A Brief History of Powdermill Nature Reserve Turtle Project

Iten
Powdermill
Nature
Reserve
2004 Report on
Wood Turtles,
Box Turtles
and Painted
Turtles
By
Tricia
Miller
1

Table of Contents
Introduction.................................................................................................... 1
A Brief History of Powdermill Nature Reserve Turtle Project...................... 1
Methods.......................................................................................................... 2
Results............................................................................................................ 4
Discussion...................................................................................................... 9
Interesting Observations ................................................................................ 12
Acknowledgments.......................................................................................... 14
References...................................................................................................... 27
i

Table of Figures
Table 1. Wood Turtle #191 and #174 Data Comparison.............................. 4
Figure 1. Photo of Dr. M. Graham Netting.................................................. 1
Figure 2. Map of 2004 Transect and Turtle Encounters .............................. 3
Figure 3. Map of Turtle Encounters, 1960 - 2004 ....................................... 5
Figure 4. Number of Wood Turtle, Box Turtle & Painted Turtle
Encounters per Month, 1960 – 2004............................................ 6
Figure 5. Percent Female Wood Turtles & Box Turtles
Encountered, 1960 – 2003, 1992, 1993 & 2004. ......................... 7
Figure 6. Number of Wood Turtle & Box Turtle Observations per
Hour, 1960 - 2004........................................................................ 7
Figure 7. Number of Wood Turtle & Box Turtle Records per 5-year
Period, 1960 -2003....................................................................... 8
Figure 8. Number of Wood Turtle & Box Turtles Encountered
per Year, 1960- 2003 ................................................................... 9
Figure 9. Photo of Carapace of Wood Turtle #191. .................................... 11
Figure 10. Map of Observations of Box Turtle #46...................................... 12
Figure 11. Photo of Box Turtle #7 Plastron .................................................. 13
Figure 12. Map of Observations of Box Turtle #7........................................ 13
Appendix A. 2004 Turtle Data Form........................................................... 15
Appendix B. PNR Turtle Form ................................................................... 17
Appendix C. Turtle Drop-off Form............................................................. 18
Appendix D. Number and species of turtles found each year from
1960 – 2004............................................................................ 19
Appendix E. Number of captures per year for each individual
Painted Turtle, Wood Turtle and Box Turtle......................... 20
ii

Introduction
With an increasing human population, turtles are coming under increasing pressures from
road kills, collection for the pet trade and agricultural intensification (Ashley & Robinson
1996, Saumure and Bider 1998, Hulse et al. 2000). Because of their longevity and low
fecundity, population responses of turtles to disturbance may not be noticeable for
decades (Findlay & Bourdages 2000). Therefore, long-term studies of turtle populations
are required to determine turtle population trends. However, few long-term studies have
been conducted on turtles, and Yahner (2003) notes that knowledge of “long-term trends
of terrestrial vertebrates in Pennsylvania is uncommon.”
One of Pennsylvania’s little known long-term studies on turtles was begun on Powdermill
Nature Reserve (PNR), Biological Field Station of The Carnegie Museum of Natural
History in 1959. The study has focused mainly on Wood Turtles (Graptemys insculpta
formerly Clemmys insculpta) and Eastern Box Turtles (Terrapene carolina carolina), but
has recently included Painted Turtles (Chrysemys picta) as a focal species.
A Brief History of Powdermill Nature Reserve Turtle Project
The Powdermill Nature Reserve (PNR)
Turtle Project has a long history. It was
initiated in 1959, when Dr. Graham
Netting (Fig. 1), then Director of Carnegie
Museum of Natural History, began
collecting morphological and capture
location data on Wood Turtles and
Eastern Box Turtles. For his study, each
turtle was uniquely marked. Initially, Dr.
Netting uniquely notched a single
marginal scute or a combination of scutes.
He also used model airplane paint in
consort with the notching. In 1962, he
Figure 1. Dr. M. Graham Netting taking data on a
began engraving the plastron with a
male Box Turtle. Date unknown.
unique number while occasionally
continuing to notch the marginal scutes.
By 1964 he was only marking with numbers
on the plastron.
Although some deliberate searching for turtles was done part-time by a Ted Rich, young
paid intern, in 1992 and 1993, 2004 marks the first year that a standard transect route was
used to survey for turtles throughout an entire season. Objectives of the 2004 season were
to improve and update the existing database and to complete the geographic information
systems (GIS) data layer in order to prepare them for analysis and publication. The main
observer was Tricia Miller, working under the direction of Dr. Walter Meshaka, State
Museum of Pennsylvania and PNR Associate Researcher, and Robert Mulvihill, MSc.,
PNR Staff. Volunteer Mary Mock assisted on many occasions.
1

