Distribution and Abundance of the Alligator Snapping Turtle …users.edinboro.edu/plindeman/MtemminckiiswLA2019.pdf · 2019. 2. 7. · 65 W .V yons 20192019 SOUTHEASTERN NATURALIST

Southeastern Naturalist

65

C.C. Huntzinger, I. Louque Jr., W. Selman, P.V. Lindeman, and E.K. Lyons2019 Vol. 18, No. 1SOUTHEASTERN NATURALIST2019 18(1):65–75

Distribution and Abundance of the Alligator Snapping Turtle (Macrochelys temminckii) in Southwestern Louisiana

Cybil C. Huntzinger1, Irvin Louque Jr.1, Will Selman2,4,*, Peter V. Lindeman3, and Eddie K. Lyons1

Abstract - High harvest rates during the 1900s led to declines of Macrochelys temminckii (Alligator Snapping Turtle) throughout much of its range. Recent research to determine the status of Alligator Snapping Turtles has been completed in some regions of Louisiana, but information is lacking for the southwestern region of the state. To determine the distribu-tion and abundance of Alligator Snapping Turtles in southwestern Louisiana, we conducted trapping efforts in the lower Calcasieu, Mermentau, and lower Sabine river systems from March 2012 through October 2013 using baited hoop nets. In 731 trap nights, we captured 14 individuals (2 M, 4 F, 8 Juv) in the Mermentau and Calcasieu river systems. Our trap-ping efforts did not detect Alligator Snapping Turtles at Sabine River sites, although one individual was found dead on a fishing hook of a hanging limb line. Our catch per unit ef-fort (CPUE) was 0.021 across the 3 river drainages. Population levels appear to be smaller than observed elsewhere in Louisiana and in neighboring southern states. We recommend that future surveys be conducted to determine population trajectories and that a system be implemented for monitoring commercial fishing bycatch and recreational harvest.

Introduction

Habitat loss, unsustainable harvest rates, environmental pollution, and numer-ous other threats have led to global declines of many amphibian and reptile species (Gibbons et al. 2000). Overharvesting likely has been one of the leading causes for Macrochelys temminckii (Troost) (Alligator Snapping Turtle) declines throughout the species’ range in the southeastern United States (Pritchard 1989). Following re-cent taxonomic revision, the range of Alligator Snapping Turtle includes the lower Mississippi River watershed and other major Gulf of Mexico river drainages from the western Florida panhandle to the San Antonio River of Texas (Turtle Taxonomy Working Group 2017). It inhabits major river channels, streams, bayous, oxbows, sloughs, and canals (Pritchard 1989). Because of its large body size and wide geographic distribution, the Alliga-tor Snapping Turtle was heavily harvested for its meat and parts from the 1960s through the 1980s (Pritchard 1989, Sloan and Lovich 1995). Rapid population de-clines raised concerns among state agencies (Boundy and Kennedy 2006) and led

1Harold and Pearl Dripps School of Agricultural Sciences, McNeese State University, Lake Charles, LA 70605. 2Rockefeller Wildlife Refuge, Louisiana Department of Wildlife and Fisheries, Grand Chenier, LA 70643. 3Department of Biology and Health Sciences, Edinboro University of Pennsylvania, Edinboro, PA 16444. 4Current address - Biology Department, Millsaps College, Jackson, MS 39210. *Corresponding author - [email protected].

Manuscript Editor: Brad Glorioso

Southeastern NaturalistC.C. Huntzinger, I. Louque Jr., W. Selman, P.V. Lindeman, and E.K. Lyons

