Gopherus agassizii

(Cooper, 1861)

Mojave Desert Tortoise

G2Imperiled (G2G3) Found in 39 roadless areas NatureServe Explorer →
G2ImperiledGlobal Rank
Critically endangeredIUCN
Very high - highThreat Impact
Desert tortoise (Gopherus agassizii). Photo by U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service, Public Domain (U.S. Government Work), via ECOS.
U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service, https://www.usa.gov/government-works
Identity
Unique IDELEMENT_GLOBAL.2.102027
Element CodeARAAF01012
Record TypeSPECIES
ClassificationSpecies
Classification StatusStandard
Name CategoryVertebrate Animal
IUCNCritically endangered
CITESAppendix II
Endemicendemic to a single nation
KingdomAnimalia
PhylumCraniata
ClassChelonia
OrderTestudines
FamilyTestudinidae
GenusGopherus
Synonyms
Gopherus agassizii (Mohave Population)Xerobates agassizii
Other Common Names
Agassiz's Desert Tortoise (EN) Desert Tortoise - Mohave Population (EN) Mojave Desert Tortoise (EN)
Concept Reference
Murphy, R. W., K. H. Berry, T. Edwards, A. E. Leviton, A. Lathrop, and J. D. Riedle. 2011. The dazed and confused identity of Agassiz's land tortoise, Gopherus agassizii (Testudines, Testudinidae) with the description of a new species, and its consequences for conservation. ZooKeys 113:39-71.
Taxonomic Comments
Bramble and Hutchison (2014) and Franz (2014) suggested the splitting of Gopherus into two genera, Gopherus and Xerobates, but the their proposed taxonomy has not been followed by Crother (2017) or TTWG (2021).

Genetic and morphological work has led to the recognition of the Sonoran or Morafka’s Desert Tortoise, G. morafkai (Murphy et al. 2011) in Arizona and Sonora, Mexico, and the Sinaloan Thornscrub Tortoise, G. evgoodei (Edwards et al. 2016) in southern Sonora and Sinaloa, Mexico. The Mojave population (west and north of the Colorado River) retained the name G. agassizii.
Conservation Status
Rank Method Rank calculation - Biotics v2
Review Date2025-06-09
Change Date2025-06-09
Edition Date2025-09-23
Edition AuthorsGundy, R. L. (2025)
Threat ImpactVery high - high
Range Extent20,000-200,000 square km (about 8000-80,000 square miles)
Rank Reasons
This species has a somewhat limited range in the Mojave desert west and north of the Colorado River. The population suffered severe historical declines of at least 70% throughout the 20th century, and has continued to decline by at least 35% since the 1990s. It is threatened by climate change-induced droughts and temperature extremes; habitat loss from development and agriculture; habitat degradation from non-renewable and renewable energy development, paved and non-paved roads, and off-road vehicle use; illegal shooting; and possibly disease.
Range Extent Comments
Range extends from Inyo County, California (north to Death Valley National Park and about 10 miles south of Lone Pine), southern Nevada (Clark, Nye, and Lincoln counties, north to Yucca Mt. and Coyote Springs), and extreme southwestern Utah (Washington County: Beaver Dam slope and north St. George) south throughout most of the Mohave Desert to the eastern Colorado Desert of Los Angeles, Kern, San Bernardino, Riverside, and Imperial counties, California (i.e., areas west and north of the Colorado River) (Murphy et al. 2011). Elevational range is mainly below 1,677 meters (5,500 feet) but extends from below sea level (Death Valley) to 2,225 meters (7,300 feet) (USFWS 2011). Using GBIF (2025) records from 2005-2025, area of occupancy is estimated to be 7,216 km², or 1,804 grid cells (RARECAT 2025).
Occurrences Comments
The number of distinct occurrences (subpopulations) and locations has not been determined using standardized criteria. The number of occurrences likely would have to be based on arbitrary separation criteria, so the number would have relatively little conservation significance (e.g., occurrences likely would be relatively few but quite large). Instead, population size and area of occupancy are more meaningful measures of conservation status.
Threat Impact Comments
This species is primarily threatened by habitat loss, habitat degradation, habitat fragmentation, climate change, and direct mortality.
Habitat loss occurs in the form of conversion to agriculture (including illegal cannabis farms), development, and solar energy farms (USFWS 2010, USFWS 2022). Habitat degradation and fragmentation occur in the form of invasive plants (especially grasses), cattle and sheep overgrazing, oil and gas development, paved and non-paved roads, recreational off-road vehicle use, and increasing human activity (Boarman and Sazaki 2006, USFWS 2010). Development and agriculture can also cause artificially abundant predator populations that negatively impact localized populations (USFWS 2022). Climate change is projected to reduce survival as rising temperatures reduce activity periods (i.e., reduced foraging time) and droughts reduce food availability (USFWS 2010, USFWS 2022). Direct mortality from illegal shooting and from vehicle strikes also poses a threat (USFWS 2010, USFWS 2022). Another threat is the release of balloons that can travel long distances and litter natural areas hosting tortoises, which may eat them and suffer intestinal blockage or can become entangled in the strings attached to the balloons (Walde et al. 2007).

Upper respiratory tract disease is present throughout the range. However, the impacts this disease has on tortoise survival are still not thoroughly understood (Weitzman et al. 2017, USFWS 2022). While fires do cause direct mortality, they have also been suspected of causing habitat degradation. Tortoises generally do not change territories after fire, and the impacts on survival after fire are not yet understood (Lovich et al. 2018).
Ecology & Habitat

Description

A typical land-dwelling tortoise with all the diagnostic external features: head is roofed with small unevenly sized scales; front feet are club shaped, scaled, and terminate in unwebbed toes with broad, thick claws; the hindlegs are columnar and elephantine, again with unwebbed broad claws; the carapace is highly domed, steep sided and flattened dorsally, brown (dull yellow to light brown in young), and has prominent growth lines; unhinged plastron is yellowish and generally has prominent growth lines; limbs are stocky; tail is short; adult carapace length 20-36 cm.

