Gopherus polyphemus

(Daudin, 1802)

Gopher Tortoise

G3Vulnerable Found in 4 roadless areas NatureServe Explorer →
G3VulnerableGlobal Rank
VulnerableIUCN
PS:TESA Status
Very highThreat Impact
Identity
Unique IDELEMENT_GLOBAL.2.105196
Element CodeARAAF01030
Record TypeSPECIES
ClassificationSpecies
Classification StatusStandard
Name CategoryVertebrate Animal
IUCNVulnerable
CITESAppendix II
Endemicendemic to a single nation
KingdomAnimalia
PhylumCraniata
ClassChelonia
OrderTestudines
FamilyTestudinidae
GenusGopherus
USESAPS:T
Other Common Names
gopher tortoise (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
Auffenberg (1976), Bramble (1982), Crumly (1987, 1994), and Lamb and Lydeard (1994) provided information on phylogenetic relationships among tortoises of the genus Gopherus, which comprises four living species and nine fossil taxa. A recent study of phylogeny based on mtDNA variation identified the four living North American tortoises as a monophyletic group consisting of two well-defined clades, the agassizii clade and the polyphemus clade (Lamb and Lydeard 1994). MtDNA and osteological data indicate that G. polyphemus is more closely related to G. flavomarginatus of Mexico than it is to the other two species of Gopherus. Gopherus polyphemus is only slightly distinct from G. flavomarginatus based on allozymes (Morafka et al. 1994).

Using mtDNA, Osentoski (1993) assessed rangewide genetic variation and found three major assemblages: (1) a western assemblage consisting of seven haplotypes (Louisiana eastward to Taylor County, Florida, and along the Chattahoochee River drainage north to Talbot County, Georgia); (2) an eastern assemblage containing the two most common haplotypes (South Carolina through peninsular Florida) and (3) a mid-Florida assemblage consisting of seven haplotypes (along the Gulf coast from southern Levy County north to Pinellas County, then east to north of the Hillsborough River, and northeast into Orange/Osceola counties).
Conservation Status
Rank Method Rank calculation - Biotics v2
Review Date2025-06-10
Change Date1996-03-20
Edition Date2025-06-10
Edition AuthorsGundy, R. L. (2025)
Threat ImpactVery high
Range Extent200,000-2,500,000 square km (about 80,000-1,000,000 square miles)
Number of Occurrences> 300
Rank Reasons
This species is endemic to the southeastern U.S. from South Carolina to Louisiana. The population has undergone 80% decline in last 100 years. It continues to decline due to habitat loss, habitat degradation, and disease. Development, agriculture, conversion to pine plantation, and fire exclusion are the primary threats.
Range Extent Comments
This species is endemic to the southeastern United States. The range extends from southern South Carolina south through southern Georgia to southern Florida, west through southern Alabama, southeastern Mississippi, and extreme eastern Louisiana (Diemer 1989, Clark et al. 2001, Gaillard et al. 2017, Krysko et al. 2019). Using Global Biodiversity Information Facility (GBIF) (2025) records from 2005-2025, range extent is estimated to be 495,422 km² (RARECAT 2025).
Occurrences Comments
There are many hundreds of occurrences throughout the range.
Threat Impact Comments
Habitat loss and habitat degradation are the primary threats impacting this species. Habitat loss occurred throughout the range due to residential development, commercial development, conversion to agriculture, and conversion to pine plantation (Landers and Garner 1981, Auffenberg and Franz 1982, Lohoefener and Lohmeier 1984, Diemer 1989, Krysko et al. 2019, FWC 2024). An estimated 95% of historical longleaf pine habitat was lost in the 1800s and 1900s (Ware et al. 1993). Habitat loss continues and relatively few sites have been adequately restored. Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission (FWC) allowed tens of thousands of tortoise burrows to be entombed in favor of development prior to 2008, and continues to allow the destruction of habitat and tortoise burrows for development (FWC 2024). FWC provides permits for the relocation of over 10,000 tortoises annually, a quantity greater than the capacity of authorized recipient sites (Miller 2021, Turner 2021, FWC 2024). It has been shown that populations at such recipient sites experience higher-than-average mortality rates from starvation due to stress when temporarily held in large (i.e., multiple hectare) soft-release areas used to acclimate tortoises to their new environment (Cozad et al. 2020). Solar energy development is another cause of habitat loss, degradation, and direct mortality throughout the range (USFWS 2021).

Habitat degradation occurs when canopy cover increases and when herbaceous vegetation declines, whether due to conversion to dense pine plantation or from succession caused by long-term fire exclusion (Landers and Buckner 1981, Tuberville et al. 2007, Catano et al. 2014, Krysko et al. 2019). Habitat fragmentation occurs due to development, construction of roads, and construction of railroads (Rautsaw et al. 2018a, Rautsaw et al. 2018b). Roadsides become resident home ranges when the surrounding habitat is suboptimal, but they also increase the risk of mortality from vehicle strikes (Rautsaw et al. 2018b). The increased density of predators (e.g.: raccoons) near development and agriculture subsequently causes increased predation on eggs and juveniles (Butler and Sowell 1996). The invasion of red imported fire ants (Solenopsis invicta) has reduced juvenile survival in affected areas (USFWS 2021).

Upper Respiratory Tract Disease (URTD) is prevalent throughout the range and appears to negatively impact affected populations, especially when individuals are infected with both pathogens causing this disease (Mycoplasma agassizii and M. testudineum) (Smith et al. 1998, Diemer Berish et al. 2000, Siegel et al. 2003, McGuire et al. 2014). Other diseases also impact this species and some have caused large-scale die-offs (Dziadzio et al. 2018).

Intensive harvest for consumption by humans caused severe local declines in some populations, particularly during the Great Depression of the 1930s (Hutt 1967, Landers and Garner 1981, Auffenberg and Franz 1982, Taylor 1982, Diemer 1986, Diemer 1989, FWC 2024). This threat is presumed to be virtually eliminated. Gassing of tortoise burrows for the capture and persecution of rattlesnakes was made illegal in Florida in 1978 and is likely no longer a serious threat (FWC 2024).
Ecology & Habitat

Description

The gopher tortoise is a relatively large (carapace length often 15-28 cm, but up to 38 cm) terrestrial turtle with a domed carapace, short elephantine hindlimbs, shovellike forelimbs, a gular projection from the anterior plastron, and a short tail. The anterior surface of the flattened forelimb is covered with 7-8 rows of large scales. Often the surface of the carapace is quite smooth in adults, reflecting the abrasion it receives as an individual enters or exits its burrow. The carapace is keelless and oblong, with the greatest width just anterior to the well-developed bridge (connecting the carapace to the plastron), and the greatest height in the sacral region. The carapace drops off abruptly to the rear of the highest region (Ernst and Barbour 1972). The carapace of an adult varies from dark- brown to grayish-black. In Florida, individuals from coastal areas are generally darker than those from central populations. The gular scutes of the robust, hingeless plastron project below the chin. Males often have longer gular projections than do females. However, because both sexes use their projections during agonistic encounters, the gular projections are often broken and may not be an accurate diagnostic feature of the sex of an individual (Mushinsky et al. 1994). Most gopher tortoises have well defined "growth rings" on the scutes of the yellowish plastron. Use of the growth rings to age individuals must be done with caution, as there is much variation in the number of "false" growth rings throughout the range of this taxon.

Female gopher tortoises become sexually mature at a carapace length of about 23-24 cm. Males are somewhat smaller at maturity and do not obtain the large body size of females. The best indicator of the sex of an adult gopher tortoise is the depth of the plastral concavity (Mushinsky et al. 1994). Mature males have a shallow depression in the posterior, central portion of the plastron to facilitate mounting a female for copulation. Large females may have a shallow plastral concavity (2-4 mm) compared to the deeper concavity found on mature males (5-8 mm). Males often have larger integumentary glands under the chin than do females (Ernst and Barbour 1989), but the size of these integumentary glands varies seasonally. Based upon numerous anatomical measurements, McRae et al. (1981a) developed a discriminant function that accurately identified the sex of adult individuals. Using a stepwise multiple regression on numerous morphological measurements, Burke et al. (1994) developed a non-invasive sex identification technique for determining the sex of hatchling and juvenile gopher tortoises.