2019 Vol. 18, No. 1

66

to a ban on commercial harvest and sale of Alligator Snapping Turtle meat in the mid-1990s in most range states (Ernst and Lovich 2009). Among all range states, commercial harvest of Alligator Snapping Turtles was most recently banned in Louisiana in December 2004 (Boundy and Kennedy 2006). Recreational harvest is still permitted in Louisiana with a basic or non-resident fishing license, but take is limited to 1 individual of any size class per day (LDWF 2018). Distribution and abundance surveys for Alligator Snapping Turtles have been conducted in many states throughout its historic range. Studies conducted at the northern periphery of the range suggest declines in Alligator Snapping Turtle popu-lations and a decrease in overall distribution (e.g., Oklahoma [Riedle et al. 2005] and Missouri [Lescher et al. 2013]), including possible extirpation from Kansas (Shipman 1993), Illinois (Bluett et al. 2011), and Kentucky (Baxley et al. 2014). Surveys in the southern portion of the range suggest Alligator Snapping Turtles are still relatively widespread, and higher catch-per-unit-effort (CPUE) results indicate more robust populations than observed in northern portions of the range (Folt and Godwin 2013, Howey and Dinkelacker 2013, Jensen and Birkhead 2003, Moler 1996, Wagner et al. 1996). However, despite this relatively widespread distribu-tion and higher CPUE, population demographics of Alligator Snapping Turtle in portions of Arkansas (Howey and Dinkelacker 2013, Wagner et al. 1996), Florida (Moler 1996), and Georgia (Jensen and Birkhead 2003) are indicative of overhar-vesting, with a higher relative abundance of juveniles and subadults to adults. Prior field surveys in Louisiana by Boundy (2003, 2008) were completed in southeastern, south-central, and central Louisiana, and these studies found that Al-ligator Snapping Turtles were in “relatively low abundance” in comparison to other states and had a higher proportion of juvenile turtle captures. There are limited data on the distribution and abundance of Alligator Snapping Turtles in southwestern Louisiana, where only 7 records exist (Battaglia et al. 2015, Boundy 1994, Dundee and Rossman 1989, Ecrement 2011, Williams 2002) from 7 parishes (Acadia, Allen, Beauregard, Calcasieu, Jefferson Davis, Vermilion, and Vernon parishes). Thus, the objective of our study was to determine the distribution and abundance of the Al-ligator Snapping Turtle in southwestern Louisiana and document morphometrics of captured individuals.

Methods

We trapped for Alligator Snapping Turtle at 15 sites in southwestern Louisiana in the Calcasieu (n = 6 sites), Mermentau (n = 6 sites), and Sabine (n = 3 sites) river drainages (Fig. 1). We selected sites based on apparently suitable habitat for Alligator Snapping Turtles (Ernst and Lovich 2009, Pritchard 1989) and proximity of available public boat launches. Individual trap locations were chosen near side channels, downed trees, log jams, and mammal lodges. All sites were dominated by Taxodium distichum L. (Baldcypress), Nyssa aquatica L. (Swamp Tupelo), and Acer rubrum L. (Red Maple). Exotic aquatic vegetation was present at our sites in all 3 rivers including Salvinia minima (Baker) (Water Spangles) and S. molesta (Aubl.) (Giant Salvinia), Eichhornia crassipes (Mart. Solms) (Water Hyacinth),


67

C.C. Huntzinger, I. Louque Jr., W. Selman, P.V. Lindeman, and E.K. Lyons2019 Vol. 18, No. 1

and Alternanthera philoxerides (Mart. Griseb.) (Alligator Weed). Most sites had silty/muddy bottoms, but 4 upstream sites had more sandy bottoms (sites 1, 2, 14, and 15; Table 1, Fig. 1). We trapped turtles from March to October in 2012 and 2013 using single-throated hoop nets consisting of four 0.91-m diameter hoops with 2.54–cm mesh

Figure 1. Map of southwestern Louisiana showing trapping sites for Alligator Snapping Turtles in the Calcasieu, Mermentau, and Sabine watersheds. Numbers correspond to sites listed in Table 1.


2019 Vol. 18, No. 1

68

Tabl

e 1.

Tra

ppin

g re

sults

for

turtl

e sp

ecie

s ca

ptur

ed f

rom

Mar

ch 2

012

thro

ugh

Oct

ober

201

3 in

sou

thw

este

rn L

ouis

iana

. Abb

revi

atio

ns u

sed:

TN

= tr

ap

nigh

ts, C

PUE

= ca

tch

per u

nit e

ffor

t, M

t = M

acro

chel

ys te

mm

inck

ii (A

lliga

tor S

napp

ing

Turtl

e, M

= m

ale,

F =

fem

ale,

J =

juve

nile

), A

s =

Apal

one

spin

-fe

ra L

eSue

ur (S

piny

Sof

tshe

ll), C

s =

Che

lydr

a se

rpen

tina

L. (S

napp

ing

Turtl

e), G

s =

Gra

ptem

ys s

abin

ensi

s C

agle

(Sab

ine

Map

Tur

tle),

Gp

= G

rapt

emys

ps

eudo

geog

raph

ica

Gra

y (F

alse

Map

Tur

tle),

Ks =

Kin

oste

rnon

subr

ubru

m L

acep

ède

(Eas

tern

Mud

Tur

tle),

Ts =

Tra

chem

ys sc

ript

a Th

unbe

rg in

Sch

oepf

f (P

ond

Slid

er),

Pc =

Pse

udem

ys c

onci

nna

LeC

onte

(R

iver

Coo

ter)

, Sc

= St

erno

ther

us c

arin

atus

Gra

y (R

azor

-bac

ked

Mus

k Tu

rtle)

, So

= St

erno

ther

us

odor

atus

Lat

rielle

(Eas

tern

Mus

k Tu

rtle)

.

Site

R

iver

TN

M

t (M

,F,J

) M

t CPU

E A

s C

s G

s G

p K

s Ts

Pc

Sc

So

To

tal

1. B

irds

Cre

ek

Cal

casi

eu

34

1 (0

,1,0

) 0.

029

0 0

0 0

0 0

0

2 1

42.

HW

Y 1

90

Cal

casi

eu

20

3 (0

,0,3

) 0.

150

1 0

0 1

0 3

0

8 0

163.

Hol

broo

k Pa

rk

Cal

casi

eu

12

1 (0

,0,1

) 0.

067

0 0

0 0

0 1

0

0 0

24.

Hou

ston

Riv

er

Cal

casi

eu

16

2 (0

,1,1

) 0.

077

0 0

0 0

0 2

0

0 0

45.

Sam

Hou

ston

Jon

es S

. P.

Cal

casi

eu

116

7 (3

A,0

,4A)

0.05

6 0

0 2

1 0

2

0 2

0 14

6. W

hite

Oak

Par

k C

alca

sieu

9

6 0

0.

000

0 0

0 0

0 32

0 11

0

437.

Bay

ou N

ezpi

que

Mer

men

tau

53

0

0.00

0 0

0 0

0 0

45

0 6

1 52

8. B

ayou

Pla

quem

ine

Bru

le

Mer

men

tau

68

0

0.00

0 4

0 1

0 1

44

0 4

4 58

9. L

ake

Arth

ur

Mer

men

tau

34

2 (0

,2,0

) 0.

059

0 0

0 0

1 14

0

4 0

2110

. HW

Y 1

4 M

erm

enta

u 1

8 0

0.

000

0 0

0 0

0 3

0

1 0

411

. HW

Y 9

0 M

erm

enta

u 6

7 0

0.

000

0 0

0 0

0 8

1

5 0

1412

. Mey

ers

Land

ing

Mer

men

tau

8

0

0.00

0 0

0 0

0 0

0

0 2

0 2

13. A

lliga

tor P

ark

Sabi

ne

28

0

0.00

0 0

0 0

0 0

0

0 1

0 1

14. N

ible

tts B

luff

Par

k Sa

bine

10

9 0

0.

000

0 0

0 0

0 28

0

0 0

2815

. HW

Y 1

2 Sa

bine

5

2 0

0.

000

0 1

0 0

0 5

0

1 0

7To

talA

731

16

0.02

1 5

1 3

2

2

187

1 47

6

270

AR

ecap

ture

d M

. tem

min

ckii

indi

vidu

als

(1 m

ale

and

1 ju

veni

le) a

re in

clud

ed.