Compared to females, adult males average larger in size, have longer gular shields, a larger lump (chin gland) on each side of the lower jaw (especially in the spring), and a concave rather than flat plastron, especially in the posterior/femoral area (Stebbins 1985). Males have broader and thicker tails and thick toenails. Sexing individuals less than 15 years old and/or less than 200mm straight carapace length may be difficult by external morphology alone. See Rostal et al. (1994) for information on the use of plasma testosterone and laparoscopy to identify the sex of neonates (hatchlings) and immatures.

The age of juvenile tortoises up to approximately 20-25 years old may be determined by counting concentric annual rings radiating outward from the areolar center of each shell scute. The second right costal scute is recommended for age accounts. After 25 years shell wear and shedding of juvenile rings may obscure rings previously accrued (Germano 1988). However, such "growth rings" are annular only in localities in which plant forage growth is confined to a single season (Miller 1932). Areas with multiple peaks in primary production driven by rainfall may exhibit multiple rings for a given year.

The eggs are pale, elliptical to spherical, brittle shelled, and relatively large (averaging 30-40 mm in diameter, and 20-40 g). Fertile egg shells usually become an opaque chalky white within the week following deposition, but become increasingly pink or gray and translucent if they are infertile or dead.

Diagnostic Characteristics

This species differs from box turtles (genus Terrapene) in lacking a hinged plastron and in having columnar hindlegs with flattened, rather than pointed and tapered, nails. Differs from the Texas tortoise (G. berlandieri) in having a single axillary scute on each side (rather than paired axillary scutes) and the 5th vertebral scute the broadest (rather than the 3rd). Differs from both the gopher tortoise (G. polyphemus) and the Mexican bolson tortoise (G. flavomarginatus) in having relatively larger hind feet (in the desert tortoise, the distance from the base of the first claw to the base of the fourth claw on the forefoot is approximately equal to the same measurement on the hind foot; in the bolson tortoise the measurement is smaller on the hind foot) (Ernst and Barbour 1989).

Box turtles and Texas tortoises have commonly been brought into the Southwest as pets. The southwestern box turtle (Terrapene ornata luteola) is the one terrestrial chelonian which now overlaps geographically and ecologically with the desert tortoise in the vicinity of Tucson, continuing east through Cochise County, Arizona. In recent years the Russian desert tortoise, Agrionemys (Testudo) horsfieldi has been imported by the pet trade in large numbers. While these tortoises resemble the North American species, their maximum size is a smaller 8" straight midcarapace length, their carapaces tend toward olive-gray rather than brown, and the forelimb toes number four rather than five. Other Eurasian tortoises are occasionally imported, but most have vivid carapace blotches of yellow, brown, or black, and/or a high domed rather than flattened top of the carapace.

Gopherus morafkai differs from G. agassizii in having a relatively narrower shell, shorter gular scutes, shorter projections of the anal scutes and in having a flatter, pear-shaped carapace (Murphy et al. 2011). Note that reliable identification of captive tortoises can be impossible due to hybridization or abnormalities resulting from poor nutrition.

Habitat

This tortoise is almost entirely confined to warm creosote bush (Larrea tridentata) vegetation characteristic of the Upper Sonoran life zones of the Mohave and Colorado deserts. Specific habitat associations vary geographically, as do substrate preferences. In the Mohave Desert, the tortoise occurs in creosote scrub, creosote bursage (Ambrosia dumosa), shadscale (Atriplex) scrub, Joshua tree (Yucca brevifolia) park, and, more rarely (in the northern periphery of their range), in mixed blackbush scrub between 3,500-5,000 feet elevation. In the warmer and lower Colorado Desert, tortoises generally are confined to creosote scrub and wash woodland habitats. Often native desert grasses, especially galleta (Hilaria/Plueraphis) and Indian ricegrass are associated with high tortoise densities, and the former species provides significant forage for adults. Exotic Mediterranean weed grasses (Schizmus and Bromus) are abundant across the Mohave Desert.

Most often tortoise habitats are associated with well drained sandy loam soils in plains, alluvial fans, and bajadas, though tortoises occasionally occur in dunes, edges of basaltic flow and other rock outcrops, and in well drained and vegetated alkali flats. In the Mohave Desert, sandy loam soils may be obscured by a surface of igneous pebbles or a veneer of desert pavement. Tortoise burrows are most often proximate to washes and arroyos in this Mohave Desert habitat (Woodbury and Hardy 1948, Luckenbach 1982). However, north of St. George, Utah, they occur in burrows excavated directly into cliffs of red sandstone.

Landscape features affect distribution and dispersal. "Gene flow among desert tortoise populations is at least partially restricted by large topographic features such as high-elevation mountain ranges (e.g., Spring Mountains, New York Mountains, Providence Mountains) and very low elevation regions (e.g., Death Valley, Cadiz Valley)" (Hagerty et al. 2011). "Elevation appears to be an important determinant of these partial barriers, but it is an indirect measure of several variables, including thermal environment, soil type, and vegetation assemblages...areas with extremely high or low elevations likely impose thermal constraints..., provide suboptimal vegetative cover, and physically impair movements" (Hagerty et al. 2011).

Tortoises are often subterranean when inactive, which is about 98% of their total life span (Nagy and Medica 1986). Typically they utilize and/or excavate shelters of four different types: burrows, dens, pallets, and nonburrows (Burge 1978). "Summer" burrows of adults are subterranean excavations usually constructed by the tortoises themselves; typically the openings face north (or NE, NW) and the burrows are larger and longer than the tortoise, often extending one to eight feet with a mean floor declination of 15 +/- 4.0 degrees, and having a single opening. Burrows tend to be longest and deepest in the northern part of the range (Burge 1978, Woodbury and Hardy 1948). Most often they open under a shrub; in the Mojave Desert, creosote bushes provided cover for 58.5-77.2% of the burrow apertures, while bursage cover accounted for another 21%. In the Mohave Desert, most burrows of juveniles were under large shrubs (Wilson et al. 1999).

