Next Article in Journal
Low Genetic Diversity and Decreased Effective Population Sizes of Acropora hyacinthus Populations Inhabiting Inshore and Offshore Reefs in the South China Sea
Previous Article in Journal
Combining Adequate BRUV Deployment Times with Individual Photo-Identification Improves Monitoring of Shark Populations in the Caribbean
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Oceans
Volume 6
Issue 4
10.3390/oceans6040071
oceans-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Review

Systematic Analysis of Threats to Sea Turtles in Mexico: Trends, Knowledge Gaps, and Implications for Conservation

by
Ruth I. Ramírez-Villanueva
1,
Fernando Gumeta-Gómez
1,2 and
Gustavo Hinojosa-Arango
1,2,*
1
Centro Interdisciplinario de Investigación para el Desarrollo Integral Regional (CIIDIR), Instituto Politécnico Nacional, Unidad Oaxaca, Santa Cruz Xoxocotlán 71230, Mexico
2
Programa de Investigadoras e Investigadores por México, Secretaria de Ciencia, Humanidades, Tecnología e Innovación (SECIHTI), Alcaldía Benito Juárez, Ciudad de México 03940, Mexico
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Oceans 2025, 6(4), 71; https://doi.org/10.3390/oceans6040071
Submission received: 1 August 2025 / Revised: 9 October 2025 / Accepted: 15 October 2025 / Published: 4 November 2025
Browse Figures
Review Reports Versions Notes

Abstract

Current scientific knowledge about the threats jeopardizing the recovery of sea turtle populations in Mexico is essential for improving conservation strategies. This study presents the results of a systematic review of the scientific literature published between 1960 and 2024, with the aim of identifying the main threats contributing to the decline of sea turtle populations in Mexico, detecting trends in scientific production, identifying knowledge gaps, and offering a comprehensive view of the challenges and priority actions needed to improve conservation strategies by region in Mexico. The review revealed a significant increase in research since 1997, with a predominant focus on pollution, fishing, and disease, mainly in the Pacific region. While Chelonia mydas and Lepidochelys olivacea were the most studied species, Dermochelys coriacea and Lepidochelys kempii received less attention. A total of 22 stressors associated with 8 threats were identified, but knowledge gaps persist regarding emerging threats such as climate change, coastal and marine development, and marine noise pollution. The results underscore the need to expand research on less-studied species and regions, strengthen studies in marine ecosystems, and improve the alignment between research and conservation policies to ensure the long-term viability of sea turtles in Mexico.

1. Introduction

Sea turtles are distributed in oceanic and neritic habitats from the tropics to subarctic waters [1,2]. Their role is vital as sentinel and umbrella species whose conservation contributes to maintaining the integrity of marine ecosystems and their habitats [3]. For example, they act as consumers, prey, competitors, hosts of parasites and pathogens, and as a substrate and transport for epibionts [1,2,4]. They move nutrients and energy from marine feeding areas to nutrient-poor nesting beaches, modifying the landscape by enriching the sand with organic matter from eggs and hatchlings, which supports coastal vegetation growth and influences the dynamics of dune ecosystems [1,5].
Mexico has the highest diversity of sea turtle species [6]. Six of the seven species of sea turtles in the world use Mexican beaches and seas in the Pacific, the Gulf of Mexico, and the Caribbean as feeding, aggregation, nesting, growing and resting areas [6,7]. The species that nest on Mexican beaches are the leatherback (Dermochelys coriacea), hawksbill (Eretmochelys imbricata), olive ridley (Lepidochelys olivacea), Kemp’s ridley (Lepidochelys kempii), green (Chelonia mydas), and loggerhead (Caretta caretta) [8,9].
These species nest across different regions of Mexico, with important sites along each coastline [6,8,9]. On the Pacific coast, leatherbacks nest mainly in Mexiquillo (Michoacán), Tierra Colorada (Guerrero), and Cahuitán and Barra de la Cruz (Oaxaca); olive ridleys nest in Escobilla and Morro Ayuta (Oaxaca), Ixtapilla (Michoacán), Nuevo Vallarta and Platanitos (Nayarit), Chalacatepec and Mismaloya (Jalisco), and Chupadero-Boca de Apiza, El Verde, and Huizache (Colima and Sinaloa); and green turtles nest in Colola and Maruata (Michoacán) as well as the Revillagigedo Islands [6,8]. In the Gulf of Mexico, Kemp’s ridley—endemic to this region—is concentrated in Rancho Nuevo, Barra del Tordo, Altamira, and Miramar (Tamaulipas), with smaller rookeries in Totonacapan and Lechuguillas (Veracruz) and Campeche; green turtles also nest in Isla Aguada (Campeche) and Veracruz [6,9]. Hawksbills are particularly abundant in Campeche and Yucatán, with important nesting sites at Punta Xen, Chenkan, Isla Aguada, and Ría Lagartos (Las Coloradas, El Cuyo) [6]. In the Caribbean, Quintana Roo hosts most loggerhead and green turtle nesting (Xcacel-Xcacelito, Tulum, Cozumel) [6,9].
Historically, sea turtles have suffered population declines due to bycatch and the collection of adults and eggs [10]. Although capture and consumption are illegal and have decreased considerably, threats to sea turtles have diversified over time and affect them throughout their entire life cycle, from egg development to adulthood and reproduction [11,12]. The Official Mexican Standard NOM-59-SEMARNAT-2010 classifies all species of sea turtles as “in danger of extinction” [13]. Internationally, according to the global assessments of the IUCN, C. caretta and L. olivacea are classified as vulnerable, D. coriacea as threatened, C. mydas as endangered, and E. imbricata and L. kempii as critically endangered [14]. However, it is important to note that regional subpopulations relevant to Mexico show different risk levels: for example, the Eastern Pacific subpopulation of D. coriacea, which occurs along Mexican coasts, is considered critically endangered, while the Northwest Atlantic subpopulation is listed as least concern [8,14]. These differences highlight the need to integrate both national and regional conservation statutes when assessing the status of sea turtles in Mexico.
The Mexican marine and coastal environments are experiencing increased pressure due to various human disturbances, including maritime transport, targeted fishing, habitat loss, industrial development, pollution, and bycatch [15,16]. The incidence of these threats varies depending on the local and regional socio-environmental context. In the Gulf of Mexico, particularly the Campeche Sound, turtles like L. kempii face more severe challenges due to maritime traffic, noise from hydrocarbon and gas exploration, and the risk of exposure to contamination from spills and micro-leaks from oil platforms [3,17]. A different situation occurs in the Pacific and the Sea of Cortez, where the common threats are incidental capture in commercial fisheries, boat strikes, debris ingestion and intentional harvest [18,19].
We emphasize that these local and regional threats are compounded by global challenges, such as invasive species and increased incidence of disease, as well as emerging issues like water quality degradation, anthropogenic noise disturbance, toxin bioaccumulation, and climate change [16,20,21]. These climate-related threats include ocean acidification, rising sea temperatures, and altered current patterns, all of which can affect the life cycles, reproductive success, and migratory routes of marine turtles [22].
In Mexico, as in the rest of the world, understanding the anthropogenic and natural threats affecting sea turtle species is essential to improve conservation and risk mitigation programs [23]. However, despite growing awareness of the need to protect sea turtles, a comprehensive review of current scientific knowledge about the threats, their intensity, and their incidence in Mexico remains lacking.
The present study provides the results of a systematic review of the threats sea turtles face in Mexico that limit their population recovery. The study compiled and analyzed scientific information published from 1960 to 2024, with the objectives of: (1) identifying the main threats driving the decline of sea turtle populations in Mexico, (2) detecting trends in scientific production and identifying knowledge gaps, and (3) offering a comprehensive vision of the challenges and priority actions needed to improve sea turtle conservation strategies by region in Mexico.

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. Data Selection Criteria

Our research focused exclusively on peer-reviewed publications, excluding gray literature to ensure scientific rigor. To identify studies on threats affecting sea turtles, we conducted a comprehensive search in the Scopus™ database. The search strategy involved a query string that combined scientific species names, genera, and specific keywords related to threats, which were applied to the title, abstract, and keyword fields. The exact search string is detailed in the Supplementary S1 to ensure reproducibility.
The search period spanned from 1960 to 2024. This interval is crucial because it includes the 1960s, a pivotal period that marked the onset of the global overexploitation of sea turtles, characterized by a scarcity of regulations and limited conservation awareness [24,25,26] and the implementation of the ban of sea turtle consumption and usage in 1990 [13].
We included only scientific articles, books, and book chapters, written in English or Spanish, that made explicit reference to studies conducted in Mexico. The results were exported as a CSV file on 15 December 2024, and all duplicate records were removed.

2.2. Data Collection and Analysis

The content of each selected publication was meticulously examined, and the information was classified according to the studies’ key characteristics: target species, publication year, study area, and threat type. To categorize the threats, we based our approach on the definitions established by the IUCN Marine Turtle Specialist Group [27] and those reported by Fuentes et al. [28]. These categories include: climate change, coastal development, marine development, fishing, pollution, predation, direct take, and diseases (Table 1).
To standardize the information, we used a data extraction sheet that included bibliographic metadata (title, authors, year), species studied, geographic area, and identified threats. We excluded research that did not clearly specify the study area or those limited to general concepts without primary data on threats. It is important to note that if an article addressed multiple locations, species, or threats, each factor was considered independently. Therefore, the total number of “studies” analyzed is greater than the number of published “articles,” since a single article could generate multiple data entries.

2.2.1. Geographic Analysis and Gap Mapping

To explore geographic areas with and without studies related to threats to sea turtles in Mexico, a presence table was constructed to identify locations where threats are known and where research has been most thoroughly conducted. Additionally, using the “Charts: Pie” tool in ArcGIS software (v10.5, ESRI, Redlands, CA, USA), along with our literature review, a map was created to identify gaps in knowledge across the Mexican Pacific coast, the Gulf of Mexico, and the Caribbean Sea. The results were visualized through maps, tables, and histograms, allowing the identification of species with the greatest number of studies, the threats to which they are exposed, and the localities that have been most frequently studied.

2.2.2. The Mann–Kendall Test

The temporal trend in the annual number of published studies was assessed using the non-parametric Mann–Kendall test, widely used in time-series analysis [29]. The magnitude of the trend was quantified using Kendall’s Tau coefficient (τ). The analysis was conducted in R statistical software (v4.3.2; R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna, Austria), employing the ggscatter function from the ggpubr package (v0.6.0), which generated the scatter plot and simultaneously integrated the statistical results, displaying the correlation coefficient (R) and the significance value (p) in the figure.

2.3. Comparative Threat Assessment

To perform a comprehensive assessment of the main threats to sea turtles in Mexico, we conducted a comparative evaluation using three key sources of information: (1) threats identified through our systematic literature review, (2) threats reported by Fuentes et al. [28], and (3) threats documented in the Species Conservation Action Plan (PACE) for each of the six species present in Mexico [6,30,31,32,33,34,35].
Although the PACE contains a section dedicated to the main threats, we carried out a detailed review of the entire document—including objectives, general goals, and conservation subprograms—to identify threats that might not be explicitly listed in that section.
The comparison was conducted using a consensus matrix where threats from each source were listed and contrasted. This methodological approach enabled us to evaluate the consistency and comprehensiveness of the information, detect discrepancies among sources, and highlight threats not fully integrated into official conservation frameworks such as the PACE.