Methods (2004)
A 4.5 km transect route was established (Fig. 2) as a means of standardizing the search
for turtles. The route began at the Bird Banding Laboratory and included all known major
nesting sites as well as areas where large numbers of turtles had been observed in the
past. Observers walked along the route visually searching for turtles from June 1st to July
29 th . The route was usually walked twice daily, once in the morning beginning at about 8
am and again in the evening beginning at about 6 pm
Before each route, weather data (including air temperature, relative humidity,
precipitation and percent cloud cover) were taken and the start time was recorded. When
a turtle was found, the following data were recorded on a field data sheet (Appendix A):
time, species, capture type (new or recapture), identification number, behavior (i.e.
digging, walking, etc.), GPS location, air temperature, percent canopy cover, and habitat.
Newly encountered turtles, as well as recaptures encountered for the first time during the
season, were transported in a canvas bag back to the Bird Banding Laboratory for further
processing. All new turtles were engraved with a unique, sequential number, while the ID
number for recaptures were simply noted and re-engraved as necessary. Three Box
Turtles (#46, 80, 81) were temporarily marked with numbers on their carapace in order to
reduce disturbance of these individuals. Morphological measurements were taken
including weight, carapace length and width, and plastron length and width (Appendix A,
B). For Box Turtles only, front and rear sections of the hinged plastron were measured
and recorded separately. Sex was determined using external physical characteristics
unique to each species (Hulse et al. 2000). All scars and other markings were noted and
digital photographs were taken. Once a turtle was fully processed, it was returned to its
original place of capture.
Many turtles were encountered more than once during the season. Here, care was taken to
disturb them as little as possible. The turtles were turned over to identify, except in the
case of Box Turtle #46, them and immediately replaced. As with initial seasonal
encounters, behavior, location, habitat and weather data were taken.
Several turtles were encountered opportunistically, off of the transect route. Often these
were encountered by persons other than the main observers. These opportunistic
encounters were considered to be incidental captures and were noted as such on the data
sheet (Appendix A) Persons who encountered these turtles were requested to fill out the
Turtle Drop-off Form (Appendix C). If staff were not present when a turtle was found,
observers were instructed by signs to place the turtle in the turtle enclosure, a 5 foot by
2.5 foot enclosure located behind the Bird Banding Laboratory, which is safe from
predators. Care was taken to process the turtles as soon a reasonably possible. If
processing was not possible until after dark, the turtle was kept overnight in the enclosure
and returned to the capture site the next morning.
2

Figure 2. Map of 2004 transect route and all turtles during the 2004 season.
3

Results
Over the course of the 2004 season a total of 24 different turtles were encountered,
including 3 Wood Turtles, 16 Box Turtles and 5 Painted Turtles. Of the 16 Box Turtles
encountered, 6 were new and 10 were recaptures, marked in a previous year. Two of the
Wood Turtles were new and one was a recapture. All five painted turtles encountered
were new.
Many turtles were encountered more than once during the season for a total of 59
observations. Of the 59 observations, 44 were along the transect and 15 were
opportunistic. Opportunistic encounters occurred from May 22 nd to October 2 nd . The
majority of turtles were found in two major nesting areas (Fig. 2), hence the majority
were female.
Of the 24 individual turtles encountered 20 were female and only were 4 male (1 Wood
Turtle, 2 Box Turtles and 1 Painted Turtle) (Fig. 3). Only 1 male turtle, a Wood Turtle,
was found during a transect and no male turtles were encountered more than once during
the season. In contrast, 57% (n = 8) of the females encountered were seen on more than
one occasion generally over consecutive days while the females were attempting to nest.
One turtle in particular, Box Turtle #46, accounted for 37% (n = 19) of the total Box
Turtle encounters.
Of the three Wood Turtles encountered two were new and one was a recapture. However,
for several reasons, I suspect that the new wood turtle marked #190 is very likely to be
#174 last seen in 1993. First, the plastron appeared to have had some kind of marking
where a number would have been engraved. Second, both turtles were greater than 18
years old
Carapace Carapace Plastron Data
Capture
Age Weigh Length Width Length collected
Number date Capture Location
open spoils area
across road from
Sex (yrs) t (g) (mm) (mm) (mm) by
190 6/1/2004 Middle Strip Mine
mine pond, 10ft. from
M 20+ 1045 189.5 142.5 161 RSM
174 6/6/1993 bank in woods M 35+ 1004 190 143 160 TR
Table 1. Capture location and morphological measurements of two wood turtles suspected to be the
same individual.
at the time of capture, and measurements change very little if any after that age (PNR
Data, Brooks et al. 1992). The morphological measurements of #190 are within 0.5mm of
#174. Third, the capture locations are within 20 meters of one another (Tab. 1). Though
several Wood Turtles’ engravings have lasted for more than 20 years (PNR Data), several
other Wood Turtles have worn their numbers off. These individuals had additional
markings (e.g. marginal scute notches) that enabled positive identification. Moreover, I
have noticed that the plastron on Wood Turtles is distinctly thinner than that of Box
4