Winter burrows, or more properly, dens, are generally more extensive, up to 30 feet long, and are more often subject to communal use (by up to 17 tortoises, Woodbury and Hardy 1948). In southern Nevada, December temperatures taken 7 feet deep into the passage varied only a few degrees and the lowest temperature recorded was about 3 C (Burge 1978). These dens typically open to a southern exposure and, in upland northern tortoise range, dens typically are excavated beneath caliche or sandstone rock shelves along wash banks. These same dens may hold air masses with stable, high relative humdities reaching 40% (Woodbury and Hardy 1948). These northern dens, unlike summer burrows, often are enhanced by chambers and even interconnections between dens.

Pallets are shallow excavations which often barely cover the tortoise. They provide common summer shelters throughout most of the range (Aufffenberg 1969). Pallets generally are placed under the cover of shrubs. Summer burrows and pallets are particularly fragile and vulnerable to the erosive effects of livestock hoofs, rodent excavation, wind, and rain (Coombs 1977).

Nonburrows are often in shaded rest areas, formed in depressed or compressed vegetation and soil. Mormon tea (Ephedra) often is utilized by Mohave Desert tortoises for such shelters.

Multiple burrow use is common in tortoises, with several burrows utilized by one individual in a single week. In southern Nevada, semicaptive and/or relocated individuals used an average of nine different burrows and 35% of these were used by other tortoises (Bulova 1994). Likewise, winter dens commonly are shared, and even summer burrows temporarily may be cohabited by a mating pair (Bulova 1994). Juveniles also commonly share burrows when confined to enclosures (Spangenberg, pers. comm.) but rarely do so when free ranging. Therefore, a count of active burrows may not accurately represent local population numbers or densities.

In spring, juveniles are in or near burrows with westerly to southeasterly openings, especially under bushes. During July-October in the lower Mohave Desert, tortoises occupied burrows during the hot midday period but typically did not sleep in burrows at night when surface air temperatures were cooler than the soil; at those times most tortoises rested on the surface under bushes at night (McGinnis and Voigt 1978, Zimmerman et al. 1994).

Eggs are laid in shallow depressions, often 3-4 inches deep. Mohave desert tortoises commonly construct egg nests inside the most superficial two feet of the burrow floor, in the soil apron immediately surrounding the burrow aperture, or under the shade of a shrub adjacent to the burrow. Near St. George, Utah adults descended from sandstone cliff burrows to excavate egg nests in sandy soil washes below (M. Coffen, pers. comm.). Nests usually are placed in well-drained, friable soils. The range of tolerance for nesting conditions for eastern Mohave Desert tortoises has been ascertained experimentally (Spotila et al. 1994). Incubation temperatures should be above 26 C and below 35 C. Temperatures beyond this range usually prove lethal regardless of humidity. Natural nest sites in Nevada often exhibit as much as a 5 C range over the incubation period (Muller, pers. comm.). Incubation soil moisture of 4% is lethal at temperatures of 26 C and probably at 33 C as well, whereas dry soils (0.4% moisture) do not compromise hatching success at 33 C. Eighty-three percent of neonatal tortoises excavated new burrows or enlarged pre-existing rodent burrows during the first weeks following their September emergence from nests.

Habitat Models

Schamberger and Turner (1986) presented a habitat suitability model that showed suitability (1) increasing with yearly mean net production of annuals and grasses, (2) maximized in sandy loam, light gravel, and heavy gravel soils, (3) maximal at an annual rainfall of approximately 20 cm, and (4) maximal in creosote vegetation and becoming progressively less suitable in cactus scrub, shadscale, Joshua tree, and alkali scrub vegetation types.

Nussear et al. (2009) also modeled desert tortoise habitat. Sixteen environmental data layers representing four major categories (landscape, climate, biotic, and soils) were converted into a grid covering the study area (Mohave Desert and part of the Sonoran Desert in CA, NV, UT, and AZ) and merged with the desert tortoise presence data. Final environmental data layers used in the model included: mean dry season (May-October) precipitation, mean wet season November-April) precipitation, elevation, average surface roughness, percent smooth, average soil bulk density, depth to bedrock, average percentage of rocks > 254 mm B-axis diameter, and perennial plant cover. These data were input into the Maxent habitat-modeling algorithm. The model provided output of the statistical probability of habitat potential and was used to map potential areas of desert tortoise habitat. The analysis was robust in its predictions of habitat, but did not account for anthropogenic changes that may have altered habitat with relatively high potential into areas with lower potential.

Ecology

Density in different areas ranges from less than 8 to 184 per sq km (Berry 1986, Freilich et al. 2000). Densities in several Colorado Desert populations ranged between 50-250/sq mi (Berry et al. 1983). In the eastern Mohave Desert of northern Arizona, southwestern Utah, and southern Nevada, more than 75-95 percent of the populations now average less than 50 tortoises/sq mi. In this region only Piute Valley, Cottonwood Valley, 40 Mile Canyon and Coyote Springs, Nevada, and the Paradise Canyon-St. George Hills area of Utah supported tortoises densities in the 100/sq mi range and absolute population sizes that were favorable to long term viability. In California, densities are lowest in the far western (Antelope Valley) Mohave Desert, and highest in the west/central (Superior-Cronese) and eastern Mohave Desert and locally in the northern Colorado Desert.

The Desert Tortoise Recovery Plan (USFWS 1994, Appendix F) provided a detailed regional account of local population densities for the threatened Mohave "population," summarized here as follows by Recovery Units: 1-Northern Colorado Desert, 10-275 adults/sq mi; Eastern Colorado Desert, 5-175/sq mi; Upper Virgin River DWMA, up to 250/sq mi; eastern Mohave Desert, 10-350/sq mi (formerly up to 440/sq mi at Goffs, San Bernardino County, California); Northeastern Mohave Desert, 5-90/sq mi; Western Mohave Desert, 5-250/sq mi.

In the eastern Mohave desert, depressed survival rates were associated with drought conditions during three of four years (Longshore et al. 2003). "If periods of drought-induced low survival are common over relatively small areas, then source-sink population dynamics may be an important factor determining tortoise population densities" (Longshore et al. 2003).

