Southeastern Naturalist
337
D.L. Baxley, J.O. Barnard, and H. Venter
22001144 SOUTHEASTERN NATURALIST 1V3o(2l.) :1333,7 N–3o4. 62
A Survey for the Alligator Snapping Turtle
(Macrochelys temminckii) in Western Kentucky
Danna L. Baxley1,*, James O. Barnard1, and Heather Venter 2,3
Abstract - Kentucky falls within the northern periphery of the range of Macrochelys temminckii
(Alligator Snapping Turtle). To better understand the status and distribution of this
species, we conducted a multi-year survey targeting areas with historical records and other
suitable habitat in western Kentucky. A secondary goal of this study was to collect baseline
freshwater turtle-distribution data from western Kentucky. Survey efforts from 30 May 2003
through 17 May 2012 resulted in no Alligator Snapping Turtle captures. Total survey effort
comprised 829 net nights over 118 survey nights at 24 sites within 10 Kentucky counties.
The average number of survey nights per site was 4.9, and the average number of net nights
per site was 34.5. Despite survey efforts comparable to other studies, it is possible that Alligator
Snapping Turtles remain in suitable habitats in Kentucky at densities that were too
low to detect with our survey methods. If continued intensive outreach and sampling in
Kentucky fail to detect this species, the reintroduction of captive-propagated individuals
should be considered in suitable habitat.
Introduction
In an era of limited conservation funding, it is important for state and federal
fish and wildlife agencies to prioritize and focus conservation efforts. However, it is
extremely difficult to focus conservation efforts when a species’ status is unknown.
Although status assessments for Macrochelys temminckii Harlan (Alligator Snapping
Turtle) have occurred in multiple states (East et al. 2013, Jensen and Birkhead
2003, Riedle et al. 2005, Shipman and Riedle 2008), life-history studies have largely
been limited to the southern and central portion of the range where the species is more
abundant (Elsey 2006; Harrel et al. 1996a, 1996b, 1997; Howey and Dinkelacker
2009; Trauth et al. 1998). Within the southeastern US, the status of the Alligator
Snapping Turtle warrants a high degree of attention because 1) Macrochelys is a
monotypic genus, 2) this species is confined only to Gulf Coast drainages, and 3) severe
population declines have already been documented.
Alligator Snapping Turtle populations have been negatively impacted by overharvest
and habitat loss throughout their range (Jensen and Birkhead 2003, Riedle
et al. 2005, Shipman and Riedle 2008). Delayed age of reproductive maturity
(11–13 y [Dobie 1971], 16 y [Tucker and Sloan 1997]), in combination with slow
growth rate and long generation-times, amplified negative impacts of commercial
harvest during the 1960s and 1970s (Howey and Dinkelacker 2013, Reed et al.
2002). Howey and Dinkelacker (2013) found that the effects of commercial harvest
1Kentucky Department of Fish and Wildlife Resources, Frankfort, KY 40601. 2Murray State
University, Murray, KY 42071. 3St. Johns River Water Management District, Palatka, FL
32178. *Corresponding author - danna.baxley@gmail.com.
Manuscript Editor: Will Selman
Southeastern Naturalist
D.L. Baxley, J.O. Barnard, and H. Venter
2014 Vol. 13, No. 2
338
(e.g., on population density and sex ratio) were evident 16 y post-harvest. In response
to range-wide population declines, all but one state fish and wildlife agency
(Louisiana) pursued regulatory action to ban commercial harvest by 1998, and by
2004, commercial harvest of the Alligator Snapping Turtle was illegal throughout
the range. No commercial harvest records exist for Alligator Snapping Turtles in
Kentucky; it is unknown whether their absence reflects a lack of reporting or a true
lack of commercial harvest.
Kentucky is on the northern periphery of the Alligator Snapping Turtle’s historical
range, and this species is listed as imperiled in the state (NatureServe 2012).
State regulations prohibit both personal and commercial collection. Management
and restoration decisions for the Alligator Snapping Turtle are complicated because
the species’ distribution and habitat requirements in Kentucky are not well understood.
