internet]. 2017. Available from: https://portals.iucn.org/library/sites/library/files/documents/2017-041.pdf. [Google Scholar]
  • 24.Hays GC, Mortimer JA, Ierodiaconou D, Esteban N. Use of Long-Distance Migration Patterns of an Endangered Species to Inform Conservation Planning for the World’s Largest Marine Protected Area: Turtle Migration from Chagos Archipelago. Conserv Biol. 2014. Dec;28(6):1636–44. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 25.Hays GC, Cerritelli G, Esteban N, Rattray A, Luschi P. Open Ocean Reorientation and Challenges of Island Finding by Sea Turtles during Long-Distance Migration. Curr Biol. 2020. Aug;30(16):3236–3242.e3. doi: 10.1016/j.cub.2020.05.086 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 26.Mortimer JA, Esteban N, Guzman AN, Hays GC. Estimates of marine turtle nesting populations in the south-west Indian Ocean indicate the importance of the Chagos Archipelago. Oryx. 2020;54(3):332–43. [Google Scholar]
  • 27.Hudgins JA, Hudgins EJ, Ali K, Mancini A. Citizen science surveys elucidate key foraging and nesting habitat for two endangered marine turtle species within the Republic of Maldives. Herpetol Notes. 2017;10:473–5. [Google Scholar]
  • 28.Ministry of Environment, Climate Change and Technology. Maldives Red List [Internet]. 2022. Available from: http://www.environment.gov.mv/v2/en/maldives-red-list. [Google Scholar]
  • 29.Shanker K, Pandav B, Choudhury BC. An assessment of the olive ridley turtle (Lepidochelys olivacea) nesting population in Orissa, India. Biol Conserv. 2004;115(1):149–60. [Google Scholar]
  • 30.Work TM, Balazs GH. Pathology and distribution of sea turtles landed as bycatch in the Hawaii-based North Pacific pelagic longline fishery. J Wildl Dis. 2010;46(2):422–32. doi: 10.7589/0090-3558-46.2.422 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 31.Stelfox MR, Hudgins JA, Ali K, Anderson RC. High mortality of Olive Ridley Turtles (Lepidochelys olivacea) in ghost nets in the central Indian Ocean. BOBLME-2015-Ecol-14. 2015;1–23. [Google Scholar]
  • 32.Duncan E, Botterell Z, Broderick A, Galloway T, Lindeque P, Nuno A, et al. A global review of marine turtle entanglement in anthropogenic debris: a baseline for further action. Endanger Species Res. 2017. Dec 11;34:431–48. [Google Scholar]
  • 33.Maldives Meteorological Service. Maldives Meteorological Service- Climate [Internet]. 2022. Available from: https://www.meteorology.gov.mv/climate. [Google Scholar]
  • 34.Techera E, Cannell-Lunn M. A review of environmental law in Maldives with respect to conservation, biodiversity, fisheries and tourism. Asia Pac J Environ Law. 2019. Nov;22(2):228–56. [Google Scholar]
  • 35.Stevens GMW, Froman N. The Maldives Archipelago. In: World Seas: an Environmental Evaluation [Internet]. Elsevier; 2019. [cited 2022 Dec 9]. p. 211–36. Available from: https://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/B9780081008539000105. [Google Scholar]
  • 36.Maldives Bureau of Statistics. Maldives Census 2020. 2023. [Google Scholar]
  • 37.CBD. Convention of Biological Diversity: Maldives Biodiversity Facts [Internet]. 2022. Available from: https://www.cbd.int/countries/profile/?country=mv#:~:text=Coral%20reefs%20are%20the%20dominant,of%20the%20world’s%20reef%20areas. [Google Scholar]
  • 38.Phelan Eckert. Marine Turtle Trauma Response Procedures: A Field Guide [Internet]. WIDECAST Technical Report No. 4; 2006. Available from: https://seaturtleguardian.org/images/pdfs/Phelan_and_Eckert_2006_Sea_Turtle_Trauma_Response_Field_Guide.pdf. [Google Scholar]
  • 39.Bluvias Eckert. Marine Turtle Trauma Response Procedures: A Husbandry Manual. WIDECAST Technical Report no. 10; 2010. [Google Scholar]
  • 40.Norton Mettee. Marine Turtle Trauma Response Procedures: A Veterinary Guide. WIDECAST Technical Report No.20; 2020. [Google Scholar]
  • 41.EPA. Guideline for Sea Turtle Rehabilitation and Care. Ministry of Environment, Climate Change and Technology; 2022. [Google Scholar]
  • 42.Frazier J. Observations on sea turtles at Aldabra Atoll. Philos Trans R Soc Lond B Biol Sci. 1971;260(836):373–410. [Google Scholar]
  • 43.Limpus CJ. The hawksbill turtle, Eretmochelys imbricata, in Queensland: population structure within a southern Great Barrier Reef feeding ground. Wildl Res. 1992;19(4):489–505. [Google Scholar]
  • 44.Pandav B, Choudhury BC, Kar CS. Mortality of olive ridley turtles Lepidochelys olivacea due to incidental capture in fishing nets along the Orissa coast, India. Oryx. 1997;31(1):32–6. [Google Scholar]
  • 45.Stelfox MR, Hudgins JA. A two year summary of turtle entanglements in ghost gear in the Maldives. Indian Ocean Turt Newsl IOTN. 2015;22:1–7. [Google Scholar]
  • 46.Norton Wyneken. Body Condition Scoring the Sea Turtle [Internet]. Lafeber Vet; 2015. Available from: https://lafeber.com/vet/body-condition-scoring-the-sea-turtle/ [Google Scholar]
  • 47.Schott FA, McCreary JP Jr. The monsoon circulation of the Indian Ocean. Prog Oceanogr. 2001;51(1):1–123. [Google Scholar]
  • 48.Team RStudio. RStudio: Integrated Development Environment for R [Internet]. Boston, MA: RStudio; 2022. Available from: http://www.rstudio.com/. [Google Scholar]
  • 49.Gopi GV, Pandav B, Choudhury BC. Estimated annual incidental captures of Lepidochelys olivacea (Eschscholtz, 1829) in trawl nets along the Orissa coast, India. HAMADRYAD-MADRAS-. 2007;31(2):212. [Google Scholar]
  • 50.Wallace BP, Lewison RL, McDonald SL, McDonald RK, Kot CY, Kelez S, et al. Global patterns of marine turtle bycatch: Global patterns of marine turtle bycatch. Conserv Lett. 2010. Jun;3(3):131–42. [Google Scholar]
  • 51.Ahusan M, Shimal M, Shifaz A, Lubna A, Abdulla R. Maldives National Report to the Scientific Committee of the Indian Ocean Tuna Commission 2021 [Internet]. Male, Maldives: Ministry of Fisheries, Marine Resources and Agriculture; 2021. [cited 2022 Oct 1] p. 0–30. Report No.: IOTC-2021-SC24-NR16. Available from: https://sourcingtransparencyplatform.org/sites/default/files/2022-01/IOTC-2021-SC24-NR16_-_Maldives.pdf. [Google Scholar]
  • 52.Panagopoulos D, Sofouli E, Teneketzis K, Margaritoulis D. Stranding data as an indicator of fisheries induced mortality of sea turtles in Greece. In: FIRST MEDITERRANEAN CONFERENCE ON MARINE TURTLES. 2003. p. 202. [Google Scholar]
  • 53.Archibald D, James M. Prevalence of visible injuries to leatherback sea turtles Dermochelys coriacea in the Northwest Atlantic. Endanger Species Res. 2018. Oct 29;37:149–63. [Google Scholar]
  • 54.Başkale E, Sözbilen D, Katılmış Y, Azmaz M, Kaska Y. An evaluation of sea turtle strandings in the Fethiye-Göcek Specially Protected Area: An important foraging ground with an increasing mortality rate. Ocean Coast Manag. 2018;154:26–33. [Google Scholar]
  • 55.Ataman A, Gainsbury A, Manire C, Hoffmann S, Page-Karjian A, Hirsch S, et al. Evaluating prevalence of external injuries on nesting loggerhead sea turtles Caretta caretta in southeastern Florida, USA. Endanger Species Res. 2021. Nov 4;46:137–46. [Google Scholar]
  • 56.Stelfox M, Burian A, Shanker K, Rees AF, Jean C, Willson MS, et al. Tracing the origin of olive ridley turtles entangled in ghost nets in the Maldives: A phylogeographic assessment of populations at risk. Biol Conserv. 2020;245:108499. [Google Scholar]
  • 57.MINISTRY OF FISHERIES, MARINE RESOURCES AND AGRICULTURE. Fisheries Act of The Maldives [Internet]. 2019. Available from: https://www.gov.mv/en/files/fisheries-act-of-the-maldives.pdf. [Google Scholar]
  • 58.Bolten AB, Crowder LB, Dodd MG, MacPherson SL, Musick JA, Schroeder BA, et al. Quantifying multiple threats to endangered species: an example from loggerhead sea turtles. Front Ecol Environ. 2011. Jun;9(5):295–301. [Google Scholar]
  • 59.Strike EM, Harris JL, Ballard KL, Hawkins JP, Crockett J, Stevens GM. Sublethal injuries and physical abnormalities in Maldives manta rays, Mobula alfredi and M. birostris. Front Mar Sci. 2022;270. [Google Scholar]
  • 60.Bellido JJ, Castillo JJ, Pinto F, Martín JJ, Mons JL, Báez JC, et al. Differential geographical trends for loggerhead turtles stranding dead or alive along the Andalusian coast, southern Spain. J Mar Biol Assoc U K. 2010. Mar;90(2):225–31. [Google Scholar]
  • 61.Francke D, Balazs GH, Brunson S, Nurzia Humburg I, Marks W, Murakawa S, et al. Marine Turtle Strandings in the Hawaiian Islands January–December 2013. NOAA Pac Isl Fish Sci Cent Intern Rep IR-14-003. 2014. [Google Scholar]
  • 62.Nicolau L, Ferreira M, Santos J, Araújo H, Sequeira M, Vingada J, et al. Sea turtle strandings along the Portuguese mainland coast: spatio-temporal occurrence and main threats. Mar Biol. 2016;163(1):1–13. [Google Scholar]
  • 63.Tagliolatto AB, Goldberg DW, Godfrey MH, Monteiro‐Neto C. Spatio‐temporal distribution of sea turtle strandings and factors contributing to their mortality in south‐eastern Brazil. Aquat Conserv Mar Freshw Ecosyst. 2020;30(2):331–50. [Google Scholar]
  • 64.Gong SP, Chow AT, Fong JJ, Shi HT. The chelonian trade in the largest pet market in China: scale, scope and impact on turtle conservation. Oryx. 2009. Apr;43(02):213. [Google Scholar]
  • 65.Cheung SM, Dudgeon D. Quantifying the Asian turtle crisis: market surveys in southern China, 2000–2003. Aquat Conserv Mar Freshw Ecosyst. 2006. Nov;16(7):751–70. [Google Scholar]
  • 66.Denkinger J, Parra M, Muñoz JP, Carrasco C, Murillo JC, Espinosa E, et al. Are boat strikes a threat to sea turtles in the Galapagos Marine Reserve? Ocean Coast Manag. 2013;80:29–35. [Google Scholar]
  • 67.Papafitsoros K, Panagopoulou A, Schofield G. Social media reveals consistently disproportionate tourism pressure on a threatened marine vertebrate. Anim Conserv. 2021;24(4):568–79. [Google Scholar]
  • 68.De Freese DE. Threats to biological diversity in marine and estuarine ecosystems of Florida. Coast Manag. 1991;19(1):73–101. [Google Scholar]
  • 69.Harvey-Carroll J, Stewart JD, Carroll D, Mohamed B, Shameel I, Zareer IH, et al. The impact of injury on apparent survival of whale sharks (Rhincodon typus) in South Ari Atoll Marine Protected Area, Maldives. Sci Rep. 2021;11(1):937. doi: 10.1038/s41598-020-79101-8 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 70.EPA. Sea Turtle Consumption in The Maldives [Internet]. EPA; 2020. Available from: http://www.oceancare.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/03/Sea-Turtle-Consumption-in-The-Maldives-2020.pdf. [Google Scholar]
  • 71.de Deus Santos MR, Martins AS, Baptistotte C, Work TM. Health condition of juvenile Chelonia mydas related to fibropapillomatosis in southeast Brazil. Dis Aquat Organ. 2015;115(3):193–201. doi: 10.3354/dao02883 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 72.Work TM, Balazs GH, Summers TM, Hapdei JR, Tagarino AP. Causes of mortality in green turtles from Hawaii and the insular Pacific exclusive of fibropapillomatosis. Dis Aquat Organ. 2015;115(2):103–10. doi: 10.3354/dao02890 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 73.Olendo M, Munga CN, Okemwa GM, Ong’anda H, Mulupi L, Mwasi L, et al. Current status of sea turtle protection in Lamu Seascape, Kenya: Trends in nesting, nest predation and stranding levels. West Indian Ocean J Mar Sci. 2016;15(1):1–13. [Google Scholar]
  • 74.Jacobson ER, Mansell JL, Sundberg JP, Hajjar L, Reichmann ME, Ehrhart LM, et al. Cutaneous fibropapillomas of green turtles (Chelonia mydas). J Comp Pathol. 1989;101(1):39–52. doi: 10.1016/0021-9975(89)90075-3 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 75.Santoro M, Morales JA, Rodríguez-Ortíz B. Spirorchiidiosis (Digenea: Spirorchiidae) and lesions associated with parasites in Caribbean green turtles (Chelonia mydas). Vet Rec. 2007. Oct;161(14):482–6. doi: 10.1136/vr.161.14.482 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 76.Stacy BA, Wellehan JF, Foley AM, Coberley SS, Herbst LH, Manire CA, et al. Two herpesviruses associated with disease in wild Atlantic loggerhead sea turtles (Caretta caretta). Vet Microbiol. 2008;126(1–3):63–73. doi: 10.1016/j.vetmic.2007.07.002 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 77.Montello MA, Goulder KD, Pisciotta RP, McFarlane WJ. Historical Trends in New York State Cold-Stunned Sea Turtle Stranding-to-Release: 1998–2019. Chelonian Conserv Biol [Internet]. 2022. Jun 13 [cited 2022 Oct 18];21(1). Available from: https://bioone.org/journals/chelonian-conservation-and-biology/volume-21/issue-1/CCB-1506.1/Historical-Trends-in-New-York-State-Cold-Stunned-Sea-Turtle/10.2744/CCB-1506.1.full. [Google Scholar]
  • 78.surf-forecast.com. Figure: Historic Sea Temperature Recorded in North Male Atoll, Maldives [Internet]. 2022. Available from: https://www.surf-forecast.com/breaks/Male/seatemp. [Google Scholar]
  • 79.Keane A, Ramarolahy AA, Jones JPG, Milner-Gulland EJ. Evidence for the effects of environmental engagement and education on knowledge of wildlife laws in Madagascar: Knowledge of wildlife laws in Madagascar. Conserv Lett. 2011. Feb;4(1):55–63. [Google Scholar]
  • 80.Zulfa M, Carlsen J. Planning for sustainable island tourism development in the Maldives. Isl Tour Sustain Perspect. 2011;215–27. [Google Scholar]
  • 81.Macfadyen G, Huntington T, Cappell R. Abandoned, lost or otherwise discarded fishing gear. 2009. [Google Scholar]
  • 82.Stelfox M, Hudgins J, Sweet M. A review of ghost gear entanglement amongst marine mammals, reptiles and elasmobranchs. Mar Pollut Bull. 2016. Oct;111(1–2):6–17. doi: 10.1016/j.marpolbul.2016.06.034 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Decision Letter 0