A number of organisms are intimately associated with desert tortoise burrows (summarized by Grover and DeFalco 1995): ground squirrels, Peromyscus and pocket mice, kangaroo rats, woodrats, jackrabbits, desert cottontail, domestic cat, spotted skunk, kit fox, burrowing owl, Gambel's quail, poorwill, roadrunner, desert gecko, desert iguana, desert spiny lizard, western whiptail, gopher snake, coachwhip, night snake, Mohave rattlesnake, sidewinder, western rattlesnake, antlion larvae, ground beetles, roaches, silverfish, blackwidow spider, tarantula, and ticks.

Ectoparasites include ticks (Ornithodoros turicata, O. parkeri), trombicula mites, and dipteran maggot larvae (include those of the botfly). Potential endoparasites and pathogens include intestinal protozoa, bacteria, and the oyurate nematode (Tachygonetria). Some of the bacteria actually may be mutualists that facilitate hemicellulose digestion, while high nematode loads may serve a shredders of high fiber fragments, increasing surface areas for digestion without inducing pathological symptoms in the host (Morafka et al. 1986).

As a result of their unfavorable surface to volume ratio and the high metabolic rate, smaller tortoises are more vulnerable to dehydration (and starvation) than are older/larger individuals. The younger age classes are particularly vulnerable to short-term habitat degradation (occasional overgrazing by livestock) and drought. Immatures lack the lipid reserves and the proportionately larger urinary bladder that allow adults to endure several years of drought with very little effect on physiological homeostasis and reproduction.

Tortoises are effective in retaining water under desert conditions. They have some capacity to switch from water-demanding urea to more conserving uric acid for nitrogen waste elimination when such conservation is needed. In addition, they are more vulnerable to water loss during surface activity when their eyes are open, pulmonary gas exchange is rapid, and the head is extended than when resting or hibernating in a burrow (see Cloudsley-Thompson 1971, Minnich 1977, Schmidt-Nielsen and Bentley 1966, and Nagy and Medica 1986).

Reproduction

The endocrine-reproductive physiology of eastern Mohave tortoises is as follows (Rostal et al. 1994):

Males: increase production of testosterone and begin spermatogenesis in July; from August through October mating takes place; during winter, blood testosterone levels continue the decline which began in September and testes regression probably also begins; March-April emergence initiates a spring mating season which continues though May, paradoxically while testosterone levels continue to drop and testes remain regressed; during the spring mating, males use stored sperm from the epididymis to fertilize females.

Females: ovulation and mating occur in April and May, and presumably some fertilization takes place at this time, both from spring matings and from sperm stored from the prior fall and from prior years of mating, though fertility declines as time since mating increases (Gist 1989); in May and June, grown follicles become hard shelled and are deposited in egg nests; from July through October, the most recent follicles continue to grow by vitellogenesis (yolk enlargement) until they are mature; during the fall, female blood testosterone level begins to increase toward the April peak.

At least in the better studied northern/eastern Mohave populations, fall mating may be particularly important. Access to mates is determined both by male-male dominance hierarchies and by selective female receptivity (Niblick et al. 1994, Burge 1994). A subset of the adult males account for most mating. Male-male encounters may result in agnostic behaviors ranging from head bobbing to ramming, partially to establish social dominance. Greater size, longer residency at a particular site, and past social interactions favor the dominance of one male over others.

Courting is initiated by males through the following series of behaviors (Ruby and Niblick 1994): approach > headbob > trailing > biting, raming, sniffing, and circling > mounting > shell scratch, hops, grunts, head in and out > copulation. Female acquiescence is indicated by pulling her head into her shell and lying down (withdrawing limbs). Rejection is expressed when females walk away. Mounting is facilitated by the concave plastron (undershell) of the males. Copulation is achieved by the insertion of true penis into the cloaca.

Egg laying occurs mainly from May to early July. Clutch size is up to 15 (often 3-7). Number of clutches per year (0 to 3) may depend on environmental conditions, including those of the year prior to oviposition (Turner et al. 1984, 1986). Double clutching is common in the Mohave Desert in or following a wet year, with the second clutch following the first by about one month. After several continuing years of drought in California, desert tortoises continued to produce a single clutch, averaging 3 eggs (USFWS 1994).

Experimental evidence from Nevada tortoises (Spotila et al. 1994) indicate an incubation period of 125 days at 26 C, 68-73 days at 33 C, and 85 days at 35 C (a largely lethal temperature treatment). Best results were at temperatures between 28 and 33 C. Cooler incubations generally facilitated yolk reabsorption and resulted in larger hatchlings. Spring emergence of hatchlings (neonates), and hatchlings overwintering in their egg nest has been recorded, but whether embryogeneis may be suspended over winter is unknown.

Embryogenesis begins only after eggs are deposited. Rotation of eggs after deposition may reduce hatching success rates (Turner et al. 1986). Vascularization of the embryo and its membranes is apparent 22 days into an 82-day incubation. A 9.5-mm embryo is well formed after day 35, and movement occurs after day 37. The embryo is well formed by 66 days (Booth 1958).

Hatching requires the neonate to pip the shell with its egg tooth and reabsorb a residual yolk sac while straightening its embryologically concave plastron and hunched carapace. This process requires 48-72 hours and is followed by excavation of a path to the surface. Hatchling behavior does not appeared to be synchronized within clutches.

Growth of juveniles is much more vigorous than that of adults. Size-age classes were defined by Berry et al. (1990). With recent modifications, Berry's age-size classes are as follows: juvenile 1: less than 60 mm straight midline plastron length; juvenile 2: 60-99 mm; immature 1: 100-139 mm; immature 2: 140-179 mm; adults greater than 180 mm (young adults less than 207 mm, medium adults less than 240 mm). This subjective categorization has been questioned by Germano (1994b).

Individuals attain sexual maturity in 13-20 years. Estimates of mean age of sexual maturity 14.4 years in the western Mohave Desert and 15.4 years in eastern Mohave Desert (Germano 1994). Gravid females with plastron lengths (PL) as small as 186 mm (Joyner-Griffith 1991) have been found in the central Mohave Desert. Tortoises with straight plastron midline lengths larger than 200 mm are generally sexually mature, including males in which plastron concavity is not conspicuous.

