Regular issues
Special Issues

Southeastern Naturalist
    SENA Home
    Range and Scope
    Board of Editors
    Editorial Workflow
    Publication Charges

Other EH Journals
    Northeastern Naturalist
    Caribbean Naturalist
    Urban Naturalist
    Eastern Paleontologist
    Eastern Biologist
    Journal of the North Atlantic

EH Natural History Home

Observations on the Nesting Ecology of the Mississippi Mud Turtle, Kinosternon subrubrum hippocrepis Gray
Noah J. Anderson and Brian D. Horne

Southeastern Naturalist, Volume 8, Number 3 (2009): 563–565

Full-text pdf (Accessible only to subscribers.To subscribe click here.)


Site by Bennett Web & Design Co.
Observations on the Nesting Ecology of the Mississippi Mud Turtle, Kinosternon subrubrum hippocrepis Gray Noah J. Anderson1,* and Brian D. Horne2 Abstract - Surface nesting is common among tropical turtles, but is an uncommon and poorly documented event in temperate species. Here we report two separate instances of surface nesting in Kinosternon subrubrum (Eastern Mud Turtle), in a Louisiana swamp in November, 2001 and March, 2002. The clutches, each consisting of a single egg, were found on man-made earthen structures within a Dwarf Palmetto-hardwood fl oodplain. The adaptive significance of ovipositing eggs on the surface of compact clay soils is possibly related to the need for oxygen exchange between the eggshell and embryonic membranes as well as avoidance of high water-table conditions. The two nests were laid in winter months, unlike the typical May or June nesting of northern females. Reproductive patterns of turtles are known to fit two broad types (with exceptions and intermediates): those with few large clutches of small eggs laid during a distinct nesting season (type I) and those with several small clutches of large eggs laid more or less year-round (type II) (Moll 1979, Moll and Moll 2004). Moreover, turtles displaying the type II reproductive pattern are found predominately in the tropics and tend to have poorly constructed nests or none at all (Moll 1979). Kinosternid turtles tend towards a type II pattern (Moll 1979). Kinosternon subrubrum (Lacépède) (Eastern Mud Turtle), distributed in the southeastern portion of the United States, is known to lay brittle-shelled eggs in a variety of substrates, such as sandy soils and rotting logs, and locations, such as inside muskrat lodges and beaver dams, within alligator nest vegetation, and under boards (Barkalow 1948, Burke et al. 1994, Carr 1952, Deitz and Jackson 1979, Dundee and Rossman 1989, Ernst et al. 1994, Mount 1975, Nichols 1947, Richmond 1945, and Tinkle 1959). Many of the Eastern Mud Turtle nests found by Richmond (1945) were dug deep into the substratum, and the eggs were covered with soil, but he remarked that little attempt was made to conceal the opening of the nest. While poor nest concealment and shallow eggs have been noted in two other kinosternid turtles, Sternotherus minor (Agassiz) (Loggerhead Musk Turtle; Carr 1952, Ernst et al. 1994) and S. odoratus (Latreille in Sonnini and Latreille) (Common Musk Turtle; Cagle 1937, Carr 1952), we have only been able to locate one study that documented a single incidence of surface nesting in Eastern Mud Turtle (Tinkle 1959). Here, we report of two incidences of surface nesting in K. subrubrum hippocrepis Gray (Mississippi Mud Turtle) in a Louisiana swamp. We found a single egg on 29 November 2001 and another on 9 March 2002 while monitoring an area in the Jean Lafitte National Historical Park and Preserve, Barataria Unit, Jefferson Parish, LA. Sites were visited every 24 hours for several days prior to discovery of the eggs to check traps as part of a herptofaunal survey (N.J. Anderson, unpubl. data); hence, we believe the eggs were found the day of oviposition. The first egg was found partially exposed under leaf litter on a low dike adjacent to a water-filled ditch ca. 25 cm from the edge of the water and ca. 10 cm above the waterline. The egg was photographed, but was not measured and left undisturbed. In the spring of 2002, another lone egg showing no distinct banding and appearing weakly chalked (indicating its recent oviposition) was discovered partially exposed under leaf litter on a low dike adjacent to a man-made pond approximately 50 cm from both the edge of the water and above the waterline. This egg measured 31.5 x 17.2 mm and was photographed for comparison to the first egg. No evidence of any attempt at nest construction (i.e., scratch marks, disturbed soil) was present at either site. The second egg was brought to the lab and later, after several months of incubation, determined to be K. subrubrum hippocrepis. The neonate was released at the nesting site shortly after hatching. From a visual comparison, the two eggs appeared identical. Possibly the first egg was laid by a stinkpot, S. odoratus, but this Notes of the Southeastern Nat u ral ist, Issue 8/3, 2009 563 564 Southeastern Naturalist Notes Vol. 8, No. 3 highly unlikely as this species is extremely rare at the preserve (i.e., no living specimens were found after an 11-month intensive survey). Kinosternon subrubrum was common in water bodies at both nesting sites. The surrounding habitat was composed of Dwarf Palmetto-hardwood fl oodplains, which frequently have surface water. Both of these nests were discovered on man-made dikes that would rarely be subject to fl ooding; however, the soils are compact and clay laden, which may interfere with excavation or underground development of eggs. As no attempt was made at nest construction, it would seem to argue against the former possibility. The last hypothesis is that the behavior observed was anomalous and that the females abandoned attempts at nest construction, perhaps because of disturbance. Our observations are different from many reports of “surface nesting” in other kinosternid turtles. Most reports describe shallow nesting with the eggs laid in a depression created by the female, resulting in portions of the eggs exposed (Carr 1952, Richmond 1945, but see Cagle 1937 and Tinkle 1959). It is difficult to infer if this is a common method of nesting at this site as no other natural nests (e.g., depredated, intact, or successfully hatched) were discovered in the course of surveys from August 2001–June 2002. Ovipositing eggs on the surface may be a beneficial reproductive strategy when no sandy soils are available. Sandy soils maintain high water potential with low water content and the spaces between sand grains provide ample oxygen for a developing embryo (Ackerman 1991, Packard and Packard 1988). Clay, with its much smaller particle size, maintains a high water content thus decreasing or eliminating oxygen between particles (Ackerman 1991). Furthermore, the small particles of clay can clog eggshell pores that are important for gas exchange, especially when embryos are near completion of morphogenesis and have the highest oxygen consumption (Ewert 1979). Therefore, developing embryos in surface nests might be less likely to asphyxiate during periods of high soil moisture. The timing (March and November) of these two nests is also unusual. Most nesting activity of K. subrubrum has been reported in May and June (Ernst et al. 1994, Gibbons 1983, Gibbons et al. 1982, Iverson 1979). The earliest reported nesting dates for this species have been 15 Jan (in New Orleans; Dundee and Rossman 1989), February (one observation in Louisiana; Tinkle 1959), mid-March (shelled eggs in a dissected female from east Texas; Houseal and Carr 1983), late March (three nests unearthed by a plow in Virginia; Richmond 1945), and mid-April (nesting female in Northern Virginia, Ernst et al. 2001). Nesting in K. subrubrum is reported to occur as late as September in Virginia ( Iverson 1979, Richmond 1945). Interestingly, Iverson (1977) suggested K. subrubrum may nest continuously throughout the year in northern Florida (similar latitude to our study site), but his conclusions were based on finding recently hatched young in December and February. The November nest we discovered is of particular developmental interest as nesting into periods of declining day length is possible evidence for the expression of embryonic diapause (Ewert and Wilson 1996). It is perhaps due to investigator bias (i.e., searching for nests during the summer months) that has limited the observations of fall and spring nests, and it is possible that such nests are more common than earlier perceived. However, the majority of studies on Kinosternid reproductive condition suggest that spring and fall nesting is uncommon in this genus of turtles (Gibbons 1983, Gibbons et al. 1982, Tinkle 1961). The exception appears to be in Kinosternon baurii (Ewert and Jackson 2005, Ewert and Wilson 1996, Iverson, 1979b), which has been often reported nesting in spring and late summer. It is possible that the southernmost populations of K. subrubrum have different reproductive strategies, which are more typical of many tropical turtles, in that they are able to produce viable eggs at times when it is biologically infeasible for northern populations. Acknowledgments. We thank the National Park Service (David Muth) for permits and financial support of the herpetological inventory. This manuscript was greatly improved by comments from Dr. Peter Pritchard and an anonymous reviewer. 