69


netting. At each site, we set 6 to 10 nets and checked them the following 3 morn-ings. We reset nets on a few occasions due to water-level fluctuations and net theft. We recorded the locations of nets using a handheld GPS unit (Garmin Ltd, Olathe, KS) and generated location maps using ArcMap 9.3 (ESRI, Redlands, CA). Sites on the Sabine River were heavily influenced by the Toledo Bend Dam due to periodic releases of reservoir water. Thus, we relocated traps in this drainage frequently due to rapid changes in water levels. We set nets so that the throats were completely submerged (Bluett et al. 2011, Boundy and Kennedy 2006) and, when possible, to within ~7–15 cm of their tops. To prevent possible drowning of captured turtles, we inserted floats into each net. From March to July 2012, we used canned sardines, canned tuna fish, cat food, and Ictiobus bubalus (Rafinesque) (Smallmouth Buffalo) as bait, but we did not catch any Alligator Snapping Turtles; however, we captured many other local turtle species during this time. The bait type was switched in August 2012 to frozen Brevoortia patronus (Goode) (Gulf Menhaden), and all captures were made with this bait. We changed bait daily. For each individual captured, we measured straight midline carapace length (CL) to the nearest mm using 40- or 60-cm tree calipers (Haglöf; Långsele, Swe-den), depending on the CL of the individual. We weighed turtles to the nearest 0.1 kg using a 20-kg spring scale (Pesola; Schindellegi, Switzerland), but a Pesola 100-kg digital hanging scale was used for larger individuals. All individuals were uniquely marked on their posterior marginal scutes with a power drill, photo-graphed, and released. Along with Alligator Snapping Turtles, we also collected similar morphologic data on other turtle species we captured for related studies. We separated Alligator Snapping Turtles into 2 age classes (juvenile and adult) based on CL. All turtles less than 300 mm were considered juveniles (Dobie 1971), and we made no attempt to sex juveniles. Alligator Snapping Turtles are considered sexually mature at ~300 mm CL (Howey and Dinkelacker 2013), and they were sexed by measuring the distance between the base of the plastron and the cloacal aperture (Dobie 1971, Harrel et al. 1996).

Results

In total, we captured 270 turtles of 10 species in 731 trap nights (Table 1) includ-ing 14 individual Alligator Snapping Turtles (an average of 0.018 turtles per trap night [TTN] for new captures); 2 of these individuals were later recaptured (0.021 TTN for all captures). The Calcasieu River had the highest CPUE (12 in 294 TN; 0.041 TTN; 0.048 including recaptures), and we captured Alligator Snapping Turtles at 5 of 6 sites. The Mermentau River had the second highest CPUE (2 in 248 TN; 0.008 TTN), and we captured Alligator Snapping Turtles at only 1 of 6 sites. We did not capture any Alligator Snapping Turtles at Sabine River sites (189 TN), but 1 indi-vidual was found dead on the hook of a hanging limb line (aka, bush hook). Alligator Snapping Turtles were confirmed in 6 parishes where records already existed (Allen, Beauregard, Calcasieu, Jefferson Davis, Vermilion, and Vernon). The record for Vermilion Parish is the first with specific locality information


2019 Vol. 18, No. 1

70

(Boundy 1994). Despite having no captures during the first 5 months of 2012 when we were trying different bait types, we saw no dramatic impacts in the overall trap success across years; catch per unit effort was similar for 2012 (0.018 TTN) and 2013 (0.024 TTN). Of the 14 individuals we captured, 8 were juveniles and 6 were adults (2 males, 4 females), with turtles varying in size from 160 mm to 467 mm CL and from 0.8 kg to 22.9 kg (Table 2). The low number of captures precluded morphological com-parisons among drainages or sites.

Discussion

We confirmed the presence of Alligator Snapping Turtles in all 3 river systems sampled, indicating that they remain relatively widespread in the southwestern portion of the state. However, low overall CPUE suggests low abundance of Al-ligator Snapping Turtles, and the limited number of captures suggests a population structure skewed towards smaller adults and juveniles in this region. This pattern is similar to what has been found in other areas previously subjected to high harvest pressure (Jensen and Birkhead 2003, Wagner et al. 1996). Though we did not capture Alligator Snapping Turtles at our lower Sabine sites, we were able to confirm the presence of Alligator Snapping Turtles at 1 site where a juvenile was opportunistically found dead on a fishing hook of a hanging limb line (aka, bush hook). Our field efforts on the Sabine River were limited to 3 loca-tions with reliable water levels and boat launches. However, during June 2013 in a related trapping effort, we captured another juvenile (197 mm CL) in the Sabine

Table 2. Individual carapace length (CL) and mass across drainages for Macrochelys temminckii (Al-ligator Snapping Turtle) captured in southwestern Louisiana.