Hatchlings emerge from their eggs at a carapace length of generally about 3-5 cm. Coloration of the vertebral and costal scutes of the carapace of hatchlings is yellowish to yellowish-orange, and each scute is bordered by brownish coloration (Allen and Neill 1953). The skin on the head and limbs is likewise brightly colored yellow to yellowish-orange. The bright coloration of hatchlings darkens during the first year or two of life. The gular scutes of young tortoises do not project forward as in the adult tortoises, and the claws of young tortoises are long and sharp (Allen and Neill 1953). Hatchlings dig their own burrows, often just a few meters away from the nest from which they emerged. Hatchlings and juveniles, up to an age of 5-7 years, have relatively soft shells and are highly vulnerable to predation (Wilson 1991).

Eggs are white, nearly spherical, and brittle-shelled. For photographs of eggs see Allen and Neil (1951) and Pope (1939). Iverson (1980) reported an average maximum egg diameter of 42-43 mm and an average wet mass of 40.9 g (also see Arata 1958, Landers et al. 1980).

Diagnostic Characteristics

This is the only terrestrial tortoise east of the Mississippi River. The only other terrestrial turtle within the geographic range of the gopher tortoise is the eastern box turtle. Box turtles are smaller than gopher tortoises, have a high domed carapace, and a hinged plastron. Box turtles can close their shells completely so that neither the head nor any appendage is visible when retracted completely. Gopher tortoises cannot withdraw completely into their shells. A startled gopher tortoise will withdraw its limbs into the shell, but the limbs are visible when retracted.

Gopher tortoise differs from the desert, Texas, and bolson tortoises (none of which occur in the range of the gopher tortoise) in having relatively smaller hind feet. In the desert, Texas, and bolson tortoises, 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 gopher tortoise, the measurement is smaller on the hind foot (Ernst and Barbour 1989).

Habitat

Commonly occupies habitats with a well-drained sandy substrate, ample herbaceous vegetation for food, and sunlit areas for nesting (Hallinan 1923, Landers 1980, Landers et al. 1980, Diemer 1989). These habitat types include sandhill (pine-turkey oak), sand pine scrub, xeric hammock, pine flatwoods, dry prairie, coastal grasslands and dunes, and mixed hardwood-pine communities (Landers and Speake 1980, Auffenberg and Franz 1982, Kushlan and Mazzotti 1984, Diemer 1986, 1992a). Prefers open habitats that support a wide variety of herbaceous ground cover vegetation for forage; usually abandons densely canopied areas and frequently can be found in disturbed habitats such as roadsides, fence-rows, old fields, and the edges of overgrown (unburned) uplands (see Diemer 1989, Stewart et al. 1993, Breininger et al. 1994). Upland habitats with extensive canopies reduce the amount of direct sunlight on the ground which may hamper tortoises from reaching minimum thermal requirements for normal daily activities. Also, excessive shade decreases herbaceous vegetation essential for growth, development, and reproduction (Mushinsky and McCoy 1994).

Temporarily abandons marginal habitats during periods of drought; increasing habitat isolation eventually may result in marginal habitats being completely abandoned (Matthews and Moseley 1990). In Georgia, adults congregated on droughty sites in early spring, and many moved to more mesic soils for autumn-winter (McRae et al. 1981).

Densities of gopher tortoises are known to be relatively high in sandhill communities, however, high densities may not be indicative of a healthy population (Mushinsky and McCoy 1994). Mushinsky and McCoy (1994) reported that high densities of some tortoise populations may be the result of tortoises confined to a true or "habitat" island. Tortoises in this situation are unable to move freely to new locations as the quality of the habitat degenerates. More research is needed on the demography of tortoises in confined areas.

Gopher tortoises are highly fossorial and construct extensive burrow systems. They spend much of the time underground. See ecology section for further information on burrows.

Eggs are deposited in a typical flask-shaped nest cavity excavated by the hindlimbs of the female to a depth of about 10-15 cm. Nests may be located in any open sunny area near the burrow of the female, but most often, nests are placed in the spoil mound immediately outside the female's burrow (e.g., Hallinan 1923, Allen and Neil 1951, Arata 1958, Mount 1975, Landers et al. 1980, Butler and Hull 1996).

Ecology

BURROWING AND BURROW ECOLOGY: Gopher tortoises excavate deep burrows that provide shelter from climatic extremes and refuge from predation. Adult burrows average approximately 4.5 m in length and about 2 m deep (Diemer 1989; see Guyer and Hermann 1997 for information on burrow size and longevity at sites in Georgia and Alabama). Burrows have been found to be significantly shorter in clayey soils than sandy soils which may be a result of respiratory limitations (Ultsch and Anderson 1986); oxygen decrements and carbon dioxide increments were greatest in clayey soils and were positively correlated with burrow length. The high humidity associated with the burrow may offer the tortoise protection from desiccation (Auffenberg and Weaver 1969, Means 1982). At the mouth of each burrow is a mound of subsoil excavated by the burrow resident. Kaczor and Hartnett (1990) found that these soil mounds undergo microsuccession and contribute toward increased plant species diversity in the surrounding habitat.

In northern Florida, Diemer (1992c) found that, on average, adult male tortoises use 5.5 burrows and adult female tortoises use 2.7 burrows per activity season (April-December). In Georgia, tortoises were reported to use 7 and 4 burrows for males and females, respectively (McRae et al. 1981b). Average number of burrows used annually by juvenile tortoises was 1.1 by 0-1- year-olds, 2.2 by 2-year-olds, and 1.7 by 4-5-year-olds in a southern Georgia population (McRae et al. 1981b) and 4.4 by 1-4-year-olds in a central Florida population (Wilson et al. 1994). At the Kennedy Space Center in Florida, Smith et al. (1997) documented the use of individual burrows by several tortoises at different times and occupation of individual burrows by two tortoises at the same time. Suggested reasons for differences in burrow use between populations include differences in ground cover, soil composition, temperature extremes at different latitudes, and number of disturbances to burrows.

Although juvenile tortoises use several burrows they spend most of their time in a primary burrow. Annual use of the primary burrow for juvenile tortoises in a central Florida population was 75% of the use of all burrows (Wilson et al. 1994). The data for estimated use of the primary burrow for adult gopher tortoises are not available. Hatchlings dig burrows (Epperson and Heise 2003) and, in their first year, use multiple burrows (Butler et al. 1995). Several studies have noted that gopher tortoises sometimes use shallow depressions, possibly as resting sites when traveling far from their burrows (Fucigna and Nickerson 1989, Godley 1989, Stout et al. 1989, Diemer 1992c), and windrows, possibly for protection from cattle and machinery (Diemer 1992c). On pine plantations in Alabama, most burrows of juveniles were associated with stumps, fallen logs or tree limbs, or shrub stems, which could interfere with excavation attempts by predators (Aresco 1999). Ashton and Ashton (2001) documented the use of apparently abandoned burrows by juveniles in Citrus County, Florida.

In Northern Florida, Diemer (1992b) studied tortoise populations for several years. She found that the number of burrows showing signs of recent activity increased in April, peaked in July, and remained high through October. The burrow surveys showed a continuous cycle of burrow creation and abandonment. The ratio of captured tortoises to burrows (active and inactive) varied among sites and years; the ratio of burrows to tortoises ranged from 0.45-0.69. Percentages of adult individuals in the three populations studied ranged from 40-62%.

Gopher tortoises desiccate more rapidly when deprived of a burrow than any other member of the genus GOPHERUS (Auffenberg and Weaver 1969). They may withstand relatively high body temperatures (Bogert and Cowles 1947) but froth at the mouth and breathe rapidly when heat stressed. Critical thermal maximum is reported as 43.9 C (Hutchinson et al. 1966).

Many vertebrate and invertebrate species have been recorded from gopher tortoise burrows (Young and Goff 1939, Brode 1959, Hansen 1963, Franz 1986, Jackson and Milstrey 1989, Lips 1991, Witz et al. 1991), including protected species such as the eastern indigo snake (DRYMARCHON CORAIS COUPERI) and the gopher frog (RANA CAPITO) (Auffenberg 1969, 1978; Diemer 1986). Some burrow associates prefer active burrows over inactive or abandoned ones (Lips 1991); these can be distinguished by characteristics of the burrow entrance (Auffenberg and Franz 1982, Cox et al. 1987). Eisenberg (1983) found that 73.7% of gopher frogs censused were found in active tortoise burrows. Witz and coworkers (1991) excavated 1019 burrows and found that of the vertebrate symbionts captured only lizards were found significantly more often in active burrows than in either inactive or abandoned burrows. Fecal material and other organic debris in the enlarged area at the bottom of the burrow serves as an important food source for some burrow associates (Milstrey 1986).