Survivorship from hatchling to adult varies by site and by generation, but probably averages about 2% for healthy populations (USFWS 1994). In California, survivorship of eggs to hatching was 0.24 (see Iverson 1991); annual survivorship of adults was 0.98 (Turner et al. 1984). Maximum life span is greater than 50 years in eastern Mojave populations, but tortoises often survive for only 20-25 years of adulthood (Germano 1994b).

Miscellaneous reproductive information: Sex determination is temperature dependent, with a (Nevada) pivotal temperature of approximately 31.8, with mostly males produced at lower temperatures and mostly females at higher temperatures. Unlike leather shelled eggs of turtles, tortoise eggs do not respond to drier conditions by hatching earlier with larger residual yolks.
Terrestrial Habitats
Desert
Other Nations (1)
United StatesN3
ProvinceRankNative
CaliforniaS2Yes
ArizonaS2Yes
UtahS2Yes
NevadaS2Yes
Threat Assessments
ThreatScopeSeverityTiming
1 - Residential & commercial developmentSmall (1-10%)Negligible or <1% pop. decline
1.1 - Housing & urban areasSmall (1-10%)Negligible or <1% pop. decline
2 - Agriculture & aquacultureLarge (31-70%)Moderate or 11-30% pop. declineHigh (continuing)
2.3 - Livestock farming & ranchingLarge (31-70%)Moderate - slightHigh (continuing)
3 - Energy production & miningRestricted (11-30%)Moderate or 11-30% pop. declineHigh (continuing)
3.1 - Oil & gas drillingRestricted (11-30%)Slight or 1-10% pop. declineHigh (continuing)
3.2 - Mining & quarryingSmall (1-10%)Extreme - seriousHigh (continuing)
3.3 - Renewable energySmall (1-10%)Serious or 31-70% pop. declineHigh (continuing)
4 - Transportation & service corridorsLarge - restrictedSlight or 1-10% pop. declineHigh (continuing)
4.1 - Roads & railroadsLarge - restrictedSlight or 1-10% pop. declineHigh (continuing)
5 - Biological resource useSmall (1-10%)Slight or 1-10% pop. declineHigh (continuing)
5.1 - Hunting & collecting terrestrial animalsSmall (1-10%)Slight or 1-10% pop. declineHigh (continuing)
6 - Human intrusions & disturbanceLarge (31-70%)Slight or 1-10% pop. declineHigh (continuing)
6.1 - Recreational activitiesLarge (31-70%)Slight or 1-10% pop. declineHigh (continuing)
8 - Invasive & other problematic species, genes & diseasesPervasive (71-100%)Moderate - slightHigh (continuing)
8.1 - Invasive non-native/alien species/diseasesPervasive (71-100%)Moderate - slightHigh (continuing)
8.2 - Problematic native species/diseasesPervasive (71-100%)UnknownHigh (continuing)
9 - PollutionRestricted (11-30%)Slight or 1-10% pop. declineHigh (continuing)
9.4 - Garbage & solid wasteRestricted (11-30%)Slight or 1-10% pop. declineHigh (continuing)
11 - Climate change & severe weatherPervasive (71-100%)Serious or 31-70% pop. declineHigh (continuing)
11.2 - DroughtsPervasive (71-100%)Serious or 31-70% pop. declineHigh (continuing)
11.3 - Temperature extremesPervasive (71-100%)Moderate or 11-30% pop. declineHigh (continuing)