Sex ID Drainage CL (cm) Mass (kg)

Male 0–12 Calcasieu 46.4 n/a 10–10 Calcasieu 38.7 15.9

Female 11,12–0 Calcasieu 35.0 9.7 400A Calcasieu 39.9 12.6 n/aB Mermentau 41.0 15.6 11–11 Mermentau 40.7 16.8

Juvenile 11–0 Calcasieu 31.6 6.4 12–0 Calcasieu 29.5 5.9 9–0 Calcasieu 25.1 3.7 9,12–0 Calcasieu 23.2 2.9 0–2 Calcasieu 26.6 4.5 11–10 Calcasieu 19.3 1.6 3–0 Calcasieu 26.7 4.1 8–8 Calcasieu 16.9 1.1AThe ID of this individual was from a different numbering system and was included as part of a related study on Fort Polk.

BThis individual drowned in the trap due to a trap float malfunction precluding the need for identifica-tion.


71


River ~2 river km south of the mouth of Bayou Anacoco (Beauregard Parish; P.V. Lindeman, unpubl. data). We suspect that Alligator Snapping Turtles may occur in lower abundance at our Sabine River sites because of altered river hydrology, including pulsed hydroelectric water releases made from the Toledo Bend Reser-voir upstream of our Sabine River sites (e.g., 1.8–2.4 m added depth following releases; LDWF 2017). Additionally, water quality issues in the Sabine River may also impact Alligator Snapping Turtle abundance. For example, a fish consumption advisory due to elevated mercury levels is in effect near our site at Niblett’s Bluff (LDWF 2017). Collectively, these factors may lead to changes in turtle population structure and population fragmentation (Bodie 2001), and may ultimately lead to declines or extirpation. Future surveys should investigate Alligator Snapping Turtle populations above and below reservoirs to document presence or abundance shifts relative to dam operations. In the Mermentau watershed, we captured Alligator Snapping Turtles at only 1 of 6 sites sampled. The Mermentau River has poor water quality, mainly because of urban and suburban runoff, agricultural and silvicultural runoff, and dredging (Holcomb et al. 2015). Since its settlement in the late 1800s, the Mermentau River basin has been transformed from the historic “Cajun Prairie”, where ranching was the most common land use, to an intensively managed agricultural landscape used for rice, sugar cane, and crawfish farming (US Department of Agriculture [2017] as visualized in Cropscape). Declines of aquatic fauna from the Mermentau River system have been described, including the near extirpation of Graptemys pseudo-geographica (False Map Turtle; Ilgen et al. 2014) and declines of freshwater mus-sel species (Vidrine 2010). Our finding of more Alligator Snapping Turtles in the Calcasieu River system is not surprising given that land uses in the basin are less intense than observed in the Mermentau basin. The Calcasieu basin is primarily forested, has less agriculture than the Mermentau watershed, and has no reservoirs on major river tributaries. Thus, riverine processes are intact relative to the other 2 river systems we surveyed. Within the Calcasieu watershed, we captured Alligator Snapping Turtles at 5 of 6 sites, with both sexes and most size classes represented (Table 2). The only site in the drainage where we failed to detect the species was White Oak Park, located on the main channel of the East Fork of the Calcasieu River. Even though the habitat appeared suitable, we did not capture any Alligator Snapping Turtles in 96 trap nights. However, 3 individuals were captured upstream at the Highway 190 site, confirming their presence in the East Fork of the Calcasieu River. Sam Houston Jones State Park, on the West Fork of the Calcasieu River, was our most productive site for Alligator Snapping Turtles (n = 7) in southwestern Louisiana. At both successful and unsuccessful sites, Alligator Snapping Turtles were con-spicuously absent from main river channels. We caught all individuals in smaller side channels off the main river channel. Main river channels have multiple boat ramps to provide easy boating access, whereas smaller side channels are more dif-ficult to access by boat. Thus, we suspect that the absence of Alligator Snapping Turtles from main river channels may be due to continued recreational harvest