3. Results

The initial search string resulted in 228 articles, which decreased to 226 records once duplicates were removed. After reviewing the title, abstract and keywords, 92 articles were selected. Full-text evaluation eliminated four additional documents that did not meet inclusion criteria, resulting in a final list of 88 articles for the present analysis (see Supplementary S2).

3.1. Temporal and Spatial Research Trends

The analysis shows that 88 studies were published between 1997 and 2024. The highest number of studies (15.91%) were published in 2024, followed by 7.95% in 2023 (Figure 1a). In contrast, the lowest percentage of published studies (1.14% each) were reported in four years: 1997, 2008, 2009, and 2013 (Figure 1a). A Mann–Kendall trend test detected a significant positive trend in the number of published studies over time (R = 0.71, p < 0.001), confirming a consistent increase throughout the study period (Figure 1b).
In terms of regional distribution, the majority of studies (64.77%) were conducted in the Mexican Pacific, while 32.95% focused on the Caribbean and Gulf of Mexico (Figure 2). Additionally, two studies (2.27%) encompassed locations in both the Pacific and the Gulf. The first of these studies was conducted in 2015 and reported congenital malformations in embryos and live or deceased hatchlings of E. imbricata, C. mydas, and L. olivacea in Yucatán and Sinaloa. The second study examined the responses of E. imbricata and L. olivacea to climate change at nesting sites in Yucatán, Sinaloa, and Oaxaca.
The most studied states were Baja California Sur and Oaxaca, with 27 and 16 studies, respectively, reflecting the importance of the research on these two regions to address the threats faced by sea turtles at nesting and feeding grounds (Figure 2).

3.2. Threats to Sea Turtles: Frequency and Species Impacted

The research identified 22 stressors linked to eight key threats faced by sea turtles. The most frequently studied threats were pollution, fisheries, and diseases (Table 2). Pollution emerged as the most significant concern, with 40 studies, followed by fisheries (24 studies) and diseases (22 studies) (Figure 3, Table 2). Although the search criteria covered the period from 1960 to 2024, the first scientific study was published in 1997 and reported the presence of oils, fats, and metals (Pollution: Agricultural and industrial runoff) in D. coriacea eggshells (Figure 1). This was followed by a period of inactivity until 2003, when studies were conducted on C. caretta, C. mydas, and L. olivacea (Figure 1).
Of the six species recorded for Mexico, C. mydas was the most studied species individually, representing 25.00% of the studies, followed by L. olivacea with 22.73% (Table 3). On the other hand, D. coriacea was the least investigated species, reaching only 3.41% of the studies carried out (Table 3). However, it is important to note that 22 studies were conducted that covered research on more than one species (Table 3).
We identified specific threats associated with each region. The Caribbean and Gulf of Mexico reported the highest number of stressors for sea turtles, totaling 19, while the Mexican Pacific documented 15 (Figure 3). Notably, seven threats were identified exclusively in the Caribbean and Gulf of Mexico: (1) changes in precipitation, (2) beach driving/traffic, (3) light pollution, (4) tourism on nesting grounds, (5) removal of vegetation, (6) oil and gas mining, and (7) marine traffic/vessel strikes (Figure 3). In contrast, three threats were unique to the Mexican Pacific: (1) tourism in water, (2) entanglement/ghost nets, and (3) plastics/marine debris (Figure 3).
The least studied threats were: (1) Changes in precipitation, (2) Beach driving/beach traffic, (3) Light Pollution, (4) Removal of vegetation (5) Tourism (in water) and (6) Marine traffic/vessel strike (Figure 3; Table 2). Although no studies were found on fungal diseases, ocean circulation, legal harvest, invasive species, beach nourishment, beach armoring, mechanical beach cleaning, dredging, wind energy/aquaculture, and ports, other threats were regionally documented (Table 2).

3.3. Species-Specific Threats and Gaps in Public Policy and Research

The analysis of the Species Conservation Action Plans (PACE) for the six sea turtle species present in Mexico reveals a tendency to group threats into broad categories, without adequately accounting for regional variations or species-specific impacts. This generalization limits the effectiveness of conservation strategies by preventing accurate assessment of risk factors in specific ecological contexts. In contrast, our evaluation—based on the classification proposed by Fuentes et al. [28]—identifies additional stressors that are either underestimated or absent in national policy instruments.
These differences are reflected in the discrepancies observed between the total number of threats documented in the PACE and those identified in our review (Table 4). In several cases, the threats recognized in official documents lack scientific support in Mexico, generating knowledge gaps that vary by species. Notably, threats such as coastal infrastructure, beach nourishment, dredging, and port development are included in conservation policies but have not been systematically evaluated in the national scientific literature, making it difficult to assess their actual impact. The extent of these gaps also varies by species. For example:
  • D. coriacea and L. kempii have multiple threats listed in PACE without scientific support, highlighting the need for specific studies.
  • C. mydas and E. imbricata have threats that are better documented in recent literature, suggesting more advanced research and conservation efforts.
Additionally, among the six PACE documents analyzed, only that of E. imbricata provides a hierarchical classification of threats, representing a significant step toward structured prioritization.
To further explore these discrepancies and knowledge gaps, the following section presents a species-specific comparative analysis. This analysis outlines the threats identified in both the PACE and this review, and highlights the areas that require greater scientific attention to strengthen conservation and management decisions.

3.3.1. Caretta caretta

The review of PACE identified conservation strategies, plans, and actions focused on 21 stressors (Table 4; Figure 4). However, it was found that 10 of them lack supporting studies in scientific literature. Our review documented 15 stressors, four of which are not incorporated into PACE (Table 4).
At a regional level, research on C. caretta has concentrated on Baja California Sur, with 21 studies, and in the states of Campeche and Quintana Roo, with seven studies each (Figure 4). Threats related to coastal and marine development have been primarily recorded in the Gulf of Mexico and the Caribbean Sea, while studies on fisheries, pollution, and direct harvesting are prevalent in the Baja California Peninsula. For C. caretta, bycatch (n = 9) and pollution from agricultural and industrial runoff (n = 7) were the most frequently studied topics.

3.3.2. Chelonia mydas

The PACE reported 22 stressors associated with eight threats, while our review identified 18 (Table 4; Figure 4). Eight of the stressors reported in PACE lack scientific studies, while four have been studied but are not considered major threats to the species (Table 4).
Research on C. mydas has concentrated in Baja California Sur (n = 20) and Quintana Roo (n = 25). Studies have primarily focused on infectious diseases (n = 15) and bycatch (n = 15).

3.3.3. Eretmochelys imbricata

The PACE for E. imbricata is the only one that lists and describes threats to its populations and habitats in hierarchical order. This document reported 27 stressors associated with eight threats and provided detailed descriptions of their impacts, while our review identified 14 (Table 4). However, 13 of the stressors listed in PACE lack scientific studies (Table 4).
Most research efforts concentrated in Campeche (n = 21) and Yucatán (n = 15) (Figure 4), with studies primarily addressing bycatch (n = 6) and oil and gas mining (n = 12).

3.3.4. Dermochelys coriacea

The PACE for D. coriacea focuses exclusively on the Mexican Pacific population and identifies 17 stressors associated with seven threats (Table 4). However, it does not include marine development as a threat, despite its potentially significant impact on the species. The reviewed literature mentions D. coriacea in only three studies, which address bycatch and pollution from agricultural and industrial runoff (Figure 4).

3.3.5. Lepidochelys kempii

The PACE reported 30 stressors associated with eight threats, while our review identified eight (Table 4). It was found that 22 of the stressors listed in PACE lack scientific studies (Figure 4). A distinctive aspect of the PACE for this species is the inclusion of disease fungus as a stressor, unlike the other five species, where diseases are only referenced in terms of fibropapillomatosis and parasitism.
Studies on L. kempii were most numerous in Campeche (n = 7) and Veracruz (n = 4). The main research topics have been oil and gas exploration (n = 6) and infectious diseases (n = 3).

3.3.6. Lepidochelys olivacea

The PACE reported 23 stressors associated with eight threats, whereas our review identified 13 stressors (Table 4, Figure 4). Of those reported by PACE, 12 lack supporting scientific studies, while two (plastics/marine debris and non-infectious diseases) have been investigated in Mexico but are not considered relevant threats for L. olivacea in that instrument. The PACE mentions the presence of fungi; however, these were not included under the stressor Disease fungus, as PACE categorizes them as natural nest predators. Within the disease category, only fibropapillomatosis (infectious disease) is acknowledged, with a low incidence reported for L. olivacea.
Studies on L. olivacea are mainly located in Sinaloa (n = 11) and Oaxaca (n = 18).

4. Discussion

This systematic review reveals significant temporal trends and geographic biases in research concerning threats to sea turtles in Mexico, highlighting critical gaps between current scientific knowledge and national conservation policy that hold implications for marine megafauna management regionally and potentially globally. Research has markedly increased since 1997, peaking recently, yet remains concentrated on specific threats like pollution, fisheries, and diseases, primarily within the Pacific region. This pattern likely reflects evolving conservation awareness and the establishment of dedicated conservation bodies, as well as the potential influence of funding availability and regulatory changes over time. While the overall increase in research is positive, the persistent geographic and taxonomic biases need particular attention.