POPULATION ECOLOGY:

Often occurs in more or less isolated colonies of up to about 57 individuals; population density within a colony was estimated at 3-27/ha in Florida (Auffenberg and Franz 1982). Folk (1993) estimated density at about 1-2/ha, 3-5/ha, and 16-25/ha on 3 TNC preserves in Florida. At the Kennedy Space Center, Florida, fall densities ranged from a mean of 2.7/ha in disturbed habitat to 0.0/ha in saw palmetto habitat; spring densities ranged from a mean of 2.5/ha in saw palmetto habitat to 0.7/ha in oak-palmetto habitat (Breininger et al. 1994).

A comprehensive study of about 50 populations of gopher tortoises in Florida (McCoy and Mushinsky 1988) found several trends. Gopher tortoise populations residing on sites that had experienced severe area reduction (greater than 25% reduction over the past 20 years), or occurred on sites with greater than 50% tree canopy, or occurred on sites of small size (< 2 ha), tended to have truncated demographic profiles. A truncated profile suggests little recruitment of individuals into the population and abandonment of the site by larger, mature individuals. In contrast, tortoise populations on sites with no or limited area reduction, or sites with less than 50% tree canopy, or relatively large sites (> 2 ha) tended to have a high proportion of large, mature individuals and evidence of recruitment of young into the population (McCoy and Mushinsky 1988).

Comparisons of tortoise populations on true islands with populations on the mainland suggested that tortoises do respond to relatively small, isolated habitats (Mushinsky and McCoy 1994). Both island and mainland tortoise populations show a positive relationship between the number of active and inactive burrows and the area of habitat. Density of burrows, however, decreased as area increased on the mainland, but density of burrows was not related to area on the islands. Also, on the mainland, the ratio of inactive to active burrows (a measure of the tendency of individuals to construct new burrows) increased with area of habitat, and burrow density increased with increasing herbaceous vegetation, but neither of these relations could be demonstrated on islands. Collectively, these findings suggest that tortoises have a greater selection of habitats on the mainland than on islands. Tortoises on islands are confined and may be forced to live in less than ideal conditions. The implications of these findings are profound for tortoises living in small, fragmented "habitat islands" on the mainland. In time, perhaps a few decades, as the quality of their habitat island is degraded, mature adults may be forced to abandon a site in search of better habitat quality. Such individuals, which may be forced to abandon isolated patches of habitat in areas surrounded by human dwellings seem doomed to perish. From a practical perspective, prior to this study (Mushinsky and McCoy 1994), observation of large numbers of active and inactive gopher tortoise burrows in a confined area likely would have been viewed as indicators of a "healthy" population; however, these findings suggest just the opposite. Rather than a signal of a healthy population, large numbers of active and inactive gopher tortoise burrows, relative to the actual number of tortoises, may signal a stressed population (see also Stewart et al. 1993).

Reproduction

Male tortoises seek females for mating from May to July. There is some evidence that dominant males breed with several females (Douglass 1990). When seeking a female, a male moves to the mouth of a burrow occupied by a female and displays a head bobbing behavior (Auffenberg 1966, Wright 1982). If the female exits her burrow the courting male walks in a circle around the female, periodically stopping and performing the head bobbing behavior. When the female approaches the courting male, he bobs his head violently, and bites her on the forelegs, head, anterior edge of the carapace, and gular projection. The female then backs in a semicircle, stops, and extends her hindlimbs. Thereafter, she rotates her body about 180 degrees, so that her posterior end is near the male's head. The courting male then attempts to mount the female; if unsuccessful, he repeats the courting behavior (Auffenberg 1966, Ernst and Barbour 1972).

Nesting occurs from late April to mid-July (mainly mid-May to mid-June) (Iverson 1980, Landers et al. 1980, Wright 1982, Epperson and Heise 2003)). Clutch size usually is 5-9, averages 3.8 in South Carolina, 5-6 in Florida (e.g., Butler and Hull 1996), 7 in Georgia (see Diemer and Moore 1994), 4.8 in Mississippi (Epperson and Heise 2003). A large female from central Florida produced an unusually large clutch of 25 eggs (Godley 1989). Clutch size increases with increasing female size (Landers et al. 1980, Diemer and Moore 1994). Adult females produce one clutch/year (but some adults do not nest every year). The ovarian cycle was described by Iverson (1980) and Palmer and Guillette (1988). Incubation lasts about 110 days in South Carolina, 80-90 days in northern Florida (Iverson 1980, Landers et al. 1980), mean of 105 days in northeastern Florida (Butler and Hull 1996), mean of 88 dyas in Mississippi (Epperson and Heise 2003). Hatching occurs from August through September. In northeastern Florida, hatchlings emerged from the nest from late August through early October (Butler and Hull 1996). At hatching, and about 24-48 hours prior to emergence, hatchlings exhibit a large external yolk sac (Linley and Mushinsky 1994). The external yolk sac is absorbed as the hatchlings remain in the nest cavity prior to emergence. Just after emergence a deep transverse groove across the plastron is visible; it disappears two to three days after emergence as the anterior- posterior axis of the body becomes straight and the plastron flattens (Ernst and Barbour 1972). This species exhibits temperature-dependent sex determination (Burke et al. 1996, Chelonian Conservation and Biology 2:86-88).

In Georgia, Landers and coworkers (1982) found that pronounced growth occurred through the age of 11 years, after which growth rate gradually decreased. In central Florida, Mushinsky and coworkers (1994) reported an average increase of 18.9 mm/year for ages 1-11, after which time growth slowed to approximately 3%/year until age 20.

Females become sexually mature at a carapace length of 23-24 cm. Body size, rather than age, seems to determine sexual maturity in gopher tortoises. In southern Georgia, it may take from 19-21 years for females to become sexually mature (Landers et al. 1982), while in central Florida females may mature in 9-11 years (Mushinsky et al. 1994). In part, this variation reflects the long activity season available to tortoises in central Florida. In addition to geographic location, however, local conditions also influence the number of years required to achieve sexual maturity. For example, one study of gopher tortoises in central Florida (Godley 1989) found that females attain sexual maturity in 14-16 years, while another study in the same county found that females attain sexual maturity in 9-11 years (Mushinsky et al. 1994). The study area occupied by the faster maturing females was a frequently burned sandhill habitat, whereas the other study area was a mosaic of habitats including pine flatwoods and mixed mesic forests. Males likely mature at a smaller size than females. In north Florida, Diemer and Moore (1994) reported males that were apparently mature at a carapace length of about 18 cm. Potential longevity is several decades.