2019 Vol. 18, No. 1

72

pressure or incidental take via commercial (e.g., hoop nets submerged below the water surface) or recreational (e.g., trot lines) fishing gear. The presence of recre-ational fishing activity was evident by the numerous fishing lines (both limb and trot lines) observed on the main river channels. Given the history of overharvesting of Alligator Snapping Turtles, individuals on the main rivers may have been “fished out” during the mid-1900s to early 2000s with only remnant source populations left in backwater areas. Alternatively, big river habitat may be suboptimal for Al-ligator Snapping Turtles and may lack certain microhabitat features that were not quantified in this study (e.g., submerged deadwood). Indeed, much of the lower Mermentau River system has been extensively modified by channelization (Ilgen et al. 2014). Regardless of the exact scenario, the absence of the species from the main river channels is a concern because the species has been caught in high abundance in other large southeastern US river channels (e.g., Folt and Godwin 2013). In comparison to other regions in Louisiana, southwestern Louisiana has the lowest CPUE (0.021 TTN), two- to fourfold lower than other regions surveyed in the state (southeastern: 0.057 TTN, south-central: 0.046 TTN, northern: 0.088 [Ouachita River] and 0.069 [Red River] TTN; Boundy 2003, 2008; Boundy and Kennedy 2006). In these studies, 541 Alligator Snapping Turtles were trapped in 8421 trap nights at 123 sites (0.064 TTN; Boundy 2003, 2008). However, compar-ing prior Louisiana data proves difficult due to the use of a professional turtle trap-per in other regions of Louisiana (Boundy 2003, 2008; Boundy and Kennedy 2006), whereas a similarly trained individual was not used in this study or prior studies across the rest of the range of the Alligator Snapping Turtle. Presumably, CPUE is likely greater when a more experienced individual is trapping. Low CPUE values and smaller size classes suggest that populations of Alligator Snapping Turtles in southwestern Louisiana (0.021 TTN) and throughout the state of Louisiana (0.046–0.088 TTN) are more similar to other populations studied near the periphery of the species’ geographic range or from historically harvested areas. For example, in the peripheral range state of Oklahoma, Riedle et al. (2005) captured 63 individuals in 1085 TN (0.058 TTN). In Missouri, another peripheral range state, Lescher et al. (2013) documented significantly lower CPUE at 6 sites sampled in 2009 (0.116 TTN) compared to data collected from the same sites in 1993 and 1994 (0.195 TTN, 2 recaptures; Shipman and Riedle 2008). Lescher et al. (2013) also found more juveniles than adults in 2009 and a lower adult CPUE, and this result is similar to that from Louisiana in our study and the study by Boundy and Kennedy (2006). In areas with reported historic commercial harvesting in southern Alabama (e.g., Tensaw River), Folt and Godwin (2013) also reported low CPUE data (0.067 TTN total). For comparison, Folt and Godwin (2013) suggested that one of their sites in Alabama, the Fowl River, may be more representative of historical Alligator Snapping Turtle abundance (0.478 TTN). This CPUE is ~23x greater abundance than what we observed in southwestern Louisiana.. Even though legal commercial harvesting of Alligator Snapping Turtles was eliminated in Louisiana in 2004, anecdotal reports from fishermen in southwestern Louisiana indicate that adult Alligator Snapping Turtles are still legally harvested


73


recreationally. It also seems possible that Alligator Snapping Turtles are captured as bycatch or drown in submerged commercial fishing hoop nets (Larocque et al. 2012, Midwood et al. 2015). Consequently, their recovery may be prolonged or compromised in areas still subjected to recreational or incidental harvest. Indeed, Folt et al. (2016) found annual adult survivorship values for males (0.98) and females (0.95) in a stable Georgia population, and they found that the population growth rate of Alligator Snapping Turtle populations is most sensitive to adult sur-vival (i.e., population growth rate decreases with decreased adult survival). Thus, populations of Alligator Snapping Turtles in Louisiana may benefit from additional recreational regulations (e.g., an annual bag limit or seasons or regions closed to harvest) to limit the additional take of individuals from regions that exhibit de-pressed populations and/or a juvenile-skewed population. In addition, reporting of incidental bycatch by commercial and legal take by recreational fishermen would provide valuable information to help determine the rate, location, and number of individuals that are taken intentionally or incidentally from state waters. If imple-mented, these collective efforts have the potential to positively impact the conser-vation and management of Alligator Snapping Turtle populations in Louisiana.