Figure 3. Map of turtle encounters from 1960 – 2004.
5

Turtles disallowing deep engravings to be made which may lead to premature loss of the
engraving through wear. This seems to be a limitation of marking Wood Turtles, in
particular and possibly Painted Turtles, who have a similarly thin plastron, in this way,
and warrants further investigation into other long-lasting marking techniques. Due to a
noticeably thicker plastron, Box Turtles have not proven to have the same problem. For
example, a Box Turtle captured this year and originally etched in 1967 still had a clearly
visible number on its plastron. Three other Box Turtles (2, 7, & 20) not seen for more
than 20 years were also still identifiable (Appendix A).
In addition to compiling the data for 2004, I have compiled and analyzed some of the
previous data. The PNR turtle database contains information on 264 individual turtles of
four species. To date 10 Snapping Turtles, 16 Painted Turtles, 82 Box Turtles, 158 Wood
Turtles have been marked on the reserve (Fig. 3, Appendix D, E). The total number of
recaptures is 241, while 8 turtles have been found dead, for a total database of original,
recapture and dead individuals of 503 records.
Live turtles have been encountered in nine months out of the year over the past 44 years
(Fig. 4). No turtles have been encountered in February or December. In addition to the
likely months for encounters, one Wood Turtle was found in January on a “warm and
balmy” day in the mud next to Powdermill Run at Calvarly Lodge by Dr. Netting.
Another Wood Turtle was spotted in a stream on November 11, 1964. Box Turtles have
only been encountered from April to October during the normal active months. The
majority of all observations occur during the height of the breeding season in June. By far
the greatest number of turtles encountered were found in the Bird Banding Area, where
Number of Encounters
140
120
100
80
60
40
20
0
Number of Turtle Encounters per Month (1960 - 2004)
Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
Month
Painted Turtle (n=18) Wood Turtle (n=286) Box Turtle (n=192)
Figure 4. Number of Painted Turtles, Wood Turtles and Box Turtles encountered each month from
1960 – 2004.
6

Number of Turtles
18
16
14
12
10
Percent
100%
90%
80%
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
Percent Female Turtles Encountered
Wood Turtle Box Turtle
Species
1959-2003 (n = 407) 1992 (n = 19)
1993 (n = 21) 2004 (n = 24)
Figure 5. Percent female turtles encountered from 1960 – 2003, in 1992, 1993 and
2004. 2004 data based on individuals due to abnormally high number of re-encounters
with one individual (Box Turtle #46). Unknown individuals were not included when
calculating percentages.
8
6
4
2
0
Number of Turtles Observed per Hour (1960 - 2004)
(N = 116)
500 500
600 600
700 700
800 800
900 900
1000 1000
1100 1100
1200 1200
1300 1300
1400 1400
1500 1500
1600 1600
1700 1700
1800 1800
1900 1900
2000 2000
2100 2100
Time (24 Hour Clock)
Wood Turtle Box Turtle
Figure 6. Number of Wood Turtles, Box Turtles observed by hour from 1960 – 2004.
7