Further, there has been no concentrated effort to document the distribution
and abundance of the species in the state. There are 9 verified Alligator Snapping
Turtle records in Kentucky (Fig. 1). Reports of Alligator Snapping Turtles are reviewed,
verified, and approved by Kentucky’s state herpetologist, John MacGregor
(Kentucky Department of Fish and Wildlife, Frankfort, KY). These verified records
are comprised of 1 skeleton, 2 individuals captured in hoop nets, 1 individual dead
on a limb line, 2 direct observations by herpetologists, 2 turtles caught alive by
fishermen, and 1 newspaper article with a photograph (The Times Leader 2003).
Figure 1. Historical occurrences and sampling locations for Alligator Snapping Turtles in
Kentucky.
Southeastern Naturalist
339
D.L. Baxley, J.O. Barnard, and H. Venter
2014 Vol. 13, No. 2
Of these 9 records, 1 was a hatchling and 8 were adults. The most recent verified
observation in Kentucky was documented in 2004 (J. MacGregor , pers. comm.).
In an effort to better understand the status and distribution of the Alligator
Snapping Turtle, we conducted a multi-year survey, targeting areas with historical
distribution records and other suitable habitat in Western Kentucky. Our ultimate
goal was to identify populations of Alligator Snapping Turtles in Kentucky for the
facilitation of habitat management and population monitoring to ensure persistence
of remaining populations. A secondary goal of this study was to collect baseline
turtle distribution data for Western Kentucky.
Materials and Methods
We identified survey sites (Table 1) based on a suite of criteria including presence
of historical distribution records, site access, feasibility of sampling, habitat
quality assessed on the ground and from aerial imagery, and anecdotal reports of
Alligator Snapping Turtle sightings. Habitat was considered suitable for trapping
if the water was slow-moving, deep enough to submerge hoop nets, and contained
submerged structures and log jams—features which are preferred by Alligator
Snapping Turtles (Harrel et al. 1996a, Howey and Dinkelacker 2009, Riedle et al.
2006). We made an effort to survey all localities of historical distribution records;
however, we were unable to survey in the main stems of the Ohio and Mississippi
Rivers due to barge traffic and general safety concerns. Habitats we surveyed included
multiple stream-orders as well as slow-moving oxbow habitats directly
adjacent to the Mississippi River. There are multiple historic records of Alligator
Snapping Turtle occurrence in Kentucky’s lower-order streams, so we included
these smaller-order streams in the survey.
We conducted surveys 1 April–19 September, when water temperatures exceeded
10 ºC. Within each stream reach or oxbow, we surveyed suitable habitat
with hoop nets, baited with Hypophthalmichthys nobilis (Richardson) (Bighead
Carp) or Cyprinus carpio L. (Koi). We used a total of 20 hoop-nets, with a range of
sizes and meshes (3–4 hoops, hoop-net length = 1.5–2.4 m, mesh size = 3.8–12.7
cm, and width at the widest point of hoop opening = 48–63.5 cm). We cut spreader
bars made of 1.9-cm PVC pipe to fit each net (2 per net) and used them to minimize
the risk of net collapse, and allow surveyors to more easily position nets from the
boat or the bank. The use of spreader bars also allowed surveyors to secure the nets
using just 1 stake or point of contact on the bank. Using twine, we suspended cut
fish from the hoop farthest from the net opening, and then situated nets immediately
upstream of an aquatic structure, undercut bank, or log jam, when present.
We used metal rebar or wooden stakes to secure nets in place, and positioned nets
to allow captured turtles to breathe (at least 7 cm of each net extended above water).
In oxbow habitats, we placed hoop nets around the perimeter of the oxbow; in
riverine habitats, we placed nets in a staggered pattern on both sides of the bank.
Average surveyed stream-reach length was 555 m, and the average size of oxbow
lakes was 1436 ha. We checked nets each morning, processed all captured turtles,
and re-baited nets regardless of the amount of bait remaining in the net. We defined
Southeastern Naturalist
D.L. Baxley, J.O. Barnard, and H. Venter
2014 Vol. 13, No. 2
340
Table 1. Survey locations, habitat type, survey effort, and species captured for 24 survey sites in Kentucky. A. s. =Apalone spinifera, C. s. = Chelydra
serpentina, C. p. = Chrysemys picta, G. g. = Graptemys geographica, G. k. = Graptemys kohnii, G. o. = Graptemys ouachitensis, K. s. = Kinosternon
subrubrum, P. c. = Pseudemys concinna, S. o. = Sternotherus odoratus, T. s. = Trachemys scripta elegans.
