Glyptemys insculpta

(Le Conte, 1830)

Wood Turtle

G2Imperiled (G2G3) Found in 10 roadless areas NatureServe Explorer →
G2ImperiledGlobal Rank
EndangeredIUCN
Very high - highThreat Impact
Identity
Unique IDELEMENT_GLOBAL.2.100280
Element CodeARAAD02020
Record TypeSPECIES
ClassificationSpecies
Classification StatusStandard
Name CategoryVertebrate Animal
IUCNEndangered
CITESAppendix II
Endemicoccurs (regularly, as a native taxon) in multiple nations
KingdomAnimalia
PhylumCraniata
ClassChelonia
OrderTestudines
FamilyEmydidae
GenusGlyptemys
Synonyms
Clemmys insculpta(Le Conte, 1830)
Other Common Names
Tortue des bois (FR) wood turtle (EN)
Concept Reference
King, F. W., and R. L. Burke, editors. 1989. Crocodilian, tuatara, and turtle species of the world: a taxonomic and geographic reference. Association of Systematics Collections, Washington, D.C. 216 pp.
Taxonomic Comments
Molecular data and morphological evidence indicate that the genus Clemmys (sensu McDowell 1964) is paraphyletic (see Bickham et al. 1996, Holman and Fritz 2001, Feldman and Parham 2002). Based on morphological data, Holman and Fritz (2001) split Clemmys as follows: Clemmys guttata was retained as the only member of the genus; Clemmys insculpta and C. muhlenbergii were placed in the genus Glyptemys (as first reviser, Holman and Fritz gave Glyptemys Agassiz, 1857, precedence over the simultaneously published genus Calemys Agassiz, 1857); and Clemmys marmorata was transferred to the monotypic genus Actinemys.

Genetic data support the basic features of this arrangement. An analysis of emydid relationships based on molecular data (Feldman and Parham 2002) identified four well-supported clades: Terrapene; Clemmys guttata; C. insculpta and C. muhlenbergii; and Clemmys marmorata, Emys orbicularis, and Emydoidea blandingii. Feldman and Parham retained Clemmys guttata as the only member of that genus; regarded Clemmys marmorata, Emys orbicularis, and Emydoidea blandingii as congeneric (in the genus Emys, which has priority); and placed C. insculpta and C. muhlenbergii in the genus Calemys. However, Feldman and Parham were unaware that Holman and Fritz (2001) had given Glyptemys precedence over Calemys, so the correct generic name for these turtles under the arrangement of Feldman and Parham is Glyptemys. In contrast to Holman and Fritz (2001), Feldman and Parham (2002) argued that placing Clemmys marmorata in the monotypic genus Actinemys would unnecessarily obscure its phylogenetic relationships, and they recommended that marmorata be included in the genus Emys.

See also McDowell (1964), Merkle (1975), Lovich et al. (1991), and Bickham et al. (1996) for information on relationships among turtles of the genus Clemmys (sensu lato).
Conservation Status
Rank Method Rank calculation - Biotics v2
Review Date2024-01-17
Change Date2024-01-17
Edition Date2024-01-17
Edition AuthorsHammerson, G., and J. Soule (2010); rev. R. L. Gundy (2024)
Threat ImpactVery high - high
Range Extent200,000-2,500,000 square km (about 80,000-1,000,000 square miles)
Number of Occurrences81 - 300
Rank Reasons
This species has been declining in abundance for decades throughout its range, but the range has not contracted. One of the primary reasons behind the population decline is a very low rate of nests hatching and a low rate of juveniles surviving to adulthood, which takes 14-18 years. It is also impacted by habitat loss and degradation, heavy predation by natural predators, direct mortality from road vehicles and agricultural equipment, habitat loss and degradation, illegal collection, and climate change.
Range Extent Comments
This species ranges from northern Virginia west to eastern Minnesota, United States and north to southern Ontario, Quebec, New Brunswick, and Nova Scotia, Canada (Ernst and Lovich 2009). There is speculation it once lived in Ohio (Thompson 1953, Conant 1975, Ernst and Lovich 2009). Using records from post-2004 (the past 20 years) from Global Biodiversity Information Facility (GBIF 2024), GeoCat (2024) estimated range extent to be 1.543 million km².
Occurrences Comments
The number of occurrences has not been determined using standardized occurrence specifications, but there are probably at least a few hundred distinct occurrences.
Threat Impact Comments
This species is highly threatened by habitat loss, predation, illegal collection, low hatching success, strikes by vehicles and agricultural equipment, pollution, and climate change. One of the primary threats is low nest hatching success and low juvenile survival rates (Ernst and Lovich 2009, Spradling et al. 2010, Lapin et al. 2019, Duchak and Burke 2022). As aging adults die out, those individuals are not being replaced by a younger generation. This causes slow, and difficult to detect, declines. Suspected mechanisms suppressing nest success include high rates of predation (Ernst and Lovich 2009, Spradling et al. 2010), flooding (Spradling et al. 2010), soil erosion (Ernst and Lovich 2009), and, at one site in New Jersey, lead contamination (Duchak and Burke 2022). Beside nest failure, direct mortality or removal from the wild is a serious ongoing threat. All age classes appear to be threatened by predation by natural predators throughout the range (Ernst and Lovich 2009, Spradling et al. 2010, Cochrane et al. 2018, Mullin et al. 2023). It is suspected that the rate of predation has increased due to predators surviving well in close association with humans (Ernst and Lovich 2009). Large-scale agriculture has also been a major source of mortality and habitat loss (Ernst and Lovich 2009). Disc mowing has been shown to cause direct mortality to enough individuals to cause extirpation of populations in agricultural settings over time (Saumure et al. 2007). Illegal collection has been responsible for dramatic population declines in the past and continues to be a moderate threat despite protections (Levell 2000, Ernst and Lovich 2009, Hopkins et al. 2022). In 1992, the wood turtle was listed in Appendix II of the CITES treaty, requiring permits for export of the species (CITES.org). The summary prepared for its listing (Inclusion of Clemmys insculpta in Appendix II United States of America Doc. 8.46: No. 51) indicated that "reviewers concur that protective legislation at state and provincial levels in the United States and Canada appears to have done little to curb collection of this species." Levell (2000) discussed commercial exploitation for the live animal trade.
Habitat loss due to development and agriculture is an ongoing threat (Ernst and Lovich 2009). This threat is somewhat lessened by this species’ tolerance of moderate development or disturbance, such as second homes, timber harvest, light grazing, and low-intensity agriculture (Harding 1997). On the other hand, intense use, such as high-use canoe put-ins and campgrounds generally result in absence of the turtles along such stretches of stream (Harding, pers. comm.).
Climate change, particularly from the effect of rising temperatures, is projected to decrease optimal habitat and suitable habitat for this species by 62–86% and 29-52% by 2070, respectively (Mothes et al. 2020).
Ecology & Habitat