Acknowledgments

Funding for this project was provided by the Louisiana Department of Wildlife and Fisheries, US Fish and Wildlife Service Division of Scientific Authority, and US Fish and Wildlife Service State Wildlife Grant Program (Grant T–094). This study was con-ducted under the Louisiana Department of Wildlife and Fisheries Scientific Collecting Permit (LNHP-12-026; LNHP-13-056) and McNeese State University IACUC 14022012. We thank K. Cantrelle, J. Eaker, J. Dupre, and M. Guidry for assisting with field research. We also thank M. Guidry for his added knowledge of the area. A. Bass, S. Holcomb, B. Folt, and 2 anonymous reviewers provided valuable feedback to improve the manuscript.

Literature Cited

Battaglia, C.D., C.R. Faidley, A.N. Hudson, M.D. Brown, T.M. Pardue, M.L. Reid, A.A. Bass, C.L. Townsend, and J.L. Carr. 2015. Distribution records for Louisiana amphib-ians and reptiles. Herpetological Review 46:579–581.

Baxley, D.L, J.O. Barnard, and H. Venter. 2014. A survey for the Alligator Snapping Turtle (Macrochelys temminckii) in western Kentucky. Southeastern Naturalist 13:337–346.

Bluett, R.D., D.A. Woolard, J.G. Palis, and J.A. Kath. 2011. Survey for Macrochelys tem-minckii in southern Illinois: Implications for recovery actions. Transactions of the Il-linois State Academy of Science 104:63–70.

Bodie, J.R. 2001. Stream and riparian management for freshwater turtles. Journal of Envi-ronmental Management 62:443–455.

Boundy, J. 1994. Range extensions for Louisiana amphibians and reptiles. Herpetological Review 25:128–129.

Boundy, J. 2003. Alligator Snapping Turtle (Macroclemys temminckii) surveys in Louisiana 1996–2001. Unpublished Report to the Louisiana Department of Wildlife and Fisheries, Baton Rouge, LA. 45 pp.

Boundy, J. 2008. Re-surveys for the Alligator Snapping Turtle in Louisiana, including trap data for other turtle species. Technical Report. Louisiana Department of Wildlife and Fisheries, Baton Rouge, LA. 13 pp.


2019 Vol. 18, No. 1

74

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.

Dobie, J.L. 1971. Reproduction and growth in the Alligator Snapping Turtle, Macroclemys temminckii (Troost). Copeia 1971:645–658.

Dundee, H.A., and D.A. Rossman. 1989. The Amphibians and Reptiles of Louisiana. Loui-siana State University Press, Baton Rouge, LA. 300 pp.

Ecrement, S.M. 2011. Macrochelys temminckii (Alligator Snapping Turtle): Geographic distribution. Herpetological Review 42:566.

Ernst, C.H., and J.E. Lovich. 2009. Turtles of the United States and Canada. 2nd Edition

Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington, DC. 827 pp.Folt, B.P., and J.C. Godwin. 2013. Status of the Alligator Snapping Turtle (Macrochelys

temminckii) in south Alabama with comments on its distribution. Chelonian Conserva-tion and Biology 12:211–217.

Folt, B., J.B. Jenson, A. Teare, and D. Rostal. 2016. Establishing a reference demography for conservation: A case study of Macrochelys temminckii in Spring Creek, Georgia. Herpetological Monographs 30:21–33.

Gibbons, J.W., D.E. Scott, T.J. Ryan, K.A. Buhlman, T.D. Tuberville, B.S. Metts, J.L. Greene, T. Mills, Y. Leiden, S. Poppy, and C.T. Winne. 2000. The global decline of rep-tiles, déjà vu amphibians. BioScience 50:653–666.

Harrel, J.B., C.M. Allen, and S.J. Hebert. 1996. Movements and habitat use of subadult Alligator Snapping Turtles (Macroclemys temminckii) in Louisiana. American Midland Naturalist 35:60–67.

Holcomb, S.R., A.A. Bass, C.S. Reid, M.A. Seymour, N.F. Lorenz, B.B. Gregory, S.M. Javed, and K.F. Balkum. 2015. Louisiana wildlife action plan. Louisiana Department of Wildlife and Fisheries. Baton Rouge, LA. 661 pp.

Howey, C.A.F., and S.A. Dinkelacker. 2013. Characteristics of a historically harvested Al-ligator Snapping Turtle (Macrochelys temminckii) population. Copeia 2013:58–63.

Ilgen, E.L., C.A. Hartson, O.S. Zaleski, and P.V. Lindeman. 2014. Map Turtles of the Mer-mentau: Status surveys of forgotten populations. Chelonian Conservation and Biology 13:1–8.