Robert Leberman and, subsequently, Robert Mulvihill, have made regular net rounds,
every 30-40 minutes each morning six days a week from March through November since
1961 (Fig. 4). Because no written information exists regarding active searching or use of
drift fences in the early years, it is assumed that nearly half of all turtle encounters at
PNR have been opportunistic. The remaining half were encountered during three separate
years (1992, 1993 and 2004), when intensive, strategic searching took place.
In 1992, two Wood Turtles and 17 Box Turtles were found with a total of 23
observations. In 1993, four Wood Turtles and 15 Box Turtles were found with a total of
27 observations (Appendix D, E). The numbers of turtles found in 1992 and 1993 are
comparable to the number and species of turtles found in 2004. However, the percentage
of females found in both years was significantly less than were found 2004 (Fig. 5).
Though the time of capture was not required to be recorded on the PNR Turtle Data Form
(Appendix D), times were recorded for 58 records prior to 2004. The patterns of daily
observations show that Box Turtles are distinctly bimodal, while Wood Turtles appear to
be most active in mid-morning. No conclusions can yet be drawn from the Painted Turtle
data though they are seen, but not able to be captured, basking in the ponds throughout
the day (pers. obs.).
Slightly less than half (n= 68) of all individual Wood Turtles found on PNR were
encountered during the first five years of the project with steady declines in capture rates
for each subsequent five year period (Fig. 7). While Box Turtle (r 2 = 0.189) observations
have remained stable, Wood Turtle encounters have decline significantly (r 2 = 0.5753, p
< 0.05) between 1959 and 2003 (Fig. 8).
90
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
Number of Turtle Records per 5-year Period
(1960 - 2003)
1960
- 64
1965
- 69
1970
- 74
1975
- 79
1980
- 84
1985
- 89
5-year Period
Wood Turtle Box Turtle
1990
- 94
1995
- 99
2000
- 03
Figure 7. Number of Wood Turtles and Box Turtles encountered per five
year period, 1960 -2003.
8

Number of Turtles
25
20
15
10
5
Number of Turtles Encountered per Year (1960-2003)
R 2 = 0.189
R 2 = 0.5753
0
1950 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 2010
Year
Wood Turtle (n=283) Box Turtle (n=144)
Figure 8. Number of Wood Turtles and Box Turtles observed each year from 1960 – 2003.
Discussion
More female turtles were found than males during the 2004 season. This has also been
the case in the past, from 1960 to 2003. For Box Turtles, this is likely due to the fact that
males do not wander from their territories during the breeding season; instead they breed
with females holding adjacent territories or with those crossing through their territory on
the way to a nesting location (Hulse et al. 2001). Additionally, because females must
travel from their territories to find a nest site located in a sunny spot with well-drained
soil and sparse vegetation, they are more likely to be seen. This was the case at PNR
since most encounters with female Box Turtles occurred at or near a nesting site. Also
increasing the likelihood of finding more females is the fact that turtles are polygynous,
and therefore there are more females in populations than males (Brooks et al. 1992). In
addition, Tuttle and Carroll (2003) noted that female Wood Turtles spent more time on
land during the active season than males, who spent much of their time in streams.
The 2004 turtle season was a great success with 59 observations adding weight to the
existing dataset. Additionally, it supports the suspicion that Wood Turtles are on the
decline at PNR. However, anecdotal evidence does exist that may contradict these
apparent declines. Mainly, it is unclear as to the intensity of searching that took place in
the early years of the project when nearly 80 Wood Turtles were found. Though there is
no written record regarding the use of drift fences, Robert Mulvihill believes that they
may have been used in the early 1960s. If so increased capture rates earlier in the study
may partly explain the apparent declines that we are seeing today. It would be useful in
9