Description

A medium-sized turtle with a low, broad, gray to brown, usually keeled carapace that is intricately sculptured with concentric growth layers. Plastron is yellow, each scute having an irregular dark lateral blotch. Adults have orange on neck and limbs and usually are 14-20 cm in carapace length, rarely to 23 cm (Smith and Brodie 1982, Conant and Collins 1991). Hatchlings average 26.6-34.0 mm carapace length (CL) (Harding and Bloomer 1979, Lovich et al. 1990) and have a tail that may be as long as the carapace.

Diagnostic Characteristics

Differs from box turtles and Blanding's turtle in lacking a hinged plastron. Differs from diamondback terrapin in habitat and having orange neck and leg skin in adults and a plain colored (vs. patterned) head in young.

Habitat

Wood turtles live along permanent streams during much of each year but in summer may roam widely overland and can be found in a variety of terrestrial habitats adjacent to streams, including deciduous woods, cultivated fields, woodland bogs, and marshy pastures (Ernst and Lovich 2009).

Preferred stream substrates are hard, such as gravel or sand, but streams with clay and, rarely, soft muck are used occasionally (Buech et al. 1990, Harding 1990, Buech et al. 1991, Ernst and Lovich 2009). Western populations are closely associated with water year round, and eastern populations tend to be more terrestrial in the summer (Ernst and Lovich 2009). According to Harding and Bloomer, Michigan wood turtles were never found more than 152 m (500 ft) from water and had leeches (evidence of aquatic habits) at all times of the year. New Jersey wood turtles were found farther from water and were free of leeches during summer months. Hatchlings and small juveniles are much more closely associated with water than adults.

Wood turtles are often associated with the margins of woods. Harding (1990) reported that wood turtles are usually found where openings in the streamside canopy allow growth of herbaceous plants. These openings provide both food and basking sites. In Wisconsin, wood turtles used wet mesic forest in river bottom and riparian shrub/forest ecotones. Most captures were in ecotones between alder thickets and grassy openings (Ross et al. 1991). In western Maine, within activity areas, wood turtles selected non-forested locations close to water with low canopy cover. Within a watershed, they selected activity areas close to streams with moderate forest cover and little open water. Overall, they appeared to select forest edges to balance thermoregulatory and feeding needs (Compton et al. 2002). Some agricultural operations may be locally beneficial by providing a mixture of different food and cover types near wooded streams (Kaufmann 1992). Use of woodland bogs and marshy fields is most common in the northern part of the range.

As with other turtles, nesting wood turtles require loose substrate on fully exposed (unshaded) sites, such as sandy banks or sand gravel bars in streams. When natural openings are unavailable, they may use such manmade disturbances as road grades, railroad grades, sand pits, or plowed fields (Ernst and Lovich 2009). In Minnesota, Buech et al. (1990, 1991) found that nesting habitat and stream substrate are the most important habitat determinants.

Overwintering occurs in bottoms or banks of streams where water flows all winter, including pools underneath a layer of ice. Underwater muskrat burrows, beaver lodges, or over bank root systems also may be used as winter hibernation (brumation) sites (Ernst 1986).

Ecology

Solitary from late spring to summer. May aggregate in or near hibernation sites. Not territorial (Kaufmann 1992, which see for a detailed study of social behavior in central Pennsylvania).