Jensen, J., and W. Birkhead. 2003. Distribution and status of the Alligator Snapping Turtle (Macrochelys temminckii) in Georgia. Southeastern Naturalist 2:25–34.

Larocque, S.M., S.J. Cooke, and G. Blouin-Demers. 2012. A breath of fresh air: Avoiding anoxia and mortality of freshwater turtles in fyke nets by the use of floats. Aquatic Con-servation: Marine and Freshwater Ecosystems 22:198–205.

Lescher, T.C., J.T. Briggler, and Z. Tang-Martínez. 2013. Relative abundance, popula-tion structure, and conservation of Alligator Snapping Turtles (Macrochelys tem-minckii) in Missouri between 1993–1994 and 2009. Chelonian Conservation and Biology 12:163–168.

Louisiana Department of Wildlife and Fisheries (LDWF). 2017. Lower Sabine River, Loui-siana: waterbody history and management issues. Office of Fisheries: Inland Fisheries Section. Part IV-A, Waterbody Management Plan Series. Baton Rouge, LA. 32 pp.

LDWF. 2018. 2018 Louisiana recreational fishing regulations. Baton Rouge, LA. 74 pp.Midwood, J.D., N.A. Cairns, L.J. Stoot, S.J. Cooke, and G. Blouin-Demers. 2015. Bycatch

mortality can cause extirpation in four freshwater turtle species. Aquatic Conservation: Marine and Freshwater Ecosystems 25:71–80.

Moler, P. 1996. Alligator Snapping Turtle distribution and relative abundance. Unpublished report to the Florida Game and Freshwater Fish Commission, Tallahassee, FL. 21 pp.


75


Pritchard, P.C.H. 1989. The Alligator Snapping Turtle: Biology and Conservation. Milwau-kee Public Museum, Milwaukee, WI. 104 pp.

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.

Shipman, P.A. 1993. Alligator Snapping Turtle (Macroclemys temminckii) habitat selec-tion, movements, and natural history in southeast Kansas. M.Sc. Thesis. Emporia State University, Emporia, KS. 90 pp.

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.

Sloan, K.N., and J.E. Lovich. 1995. Exploitation of the Alligator Snapping Turtle, Mac-roclemys temminckii, in Louisiana: A case study. Chelonian Conservation and Biology 1:221–222.

Turtle Taxonomy Working Group [Rhodin, A.G.J., J.B. Iverson, R. Bour, U. Fritz, A. Georges, H.B. Shaffer, and P.P. van Dijk]. 2017. Turtles of the world: Annotated check-list and atlas of taxonomy, synonymy, distribution, and conservation status (8th Edition). In Rhodin, A.G.J., J.B. Iverson, P.P. van Dijk, R.A. Saumure, K.A. Buhlmann, P.C.H. Pritchard, and R.A. Mittermeier. (Eds.). Conservation Biology of Freshwater Turtles and Tortoises: A Compilation Project of the IUCN/SSC Tortoise and Freshwater Turtle Spe-cialist Group. Chelonian Research Monographs 7:1–292. DOI:10.3854/crm.7.checklist.atlas.v8.2017.

US Department of Agriculture. 2017. National Agricultural Statistics Service (NASS) cropland data layer, 2011–2017, crop-specific data layer. USDA-NASS, Washington, DC. Available online at http://nassgeodata.gmu.edu/Crop-Scape/. Accessed 6 Sep-tember 2018.

Vidrine, M.F. 2010. The Cajun Prairie: A Natural History. Gail Q. Vidrine Collectables, Eunice, LA. 314 pp.

Wagner, B.K., D. Urbston, and D. Leek. 1996. Status and distribution of Alligator Snapping Turtles in Arkansas. Proceedings of the Fiftieth Annual Conference of the Southeastern Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies 50:264–270.

Williams, A.A. 2002. Macroclemys temminckii (Alligator Snapping Turtle). Geographic distribution. Herpetological Review 33:65.

Documents

Distribution and Abundance of the Alligator Snapping Turtle …users.edinboro.edu/plindeman/MtemminckiiswLA2019.pdf · 2019. 2. 7. · 65 W .V yons 20192019 SOUTHEASTERN NATURALIST