Graeme Hays

20 Jan 2023

PONE-D-22-34145Evaluation of sea turtle morbidity and mortality within the central Indian Ocean from 12 years of data shows high prevalence of ghost net entanglement.PLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Himpson,

Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS ONE. After careful consideration, we feel that it has merit but does not fully meet PLOS ONE’s publication criteria as it currently stands. Therefore, we invite you to submit a revised version of the manuscript that addresses the points raised during the review process.

Please submit your revised manuscript by Mar 06 2023 11:59PM. If you will need more time than this to complete your revisions, please reply to this message or contact the journal office at plosone@plos.org. When you're ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file.

Please include the following items when submitting your revised manuscript:

  • A rebuttal letter that responds to each point raised by the academic editor and reviewer(s). You should upload this letter as a separate file labeled 'Response to Reviewers'.

  • A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'.

  • An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Manuscript'.

If you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, please include your updated statement in your cover letter. Guidelines for resubmitting your figure files are available below the reviewer comments at the end of this letter.

If applicable, we recommend that you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io to enhance the reproducibility of your results. Protocols.io assigns your protocol its own identifier (DOI) so that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols. Additionally, PLOS ONE offers an option for publishing peer-reviewed Lab Protocol articles, which describe protocols hosted on protocols.io. Read more information on sharing protocols at https://plos.org/protocols?utm_medium=editorial-email&utm_source=authorletters&utm_campaign=protocols.

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

Graeme Hays

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Journal Requirements:

When submitting your revision, we need you to address these additional requirements.

1. Please ensure that your manuscript meets PLOS ONE's style requirements, including those for file naming. The PLOS ONE style templates can be found at 

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=wjVg/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_main_body.pdf and 

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=ba62/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_title_authors_affiliations.pdf

2. In your Data Availability statement, you have not specified where the minimal data set underlying the results described in your manuscript can be found. PLOS defines a study's minimal data set as the underlying data used to reach the conclusions drawn in the manuscript and any additional data required to replicate the reported study findings in their entirety. All PLOS journals require that the minimal data set be made fully available. For more information about our data policy, please see http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/data-availability.

Upon re-submitting your revised manuscript, please upload your study’s minimal underlying data set as either Supporting Information files or to a stable, public repository and include the relevant URLs, DOIs, or accession numbers within your revised cover letter. For a list of acceptable repositories, please see http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/data-availability#loc-recommended-repositories. Any potentially identifying patient information must be fully anonymized.

Important: If there are ethical or legal restrictions to sharing your data publicly, please explain these restrictions in detail. Please see our guidelines for more information on what we consider unacceptable restrictions to publicly sharing data: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/data-availability#loc-unacceptable-data-access-restrictions. Note that it is not acceptable for the authors to be the sole named individuals responsible for ensuring data access.

We will update your Data Availability statement to reflect the information you provide in your cover letter.

3. We note that you have stated that you will provide repository information for your data at acceptance. Should your manuscript be accepted for publication, we will hold it until you provide the relevant accession numbers or DOIs necessary to access your data. If you wish to make changes to your Data Availability statement, please describe these changes in your cover letter and we will update your Data Availability statement to reflect the information you provide.

Additional Editor Comments:

We now have three detailed and constructive reviews of your manuscript. You will see that the referees liked aspects of the manuscript but there are several concerns. You’ll see that the referees consistently thought that your writing was a little too parochial and the results poorly presented. On balance I think that if you take care with a major revision, this manuscript might still be suitable for PLoS1 and so I am recommending that you revise the manuscript taking all the comments into consideration. I expect that this major revision will take some time as all the referees called for some substantive changes.

I look forward to seeing a revision.

All best wishes, Graeme Hays

[Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.]

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented.

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: Partly

**********

2. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: No

**********

3. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: No

Reviewer #3: No

**********

4. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: Yes

**********

5. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #1: This study presents an interesting insight on the prevalence of ghost-fishing in the Maldives, driving strandings of sea turtles. However, at present, this work is not placed in sufficient context of the wider literature, limiting the interest of the readership. Also, no figures/tables were provided, making interpretation very difficult. I have made detailed recommendations up to the end of the results; however, I have not assessed the discussion, due to the extent of revision required throughout. With careful and detailed revision, this could make a very interesting contribution to the journal.

Abstract

Line 25-7; this is too broad; what is the key knowledge gap that needs to be explored in general? Maybe amend to something like “Quantifying how ghost fishing contributes to anthropogenic-driven losses of sea turtles could help guide marine management; however…” why has this not been done so far, what limitations have stopped this, why do you have the tools to achieve it now?

Line 27-8, this is melodramatic and again too broad; what information is missing in this region, and why, due to a lack of funds, equipment, technology? Clarify.

Line 29 – separate your aim from your key finding

“Here, we utilised 12 years of stranding and rehabilitation data from the Republic of the Maldives to

identify key threats to marine turtles in this region.”

State which 12 years and whether this coverage was nationwide or biased.

Then state the results

“Entanglement in ghost nets represented the leading cause of injuries and strandings (66.2% of cases).”

It is not clear what the “regions” you were referring to here, if you want to make a comparison to the wider literature, this should be done in the discussion, as here it would mean your needing to add citations, which is not permitted. The Abstract should present your results.

Line 33. Make this a new sentence, and avoid referring to the wider literature.

Line 35, what do you mean by “non resident” and “resident”– non resident to where, as you state the study was done at a national scale? This does not have context. The reader must be informed of why you are using these different terms. This should be your first statement of your Abstract results, then percentage of human causes, then the bycatch vs ghost fishing.

Line 37-38, this result while interesting, does not contribute to your narrative here; remove it, or give some interpretation of why it is relevant to the ghost fishing bias.

“and identifies several

40 key areas where current knowledge of sea turtle ecology in this region is lacking.” – delete, this does not convey useful information; it is a throwaway statement that could be placed on any paper.

“However, for the

41 findings of this study to impact the status of marine turtles they must be implemented into practice and

42 policy.” – also delete this, it weakens your final statement of the previous sentence.

Keywords – missing

Introduction

Please check that citations are formatted correctly.