Roadless Areas (39)
California (13)
AreaForestAcres
Cactus Springs ASan Bernardino National Forest53
Cactus Springs BSan Bernardino National Forest3,106
Cactus Springs BSan Bernardino National Forest3,106
Circle MountainSan Bernardino National Forest6,375
Circle MountainSan Bernardino National Forest6,375
Fish CanyonAngeles National Forest29,886
Granite PeakSan Bernardino National Forest450
Heartbreak RidgeSan Bernardino National Forest4,455
Pyramid Peak BSan Bernardino National Forest7,194
Pyramid Peak BSan Bernardino National Forest7,194
ScodiesSequoia National Forest725
South SierraInyo National Forest41,853
TuleAngeles National Forest9,861
Nevada (14)
AreaForestAcres
Angel Peak NorthHumboldt-Toiyabe National Forest12,577
Angel Peak SouthHumboldt-Toiyabe National Forest6,540
Charleston - CarpenterHumboldt-Toiyabe National Forest17,828
Charleston - Macks CynHumboldt-Toiyabe National Forest11,378
Lovell Summit SouthHumboldt-Toiyabe National Forest28,455
Lovell Summit SouthHumboldt-Toiyabe National Forest28,455
PotosiHumboldt-Toiyabe National Forest5,145
Stirling - Clark AHumboldt-Toiyabe National Forest125
Stirling - JohnnieHumboldt-Toiyabe National Forest1,449
Stirling - West CHumboldt-Toiyabe National Forest36
Stirling - West EHumboldt-Toiyabe National Forest1,145
Stirling - WheelerHumboldt-Toiyabe National Forest3,044
Table Mtn. - Barley Ck.Humboldt-Toiyabe National Forest5,424
Table Mtn. - EastHumboldt-Toiyabe National Forest87,789
Utah (12)
AreaForestAcres
Bull ValleyDixie National Forest10,911
Bull ValleyDixie National Forest10,911
Cedar BenchDixie National Forest8,915
CottonwoodDixie National Forest6,754
CottonwoodDixie National Forest6,754
DixieDixie National Forest109
MogotsuDixie National Forest16,762
MogotsuDixie National Forest16,762
Moody WashDixie National Forest31,835
Moody WashDixie National Forest31,835
Pine Valley MountainsDixie National Forest57,673
Pine Valley MountainsDixie National Forest57,673
References (82)
  1. Allison, L. J., and A. M. McLuckie. 2018. Population trends in Mojave Desert tortoise (<i>Gopherus agassizii</i>). Herpetological Conservation and Biology 13(2): 433–452.
  2. Auffenberg, W., and J. B. Iverson. 1979. Demography of terrestrial turtles. Pages 541-569 in M. Harless and H. Morlock, editors. Turtles: perspectives and research. John Wiley & Sons, New York.
  3. Auffenberg, W. and R. Franz. 1978. <i>Gopherus agassizii</i>. Cat. Am. Amph. Rep. 212.1-212.2.
  4. Berry, K. H. 1975. Desert Tortoise relocation project: status report for 1973. Desert Tortoise Relocation Project. Division of Highways, CA. Contract F-9353.
  5. Berry, K. H. 1978. Livestock grazing and the Desert Tortoise. Pp. 505-19 in Transactions of the 43rd North American Wildlife and Natural Resources Conference; Phoenix, AZ; 1978 March 18-22. Wildlife Management Institute, Washington, DC.
  6. Berry, K. H. 1984. Status of the desert tortoise in the United States. Report from the Desert Tortoise Council. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Sacramento, CA. Order No. 11310-83-81. 848 pp.
  7. Berry, K. H. 1986a. Desert tortoise (<i>Gopherus agassizii</i>) research in California, 1976-1985. Herpetologica 42:62-67.
  8. Berry, K. H. 1986b. Desert tortoise (<i>Gopherus agassizii</i>) relocation: implications of social behavior and movements. Herpetologica 42:113-125.
  9. Berry, K. H. 1992. Population declines, epidemics, visitor use, and habitat deterioration at two desert tortoise preserves in California: lessons for future preserves. Abstract, 6th Annual Meeting of the Society for Conservation Biology, p. 39.
  10. Berry, K. H. 1998. Alien Annual Plants and the Desert Tortoise. Desert Tortoise Preserve Committee. Notes from a CALEPPC field trip. USGS/BRD, Box Springs Field Station, Riverside, CA 92507. http://www.tortoise-tracks.org/publications/weeds.html (accessed 2004).
  11. Berry, K. H., and F. B. Turner. 1984. Notes on the behavior and habitat preferences of the juvenile desert tortoises (<i>Gopherus agassizii</i>) in California. Pages 111-130 in Trotter, M. (ed.). Proceedings of the 1984 symposium of the Desert Tortoise Council; 1984 March 31-April 1. Desert Tortoise Council, Laughlin, NV, Long Beach, CA.
  12. Berry, K. H., and F. B. Turner. 1986. Spring activities and habits of juvenile desert tortoises, <i>Gopherus agassizii</i>, in California. Copeia 1986:1010-1012.
  13. Berry, K. H. and L. L. Nicholson. 1984. A summary of human activities and their impacts on desert tortoise populations and habitat in California. In Berry, K. H. (ed.). The status of the desert tortoise (<i>Gopherus agassizii</i>) in the United States. Report from the Desert Tortoise Council. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Sacramento, CA. Order No. 11310-0083-81. 3-1-3-56.
  14. Berry, K. H., and R. W. Murphy. 2019. Gopherus agassizii (Cooper 1861) – Mojave Desert Tortoise, Agassiz’s Desert Tortoise. In A. G. J. Rhodin, P. C. H. Pritchard, P.P. van Dijk, R. A. Saumure, K. A. Buhlmann, J. B. Iverson, 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 Number 5 (Installment 13), Account 109. 46 pp. https://iucn-tftsg.org/gopherus-agassizii-109/
  15. Berry, K. H., D. J. Morafka, and R. W. Murphy. 2002. Defining the desert tortoise(s): our first priority for a coherent conservation strategy. Chelonian Conservation and Biology 4:249-262.
  16. Berry, K. H., et. al. 1990. Changes in desert tortoise population at the Desert Tortoise Research Natural Area between 1979 and 1985. Pp. 100-123 in Proceedings of the Desert Tortoise Council 1986.
  17. Berry, K.H. et al. Changes in Desert Tortoise Populations at Four Study Sites in California. Draft Report
  18. Berry, K.H. et al. The status of the desert tortoise (<i>Gopherus agassizi</i>) in the United States. Copy #33 two volumes, chapters 1-9 and 10-14.
  19. Berry, K. H., L. M. Lyren, J. L. Yee, and T. Y. Bailey. 2014. Protection benefits desert tortoise (<i>Gopherus agassizii</i>) abundance: the influence of three management strategies on a threatened species. Herpetological Monographs 28: 66–92.
  20. Boarman, W. I., and M. Sazaki. 2006. A highway's road-effect zone for desert tortoises (<i>Gopherus agassizii</i>). Journal of Arid Environments 65(1): 94-101.