4.1. Geographic Disparities and Knowledge Gaps

Research on threats to sea turtles in Mexico has grown substantially since 1997, with limited studies conducted between 1960 and 1977. This scarcity persisted despite the establishment of the Species Conservation Action Plans (PACE) in 1966 [6], which aimed to promote environmental awareness and species protection, with early initiatives primarily documented in technical reports and regional workshops of limited circulation [36].
The research addressing threats to sea turtles in Mexico exhibits marked spatial and taxonomic heterogeneity. The concentration of studies in the Pacific Ocean (64.77%), particularly in Baja California Sur and Oaxaca, contrasts sharply with the limited research undertaken in the Gulf of Mexico and the Caribbean Sea. While factors such as higher nesting beach density, greater site accessibility, the presence of long-term conservation programs, and the consolidation of dedicated organizations—such as the Centro Mexicano de la Tortuga (CMT) in Oaxaca and Grupo Tortuguero de las Californias (GTC) in Baja California—understandably contribute to this Pacific-focused research [6,37,38], this imbalance has left critical habitats and region-specific threats in the Gulf and Caribbean significantly understudied [9]. This geographic bias underscores an urgent need to foster and expand research initiatives in these underrepresented regions to achieve a comprehensive national understanding and addressing of the threats sea turtle populations face.
Mirroring this geographic imbalance, a taxonomic bias is also evident in research. The heightened scientific attention given to C. mydas and L. olivacea likely reflects their greater relative abundance in Mexican waters [31,33], which can facilitate study logistics. However, the consequent paucity of research on highly vulnerable species, notably D. coriacea and L. kempii [13,14], is a significant concern. This critical information deficit severely limits our capacity to accurately assess the specific threats these endangered species face and to design targeted, effective conservation strategies. Therefore, prioritizing research on these less-studied species is crucial, especially considering their precarious national and international conservation statuses.
Furthermore, while our review identified 22 specific stressors impacting sea turtles in Mexico, substantial knowledge gaps persist regarding at least nine additional factors recognized as significant threats in other global regions [27,28]. These include the effects of changing ocean circulation patterns; various coastal modification practices (e.g., beach renourishment, armoring, and mechanical cleaning); impacts from marine development (including dredging, port construction, and offshore wind energy infrastructure); the introduction of invasive species; and the emergence of fungal diseases affecting eggs and hatchlings. Many of these represent emerging or intensifying threats, with impacts likely to be exacerbated by ongoing climate change [22,39].
Climate change intensifies coastal erosion through sea-level rise, increased storm frequency and intensity, and shifts in wave and current dynamics [40,41]. Erosion—along with beach armoring, artificial beach renourishment, and rising temperatures—modifies nesting habitats, affecting sand texture and temperature, which in turn influences incubation conditions, hatchling sex ratios, and female access to suitable nesting sites [42,43,44,45,46,47]. As a result, females may lay eggs in suboptimal locations or abandon nesting altogether [44,45,46,47]. Additionally, the increasing frequency and intensity of tropical storms and hurricanes contribute to nest destruction and egg loss, compounding the negative cumulative impacts of human activities such as coastal dredging and mechanical beach cleaning [22,47,48,49].
Global warming also favors the proliferation of invasive species and pathogens, including fungi that compromise egg viability and reduce juvenile and adult survival rates [22,50]. Rising ocean temperatures may also facilitate the spread of emerging diseases, further threatening already vulnerable populations [48]. The interaction of these factors may reduce sea turtle resilience and jeopardize their long-term survival [39,51]. The current lack of research on these issues—especially their cumulative and synergistic effects—strongly suggests that the true risk landscape for sea turtles in Mexico is certainly underestimated.
This regional variation in research intensity also translates into different focuses on the types of threats investigated. In the Mexican Pacific, studies have predominantly addressed bycatch in fisheries, impacts of maritime traffic, and direct vessel strikes. Conversely, research in the Gulf of Mexico has centered on the impacts of oil and gas exploration and extraction. However, it is important to highlight that the rapid growth of the tourism industry [52], particularly in the Mexican Caribbean, brings a suite of associated pressures on critical nesting habitats—such as coastal development, light pollution, and direct human disturbance—which demand more targeted research to assess their long-term consequences for sea turtle populations in this region [42,43,44,45,46,47].

4.2. Policy Implications and Research Alignment

A significant finding of this review is the notable discrepancy between threats to sea turtles documented in the scientific literature and those prioritized within Mexico’s official PACE [6,30,31,32,33,34,35]. While these PACE documents aim to guide conservation efforts using current technical and scientific information, they often categorize threats broadly or lack scientific evidence [6,34,35]. Consequently, some stressors specifically identified in the PACE, such as the impacts of certain coastal infrastructure, may lack corresponding detailed investigation within the Mexican context, or conversely, scientifically documented stressors may not be prominently featured in all PACE frameworks.
This gap between research and policy is particularly evident concerning emerging threats, for example, the emerging threat is marine noise pollution, resulting from increased human activities since World War II [53,54,55]. For instance, despite its recognition in the PACE, our review found no studies on its effects on sea turtles in Mexican waters [34,35]. Given the escalating human activity in marine environments, it is imperative to investigate how this form of pollution affects sea turtles across different life stages—from embryonic development and nesting on land to their behavior and physiology in marine habitats—to develop effective mitigation strategies [56,57]. The study of the effect of marine noise represents an opportunity area because research protocols and equipment are still under development.
The extent of this misalignment between research and policy varies considerably by species. For example, the PACE for D. coriacea and L. kempii list numerous threats that currently lack robust research in Mexico [32,34]. In contrast, the threats documented for C. mydas and E. imbricata show a somewhat better, though still incomplete, alignment with scientific findings [33,35]. It is also noteworthy to mention that only the PACE for E. imbricata currently provides a hierarchical classification of threats, a practice that, if adopted more broadly, could significantly improve the prioritization of conservation actions across all species plans [35].
Furthermore, while the comprehensive ban on the capture and consumption of sea turtles and their eggs means that legal harvest is not considered an emerging direct threat, as none of the PACE in Mexico register it [30,31,32,33,34,35], primarily because the NOM-059-SEMARNAT-2010 classifies all sea turtle species as endangered and the use of any of their body parts, including eggs, is prohibited [13], the PACE for L. olivacea highlights concerns over poor practices in handling eggs during nest relocation and the premature release of hatchlings before entering the sea as a threat [31], a factor not documented by Fuentes et al. [28]. This specific mention within a conservation program underscores the critical importance of ensuring that best management practices are rigorously applied in all conservation activities to avoid unintentionally compromising population viability; indeed, each PACE emphasizes this point [30,31,32,33,34,35].
Collectively, these identified gaps between scientific knowledge and policy frameworks emphasize the urgent need to bridge this divide. Effective conservation requires that management strategies be dynamically informed by the most current and comprehensive understanding of species-specific and regional risks [58,59,60]. While the development of threat maps has been proposed in several PACE documents [30,31,33,34], their full implementation is hindered by the existing geographic and taxonomic research biases identified in this review. Future updates to the PACEs should systematically incorporate the latest scientific findings; conversely, new research initiatives should strategically target underexplored threats already acknowledged within existing policy frameworks to create a more holistic approach to sea turtle conservation in Mexico.

4.3. Limitations and Future Directions

While providing a comprehensive overview of published research, this systematic review has inherent limitations. It relies solely on peer-reviewed literature indexed in Scopus™, potentially excluding valuable information from gray literature, technical reports, or very recent findings. Furthermore, search term selection could introduce bias. Despite these limitations, this study clearly identifies critical areas for future work. Addressing geographic and taxonomic biases in research is essential. Studies must expand into underrepresented regions like the Gulf of Mexico and focus on less-studied, highly threatened species. Research explicitly investigating emerging threats, particularly climate change impacts across life stages, coastal and marine development effects (including noise pollution), and the potential for cumulative stressors, is urgently needed [39,51]. Long-term monitoring programs integrating data from both nesting beaches and marine foraging/aggregation areas are essential for assessing population trends and the effectiveness of conservation actions [23,58,59,60]. Critically, mechanisms must be strengthened to ensure research findings are effectively translated into adaptive, evidence-based conservation policies and management strategies.

5. Conclusions

This systematic review provides the first comprehensive synthesis of published research on threats to sea turtles across Mexico from 1960 to 2024, revealing a significant increase in scientific output but also critical imbalances and knowledge gaps that challenge effective conservation. While research has grown, particularly since 1997, it remains heavily biased towards the Pacific region and focuses predominantly on C. mydas and Lepidochelys olivacea, leaving critically endangered species like D. coriacea and L. kempii, as well as the Gulf of Mexico and Caribbean regions, dangerously understudied. Furthermore, emerging threats associated with climate change, coastal and marine development, and anthropogenic noise remain largely unquantified in Mexican waters, despite their potential for significant negative impact.
Crucially, significant discrepancies exist between the threats identified in scientific literature and those prioritized in national conservation policies (PACE), hindering the development of fully evidence-based management strategies. To enhance sea turtle conservation in Mexico and contribute to broader marine biodiversity goals (e.g., Sustainable Development Goals 14), future research efforts must strategically address these gaps. Future research should prioritize emerging and cumulative threats across marine and terrestrial habitats and employ methodologies that allow for robust assessment of population status and threat impacts. Conservation management and policy must improve the integration of current scientific findings, particularly regarding regional threat variations and emerging issues, into adaptive strategies like the PACE documents. Strengthening long-term, spatially comprehensive monitoring is essential to track trends and measure the success of interventions. Addressing these research and policy challenges is fundamental to ensuring the long-term viability of Mexico’s globally significant sea turtle populations.

Supplementary Materials

The following supporting information can be downloaded at: https://www.mdpi.com/article/10.3390/oceans6040071/s1, Supplementary S1. SCOPUS™ search strategy. S2. List of identified studies on threats affecting sea turtles [3,19,61,62,63,64,65,66,67,68,69,70,71,72,73,74,75,76,77,78,79,80,81,82,83,84,85,86,87,88,89,90,91,92,93,94,95,96,97,98,99,100,101,102,103,104,105,106,107,108,109,110,111,112,113,114,115,116,117,118,119,120,121,122,123,124,125,126,127,128,129,130,131,132,133,134,135,136,137,138,139,140,141,142,143,144,145,146].

Author Contributions

Conceptualization and methodology, R.I.R.-V. and F.G.-G.; formal analysis, R.I.R.-V.; investigation, R.I.R.-V., F.G.-G. and G.H.-A.; resources, G.H.-A.; data curation, R.I.R.-V.; writing—original draft preparation, R.I.R.-V.; writing—review and editing, R.I.R.-V., F.G.-G. and G.H.-A.; visualization, R.I.R.-V. and G.H.-A.; supervision, F.G.-G. and G.H.-A. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research received no external funding.

Institutional Review Board Statement

Not applicable.

Data Availability Statement

No new data were created or analyzed in this study. Data sharing is not applicable to this article.

Acknowledgments

R.I. Ramírez-Villanueva gratefully acknowledges the Secretaría de Ciencia, Humanidades, Tecnología e Innovación (SECIHTI) for the scholarship awarded to support her doctoral studies. We also thank the Instituto Politécnico Nacional (IPN) and the Secretaría de Investigación y Posgrado for the BEIFI scholarship granted through project number 20240392.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflicts of interest.