This entire section requires careful revision. The introduction is too long and too turtle centred. There are too many short paragraphs with no clear message. I advise that this section is carefully revised taking the broad readership of the journal into consideration.

I would advise the following

Paragraph 1 – What is the current prevailing threat to marine vertebrates globally, turtles are one of several groups threatened by human activities at sea. There is a vast global literature on this, and you can identify ghost fishing as one such component here and how it compares to other human caused mortality.

Paragraph 2 – Ghost fishing – focus on detail on this, and whether threats are uniform globally across marine vertebrates, and if not identify potential reasons why not.

Paragraph 3 – Sea turtles and threats at sea; draw on the wide literature of human caused threats at sea (see Wallace et al. 2010 and associated publications), and in particular explore the literature around ghost fishing and sea turtles; if it is limited, here, highlight why, what approaches work best with detecting this effect, i.e. draw on rehabilitation and strandings and the pros/cons of using such literature.

Paragraph 4 – your study aims and hypotheses, along with main approach, study region. What did you expect to find?

Line 102 – “by comparing these findings to other regions” – this statement needs careful reconsideration; this implies you conducted an exhaustive literature review; if this is the case, then in your Paragraph 4, where you state your aims, you also need to state that your work is a combination of both empirical data and a wider literature review. This must be clarified in the abstract and the exact approach of the review stated in the methods.

Line 104-5, this is fine

Line 106 – it is not clear how this is feasible, remove

Methods

Line 110, just put the coordinates in parentheses at the end of the last sentence.

A figure is required showing the entire nation and position of the two atolls, along with the catchment area for strandings assessed here.

No tables or figures are provided on the manuscript, making evaluation difficult.

Line 128 – what are circumstantial data, give some examples of what this includes.

Line 144 – at the site or on arrival? If at the site, how was this standardized across different people finding animals?

Change disposition to status throughout.

Line 162, were necroposies done to check for blockages? If not, you cannot state if this is natural.

Line 163, it is not clear why husbandry fits here. At stranding, husbandry is not relevant; if they survive rehabilitation cannot really be determined as a husbandry issue. The context of husbandry needs careful consideration. How do you assess if husbandry was poor?

You do not state anywhere what area your strandings covered – is it national? How do you overcome bias to populated areas?

Results

Supporting tables and figures are required.

This needs to be broken into 3-4 key subsections each supported by a clear figure. Shift all percentages into tables, then revise your entire text to focus on the key points of interest.

By delineating clear subsections, you can then develop some clear hypothesis testing.

Line 185, how do you get a female bias for adult hawksbills if no adults were recorded?

Line 185, you simply state, The adult sex ratio was X:X for green turtles and X:X for olives. What is this sex ratio based on, the stranded animals? If something else, more explanation of how it was obtained is required in the methods.

Line 188-191, what about inhabited vs uninhabited islands?

A map showing the distribution of all strandigns for the 3 species (different colours) and size classes should be presented, along with highlighting inhabited islands.

Line 192, while turtles were found entangled in nets, this might easily be just the end point, i.e. turtle gets infection, floats, becomes entangled; entanglement itself might not be the primary cause.

How do you address this? For instance, all animals could have been floating, then become entangled; the key point is to find the initial cause for floating.

Line 192-5, this needs to be presented graphically.

Graphs are required to support the data throughout this section; once you have graphs, you can then interpret the key points of interest, rather than listing everything.

Line 219 – were necropsies/xrays conducted?

Reviewer #2: Here the causes of injury and reasons for mortality are reported for turtles found stranded or floating in the Maldives, Indian Ocean. Is it concluded that entanglement in ghost nets is a key source of injury and mortality.

This is an interesting manuscript that I enjoyed reading. Some nice data are presented. I have some suggestions to improve the final version. With a little care, these revisions should be straightforward to deal with.

1. Line 25. “Anthropogenic activities are driving the global decline of sea turtle populations.

Sensationalist as well as incorrect. You need to be a little more honest.

See:

Mazaris AD et al. (2017). Global sea turtle conservation successes. Science Advances 3: e1600730. https://doi.org/10.1126/sciadv.1600730

I think throughout (e.g. start of Intro, lines 45-52) you need to say that at many sites around the world, sea turtle numbers are increasing due to conservation efforts (Mazaris). But regardless, sea turtles still face threats and so to facilitate further population increases it is important to both identify and then mitigate threats.

2. Line 34. “ … causes of admission …”

Reads poorly as, in the abstract, you have not mentioned anything about admission to a rehab centre being the basis for the data collection.

3. Line 77. “Despite having large populations of sea turtles, the central Indian Ocean is one region where evaluation of threats has been neglected …”

Can you add some details about “large populations”. E.g. see work of Jeanne Mortimer and others for regional assessments of nesting numbers – see: https://doi.org/10.1017/S0030605319001108

4. Line 85. “However, numbers of both species are currently declining.”

Can you qualify this statement ? Where is this info published ?

5. Line 138. “Green turtles with CCL greater than 95cm (males) and 100cm (females) were classed as adults …”

Can you estimate the probability of a mis-id of life stage, e.g. a sub-adult male being classified as a female ? This is important as later you report sex ratios, but I suspect you’ll have quite a few mis-ids.

6. Lines 162. “… cachexia (emaciation with no discernible primary cause …”

How was this recorded ? e.g. some threshold residual value from a length:weight relationship ? Or some objective scoring (e.g. see Heithaus/ Thomson work in Shark Bay) or did you just make a subjective best guess ? That’s fine. Just explain what you have done.

7. Line 207. “… was entanglement in ghost fishing nets or similar materials (66.2%, n=251) with wounds characteristic of net or line entrapment identified in both entangled turtles (n=211) and in those found floating or beached (n=40) …”

If a turtle just has wounds characteristic of nets or lines, how do you know this was a “ghost net” and not just a net being used by a fisherman who released the turtle ?

8. Line 226. Boat strike. Was this associated with nearby resorts ?

I would have a few lines of the Discussion about boat strikes. This has been widely reported around the world (e.g. see Gail Schofield’s work in Greece, https://doi.org/10.1002/ecy.3027 and also in the USA, see Tony Tucker). Boat strike is particularly associated with high boating traffic and had led to speed restrictions in high use turtle areas in the US and Greece.

9. Line 286. You mention where Olive Ridley likely may have come from. Similarly can you detail some of the areas that adult greens and hawksbills have come from ? There has been satellite tracking showing adult green from the Chagos Archipelago travel to the Maldives. But adult hawksbills from Chagos likely do not travel to the Maldives … rather all the tracked animals stay within Chagos (e.g. see https://doi.org/10.1098/rsif.2021.0859). So I guess any adult hawksbills you see also nest in the Maldives ?

10 There are no figures. Perhaps think of 1 or 2 key results to show in a graph ?

e.g. a map showing the number of reports came from different places in the Maldives. Perhaps a photo of a stranded turtle in a ghost net.

11. “Poaching”. I could not see anything in the methods about how this was ascertained. Describe your method. Include a photo ?

In summary, a nice piece of work with some interesting results. Well done to the authors on completing such a nice study.

Graeme Hays

Reviewer #3: See attached review with suggestions to improve the manuscript.

It was difficult to state that the analysis was appropriate when no supporting data were provided and no tables or figures were included.

**********

6. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: No

Reviewer #3: No

**********

[NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files.]

While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool, https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com/. PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Registration is free. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email PLOS at figures@plos.org. Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step.

Attachment

Submitted filename: Himpson_etal_PONE_Maldives_entanglements_review.docx

PLoS One. 2023 Aug 9;18(8):e0289167. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0289167.r002

Author response to Decision Letter 0


21 Jun 2023

When submitting your revision, we need you to address these additional requirements.

1.Please ensure that your manuscript meets PLOS ONE's style requirements, including those for file naming. The PLOS ONE style templates can be found at

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=wjVg/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_main_body.pdf and

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=ba62/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_title_authors_affiliations.pdf

Formatting edited to meet requirements.

2. In your Data Availability statement, you have not specified where the minimal data set underlying the results described in your manuscript can be found. PLOS defines a study's minimal data set as the underlying data used to reach the conclusions drawn in the manuscript and any additional data required to replicate the reported study findings in their entirety. All PLOS journals require that the minimal data set be made fully available. For more information about our data policy, please see http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/data-availability.

Upon re-submitting your revised manuscript, please upload your study’s minimal underlying data set as either Supporting Information files or to a stable, public repository and include the relevant URLs, DOIs, or accession numbers within your revised cover letter. For a list of acceptable repositories, please see http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/data-availability#loc-recommended-repositories. Any potentially identifying patient information must be fully anonymized.

Important: If there are ethical or legal restrictions to sharing your data publicly, please explain these restrictions in detail. Please see our guidelines for more information on what we consider unacceptable restrictions to publicly sharing data: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/data-availability#loc-unacceptable-data-access-restrictions. Note that it is not acceptable for the authors to be the sole named individuals responsible for ensuring data access.

We will update your Data Availability statement to reflect the information you provide in your cover letter.

Minimum dataset included with this draft

3. We note that you have stated that you will provide repository information for your data at acceptance. Should your manuscript be accepted for publication, we will hold it until you provide the relevant accession numbers or DOIs necessary to access your data. If you wish to make changes to your Data Availability statement, please describe these changes in your cover letter and we will update your Data Availability statement to reflect the information you provide.

Minimum dataset included with this draft

Additional Editor Comments:

We now have three detailed and constructive reviews of your manuscript. You will see that the referees liked aspects of the manuscript but there are several concerns. You’ll see that the referees consistently thought that your writing was a little too parochial and the results poorly presented. On balance I think that if you take care with a major revision, this manuscript might still be suitable for PLoS1 and so I am recommending that you revise the manuscript taking all the comments into consideration. I expect that this major revision will take some time as all the referees called for some substantive changes.

I look forward to seeing a revision.

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented.

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: Partly

Data collection was performed as rigorously as possible over the time period

________________________________________

2. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: No

Statistical analysis kept relatively simple and based on observations only

________________________________________

3. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: No

Reviewer #3: No

Data included in this revision

________________________________________

4. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: Yes

Manuscript edited based on suggested grammatical revisions. Proofread for further grammar and typographical errors.

________________________________________

5. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #1: This study presents an interesting insight on the prevalence of ghost-fishing in the Maldives, driving strandings of sea turtles. However, at present, this work is not placed in sufficient context of the wider literature, limiting the interest of the readership.

Introduction refocused to broaden interest. Discussion is already within a global context

Also, no figures/tables were provided, making interpretation very difficult.

Figures included to clarify results

I have made detailed recommendations up to the end of the results; however, I have not assessed the discussion, due to the extent of revision required throughout. With careful and detailed revision, this could make a very interesting contribution to the journal.

Abstract

Line 25-7; this is too broad; what is the key knowledge gap that needs to be explored in general? Maybe amend to something like “Quantifying how ghost fishing contributes to anthropogenic-driven losses of sea turtles could help guide marine management; however…” why has this not been done so far, what limitations have stopped this, why do you have the tools to achieve it now?

