Identity
Unique IDELEMENT_GLOBAL.2.102590
Element CodeARAAB02010
Record TypeSPECIES
ClassificationSpecies
Classification StatusStandard
Name CategoryVertebrate Animal
IUCNEndangered
CITESAppendix III
Endemicendemic to a single nation
KingdomAnimalia
PhylumCraniata
ClassChelonia
OrderTestudines
FamilyChelydridae
GenusMacrochelys
SynonymsMacrochelys apalachicolaeThomas, Granatosky, Bourque, Krysko, Moler, Gamble, Suarez, Leone, Enge, and Roman, 2014Macroclemys temmincki(Harlan, 1835)Macroclemys temminckii(Harlan, 1835)
Other Common Namesalligator snapping turtle (EN) Western Alligator Snapping Turtle (EN)
Concept ReferenceCrother, 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]
Taxonomic CommentsThis concept of Macrochelys temminckii includes M. apalachicolae, and excludes M. suwannniensis following Taggart and Carr (2025) and the Turtle Taxonomy Working Group (2025). Thomas et al. (2014) split M. temminckii into three species (temminckii, apalachicolae, and suwanniensis) based on genetic, morphological, and geographic evidence. Folt and Guyer (2015) supported the recognition of M. suwanniensis but argued that the evidence presented by Thomas et al. (2014) was insufficient to justify naming M. apalachicolae as distinct from M. temminckii. Apodaca et al. (2023) suggested that M. apalachicolae is genetically distinct but held off resurrecting it pending morphological data.
This species represents one of only two living genera in the family. This turtle was previously included in the genus Macroclemys; however, Webb (1995) demonstrated that the generic name Macrochelys has priority over Macroclemys. Crother et al. (2000) and Crother (2008, 2017) agreed with this conclusion and treated this species as a member of Macrochelys. Although Troost coined the species name, it was Harlan (1835) alone who authored the original description (Crother 2017).
Conservation Status
Rank Method Rank calculation - Biotics v2
Review Date2020-07-22
Change Date2020-09-20
Edition Date2020-09-20
Edition AuthorsYoung, B., C. Battaglia, J. Briggler, R. Colvin, P. Crump, M. Fullerton, S. Fulton, M. Howery, D. Jackson, P. Moler, B. O'Hanlon, D. Sollenberger, and T. Wood (2020)
Threat ImpactHigh
Range Extent200,000-2,500,000 square km (about 80,000-1,000,000 square miles)
Number of Occurrences81 - 300
Rank ReasonsThe species has a large range across many states and encompassing several large river basins. Over the last century, it has undergone declines throughout its range, due mainly to overharvesting and habitat loss and degradation. Restrictions on harvest have apparently started to reverse declines in a few river systems. Overall, the population remains reduced compared to historical levels.
Range Extent CommentsRange is principally in the southeastern United States centered around the Mississippi and Mobile drainage basins. The range extends along the Gulf Coast from eastern Texas through Louisiana (Boundy and Kennedy 2006), Mississippi, Alabama, and into the eastern Florida panhandle, and north to southeastern Kansas, southeastern Iowa, Illinois, and southern Indiana (Conant and Collins 1991, Kessler et al. 2017). The species is very rare in Kentucky (Baxley et al. 2014), and perhaps extirpated in Indiana and Iowa. The Kansas records show no current evidence of a viable breeding population, although a reintroduction effort is underway.
Occurrences CommentsAs of 2020, state natural heritage programs have records of at least 120 occurrences with confirmed individuals during the period 2000-2020. This count assumes that all occurrences have been delineated using the appropriate separation distances (1 km of unsuitable habitat and 30 km of river reach uninterrupted by dams).
The state breakdown is as follows: Alabama: 6; Florida: 15; Georgia: 13; Kentucky: 1; Louisiana: 24; Missouri: 28; Mississippi: 5; Oklahoma: 8; Tennessee: 1; Texas: 20. In addition, there are at least two occurrences in Arkansas. Three of the Florida occurrences appear to be within 30 river kilometers of occurrences in Georgia and Alabama, such that they likely do not represent distinct occurrences from the perspective of the global range of the species.
Threat Impact CommentsOngoing threats include habitat alteration and fragmentation, water pollution, deliberate harvest for human consumption, incidental catch by recreational fishers, and drought. Overharvesting and habitat alteration are or at least were the major threats (Reed et al. 2002, Riedle et al. 2005).
Commercial exploitation and other harvest for human consumption (and to a much lesser extent the pet trade) undoubtedly reduced populations of this species in much of its range historically (Pritchard 1992, Trauth et al. 1998, Reed et al. 2002, Riedle et al. 2005, Shipman and Riedle 2008). Commercial harvest is now illegal throughout the range, and only Louisiana and Mississippi still permit recreational take (Berry 2019, Huntzinger et al. 2019), but illegal harvest continues to some degree. Unattended fishing gear (e.g. trotlines and limblines) inadvertently snag and drown turtles, or cause turtles to ingest hooks (Santhuff 1993, Mays et al. 2015, Steen and Robinson 2017, Enge et al. 2019, Huntzinger et al. 2019). Turtles can also drown when they enter fish traps.
Dams have blocked passage on many rivers, but it is unclear how effective dams may be in isolating populations and preventing gene exchange; for example, populations can survive in impoundments. However, Riedle et al. (2005) noted a drastic decline of alligator snapping turtles in Oklahoma, due in part to thermal alteration by hypolimnetic releases from impoundments.
Water pollution and erosion associated with agriculture may have altered the food chain and otherwise degraded the habitat to the turtle's detriment in some areas (Heck 1998, Riedle et al. 2005).
Dredging river bottoms to maintain shipping channels likely destroys habitat, although the subsequent spoil may be utilized for nesting along certain rivers. Riedle et al. (2005) noted a drastic decline of alligator snapping turtles in Oklahoma, due in part to habitat degradation because of stream channelization. In southeastern Missouri, Shipman and Riedle (2008) found that most sites had been manipulated for channelization or drained and converted to agricultural fields.
Human disturbance may cause females to abandon nesting attempts; each re-nesting attempt increases exposure of the nests to predators.
Strikes by motorboat are unlikely to be a major threat due to the species' habit of walking along the bottom of water bodies (Hollender et al. 2018).
Droughts may restrict areas of suitable habitat in the southern part of the range.