The level of predation on eggs and young is high. For example, over a two- year period in South Carolina, 17 of 24 (74%) nests were destroyed (Wright 1982). In Georgia, an average female is estimated to produce a successful clutch of eggs (eggs are not destroyed prior to hatching) once a decade (Landers et al. 1980), because about 90% of their nests are destroyed annually. Common predators of eggs are armadillos (DASYPUS NOVEMCINCTUS), raccoons (PROCYON LOTOR), grey foxes (UROCYON CINEREOARGENTEUS), striped skunks (MEPHITIS MEPHITIS), and opossums (DIDELPHIS VIRGINIANUS) (Hallinan 1923, Ernst and Barbour 1972, Douglass and Winegarner 1977, Landers et al. 1980). Hatchling gopher tortoises (individuals in their first year of life) also are subjected to high levels of predation. From egg laying to one year of age, gopher tortoises in northern Florida were estimated to have a mortality rate of 94.2% (Alford 1980). Results from another study in central Florida, which also combined mortality of eggs and hatchlings, suggested an annual mortality rate of 92.3% (Witz et al. 1992). Estimated rates of survivorship of juvenile gopher tortoises (age 1 to 4 years) have been reported from one location in central Florida (Wilson 1991). Wilson (1991) found that predation of juvenile tortoises was higher in October-November and April-May than any other two month interval of the year. Juvenile tortoises are known to bask at the mouths of their burrows more often in the spring and fall of the year than during the summer or winter months (Wilson et al. 1994). It appears that a juvenile tortoise, when positioned at the mouth of the burrow to thermoregulate during the cool months of the year may be quite vulnerable to predation by avian and mammalian predators (Wilson 1991, see also Fitzpatrick and Woolfenden 1978).
Terrestrial Habitats
Woodland - HardwoodWoodland - ConiferWoodland - MixedSavannaGrassland/herbaceousOld fieldSand/duneCropland/hedgerow
Other Nations (1)
United StatesN3
ProvinceRankNative
MississippiS1Yes
FloridaS3Yes
AlabamaS3Yes
GeorgiaS3Yes
LouisianaS1Yes
South CarolinaS1Yes
Threat Assessments
ThreatScopeSeverityTiming
1 - Residential & commercial developmentLarge (31-70%)Serious or 31-70% pop. declineHigh (continuing)
1.1 - Housing & urban areasLarge (31-70%)Serious or 31-70% pop. declineHigh (continuing)
1.2 - Commercial & industrial areasLarge - restrictedModerate or 11-30% pop. declineHigh (continuing)
1.3 - Tourism & recreation areasSmall (1-10%)Serious or 31-70% pop. declineHigh (continuing)
2 - Agriculture & aquacultureLarge (31-70%)Moderate or 11-30% pop. declineHigh (continuing)
2.1 - Annual & perennial non-timber cropsRestricted (11-30%)Moderate or 11-30% pop. declineHigh (continuing)
2.2 - Wood & pulp plantationsLarge - restrictedModerate or 11-30% pop. declineHigh (continuing)
4 - Transportation & service corridorsRestricted (11-30%)Slight or 1-10% pop. declineHigh (continuing)
4.1 - Roads & railroadsRestricted (11-30%)Slight or 1-10% pop. declineHigh (continuing)
5 - Biological resource useUnknownUnknownUnknown
5.1 - Hunting & collecting terrestrial animalsUnknownUnknownUnknown
8 - Invasive & other problematic species, genes & diseasesLarge (31-70%)Moderate or 11-30% pop. declineHigh (continuing)
8.1 - Invasive non-native/alien species/diseasesLarge (31-70%)Slight or 1-10% pop. declineHigh (continuing)
8.2 - Problematic native species/diseasesLarge (31-70%)Slight or 1-10% pop. declineHigh (continuing)
11 - Climate change & severe weatherSmall (1-10%)Slight or 1-10% pop. declineHigh (continuing)
11.4 - Storms & floodingSmall (1-10%)Slight or 1-10% pop. declineHigh (continuing)

