4.0 Article

Seasonally Dynamic Habitat Use by Spotted (Clenmys guttata) and Blanding's Turtles (Emydoidea blandingii) in Maine

Journal

JOURNAL OF HERPETOLOGY
Volume 43, Issue 4, Pages 636-645

Publisher

SOC STUDY AMPHIBIANS REPTILES
DOI: 10.1670/08-127.1

Keywords

-

Categories

Funding

  1. Maine Department of Inland Fisheries and Wildlife
  2. Maine Agricultural and Forest Experimental Station
  3. Maine Department of Transportation
  4. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
  5. Maine Outdoor Heritage Fund
  6. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
  7. The Nature Conservancy
  8. A.V. Stout Fund
  9. Maine Association of Wetland Scientists

Ask authors/readers for more resources

We used radio-telemetry to investigate the seasonal dynamics of wetland use by Spotted Turtles (Clemmys guttata) and Blanding's Turtles (Emydoidea blandingii) in southern Maine. Habitat use was examined in a temporally segregated manner, comparing wetland use among seasonally discrete activity periods. Distinct seasonal movement patterns were detected and logistic regression revealed significant differences in wetland characteristics across seasons for both species. Spotted Turtles exhibited a positive association with wetlands hosting abundant Wood Frog (Lithobates sylvaticus) egg masses in spring, and a negative association with forested wetlands from spring through late summer. Blanding's Turtles were closely associated with forested wetlands in spring, wetlands with abundant Wood Frog egg masses and good sun exposure in early summer, and deep-water wetlands in late summer and fall. The seasonal differences in habitat use found in this study highlight the complex and dynamic landscape required to sustain these rare turtles. Spotted and Blanding's Turtles' diverse habitat requirements require frequent terrestrial movements, exposing them to threats for which mitigation requires understanding spatial and temporal shifts in habitats use.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.0
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available