2009 Southeastern Naturalist Notes 565 Literature Cited Ackerman, R.A. 1991. Physical factors affecting the water exchange of buried reptiles eggs. Pp.193–211. In D.C. Deeming and M.W.J. Ferguson (Eds.). Egg Incubation: Its effect on Embryonic Development in Birds and Reptiles. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge UK. Barkalow, F.S. 1948. Notes on the breeding habits of the turtle Kinosternon subrubrum. Copeia. 1948:130. Burke, V.J., J.W. Gibbons, and J.L. Greene. 1994. Prolonged nesting forays by Common Mud Turtles (Kinosternon subrubrum). American Midland Naturalist. 131:190–195. Cagle, F. 1937. Egg laying habits of the Slider Turtle (Pseudemys troostii), the Painted Turtle (Chyrsemys picta), and the Musk Turtle (Sternotherus odoratus). Journal of the Tennessee Academy of Science. 12:87–95. Carr, A. 1952. Handbook of Turtles of the United States, Canada, and Baja California. Cornell University Press, Ithaca, NY. 542 pp. Deitz, D.C., and D.R. Jackson. 1979. Use of American Alligator nests by nesting turtles. Journal of Herpetology. 13:510–512. Dundee, H.A., and D.A. Rossman. 1989. The Amphibians and Reptiles of Louisiana. Louisiana State University Press, Baton Rouge, LA. 300 pp. Ernst, C.H., J.E. Lovich, and R.W. Barbour. 1994. Turtles of the United States and Canada. Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington, DC. 578 pp. Ernst, C.H., T.R. Creque, and K.A. Hansknecht. 2001. Kinosternon subrubrum (Eastern Mud Turtle) early nesting. Herpetological Review. 32:103–104. Ewert, M.A. 1979. The embryo and its egg: Development and natural history. Pp. 333–413, In M. Har and H. Morlock (Eds.). Turtles: Perspectives and Research. Wiley, New York, NY. Ewert, M., and D.R. Jackson. 2005. Kinosternon baurii (Striped Mud Turtle). Size and reproduction. Herpetological Review 36(4): 442. Ewert, M.A., and D.S. Wilson. 1996. Seasonal variation of embryonic diapause in the Striped Mud Turtle (Kinosternon baurii) and general considerations for conservation planning. Chelonian Conservation Biology 2(1):43–54. Gibbons, J.W. 1983. Reproductive characteristics and ecology of the mud turtle, Kinosternon subrubrum (Lacepede). Herpetologica 39:254–271. Gibbons, J.W., J.L. Greene, and K.K. Patterson. 1982. Variation in reproductive characteristics of aquatic turtles. Copeia 1982:776–784. Houseal, T.W., and J.L. Carr. 1983. Notes on the reproduction of Kinosternon subrubrum (Testudines: Kinosternidae) in east Texas. Southwestern Naturalist 28(2):237–248. Iverson, J.B. 1977. Kinosternon subrubrum. Catalogue of American Amphibians and Reptiles 193:1–4. Iverson, J.B. 1979a. Reproduction and growth of the mud turtle, Kinosternon subrubrum (Reptilia, Testudines, Kinosternidae), in Arkansas. Journal of Herpetology 13:105–111. Moll, D., and E.O. Moll. 2004. The Ecology, Exploitation, and Conservation of River Turtles. Oxford University Press, Oxford, UK. 393 pp. Moll, E.O. 1979. Reproductive cycles and adaptations. Pp. 305–331, In M. Harless and H. Morlock (Eds.). Turtles: Perspectives and Research. Krieger Publishing, Malabar, FL. Mount, R.H. 1975. The Reptiles and Amphibians of Alabama. Auburn University, Auburn, AL. 347 pp. Nichols, J.T. 1947. Notes on the mud turtle. Herpetologica. 3:147–148. Packard, G.C. and M.J. Packard. 1988. The physiological ecology of reptilian eggs and embryos. Pp. 523–605, In B. C. Gans and R.B. Huey (Eds). Biology of the Reptilia: Defense and Life History. Vol. 16. Ecology. Alan R. Liss, Inc., New York, NY. Richmond, N.D. 1945. Nesting habits of the mud turtle. Copeia. 1945:217–219. Tinkle, D.W. 1959. Observations of reptiles and amphibians in a Louisiana swamp. American Midland Naturalist. 62:189–205. Tinkle, D.W. 1961. Geographic variation in reproduction, size, sex ratio, and maturity of Sternotherus odoratus (Testudinata: Chelydridae). Ecology 42:68–76. 1Department of Biology, University of Wisconsin-Baraboo/Sauk County, 1006 Connie Road, Baraboo, WI 53913. 2 Current address - San Diego Zoo, Institute for Conservation Research, 15600 San Pasqual Road, Escondido, CA 92027. *Corresponding author -