In New Jersey, wood turtles grow to 165 mm (6.5 inches) in 7 or 8 years. In Michigan, growth rates are slower, and it may take as many as 12 years to attain a 169 mm CL (Harding, 1990). Growth rates for males and females are constant until secondary sexual differences begin to appear, when males begin to grow faster, and ultimately become larger than females (Lovich et al. 1990). Harding (1990) found that average CL of females was 182 mm (n = 105), and average CL of males was 200 mm (n = 86). After and early growth spurt, growth of both sexes slows considerably, until by 20 years of age, growth rates are so slow that annual growth rings on the shell no longer yield accurate age data (Harding 1990).

The combination of late maturity, low reproductive success, and long-lived adults results in a population structure skewed heavily toward adults. Harding's study populations consisted of 80 to 85% adults. Farrell and Graham (1991) reported 3% juveniles (1 to 8 years), 53% subadults (9 to 13 years), and 34% adults (over 13 years) in one New Jersey population; almost half of the population comprised individuals over 14 cm in plastron length These characteristics combine to delay the detection of population declines, and to reduce the ability of small, declining populations to recover. A population studied in West Virginia included 46% juveniles (Niederberger and Seidel 1999).

New Jersey populations averaged 12.5 adults/ha, but the turtles were usually concentrated around basking areas or favorite food patches, rather than spread evenly across an area. In New Jersey, population density over several years averaged 10.7/ha of suitable habitat (Farrell and Graham 1991). In Michigan, the populations seem to be more scattered, and density is likely considerably lower. In southern Quebec, density was estimated at 1.2 turtles per 100 m of river (Daigle 1997). In West Virginia, estimated density was 19.1 individuals per hectare of total habitat (287-337 individuals along a 1.7 km length of river) (Niederberger and Seidel 1999). In Pennsylvania, density for 240 ha of available habitat was 0.66 turtles/ha, whereas density for available riparian habitat where most turtles occurred was 4.42 turtles/ha (Ernst 2001).

Adults may live for many years, with maximum ages of 32 years (wild caught) and 58 years (captive) reported by Harding and Bloomer (1979). In Pennsylvania, several known-age turtles marked as juveniles were found to live at least 30 to 42 years (Ernst, 1992, personal communication). Given the difficulty of aging turtles over 20 years, the wild caught age is likely conservative.

Reproduction

In Pennsylvania, secondary sexual characteristics began to appear at 5-9 years of age, at a size of 160 to 180 mm (Lovich et al. 1990). However, there is usually a delay of several years between sexual differentiation and sexual maturity. Maturity is apparently not attained until 12 to 15 years of age (Lovich et al. 1990, Farrell and Graham 1991, Harding 1990). In a long term study in Michigan, Harding (1990) reported that the smallest female found laying eggs was 158 mm carapace length and had twelve growth rings, indicating she was at least 12 years old. In New Jersey, attained maturity in 14th year (Farrell and Graham 1991). In Wisconsin, the youngest gravid female was 14 years old; the smallest male observed copulating was 20 years old (Ross et al. 1991). In Ontario age at maturity was 17-18 years (Brooks et al. 1992).

Reproductive activity (courtship, copulation) is aquatic (Ernst 1986). Copulation can occur in spring or fall (Niederberger and Seidel 1999, Ernst 2001, Ernst and Lovich 2009). Copulation occurs more often in spring in northern populations and more often during fall in southern populations (Farrell and Graham 1991, Kaufmann 1992, Ernst and Lovich 2009).

Depending on local climate, eggs can be laid anytime from mid-May to early July (Ernst and Lovich 2009. In New Jersey, Virginia, and Pennsylvania (Ernst 2001), a single clutch generally is laid in June. Clutch size usually is 3-20 (Ernst and Lovich 2009). Clutch size averaged 11 in Wisconsin (Ross et al. 1991), 8.5 in New Jersey (Farrell and Graham 1991), about 9 in Ontario (Brooks et al. 1992), and 10 in Michigan (Harding and Bloomer 1979). Eggs hatch after 70-80 days, August-October (after about 70 days, generally in late August, in New Jersey) (Ernst and Lovich 2009). Sex is genetically determined, and sex ratios are approximately 1:1 at birth (Ewert and Nelson 1991).