Survey Net
County Site Habitat type nights nights A. s. C. s. C. p. G. g. G. k. G. o. K. s. P. c. S. o. T. s.
Ballard Axe Lake Oxbow 3 18 20 67
Ballard Castor Lake Oxbow 11 62 2 36 1 224
Ballard Fish Lake Oxbow 6 36 3 68
Ballard Swan Lake Oxbow 6 64 7 13 1 647
Caldwell Eddy Creek 4th-order stream 2 34 21 1 1 6 37
Calloway Beechy Creek 3rd-order stream 3 15 9 1 39
Calloway Blood River Embayment 13 85 1 15 11 85
Calloway Blood River Bottoms 3rd-order stream 2 22 12 23
Calloway Panther Creek 3rd-order stream 8 72 1 3 1 1 1 76
Calloway Sugar Creek 2nd-order stream 5 25 8 1 63
Calloway Wildcat Creek 2nd-order stream 4 11 9 50
Carlisle Doug Travis WMA Oxbow 2 36 2 4 28
Carlisle Back Slough Oxbow 5 30 4 1 8 2 185
Fulton Bayou Du Chien 5th-order stream 10 44 15 1 1 2 194
Fulton Obion Creek 6th-order stream 11 46 1 1 2 35
Hickman Obion Creek 3rd-order stream 2 20 17 3 4 8
Livingston Private oxbow #1 Oxbow 2 34 17 1 1 167
Livingston Private oxbow #2 Oxbow 2 34 1 4 183
Marshall Bee Creek 2nd-oorder stream 1 5 3 1 29
Marshall Clark’s River NWR 3rd-order stream 2 30 1 8 5
Marshall Jonathan Creek 3rd-order stream 4 25 3 1 61
Marshall Sportsman’s Marina 3rd-order Stream 3 15 2 2 1 1 2 61
McCracken Clark’s River 5th-order Stream 2 34 3 1 33 3 115
Trigg Duck Pond at Embayment 9 32 8 2 7 1 260
Lake Barkley
Southeastern Naturalist
341
D.L. Baxley, J.O. Barnard, and H. Venter
2014 Vol. 13, No. 2
1 net night as 1 baited hoop-net set for one 24-hour period, and 1 survey night as 1
continuous 24-hour period of time.
We identified, sexed, measured, weighed, and released captured turtles at the
site of capture, with the exception of Trachemys scripta elegans (Schoepff) (Red-
Eared Slider). Due to high capture-volume, we did not sex, measure, or weigh
Red-Eared Sliders.
Results
Kentucky survey efforts 30 May 2003–7 May 2012 resulted in no Alligator
Snapping Turtle captures. The total survey effort comprised 118 survey nights and
829 net nights at 24 sites within 10 Kentucky counties. The average number of survey
nights per site was 4.9, and the average number of net nights per site was 34.5.
There were historical records for 9 of the 24 survey sites. We surveyed the remaining
15 sites because they appeared to be suitable habitat.
We captured 10 freshwater turtle species from 4 families for a total of 3071
captures (Table 1). Average turtle species diversity per site was 3.9, with Red-Eared
Sliders and Chelydra serpentina L. (Common Snapping Turtles) dominating the
turtle communities. Red-Eared Sliders represented 88.2% of total captures and occurred
at every survey site; Common Snapping Turtles represented 6.5% of total
captures and were documented from 23 of 24 survey sites. The other 8 species were
captured at an average of 5.4 of 24 sites (Table 1).
Discussion
We did not detect any Alligator Snapping Turtles in this study, despite 829 net
nights of survey effort within the species’ historical range in Kentucky. Although
we averaged 34.5 net nights per site, and 4.9 survey nights per site, our sampling
may not have been adequate to detect populations present at low densities. However,
comparable sampling efforts (both net nights and survey nights) have been
published for this species elsewhere in the range, with 8 studies averaging 565 net
nights, lower than our reported effort of 829 net nights (Table 2). Although our
effort for discrete survey nights per site is comparable to those reported for other
studies, it might be insufficient to detect low-density populations persisting in Kentucky.