References

  1. Heithaus, M.R. Predators, Prey, and the Ecological Roles of Sea Turtles. In The Biology of Sea Turtles; Wyneken, J., Lohmann, K.J., Musick, J.A., Eds.; CRC Press: Boca Raton, FL, USA, 2013; Volume 3, pp. 249–285. [Google Scholar]
  2. Bouchard, S.S.; Bjorndal, K.A. Sea turtles as biological transporters of nutrients and energy from marine to terrestrial ecosystems. Ecology 2000, 81, 2305–2313. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  3. Liceaga-Correa, M.D.L.A.; Uribe-Martínez, A.; Cuevas, E. Ecological vulnerability of adult female marine turtles as indicators of opportunities for regional socioecosystem management in the southern Gulf of Mexico. Sustainability 2022, 14, 184. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  4. Hazen, E.L.; Abrahms, B.; Brodie, S.; Carroll, G.; Jacox, M.G.; Savoca, M.S.; Scales, K.L.; Sydeman, W.J.; Bograd, S.J. Marine top predators as climate and ecosystem sentinels. Front. Ecol. Environ. 2019, 17, 565–574. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  5. Hannan, L.B.; Roth, J.D.; Ehrhart, L.; Weishampel, J.F. Dune vegetation fertilization by nesting sea turtles. Ecology 2007, 88, 1053–1058. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. CONANP (Comisión Nacional de Áreas Naturales Protegidas). Programa Nacional de Conservación de Tortugas Marinas; Secretaría de Medio Ambiente y Recursos Naturales (SEMARNAT), Comisión Nacional de Áreas Naturales Protegidas (CONANP): Ciudad de México, México, 2022; 80p. [Google Scholar]
  7. Lamont, M.M.; Putman, N.F.; Fujisaki, I.; Hart, K.M. Spatial requirements of different life-stages of the loggerhead turtle (Caretta caretta) from a distinct population segment in the northern Gulf of Mexico. Herpetol. Conserv. Biol. 2015, 10, 26–43. [Google Scholar]
  8. Rguez-Baron, J.M.; Kelez, S.; Liles, M.; Zavala-Norzagaray, A.; Torres-Suárez, O.L.; Amorocho, D.F.; Gaos, A.R. Sea Turtles in the East Pacific Ocean Region; MTSG Annual Regional Report; IUCN-SSC Marine Turtle Specialist Group: Gland, Switzerland, 2019. [Google Scholar]
  9. Gallegos-Fernández, S.A.; Trujillo-Córdova, J.A.; Guzmán-Hernández, V.; Abreu-Grobois, F.A.; Huerta-Rodríguez, P.; Gómez-Ruiz, P.A.; Uribe-Martínez, A.; Cuevas, E. Marine turtles, umbrella species undergoing recovery. Front. Amphib. Reptile Sci. 2023, 1, 1303373. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Mazaris, A.D.; Schofield, G.; Gkazinou, C.; Almpanidou, V.; Hays, G.C. Global sea turtle conservation successes. Sci. Adv. 2017, 3, e1600730. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  11. Cohello, D.; Herrera, M. Línea base de conocimiento sobre el estado actual de las tortugas marinas en el Ecuador. Bol. Esp. Inst. Nac. Pesca 2011, 2, 85. [Google Scholar]
  12. Levy, Y.; Frid, O.; Weinberger, A.; Sade, R.; Adam, Y.; Kandanyan, U.; Berkun, V.; Perry, N.; Edelist, D.; Goren, M.; et al. A small fishery with a high impact on sea turtle populations in the eastern Mediterranean. Zool. Middle East 2015, 61, 300–317. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. DOF (Diario Oficial de la Federación). Norma Oficial Mexicana NOM-059-SEMARNAT-2010, Protección Ambiental-Especies Nativas de México de Flora y Fauna Silvestres-Categorías de Riesgo y Especificaciones para Su Inclusión, Exclusión o Cambio-Lista de Especies en Riesgo; Secretaría del Medio Ambiente y Recursos Naturales: Ciudad de México, México, 2010. [Google Scholar]
  14. IUCN (International Union for Conservation of Nature). The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species. Available online: https://www.iucnredlist.org (accessed on 12 February 2025).
  15. Calderon-Aguilera, L.E.; Rivera-Monroy, V.H.; Porter-Bolland, L.; Martínez-Yrízar, A.; Ladah, L.B.; Martínez-Ramos, M.; Búrquez, A. An assessment of natural and human disturbance effects on Mexican ecosystems: Current trends and research gaps. Biodivers. Conserv. 2012, 21, 589–617. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. Strongin, K.; Polidoro, B.; Linardich, C.; Ralph, G.; Saul, S.; Carpenter, K. Translating globally threatened marine species information into regional guidance for the Gulf of Mexico. Glob. Ecol. Conserv. 2020, 23, e01010. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Shaver, D.J.; Gredzens, C.; Walker, J.S.; Godard-Codding, C.A.; Yacabucci, J.E.; Frey, A.; Dutton, P.H.; Schmitt, C.J. Embryo deformities and nesting trends in Kemp’s ridley sea turtles Lepidochelys kempii before and after the Deepwater Horizon oil spill. Endanger. Species Res. 2021, 44, 277–289. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Seminoff, J.A. Sea turtles, red listing, and the need for regional assessments. Mar. Turtle Newsl. 2004, 106, 4–6. [Google Scholar]
  19. Aguilar-González, M.E.; Luna-González, A.; Aguirre, A.; Zavala-Norzagaray, A.A.; Mundo-Ocampo, M.; González-Ocampo, H.A. Perceptions of fishers to sea turtle bycatch, illegal capture and consumption in the San Ignacio-Navachiste-Macapule lagoon complex, Gulf of California, Mexico. Integr. Zool. 2014, 9, 70–84. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  20. Merrick, R.; Silber, G.K.; Demaster, D.P.; Reynolds, J.E., III. Endangered species and populations. In Encyclopedia of Marine Mammals, 2nd ed.; Perrin, W.F., Würsig, B., Thewissen, J.G.M., Eds.; Academic Press: Cambridge, MA, USA, 2009; pp. 368–375. [Google Scholar]
  21. Morzaria-Luna, H.N.; Turk-Boyer, P.; Moreno-Baez, M. Social indicators of vulnerability for fishing communities in the Northern Gulf of California, Mexico: Implications for climate change. Mar. Policy 2014, 45, 182–193. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Poloczanska, E.S.; Limpus, C.J.; Hays, G.C. Vulnerability of marine turtles to climate change. In Advances in Marine Biology; Sims, D.W., Ed.; Academic Press: Cambridge, MA, USA, 2009; Volume 56, pp. 151–211. [Google Scholar]
  23. Hazel, J.; Gyuris, E. Vessel-related mortality of sea turtles in Queensland, Australia. Wildl. Res. 2006, 33, 149–154. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. Márquez, R. FAO Species Catalogue, Volume 11: Sea Turtles of the World; Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations: Rome, Italy, 1990. [Google Scholar]
  25. Frazier, J. Prehistoric and ancient historic interactions between humans and marine turtles. In The Biology of Sea Turtles, Volume II; Lutz, P.L., Musick, J.A., Wyneken, J., Eds.; CRC Press: Boca Raton, FL, USA, 2003; pp. 1–38. [Google Scholar]
  26. Seminoff, J.A.; Resendiz, A.; Resendiz, B.; Nichols, W.J. Occurrence of loggerhead sea turtles (Caretta caretta) in the Gulf of California, Mexico: Evidence of life-history variation in the Pacific Ocean. Herpetol. Rev. 2004, 35, 24–27. [Google Scholar]
  27. Mast, R.B.; Hutchinson, B.J.; Howgate, E.; Pilcher, N.J. MTSG update: IUCN/SSC marine turtle specialist group hosts the second burning issues assessment workshop. Mar. Turtle Newsl. 2005, 110, 13–15. [Google Scholar]
  28. Fuentes, M.; McMichael, E.; Kot, C.Y.; Silver-Gorges, I.; Wallace, B.P.; Godley, B.J.; Brooks, A.M.L.; Ceriani, S.A.; Cortés-Gómez, A.A.; Dawson, T.M.; et al. Key issues in assessing threats to sea turtles: Knowledge gaps and future directions. Endanger. Species Res. 2023, 52, 303–341. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Pohlert, T. Non-parametric trend tests and change-point detection. CC BY-ND 2016, 4, 1–18. [Google Scholar]
  30. SEMARNAT (Secretaría de Medio Ambiente y Recursos Naturales). Programa de Acción para la Conservación de la Especie Tortuga Caguama (Caretta caretta); Secretaría de Medio Ambiente y Recursos Naturales (SEMARNAT), Comisión Nacional de Áreas Naturales Protegidas (CONANP), Programa de las Naciones Unidad para el Desarrollo (PNUD): Ciudad de México, México, 2018. [Google Scholar]
  31. SEMARNAT (Secretaría de Medio Ambiente y Recursos Naturales). Programa de Acción para la Conservación de la Especie Tortuga Golfina (Lepidochelys olivacea); Secretaría de Medio Ambiente y Recursos Naturales (SEMARNAT), Comisión Nacional de Áreas Naturales Protegidas (CONANP): Ciudad de México, México, 2018. [Google Scholar]
  32. SEMARNAT (Secretaría de Medio Ambiente y Recursos Naturales). Programa de Acción para la Conservación de la Especie Tortuga Laúd (Dermochelys coriacea); Secretaría de Medio Ambiente y Recursos Naturales (SEMARNAT), Comisión Nacional de Áreas Naturales Protegidas (CONANP): Ciudad de México, México, 2018. [Google Scholar]
  33. SEMARNAT (Secretaría de Medio Ambiente y Recursos Naturales). Programa de Acción para la Conservación de la Especie Tortuga Verde/Negra (Chelonia mydas); Secretaría de Medio Ambiente y Recursos Naturales (SEMARNAT), Comisión Nacional de Áreas Naturales Protegidas (CONANP): Ciudad de México, México, 2018. [Google Scholar]
  34. SEMARNAT (Secretaría de Medio Ambiente y Recursos Naturales). Programa de Acción para la Conservación de la Especie Tortuga Lora (Lepidochelys kempii); Secretaría de Medio Ambiente y Recursos Naturales (SEMARNAT), Comisión Nacional de Áreas Naturales Protegidas (CONANP): Ciudad de México, México, 2018. [Google Scholar]
  35. SEMARNAT (Secretaría de Medio Ambiente y Recursos Naturales). Programa de Acción para la Conservación de la Especie Tortuga Carey (Eretmochelys imbricata); Secretaría de Medio Ambiente y Recursos Naturales (SEMARNAT), Comisión Nacional de Áreas Naturales Protegidas (CONANP): Ciudad de México, México, 2020. [Google Scholar]
  36. Garduño-Andrade, M.; Guzman, V.; Miranda, E.; Briseño-Dueñas, R.; Abreu-Grobois, F.A. Increases in hawksbill turtle (Eretmochelys imbricata) nestings in the Yucatan Peninsula, Mexico, 1977–1996: Data in support of successful conservation? Chelonian Conserv. Biol. 1999, 3, 286–295. [Google Scholar]