Nesting success generally is very low, with egg predators taking a heavy toll. One report conservatively estimated egg and hatchling mortality at 98% (Harding 1990). An Ontario population incurred a high rate of predation on nests and adults (Brooks et al. 1992). Reproductive success depends on a high rate of adult survival, long-lived adults that reproduce many times during their lifetime, and the occasional good season when a nest survives (Harding, pers. comm. 1992).
Terrestrial Habitats
Forest - HardwoodGrassland/herbaceousSand/dune
Palustrine Habitats
HERBACEOUS WETLANDFORESTED WETLANDRiparian
Other Nations (2)
United StatesN3
ProvinceRankNative
ConnecticutS3Yes
MarylandS2Yes
Rhode IslandS2Yes
MaineS4Yes
West VirginiaS3Yes
MichiganS2Yes
VirginiaS2Yes
WisconsinS3Yes
New YorkS3Yes
VermontS3Yes
PennsylvaniaS3Yes
New HampshireS3Yes
District of ColumbiaSHYes
MinnesotaS2Yes
New JerseyS2Yes
MassachusettsS3Yes
IowaS1Yes
CanadaN3
ProvinceRankNative
QuebecS3Yes
New BrunswickS2Yes
Nova ScotiaS2Yes
OntarioS2Yes
Threat Assessments
ThreatScopeSeverityTiming
1 - Residential & commercial developmentLarge - restrictedModerate - slightHigh (continuing)
1.1 - Housing & urban areasLarge - restrictedModerate - slightHigh (continuing)
2 - Agriculture & aquacultureRestricted (11-30%)Moderate or 11-30% pop. declineHigh (continuing)
2.1 - Annual & perennial non-timber cropsRestricted (11-30%)Moderate or 11-30% pop. declineHigh (continuing)
5 - Biological resource usePervasive - largeSerious - moderateHigh (continuing)
5.1 - Hunting & collecting terrestrial animalsPervasive - largeSerious - moderateHigh (continuing)
5.1.1 - Intentional use (species being assessed is the target)Pervasive - largeSerious - moderateHigh (continuing)
6 - Human intrusions & disturbanceSmall (1-10%)Slight or 1-10% pop. declineHigh (continuing)
6.1 - Recreational activitiesSmall (1-10%)Slight or 1-10% pop. declineHigh (continuing)
9 - PollutionLarge - restrictedModerate - slightHigh (continuing)
9.3 - Agricultural & forestry effluentsLarge - restrictedModerate - slightHigh (continuing)
9.3.2 - Soil erosion, sedimentationLarge - restrictedModerate - slightHigh (continuing)
11 - Climate change & severe weatherPervasive (71-100%)Serious - moderateHigh - moderate
11.1 - Habitat shifting & alterationPervasive (71-100%)Serious - moderateHigh - moderate
11.3 - Temperature extremesPervasive (71-100%)Serious - moderateHigh - moderate