In other parts of the range, researchers have utilized low numbers of survey
nights and still successfully documented Alligator Snapping Turtles: Lescher et al.
(2013) reported a range of 1.6–2.8 survey nights per site, and Jensen and Birkhead
(2003) reported utilizing 1 survey night per site. Previous studies reported catchper-
unit-effort rates (CPUE; total number of captures divided by total number of
net nights) ranging from 0.0 in Kansas to a high of 0.28 in Arkansas (Table 2;
Shipman et al. 1995; Trauth et al. 1998). Two studies (Louisiana and Oklahoma)
reported a CPUE of 0.06 (Boundy and Kennedy 2006, Riedle et al. 2005). These
studies reflected lower CPUE values near the edge of the range, and we expected
CPUE to be similarly low in Kentucky. If Alligator Snapping Turtles were present
in our sampling locations at densities similar to those in Louisiana and Oklahoma,
Southeastern Naturalist
D.L. Baxley, J.O. Barnard, and H. Venter
2014 Vol. 13, No. 2
342
our average of 34.5 net nights would have yielded 2 captured individuals per site,
assuming a CPUE value of 0.06. It is important to note that we did not sample the
main stems of the Ohio and Mississippi Rivers, and it is possible that these larger
rivers sustain viable Alligator Snapping Turtle populations in Kentucky, particularly
given the recent documentation of 7 Alligator Snapping Turtles in the Mississippi
River in Missouri (Lescher et al. 2013).
In our study, turtle communities were dominated by Common Snapping Turtles
and Red-Eared Sliders. Although we documented 10 freshwater turtle species, we
failed to document one member of Western Kentucky’s turtle community: Apalone
mutica ssp. mutica (LeSuer) (Midland Smooth Softshell). The absence of the Midland
Smooth Softshell from our sites was probably a result of our lack of survey
effort in open side-channels and large riverine habitats favored by this species
(Barko and Briggler 2006). We caution against using this turtle-community data
for relative abundance estimates because our survey method was not appropriate
for all members of the freshwater turtle community. For example, adult Pseudemys
concinna (LeConte) (River Cooters) feed on aquatic vegetation and crayfish (Buhlmann
and Vaughan 1988); thus, River Cooter captures in this study were incidental
because we baited traps with cut fish.
There are several factors that may explain the absence of Alligator Snapping turtles
in our sampling effort. These include habitat changes resulting in colonization
Table 2. Review of Alligator Snapping Turtle trapping effort and catch per unit effort (CPUE) reported
in the literature.
Net Total
Publication Survey year(s) State nights captures CPUE Conclusions
Shipman et al. 1995 1991 KA 600 0 0.00 Possibly no breeding
populations in Kansas
Moler, P.E. 1997 1993–1996 FL 367 92 0.25 Current harvest
restrictions are adequate
Trauth et al.1998 1995–1997 AR 352 98 0.28 Continued depletion
of large adults is not
sustainable
Riedle et al. 2005 1997 OK 1085 69 0.06 Dramatic population
declines evident
Boundy and Kennedy 2006 1996–1997 LA 3504 200 0.06 Recommend re-survey
of sites to determine
trends
Jensen and Birkhead 2003 1997–2001 GA 281 55 0.20 Legal protection
against harvest in
Georgia is warranted
Shipman and Riedle 2008 1994, 1997 MO 396 48 0.12 Habitat alteration
continues to impact
populations
Lescher et al. 2013 2009–2010 MO 557 51 0.09 Microhabitat use
differs for 2 members
of Chelydridae
This study 2003–2012 KY 829 0 0.00 No known breeding
populations exist
Southeastern Naturalist
343
D.L. Baxley, J.O. Barnard, and H. Venter
2014 Vol. 13, No. 2
of historic sites by Common Snapping Turtles, trapping in unfavorable aquatic
habitat types, hoop-net openings that excluded smaller size-classes from capture,
and insufficient trap effort. Lescher et al. (2013) found that Common Snapping
Turtles and Alligator Snapping Turtles occupy different habitat niches and are seldom
trapped in sympatry. Of 24 sites sampled in Kentucky, we sampled Common
Snapping Turtles in 23 of these sites. Lescher et al. (2013) observed that when the
two species occurred together, Common Snapping Turtles became dominant and
displaced Alligator Snapping turtles; this finding supports the hypothesis that Alligator
Snapping Turtles may no longer persist within historic sites surveyed in this
study. Alternatively, aquatic habitats which were not historic sites but which we
targeted as appropriate Alligator Snapping Turtle habitat, may not have contained
appropriate habitat characteristics to support the species.