the future to set up drift fences in key areas, such as along Powdermill Run near Cabin 5,
Calvarly Lodge and in other areas where concentrations of Wood Turtles have been
previously found in an attempt to locate more individuals that may have been marked in
the early years of the project. Although plastron engravings have been known to wear
away, turtles marked in the early years were also marked by notching marginal scutes
still allowing for identification today.
If indeed there is a decline in the species determining the cause is essential. Several
potential reasons for the decline should be considered, including habitat change, global
climate change, intensification of agriculture and road kills.
At PNR, particularly at the bird banding area, significant habitat change has taken place
since 1960 when much of the area was either fields or early successional habitat and
hence much more open (pers comm. Leberman). Areas like this provide prime nesting
habitat for Wood Turtles and also may lead to greater visibility and detectablity of them
(Hulse et al. 2000). With the conversion of these open areas to mature forest, the turtles
may have been forced to find different nesting areas and are, therefore, seen less
frequently. Several fields that border PNR may provide this habitat and are worth
investigating in future years, particularly the fields that border Powdermill Run near the
cabin area.
Climate change must also be considered as Wood Turtles are at the southern end of their
range at PNR. Increases in temperature may cause range contraction for this northern
species.
Road kills can have significant impacts on populations by skewing sex ratios. Steen and
Gibbs (2003) have noted that road kills can significantly skew sex ratios of turtles
because females must travel to located appropriate nesting habitat and are more likely to
be the victim of automobiles. This will likely lead to unstable populations and population
declines.
Several hay fields border Powdermill Run and likely provide nesting and foraging habitat
for Wood Turtles. Like many such fields, with the exception of extremely wet years, they
are hayed in June, at the height of the nesting season. This intensification of agriculture
has been shown to harm turtles (Saumure and Bider 1998). One female Wood Turtle that
was captured crossing Highway 381from a field to Laurel Run appeared to have been
previously injured by a farm implement. The carapace was cut in a straight line and was
injured from above because there was no soft tissue scarring and no missing limbs. (Fig.
9).
Throughout their range, researchers have been noting declines in Wood Turtle
populations (Saumure and Bider 1998, Ernst 2001, Compton et al. 2002), however,
impacts on Box Turtle populations from collecting for the pet trade have been overlooked
until recently. The Sierra Club is currently campaigning the Pennsylvania Fish and Boat
Commission to change its regulations regarding the collection of Eastern Box Turtles.
Current regulations allow for the legal take of two Box Turtles per day. This is an
alarming number given the life history traits of Box Turtles. The long-term data collected
10

Figure 9. Photo of damaged carapace of a female Wood Turtle (#191). There was no
apparent soft tissue damage, leading me to believe that the shell was damaged from above.
on Box Turtles at PNR has the potential to influence these regulations. Given the greater
propensity to find females (3:1) and the clustering of females at nesting sites an entire
population could be decimated within a few years. Consider the fact that in the years
when active searching took place (1992, 1993 and 2004) 39 different individuals were
observed. This represents nearly half of all Box Turtles encountered at Powdermill since
1961. In respect to populations, removing an animal from a population is equivalent to
the death of an individual. Brooks et al. (1991) found that increased mortality of
reproducing adult turtles leads to population declines.
While populations of Box Turtles at PNR currently appear stable, two long-term studies
of Box Turtles have shown declines, though no possible cause was mentioned. Studies by
Stickel (1978) in Maryland and Williams and Parker (1987) in Indiana both show
declining populations of Box Turtles. In 1960 Williams and Parker noted Box Turtle
densities of 5.7 turtles/ha, by 1983 it had dropped to 2.7 turtles/ha indicating that
recruitment is not occurring at the same rate that it once had. Continued or increased
monitoring of Box Turtles on PNR is essential given these alarming declines.
While few Painted Turtles have been captured, their numbers seem to be on the rise. With
this apparent increase greater efforts should be made to gather data on them.
Additionally, different marking techniques should be investigated given their apparently
thin plastron.
11

Figure 10. Map of observations of Box Turtle #46 from June 7th to July 2 nd , 2004.
Interesting Observations
Finally, what follows are details of some selected individual histories for turtles observed
in 2004. As previously noted, Box Turtle #46 accounted for 37% of all observations this
season. She was seen 20 times from June 7, when she was first spotted along the Strip
Mine Road attempting to dig a nest, to July 2 when she finally completed a nest and laid
her eggs (Fig. 10). She was very unique in that she was the only turtle to investigate two
different nesting areas, which has interesting implications in and of itself.
Additionally, she remained inactive, burrowed beneath leaves on a mine tailing bank in
the Middle Strip Mine from June 25 to July1. Interestingly, before she had moved to the
Middle Strip Mine nesting area, on June 22, another turtle, Box Turtle #71, (seen 6 times
over the course of the season), was also seen digging a nest along the Strip Mine Road.
During the period from June 25 to July 1, #71 was not seen. On July 1, #71 was found
along the Strip Mine Road digging her final nest attempt. I find it safe to assume that
during the time when #46 was know to be inactive, #71 also remained inactive. Why this
was the case, I don’t exactly know, but would believe that it was due to the low
temperatures which ranged from 78 for a high to 45 for the low over that period of time.
Additionally, from June 25 th to July 1 st , no active turtles were observed.
12