Roadless Areas (4)
Florida (4)
AreaForestAcres
Alexander Springs CreekOcala National Forest2,954
Gum BayApalachicola National Forest11,645
Natural Area WsaOsceola National Forest2,543
PinhookOsceola National Forest15,405
References (180)
  1. Alford, R. A. 1980. Population structure of <i>Gopherus polyphemus</i> in northern Florida. Journal of Herpetology 14:177-182.
  2. Allen, E. R., and W. T. Neill. 1951. The gopher. Florida Wildlife 5:10, 32.
  3. Allen, E. R., and W. T. Neill. 1953. Juveniles of the tortoise <i>Gopherus polyphemus</i>. Copeia 1953:128.
  4. Arata, A. A. 1958. Notes on the eggs and young of <i>Gopherus polyphemus</i> (Daudin). Quarterly Journal of the Florida Academy of Science 21:274-280.
  5. Aresco, M. J. 1999. Habitat structures associated with juvenile gopher tortoise burrows on pine plantations in Alabama. Chelonian Conservation and Biology 3:507-509.
  6. Ashton, K. G., B. M. Engelhardt, and B. S. Branciforte. 2008. Gopher tortoise (<i>Gopherus polyphemus</i>) abundance and distribution after prescribed fire reintroduction to Florida scrub and sandhill at Archbold Biological Station. Journal of Herpetology 42(3):523-529.
  7. Ashton, R. E., Jr., and P. S. Ashton. 1985. Handbook of reptiles and amphibians of Florida. Part two. Lizards, turtles & crocodilians. Windward Pub., Inc., Miami. 191 pp.
  8. Ashton, R. E., Jr., and P. S. Ashton. 2001. <i>Gopherus polyphemus</i>. Use of abandoned burrows by juveniles. Herpetological Review 32:185-186.
  9. Ashton, R. E., Jr., P. S. Ashton, and E. L. Mosura-Bliss. 1994. Tortoise management as urbanization encroaches. Pages 13-17 in North American Tortoise Conference Proceedings, Mapimi Biosphere Preserve, Durango, Mexico.
  10. Auffenberg, W. 1966. On the courtship of <i>Gopherus polyphemus</i>. Herpetologica 22:113-117.
  11. Auffenberg, W. 1969. Tortoise behavior and survival. Rand McNally, Chicago, Illinois.
  12. Auffenberg, W. 1976. The genus <i>Gopherus </i>(Testudinidae). Part I. Osteology and relationships of extant species. Bulletin Florida State Museum 20:47-110.
  13. Auffenberg, W. 1978. Threatened: gopher tortoise, <i>Gopherus polyphemus</i> (Daudin). Pages 33-35 in R. W. McDiarmid, editor. Rare and endangered biota of Florida. Volume 3: amphibians and reptiles. University Press of Florida, Gainesville.
  14. 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.
  15. Auffenberg, W., and R. Franz. 1978. <i>Gopherus polyphemus</i>. Cat. Am. Amph. Rep. 215.1-215.2.
  16. Auffenberg, W., and R. Franz. 1982. The status and distribution of the gopher tortoise (<i>Gopherus polyphemus</i>). Pp. 95-126 in R. B. Bury, editor. North American tortoises: conservation and ecology. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.
  17. Auffenberg, W., and W. Weaver. 1969. <i>Gopherus berlandieri</i> in southeastern Texas. Bulletin Florida State Museum 13:141-203.
  18. Beauman, R. L. 2008. The effects of burrow collapse on the gopher tortoise (<i>Gopherus polyphemus</i>). M.S. thesis, Auburn University, Auburn, Alabama.
  19. Bjorndahl, K. A. 1987. Digestive efficiency in a temperate herbivorous reptile, <i>Gopherus polyphemus</i>. Copeia 1987:714-720.
  20. Blankenship, E. L., T. W. Bryan, and S. P. Jacobsen. 1990. A method for tracking tortoises using fluorescent powder. Herpetol. Rev. 21:88-89.
  21. Bogert, C. M., and R. B. Cowles. 1947. Moisture loss in relation to habitat selection in some Florida reptiles. American Museum Novitates 1358:1-34.
  22. Boglioli, M. D., W. K. Michener, and C. Guyer. 2000. Habitat selection and modification by the gopher tortoise, <i>Gopherus polyphemus</i>, in Georgia longleaf pine forest. Chelonian Conservation and Biology 3:699-705.
  23. Bramble, D. M. 1982. <i>Scaptochelys</i>: generic revision and evolution of gopher tortoises. Copeia 1982:852-867.
  24. Breininger, D. R., P. A. Schmalzer, and C. R. Hinkle. 1991. Estimating occupancy of gopher tortoise (<i>Gopherus polyphemus</i>) burrows in coastal scrub and slash pine flatwoods. J. Herpetology 25:317-321.
  25. Breininger, D. R., P. A. Schmalzer, and C. R. Hinkle. 1994. Gopher tortoise (<i>Gopherus polyphemus</i>) densities in coastal scrub and slash pine flatwoods in Florida. J. Herpetology 28:60-65.
  26. Brode, W. E. 1959. Notes on behavior of <i>Gopherus polyphemus</i>. Herpetologica 15:101-102.
  27. Bryan, T. W., E. L. Blankenship, and C. Guyer. 1991. A new method of trapping gopher tortoises (GOPHERUS POLYPHEMUS). Herpetol. Rev. 22:19-21.
  28. Burke, R. 1989a. Burrow-to-tortoise conversion factors: comparison of three gopher tortoise survey techniques. Herpetol. Rev. 20:92-94.
  29. Burke, R. L. 1989b. Florida gopher tortoise relocation: overview and case study. Biological Conservation 48:295-309.
  30. Burke, R. L., and J. Cox. 1988. Evaluation and review of field techniques used to study and manage gopher tortoises. Pages 205-215 in R. C. Szaro, et al., technical coordinators. Management of amphibians, reptiles, and small mammals in North America. USDA For. Serv., Gen. Tech. Rep. RM-166. 458 pp.
  31. Burke, R. L., E. R. Jacobson, M. J. Griffith, and L. J. Guillette. 1994. Noninvasive sex identification of juvenile gopher and desert tortoises (genus GOPHERUS). Amphibia-Reptilia 15:183-189.
  32. Burke, R. L., M. A. Ewert, J. B. McLemore, and D. R. Jackson. 1996. Temperature-dependent sex determination and hatching success in the gopher tortoise (GOPHERUS POLYPHEMUS). Chelonian Conservation and Biology 2(1):86-88.
  33. Bury, R. B., and D. J. Germano. 1994. Biology of North American tortoises. USDI National Biological Survey, Fish and Wildlife Research 13. vi + 204 pp.
  34. Butler, J. A., and S. Sowell. 1996. Survivorship and predation of hatchling and yearling gopher tortoises, <i>Gopherus polyphemus</i>. Journal of Herpetology 30:455-458.
  35. Butler, J. A., and T. W. Hull. 1996. Reproduction of the tortoise, GOPHERUS POLYPHEMUS, in northeastern Florida. Journal of Herpetology 30:14-18.
  36. Butler, J. A., R. D. Bowman, T. W. Hull, and S. Sowell. 1995a. Movements and home range of hatchling and yearling gopher tortoises, <i>Gopherus polyphemus</i>. Chelonian Conservation and Biology 1(3):173-180.
  37. Campbell, H. W., and S. P. Christman. 1982a. The herpetological components of Florida sandhill and sand pine scrub associations. Pages 163-171 in N. J. Scott (editor). Herpetological communities. U.S. Fish &amp; Wildlife Service, Wildlife Res. Rep. 13.
  38. Carr, A. 1952. Handbook of turtles. Comstock Publishing Associates, Ithaca, New York. 542 pp.
  39. Carthy, R. R., M. K. Oli, J. B. Wooding, J. E. Berish, and W. D. Meyer. 2005. Analysis of gopher tortoise population estimation techniques. Engineer Research and Development Center, Construction Engineering Research Laboratory ERDC/CERL TR-05-27.
  40. Catano, C. P., J. J. Angelo, and I. J. Stout. 2014. Sample grain influences the functional relationship between canopy cover and gopher tortoise (<i>Gopherus polyphemus</i>) burrow abandonment. Chelonian Conservation and Biology, 2014, 13(2): 166-172.
  41. Clark, E. E., R. N. Tsaliagos, and A. B. Pittman. 2001. Geographic distribution: <i>Gopherus polyphemus</i>. Herpetological Review 32:191.
  42. 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.
  43. Cox, J. 1989. Survival characteristics of small gopher tortoise populations and their possible influence on relocation efforts. Pages 7-14 in J. E. Diemer, et al., editors. Gopher tortoise relocation symposium. Florida Game and Fresh Water Fish Commission, Non-game Wildlife Program Technical Report 5, Tallahassee.
  44. Cox, J., D. Inkley, and R. Kautz. 1987. Ecology and habitat protection needs of gopher tortoise (GOPHERUS POLYPHEMUS) populations found on lands slated for large-scale development in Florida. Florida Game and Fresh Water Fish Commission Nongame Wildlife Program Technical Report 4, Tallahassee. 74 pp.
  45. Cozad, R. A., S. M. Hernandez, T. M. Norton, T. D. Tuberville, N. I. Stacy, N. L. Stedman, and M. J. Aresco. 2020. Epidemiological investigation of a mortality event in a translocated gopher tortoise (<i>Gopherus<br/>polyphemus</i>) population in Northwest Florida. Frontiers in Veterinary Science 7: 120. doi: 10.3389/fvets.2020.00120
  46. 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
  47. 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]
  48. Crumly, C. R. 1987. The genus name for North American gopher tortoises. Proc. Desert Tortoise Council 1984 Symp., pp. 147-148.
  49. Crumly, C. R. 1994. The phylogenetic systematics of North American tortoises (genus GOPHERUS): evidence for their classification. Pages 7-32 in R. B. Bury and D. J. Gemano, editors. Biology of North American tortoises. National Biological Survey, Fish and Wildlife Research 13.
