Total An Investigation into Light Pollution as a Limiting factor for shift of Mass nesting ground at Rushikulya rookery Ganjam Odisha

Total An Investigation into Light Pollution as a Limiting factor for shift of Mass nesting ground at Rushikulya rookery Ganjam Odishas

Subrata Kumar Behera* , Rajkishore Mohanta

1Department of Agricultural and Home Science Education, Michael Okpara University of Agriculture, Umudike, Abia State
2Department of Zoology and Environmental Biology, Michael Okpara University of Agriculture, Umudike, Abia State

American Journal of Marine Research and Reviews

Illumination due to artificial lights on nesting beaches and from nearby place to nesting beaches is detrimental to sea turtles because it alters critical nocturnal behaviors specifically, their choice of nesting sites and their return path to the sea after nesting. Illuminations perplex the hatchlings to find sea after emerging. Numerous studies conducted in other countries have demonstrated that artificial lights negatively impact on turtles, both female adults as they come to and go from their home beach to lay eggs, and to turtle hatchlings as they seek out the way to the open ocean. In this study we correlated the mass nesting intensity of 5years (2012 to 2018) at Rushikulya mass nesting site to the illumination zone. Illumination due to light conditions on nesting beaches are complex, and measuring light pollution in a way that effectively captures the impacts to sea turtles is difficult. But increase in intensity of illumination on selective mass nesting beaches showed gradual reduction in intensity of preferred nesting site during the mass nesting event. A gradual shift of nesting preference was also observed more toward darker zone.

Keywords: Illumination, light pollution, mass nesting, nest selection, olive ridley, Rushikulya

Free Full-text PDF

How to cite this article:
Subrata Kumar Behera and Rajkishore Mohanta.An Investigation into Light Pollution as a Limiting factor for shift of Mass nesting ground at Rushikulya rookery Ganjam Odisha. American Journal of Marine Research and Reviews, 2018; 1:6.


1. Behera SK , Mohanta RK, Kar C and Mishra SS (2014) Impacts of the Super Cyclone Philine on Sea Turtle Nesting Habitats at the Rushikulya Rookery, Ganjam Coast, India Poult Fish Wildl Sci 2: 114. doi:10.4172/pfw.1000114
2. Chalkias C, Petrakis M, Psiloglou B, Lianou M (2006) Modelling of light pollution in suburban areas using remotely sensed imagery and GIS. J Environ Manag 79: 57-63
3. Fritsches KA (2012) Australian Loggerhead sea turtle hatchlings do not avoid yellow. Marine
4. and Freshwater Turtle Behaviour and Physiology 45: 79-89.
5. Kamrowski, RL, Limpus, C, Moloney, J and Hamann, M (2012). Coastal light pollution and
6. marine turtles: assessing the magnitude of the problem. Endangered Species Research 19: 8598.
7. Kar CS & Behera SK (2012) “Observations on the Geo-morphological changes and its impact on the olive ridley sea turtle mass nesting habitats at Rushikulya rookery of Odisha, India. In Coastal Erosion”, CES, Ministry of Environment and Forest, Bhubaneswar, Odisha.Chapter-4
8. Karnad D (2008) The effect of lighting and temperature on the eggs and hatchlings of olive ridley turtles at Rushikulya, India Master Thesis Submitted to Skkim Manipal University pp 25-26.
9. Karnad D, Isvaran K, Kar CS, Shanker K (2009) Lighting the way: Towards reducing misorientation of olive ridley hatchlings due to artificial lighting at Rushikulya, India
10. Biological Conservation 142 (10), 2083-2088
11. Kyba CCM, Ruhtz T, Fischer J, Holker F (2011) Cloud coverage acts as an amplifier for ecological light pollution in urban ecosystems. PloS ONE 6:e17307
12. Mazor, T, Noam Levin, Hugh P. Possingham, Yaniv Levy, Duccio Rocchini ,Anthony J.Richardson , Salit Kark (2013) Can satellite-based night lights be used for conservation? The case of nesting sea turtles in the Mediterranean Biological Conservation 159 (2013) 63–72
13. Mortimer JA, (1982) Factors influencing nesting sea turtles, of Florida, beach selection. In: Biology and conservation of sea turtles. K. A. Bjorndal (ed.). Smith-sonian Institution Press, Washington,D.C.
14. .Murphy, T.E. (1985) Telemetric monitoring of nesting loggerhead sea turtles subjected to disturbance on the beach. In Fifth Annual Workshop on Sea Turtle Biology and Conservation. Waverly, Georgia.
15. Rich C, Longcore T (2006) Ecological consequences of artificial night lighting. Island Press, Washington, DC
16. Salmon M, Reiners R, Lavin C and Wyneken J (1995) Behavior of loggerhead sea turtles on an urban beach. I. Correlates of nest placement. Journal of Herpetology, 29, 560–567.
17. Talbert Jr., O.R., Stancyk, S.W., Dean, J.M., Will, J.M., (1980). Nesting activity of the loggerhead turtle (Caretta caretta) in South Carolina I: a rookery in transition. Copeia 1980, 709–718.
18. Tripathy B and Rajasekhar PS (2009) Natural and anthropogenic threats to olive ridley sea turtles (Lepidochelys olivacea) at the Rushikulya rookery of Orissa coast, India Indian Journal of Marine Sciences 38: 439-443.
19. Worth, D. F. & Smith, J. B. (1976). Marine turtle nesting on Hutchinson Island, Florida, in 1973. Florida Mar. Res. Publ., 18, 1 17.
20. Witherington BE (1997) the problem of photopollution for sea turtles and other nocturnal animals. In: Clemmons JR, Buchholz R (eds) Behavioral approaches to conservation in the wild. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, p 303–328