Figure 11. Photo of the plastron of Box Turtle #7
prior to re-engraving on June 22, 2004.
Another interesting find during the 2004
season was Box Turtle #7 (Figure 11).
She was found on June 22 at 8:20pm
digging a nest in the mowed path
between the Bear Crossing and the
Long Lane. Each previously marked
individual has a data sheet (PNR Turtle
Data Sheet). Subsequent encounters or
recaptures are noted on that sheet. The
sheets are stored numerically in a large
binder. I first flipped to the page listing
#7 and Bob Mulvihill began taking
measurements. It was soon clear that
turtle #7 and the #7 we had in hand
could not be the same. Once a turtle
reaches maturity its measurements
change little if any. Both #7s were
clearly mature when last captured and
the measurements simply did not match
up. After flipping through the book, I
found another #7, measurements were
early the same as the #7 with a slash. As
it turns out, this one with a slash through
Figure 12. Map of original capture location of Box Turtle #7 and subsequent capture 37 years later.
13

it like a European 7. Indeed, it was the turtle we had in hand and she was last seen in
1967 along the road to Calvarly Lodge (Fig. 12). In the past 37 years she had traveled an
extremely long distance, even for a female Box Turtle. From her original capture location
to the 2004 location, the distance is 1400m as the crow flies. To top it all off she was very
old. In 1967 when she was first captured, Dr. Netting estimated her age to be 22 years
plus. That makes her over 59 years old this year!
Acknowledgments
Many thanks go out to the Netting Fund and Jane Netting for funding this project.
Additionally, I would like to thank the many people who supported and contributed to the
project. They include: Mary Mock, who spent countless hours searching for turtles to no
avail but preserved even in the worst of conditions; Robert Mulvihill for training me in
the measurement techniques and showing me the important nesting areas; Walter
Meshaka for entertaining all of us at Powdermill and for setting up the search method and
data protocol; my husband, Mike Lanzone for assisting me and accompanying me on
many walks; my stepchildren, Ashley and Jeffery Lanzone for also accompanying me;
and my trusted companion Thunder who reluctantly walked with me on nearly every
transect.
Special thanks also goes out to all that found a turtle during the season. They include:
Keith Bildstein, PhD., David Smith, PhD., Robert Leberman, Mike Lanzone, Walter
Meshaka, PhD., Adrienne Lepold, Robert Mulvihill, Randy Gerrish, Cynthia Walker,
Jeffery Lanzone and Thunder.
14

Appendix A.
Date:
Location:
Standardized: N Y
Observer(s):
Time Start:
Time End:
Temp (˚C) Start:
Temp (˚C) End:
RH%:
% Cloud Cover: 0 - 25 - 50 - 75 - 100
Precipitation:
Time
Species
New
Recap
2004 Wood Turtle and Box Turtle Data Sheet
Plastron
Carapace
Temp
ID # Sex Length Length Width Scars/Markings Behavior GPS Location ˚C % Canopy Habitat
Comment
(See Back)
15

Comments
Scars/Markings
ID #__________ ID # __________ ID #__________ ID #__________
16

Appendix B. PNR Turtle Data Form
17

Appendix C. Turtle Drop-off Form
Number: (Place Sticker Here)
Date: Time:
Exact Location (Lat/Lon):
Describe Location (and/or draw map on back):
Habitat (General Description):
Behavior (Cirlce One): Resting - Digging - Walking - Other (Describe)
Approximate Temperature (˚F):
% Cloud Cover (Circle One): 0 - 25 - 50 - 100
Comments:
18

Appendix D. Number and species of turtles found each year from 1960 – 2004.
Year Painted Turtle Wood Turtle Box Turtle Total
1960 16 4 20
1961 20 2 22
1962 19 1 20
1963 9 9
1964 16 3 19
1965 7 3 10
1966 12 1 13
1967 8 1 9
1968 1 15 1 17
1969 5 1 6
1970 15 15
1971 4 2 6
1972 6 6
1973 9 2 11
1974 7 3 10
1975 6 6
1976 3 3
1977 1 6 7
1978 1 6 1 8
1979 5 5
1980 10 2 12
1981 2 7 1 10
1982 7 2 9
1983 3 4 3 10
1984 4 1 5
1985 8 3 11
1986 3 3 2 8
1987 4 2 6
1988 1 4 5
1989 1 1 1 3
1990 1 1 2
1991 2 1 3
1992 2 21 23
1993 5 22 27
1994 4 6 10
1995 6 6 12
1996 1 2 2 5
1997 5 9 14
1998 2 3 5
1999 1 1
2000 1 4 5
2001 5 7 12
2002 1 6 7
2003 4 9 13
2004 5 3 49 57
Total 18 286 193 497
19