Western Kentucky has undergone immense hydrological changes over the
past 100 years. The Tennessee Valley Authority created Kentucky Lake when it
impounded the Tennessee River in 1944, and the US Army Corps of Engineers
created Lake Barkley when it impounded the Cumberland River in 1966. The
area in Kentucky with the highest density of verified Alligator Snapping Turtleoccurrence
records is the Tennessee River just north of Kentucky Dam. Panther
Creek and Blood River, both located near the southernmost reaches of the Kentucky
Lake impoundment, also produced verified occurrence records. Pre-impoundment,
the Tennessee River may have offered excellent habitat for Alligator Snapping
Turtles; though this supposition is not supported by the small number of historical
records in Kentucky. Due to the highly aquatic nature of these turtles (Harrel et al.
1996a, Trauth et al. 1998), the Tennessee River impoundment likely deters potential
migration of turtles between the Ohio River and the Tennessee River. Further,
documented Alligator Snapping Turtles confirmed at the southernmost reaches of
the impounded Kentucky Lake may be the result of remnant individuals seeking
more suitable habitat and moving south (upstream) until Kentucky Lake dissolves
into a network of small, ephemeral, second-order streams. These large-scale habitat
changes in western Kentucky may explain the presence of Alligator Snapping
Turtles at the northernmost (just above the dam) and southernmost ends of habitat
formally comprised of the Tennessee River. Altered hydrology has been previously
suggested as a source of population stress; Riedle et al. (2008) posited that large
flooding events may adversely impact populations by altering hab itat and decreasing
nesting success. Impoundment changes aquatic communities, especially fishes
(e.g., Taylor et al. 2001). Post-impoundment, these new fish assemblages may not
include Alligator Snapping Turtles’ preferred prey species.
Many areas adjacent to historically suitable habitat are currently characterized
by intensive row-crop agriculture where no riparian corridor has been maintained.
The open nature of streams and rivers lacking riparian corridors typically reduces
in-stream deadwood structure and alters environmental and water characteristics.
Removal of riparian vegetation has been shown to increase water temperatures
(Burton and Likens 1973, Feller 1981, Karr and Schlosser 1977), and riparian
buffers have been directly tied to sediment filtration (Gough 1988). A decrease in
Southeastern Naturalist
D.L. Baxley, J.O. Barnard, and H. Venter
2014 Vol. 13, No. 2
344
availability of nesting habitat due to the reduced size of many riparian corridors
may also limit Alligator Snapping Turtle distribution in western Kentucky. Ewert
(1989) found that wild nests in the Apalachicola River drainage in Florida averaged
12.2 m from water. Without a strip of undisturbed habitat between water and
row-crops, nests may be vulnerable to direct mortality from agricultural equipment
as well as predation. Thus, nest success in Kentucky may be low in areas lacking
adequate riparian buffers between water and row-crop agricultural fields.
It is possible that Alligator Snapping Turtles remain in suitable habitats at
densities that were too low to detect with our survey methods. The species’ status
is unknown in the main stem of the Mississippi and Ohio Rivers; however, these
systems have been heavily impacted by channelization and habitat alteration and
thus may not support healthy populations. Future efforts to locate populations in
Kentucky should include targeted, intensive surveys where suitable nesting habitat
and in-stream structure exists, particularly areas where we did not document Common
Snapping Turtles. If Kentucky populations remain at low densities, it would
be beneficial to encourage commercial and recreational fisherman to document and
report bycatch, particularly along the mainstem of the Mississippi and Ohio Rivers.