Reworded and clarified

Line 27-8, this is melodramatic and again too broad; what information is missing in this region, and why, due to a lack of funds, equipment, technology? Clarify.

Clarified

Line 29 – separate your aim from your key finding

“Here, we utilised 12 years of stranding and rehabilitation data from the Republic of the Maldives to

identify key threats to marine turtles in this region.”

Reformatted

State which 12 years and whether this coverage was nationwide or biased.

Then state the results

“Entanglement in ghost nets represented the leading cause of injuries and strandings (66.2% of cases).”

It is not clear what the “regions” you were referring to here, if you want to make a comparison to the wider literature, this should be done in the discussion, as here it would mean your needing to add citations, which is not permitted. The Abstract should present your results.

Reworded

Line 33. Make this a new sentence, and avoid referring to the wider literature.

Done

Line 35, what do you mean by “non resident” and “resident”– non resident to where, as you state the study was done at a national scale? This does not have context. The reader must be informed of why you are using these different terms. This should be your first statement of your Abstract results, then percentage of human causes, then the bycatch vs ghost fishing.

Clarified

Line 37-38, this result while interesting, does not contribute to your narrative here; remove it, or give some interpretation of why it is relevant to the ghost fishing bias.

Removed

“and identifies several

40 key areas where current knowledge of sea turtle ecology in this region is lacking.” – delete, this does not convey useful information; it is a throwaway statement that could be placed on any paper.

Removed

“However, for the

41 findings of this study to impact the status of marine turtles they must be implemented into practice and

42 policy.” – also delete this, it weakens your final statement of the previous sentence.

Removed

Abstract reworded taking all comments into consideration

Keywords – missing

Keywords added

Introduction

Please check that citations are formatted correctly.

One citation reformatted

This entire section requires careful revision. The introduction is too long and too turtle centred. There are too many short paragraphs with no clear message. I advise that this section is carefully revised taking the broad readership of the journal into consideration.

Introduction rewritten based on below comments and suggestions

I would advise the following

Paragraph 1 – What is the current prevailing threat to marine vertebrates globally, turtles are one of several groups threatened by human activities at sea. There is a vast global literature on this, and you can identify ghost fishing as one such component here and how it compares to other human caused mortality.

Paragraph 2 – Ghost fishing – focus on detail on this, and whether threats are uniform globally across marine vertebrates, and if not identify potential reasons why not.

Paragraph 3 – Sea turtles and threats at sea; draw on the wide literature of human caused threats at sea (see Wallace et al. 2010 and associated publications), and in particular explore the literature around ghost fishing and sea turtles; if it is limited, here, highlight why, what approaches work best with detecting this effect, i.e. draw on rehabilitation and strandings and the pros/cons of using such literature.

Paragraph 4 – your study aims and hypotheses, along with main approach, study region. What did you expect to find?

Introduction rewritten based on the above suggestion to broaden the context

Line 102 – “by comparing these findings to other regions” – this statement needs careful reconsideration; this implies you conducted an exhaustive literature review; if this is the case, then in your Paragraph 4, where you state your aims, you also need to state that your work is a combination of both empirical data and a wider literature review. This must be clarified in the abstract and the exact approach of the review stated in the methods.

Clarified in text and reworded

Line 104-5, this is fine

Line 106 – it is not clear how this is feasible, remove

Removed

Methods

Line 110, just put the coordinates in parentheses at the end of the last sentence.

Revised

A figure is required showing the entire nation and position of the two atolls, along with the catchment area for strandings assessed here.

No tables or figures are provided on the manuscript, making evaluation difficult.

Figures included (map of the location of the Maldives including rehab centres and stranding sites, summaries of admissions and results).

Line 128 – what are circumstantial data, give some examples of what this includes.

Clarified in text. E.g. Date, location

Line 144 – at the site or on arrival? If at the site, how was this standardized across different people finding animals?

Measured on arrival to rehabilitation or on site wherever possible. CCL was left as NA if not measured. Status was recorded on arrival. If the animal was released immediately status was based on the discoverers' description. Clarified in text.

Change disposition to status throughout.

Change made

Line 162, were necroposies done to check for blockages? If not, you cannot state if this is natural.

Necropsies performed wherever possible. However, cases where this was not possible had cause of death recorded as ‘unknown’

Line 163, it is not clear why husbandry fits here. At stranding, husbandry is not relevant; if they survive rehabilitation cannot really be determined as a husbandry issue. The context of husbandry needs careful consideration. How do you assess if husbandry was poor?

Clarified in text. This point refers to cases of turtles being kept as pets as injuries or illness associated with poor husbandry resulted in admission to rehabilitation.

You do not state anywhere what area your strandings covered – is it national? How do you overcome bias to populated areas?

Clarified in text. Stranding reports are national but show bias towards the central, more densely populated atolls.

Results

Supporting tables and figures are required.

Included

This needs to be broken into 3-4 key subsections each supported by a clear figure. Shift all percentages into tables, then revise your entire text to focus on the key points of interest.

By delineating clear subsections, you can then develop some clear hypothesis testing.

Methods broken into subsections. Figures/tables included but numbers left in-text to support written results.

Line 185, how do you get a female bias for adult hawksbills if no adults were recorded?

Error remedied

Line 185, you simply state, The adult sex ratio was X:X for green turtles and X:X for olives. What is this sex ratio based on, the stranded animals? If something else, more explanation of how it was obtained is required in the methods.

Clarified in text. Ratio refers to all stranded individuals for which sex was recorded

Line 188-191, what about inhabited vs uninhabited islands?

See figures for distribution of strandings across atolls. Highlighting inhabited/uninhabited islands not practical as land area is small comparative to total area

A map showing the distribution of all strandigns for the 3 species (different colours) and size classes should be presented, along with highlighting inhabited islands.

Map of stranding sites included in figures. Including sex of the individual made the figure too complicated. Highlighting inhabited/uninhabited islands not practical as islands are too small to be visible on a national, or even an atoll scale.

Line 192, while turtles were found entangled in nets, this might easily be just the end point, i.e. turtle gets infection, floats, becomes entangled; entanglement itself might not be the primary cause.

How do you address this? For instance, all animals could have been floating, then become entangled; the key point is to find the initial cause for floating.

Here we are reporting the initial condition in which animals were found. It is felt that discussing the various causes of buoyancy syndromes in marine turtles is out-with the scope of this paper. However, cataloguing this and other injuries in more detail is currently an area of ongoing work within this dataset.

Line 192-5, this needs to be presented graphically.

Graphs are required to support the data throughout this section; once you have graphs, you can then interpret the key points of interest, rather than listing everything.

Graph of results included. However, as results are broad, including figures of all results would result in a high number of figures being included

Line 219 – were necropsies/xrays conducted?

Necropsies were carried out where possible to determine cause of death. Cases were determined to have an ‘unknown’ cause where necropsies were unable to be performed or where the necropsy results were unconclusive. This has been clarified in the methods section. X-rays were performed in very rare cases only as this involved transporting patients to a human hospital. Until very recently no veterinary x-ray units were available in Maldives.

Reviewer #2: Here the causes of injury and reasons for mortality are reported for turtles found stranded or floating in the Maldives, Indian Ocean. Is it concluded that entanglement in ghost nets is a key source of injury and mortality.

This is an interesting manuscript that I enjoyed reading. Some nice data are presented. I have some suggestions to improve the final version. With a little care, these revisions should be straightforward to deal with.

1. Line 25. “Anthropogenic activities are driving the global decline of sea turtle populations.

Sensationalist as well as incorrect. You need to be a little more honest.

See:

Mazaris AD et al. (2017). Global sea turtle conservation successes. Science Advances 3: e1600730. https://doi.org/10.1126/sciadv.1600730

Revised and rephrased

I think throughout (e.g. start of Intro, lines 45-52) you need to say that at many sites around the world, sea turtle numbers are increasing due to conservation efforts (Mazaris). But regardless, sea turtles still face threats and so to facilitate further population increases it is important to both identify and then mitigate threats.

Updated in text

2. Line 34. “ … causes of admission …”

Reads poorly as, in the abstract, you have not mentioned anything about admission to a rehab centre being the basis for the data collection.

Reworded to clarify this

3. Line 77. “Despite having large populations of sea turtles, the central Indian Ocean is one region where evaluation of threats has been neglected …”

Can you add some details about “large populations”. E.g. see work of Jeanne Mortimer and others for regional assessments of nesting numbers – see: https://doi.org/10.1017/S0030605319001108

Clarified in text. However, there is currently no data published on the size of turtle populations for this region

4. Line 85. “However, numbers of both species are currently declining.”

Can you qualify this statement ? Where is this info published ?

Since the first submission of this paper Stelfox et al have published evidence that marine turtle populations are stable. This has been updated in the text.

5. Line 138. “Green turtles with CCL greater than 95cm (males) and 100cm (females) were classed as adults …”

Can you estimate the probability of a mis-id of life stage, e.g. a sub-adult male being classified as a female ? This is important as later you report sex ratios, but I suspect you’ll have quite a few mis-ids.

This is addressed in the discussion. Anecdotal evidence suggests that hawksbill and green turtles in this region are smaller than neighbouring populations. However, there is currently no data to back this up.

6. Lines 162. “… cachexia (emaciation with no discernible primary cause …”

How was this recorded ? e.g. some threshold residual value from a length:weight relationship ? Or some objective scoring (e.g. see Heithaus/ Thomson work in Shark Bay) or did you just make a subjective best guess ? That’s fine. Just explain what you have done.

Body condition index calculated using method published by Norton and Wyneken (2015)- clarified in text

7. Line 207. “… was entanglement in ghost fishing nets or similar materials (66.2%, n=251) with wounds characteristic of net or line entrapment identified in both entangled turtles (n=211) and in those found floating or beached (n=40) …”

If a turtle just has wounds characteristic of nets or lines, how do you know this was a “ghost net” and not just a net being used by a fisherman who released the turtle ?

Injuries origin was determined using previously defined criteria (eg. Archibald et al. 2018). The characteristic lacerations caused by extended entanglement would typically not occur with a turtle being line caught; hook injuries to the mouth being more common in these cases. Additionally, in Maldives, methods of fishing which could conceivably cause such injuries such as net or longline fishing, are not permitted (see introduction).

8. Line 226. Boat strike. Was this associated with nearby resorts ?

Very interesting point. All 9 cases were reported by resorts but as resort and local islands exist in close proximity and travelling/drifting would have occurred it would not be possible to determine whether resort or local traffic was the cause of these cases.

I would have a few lines of the Discussion about boat strikes. This has been widely reported around the world (e.g. see Gail Schofield’s work in Greece, https://doi.org/10.1002/ecy.3027 and also in the USA, see Tony Tucker). Boat strike is particularly associated with high boating traffic and had led to speed restrictions in high use turtle areas in the US and Greece.