Appendix E. Number of captures per year for each individual Painted Turtle, Wood Turtle and Box Turtle.
Painted Turtle
ID 60 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 00 01 02 03 04 Total
5 1 1
6 1 1
7 1 1
7.5 1 1
8 1 1
9 1 1
10 2 2
11 1 1
12 2 2
13 1 1
15 1 1
16 1 1
17 1 1
18 1 1
19 1 1
A 1 1
Total 1 1 1 2 3 3 1 1 5
20

Wood Turtle
ID 60 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 00 01 02 03 04 Total
1 1 2 3
2 1 1
3 1 1
4 1 1 2
5 1 1
6 1 1
7 1 1
8 1 1
9 1 1
10 2 2
11 1 1
12 1 1
13 1 1
14 1 1
15 1 1 1 1 1 5
16 1 1 1 1 1 5
17 1 1
18 1 1
19 1 1
20 1 1
21 1 1
22 1 1
23 1 1
24 1 1
25 1 1
27 1 1
29 1 2 1 4
30 1 1 2
31 2 2
32 1 1
33 1 1
34 2 2
36 1 1 2
37 1 1
38 1 1
39 2 2
40 1 1
42 1 1
45 1 1 2
46 1 1
47 1 1
48 1 1
49 1 1
21

Wood Turtle
ID 60 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 00 01 02 03 04 Total
50 1 1
53 1 1
54 1 1
55 1 1 1 3
56 1 1
62 1 1 1 1 4
63 1 1 1 1 4
64 1 2 1 4
65 1 1
66 1 1
67 1 1
70 1 1
71 1 1
72 1 1
73 1 3 4
74 1 2 2 1 6
75 2 2
76 1 1
77 1 1
78 1 1
79 1 1
80 1 1 2
83 1 2 3
84 1 1
85 1 1
86 2 2
90 1 1
91 1 2 1 1 1 1 3 1 11
92 1 1
93 1 1 1 3
94 2 2
95 1 1
96 1 1 2
97 1 1
100 1 1
102 1 2 1 4
103 1 1
106 1 1 2
107 1 1
108 1 1
109 1 1 1 2 1 1 1 1 1 2 12
110 1 1
111 1 2 1 1 1 6
112 1 1 1 1 1 5
22

Wood Turtle
ID 60 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 00 01 02 03 04 Total
116 1 1
117 1 1
118 1 1 1 1 1 1 6
119 2 1 1 1 1 1 2 9
120 1 1
121 1 1 1 3
125 1 1 1 1 4
126 1 1
127 1 1 2
130 1 1
131 1 1
132 1 1
133 1 1
134 1 1
135 1 1
136 1 1
137 1 1
138 2 1 1 1 1 3 2 1 12
139 1 1
140 1 1
141 1 1
142 1 1
143 1 1
150 2 2
151 1 1 2
152 1 1
153 1 1 2
154 1 1
155 1 1
156 1 1 2
157 1 1 2 4
158 1 1
159 1 1 1 1 4
160 1 1
161 1 1 1 3
162 1 1
163 1 1 1 3
164 1 1
165 1 1
166 1 1
167 1 1
168 1 1
169 1 1
170 1 1
23

Wood Turtle
ID 60 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 00 01 02 03 04 Total
171 1 1
172 1 1
173 1 1
174 1 1
175 2 2
176 1 1 1 3
177 1 1
177B 1 1
178 1 1
179 1 1
180 1 1
181 1 1
182 1 1
183 1 1 1 3
184 1 1 2
185 1 1
186 1 1
187 1 1
188 1 1 2
189 1 1
190 1 1
191 1 1
C 1 1
D 1 1
F 2 2
Total 16 22 19 9 17 8 12 8 15 5 15 4 6 9 7 6 3 6 6 5 10 7 7 4 4 8 3 4 1 1 1 2 2 5 5 6 2 5 2 1 5 1 4 3 291
24