  21. Bramble, D.M., and J.H. Hutchinson. 2014. Morphology, taxonomy, and distribution of North American tortoises. An evolutionary perspective. In: Rostal, D.C., McCoy, E.D., and Mushinsky, H.R. (Eds.). Biology and Conservation of North American Tortoises. Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press. pp. 1-12.
  22. Bulova, S. J. 1994. Patterns of burrow use by desert tortoises: gender differences and seasonal trends. Herpetological Monographs 8:133-143.
  23. Burge, B. L. 1978. Physical characteristics and patterns of utilization of cover sites used by <i>Gopherus agassizii</i> in southern Nevada. Pages 80-111 in Trotter, M. and C. G. Jackson Jr. (editors). Proceedings of the 1978 symposium of the Desert Tortoise Council; 1978 April 1-3; Desert Tortoise Council, Las Vegas, NV, San Diego, CA.
  24. Bury, R. B., and P. S. Corn. 1995. Have desert tortoises undergone a long-term decline in abundance? Wildlife Society Bulletin 23:41-47.
  25. California Department of Fish and Game (CDF&G). 1990. 1989 annual report on the status of California's state listed threatened and endangered plants and animals. 188 pp.
  26. Cloudsley-Thompson, J. L. 1971. The temperature and water relations of reptiles. Merrow Publishing Company, Watford Herts., England. 159 pp.
  27. Coombs, E. M. 1977. Implications of behavior and physiology on the desert tortoise (<i>Gopherus agassizii</i>) concerning their declining populations in southwestern Utah, with inferences on related desert ectotherms.
  28. 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
  29. 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]
  30. Edwards, T., A.E. Karl, M. Vaughn, P.C. Rosen, C. Melendez Torres, and R.W. Murphy. 2016. The Desert Tortoise trichotomy: Mexico hosts a third, new sister-species of tortoise in the <i>Gopherus </i><i>morafkai</i>-<i>G</i><i>. agassizii</i> group. ZooKeys- 562:131-158.
  31. Ernst. C. H., and J. E. Lovich. 2009. Turtles of the United States and Canada. Second edition, revised and updated. Johns Hopkins University Press, Baltimore, Maryland. xii + 827 pp.
  32. Ernst, C. H., and R. W. Barbour. 1989a. Turtles of the world. Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington, D.C. xii + 313 pp.
  33. Esque, T. C., C. R. Schwalbe, L. A. DeFalco, R. B. Duncan, and T. J. Hughes. 2003. Effects of desert wildfires on desert tortoise (<i>Gopherus agassizii</i>) and other small vertebrates. Southwestern Naturalist 48:103-111.
  34. Franz, R. 2014. The fossil record for North American tortoises. Pp. 13-24 in D.C. Rostal, E.D. McCoy, and H.R. Mushinsky (eds.). Biology and Conservation of North American Tortoises. John Hopkins University Press, Baltimore, Maryland.
  35. Freilich, J. E., K. P. Burnham, C. M. Collins, and C. A. Garry. 2000. Factors affecting population assessments of desert tortoises. Conservation Biology 14:1479-1489.
  36. Fritts, T. H. and N. J. Scott, Jr. 1984. Ecology and conservation of North American tortoises (Genus <i>Gopherus</i>). I. Population status and ecology of the desert tortoise (<i>Gopherus agassizii</i>) in Sonora and Sinoloa, Mexico. Draft final report. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Albuquerque, NM. 11 pp.
  37. Fritts, T. H. and R. D. Jennings. 1994. Distribution, habitat use, and status of the desert tortoise in Mexico. Pp. 49-56 in Bury. R. B. and D. J. Germano (eds.). Biology of North American Tortoises. National Biological Survey, Fish and Wildlife Research 13.
  38. Germano, D. J. 1988. Age and growth histories of desert tortoises using scute annuli. Copeia 1988:914-920.
  39. Germano, D. J. 1994a. Growth and age at maturity of North American tortoises in relation to regional climates. Canadian J. Zoology 72:918-931.
  40. Global Biodiversity Information Facility (GBIF). 2025. Global Biodiversity Information Facility (GBIF) data portal. Online. Available: https://www.gbif.org/ (accessed 2025).
  41. Grover, M. C., and L. A. DeFalco. 1995. Desert tortoise (<i>Gopherus agassizii</i>): status of knowledge outline with references. U.S. Forest Service, Intermountain Research Station, General Technical Report INT-GTR-316. 135 pp.
  42. Hagerty, B. E., and C. R. Tracy. 2010. Defining population structure for the Mojave desert tortoise, Conservation Genetics 11:1795-1807.
  43. Hagerty, B. E., K. E. Nussear, T. C. Esque, and C. R. Tracy. Making molehills out of mountains: landscape genetics of the Mojave desert tortoise. Landscape Ecology 26:267-280.
  44. Hohman, J. P. and R. D. Ohmart. 1980. Ecology of the desert tortoise on the Beaver Dam Slopes, Arizona. Contract YA-510-PH7-54. 46 pp. and appendix.
  45. Jennings, W.B. 1997. Habitat use and food preferences of the desert tortoise, <i>Gopherus agassizii</i>, in the western Mojave and impacts of off-road vehicles. Pages 42-45 in J. Van Abbema (ed.), Proceedings of the International Conference on Conservation, Restoration, and Management of Tortoises and Turtles. New York Turtle and Tortoise Society, New York
  46. Kristan, W. B., and W. I. Boarman. 2003. Spatial pattern of risk of common raven predation on desert tortoises. Ecology 84:2432-2443.
  47. Kristan. W. B., W. I. Boarman, and J. J. Crayon. 2004. Diet composition of common ravens across the urban-wildland interface of the west Mojave Desert. Wildlife Society Bulletin 32:244-253.
  48. Longshore, K. M., J. R. Jaeger, and J. M. Sappington. 2003. Desert tortoise (<i>Gopherus agassizii</i>) survival at two eastern Mojave Desert sites: death by short-term drought? Journal of Herpetology 37:169-177.
  49. Lovich, J. E., M. Agha, J. R. Ennen, T. R. Arundel, and M. Austin. 2018. Agassiz’s desert tortoise (<i>Gopherus agassizii</i>) activity areas are little changed after wind turbine-induced fires in California. International Journal of Wildland Fire 27(12): 851-856. doi: 10.1071/WF18147
  50. Luckenbach, R. A. 1982. Ecology and management of the desert tortoise (<i>Gopherus agassizii</i>) in California. Pages 1-37 in Bury. R. B. (editor). 1982. North American Tortoise Conservation and Ecology. Wildlife Res. Rep. 12. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Washington, DC.
  51. McGinnis, S. M., and W. G. Voigt. 1971. Thermoregulation in the desert tortoise, <i>Gopherus agassizii</i>. Comparative Biochemistry and Physiology 401(1A):119-26.
  52. Miller, L. H. 1932. Notes on the desert tortoise (<i>Testudo agassizii</i>). Transactions of the San Diego Society of Natural History 7:189-202.