Short paragraph on boat strikes added to the discussion

9. Line 286. You mention where Olive Ridley likely may have come from. Similarly can you detail some of the areas that adult greens and hawksbills have come from ? There has been satellite tracking showing adult green from the Chagos Archipelago travel to the Maldives. But adult hawksbills from Chagos likely do not travel to the Maldives … rather all the tracked animals stay within Chagos (e.g. see https://doi.org/10.1098/rsif.2021.0859). So I guess any adult hawksbills you see also nest in the Maldives ?

We suspect that the majority of green and hawksbill cases presented to us are resident animals with a few originating from places like Chagos. However, there is currently no data to support this that I am aware of outside of the Chagos post-nesting tracking data.

10 There are no figures. Perhaps think of 1 or 2 key results to show in a graph ?

e.g. a map showing the number of reports came from different places in the Maldives. Perhaps a photo of a stranded turtle in a ghost net.

Noted and included

11. “Poaching”. I could not see anything in the methods about how this was ascertained. Describe your method. Include a photo ?

Clarified in methods

In summary, a nice piece of work with some interesting results. Well done to the authors on completing such a nice study.

Thank you!

Reviewer #3: See attached review with suggestions to improve the manuscript.

It was difficult to state that the analysis was appropriate when no supporting data were provided and no tables or figures were included

Figures, tables and data now included.

This sea turtle study presents 12 years of stranding and rehabilitation data from the Maldives to report key threats to sea turtles, identifying entanglement in ghost nets as one of the key anthropogenic causes of injuries. The dataset is considerable and includes 459 turtles. Clear study objectives are presented including variation in cause of injury between species and life stages, estimation of mortality rate and identification of seasonality in strandings. Providing that the review comments below are addressed, the study would advance our understanding of some of the underreported anthropogenic impacts from fishing, as already highlighted by a number of studies in the region (e.g., Stelfox et al) cited in the manuscript.

The findings are clearly presented but the manuscript could be much improved by re-arranging content into subsections with relevant subtitles in Methods and Results.

Methods and results re-arranged. Appropriate subheadings included

No figures and/or tables were included so it was difficult to interpret results. Additionally, no underlying data were provided (that I could access) so it was difficult to comment on the review question ‘Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?’. To this end, a supplementary table providing summary data would be helpful to support the growing body of literature on this topic in addition to providing a link to the Reefscapers website.

Figures and tables added along with data

Some specific comments:

Abstract:

State number of atolls and relative location where data were collected

Stated in methods and included in Fig 1

The study is for one small area of the Indian Ocean and I suggest re-phrasing ‘high prevalence of ghost net entanglement in the Indian Ocean’. If a review has shown high prevalence elsewhere in the IO then include the results.

Noted and updated in text

Introduction:

I recommend to commence with a paragraph describing different threats to turtles (and introducing the various anthropogenic threats) before focusing on species and assessment.

L77: define what you are including in the term Central Indian Ocean to help with readers’ understanding as typically this region is split between NWIO and SWIO and NEIO with respect to sea turtle regional management units (RMUs) Wallace et al. 2010. http://www.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0015465

Reworded/rephrased throughout for clarity and to fit with accepted nomenclature

L79: insert the citation as numeric.

Reformatted

L84: provide more context about population connectivity in the Western Indian Ocean, for example a number of green turtles have migrated to Maldives from Chagos Archipelago in the south (Hays et al. 2020 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cub.2020.05.086) which provides critical nesting habitat for turtles from around the region (see Mortimer et al. 2020 http://www.doi.org/10.1017/S0030605319001108).

Included in introduction

Results:

I would suggest to the authors to provide a number of graphs to show key results, for example:

To support the statements about turtles stranded or bycaught turtles in the Maldives : provide a map with indication of numbers of each case category at each location

To support statements about seasonal patterns of admissions : provide a graph comparing number of cases per month of the year

To support statements about entanglement being key cause of injuries or death: graph reporting number of cases for each threat identified

Provide a graphical overview of relative proportion of life stages and species included in the study

Figures created and included to illustrate key results

Discussion:

This is quite lengthy and could be improved by re-ordering to commence the section with key results that are discussed in context of the literature, followed by several sections with appropriate sub-titles to discuss the various findings.

Noted and trialled. The discussion opens with the key finding of the high prevalence of ghost net entanglement. Sub-titles also trialled but it was felt that this broke the discussion into too many short sections.

There are some statements that should only be included if supported by citations (e.g. L418 turtle populations in the Central IO are some of the most threatened in the world …)

Sections rephrased in text

It is worthwhile considering potential bias in the dataset due to method of entanglement. Relative contributions of ghost nets to entanglement and injury/mortality of turtles is possibly overreported compared to other causes of anthropogenic threat. This is because ghost nets are likely to come ashore as they are usually buoyant and carried in surface waters. Turtles that snag on fishing line caught on the reefs are less likely to be included in the dataset. Consider other anthropogenic factors in your discussion, e.g. those reported by Casale et al. 2010 https://doi.org/10.1002/aqc.1133

Point well made; discussion updated to address this.

L294: As suggested for the introduction, a definition of the area (Central Indian Ocean) and a map of the study site would help support this statement.

Rephrased throughout

Attachment

Submitted filename: Response to Reviewers.docx

Decision Letter 1

Graeme Hays

28 Jun 2023

PONE-D-22-34145R1Evaluation of sea turtle morbidity and mortality within the Indian Ocean from 12 years of data shows high prevalence of ghost net entanglement.PLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Himpson,

Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS ONE. After careful consideration, we feel that it has merit but does not fully meet PLOS ONE’s publication criteria as it currently stands. Therefore, we invite you to submit a revised version of the manuscript that addresses the points raised during the review process.

==============================Please make the final suggested corrections to the figures to improve their clarity.==============================

Please submit your revised manuscript by Aug 12 2023 11:59PM. If you will need more time than this to complete your revisions, please reply to this message or contact the journal office at plosone@plos.org. When you're ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file.

Please include the following items when submitting your revised manuscript:

  • A rebuttal letter that responds to each point raised by the academic editor and reviewer(s). You should upload this letter as a separate file labeled 'Response to Reviewers'.

  • A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'.

  • An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Manuscript'.

If you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, please include your updated statement in your cover letter. Guidelines for resubmitting your figure files are available below the reviewer comments at the end of this letter.

If applicable, we recommend that you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io to enhance the reproducibility of your results. Protocols.io assigns your protocol its own identifier (DOI) so that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols. Additionally, PLOS ONE offers an option for publishing peer-reviewed Lab Protocol articles, which describe protocols hosted on protocols.io. Read more information on sharing protocols at https://plos.org/protocols?utm_medium=editorial-email&utm_source=authorletters&utm_campaign=protocols.

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

Graeme Hays

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Journal Requirements:

Please review your reference list to ensure that it is complete and correct. If you have cited papers that have been retracted, please include the rationale for doing so in the manuscript text, or remove these references and replace them with relevant current references. Any changes to the reference list should be mentioned in the rebuttal letter that accompanies your revised manuscript. If you need to cite a retracted article, indicate the article’s retracted status in the References list and also include a citation and full reference for the retraction notice.

Additional Editor Comments:

The authors have done a good job with the revisions. For future manuscripts, I would encourage you not to write vague things in your responses letter like “This has been changed in the Discussion”. It is far easier for referees, if you cut and paste in your revised text in the cover letter, so they can quickly see what you have done, rather than having to hint through the manuscript for the changes.

For the histogram figures, I would perhaps not go with subtle differences in shades of blue. This is not very clear. Also note on the y-axis title, “Proportion” means a number from 0 to 1. “Percentage” means a number from 0-100. Also I would give a more information axis title that just “Proportion”. The normal approach when producing a scientific graph is to have an axis title and, in brackets, the unit. “Percentage” is the unit.

Well done. Graeme Hays

[Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.]

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. If the authors have adequately addressed your comments raised in a previous round of review and you feel that this manuscript is now acceptable for publication, you may indicate that here to bypass the “Comments to the Author” section, enter your conflict of interest statement in the “Confidential to Editor” section, and submit your "Accept" recommendation.

Reviewer #2: All comments have been addressed

**********

2. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented.

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

3. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #2: N/A

**********

4. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

5. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

6. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #2: The authors have done a good job with the revisions. For future manuscripts, I would encourage you not to write vague things in your responses letter like “This has been changed in the Discussion”. It is far easier for referees, if you cut and paste in your revised text in the cover letter, so they can quickly see what you have done, rather than having to hint through the manuscript for the changes.

For the histogram figures, I would perhaps not go with subtle differences in shades of blue. This is not very clear. Also note on the y-axis title, “Proportion” means a number from 0 to 1. “Percentage” means a number from 0-100. Also I would give a more information axis title that just “Proportion”. The normal approach when producing a scientific graph is to have a an axis title and, in brackets, the unit. “Percentage” is the unit.

Well done. Graeme Hays

**********

7. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.

Reviewer #2: No

**********

[NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files.]

While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool, https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com/. PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Registration is free. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email PLOS at figures@plos.org. Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step.

PLoS One. 2023 Aug 9;18(8):e0289167. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0289167.r004

Author response to Decision Letter 1


2 Jul 2023

29/6/23

Additional Editor Comments:

The authors have done a good job with the revisions. For future manuscripts, I would encourage you not to write vague things in your responses letter like “This has been changed in the Discussion”. It is far easier for referees, if you cut and paste in your revised text in the cover letter, so they can quickly see what you have done, rather than having to hint through the manuscript for the changes.

Thank you for highlighting this. ‘Response to reviewer’ document has been changed to show the changes made.

For the histogram figures, I would perhaps not go with subtle differences in shades of blue. This is not very clear. Also note on the y-axis title, “Proportion” means a number from 0 to 1. “Percentage” means a number from 0-100. Also I would give a more information axis title that just “Proportion”. The normal approach when producing a scientific graph is to have an axis title and, in brackets, the unit. “Percentage” is the unit.

Well done. Graeme Hays

The colours used in the bar charts have been changed to make these easier to read. Additionally, the y-axis labels have been updated to more descriptive and accurate.

Previous Comments

When submitting your revision, we need you to address these additional requirements.

1.Please ensure that your manuscript meets PLOS ONE's style requirements, including those for file naming. The PLOS ONE style templates can be found at

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=wjVg/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_main_body.pdf and

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=ba62/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_title_authors_affiliations.pdf

Formatting edited to meet requirements. Font sizes of headings and subheading updated. File names changed.

2. In your Data Availability statement, you have not specified where the minimal data set underlying the results described in your manuscript can be found. PLOS defines a study's minimal data set as the underlying data used to reach the conclusions drawn in the manuscript and any additional data required to replicate the reported study findings in their entirety. All PLOS journals require that the minimal data set be made fully available. For more information about our data policy, please see http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/data-availability.

Upon re-submitting your revised manuscript, please upload your study’s minimal underlying data set as either Supporting Information files or to a stable, public repository and include the relevant URLs, DOIs, or accession numbers within your revised cover letter. For a list of acceptable repositories, please see http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/data-availability#loc-recommended-repositories. Any potentially identifying patient information must be fully anonymized.

Important: If there are ethical or legal restrictions to sharing your data publicly, please explain these restrictions in detail. Please see our guidelines for more information on what we consider unacceptable restrictions to publicly sharing data: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/data-availability#loc-unacceptable-data-access-restrictions. Note that it is not acceptable for the authors to be the sole named individuals responsible for ensuring data access.

We will update your Data Availability statement to reflect the information you provide in your cover letter.

Minimum dataset included with this draft.

3. We note that you have stated that you will provide repository information for your data at acceptance. Should your manuscript be accepted for publication, we will hold it until you provide the relevant accession numbers or DOIs necessary to access your data. If you wish to make changes to your Data Availability statement, please describe these changes in your cover letter and we will update your Data Availability statement to reflect the information you provide.

Minimum dataset included with this draft.

Additional Editor Comments:

We now have three detailed and constructive reviews of your manuscript. You will see that the referees liked aspects of the manuscript but there are several concerns. You’ll see that the referees consistently thought that your writing was a little too parochial and the results poorly presented. On balance I think that if you take care with a major revision, this manuscript might still be suitable for PLoS1 and so I am recommending that you revise the manuscript taking all the comments into consideration. I expect that this major revision will take some time as all the referees called for some substantive changes.

I look forward to seeing a revision.

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented.

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: Partly

Data collection was performed as rigorously as possible over the time period.

________________________________________

2. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: No

Statistical analysis kept relatively simple and based on observations only.

________________________________________

3. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: No

Reviewer #3: No

Dataset included in this draft.

________________________________________

4. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: Yes

Manuscript edited based on suggested grammatical revisions. Proofread for further grammar and typographical errors.

________________________________________

5. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #1: This study presents an interesting insight on the prevalence of ghost-fishing in the Maldives, driving strandings of sea turtles. However, at present, this work is not placed in sufficient context of the wider literature, limiting the interest of the readership.

Introduction refocused to broaden interest. Discussion is already in context of wider literature and discusses peer reviewed studies of sea turtle injuries and mortalities in a global context, as well as other species and threats from within the Maldives.

Also, no figures/tables were provided, making interpretation very difficult.

Figures included to clarify results.

I have made detailed recommendations up to the end of the results; however, I have not assessed the discussion, due to the extent of revision required throughout. With careful and detailed revision, this could make a very interesting contribution to the journal.

Abstract

Line 25-7; this is too broad; what is the key knowledge gap that needs to be explored in general? Maybe amend to something like “Quantifying how ghost fishing contributes to anthropogenic-driven losses of sea turtles could help guide marine management; however…” why has this not been done so far, what limitations have stopped this, why do you have the tools to achieve it now?

Reworded to ‘Quantifying the effect of human actions on these threatened species can help guide management strategies to reduce adverse impacts.’

Line 27-8, this is melodramatic and again too broad; what information is missing in this region, and why, due to a lack of funds, equipment, technology? Clarify.

Clarified to ‘such assessments require extensive effort and resources and as such have not been carried out in many areas of important sea turtle habitat’

Line 29 – separate your aim from your key finding

“Here, we utilised 12 years of stranding and rehabilitation data from the Republic of the Maldives to identify key threats to marine turtles in this region.”

Reformatted to ‘Here, we utilise 12 years of stranding and rehabilitation data from the Maldives to identify key threats to marine turtles in this region. Olive ridley turtles were found stranded or injured most frequently…’

State which 12 years and whether this coverage was nationwide or biased.

‘Here, we utilise 12 years (2010-2022) of stranding and rehabilitation data from the Maldives’. It was felt that including coverage was not appropriate here. However, this is highlighted in the results ‘from 18 different atolls with the central atolls (Male, Baa, Ari) over-represented’.

Then state the results

“Entanglement in ghost nets represented the leading cause of injuries and strandings (66.2% of cases).”

Reworded to ‘Anthropogenic factors were the primary cause of injury or stranding in 75.2% of cases with entanglement in ghost fishing gear being the most common (66.2% of all cases).’

Line 33. Make this a new sentence, and avoid referring to the wider literature.

It is not clear what the “regions” you were referring to here, if you want to make a comparison to the wider literature, this should be done in the discussion, as here it would mean your needing to add citations, which is not permitted. The Abstract should present your results.

This phrase has been removed

Line 35, what do you mean by “non resident” and “resident”– non resident to where, as you state the study was done at a national scale? This does not have context. The reader must be informed of why you are using these different terms. This should be your first statement of your Abstract results, then percentage of human causes, then the bycatch vs ghost fishing.

Reference to residency removed. Section reworded to ‘Olive ridley turtles were found stranded or injured most frequently (74.7% of total cases), along with hawksbill (15.2%), and green (10.1%) turtles. Anthropogenic factors were the primary cause of injury or stranding in 75.2% of cases with entanglement in ghost fishing gear being the most common (66.2% of all cases). Other causes of morbidity, such as from turtles being kept as pets (5.6%), boat strikes (<1%), bycatch (<1%), and poaching (<1%) were recorded less frequently. Olive ridley turtles were more likely to have injuries associated with entanglement than other species with a peak in admissions during the northeast monsoon in the period following the known arribada nesting season in nearby India. However, turtles admitted to rehabilitation following entanglement were released a mean of 70 days sooner and had 27.5% lower mortality rates than for other causes of admission.’

Line 37-38, this result while interesting, does not contribute to your narrative here; remove it, or give some interpretation of why it is relevant to the ghost fishing bias.

Clarified as ‘peak in admissions during the northeast monsoon in the period following the known arribada nesting season in nearby India’

“and identifies several

40 key areas where current knowledge of sea turtle ecology in this region is lacking.” – delete, this does not convey useful information; it is a throwaway statement that could be placed on any paper.

Statement removed

“However, for the

41 findings of this study to impact the status of marine turtles they must be implemented into practice and

42 policy.” – also delete this, it weakens your final statement of the previous sentence.

Removed. End of abstract now reads ‘This study highlights the high prevalence of ghost net entanglement in sea turtles within the Maldives. The topic of ghost fishing is of global importance and international cooperation is critical in tackling this growing issue.’

Abstract reworded taking all comments into consideration

Keywords – missing

Keywords added: ‘Keywords: sea turtle, morbidity, mortality, ghost fishing, Indian Ocean, olive ridley, Maldives, conservation, rehabilitation, endangered species, ghost net’

Introduction

Please check that citations are formatted correctly.

One citation reformatted from Harvard to Vancouver style. (‘Wallace 2011’)

This entire section requires careful revision. The introduction is too long and too turtle centred. There are too many short paragraphs with no clear message. I advise that this section is carefully revised taking the broad readership of the journal into consideration.

Introduction rewritten based on below comments and suggestions

I would advise the following

Paragraph 1 – What is the current prevailing threat to marine vertebrates globally, turtles are one of several groups threatened by human activities at sea. There is a vast global literature on this, and you can identify ghost fishing as one such component here and how it compares to other human caused mortality.

‘Human activities have substantial impacts on the worlds’ oceans and the species which live in them (1). Anthropogenic factors such as overexploitation, habitat loss, climate change, invasive species, disease, and pollution can negatively affect wildlife populations and contribute to species declines or extinctions (1,2). The impacts of these activities are more pronounced in large bodied species which are subject to more intense pressures e.g. from overexploitation, and are vulnerable to extinction through slow life histories (3,4). As marine megafauna convey a variety of environmental, economic, cultural and social benefits disproportionate to the overall percentage of species they represent, and additionally can act as umbrella species, they should be a priority for conservation efforts (3,5).’

Paragraph 2 – Ghost fishing – focus on detail on this, and whether threats are uniform globally across marine vertebrates, and if not identify potential reasons why not.

‘Marine turtles are one group of marine megafauna under threat of extinction through human activities; primarily through interactions with the fishing industry, overexploitation, and marine pollution (6–8). Although six of the seven species of marine turtle are considered to be under threat of extinction, through extensive conservation efforts populations are stable or increasing in many regions (9–11). However, as the type and magnitude of threats to marine turtles varies between geographic regions, it is important to consider that management decisions to mitigate anthropogenic impacts in one location may not be effective in another (12–14). To safeguard against future losses and facilitate further population recovery it is critical to identify and quantify threats to marine turtles on a regional scale.’

Paragraph 3 – Sea turtles and threats at sea; draw on the wide literature of human caused threats at sea (see Wallace et al. 2010 and associated publications), and in particular explore the literature around ghost fishing and sea turtles; if it is limited, here, highlight why, what approaches work best with detecting this effect, i.e. draw on rehabilitation and strandings and the pros/cons of using such literature.

Regardless of the importance of assessing threats to marine turtles, the process remains challenging: all species are elusive with pelagic life stages, making gathering the large datasets required for accurate evaluations labour intensive and costly (15). Given the extensive resources required to assess threats these have been performed only in certain well-studied populations; namely of green turtles in the Americas and Australia, and loggerhead turtles in the Mediterranean (8,12,16–18). However, threats to marine turtles remain unassessed in many regions, including areas with significant populations (15).

The Republic of the Maldives (Maldives) is one region of important marine turtle habitat where a comprehensive evaluation of threats has not been carried out (11). However, a rapidly expanding and increasingly environmentally focused tourism industry over the past few decades has facilitated the collection of comprehensive and long-term data across many areas of marine science in the Maldives. (19,20). Here, we utilise data collected from stranded turtles and those admitted into rehabilitation centres within the Maldives to evaluate the threats to marine turtles in this region.

Stranding data is a common method of assessing causes of morbidity and mortality in marine turtles (8,12,21). Although stranded turtles found on beaches or floating on the ocean’s surface only represent a small proportion of total deaths and injuries; strandings are considered representative of threats and allow estimations of the scale of local hazards to be made (14,21). Where stranded individuals are found alive and admitted to rehabilitation centres, longitudinal observations made on progress and recovery can provide additional data towards a more comprehensive overview of threats to marine turtle populations in a region (22).

Paragraph 4 – your study aims and hypotheses, along with main approach, study region. What did you expect to find?

Five of the seven globally recognised species of marine turtle have been recorded in the Maldives. Green (Chelonia mydas) and hawksbill (Eretmochelys imbricata) turtles are permanent residents and are sighted frequently throughout the region (23). Both species hold neritic foraging grounds which are established after an initial pelagic life-stage as young juveniles. Nesting is reported in several atolls with animals known to migrate from the Chagos archipelago; indicating that the Maldives provides important nesting habitat for turtles in the region (24–27). A recent regional IUCN evaluation has classified hawksbill turtles as ‘critically endangered’ and green turtles as ‘endangered’, closely matching global assessments, although assessments by other parties suggest that populations in the area are stable (11,28).