  50. Diemer-Berish, J. E. 1994. Status and conservation of the gopher tortoise. Pages 24-28 in North American Tortoise Conference Proceedings, Mapimi Biosphere Preserve, Durango, Mexico.
  51. Diemer Berish, J. E., L. D. Wendland, and C. A. Gates. 2000. Distribution and prevalence of upper respiratory tract disease in gopher tortoises in Florida. Journal of Herpetology 34:5-12.
  52. Diemer, J. E. 1986. The ecology and management of the gopher tortoise in the southeastern United States. Herpetologica 42:125-133.
  53. Diemer, J. E. 1987a. The status of the gopher tortoise in Florida. Proceedings Southeastern Nongame and Endangered Wildlife Symposium 3:72-83. Athens, Georgia.
  54. Diemer, J. E. 1987b. Tortoise relocation in Florida: solution or problem? 1984 Proceedings Desert Tortoise Council.
  55. Diemer, J. E. 1989. <i>Gopherus polyphemus</i>. Pages 14-19 in I. R. Swingland and M. W. Klemens, editors. The conservation biology of tortoises. Occasional Papers IUCN Species Survival Commission 5.
  56. Diemer, J. E. 1992a. Gopher tortoise GOPHERUS POLYPHEMUS (Daudin). Pages 123-127 in P. E. Moler, editor. Rare and endangered biota of Florida. Vol. III. Amphibians and reptiles. Univ. Press of Florida.
  57. Diemer, J. E. 1992b. Demography of the tortoise GOPHERUS POLYPHEMUS in northern Florida. J. Herpetology 26:281-289.
  58. Diemer, J. E. 1992c. Home range and movements of the tortoise GOPHERUS POLYPHEMUS in northern Florida. J. Herpetology 26:158-165.
  59. Diemer, J. E., and C. T. Moore. 1994. Reproduction of gopher tortoises in north-central Florida. Pages 129-137 in R. B. Bury and D. J. Germano, editors. Biology of North American tortoises. National Biological Survey, Fish and Wildlife Research 13.
  60. Dodd, C. K., and R. A. Seigel. 1991. Relocation, repatriation, and translocation of amphibians and reptiles: are they conservation strategies that work? Herpetologica 47:336-350.
  61. Doonan, T. J. 1986. A demographic study of an isolated population of the gopher tortoise, GOPHERUS POLYPHEMUS; and an assessment of a relocation procedure for tortoises. M.S. thesis, University of Central Florida, Orlando.
  62. Doonan, T. J., and I. J. Stout. 1994. Effects of gopher tortoise (Gopherus polyphemus) body size on burrow structure. American Midland Naturalist 131:273-280.
  63. Douglass, J. F. 1975. Bibliography of the North American land tortoises (genus GOPHERUS). USFWS Spec. Sci. Rep. - Wildl. 190:1-60.
  64. Douglass, J. F. 1976. The mating system of the gopher tortoise, GOPHERUS POLYPHEMUS, in southern Florida. M.S. thesis, University of South Florida, Tampa. 79 pp.
  65. Douglass, J. F. 1978. Refugia of juvenile gopher tortoises, <i>Gopherus polyphemus</i> (Reptilia, Testudines, Testudinidae). Journal of Herpetology 12:413-415.
  66. Douglass, J. F. 1990. Patterns of mate seeking and aggression in a southern Florida population of the gopher tortoise, GOPHERUS POLYPHEMUS. Proceedings of the Desert Tortoise Council 1986:155-199.
  67. Douglass, J. F., and C. E. Winegarner. 1977. Predators of eggs and young of the gopher tortoise, <i>Gopherus polyphemus</i> (Reptilia, Testudines, Testudinidae), in southern Florida. Journal of Herpetology 11:236-238.
  68. Douglass, J. F., and J. N. Layne. 1978. Activity and thermoregulation of the gopher tortoise (<i>Gopherus polyphemus</i>) in southern Florida. Herpetologica 34:359-374.
  69. Dziadzio, M. C., E. R. Sievers, and D. Burr. 2018. Investigation of a large-scale gopher tortoise (<i>Gopherus polyphemus</i>) mortality event on a public conservation land in Florida, USA. Journal of Wildlife Diseases 54(4): 809–813.
  70. Eisenberg, J. F. 1983. The gopher tortoise as a keystone species. In R. J. Bryant and R. Franz, editors. The gopher tortoise: a keystone species. Proceedings of the 4th Annual Meeting, Gopher Tortoise Council, Valdosta, Georgia.
  71. Epperson, D. M., and C. D. Heise. 2003. Nesting and hatchling ecology of gopher tortoises (<i>Gopherus polyphemus)</i> in southern Mississippi. Journal of Herpetology 37:315-324.
  72. Ernst, C. H., and R. W. Barbour. 1972. Turtles of the United States. Univ. Press of Kentucky, Lexington. x + 347 pp.
  73. Ernst, C. H., and R. W. Barbour. 1989a. Turtles of the world. Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington, D.C. xii + 313 pp.
  74. Eubanks, J. O., W. K. Michener, and C. Guyer. 2003. Patterns of movement and burrow use in a population of gopher tortoises (<i>Gopherus polyphemus</i>). Herpetologica 59:311-321.
  75. Fitzpatrick, J. W., and G. E. Woolfenden. 1978. Red-tailed hawk preys on juvenile gopher tortoise. Florida Field Naturalist 6:49.
  76. Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission (FWC). 2024. Gopher tortoise management plan. Tallahassee, Florida. 60 p.
  77. Folk, M. 1993. Gopher tortoise and Sherman's fox squirrel densities in sandhill communities on three TNC preserves in Florida. RJSE Grant R91SE02 Final Report. 13 pp.
  78. Franz, R. 1986. <i>Gopherus polyphemus</i> (gopher tortoise). Burrow commensals. Herpetological Review 17:64.
  79. Fucigna, T. F., Jr., and D. K. Nickerson, Jr. 1989. Relocations of two groups of gopher tortoises from Palm Beach County to Martin County, Florida. Pages 59-71 in J. E. Diemer, et al., editors. Gopher Tortoise Relocation Symposium Proceedings, Florida Game and Fresh Water Fish Commission, Nongame Wildlife Program Technical Report 5, Tallahassee.
  80. Gaillard, D., J. R. Ennen, B. R. Kreiser, C. P. Qualls, S. C. Sweat, R. Birkhead, T. D. Tuberville, M. Aresco, E. D. McCoy, H. R. Mushinsky, and T. W. Hentges. 2017. Range-wide and regional patterns of population structure and genetic diversity in the gopher tortoise. Journal of Fish and Wildlife Management 8(2): 497–512; e1944-687X. doi: 10.3996/022017-JFWM-010
  81. Garner, J., and J. Landers. 1981. Foods and habitat of the gopher tortoise in southwestern Georgia. Proceedings of the Annual Conference Southeastern Association Fish Wildlife Agencies 35:120-134.
  82. Germano, D. J. 1993. Shell morphology of North American tortoises. American Midland Naturalist 129:319-335.
  83. Germano, D. J. 1994a. Growth and age at maturity of North American tortoises in relation to regional climates. Canadian J. Zoology 72:918-931.
  84. Germano, D. J., and R. B. Bury. 1994. Research on North American tortoises: a critique with suggestions for the future. Pages 187-204 in R. B. Bury and D. J. Germano, editors. Biology of North American tortoises. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Fish and Wildlife Research 13.
  85. Global Biodiversity Information Facility (GBIF). 2025. Global Biodiversity Information Facility (GBIF) data portal. Online. Available: https://www.gbif.org/ (accessed 2025).
  86. Godley, J. S. 1989. A comparison of gopher tortoise populations relocated onto reclaimed phosphate-mined sites in Florida. Pages 43-58 in J. E. Diemer, et al., editors. Gopher Tortoise Relocation Symposium Proceedings, Florida Game and Fresh Water Fish Commission, Nongame Wildlife Program Technical Report 5, Tallahassee.
  87. Guyer, C., and S. M. Hermann. 1997. Patterns of size and longevity of gopher tortoise (GOPHERUS POLYPHEMUS) burrows: implications for the longleaf pine ecosystem. Chelonian Conservation and Biology 2:5-7-513.
  88. Hallinan, T. 1923. Observations made in Duval County, northern Florida, on the gopher tortoise (<i>Gopherus polyphemus</i>). Copeia 1923:11-20.
  89. Hansen, K. L. 1963. The burrow of the gopher tortoise. Journal Florida Academy Science 26:353-360.
  90. Hutchison, V. H., A. Vinegar, and R. J. Kosh. 1966. Critical thermal maxima in turtles. Herpetologica 22:32-41.
  91. Hutt, A. 1967. The gopher tortoise, a versatile vegetarian. Florida Wildlife 21:20-24.
  92. Iverson, J. B. 1980. The reproductive biology of <i>Gopherus polyphemus</i> (Chelonia: Testudinidae). American Midland Naturalist 103:353-359.
  93. Iverson, J. B. 1991c. Patterns of survivorship in turtles (order Testudines). Canadian J. Zoology 69:385-391.
  94. Iverson, J. B. 1992. A revised checklist with distribution maps of the turtles of the world. Privately printed. Earlham College, Richmond, Indiana.
  95. Jackson, D., and E. G. Milstrey. 1989. The fauna of gopher tortoise burrows. Pages 86-98 in J. E. Diemer, et al., editors. Gopher Tortoise Relocation Symposium Proceedings, Florida Game and Fresh Water Fish Commission, Nongame Wildlife Program Technical Report 5, Tallahassee. 109 pp.
  96. Kaczor, S. A., and D. C. Hartnett. 1990. Gopher tortoise (Gopherus polyphemus) effects on soils and vegetation in a Florida sandhill community. American Midland Naturalist 123:100-111.
  97. 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.
  98. Kopeny, M. T. 1991. Florida's proposed incidental take rule for gopher tortoises. Endangered Species Update 8(7):1-4.