Within the Alligator Snapping Turtle’s historic range in Kentucky, current habitatimprovement
efforts by managers and biologists should focus on the restoration
of riparian buffers and improvement of in-stream structure. If intensive outreach
and further sampling in Kentucky continue to fail to detect this species, restoration
should center on releasing captively propagated individuals, particularly given the
recent (albeit initial) success of Alligator Snapping Turtle reintroduction efforts in
Oklahoma (Moore et al. 2013).
Acknowledgments
We thank John MacGregor, Clark’s River National Wildlife Refuge, Phillip Sharp,
Tonya Mammone, Joe Lacefield, Terri Estes, Laura Patton, Wes Little, Rob Colvis, Tim
Kreher, Tony Black, Brent Harrell, Steve Marple, Jarrod Wood, Kory Knight, Jason Nally,
Paul Rister, Sharon Valitzski Holbrooks, and Tom Burberry. Funding for this project was
provided by State and Tribal Wildlife Grants and the Kentucky Department of Fish and
Wildlife Resources; and Brent Harrell, US Fish and Wildlife Service, Kentucky Field Office,
provided equipment.
Literature Cited
Barko, V.A., and J.T. Briggler. 2006. Midland Smooth Softshell (Apalone mutica) and Spiny
Softshell (Apalone spinifera) turtles in the middle Mississippi River: Habitat associations,
population structure, and implications for conservation. Chelonian Conservation
and Biology 5:225–231.
Boundy, J., and C. Kennedy. 2006. Trapping-survey results for the Alligator Snapping
Turtle (Macrochelys temminckii) in southeastern Louisiana, with comments on exploitation.
Chelonian Conservation and Biology 5:3–9.
Buhlmann, K.A., and M.R. Vaughan. 1991. Ecology of the turtle Pseudemys concinna in the
New River, West Virginia. Herpetological Monographs 1988:40–61.
Southeastern Naturalist
345
D.L. Baxley, J.O. Barnard, and H. Venter
2014 Vol. 13, No. 2
Burton, T.M., and G.E. Likens. 1973. Buffer strips for stream-temperature control. Research
Paper No. 15. Forest Research Laboratory, School of Forestry, Oregon State
University, Corvallis, OR.
Dobie, J.L. 1971. Reproduction and growth in the Alligator Snapping Turtle, Macroclemys
temmincki (Troost). Copeia 1971:645–658.
East, M.B., J.D. Riedle, and D.B. Ligon. 2013. Temporal changes in an Alligator Snapping
Turtle (Macrochelys temminckii) population. Wildlife Research 40:77–81.
Elsey, R.M. 2006. Food habits of Macrochelys temminckii (Alligator Snapping Turtle) from
Arkansas and Louisiana. Southeastern Naturalist 5:443–452.
Ewert, M.A. 1989. Nesting ecology of the Alligator Snapping Turtle (Macroclemys temminckii)
along the lower Apalachicola River, Florida. Funding proposal to the Florida
Game and Fresh Water Fish Commission Nongame Program. 19 pp. Tallahassee, FL.
Feller, M.S. 1981. Effects of clear-cutting and slash-burning on stream temperature in
southwestern British Columbia. Water Resources Bulletin 17:863–867.
Gough, S.C. 1988. Stream water-quality protection using vegetated filter strips: Structure
and function related to sediment control. M. Sc. Thesis. University of Missouri, Columbia,
MO.
Harrel, J.B., C.M. Allen, and S.J. Hebert. 1996a. Movements and habitat use of sub-adult
Alligator Snapping Turtles (Macroclemys temminckii) in Louisiana. American Midland
Naturalist 135:60–67.
Harrel, J.B., N.H. Douglas, M.H. Hardaway, and R.D. Thomas. 1996b. Mating behavior in
captive Alligator Snapping Turtles (Macroclemys temminckii). Chelonian Conservation
and Biology 2:101–105.
Harrel, J.B., C.M. Allen, and S.J. Hebert. 1997. One-year growth of subadult Macroclemys
temminckii in a Louisiana bayou. Herpetological Review 28:128–129.