Olive ridley turtles are found more frequently in pelagic habitats than neritic and are known to have large nesting populations along the east coast of India (29). In the Maldives they are most frequently sighted offshore and have no known resident or nesting populations (23). However, olive ridley are found entangled in ghost nets, defined as fishing nets which have been lost or discarded, with relatively high frequency within the atolls, particularly during the northeast monsoon (January to March) where mass nesting (also known as arribada behaviour) along the east coast of India overlaps with a peak in trawl fishing in the same area (30–32). The strong monsoon currents then wash injured and tangled turtles into the Maldives (30–32).

Although both loggerhead and leatherback turtles have been reported within the Maldives, both species are infrequent passing visitors with no known resident populations (23).

This study represents the first long-term, multi-species analysis of sea turtle morbidities and mortalities in this area of the Indian Ocean. Using 12 years of stranding and rehabilitation data collected within the Maldives we aim to: analyse initial status and cause of injury in stranded animals, compare these between species and life stages, determine overall mortality rate of animals found alive, and identify seasonal patterns in strandings.

Introduction rewritten based on the above suggestion to broaden the context

Line 102 – “by comparing these findings to other regions” – this statement needs careful reconsideration; this implies you conducted an exhaustive literature review; if this is the case, then in your Paragraph 4, where you state your aims, you also need to state that your work is a combination of both empirical data and a wider literature review. This must be clarified in the abstract and the exact approach of the review stated in the methods.

Phrase removed

Line 104-5, this is fine

Line 106 – it is not clear how this is feasible, remove

Removed

Methods

Line 110, just put the coordinates in parentheses at the end of the last sentence.

Revised: ‘…axis around 400km to the southwest of India (07°06’N - 00°41’S, 72°32’E - 73°45’E) (Fig 1).’

A figure is required showing the entire nation and position of the two atolls, along with the catchment area for strandings assessed here.

No tables or figures are provided on the manuscript, making evaluation difficult.

Figures included (map of the location of the Maldives including rehab centres and stranding sites, summaries of admissions and results).

Line 128 – what are circumstantial data, give some examples of what this includes.

Clarified in text. E.g. Date, location. Rephrased as ‘Data was recorded from injured or stranded turtles which were reported to the MSTCP between March 2010 and September 2022. Animal handling and husbandry practices during this process followed recommended and best practice sea turtle care and management guidelines (37–40). Turtles reported to the MSTCP had a standard set of information recorded: species, curved carapace length (CCL), life stage, sex, date found, identity of the reporting party, initial disposition, cause of injury or mortality, details of injuries or abnormalities present, final outcome, and date of final outcome. Life stages were categorised’

Line 144 – at the site or on arrival? If at the site, how was this standardized across different people finding animals?

Measured on arrival to rehabilitation or on site wherever possible. CCL was left as NA if not measured. Status was recorded on arrival. If the animal was released immediately status was based on the discoverers' description. Clarified in text as ‘This information, excluding data pertaining to the final outcome of the case, was recorded on admission for rehabilitation. In cases where this did not occur data was recorded from verbal descriptions and visual media (photos and videos) provided by the discoverers of the turtle.’

Change disposition to status throughout.

Changed from ‘disposition’ to ‘status’ throughout.

Line 162, were necroposies done to check for blockages? If not, you cannot state if this is natural.

Necropsies performed wherever possible. However, cases where this was not possible had cause of death recorded as ‘unknown’. ‘Cause of injury or mortality was determined by several means: initial status, clinical examination and post-mortem examination of deceased individuals.’

Line 163, it is not clear why husbandry fits here. At stranding, husbandry is not relevant; if they survive rehabilitation cannot really be determined as a husbandry issue. The context of husbandry needs careful consideration. How do you assess if husbandry was poor?

Clarified in text. This point refers to cases of turtles being kept as pets as injuries or illness associated with poor husbandry resulted in admission to rehabilitation. ‘…whilst anthropogenic causes of injury incorporated entanglement, boat strikes, hook injuries,and, for animals kept as pets, poor husbandry.’

You do not state anywhere what area your strandings covered – is it national? How do you overcome bias to populated areas?

Clarified in text. Stranding reports are national but show bias towards the central, more densely populated atolls. ‘In total, 459 turtles were reported as stranded or injured between 2010 and 2022 from 18 different atolls with the central, more densely populated atolls (Male, Baa, Ari) over-represented’

Results

Supporting tables and figures are required.

Included

This needs to be broken into 3-4 key subsections each supported by a clear figure. Shift all percentages into tables, then revise your entire text to focus on the key points of interest.

By delineating clear subsections, you can then develop some clear hypothesis testing.

Results broken into subsections with separate headings. Figures/tables included but numbers/percentages left in-text to support written results.

Line 185, how do you get a female bias for adult hawksbills if no adults were recorded?

Error remedied: ‘The adult sex ratio, in turtles where this was recorded, was female biased in olive ridley and green turtles with a female: male ratio of 2.75:1 and 2:1 respectively. As no adult hawksbill turtles were recorded it was not possible to determine an adult sex ratio for this species (Fig 3a).’

Line 185, you simply state, The adult sex ratio was X:X for green turtles and X:X for olives. What is this sex ratio based on, the stranded animals? If something else, more explanation of how it was obtained is required in the methods.

Clarified in text. Ratio refers to all stranded individuals for which sex was recorded (see above).

Line 188-191, what about inhabited vs uninhabited islands?

See figures for distribution of strandings across atolls. Highlighting inhabited/uninhabited islands is not practical as land area is very small comparative to total area covered in this study. Even at the level of individual atolls land masses are barely visible.

A map showing the distribution of all strandigns for the 3 species (different colours) and size classes should be presented, along with highlighting inhabited islands.

Map of stranding sites included in figures. Including sex of the individual made the figure too complicated. Highlighting inhabited/uninhabited islands not practical as islands are too small to be visible on a national, or even an atoll scale.

Line 192, while turtles were found entangled in nets, this might easily be just the end point, i.e. turtle gets infection, floats, becomes entangled; entanglement itself might not be the primary cause.

How do you address this? For instance, all animals could have been floating, then become entangled; the key point is to find the initial cause for floating.

Here we are reporting the initial condition in which animals were found. It is felt that discussing the various causes of buoyancy syndromes in marine turtles is out-with the scope of this paper. However, cataloguing this and other injuries in more detail is currently an area of ongoing work within this dataset.

Line 192-5, this needs to be presented graphically.

Graphs are required to support the data throughout this section; once you have graphs, you can then interpret the key points of interest, rather than listing everything.

Graphs of key results included. However, as results are broad, including figures of all results would result in a high number of figures being included.

Line 219 – were necropsies/xrays conducted?

Necropsies were carried out where possible to determine cause of death. Cases were determined to have an ‘unknown’ cause where necropsies were unable to be performed or where the necropsy results were unconclusive. This has been clarified in the methods section (see above). X-rays were performed in very rare cases only as this involved transporting patients to a human hospital. Until very recently no veterinary x-ray units were available in Maldives.

Reviewer #2: Here the causes of injury and reasons for mortality are reported for turtles found stranded or floating in the Maldives, Indian Ocean. Is it concluded that entanglement in ghost nets is a key source of injury and mortality.

This is an interesting manuscript that I enjoyed reading. Some nice data are presented. I have some suggestions to improve the final version. With a little care, these revisions should be straightforward to deal with.

1. Line 25. “Anthropogenic activities are driving the global decline of sea turtle populations.

Sensationalist as well as incorrect. You need to be a little more honest.

See:

Mazaris AD et al. (2017). Global sea turtle conservation successes. Science Advances 3: e1600730. https://doi.org/10.1126/sciadv.1600730

Rephrased to ‘Anthropogenic activities can negatively affect sea turtle populations.’

I think throughout (e.g. start of Intro, lines 45-52) you need to say that at many sites around the world, sea turtle numbers are increasing due to conservation efforts (Mazaris). But regardless, sea turtles still face threats and so to facilitate further population increases it is important to both identify and then mitigate threats.

Updated in text to ‘Although six of the seven species of marine turtle are considered to be under threat of extinction, through extensive conservation efforts populations are stable or increasing in many regions (9–11). However, as the type and magnitude of threats to marine turtles varies between geographic regions, it is important to consider that management decisions to mitigate anthropogenic impacts in one location may not be effective in another (12–14).’

2. Line 34. “ … causes of admission …”

Reads poorly as, in the abstract, you have not mentioned anything about admission to a rehab centre being the basis for the data collection.

Reworded to ‘Here, we utilise 12 years of data (2010-2022) collected from marine turtle strandings and rehabilitation cases from across the Maldives to identify the key threats in this region’

3. Line 77. “Despite having large populations of sea turtles, the central Indian Ocean is one region where evaluation of threats has been neglected …”

Can you add some details about “large populations”. E.g. see work of Jeanne Mortimer and others for regional assessments of nesting numbers – see: https://doi.org/10.1017/S0030605319001108

Clarified in text to ‘The Republic of the Maldives (Maldives) is one region of important marine turtle habitat where a comprehensive evaluation of threats has not been carried out (11).’ However, there is currently no data published on the size of turtle populations for this region.

4. Line 85. “However, numbers of both species are currently declining.”

Can you qualify this statement ? Where is this info published ?

Since the first submission of this paper Stelfox et al have published evidence that marine turtle populations are stable. This has been updated in the text. ‘A recent regional IUCN evaluation has classified hawksbill turtles as ‘critically endangered’ and green turtles as ‘endangered’, closely matching global assessments, although assessments by other parties suggest that populations in the area are stable (11,28).’

5. Line 138. “Green turtles with CCL greater than 95cm (males) and 100cm (females) were classed as adults …”

Can you estimate the probability of a mis-id of life stage, e.g. a sub-adult male being classified as a female ? This is important as later you report sex ratios, but I suspect you’ll have quite a few mis-ids.

This is addressed in the discussion. Anecdotal evidence suggests that hawksbill and green turtles in this region are smaller than neighbouring populations. However, there is currently no data to back this up. ‘Here, we show the overall demographics of stranded turtles broadly concur with findings from other global regions. Juvenile animals are recorded more frequently than adults and, within the group of adult animals whose sex is determined, females are more abundant than males. These trends are common to strandings and in-water observations of marine turtles in multiple regions, including the Maldives, and represent overall population demographics (27,31,44). Although a predominance of juveniles within turtle populations is a common finding, our study recorded no adult hawksbill turtles. Size of adult turtles is known to vary between regions, and it has been suggested that both green and hawksbill adults may be smaller in the Maldives than in surrounding regions (23). As no definitive measurements of nesting adults are available for this region, utilising measurements taken in other regions, as here, may result in an underestimation of adults. However, proportions of adult green turtles here are comparable to a large dataset collected from Mexico, suggesting that the adult: juvenile ratio for this species may be representative (13). Moreover, further work is required to confirm this observation’

6. Lines 162. “… cachexia (emaciation with no discernible primary cause …”

How was this recorded ? e.g. some threshold residual value from a length:weight relationship ? Or some objective scoring (e.g. see Heithaus/ Thomson work in Shark Bay) or did you just make a subjective best guess ? That’s fine. Just explain what you have done.