Roadless Areas (10)
New Hampshire (5)
AreaForestAcres
Carr MountainWhite Mountain National Forest17,110
JobildunkWhite Mountain National Forest3,660
Mt. Wolf - Gordon PondWhite Mountain National Forest11,846
PemigewassetWhite Mountain National Forest32,255
Sandwich RangeWhite Mountain National Forest16,797
Pennsylvania (1)
AreaForestAcres
Tracy RidgeAllegheny National Forest9,034
Vermont (3)
AreaForestAcres
Devil's Den 09083Green Mountain and Finger Lakes National Forests9,169
Griffith Lake 09084Green Mountain and Finger Lakes National Forests1,833
Wilder Mountain 09082Green Mountain and Finger Lakes National Forests8,759
Wisconsin (1)
AreaForestAcres
09157 - Chase CreekChequamegon-Nicolet National Forest6,140
References (107)
  1. Akre, T. S., L. D. Parker, E. Ruther, J. E. Maldonad, L. Lemmon, and N. R. McInerney. 2019. Concurrent visual encounter sampling validates eDNA selectivity and sensitivity for the endangered wood turtle (<i>Glyptemys insculpta</i>). PLoSONE14(4): e0215586. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal. pone.0215586
  2. Arvisais, M., J.-C. Bourgeois, E. Levesque, C. Daigle, D. Masse, and J. Jutras. 2002. Home range and movements of a wood turtle (<i>Clemmys insculpta</i>) population at the northern limits of its range. Canadian Journal of Zoology 80:402-408.
  3. Beuch, R. R. 1991. Tentative guidelines for surveying and monitoring wood turtles. Draft report to Minnesota Dept Resources Nongame Program.
  4. Beuch, R. R., M. D. Nelson, and B. J. Brecke. 1990. Wood turtle (CLEMMYS INSCULPTA) habitat use on the Cloquet River. Report to Minnesota Department of Natural Resources Nongame Program.
  5. Bickham, J. W., T. Lamb, P. Minx, and J. C. Patton. 1996. Molecular systematics of the genus <i>Clemmys</i> and the intergeneric relationships of emydid turtles. Herpetologica 52:89-97.
  6. Bleakney, J. S. 1963. Notes on the distribution and life histories of turtles in Nova Scotia. Canadian Field Naturalist 77(2):67-76.
  7. Brewster, K. N., and C. M. Brewster. 1991. Movement and microhabitat use by juvenile wood turtles introduced into a riparian habitat. J. Herpetol. 25:379-382.
  8. Brooks, R. J., et al. 1992. Body size, age distribution, and reproduction in a nothern population of wood turtles (CLEMMYS INSCULPTA). Can. J. Zool. 70:462-469.
  9. Carpenter, C. C. and G. W. Ferguson. 1977. Variation and evolution of sterotypical behavior in reptiles. Chapt. 6 in: C. Gans and D. W. Tinkle (eds.) Biology of the Reptilia. Vol. 7. Ecology and Behavior.
  10. Carroll, T. E. and D. W. Ehrenfeld. 1978. Intermediate-range homing in the wood turtle, Clemmys insculpta. Copeia 1978(1): 117-126.
  11. Clement, H. 1958. Observations on a captive specimen of Clemmys insculpta. Copeia 1958(4): 336-338.
  12. Cochrane, M. M., D. J. Brown, M. D. Nelson, R. R. Beuch, M. Schrage, D. Ryan, and R. A. Moen. 2018. Status of a <i>Glyptemys insculpta</i> (wood turtle) population in northeastern Minnesota. Herpetological Conservation and Biology 13(1): 273-282.
  13. Compton, B. W., J. M. Rhymer, and M. McCollough. 2002. Habitat selection by wood turtles (Clemmys insculpta): an application of paired logistic regression. Ecology 83:833-843.
  14. Conant, R. 1975. A Field Guide to Reptiles and Amphibians of Eastern and Central North America. Second Edition. Houghton Mifflin Company, Boston, Massachusetts. xvii + 429 pp.
  15. Conant, R. and J. T. Collins. 1991. A field guide to reptiles and amphibians: eastern and central North America. Third edition. Houghton Mifflin Co., Boston, Massachusetts. 450 pp.
  16. Crother, B. I. (editor). 2008. Scientific and standard English names of amphibians and reptiles of North America north of Mexico, with comments regarding confidence in our understanding. Sixth edition. Society for the Study of Amphibians and Reptiles Herpetological Circular 37:1-84. Online with updates at: http://www.ssarherps.org/pages/comm_names/Index.php
  17. Crother, B. I. (editor). 2017. Scientific and standard English names of amphibians and reptiles of North America north of Mexico, with comments regarding confidence in our understanding. 8th edition. SSAR Herpetological Circular 43:1-104. [Updates in SSAR North American Species Names Database at: https://ssarherps.org/cndb]
  18. Daigle, C. 1997. Size and characteristics of a wood turtle, CLEMMYS INSCULPTA, population in southern Quebec. Canadian Field-Naturalist 111:440-444.
  19. Daigle, C., and J. Jutras. 2005. Quantitative evidence of decline in a southern Quebec wood turtle (<i>Glyptemys insculpta</i>) population. Journal of Herpetology 39:130-132.
  20. DeGraaf, R. M., and D. D. Rudis. 1983a. Amphibians and reptiles of New England. Habitats and natural history. Univ. Massachusetts Press. vii + 83 pp.
  21. Duchak, T. J., and R. L. Burke. 2022. Hatching failure in wood turtles (<i>Glyptemys insculpta</i>) is linked to maternal identity. Frontiers in Ecology and Evolution 10: 836800. doi: 10.3389/fevo.2022.836800
  22. Erb, L., and M .T. Jones. 2011. Can turtle mortality be reduced in managed fields? Northeastern Naturalist 18(4):489-496.
  23. Ernst, C.H. 1972. CLEMMYS INSCULPTA. CATALOGUE OF AMERICAN AMPHIBIANS AND REPTILES. SSAR NO. 125:1-2.
