Username :
Password :
           
Taxon ID: 17,745 Total records: 39,143

Dermochelys coriacea

Classification

Kingdom Animalia (COL)
Phylum Chordata (COL)
Class Reptilia (COL)
Order Testudines (COL)
Family Dermochelyidae (COL)

Taxonomy

Genus Dermochelys Reference
SubGenus Vernacular Name
Species coriacea IUCN Threat Status-Year Vulnerable, 2013
SubSpecies Nat'l Threat Status-Year Not Evaluated, 2000
Infraspecies Reason for Change
Infraspecies Rank CITES
Taxonomic Group Reptiles Native Status Native
Scientific Name Author Vandelli, 1761 Country Distribution Myanmar
Citation Description Geographic Range [top] Range Description: Leatherbacks are distributed circumglobally, with nesting sites on tropical sandy beaches and foraging ranges that extend into temperate and sub-polar latitudes (see Figure 1 in Supplementary Material and global distribution map). See Eckert et al. (2012) for review of Leatherback geographic range. For further information about this species, see 6494_Dermochelys_coriacea.pdf. A PDF viewer such as Adobe Reader is required. Countries occurrence: Native: Albania; American Samoa (American Samoa); Angola (Angola); Anguilla; Antigua and Barbuda; Argentina; Aruba; Australia; Bahamas; Bahrain; Bangladesh; Barbados; Belize; Benin; Bermuda; Bonaire, Sint Eustatius and Saba (Saba, Sint Eustatius); Bosnia and Herzegovina; Brazil; Brunei Darussalam; Cambodia; Cameroon; Canada; Chile; China; Colombia; Comoros; Congo; Congo, The Democratic Republic of the; Costa Rica; Côte dIvoire; Croatia; Cuba; Curaçao; Cyprus; Dominica; Dominican Republic; Ecuador; Egypt; El Salvador; Equatorial Guinea; Eritrea; Fiji; France (Clipperton I., France (mainland)); French Guiana; French Polynesia; French Southern Territories (Mozambique Channel Is.); Gabon; Gambia; Ghana; Greece; Grenada; Guadeloupe; Guam; Guatemala; Guinea; Guinea-Bissau; Guyana; Haiti; Honduras; India; Indonesia; Ireland; Italy; Jamaica; Japan; Kenya; Kiribati; Korea, Democratic Peoples Republic of; Korea, Republic of; Lebanon; Liberia; Libya; Madagascar; Malaysia; Marshall Islands; Martinique; Mauritania; Mauritius; Mayotte; Mexico; Micronesia, Federated States of ; Montenegro; Montserrat; Morocco; Mozambique; Myanmar; Namibia; New Caledonia; New Zealand; Nicaragua; Nigeria; Northern Mariana Islands; Palau; Panama; Papua New Guinea; Peru; Philippines; Portugal; Puerto Rico; Russian Federation; Saint Helena, Ascension and Tristan da Cunha; Saint Kitts and Nevis; Saint Lucia; Saint Martin (French part); Saint Vincent and the Grenadines; Samoa; Sao Tomé and Principe; Senegal; Seychelles; Sierra Leone; Sint Maarten (Dutch part); Slovenia; Solomon Islands; South Africa; Spain; Sri Lanka; Suriname; Syrian Arab Republic; Taiwan, Province of China; Tanzania, United Republic of; Thailand; Togo; Tonga; Trinidad and Tobago; Tunisia; Turks and Caicos Islands; Tuvalu; United Kingdom; United States; Uruguay; Venezuela, Bolivarian Republic of; Virgin Islands, British; Virgin Islands, U.S. Possibly extinct: Israel FAO Marine Fishing Areas: Native: Atlantic – western central; Atlantic – southwest; Atlantic – eastern central; Atlantic – northeast; Atlantic – northwest; Atlantic – southeast; Indian Ocean – western; Indian Ocean – eastern; Mediterranean and Black Sea; Pacific – southwest; Pacific – western central; Pacific – northeast; Pacific – eastern central; Pacific – northwest; Pacific – southeast Lower depth limit (metres): 1300 Range Map: Click here to open the map viewer and explore range. Population [top] Population: Leatherbacks are a single species globally comprising seven biologically described regional management units (RMUs; Wallace et al. 2010), which describe biologically and geographically explicit population segments by integrating information from nesting sites, mitochondrial and nuclear DNA studies, movements and habitat use by all life