  99. Krysko, K. L., K. M. Enge, and P. E. Moler. 2019. Amphibians and Reptiles of Florida. University of Florida Press, Gainesville, Florida, USA, 706 pp.
  100. Kushlan, J. A., and F. J. Mazzotti. 1984. Environmental effects on a coastal population of gopher tortoises. J. Herpetology 18:231-239.
  101. Lamb, T., and C. Lydeard. 1994. A molecular phylogeny of the gopher tortoises, with comments on familial relationships within the Testudinoidea. Molecular Phylogenetics and Evolution 3:283-291.
  102. Landers, J. L. 1980. Recent research on the gopher tortoise and its implications. Pages 8-14 in R. Franz and R. J. Bryant, editors. The dilemma of the gopher tortoise--is there a solution? Proceedings of the 1st Annal Meeting, Gopher Tortoise Council.
  103. Landers, J. L., and D. W. Speake. 1980. Management needs of sandhill reptiles in southern Georgia. In Proceedings of the Annual Conference of the South Eastern Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies 34:515-529.
  104. Landers, J. L., and J. A. Garner. 1981. Status and distribution of the gopher tortoise in Georgia. In R. Odum and J. Guthrie, editors. Proceedings of the Nongame and Endangered Wildlife Symposium.
  105. Landers, J. L., and J. L. Buckner. 1981. The gopher tortoise: effects of forest management and critical aspects of its ecology. Southlands Experimental Forest Technical Note (56):1-7.
  106. Landers, J. L., J. A. Garner, and W. A. McRae. 1980. Reproduction of gopher tortoises (<i>Gopherus polyphemus</i>) in southwestern Georgia. Herpetologica 36:353-361.
  107. Landers, J. L., W. A. McRae, and J. A. Garner. 1982. Growth and maturity of the gopher tortoise in southwestern Georgia. Bulletin Florida State Museum, Biological Sciences 27:81-110.
  108. Linley, T. A., and H. R. Mushinsky. 1994. Organic composition and energy content of eggs and hatchlings of the gopher tortoise. Pages 113-128 in R. B. Bury and D. J. Germano, editors. Biology of North American tortoises. National Biological Survey, Fish and Wildlife Research 13.
  109. Lips, K. R. 1991. Vertebrates associated with tortoise (GOPHERUS POLYPHEMUS) burrows in four habitats in south-central Florida. J. Herpetology 25:477-481.
  110. Logan, T. 1981. Survey of gopher tortoise (GOPHERUS POLYPHEMUS) populations on federal lands in Florida. Unpublished report, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service National Fish and Wildlife Laboratory, Gainesville, Florida. 104 pp.
  111. Lohoefener, R., and L. Lohmeier. 1984. The status of GOPHERUS POLYPHEMUS (Testudines, Testudinidae) west of the Tombigbee and Mobile rivers. Report to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service in support of petition to list this population under the Endangered Species Act of 1973. 116 pp.
  112. Macdonald, L. A., and H. R. Mushinsky. 1988. Foraging ecology of the gopher tortoise, GOPHERUS POLYPHEMUS, in a sandhill habitat. Herpetologica 44:345-353.
  113. Martin, P. L., and J. N. Layne. 1987. Relationship of gopher tortoise body size to burrow size in a south-central Florida population. Florida Scientist 50:264-267.
  114. Martin, R. P. 1989. Notes on Louisiana gopher tortoise (GOPHERUS POLYPHEMUS) reproduction. Herpetol. Rev. 20:36-37.
  115. Matthews, J.R. and C.J. Moseley (eds.). 1990. The Official World Wildlife Fund Guide to Endangered Species of North America. Volume 1. Plants, Mammals. xxiii + pp 1-560 + 33 pp. appendix + 6 pp. glossary + 16 pp. index. Volume 2. Birds, Reptiles, Amphibians, Fishes, Mussels, Crustaceans, Snails, Insects, and Arachnids. xiii + pp. 561-1180. Beacham Publications, Inc., Washington, D.C.
  116. McCoy, E. D. 1994. Field techniques for studying North American tortoises. Pages 69-73 in North American Tortoise Conference Proceedings.
  117. McCoy, E. D., and H. R. Mushinsky. 1988. The demography of GOPHERUS POLYPHEMUS (Daudin) in relation to size of available habitat. Unpublished report to Florida Game and Fresh Water Fish Commission, Nongame Wildlife Program, Tallahassee. 71 pp.
  118. McCoy, E. D., and H. R. Mushinsky. 1991. A survey of gopher tortoise populations residing on twelve state parks in Florida. Florida Department of Natural Resources, Technical Report 1. 78 pp.
  119. McCoy, E. D., and H. R. Mushinsky. 1992a. Studying a species in decline: gopher tortoises and the dilemma of "correction factors." Herpetologica 48:402-407.
  120. McCoy, E. D., and H. R. Mushinsky. 1992b. Studying a species in decline: changes in populations of the gopher tortoise on federal lands in Florida. Florida Scientist 55:116-125.
  121. McGuire, J. L., L. L. Smith, C. Guyer, J. M. Lockhart, G. W. Lee, and M. J. Yabsley. 2014. Surveillance for upper respiratory tract disease and <i>Mycoplasma</i> in free-ranging gopher tortoises (<i>Gopherus polyphemus</i>) in Georgia, USA. Journal of Wildlife Diseases 50(4): 733-744.
  122. McRae, W. A., J. L. Landers, and G. D. Cleveland. 1981a. Sexual dimorphism in the gopher tortoise (<i>Gopherus polyphemus</i>). Herpetologica 37:46-52.
  123. McRae, W. A., J. L. Landers, and J. A. Garner. 1981b. Movement patterns and home range of the gopher tortoise. American Midland Naturalist 106:165-179.
  124. Means, D. B. 1982. Responses to winter flooding of the gopher tortoise (<i>Gopherus polyphemus</i> Daudin). Herpetologica 38:521-525.
  125. Meyer, W. D., H. E. Balbach, and J. T. Berner. 2007. Existing geospatial knowledge of gopher tortoise population and abundance. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Engineer Research and Development Center, ERDC/CERL SR-07-5.
  126. Miller, K. 2021. 'Recipient sites' in Florida charging up to $6,000 for relocating gopher tortoises... is that sustainable? The Palm Beach Post. 29 September 2021. https://www.palmbeachpost.com/story/weather/2021/09/29/florida-asks-help-finding-homes-threatened-gopher-tortoise/5840929001/ [Accessed 9 June 2025].
  127. Miller, P. S., and participants. 2001. Preliminary population viability assessment for the gopher tortoise (<i>Gopherus polyphemus</i>) in Florida. Gopher Tortoise Population Viability Workshop, Tallahassee, FL, 11-12 September 2001. 45 pp.
  128. Milstrey, E. G. 1986. Ticks and invertebrate commensals in gopher tortoise burrows: implications and importance. Pages 4-25 in D. R. Jackson and R. Bryant, editors. The gopher tortoise and its community. Proceedings 5th Annual Meeting Gopher Tortoise Council, Florida State Museum, Gainesville.
  129. Morafka, D. J., G. Aguirre L., and R. W. Murphy. 1994. Allozyme differentiation amoung gopher tortoises (GOPHERUS): Conservation genetics and phylogenetic and taxonomic implications. Canadian Journal of Zoology 72:1665-1671.
  130. Mount, R. H. 1975. The reptiles and amphibians of Alabama. Auburn University Agricultural Experiment Station, Auburn, Alabama. vii + 347 pp.
  131. Mushinsky, H. R., and D. J. Gibson. 1991. The influence of fire periodicity on habitat structure. Pages 237-259 in S. E. Bell, E. D. McCoy, and H. R. Mushinsky, editors. Habitat structure: the physical arrangement of objects in space. Chapman and Hall Ltd.
  132. Mushinsky, H. R., and E. D. McCoy. 1994. Comparison of gopher tortoise populations on islands and on the mainland in Florida. Pages 39-47 in R. B. Bury and D. J. Germano, editors. Biology of North American Tortoises. National Biological Survey, Fish and Wildlife Research 13.
  133. Mushinsky, H. R., D. S. Wilson, and E. D. McCoy. 1994. Growth and sexual dipmorphism of <i>Gopherus polyphemus</i> in central Florida. Herpetologica 50: 119-128.
  134. Mushinsky, H. R., T. A. Stilson, and E. D. McCoy. 2003. Diet and dietary preference of the juvenile gopher tortoise (<i>Gopherus polyphemus</i>). Herpetologica 59:475-483.
  135. Osentoski, M. F. 1993. MtDNA variation in the gopher tortoise, GOPHERUS POLYPHEMUS. M.S. thesis, East Carolina University.
  136. Palmer, B. D., and L. J. Guillette, Jr. 1988. Histology and functional morphology of the female reproductive tract of the tortoise GOPHERUS POLYPHEMUS. American Journal of Anatomy 183:200-211.
  137. Pike, D. 2006. Movement patterns, habitat use, and growth of hatchling tortoises, <i>Gopherus polyphemus</i>. Copeia 2006: 68-76.
  138. <p>NatureServe's Rapid Analysis of Rarity and Endangerment Conservation Assessment Tool (RARECAT). 2025. Version: 2.1.1 (released April 04, 2025).</p>
  139. Pope, C.H. 1939. Turtles of the United States and Canada. Alfred A. Knopf, New York. 343 pp.
  140. Rautsaw, R. M., S. A. Martin, B. A. Vincent, K. Lanctot, M. R. Bolt, R. A. Siegel, and C. L. Parkinson. 2018. On the road again: assessing the use of roasdsides as wildlife corridors for gopher tortoises (<i>Gopherus polyphemus</i>). Journal of Herpetology 52(2): 136-144. doi: 10.1670/17-013