  37. Tiburcio-Pintos, G.; Cariño-Olvera, M.M. Collective efforts for the conservation of sea turtles in the Gulf of California. Let. Verdes Rev. Latinoam. Estud. Socioambientales 2017, 22, 7–26. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. Cordon, C.; Carmena, B.; Giménez, M.C.; García, J.L.; Calderon-Guerrero, C. Evolution of ecotourism in coastal indigenous communities: Comparison of the case studies of La Ventanilla and La Escobilla in Oaxaca, Mexico. Sustainability 2023, 15, 2207. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. Craig, R.K. Marine biodiversity, climate change, and governance of the oceans. Diversity 2012, 4, 224–238. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. Vallarino-Castillo, R.; Negro-Valdecantos, V.; del Campo, J.M. Understanding the impact of hydrodynamics on coastal erosion in Latin America: A systematic review. Front. Environ. Sci. 2023, 11, 1267402. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. Chen, L.; Wang, Q. Evaluating the mechanisms of coastal circulation and their responses to climate change. Int. J. Mar. Sci. 2024, 14, 182–192. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  42. Grain, D.A.; Bolten, A.B.; Bjorndal, K.A. Effects of beach nourishment on sea turtles: Review and research initiatives. Restor. Ecol. 1995, 3, 95–104. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  43. Dellert, L.J.; O’Neil, D.; Cassill, D.L. Effects of beach renourishment and clutch relocation on the success of the loggerhead sea turtle (Caretta caretta) eggs and hatchlings. J. Herpetol. 2014, 48, 186–187. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  44. Hill, M.K.; Monroe, M.C.; Ankersen, T.T.; Carthy, R.R.; Kay, T.A. Coastal armoring and sea turtles: Beachfront homeowners’ opinions and intent. Coast. Manag. 2019, 47, 594–610. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  45. Nelson-Sella, K.A.; Fuentes, M. Exposure of marine turtle nesting grounds to coastal modifications: Implications for management. Ocean Coast. Manag. 2019, 169, 182–190. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  46. Hirsch, S.E.; Toonder, M.; Reilly, J.D.; Hoover, S.R.; Perrault, J.R. Responses of three nesting sea turtle species to hard-armoring structures. Front. Mar. Sci. 2022, 9, 980715. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  47. Reine, K.J. A Literature Review of Beach Nourishment Impacts on Marine Turtles; US Army Corps of Engineers: Washington, DC, USA, 2022. [Google Scholar]
  48. Fuentes, M.; Limpus, C.J.; Hamann, M. Vulnerability of sea turtle nesting grounds to climate change. Glob. Change Biol. 2011, 17, 140–153. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  49. Whittock, P.A.; Pendoley, K.L.; Larsen, R.; Hamann, M. Effects of a dredging operation on the movement and dive behaviour of marine turtles during breeding. Biol. Conserv. 2017, 206, 190–200. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  50. Gleason, F.H.; Allerstorfer, M.; Lilje, O. Newly emerging diseases of marine turtles, especially sea turtle egg fusariosis (SEFT), caused by species in the Fusarium solani complex (FSSC). Mycology 2020, 11, 184–194. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  51. Komyakova, V.; Jaffrés, J.B.; Strain, E.M.; Cullen-Knox, C.; Fudge, M.; Langhamer, O.; Bender, A.; Yaakub, S.M.; Wilson, E.; Allan, B.J.M.; et al. Conceptualisation of multiple impacts interacting in the marine environment using marine infrastructure as an example. Sci. Total Environ. 2022, 830, 154748. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  52. Pat-Fernández, L.A.; Calderón-Gómez, G. Caracterización del perfil turístico en un destino emergente, caso de estudio de ciudad del Carmen, Campeche. México. Gestión Turística 2012, 18, 47–70. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  53. Frisk, G.V. Noiseonomics: The relationship between ambient noise levels in the sea and global economic trends. Sci. Rep. 2012, 2, 437. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  54. Peng, C.; Zhao, X.; Liu, G. Noise in the sea and its impacts on marine organisms. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2015, 12, 12304–12323. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  55. Duarte, C.M.; Chapuis, L.; Collin, S.P.; Costa, D.P.; Devassy, R.P.; Eguiluz, V.M.; Erbe, C.; Gordon, T.A.C.; Halpern, B.S.; Harding, H.R.; et al. The soundscape of the Anthropocene ocean. Science 2021, 371, eaba4658. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  56. Viada, S.T.; Hammer, R.M.; Racca, R.; Hannay, D.; Thompson, M.J.; Balcom, B.J.; Phillips, N.W. Review of potential impacts to sea turtles from underwater explosive removal of offshore structures. Environ. Impact Assess. Rev. 2008, 28, 267–285. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  57. Díaz, M.P.; Kunc, H.P.; Houghton, J.D. Anthropogenic noise predicts sea turtle behavioural responses. Mar. Pollut. Bull. 2024, 198, 115907. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  58. Eckert, K.L.; Bjorndal, K.A.; Abreu-Grobois, F.A.; Donnelly, M. Técnicas de Investigación y Manejo para la Conservación de las Tortugas Marinas; Marine Turtle Specialist Group UICN/CSE: Washington, DC, USA, 1999. [Google Scholar]
  59. Antworth, R.L.; Pike, D.A.; Stiner, J.C. Nesting ecology, current status, and conservation of sea turtles on an uninhabited beach in Florida, USA. Biol. Conserv. 2006, 130, 10–15. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  60. Hendrix, H.; Pérez-Espona, S. A Systematic Review of Population Monitoring Studies of Sea Turtles and Its Application to Conservation. Diversity 2024, 16, 177. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  61. Vazquez, G.F.; Reyes, M.C.; Fernandez, G.; Aguayo, J.E.C.; Sharma, V.K. Contamination in marine turtle (Dermochelys coriaca) egg shells of Playon de Mexiquillo, Michoacan, Mexico. Bull. Environ. Contam. Toxicol. 1997, 58, 326–333. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  62. Gardner, S.C.; Pier, M.D.; Wesselman, R.; Juárez, J.A. Organochlorine contaminants in sea turtles from the Eastern Pacific. Mar. Pollut. Bull. 2003, 46, 1082–1089. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  63. Seminoff, J.A.; Jones, T.T.; Resendiz, A.; Nichols, W.J.; Chaloupka, M.Y. Monitoring green turtles (Chelonia mydas) at a coastal foraging area in Baja California, Mexico: Multiple indices to describe population status. J. Mar. Biol. Assoc. U. K. 2003, 83, 1355–1362. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  64. Cordero-Tapia, A.; Gardner, S.C.; Arellano-Blanco, J.; Inohuye-Rivera, R.B. Learedius learedi infection in black turtles (Chelonia mydas agassizii), Baja California Sur, Mexico. J. Parasitol. 2004, 90, 645–647. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  65. Inohuye-Rivera, R.B.; Cordero-Tapia, A.; Arellano-Blanco, J.; Gardner, S.C. Learedius learedi (Trematoda: Spirorchiidae), in Black Turtle (Chelonia mydas agassizii) Hearts from Magdalena Bay, Baja California Sur, Mexico. Comp. Parasitol. 2004, 71, 37–41. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  66. Gardner, S.C.; Fitzgerald, S.L.; Vargas, B.A.; Rodríguez, L.M. Heavy metal accumulation in four species of sea turtles from the Baja California peninsula, Mexico. Biometals 2006, 19, 91–99. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  67. Koch, V.; Nichols, W.J.; Peckham, H.; De La Toba, V. Estimates of sea turtle mortality from poaching and bycatch in Bahía Magdalena, Baja California Sur, Mexico. Biol. Conserv. 2006, 128, 327–334. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  68. Frías-Espericueta, M.G.; Osuna-López, J.I.; Ruiz-Telles, A.; Quintero-Alvarez, J.M.; López-López, G.; Izaguirre-Fierro, G.; Voltolina, D. Heavy metals in the tissues of the sea turtle Lepidochelys olivacea from a nesting site of the northwest coast of Mexico. Bull. Environ. Contam. Toxicol. 2006, 77, 179–185. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  69. Kampalath, R.; Gardner, S.C.; Méndez-Rodríguez, L.; Jay, J.A. Total and methylmercury in three species of sea turtles of Baja California Sur. Mar. Pollut. Bull. 2006, 52, 1816–1823. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  70. Talavera-Saenz, A.; Gardner, S.C.; Rodriquez, R.R.; Acosta-Vargas, B. Metal profiles used as environmental markers of Green Turtle (Chelonia mydas) foraging resources. Sci. Total Environ. 2007, 373, 94–102. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  71. Pechham, S.H.; Maldonado Diaz, D.; Walli, A.; Ruiz, G.; Crowder, L.B.; Nichols, W.J. Small-scale fisheries bycatch jeopardizez endangered pacific loggerhead turtles. PLoS ONE 2007, 2, e1041. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  72. Peckham, S.H.; Maldonado-Diaz, D.; Koch, V.; Mancini, A.; Gaos, A.; Tinker, T.M.; Nicholas, W.J. High mortality of loggerhead turtles due to bycatch, human consumption and strandings at Baja California Sur, Mexico, 2003 to 2007. Endanger. Species Res. 2008, 5, 171–183. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  73. Mancini, A.; Koch, V. Sea turtle consumption and black market trade in Baja California Sur, Mexico. Endanger. Species Res. 2009, 7, 1–10. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  74. Páez-Osuna, F.; Calderón-Campuzano, M.F.; Soto-Jiménez, M.F.; Ruelas-Inzunza, J.R. Lead in blood and eggs of the sea turtle, Lepidochelys olivacea, from the Eastern Pacific: Concentration, isotopic composition and maternal transfer. Mar. Pollut. Bull. 2010, 60, 433–439. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  75. Richardson, K.L.; Lopez Castro, M.; Gardner, S.C.; Schlenk, D. Polychlorinated biphenyls and biotransformation enzymes in three species of sea turtles from the Baja California peninsula of Mexico. Arch. Environ. Contam. Toxicol. 2010, 58, 183–193. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  76. Páez-Osuna, F.; Calderón-Campuzano, M.F.; Soto-Jiménez, M.F.; Ruelas-Inzunza, J.R. Trace Metals (Cd, Cu, Ni, and Zn) in Blood and Eggs of the Sea Turtle Lepidochelys olivacea from a Nesting Colony of Oaxaca, Mexico. Arch. Environ. Contam. Toxicol. 2010, 59, 632–641. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  77. Páez-Osuna, F.; Calderón-Campuzano, M.F.; Soto-Jiménez, M.F.; Ruelas-Inzunza, J.R. Mercury in blood and eggs of the sea turtle Lepidochelys olivacea from a nesting colony in Oaxaca, Mexico. Mar. Pollut. Bull. 2011, 62, 1320–1323. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  78. Ley-Quiñónez, C.; Zavala-Norzagaray, A.A.; Espinosa-Carreón, T.L.; Peckham, H.; Marquez-Herrera, C.; Campos-Villegas, L.; Aguirre, A.A. Baseline heavy metals and metalloid values in blood of loggerhead turtles (Caretta caretta) from Baja California Sur, Mexico. Mar. Pollut. Bull. 2011, 62, 1979–1983. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  79. Mancini, A.; Senko, J.; Borquez-Reyes, R.; Póo, J.G.; Seminoff, J.A.; Koch, V. To Poach or Not to Poach an Endangered Species: Elucidating the Economic and Social Drivers Behind Illegal Sea Turtle Hunting in Baja California Sur, Mexico. Hum. Ecol. 2011, 39, 743–756. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  80. Benítez, J.A.; Vidal, J.; Brichieri-Colombi, T.; Delgado-Estrella, A. Monitoring ecosystem health of the Terminos Lagoon region using heavy metals as environmental indicators. Environ. Impact 2012, 162, 349–358. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  81. Mancini, A.; Koch, V.; Seminoff, J.A.; Madon, B. Small-scale gill-net fisheries cause massive green turtle Chelonia mydas mortality in Baja California Sur, Mexico. Oryx 2012, 46, 69–77. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  82. Serrano, A.; Vázquez-Castán, L.; Silva, C.G.S.; De Jesús Basañez-Muñoz, A.; Naval-Avila, C. Identification of the bacterial flora in Kemp’s Ridley sea turtle (Lepidochelys kempii) in Barra Galindo, Tuxpan, Veracruz, Mexico [Identificación de la flora bacteriana en la tortuga lora (Lepidochelys kempii) en el ejido Barra Galindo, Tuxpan, Veracruz, México]. Hidrobiologia 2012, 22, 142–146. [Google Scholar]
  83. Ley-Quiñónez, C.P.; Zavala-Norzagaray, A.A.; Réndon-Maldonado, J.G.; Espinosa-Carreón, T.L.; Canizales-Román, A.; Escobedo-Urías, D.C.; Leal-Acosta, M.L.; Hart, C.E.; Aguirre, A.A. Selected heavy metals and selenium in the blood of black sea turtle (Chelonia mydas agasiizzi) from Sonora, Mexico. Bull. Environ. Contam. Toxicol. 2013, 91, 645–651. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  84. Senko, J.; Mancini, A.; Seminoff, J.A.; Koch, V. Bycatch and directed harvest drive high green turtle mortality at Baja California Sur, Mexico. Biol. Conserv. 2014, 169, 24–30. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  85. Zavala-Norzagaray, A.A.; Ley-Quiñónez, C.P.; Espinosa-Carreón, T.L.; Canizalez-Román, A.; Hart, C.E.; Aguirre, A.A. Trace elements in blood of sea turtles Lepidochelys olivacea in the gulf of California, Mexico. Bull. Environ. Contam. Toxicol. 2014, 93, 536–541. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  86. Bevan, E.; Wibbels, T.; Najera, B.M.; Martinez, M.A.; Martinez, L.A.; Reyes, D.J.; Hernandez, M.H.; Gamez, D.G.; Pena, L.J.; Burchfield, P.M. In situ nest and hatchling survival at Rancho Nuevo, the primary nesting beach of the Kemp’s ridley sea turtle, Lepidochelys Kempii. Herpetol. Conserv. Biol. 2014, 9, 563–577. [Google Scholar]
  87. Cortés-Gómez, A.A.; Fuentes-Mascorro, G.; Romero, D. Metals and metalloids in whole blood and tissues of Olive Ridley turtles (Lepidochelys olivacea) from La Escobilla Beach (Oaxaca, Mexico). Mar. Pollut. Bull. 2014, 89, 367–375. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  88. Zavala-Norzagaray, A.A.; Aguirre, A.A.; Velazquez-Roman, J.; Flores-Villaseñor, H.; León-Sicairos, N.; Ley-Quiñonez, C.P.; Hernández-Díaz, L.D.; Canizalez-Roman, A. Isolation, characterization, and antibiotic resistance of Vibrio spp. in sea turtles from northwestern Mexico. Front. Microbiol. 2015, 6, 635. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  89. Calvillo-García, Y.; Ramírez-Herrera, M.T.; Delgado-Trejo, C.; Legorreta-Paulin, G.; Corona, N. Modeling sea-level change, inundation scenarios, and their effect on the colola beach reserve—A nesting-habitat of the black sea turtle, Michoacán, Mexico. Geofísica Int. 2015, 54, 179–190. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  90. Bárcenas-Ibarra, A.; de la Cueva, H.; Rojas-Lleonart, I.; Abreu-Grobois, F.A.; Lozano-Guzmán, R.I.; Cuevas, E.; García-Gasca, A. First approximation to congenital malformation rates in embryos and hatchlings of sea turtles. Birth Defects Res. Part A Clin. Mol. Teratol. 2015, 103, 203–224. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  91. Baena, M.L.; Escobar, F.; Halffter, G.; García-Chávez, J.H.; Rummer, J.L. Distribution and feeding behavior of Omorgus suberosus (Coleoptera: Trogidae) in Lepidochelys olivacea Turtle Nests. PLoS ONE 2015, 10, e0139538. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  92. Reséndiz, E.; Flores-Ramírez, S.; Koch, V.; Cordero-Tapia, A. First record of fibropapillomatosis in a green turtle Chelonia mydas from the Baja California Peninsula. J. Aquat. Anim. Health 2016, 28, 252–257. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  93. Méndez-Rodríguez, L.; Álvarez-Castañeda, S.T. Predation on turtle nests in the southwestern coast of the Baja California Peninsula. Rev. Mex. Biodivers. 2016, 87, 483–488. [Google Scholar]
  94. Pasanisi, E.; Cortés-Gómez, A.A.; Pérez-López, M.; Soler, F.; Hernández-Moreno, D.; Guerranti, C.; Martellini, T.; Fuentes-Mascorro, G.; Romero, D.; Cincinelli, A. Levels of perfluorinated acids (PFCAs) in different tissues of Lepidochelys olivacea sea turtles from the Escobilla beach (Oaxaca, Mexico). Sci. Total Environ. 2016, 572, 1059–1065. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  95. Santos, K.C.; Livesey, M.; Fish, M.; Lorences, A.C. Climate change implications for the nest site selection process and subsequent hatching success of a green turtle population. Mitig. Adapt. Strateg. Glob. Change 2017, 22, 121–135. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  96. Oliver de la Esperanza, A.; Arenas Martínez, A.; Tzeek-Tuz, M.; Pérez-Collazos, E. Are anthropogenic factors affecting nesting habitat of sea turtles? The case of Kanzul beach, Riviera Maya-Tulum (Mexico). J. Coast. Conserv. 2017, 21, 85–93. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  97. Tremblay, N.; Ortíz-Arana, A.; González-Jáuregui, M.; Rendón-von Osten, J. Relationship between organochlorine pesticides and stress indicators in hawksbill sea turtle (Eretmochelys imbricata) nesting at Punta Xen (Campeche), Southern Gulf of Mexico. Ecotoxicology 2017, 26, 173–183. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  98. Ley-Quiñónez, C.P.; Rossi-Lafferriere, N.A.; Espinoza-Carreon, T.L.; Hart, C.E.; Peckham, S.H.; Aguirre, A.A.; Zavala-Norzagaray, A.A. Associations between trace elements and clinical health parameters in the North Pacific loggerhead sea turtle (Caretta caretta) from Baja California Sur, Mexico. Environ. Sci. Pollut. Res. 2017, 24, 9530–9537. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  99. Bojórquez-Tapia, L.A.; Pedroza, D.; Ponce-Díaz, G.; Díaz de León, A.J.; Lluch-Belda, D. A continual engagement framework to tackle wicked problems: Curtailing loggerhead sea turtle fishing bycatch in Gulf of Ulloa, Mexico. Sustain. Sci. 2017, 12, 535–548. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  100. Early-Capistrán, M.-M.; Sáenz-Arroyo, A.; Cardoso-Mohedano, J.-G.; Garibay-Melo, G.; Peckham, S.H.; Koch, V. Reconstructing 290 years of a data-poor fishery through ethnographic and archival research: The East Pacific green turtle (Chelonia mydas) in Baja California, Mexico. Fish Fish. 2018, 19, 57–77. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  101. Cuevas, E.; Guzmán-Hernández, V.; Uribe-Martínez, A.; Raymundo-Sánchez, A.; Herrera-Pavon, R. Identification of Potential Sea Turtle Bycatch Hotspots Using a Spatially Explicit Approach in the Yucatan Peninsula, Mexico. Chelonian Conserv. Biol. 2018, 17, 78–93. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  102. Cortés-Gómez, A.A.; Tvarijonaviciute, A.; Teles, M.; Cuenca, R.; Fuentes-Mascorro, G.; Romero, D. p-Nitrophenyl Acetate Esterase Activity and Cortisol as Biomarkers of Metal Pollution in Blood of Olive Ridley Turtles (Lepidochelys olivacea). Arch. Environ. Contam. Toxicol. 2018, 75, 25–36. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  103. Salvarani, P.I.; Vieira, L.R.; Ku-Peralta, W.; Morgado, F.; Osten, J.R.V. Oxidative stress biomarkers and organochlorine pesticides in nesting female hawksbill turtles Eretmochelys imbricata from Mexican coast (Punta Xen, Mexico). Environ. Sci. Pollut. Res. 2018, 25, 23809–23816. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  104. Vega-Manriquez, D.X.; Dávila-Arrellano, R.P.; Eslava-Campos, C.A.; Salazar Jiménez, E.; Negrete-Philippe, A.C.; Raigoza-Figueras, R.; Muñoz-Tenería, F.A. Identification of bacteria present in ulcerative stomatitis lesions of captive sea turtles Chelonia mydas. Vet. Res. Commun. 2018, 42, 251–254. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  105. Cuevas, E.; Liceaga-Correa, M.; Uribe-Martínez, A. Ecological vulnerability of two sea turtle species in the Gulf of Mexico: An integrated spatial approach. Endanger. Species Res. 2019, 40, 337–356. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  106. Mejía-Radillo, R.Y.; Zavala-Norzagaray, A.A.; Chávez-Medina, J.; Aguirre, A.; Escobedo-Bonilla, C.M. Presence of chelonid herpesvirus 5 (ChHV5) in sea turtles in northern Sinaloa, Mexico. Dis. Aquat. Org. 2019, 132, 99–108. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  107. Salvarani, P.I.; Morgado, F.; Vieira, L.R.; Osten, J.R.V. Organochlorines Contaminants in Eggs of Hawksbill (Eretmochelys imbricata) and Green Sea Turtles (Chelonia mydas) from Mexico coast. Arch. Environ. Contam. Toxicol. 2019, 76, 425–434. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  108. Bevan, E.M.; Wibbels, T.; Shaver, D.; Walker, J.S.; Illescas, F.; Montano, J.; Ortiz, J.; Peña, J.J.; Sarti, L.; Najera, B.M.; et al. Comparison of beach temperatures in the nesting range of Kemp’s ridley sea turtles in the Gulf of Mexico, Mexico and USA. Endanger. Species Res. 2019, 40, 31–40. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  109. Flores-Aguirre, C.D.; Díaz-Hernández, V.; Salgado-Ugarte, I.H.; Caballero, L.E.S.; de la Cruz, F.R.M. Feminization tendency of Hawksbill Turtles (Eretmochelys imbricata) in the western Yucatan Peninsula, Mexico. Amphib. Reptile Conserv. 2020, 14, 190–202. [Google Scholar]