Body condition index calculated using method published by Norton and Wyneken (2015)- clarified in text to ‘cachexia (emaciation with no discernible primary cause as determined by Body Condition Index (BCI)’

7. Line 207. “… was entanglement in ghost fishing nets or similar materials (66.2%, n=251) with wounds characteristic of net or line entrapment identified in both entangled turtles (n=211) and in those found floating or beached (n=40) …”

If a turtle just has wounds characteristic of nets or lines, how do you know this was a “ghost net” and not just a net being used by a fisherman who released the turtle ?

Injuries origin was determined using previously defined criteria (eg. Archibald et al. 2018). The characteristic lacerations caused by extended entanglement would typically not occur with a turtle being line caught; hook injuries to the mouth being more common in these cases. Additionally, in Maldives, methods of fishing which could conceivably cause such injuries such as net or longline fishing, are not permitted (see introduction).

8. Line 226. Boat strike. Was this associated with nearby resorts ?

Very interesting point. All 9 cases were reported by resorts but as resort and local islands exist in close proximity and travelling/drifting would have occurred it would not be possible to determine whether resort or local traffic was the cause of these cases.

I would have a few lines of the Discussion about boat strikes. This has been widely reported around the world (e.g. see Gail Schofield’s work in Greece, https://doi.org/10.1002/ecy.3027 and also in the USA, see Tony Tucker). Boat strike is particularly associated with high boating traffic and had led to speed restrictions in high use turtle areas in the US and Greece.

Short paragraph on boat strikes added to the discussion. ‘Boat strikes are a commonly noted cause of anthropogenic injuries in marine turtles, particularly in areas with high water-based traffic (8,12,65). Here we find boat strikes account for 2.4% of injuries, a figure comparable to other regions (8,12). The not-insignificant risk posed by boat strikes to sea turtles has led to restrictions of water-traffic movements in areas of high turtle activity in several countries (66,67). Although similar policies are currently implemented in the Maldives for other megafauna species, eg. manta rays and whale sharks (68), currently no such delineations exist for turtles. Further work is required in this regard to identify areas with high turtle populations and establish the risk presented by boat strikes within these zones.’

9. Line 286. You mention where Olive Ridley likely may have come from. Similarly can you detail some of the areas that adult greens and hawksbills have come from ? There has been satellite tracking showing adult green from the Chagos Archipelago travel to the Maldives. But adult hawksbills from Chagos likely do not travel to the Maldives … rather all the tracked animals stay within Chagos (e.g. see https://doi.org/10.1098/rsif.2021.0859). So I guess any adult hawksbills you see also nest in the Maldives ? We suspect that the majority of green and hawksbill cases presented to us are resident animals with a few originating from places like Chagos. However, there is currently no data to support this that I am aware of outside of the Chagos post-nesting tracking data.

10 There are no figures. Perhaps think of 1 or 2 key results to show in a graph ?

e.g. a map showing the number of reports came from different places in the Maldives. Perhaps a photo of a stranded turtle in a ghost net. Noted and included

11. “Poaching”. I could not see anything in the methods about how this was ascertained. Describe your method. Include a photo ?

Clarified in methods. ‘The discovery of an entire carapace or plastron with toolmarks was considered to be indicative of poaching.’

In summary, a nice piece of work with some interesting results. Well done to the authors on completing such a nice study.

Thank you!

Reviewer #3: See attached review with suggestions to improve the manuscript.

It was difficult to state that the analysis was appropriate when no supporting data were provided and no tables or figures were included

Figures, tables and data now included.

This sea turtle study presents 12 years of stranding and rehabilitation data from the Maldives to report key threats to sea turtles, identifying entanglement in ghost nets as one of the key anthropogenic causes of injuries. The dataset is considerable and includes 459 turtles. Clear study objectives are presented including variation in cause of injury between species and life stages, estimation of mortality rate and identification of seasonality in strandings. Providing that the review comments below are addressed, the study would advance our understanding of some of the underreported anthropogenic impacts from fishing, as already highlighted by a number of studies in the region (e.g., Stelfox et al) cited in the manuscript.

The findings are clearly presented but the manuscript could be much improved by re-arranging content into subsections with relevant subtitles in Methods and Results.

Methods and results re-arranged. Appropriate subheadings included

No figures and/or tables were included so it was difficult to interpret results. Additionally, no underlying data were provided (that I could access) so it was difficult to comment on the review question ‘Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?’. To this end, a supplementary table providing summary data would be helpful to support the growing body of literature on this topic in addition to providing a link to the Reefscapers website.

Figures and tables added along with data

Some specific comments:

Abstract:

State number of atolls and relative location where data were collected

Stated in results and included in Fig 1. ‘In total, 459 turtles were reported as stranded or injured between 2010 and 2022 from 18 different atolls with the central, more densely populated atolls (Male, Baa, Ari) over-represented (Fig 1).’

The study is for one small area of the Indian Ocean and I suggest re-phrasing ‘high prevalence of ghost net entanglement in the Indian Ocean’. If a review has shown high prevalence elsewhere in the IO then include the results.

Noted and phrase removed from text.

Introduction:

I recommend to commence with a paragraph describing different threats to turtles (and introducing the various anthropogenic threats) before focusing on species and assessment.

L77: define what you are including in the term Central Indian Ocean to help with readers’ understanding as typically this region is split between NWIO and SWIO and NEIO with respect to sea turtle regional management units (RMUs) Wallace et al. 2010. http://www.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0015465

Reworded/rephrased throughout for clarity and to fit with accepted nomenclature.

L79: insert the citation as numeric.

Reformatted.

L84: provide more context about population connectivity in the Western Indian Ocean, for example a number of green turtles have migrated to Maldives from Chagos Archipelago in the south (Hays et al. 2020 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cub.2020.05.086) which provides critical nesting habitat for turtles from around the region (see Mortimer et al. 2020 http://www.doi.org/10.1017/S0030605319001108).

Included in introduction: ‘Green (Chelonia mydas) and hawksbill (Eretmochelys imbricata) turtles are permanent residents and sighted frequently throughout the region (23). Both species hold neritic foraging grounds which are established after an initial pelagic life-stage as young juveniles. Nesting is reported in several atolls with animals known to migrate from the Chagos archipelago; indicating that the Maldives provides important nesting habitat for turtles in the region (24–27).. A recent regional IUCN evaluation has classified hawksbill turtles as ‘critically endangered’ and green turtles as ‘endangered’, closely matching global assessments, although assessments by other parties suggest that populations in the area are stable (11,28).’

Results:

I would suggest to the authors to provide a number of graphs to show key results, for example:

To support the statements about turtles stranded or bycaught turtles in the Maldives : provide a map with indication of numbers of each case category at each location

To support statements about seasonal patterns of admissions : provide a graph comparing number of cases per month of the year

To support statements about entanglement being key cause of injuries or death: graph reporting number of cases for each threat identified

Provide a graphical overview of relative proportion of life stages and species included in the study

Figures created and included to illustrate key results.

Discussion:

This is quite lengthy and could be improved by re-ordering to commence the section with key results that are discussed in context of the literature, followed by several sections with appropriate sub-titles to discuss the various findings.

Noted and trialled. The discussion opens with the key finding of the high prevalence of ghost net entanglement. Sub-titles also trialled but it was felt that this broke the discussion into too many short sections.

There are some statements that should only be included if supported by citations (e.g. L418 turtle populations in the Central IO are some of the most threatened in the world …)

Rephrased or cited throughout discussion.

It is worthwhile considering potential bias in the dataset due to method of entanglement. Relative contributions of ghost nets to entanglement and injury/mortality of turtles is possibly overreported compared to other causes of anthropogenic threat. This is because ghost nets are likely to come ashore as they are usually buoyant and carried in surface waters. Turtles that snag on fishing line caught on the reefs are less likely to be included in the dataset. Consider other anthropogenic factors in your discussion, e.g. those reported by Casale et al. 2010 https://doi.org/10.1002/aqc.1133

Point well made; discussion updated to address this. ‘Although it is important to note that entanglement cases are likely to be over-represented in this study as the often-buoyant ghost nets will increase the likelihood of affected individuals being recovered, it should be considered that this bias will equally affect all other regions. The comparative scale of entanglement cases identified here should not be underestimated.’

L294: As suggested for the introduction, a definition of the area (Central Indian Ocean) and a map of the study site would help support this statement.

Rephrased throughout.

Attachment

Submitted filename: Response to Reviewers.docx

Decision Letter 2

Graeme Hays

13 Jul 2023

Evaluation of sea turtle morbidity and mortality within the Indian Ocean from 12 years of data shows high prevalence of ghost net entanglement.

PONE-D-22-34145R2

Dear Dr. Himpson,

We’re pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been judged scientifically suitable for publication and will be formally accepted for publication once it meets all outstanding technical requirements.

Within one week, you’ll receive an e-mail detailing the required amendments. When these have been addressed, you’ll receive a formal acceptance letter and your manuscript will be scheduled for publication.

An invoice for payment will follow shortly after the formal acceptance. To ensure an efficient process, please log into Editorial Manager at http://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/, click the 'Update My Information' link at the top of the page, and double check that your user information is up-to-date. If you have any billing related questions, please contact our Author Billing department directly at authorbilling@plos.org.

If your institution or institutions have a press office, please notify them about your upcoming paper to help maximize its impact. If they’ll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team as soon as possible -- no later than 48 hours after receiving the formal acceptance. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information, please contact onepress@plos.org.

Kind regards,

Graeme Hays

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Additional Editor Comments (optional):

The authors have made some effort to revise the manuscript in line with the final comments. I think this manuscript can now be accepted for publication. Graeme Hays

Reviewers' comments:

Acceptance letter

Graeme Hays

17 Jul 2023

PONE-D-22-34145R2

Evaluation of sea turtle morbidity and mortality within the Indian Ocean from 12 years of data shows high prevalence of ghost net entanglement.

Dear Dr. Himpson:

I'm pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been deemed suitable for publication in PLOS ONE. Congratulations! Your manuscript is now with our production department.

If your institution or institutions have a press office, please let them know about your upcoming paper now to help maximize its impact. If they'll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team within the next 48 hours. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information please contact onepress@plos.org.

If we can help with anything else, please email us at plosone@plos.org.

Thank you for submitting your work to PLOS ONE and supporting open access.

Kind regards,

PLOS ONE Editorial Office Staff

on behalf of

Professor Graeme Hays

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Associated Data

    This section collects any data citations, data availability statements, or supplementary materials included in this article.

    Supplementary Materials

    S1 Appendix. Dataset.

    (XLSX)

    Attachment

    Submitted filename: Himpson_etal_PONE_Maldives_entanglements_review.docx

    Attachment

    Submitted filename: Response to Reviewers.docx

    Attachment

    Submitted filename: Response to Reviewers.docx

    Data Availability Statement

    All relevant data are within the manuscript and its Supporting Information files.


    Articles from PLOS ONE are provided here courtesy of PLOS

    RESOURCES