  141. Rautsaw, R. M., S. A. Martin, B. A. Vincent, K. Lanctot, M. R. Bolt, R. A. Siegel, and C. L. Parkinson. 2018. Stopped dead in their tracks: the impact of railways on gopher tortoise (<i>Gopherus polyphemus</i>) movement and behavior. Copeia 106(1): 135-143. doi: 10.1643/CE-17-635
  142. Richter, S. C., J. A. Jackson, M. Hinderliter, D. Epperson, C. W. Theodorakis, and S. M. Adams. 2011. Conservation genetics of the largest cluster of federally threatened gopher tortoise (<i>Gopherus polyphemus</i>) colonies with implications for species management. Herpetologica 67:406-419.
  143. Riedl, S. C. 2006. Effects of gopher tortoise (<i>Gopherus polyphemus</i>) translocation on movements, reproductive activity, and body condition of resident and translocated individuals in central Florida. M.S. thesis, University of South Florida.
  144. 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.
  145. Seigel, R. A., R. B. Smith, and N. A. Seigel. 2003. Swine flu or 1918 pandemic? Upper Respiratory Tract Disease and the sudden mortality of gopher tortoises (<i>Gopherus polyphemus</i>) on a protected habitat in Florida. Journal of Herpetology 37:137-144.
  146. Smith, K. R., J. A. Hurley, and R. A. Seigel. 1997b. Reproductive biology and demography of gopher tortoises (<i>Gopherus polyphemus</i>) from the western portion of their range. Chelonian Conservation and Biology 2:596-600.
  147. Smith, L. S., J. Stober, H. E. Balbach, and W. D. Meyer. 2009. Gopher tortoise survey handbook. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Engineer Research and Development Center, ERDC/CERL TR-09-7.
  148. Smith, R. B., D. R. Breininger, and V. L. Larson. 1997c. Home range characteristics of radiotagged gopher tortoises on Kennedy Space Center, Florida. Chelonian Conservation and Biology 2(3):358-362.
  149. Smith, R. B., R. A. Seigel, and K. R. Smith. 1998. Occurrence of Upper Respiratory Tract Disease in gopher tortoise populations in Florida and Mississippi. Journal of Herpetology 32:426-430.
  150. Spillers, D. M., and D. W. Speake. 1988. A survey method for measuring gopher tortoise density and habitat distribution. Pages 199-204 in B88SZA01NA.
  151. Stewart, M. C., D. F. Austin, and G. R. Bourne. 1993. Habitat structure and the dispersion of gopher tortoises on a nature preserve. Florida Scientist, Biological Sciences 56:70-81.
  152. Stout, I. J., T. J. Doonan, R. E. Roberts, and D. R. Richardson. 1989. Comparison of results of three gopher tortoise relocations in central and southeast Florida. Pages 15-42 in J. E. Diemer, et al., editors. Gopher Tortoise Relocation Symposium Proceedings, Florida Game and Fresh Water Fish Commission, Nongame Wildlife Program Technical Report 5, Tallahassee. 109 pp.
  153. Styrsky, J. N., C. Guyer, H. Balbach, and A. Turkmen. 2010. The relationship between burrow abundance and area as a predictor of gopher tortoise population size. Herpetologica 66:403-410.
  154. Taylor, R. W., Jr. 1982j. Human predation on the gopher tortoise (GOPHERUS POLYPHEMUS) in north-central Florida. Bulletin Florida State Museum, Biological Sciences 28:79-102.
  155. Thomas, D., and E. Blankenship. 2002. Mycoplasma testing in the gopher tortoise, <i>Gopherus polyphemus</i>, along a pipeline transect in Mississippi. Herpetological Review 33:101-103.
  156. Tuberville, T. D., J. W. Gibbons, and H. E. Balbach. 2009. Estimating viability of gopher tortoise populations. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Engineer Research and Development Center, Construction Engineering Research Laboratory, ERCD/CERL TR-09-2. viii + 47 pp.
  157. Tuberville, T. D., K. A. Buhlmann, H. E. Balbach, S. H. Bennett, J. P. Nestor, J. W. Gibbons, and R. R. Sharitz. 2007. Habitat selection by the gopher tortoise (<i>Gopherus polyphemus</i>). U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Engineer Research and Development Center, ERDC/CERL TR-07-1. 34 pp.
  158. Turner, J. 2021. Florida wildlife officials support expanding how far gopher tortoises can be relocated. Herald-Tribune, Sarasota, Florida. https://www.heraldtribune.com/story/news/environment/2021/12/16/florida-officials-support-gopher-tortoise-change-favors-developers/8923938002/ [Accessed 9 June 2025].
  159. 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.
  160. 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/.
  161. Ultsch, G. R., and J. F. Anderson. 1986. The respiratory microenvironment within the burrows of gopher tortoises (GOPHERUS POLYPHEMUS). Copeia 1986:787-795.
  162. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 1990. Endangered and threatened species recovery program: report to Congress. 406 pp.
  163. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 1990. Gopher tortoise recovery plan. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Jackson, Mississippi.
  164. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 2009. Endangered and threatened wildlife and plants; 90-day finding on a petition to list the eastern population of the gopher tortoise (<i>Gopherus polyphemus</i>) as threatened. Federal Register 74(173):46401-46406.
  165. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 2011. Endangered and threatened wildlife and plants; 12-month finding on a petition to list the Gopher Tortoise as threatened in the eastern portion of its range. Federal Register 76(144):45130-45162.
  166. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 2019. Review of Domestic and Foreign Species That Are Candidates for Listing as Endangered or Threatened; Annual Notification of Findings on Resubmitted Petitions; Annual Description of Progress on Listing Actions. Federal Register 84(197):54732-54757.
  167. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 2020. Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Review of Domestic Species That Are Candidates for Listing as Endangered or Threatened; Annual Notification of Findings on Resubmitted Petitions; Annual Description of Progress on Listing Actions. Federal Register 85(221):73164-73179.
  168. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 2021. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service species assessment and listing priority assignment form: gopher tortoise (<i>Gopherus polyphemus</i>). U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Florida Ecological Services Field Office. 54 pp.
  169. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 2022. Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Finding for the Gopher Tortoise Eastern and Western Distinct Population Segments. Federal Register 87(196):61834-61868.
  170. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 2022. Review of Species That Are Candidates for Listing as Endangered or Threatened; Annual Notification of Findings on Resubmitted Petitions; Annual Description of Progress on Listing Actions. Notification of Review Federal Register 87(85): 26152-26178.
  171. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 7 July 1987. Determination of threatened status forthe gopher tortoise (<i>Gopherus polyphemus</i>)[sic]. Federal Register 52:25376-25380.
  172. Walker, D., and J. C. Avise. 1998. Principles of phylogeography as illustrated by freshwater and terrestrial turtles in the southeastern United States. Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics 29:23-58.
  173. Ware, S., C. Frost and P. D. Doerr. 1993. Southern mixed hardwood forest: the former longleaf pine forest. Pages 447-93 in W. H. Martin, S. G. Boyce, and A. C. Echternacht (editors). Biodiversity of the southeastern United States, lowland terrestrial communities. John Wiley and Sons, New York.
  174. Wilson, D. S. 1991d. Estimates of survival for juvenile gopher tortoises, GOPHERUS POLYPHEMUS. J. Herpetology 25:376-379.
  175. Wilson, D. S., H. R. Mushinsky, and E. D. McCoy. 1991a. Home range, activity, and use of burrows of juvenile gopher tortoises in central Florida. Pages 147-160 in R. B. Bury and D. J. Germano, editors. Biology of North American tortoises. National Biological Survey, Fish and Wildlife Research 13.
  176. Wilson, D. S., H. R. Mushinsky, and E. D. McCoy. 1991b. Relationship between gopher tortoise body size and burrow width. Herpetol. Rev. 22:122-124.
  177. Witz, B. W., D. S. Wilson, and M. D. Palmer. 1991. Distribution of <i>Gopherus polyphemus</i> and its vertebrate symbionts in three burrow categories. American Midland Naturalist 126:152-158.
  178. Witz, B. W., D. S. Wilson, and M. D. Palmer. 1992. Estimating population size and hatchling mortality of GOPHERUS POLYPHEMUS. Florida Scientist 55:14-19.
  179. Wright, J. S. 1982. Distribution and population biology of the gopher tortoise, GOPHERUS POLYPHEMUS, in South Carolina. M.S. thesis, Clemson, South Carolina. 70 pp.
  180. Young, F. N., and C. C. Goff. 1939. An annotated list of arthropods found in the burrows of the Florida gopher tortoise <i>Gopherus polyphemus</i> (Daudin). Florida Entomologist 22:53-62.