stages. RMUs are functionally equivalent to IUCN subpopulations, thus providing the appropriate demographic unit for Red List assessments. There are seven Leatherback RMUs (hereafter subpopulations): Northwest Atlantic Ocean, Southeast Atlantic Ocean, Southwest Atlantic Ocean, Northeast Indian Ocean, Southwest Indian Ocean, East Pacific Ocean, and West Pacific Ocean (Figure 2 in Supplementary Material). Multiple genetic stocks have been defined according to geographically disparate nesting areas around the world (Dutton et al. 1999, 2013), and are included within RMU delineations (Wallace et al. 2010; shapefiles can be viewed and downloaded at: http://seamap.env.duke.edu/swot). For further information about this species, see 6494_Dermochelys_coriacea.pdf. A PDF viewer such as Adobe Reader is required. Current Population Trend: Decreasing Additional data: ?Continuing decline of mature individuals: Yes ?Extreme fluctuations: No ?Population severely fragmented: No Habitat and Ecology [top] Habitat and Ecology: D. coriacea is an oceanic, deep-diving marine turtle inhabiting tropical, subtropical, and subpolar seas. Leatherbacks make extensive migrations between different feeding areas at different seasons, and to and from nesting areas. Leatherbacks feed predominantly on jellyfishes, salps and siphonophores. Females usually produce several (3-10) clutches of 60-90 eggs in a reproductive season, and typically have a re-migration interval of multiple years (2+) between subsequent reproductive seasons. For a thorough review of Leatherback biology, please see Eckert et al. (2012). Systems: Terrestrial; Marine Generation Length (years): 30 Movement patterns: Full Migrant Congregatory: Congregatory (and dispersive) Use and Trade [top] Use and Trade: Leatherback eggs and animals are taken for human use (i.e. consumption and commercial products), eggs are also eaten by domestic animals (e.g. dogs). Threats [top] Major Threat(s): Threats to Leatherbacks vary in time and space, and in relative impact to populations. Threat categories affecting marine turtles, including Leatherbacks, were described by Wallace et al. (2011) as: 1) Fisheries bycatch: incidental capture of marine turtles in fishing gear targeting other species; 2) Take: direct utilization of turtles or eggs for human use (i.e. consumption, commercial products); 3) Coastal Development affecting critical turtle habitat: human-induced alteration of coastal environments due to construction, dredging, beach modification, etc.; 4) Pollution and Pathogens: marine pollution and debris that affect marine turtles (i.e. through ingestion or entanglement, disorientation caused by artificial lights), as well as impacts of pervasive pathogens (e.g. fibropapilloma virus) on turtle health; 5) Climate change: current and future impacts from climate change on marine turtles and their habitats (e.g. increasing sand temperatures on nesting beaches affecting hatchling sex ratios, sea level rise, storm frequency and intensity affecting nesting habitats, etc.). The relative impacts of individual threats to all Leatherback subpopulations were assessed by Wallace et al. (2011). Fisheries bycatch was classified as the highest threat to Leatherbacks globally, followed by human consumption of Leatherback eggs, meat, or other products, and coastal development. Due to lack of information, pollution and pathogens was only scored as affecting three subpopulations and climate change was only scored for two subpopulations. Enhanced efforts to assess and reduce the impacts of these threats on Leatherbacks—and other marine turtle species—should be a high priority for future conservation efforts. Conservation Actions [top] Conservation Actions: Leatherbacks are protected under various Conventions, national and international laws, treaties, agreements, and memoranda of understanding. A partial list