  24. Ernst, C. H. 1973. The distribution of the turtles of Minnesota. J. Herp. 7(1): 42-47.
  25. Ernst, C. H. 1986. Environmental temperatures and activities in the wood turtle, CLEMMYS INSCULPTA. J. Herpetol. 20:222-229.
  26. Ernst, C. H. 2001a. Some ecological parameters of the wood turtle, Clemmys insculpta, in southeastern Pennsylvania. Chelonian Conservation and Biology 4:94-99.
  27. Ernst, C. H. 2001b. An overview of the North American turtle genus <i>Clemmys</i> Ritgen, 1828. Chelonian Conservation and Biology 4:211-216.
  28. Ernst, C. H. and J. F. McBreen. 1991a. Wood turtle, Clemmys insculpta. pp455-457. In: J. N. McDonald and T. Skwara (eds.) Virginia's Endangered Species. Blacksburg, VA: McDonald and Woodward.
  29. Ernst, C. H., and R. W. Barbour. 1972. Turtles of the United States. Univ. Press of Kentucky, Lexington. x + 347 pp.
  30. Ernst, C. H., and R. W. Barbour. 1989a. Turtles of the world. Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington, D.C. xii + 313 pp.
  31. Ernst, C. H., R. W. Barbour, and J. E. Lovich. 1994. Turtles of the United States and Canada. Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington, D.C. xxxviii + 578 pp.
  32. Ewert, M. A. 1985. Second year report: Assessment of the current distribution and abundance of the wood turtle (CLEMMYS INSCULPTA) in Minnesota and along the St. Croix National Scenic Waterway in Wisconsin. Report to The Nature Conservancy, Minnesota Chapter, Minnesota Deparment of Natural Resources, Nongame Program, and Dr. Stanley H. Anderson, University of Wyoming.
  33. Ewert, M. A., and C. E. Nelson. 1991. Sex determination in turtles: Diverse patterns and some possible adaptive values. Copeia (1):50-69.
  34. Farrell, R. F. and T. E. Graham. 1991. Ecological notes on the turtle Clemmys insculpta in northwestern New Jersey. J. Herp. 25(1): 1-9.
  35. Feldman, C. R., and J. F. Parham. 2001. Molecular systematics of emydine turtles. Linnaeus Fund Research Report. Chelonian Conservation and Biology 4:224-228.
  36. Feldman, C. R., and J. F. Parham. 2002. Molecular phylogenetics of emydine turtles: taxonomic revision and the evolution of shell kinesis. Molecular Phylogenetics and Evolution 22:388-398.
  37. Flanagan, M., V. Roy-McDougall, G. Forbes, and G. Forbes. 2013. Survey methodology for the detection of Wood Turtles (<i>Glyptemys insculpta</i>). The Canadian Field Naturalist 127(3): 216-223.
  38. Garber, S. D., and J. Burger. 1995. A 20-yr study documenting the relationship between turtle decline and human recreation. Ecological Applications 5:1151-1162.
  39. Geospatial Conservation Assessment Tool (GeoCAT). Online. Available: <a href="http://geocat.kew.org/">https://geocat.iucnredlist.org/</a> (Accessed 2024)
  40. Gilhen, J. and B. Grantmyre. 1973. The wood turtle, Clemmys insculpta (LeConte): An addition to the herpetofauna of Cape Breton Island, Nova Scotia. Can. Field-Nat. 87: 308-310.
  41. Global Biodiversity Information Facility (GBIF). 2024. Global Biodiversity Information Facility (GBIF) data portal. Online. Available: https://www.gbif.org/ (accessed 2024).
  42. Green, N. B., and T. K. Pauley. 1987. Amphibians and reptiles in West Virginia. University of Pittsburgh Press, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. xi + 241 pp.
  43. Harding, J. H. 1977. Record egg clutches for CLEMMYS INSCULPTA. Herpetological Review 8(2):34.
  44. Harding, J. H. 1985. Life history notes: Clemmys insculpta: predation - mutilation. Herp. Rev. 16(1): 30.
  45. Harding, J. H. 1990. A twenty year wood turtle study in Michigan: implications for conservation. Manuscript for Symposium on Turtles and Tortoises: Conservation and Captive Husbandry, Chapman College, Orange, California. 9-12 August, 1990.
  46. Harding, J. H. 1997. Amphibians and reptiles of the Great Lakes region. University of Michigan Press, Ann Arbor. xvi + 378 pp.
  47. Harding, J. H. and T. J. Bloomer. 1979. The wood turtle, Clemmys insculpta...a natural history. HERP Bull. N.Y. Herp. Soc. 15(1): 9-26.
  48. Harding, J. H. Museum, Michigan State University, East Lansing, MI. Personal communication.
  49. Harding, J. No date. Legal status of CLEMMYS INSCULPTA by state or province. Unpublished summary table.
  50. Harman, D. M., and J. A. Chapman. 1977. A seasonal study of the ectoparasties of SYLVILAGUS TRANSITIONALIS. Proceedings of the Pennsylvania Academy of Science 51:40-2.
  51. Harris, M. P., and T. R. Birkhead. 1985. Breeding ecology of the Atlantic Alcidae. Pages 155-204 in Nettleship, D. N., and T. R. Birkhead, eds. The Atlantic Alcidae. Academic Press, N.Y.
  52. Harvey, M. J. Chair, Dept. of Biology, Tennessee Tech. University, Cookville, TN. Pers. comm.
  53. Hillman, B., and M. T. Jones. 2020. A resurvey of a wood turtle (<i>Glyptemys insculpta</i>) population in northern New Hampshire, USA, after 13 years. The Canadian Field-Naturalist 136(2):162-166.
  54. Holman, J. A., and U. Fritz. 2001. A new emydine species from the Medial Miocene (Barstovian) of Nebraska, USA with a new generic arrangement for the species of <i>Clemmys </i>sensu McDowell (1964) (Reptilia:Testudines:Emydidae). Zoologische Abhandlungen Staatliches Museum fur Tierkunde Dresden 51(19):321-344.