  53. Minnich, J. E. 1977. Adaptive responses in the water and electrolyte budgets of free-living desert (<i>Gopherus agassizii</i>) and gopher tortoises (<i>Gopherus polyphemus</i>). Pages 102-109 in M. Trotter and C. G. Jackson, Jr., editors. Proceedings of the 1977 symposium of the Desert Tortoise Council, 24-27 March 1977, Las Vegas, Nevada. Desert Tortoise Council, San Diego, California.
  54. Murphy, R. W., K. H. Berry, T. Edwards, A. E. Leviton, A. Lathrop, and J. D. Riedle. 2011. The dazed and confused identity of Agassiz's land tortoise, Gopherus agassizii (Testudines, Testudinidae) with the description of a new species, and its consequences for conservation. ZooKeys 113:39-71.
  55. Nagy, K. A., and P. A. Medica. 1986. Physiological ecology of desert tortoises in southern Nevada. Herpetologica 42: 73-92.
  56. Nussear, K. E., Esque, T.C., Inman, R.D., Gass, Leila, Thomas, K.A., Wallace, C.S.A., Blainey, J.B., Miller, D.M., and Webb, R.H., 2009, Modeling habitat of the desert tortoise (Gopherus agassizii) in the Mojave and parts of the Sonoran Deserts of California, Nevada, Utah, and Arizona: U.S. Geological Survey Open-File Report 2009-1102, 18 pp.
  57. O'Conner, M. P., L. C. Zimmerman, D. E. Ruby, S. J. Bulova, and J. R. Spotila. 1994. Home range size and movements by desert tortoises, <i>Gopherus agassizii</i>, in the eastern Mojave Desert. Herpetological Monographs 8:60-71.
  58. Oftedal, O.T. 2002. The nutritional ecology of the desert tortoise in the Mojave and Sonoran deserts. Pages 194-241 in T.R. Van Devender (ed.), The Sonoran Desert Tortoise; Natural History, Biology and Conservation. University of Arizona Press, Tucson, Arizona.
  59. Oftedal, O. T., et. al. 1995. Dietary potassium affects food choice, nitrogen retention and growth of desert tortoises. Paper presented at the 20th Annual Meeting and Symposium of the Desert Tortoise Council. 1995 March 31 - April 2. Las Vegas, NV.
  60. <p>NatureServe's Rapid Analysis of Rarity and Endangerment Conservation Assessment Tool (RARECAT). 2025. Version: 2.1.1 (released April 04, 2025).</p>
  61. Rostal, D. C., E. D. McCoy, and H. R. Mushinsky, eds. 2014. Biology and Conservation of North American Tortoises. John Hopkins University Press. 208 pp.
  62. Rostal, D. C., et al. 1994a. Seasonal reproductive cycle of the desert tortoise (<i>Gopherus agassizii</i>) in the eastern Mojave Desert. Herpetological Monographs 8:72-82.
  63. Rostal, D. C., et al. 1994b. Non-lethal sexing techniques for hatchling and immature desert tortoises (<i>Gopherus agassizii</i>). Herpetological Monographs 8:83-87.
  64. Schamberger, M. L., and F. B. Turner. 1986. The application of habitat modeling to the desert tortoise (<i>Gopherus agassizii</i>). Herpetologica 42:134-138.
  65. Schmidt-Nielsen, K., and P. J. Bentley. 1966. Desert tortoise <i>Gopherus agassizii</i>): cutaneous water loss. Science 154:911.
  66. Spotila, J. R., et al. 1994. Effects of incubation conditions on sex determination, hatching success, and growth of hatchling desert tortoises, <i>Gopherus agassizii</i>. Herpetological Monographs 8:103-116.
  67. The Nature Conservancy. 1990. The Desert Tortoise Habitat Conservation Plan: A Status Report to the National Board of Governors. The Nature Conservancy, Great Basin Field Office.
  68. Tracy, C. R., R. C. Averill-Murray, W. I. Boarman, D. Delehanty, J. S. Heaton, E. D. McCoy, D. J. Morafka, K. E. Nussear, B. E. Hagerty, and P. A. Medica. 2004. Desert tortoise recovery plan assessment. Report to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Reno, Nevada.
  69. Turner, F. B., P. A. Medica, and C. L. Lyons. 1984. Reproduction and survival of the desert tortoise (<i>Scaptochelys agassizii</i>) in Ivanpah Valley, California. Copeia 1984:811-820.
  70. 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.
  71. 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/.
  72. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 1993. Proposed determination of critical habitat for the Mojave Desert population of the desert tortoise. Federal Register 58(166):45756-45768. 30 August 1993.
  73. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 1994. Desert tortoise (Mojave population) recovery plan. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Portland, Oregon.
  74. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 2010. Mojave population of the desert tortoise (<i>Gopherus agassizii</i>) 5-year review: summary and evaluation. Desert Tortoise Recovery Office, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Reno, Nevada.
  75. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 2011. Revised recovery plan for the Mojave population of the desert tortoise (<i>Gopherus agassizii</i>). U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Pacific Southwest Region, Sacramento, California. 222 pp.
  76. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 2022. Mojave Desert Tortoise (<i>Gopherus agassizii</i>) 5-Year Review: Summary and Evaluation. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Desert Tortoise Recovery Office, Southern Nevada Fish and Wildlife Service, Las Vegas, Nevada. 55 pp.
  77. Walde, A. D., M. L. Harless, D. K. Delaney, and L. L. Pate. 2007. Anthropogenic threat to the desert tortoise (<i>Gopherus agassizii</i>): litter in the Mojave Desert. Western North American Naturalist 67(1): 147–149.
  78. Weitzman, C. L., F. C. Sandmeier, and C. R. Tracy. 2017. Prevalence and diversity of the upper respiratory pathogen <i>Mycoplasma agassizii</i> in Mojave Desert tortoises (<i>Gopherus agassizii</i>). Herpetologica 73(2): 113–120.
  79. White, G. C., and R. A. Garrott. 1990. Analysis of wildlife radio-tracking data. Academic Press, San Diego, CA.
  80. Wilson, D. S., C. R. Tracy, K. A. Nagy, and D. J. Morafka. 1999b. Physical and microhabitat characteristics of burrows used by juvenile desert tortoises (<i>Gopherus agassizii</i>). Chelonian Conservation and Biology 3:448-453.
  81. Woodbury, A. M. and R. Hardy. 1948. Studies of the desert tortoise, <i>Gopherus agassizii</i>. Ecological Monographs. 18(2):145-200.
  82. Zimmerman, L. C., et al. 1994. Thermal ecology of desert tortoises in the eastern Mojave Desert: seasonal patterns of operative and body temperatures, and microhabitat utilization. Herpetological Monographs 8:45-59.