  110. Suárez-Domínguez, E.A.; Martínez-Serrano, I.; Righini, N.; Chamlaty-Fayad, Y.E.; Bello-Sánchez, E.A.; Ramos-Díaz, A.H. Fibropapillomatosis in free-ranging green sea turtles (Chelonia mydas) off the Central Coast of Veracruz, Mexico [Fibropapilomatosis en tortuga verde (Chelonia mydas) de vida libre en la Costa Central de Veracruz, México]. Cienc. Mar. 2020, 46, 133–143. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  111. Salinas-Zavala, C.A.; Morales-Zárate, M.V.; Martínez-Rincón, R.O. An empirical relationship between sea surface temperature and massive stranding of the loggerhead turtle (Caretta caretta) in the Gulf of Ulloa, Mexico. Lat. Am. J. Aquat. Res. 2020, 48, 214–225. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  112. Ortiz-Alvarez, C.; Pajuelo, M.; Grados, D.; Abrego, M.E.; Rebeca Barragán-Rocha, A.; Barrantes, M.; Cotto Sánchez, A.; Fonseca, L.G.; Gadea Espinal, V.; Mangel, J.C.; et al. Rapid Assessments of Leatherback Small-Scale Fishery Bycatch in Internesting Areas in the Eastern Pacific Ocean. Front. Mar. Sci. 2020, 6, 813. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  113. Espinoza, J.; Hernández, E.; Lara-Uc, M.M.; Reséndiz, E.; Alfaro-Núñez, A.; Hori-Oshima, S.; Medina-Basulto, G. Genetic Analysis of Chelonid Herpesvirus 5 in Marine Turtles from Baja California Peninsula. EcoHealth 2020, 17, 258–263. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  114. McLoughlin, M.; Comer-Santos, K. Twenty-eight Years of Buggy Adventures on a Mexican Turtle Beach. Sea Turt. Res. Conserv. 2021, 15–20. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  115. Reséndiz, E.; Fernández-Sanz, H.; Domínguez-Contreras, J.F.; Ramos-Díaz, A.H.; Mancini, A.; Zavala-Norzagaray, A.A.; Alonso-Aguirre, A. Molecular characterization of Chelonid Alphaherpesvirus 5 in a black turtle (Chelonia mydas) Fibropapilloma from Baja California Sur, Mexico. Animals 2021, 11, 105. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  116. Mondragón, M.E.; Luzardo, O.P.; Zumbado, M.; Rodríguez-Hernández, Á.; Berriel, C.R.; Ramírez-Gomez, H.V.; Islas, C.G.; Fisher, R.F.; Martínez, J.R. Incidence of 49 elements in the blood and scute tissues of nesting hawksbill turtles (Eretmochelys imbricata) in Holbox Island. Reg. Stud. Mar. Sci. 2021, 41, 101566. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  117. Masés-García, C.A.; Briones-Salas, M.; Sosa-Escalante, J.E. Assessment of wildlife crime in a high-biodiversity region of Mexico. J. Nat. Conserv. 2021, 59, 125932. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  118. Cortés-Gómez, A.A.; Romero, D.; Santos, J.; Rivera-Hernández, J.R.; Girondot, M. Inorganic elements in live vs dead nesting olive ridley marine turtles in the Mexican Pacific: Introducing a new statistical methodology in ecotoxicology. Sci. Total Environ. 2021, 761, 143249. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  119. Bojórquez-Tapia, L.A.; Ponce-Díaz, G.; Pedroza-Páez, D.; Díaz de León, A.J.; Arreguín-Sánchez, F. Application of Exploratory Modeling in Support of Transdisciplinary Inquiry: Regulation of Fishing Bycatch of Loggerhead Sea Turtles in Gulf of Ulloa, Mexico. Front. Mar. Sci. 2021, 8, 643347. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  120. Olimón-Andalón, V.; Valdés-Flores, J.; Ley-Quiñonez, C.P.; Zavala-Norzagaray, A.A.; Aguirre, A.A.; León-Sicairos, N.; Velázquez-Román, J.; Flores-Villaseñor, H.; Acosta-Smith, E.; Sosa-Cornejo, I.; et al. Essential and trace metals in a post-nesting olive ridley turtles (Lepidochelys olivacea) in Ceuta beach, Sinaloa, Mexico. Environ. Sci. Pollut. Res. 2021, 28, 29998–30006. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  121. Muñoz-Tenería, F.A.; Labrada-Martagón, V.; Herrera-Pavón, R.L.; Work, T.M.; González-Ballesteros, E.; Negrete-Philippe, A.C.; Maldonado-Saldaña, G. Fibropapillomatosis dynamics in green sea turtles Chelonia mydas over 15 years of monitoring in Akumal Bay, Quintana Roo, Mexico. Dis. Aquat. Org. 2022, 149, 133–143. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  122. Sosa-Cornejo, I.; Martín-Del-Campo, R.; González-Flores, J.A.; González-Camacho, Z.B.; Cabrera-Cuellar, B.A.; Bielli, A.; Valdes-Flores, J.E.; Olimón-Andalón, V. Leucism: The prevalent congenital malformation in the Olive ridley sea turtle of northwestern Mexico. Dis. Aquat. Org. 2022, 152, 61–71. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  123. Senko, J.F.; Peckham, S.H.; Aguilar-Ramirez, D.; Wang, J.H. Net illumination reduces fisheries bycatch, maintains catch value, and increases operational efficiency. Curr. Biol. 2022, 32, 911–918. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  124. Muñoz-Tenería, F.A.; Calderón-Amador, J.; Negrete-Philippe, A.C.; Flores-Romo, L.A. A subpopulation of green turtle suprabasal epidermal cells are Langerin+ and migrate under in vitro stimulation of the chemokine CCL21. Vet. Res. Commun. 2022, 46, 939–945. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  125. Buenrostro-Silva, A.; García-Grajales, J.; Sánchez-Nava, P.; Ruíz-Gómez, M. Paresis as a limiting factor in the reproductive efficiency of a nesting colony of Lepidochelys olivacea (Eschscholtz, 1829) in La Escobilla beach, Oaxaca, Mexico. J. Threat. Taxa 2022, 14, 22133–22138. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  126. Flores-Aguirre, C.D.; Díaz-Hernández, V.; Moreno, D.A.; de la Cruz, F.R.M. Effect of moisture, temperature, and maternal influence on the hatching, phenotype, and performance of hawksbill turtles Eretmochelys imbricata. Endanger. Species Res. 2023, 50, 217–234. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  127. Martínez-Estévez, L.; Angulo-Angulo, A.; Astorga, M.E.; Becerra, C.D.; Leyva, N.C.; Amador, F.C.; Amador, J.P.C. Exploring the demography and conservation needs of hawksbill sea turtles Eretmochelys imbricata in north-west Mexico. Oryx 2023, 57, 392–400. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  128. Escobedo-Mondragón, M.; Pérez-Luzardo, O.; Henríquez-Hernández, L.A.; Rodríguez-Hernández, Á.; Zumbado, M.; Rosiles-Martínez, J.R. Trophic behavior of inorganic elements in nesting sea turtles (Chelonia mydas, Eretmochelys imbricata, and Caretta caretta) in Quintana Roo: Biomagnification and biodilution effect in blood and scute tissues. Mar. Pollut. Bull. 2023, 187, 114582. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  129. Pavón, R.G.S. Tourist use limits with turtles in Cozumel. Environ. Chall. 2023, 10, 100669. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  130. Salvarani, P.I.; Vieira, L.R.; Rendón-von Osten, J.; Morgado, F. Hawksbill Sea Turtle (Eretmochelys imbricata) Blood and Eggs Organochlorine Pesticides Concentrations and Embryonic Development in a Nesting Area (Yucatan Peninsula, Mexico). Toxics 2023, 11, 50. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  131. Ramírez-Villanueva, R.I.; Gumeta-Gómez, F.; Lara-Uc, M.; López-Vivas, J.M.; Hinojosa-Arango, G. The use of the territorial sea by Lepidochelys olivacea (Eschscholtz, 1829) in front of nesting beaches in Oaxaca, Mexico. Reg. Stud. Mar. Sci. 2023, 65, 103065. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  132. Guevara-Meléndez, A.M.; Comas-Garcia, M.; Labrada-Martagón, V. Description and quantification of micronucleus and nuclear abnormalities in erythrocytes of the sentinel green turtle (Chelonia mydas) with fluorescence microscopy. Mutat. Res. Genet. Toxicol. Environ. Mutagen. 2023, 887, 503596. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  133. Rousso, S.J.; Perezrul, M.D.H.; Mancini, A.; Zavala-Norzagaray, A.A.; Senko, J.F. Citizen science enhances understanding of sea turtle distribution in the Gulf of California. PeerJ 2024, 12, e18203. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  134. Fuentes, M.M.; Santos, A.; Abreu-Grobois, A.; Briseño-Dueñas, R.; Al-Khayat, J.; Hamza, S.; Saliba, S.; Anderson, D.; Rusenko, K.W.; Mitchell, N.; et al. Adaptation of sea turtles to climate warming: Will phenological responses be sufficient to counteract changes in reproductive output? Glob. Change Biol. 2024, 30, e16991. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  135. Labrada-Martagón, V.; Islas, N.L.; Yáñez-Estrada, L.; Muñoz-Tenería, F.A.; Solé, M.; Zenteno-Savín, T. Evidence of oxidative stress responses of green turtles (Chelonia mydas) to differential habitat conditions in the Mexican Caribbean. Sci. Total Environ. 2024, 946, 174151. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  136. Labastida-Estrada, E.; González-Cortés, L.; Karam-Martínez, S.G.; Montoya-Márquez, J.A.; Zúñiga-Marroquín, T.; Becerril-Morales, F.; Islas-Villanueva, V. Influence of incubation temperature, maternal effects, and paternity on quality of olive ridley hatchlings (Lepidochelys olivacea) from a mass-nesting beach in the Mexican Pacific. J. Exp. Zool. Part A Ecol. Integr. Physiol. 2024, 341, 563–577. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  137. Martínez-Pacheco, M.; Diaz-Barba, K.; Perez-Molina, R.; Marmolejo-Valencia, A.; Collazo-Saldana, P.; Escobar-Rodriguez, M.; Sanchez-Perez, M.; Meneses-Acosta, A.; Martínez-Rizo, A.B.; Sanchez-Pacheco, A.U.; et al. Gene expression dynamics during temperature-dependent sex determination in a sea turtle. Dev. Biol. 2024, 514, 99–108. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  138. Guzmán-Hernández, V.; Rivas-Hernández, G.A.; García-Alvarado, P.A.; Huerta-Rodríguez, P.; Peralta-Jiménez, X.; Cuevas, E. Long-term (29-year) spatiotemporal patterns of sea turtle deaths in the southern Gulf of Mexico. Aquat. Conserv. Mar. Freshw. Ecosyst. 2024, 34, e4201. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  139. Lopez, J.; Griffiths, S.; Wallace, B.P.; Caceres, V.; Rodríguez, L.H.; Abrego, M.; Alfaro-Shigueto, J.; Andraka, S.; Brito, M.J.; Bustos, L.C.; et al. Vulnerability of the Critically Endangered leatherback turtle to fisheries bycatch in the eastern Pacific Ocean. I. A machine-learning species distribution model. Endanger. Species Res. 2024, 53, 271–293. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  140. Ramos-Díaz, A.H.; Reséndiz, E.; Fernández-Sanz, H.; Collinot-Martínez, R.; Suárez-Domínguez, E.A. Proliferative lesions related to fibropapillomatosis in the Kemp’s Ridley Sea Turtle, Lepidochelys kempii Garman, 1880, at nesting sites in Veracruz State, Mexico. Herpetol. Notes 2024, 17, 87–92. [Google Scholar]