Howey, C.A.F., and S.A. Dinkelacker. 2009. Habitat selection of the Alligator Snapping
Turtle (Macrochelys temminckii) in Arkansas. Journal of Herpetology 43:589–596.
Howey, C.A.F., and S.A. Dinkelacker. 2013. Characteristics of a historically harvested Alligator
Snapping Turtle population. Copeia 1:58–63.
Jensen, J.B., and W.S. Birkhead. 2003. Distribution and status of the Alligator Snapping
Turtle (Macrochelys temminckii) in Georgia. Southeastern Naturalist 2:25–34.
Karr, J.R., and I.J. Schlosser. 1977. Impact of near-stream vegetation and stream morphology
on water quality and stream biota. US Environmental Protection Agency Report
600/3-77-097. Washington, DC.
Lescher, T.C., Z. Tang-Martinez, and J.T. Briggler. 2013. Habitat use by the Alligator
Snapping Turtle (Macrochelys temminckii) and the Eastern Snapping Turtle (Chelydra
serpentina) in Southeastern Missouri. American Midland Naturalist 169:86–96.
Moler, P.E. 1997. Alligator Snapping Turtle distribution and relative abundance. Final report
to the US Fish and Wildlife Service, Jacksonville, FL. Federal Number: E-1-III-2-2.
Moore, D.B., D.B. Ligon, B.M. Fillmore, and S.F. Fox. 2013. Growth and viability of a
translocated population of Alligator Snapping Turtles (Macrochelys temminckii). Herpetological
Conservation and Biology 8:141–148.
Natureserve. 2012. Natureserve web services. Arlington, VA. Available online at http://
services.natureserve.org.
Reed, R.N., J.D. Congdon, and J.W. Gibbons. 2002. The Alligator Snapping Turtle (Macrochelys
[Macroclemys] temminckii): A review of ecology, life history, and conservation,
with demographic analyses of the sustainability of take from wild populations. Report,
Division of Scientific Authority; United States Fish and Wildlife Service, Arlington,
VA. 17 pp.
Southeastern Naturalist
D.L. Baxley, J.O. Barnard, and H. Venter
2014 Vol. 13, No. 2
346
Riedle, J.D., P.A. Shipman, S.F. Fox, and D.M. Leslie, Jr. 2005. Status and distribution of
the Alligator Snapping Turtle, Macrochelys temminckii, in Oklahoma. The Southwestern
Naturalist 50:79–84.
Riedle, J.D., P.A. Shipman, S.F. Fox, and D.M. Leslie, Jr. 2006. Microhabitat use, home
range, and movements of the Alligator Snapping Turtle, Macrochelys temminckii, in
Oklahoma. The Southwestern Naturalist 51:35–40.
Riedle, J.D., D.B. Ligon, and K.Graves. 2008. Distribution and management of Alligator
Snapping Turtles, Macrochelys temminckii, in Kansas and Oklahoma. Transactions of
the Kansas Academy of Science. 111:21–28.
Shipman, P.A., and J.D. Riedle. 2008. Status and distribution of the Alligator Snapping
Turtle (Macrochelys temminckii) in southeastern Missouri. Southeastern Naturalist
7:331–338.
Shipman, P.A., D.R. Edds, and L.E. Shipman. 1995. Distribution of the Alligator Snapping
Turtle (Macroclemys temminckii) in Kansas. Transactions of the Kansas Academy of
Science 98:83–91.
Taylor, C.A., J.H. Knouft, and T.M. Hiland. 2001. Consequences of stream impoundment on
fish communities in a small North American drainage. Regulated Rivers: Research and
Management 17:687–698.
The Times Leader. 2003. Alligator Snapper keeps mouth shut on eviction from Big Springs
Park. Staff report. 19 July.
Trauth, S.E., J.D. Wilhide, and A. Holt. 1998. Population structure and movement patterns
of Alligator Snapping Turtles (Macroclemys temminckii) in northeastern Arkansas. Chelonian
Conservation and Biology 3:64–70.
Tucker, A.D., and K.N. Sloan. 1997. Growth and reproductive estimates from Alligator
Snapping Turtles, Macroclemys temmincki, taken by commercial harvest in Louisiana.
Chelonian Conservation and Biology 2:587–592.