  55. Hopkins, J. B., III, C. A. Frederick, D. Yorks, E. Pollock, and M. W. H. Chatfield. 2022. Forensic application of stable isotopes to distinguish wild and captive turtles. Biology 2022 11:1728.
  56. Hunter, M. L., J. Albright, and J. Arbuckle, editors. 1992. The Amphibians and Reptiles of Maine. Maine Agricultural Experiment Station Bulletin 838. 188 pp.
  57. iNaturalist. 2024. Online. Available: https://www.inaturalist.org (accessed 2024).
  58. Iverson, J. B. 1992. A revised checklist with distribution maps of the turtles of the world. Privately printed. Earlham College, Richmond, Indiana.
  59. Jones, M. T., and L. L. Willey. 2020. Cross-watershed dispersal and annual movement in adult wood turtles (<i>Glyptemys insculpta</i>). Herpetological Review 51(2): 208-211.
  60. Kaufmann, J. H. 1992a. The social behavior of wood turtles, CLEMMYS INSCULPTA, in central Pennsylvania. Herpetol. Monogr. 6:1-25.
  61. Kaufmann, J. H. 1992b. Habitat use by wood turtles in central Pennsylvania. J. Herpetol. 26:315-321.
  62. Kaufmann, J. H. 1995. Home ranges and movements of wood turtles, CLEMMYS INSCULPTA, in central Pennsylvania. Copeia 1995:22-27.
  63. King, F. W., and R. L. Burke, editors. 1989. Crocodilian, tuatara, and turtle species of the world: a taxonomic and geographic reference. Association of Systematics Collections, Washington, D.C. 216 pp.
  64. Klemens, M. W. 1993. Amphibians and reptiles of Connecticut and adjacent regions. State Geological and Natural History Survey of Connecticut, Bulletin 112. xii + 318 pp.
  65. Koffler, B. R., R. A. Seigel, and M. T. Mendonca. 1978. The seasonal occurrence of leeches on the wood turtle, Clemmys insculpta (Reptilia, Testudines, Emydidae). J. Herp. 12(4): 571-572.
  66. Krysko, K. L., J. P. Burgess, M. R. Rochford, C. R. Gillette, D. Cueva, K. M. Enge, L. A. Somma, J. L. Stabile, D. C. Smith, J. A. Wasilewski, and G. N. Kieckhefer III. 2011. Verified non-indigenous amphibians and reptiles in Florida from 1863 through 2010: outlining the invasion process and identifying invasion pathways and stages. Zootaxa 3028: 1-64.
  67. Lapin, C. N., J. W. Tamplin, M. M. Cochrane, J. E. Woodford, D. J. Brown, and R. A. Moen. 2019. A regional analysis of <i>Glyptemys insculpta</i> (wood turtle) survival in the Upper Midwest of the USA. Herpetological Conservation and Biology 14(3): 668-679.
  68. Latham, S. R., A. P. K. Sirén, and L. R. Reitsma. 2023. Space use and resource selection of wood turtles (<i>Glyptemys insculpta</i>) in the northeastern part of its range. Canadian Journal of Zoology 101: 20-31.
  69. Levell, J. P. 2000. Commercial exploitation of Blanding's turtle, EMYDOIDEA BLANDINGII, and the wood turtle, CLEMMYS INSCULPTA, for the live animal trade. Chelonian Conservation and Biology 3:665-674.
  70. Lovich, J. E., C. H. Ernst, and J. F. McBreen. 1990. Growth, maturity, and sexual dimorphism in the wood turtle, Clemmys insculpta. Can. J. Zool. 68: 672-677.
  71. Lovich, J. E., et al. 1991. Relationships among turtles of the genus <i>Clemmys</i> (Reptilia, Testudines, Emydidae) as suggested by plastron scute morphology. Zoologica Scripta 20:425-429.
  72. MacCulloch, R. D. 2002. The ROM field guide to amphibians and reptiles of Ontario. Royal Ontario Museum and McClelland and Stewart Ltd., Toronto, Ontario. 168 pp.
  73. McDowell, S. B. 1964. Partition of the genus <i>Clemmys</i> and related problems in the taxonomy of the aquatic testudinidae. Proc. Zool. Soc. London 143:239-279.
  74. Merkle, D. A. 1975. A taxonomic analysis of the <i>Clemmys</i> complex (Reptilia: Testudines) utilizing starch gel electrophoresis. Herpetologica 31:162-166.
  75. Miller, R. W. 1993. Comments on the distribution of CLEMMYS INSCULPTA on the Coastal Plain of Maryland. Herpetol. Rev. 24:90-93.
  76. Mitchell, J. C. 1991. Amphibians and reptiles. Pages 411-76 in K. Terwilliger (coordinator). Virginia's Endangered Species: Proceedings of a Symposium. McDonald and Woodward Publishing Company, Blacksburg, Virginia.
  77. Mitchell, J. C. 1994. The reptiles of Virginia. Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington, D.C. xv + 352 pp.
  78. Mothes, C. C., H. J. Howell, and C. A. Searcy. 2020. Habitat suitability models for the imperiled wood turtle (<i>Glyptemys insculpta</i>) raise concerns for the species’ persistence under future climate change. Global Ecology and Conservation 24 (2020): e01247
  79. Mullin, D. I., R. C. White, A. M. Lentini, R. J. Brooks, K. R. Bériault, and J. D. Litzgus. 2020. Predation and disease limit population recovery following 15 years of headstarting an endangered freshwater turtle. Biological Conservation 245: 108496.
  80. Mullin, D. I., R. C. White, J. L. Mullen, A. M. Lentini, R. J. Brooks, and J. D. Litzgus. 2023. Headstarting turtles to larger body sizes for multiple years increases survivorship but with diminishing returns. The Journal of Wildlife Management 87: e22390.
  81. Niederberger, A. J., and M. E. Seidel. 1999. Ecology and status of a wood turtle (CLEMMYS INSCULPTA) population in West Virginia. Chelonian Conservation and Biology 3:414-418.