of international conservation instruments that provide legislative protection for Leatherbacks are: Annex II of the SPAW Protocol to the Cartagena Convention (a protocol concerning specially protected areas and wildlife); the Leatherback’s inclusion in Appendix I of CITES (Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora); and Appendices I and II of the Convention on Migratory Species (CMS); the Inter-American Convention for the Protection and Conservation of Sea Turtles (IAC); the Memorandum of Understanding on the Conservation and Management of Marine Turtles and their Habitats of the Indian Ocean and South-East Asia (IOSEA); the Memorandum of Understanding on ASEAN Sea Turtle Conservation and Protection; and the Memorandum of Understanding Concerning Conservation Measures for Marine Turtles of the Atlantic Coast of Africa. Long-term efforts to reduce or eliminate threats to Leatherbacks on nesting beaches have been successful in many places (e.g. Dutton et al. 2005, Chacón-Chaverri and Eckert 2007, Santidrián Tomillo et al. 2007, Sarti Martínez et al. 2007) but not all places (e.g. Chan and Liew 1996). Reducing Leatherback bycatch has become a primary focus for many conservation projects around the world, and some mitigation efforts are showing promise (Watson et al. 2005; Gilman et al. 2006, 2011). However, threats to Leatherbacks—bycatch mortality and egg consumption, in particular—persist, and in some places, continue to hinder population recovery (Alfaro-Shigueto et al. 2011, 2012; Tapilatu et al. 2013; Wallace et al. 2013). For depleted Leatherback populations to recover, the most prevalent and impactful threats must be reduced wherever they occur, whether on nesting beaches or in feeding, migratory, or other habitats (Bellagio Report 2007; Wallace et al. 2011, 2013); a holistic approach that addresses threats at all life history stages needs to be implemented (Dutton and Squires 2011). Therefore, current conservation efforts, legal protections, and resources supporting those mechanisms must be maintained—and augmented, wherever possible—to reverse population declines and sustain stable and increasing population trends among Leatherback subpopulations. Regional and local efforts to protect Leatherbacks, their offspring, and their habitats should be designed to address threats at appropriate scales, and implemented with participation of appropriate stakeholders. Citation: Wallace, B.P., Tiwari, M. & Girondot, M. 2013. Dermochelys coriacea. The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species 2013: e.T6494A43526147. http://dx.doi.org/10.2305/IUCN.UK.2013-2.RLTS.T6494A43526147.en. Downloaded on 25 April 2016. Disclaimer: To make use of this information, please check the . Feedback: If you see any errors or have any questions or suggestions on what is shown on this page, please provide us with feedback so that we can correct or extend the information provided
Source

Images

         

Additional Info

Synonyms


To Manage Synonyms for Dermochelys coriacea, click this link: Synonyms.
Chelonia lutaria Rafinesque, 1814  ¦   Dermatochelys coriacea Günther, 1864  ¦   Dermatochelys porcata Wagler, 1830  ¦   Dermochelis atlantica Lesueur, 1829  ¦   Dermochelys coriacea Shannon, 1956  ¦   Dermochelys schlegelii Garman, 1908  ¦   Sphargis angusta Philippi, 1899  ¦   Sphargis coriacea Duméril & Bibron, 1835  ¦   Sphargis coriacea Garman, 1884  ¦   Sphargis mercurialis Merrem, 1820  ¦   Testudo arcuata Catesby, 1771  ¦   Testudo coriacea Vandelli, 1761  ¦   Testudo lyra Lacépède, 1788  ¦   Testudo tuberculata Pennant, 1801  ¦  
Common Names


To Manage Common Names for Dermochelys coriacea, click this link: Common Names.
Localities


To Manage Localities for Dermochelys coriacea, click this link: Localities.
No Locality records in database.
Species Record Updated By: Carlos Aurelio Callangan