Box Turtle
ID 60 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 00 01 02 03 04 Total
1 1 1
2 1 1 1 3
3 1 1 2
4 1 1
5 1 1
6 1 1
7 1 1 1 2 1 6
7.5 1 2 3
8 2 2
10 1 1 2
11 1 1
12 1 1
15 1 1
16 1 1
17 1 1
20 1 1 2
21 1 1
22 1 1 1 2 1 1 1 2 4 14
23 1 1
24 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 9
25 1 1 1 3
26 1 1 1 3
27 1 1
28 1 1 1 2 5
29 2 2
30 1 1
31 1 1
32 1 1
33 1 1
34 1 2 3
35 1 1
36 1 1
37 1 1
38 1 1
39 1 1 2
40 1 1
41 1 1
42 2 2 4
44 1 1
45 1 1 2
45.5 1 1
46 5 19 24
47 2 2
48 1 1 1 1 4
25

Box Turtle
ID 60 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 00 01 02 03 04 Total
49 1 1 2
50 1 1 2
51 1 1 2
52 1 1
53 1 1
54 1 1
55 1 1
56 1 1
57 1 1
58 1 1
59 1 1
60 1 1
61 1 1
62 1 1 3 5
63 1 2 1 4
64 3 2 5
65 1 1 1 4 7
66 1 1 2
67 1 1 2
68 1 1
69 1 1
70 1 1 2
71 1 2 5 8
72 1 1
73 1 1
74 1 1 2
75 1 1
76 1 1
77 2 2
78 1 1
79 1 1
80 1 1
81 1 1
82 1 1
D 1 1
H 1 1 1 1 1 5
Total 4 2 1 3 3 1 1 1 1 2 2 3 1 2 1 2 3 1 3 2 2 4 1 1 1 21 22 6 6 2 9 3 1 4 7 6 9 49 193
26

References
Ashely, E.P., and J.T. Robinson. 1996. Road mortality of amphibians, reptiles and other wildlife
along the Long Point Causeway, Lake Erie, Ontario. Canadian Field Naturalist 110:403-412.
Brooks R.J., G.P. Brown, and D.A. Gailbraith. 1991. Effects of sudden increase in natural
mortality of adults on a population of common snapping turtle (Chelydra serpentine). Canadian
Journal of Zoology 69: 1314-1320.
Brooks, R.J., C.M. Shilton, G.P. Brown and N.W.S. Quinn. 1992. Body sixe, age distribution,
and reproduction in a northern population of wood turtles (Clemmys insculpta). Canadian Journal
of Zoology 70: 462-469.
Compton, B.W., J.M. Rhymer, and M. McCollough. 2002. Habitat selection by wood turtles
(Clemmys insculpta): an application of pair logistic regression. Ecology 83:833-843.
Congdon, J.D., A.E. Dunham, and R.C. Van Loben Sels. 1993. Delayed sexual maturity and
demographics of Blanding’s Turtle (Emydoidea blandingii): implications for conservation and
management of long-lived organisms. Conservation Biology 7:826-833.
Ernst, C.H. 2001. Some ecological parameters of the wood turtle, Clemmys insculpta, in
southeastern Pennsylvania. Chelonian Conservation and Biology 4(1):94-99.
Findlay, C.S. and J. Bourdages. 2000. Response time of wetland biodiversity to road construction
on adjacent lands. Conservation Biology 14:86-94.
Hulse, A.C., C.J. McCoy, E.J. Censky. 2001. Amphibians and Reptiles Pennsylvania. Cornell
University Press. Ithaca, NY. 419 pp.
Pritchard, P.C.H. 1967. Living Turtles of the World. T.F.H. Publications. Jersey City, NJ.
Saumer, R.A. and J.R. Bider. 1998. Impact of agricultural development on a population of wood
turtles (Clemmys insculpta) in southern Quebec, Canada. Chelonian Conservation and Biology.
3(1): 37-45.
Steen D.A. and J.P.Gibbs. 2003. Effects of roads on the structure of freshwater furtle populations.
Conservation Biology. 18(4): 1143-1148.
Stickel, L.F. 1978. Changes in a box turtle population during three decades. Copeia 1978:221-
225.
Williams, E.C., Jr. and W.S. Parker. 1987. A long-term study of a box turtle (Terrapene carolina)
population at Allee Memorial Woods, Indiana, with emphasis on survivorship. Herpetologica
43:328-335.
Yahner, R.H. 2003. Terrestrial vertebrates in Pennsylvania: status and conservation in a changing
landscape. Northeastern Naturalist 10(3):343-360.
27