  82. Norden, A. and J. Zyla. 1989. The wood turtle, Clemmys insculpta, on the Maryland Coastal Plain. Maryland Naturalist 33(1-2): 37-41.
  83. Oldfield, B., and J. J. Moriarty. 1994. Amphibians & reptiles native to Minnesota. University of Minnesota Press, Minneapolis. xv + 237 pp.
  84. Pallas, D. 1960. Observations on a nesting of the wood turtle. Clemmys insculpta. Copeia 1960(2): 155-56.
  85. Parren, S. G. 2013. A twenty-five year study of the wood turtle (<i>Graptemys insculpta</i>) in Vermont: movement, injuries, and death. Herpetological Conservation and Biology 8(1): 176-190.
  86. Pope, C. H. 1967. Turtles of the United States and Canada. New York: Alfred A. Knopf.
  87. Quinn, N. W. S. and D. P. Tate. 1983. Seasonal movements and habitat of wood turtles (Clemmys insculpta) in Algonquin Park, Canada. J. Herp. 25(2): 217-220.
  88. Quinn, N. W. S., and D. P. Tate. 1991. Seasonal movements and habitat of wood turtles (CLEMMYS INSCULPTA) in Algonquin Park, Canada. J. Herpetol. 25:217-220.
  89. Ross, D. A., et al. 1991. Aspects of the ecology of wood turtles, CLEMMYS INSCULPTA, in Wisconsin. Can. Field-Nat. 105:363-367.
  90. Saumure, 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 3:37-45.
  91. Saumure, R. A., T. B. Herman, and R. D. Titman. 2007. Effects of haying and agricultural practices on a declining species: the North American wood turtle, <i>Glyptemys insculpta</i>. Biological Conservation 135(4): 581-591.
  92. Schneider, A. C., T. W. Arnold, P. W. Huber, and T. L. Lewis. 2018. An 18-year mark-recapture study of wood turtles (<i>Glyptemys insculpta</i>) in Michigan. Journal of Herpetology 52(2):193-200.
  93. Spradling, T. A., J. W. Tamplin, S. S. Dow, and K. J. Meyer. 2010. Conservation genetics of a peripherally isolated population of the wood turtle (<i>Glyptemys insculpta</i>) in Iowa. Conservation Genetics 11: 1667-1677.
  94. Strang, C. A. 1983. Spatial and temporal activity patternsin two terrestrial turtles. J. Herpetol. 17:43-47.
  95. Thompson, F. G. 1953. Further evidence of the occurrence of the wood turtle, Clemmys insculpta (Le Conte) in northeastern Ohio. Herpetologica 9:74.
  96. Tinklepaugh, O. 1932. Maze learning of a turtle. J. Comp. Psychol. 13: 201-206.
  97. Turtle Taxonomy Working Group (TTWG) [Rhodin, A. G. J., J. B. Iverson, R. Bour, U. Fritz, A. Georges, H. B. Shaffer, and P. P. van Dijk]. 2021. Turtles of the World: Annotated Checklist and Atlas of Taxonomy, Synonymy, Distribution, and Conservation Status (9th Ed.). In: Rhodin, A. G. J., J. B. Iverson , P. P. van Dijk, C. B. Stanford, E. V. Goode, K. A. Buhlmann, and R. A. Mittermeier (Eds.). Conservation Biology of Freshwater Turtles and Tortoises: A Compilation Project of the IUCN/SSC Tortoise and Freshwater Turtle Specialist Group. Chelonian Research Monographs 8:1–472. doi: 10.3854/crm.8.checklist.atlas.v9.2021.
  98. Turtle Taxonomy Working Group [van Dijk, P.P., Iverson, J.B., Shaffer, H.B., Bour, R., and Rhodin, A.G.J.]. 2012. Turtles of the world, 2012 update: annotated checklist of taxonomy, synonymy, distribution, and conservation status. In: Rhodin, A.G.J., Pritchard, P.C.H., van Dijk, P.P., Saumure, R.A., Buhlmann, K.A., Iverson, J.B., and Mittermeier, R.A. (Eds.). Conservation Biology of Freshwater Turtles and Tortoises: A Compilation Project of the IUCN/SSC Tortoise and Freshwater Turtle Specialist Group. Chelonian Research Monographs No. 5:000.243-000.328. Online. Available: www.iucn-tftsg.org/cbftt/.
  99. Tuttle, S. E. 1996. Ecology and natural history of the wood turtle (Clemmys insculpta) in southern New Hampshire. Master's thesis, Antioch College New England Graduate School.
  100. Tuttle, S. E., and D. M. Carroll. 1997. Ecology and natural history of the wood turtle (Clemmys insculpta) in southern New Hampshire. Chelonian Conservation and Biology 2:447-449.
  101. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 2015. Endangered and threatened wildlife and plants; 90-day findings on 25 petitions, notice of petition findings and initiation of status reviews. Federal Register 80(181):56423-56432.
  102. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 2023. National Listing Workplan. Online. Available: https://www.fws.gov/project/national-listing-workplan
  103. Vlk, A., A. Bastiaans, D. Stich, and D. Vogler. 2021. Effect of anthropogenic habitat disturbance on the nesting ecology of the Wood Turtle (<i>Glyptemys insculpta</i>). Amphibian & Reptile Conservation 15(2) [General Section]: 50–58 (e283).
  104. Vogt, R. C. 1981c. Natural history of amphibians and reptiles of Wisconsin. Milwaukee Public Museum. 205 pp.
  105. Wallace, S. D., G. J. Forbes, and J. J. Nocera. 2020. Experimental assessment of the impact of agricultural machinery on wood turtles (<i>Glyptemys insculpta</i>). Chelonian Conservation and Biology 19(1): 78-84.
  106. Willoughby, J. R., M. Sundaram, T. L. Lewis, and B. J. Swanson. 2013. Population decline in a long-lived species: the wood turtle in Michigan. Herpetologica 69(2):186-198.
  107. Woods. G. T. 1945. Rate of Travel of the wood turtle. Copeia 1945(1):49.