  141. Flores-Ramírez, R.; Mendoza-Rivera, S.P.; García-Grajales, J.; Buenrostro-Silva, A.; Sanjuan-Meza, E.U.; Berumen-Rodríguez, A.A.; Espinosa-Reyes, G. Persistent organic pollutants in the olive ridley turtle (Lepidochelys olivacea) during the nesting stage in the “La Escobilla” Sanctuary, Oaxaca, Mexico. Environ. Sci. Pollut. Res. 2024, 31, 10911–10919. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  142. Flores-Gasca, L.A.; Fernández-Sanz, H.; Hernández-Burgos, F.I.; Reséndiz, E. Predation of Black Turtle Hatchlings (Chelonia mydas) on Clarion Island in Revillagigedo National Park, Mexico; [Depredación de Crías de Tortuga Negra (Chelonia mydas) en Isla Clarión del Parque Nacional Revillagigedo, México]. Rev. Latinoam. Herpetol. 2024, 7, e1098-35. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  143. Rivas-Hernández, G.; Rodríguez-Fuentes, G.; Noreña-Barroso, E.; Cobos-Gasca, V. Biomarkers of Oxidative Stress and Persistent Organic Pollutants in Plasma and Eggs of Chelonia mydas Nesting in the Southern Gulf of Mexico. Estuaries Coasts 2024, 47, 2616–2630. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  144. Aranda, D.A.; Sindou, P.; Rodriguez, J.V.; Saldaña, G.M.; Coronado, R.F.; González, W.D.; Díaz, M.E.; Escalante, V.C. A non-invasive method of microplastics pollution quantification in green sea turtle Chelonia mydas of the Mexican Caribbean. Mar. Pollut. Bull. 2024, 200, 116092. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  145. Espinoza, J.; Alfaro-Núñez, A.; Cedillo-Peláez, C.; Fernández-Sanz, H.; Mancini, A.; Zavala-Norzagaray, A.A. Epidemiology of marine turtle fibropapillomatosis and tumour-associated chelonid alphaherpesvirus 5 (ChHV5; Scutavirus chelonidalpha5) in North-Western Mexico: A scoping review implementing the one health approach. Vet. Res. Commun. 2024, 48, 2943–2961. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  146. Rodriguez-Salazar, C.L.; Comas-Garcia, M.; Muñoz-Teneria, F.A.; Zenteno-Savin, T.; Labrada-Martagon, V. Genotoxic damage in green turtles (Chelonia mydas) exhibits regional and annual fluctuations. Mar. Environ. Res. 2025, 204, 106877. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Oceans 06 00071 g001
Figure 1. (a) Temporal distribution and accumulated number of studies on threats to marine turtles, 1997–2024; (b) Mann–Kendall trend analysis of research output for the same period. The solid line represents the regression line, and the gray area indicates the 95% confidence interval.
Figure 1. (a) Temporal distribution and accumulated number of studies on threats to marine turtles, 1997–2024; (b) Mann–Kendall trend analysis of research output for the same period. The solid line represents the regression line, and the gray area indicates the 95% confidence interval.
Oceans 06 00071 g001
Oceans 06 00071 g002
Figure 2. Number of scientific publications addressing threats to sea turtles in Mexican states along the Pacific and Atlantic coasts.
Figure 2. Number of scientific publications addressing threats to sea turtles in Mexican states along the Pacific and Atlantic coasts.
Oceans 06 00071 g002
Oceans 06 00071 g003
Figure 3. Number of scientific articles categorized by threats to sea turtles in the Pacific and Atlantic coastal states of Mexico. Acronyms for the associated stressors are described in Table 1.
Figure 3. Number of scientific articles categorized by threats to sea turtles in the Pacific and Atlantic coastal states of Mexico. Acronyms for the associated stressors are described in Table 1.
Oceans 06 00071 g003
Oceans 06 00071 g004
Figure 4. Documented threats to the different sea turtle species by states in Mexico: (a) C. caretta; (b) C. mydas; (c) D. coriacea; (d) E. imbricata; (e) L. kempii; (f) L. olivacea. Acronyms for the associated stressors are described in Table 1.
Figure 4. Documented threats to the different sea turtle species by states in Mexico: (a) C. caretta; (b) C. mydas; (c) D. coriacea; (d) E. imbricata; (e) L. kempii; (f) L. olivacea. Acronyms for the associated stressors are described in Table 1.
Oceans 06 00071 g004
Table 1. Threats to marine turtles and their associated stressors, with acronyms used in subsequent figures. Adapted from Fuentes et al. [28].
Table 1. Threats to marine turtles and their associated stressors, with acronyms used in subsequent figures. Adapted from Fuentes et al. [28].
Threats Associated Stressors
Climate changeSLR: Sea level rise
HUR: Hurricanes/storms
OCC: Ocean circulation
SST: Changes in sea surface temperature
PRC: Changes in precipitation
TMP: Changes in temperature
Coastal developmentBDT: Beach driving/beach traffic
BRN: Beach renourishment
LTP: Light pollution
BAR: Beach armoring
TNG: Tourism (nesting ground)
ROV: Removal of vegetation
MBC: Mechanical beach cleaning
Marine developmentDRG: Dredging
OGM: Oil and gas mining
WEA: Wind energy/aquaculture
TIW: Tourism (in water)
MVS: Marine traffic/vessel strike 1
PRT: Ports
FisheriesBYC: Bycatch
EGN: Entanglement/ghost nets
VST: Vessel strike 2
PollutionPMD: Plastics/marine debris
POP: Persistent organic pollutants
AIR: Agricultural and industrial runoff
PredationISS: Invasive species
NFA: Native/feral animals
Direct takeLHR: Legal harvest
ILH: Illegal harvest
DiseaseIDS: Infectious disease
DFG: Disease fungus
NDS: Non-infectious disease
1 Secondary impacts from traffic related to offshore infrastructure and associated activities, such as construction, maintenance, transport of personnel/equipment, and tourism. 2 Additional impacts from fishing vessels, occurring alongside the primary threat of bycatch.
Table 2. Number of studies on threats and stressors associated with sea turtles in Mexico.
Table 2. Number of studies on threats and stressors associated with sea turtles in Mexico.
Threats Associated Stressors Number of Studies
PollutionPlastics/marine debris340
Persistent organic pollutants17
Agricultural and industrial runoff20
FisheriesBycatch1924
Entanglement/ghost nets2
Vessel strike3
DiseaseInfectious disease1722
Disease fungus0
Non-infectious disease5
Climate changeSea level rise214
Hurricanes/storms2
Ocean circulation0
Changes in sea surface temperature4
Changes in precipitation1
Changes in temperature5
Direct takeLegal harvest012
Illegal harvest12
PredationInvasive species07
Native/feral animals7
Coastal developmentBeach driving/beach traffic15
Beach renourishment0
Light pollution1
Beach armoring0
Tourism (nesting ground)2
Removal of vegetation1
Mechanical beach cleaning0
Marine developmentDredging05
Oil and gas mining3
Wind energy/aquaculture0
Tourism (in water)1
Marine traffic/vessel strike1
Ports0
Table 3. Percentage of studies on threats carried out by sea turtle species in Mexico.
Table 3. Percentage of studies on threats carried out by sea turtle species in Mexico.
Single Species Number of Studies %
Chelonia mydas2225.00
Lepidochelys olivacea2022.73
Caretta caretta910.23
Eretmochelys imbricata77.95
Lepidochelys kempii55.68
Dermochelys coriacea33.41
Multiple SpeciesNumber of Studies%
C. caretta, C. mydas, L. olivacea55.68
C. caretta, C. mydas, E. imbricata, L. olivacea33.41
C. mydas, E. imbricata33.41
C. caretta, C. mydas22.27
C. caretta, C. mydas, E. imbricata22.27
C. caretta, C. mydas, E. imbricata, L. kempii22.27
C. mydas, E. imbricata, L. olivacea22.27
C. mydas, L. olivacea22.27
E. imbricata, L. olivacea11.14
Total88100
Table 4. Comparison of threats reported in this paper’s review (PR) and those documented by the PACE. A value of 1 indicates the presence of the stressor; blank cells indicate absence. Acronyms for the associated stressors are consistent with those in Table 1.
Table 4. Comparison of threats reported in this paper’s review (PR) and those documented by the PACE. A value of 1 indicates the presence of the stressor; blank cells indicate absence. Acronyms for the associated stressors are consistent with those in Table 1.
Threats Associated
Stressors 		C. carettaC. mydasE. imbricataD. coriaceaL. kempiiL. olivacea
PACEPRPACEPRPACEPRPACEPRPACEPRPACEPR
Climate
change		SLR1 111 1 1 1
HUR1 11111 1 11
OCC1 1 1 1 1 1
SST1111111 1 11
PRC1 1 111 1 1
TMP1 1 111 1111
Coastal
development		BDT 1111 1 1
BRN1 1 1 1 1
LTP11111 1 1 1
BAR1 1 1 1 1
TNG11111 1 1 1
ROV1 1 11 1 1
MBC 1 1
Marine
development		DRG 1
OGM111111 111
WEA
TIW1 1 1 1 11
MVS 111 1
PRT 1 1 1 1
FisheriesBYC111111111111
EGN11111 1 1 1
VST 1 111 1111
PollutionPMD 1 11 1 1 1
POP1111111 1 11
AIR111111111 11
PredationISS1 1 1
NFA1111111 1111
Direct takeLHR
ILH1111111 1111
DiseaseIDS11111 1 1111
DFG 1
NDS 1 111 11 1
Total2115221827141723082313
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Ramírez-Villanueva, R.I.; Gumeta-Gómez, F.; Hinojosa-Arango, G. Systematic Analysis of Threats to Sea Turtles in Mexico: Trends, Knowledge Gaps, and Implications for Conservation. Oceans 2025, 6, 71. https://doi.org/10.3390/oceans6040071

AMA Style

Ramírez-Villanueva RI, Gumeta-Gómez F, Hinojosa-Arango G. Systematic Analysis of Threats to Sea Turtles in Mexico: Trends, Knowledge Gaps, and Implications for Conservation. Oceans. 2025; 6(4):71. https://doi.org/10.3390/oceans6040071

Chicago/Turabian Style

Ramírez-Villanueva, Ruth I., Fernando Gumeta-Gómez, and Gustavo Hinojosa-Arango. 2025. "Systematic Analysis of Threats to Sea Turtles in Mexico: Trends, Knowledge Gaps, and Implications for Conservation" Oceans 6, no. 4: 71. https://doi.org/10.3390/oceans6040071

APA Style

Ramírez-Villanueva, R. I., Gumeta-Gómez, F., & Hinojosa-Arango, G. (2025). Systematic Analysis of Threats to Sea Turtles in Mexico: Trends, Knowledge Gaps, and Implications for Conservation. Oceans, 6(4), 71. https://doi.org/10.3390/oceans6040071

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop