Roadless Areas
Home/Species/ Eastern Musk Turtle

Sternotherus odoratus

(Latrielle, 1802)

Eastern Musk Turtle

G5Secure Found in 7 roadless areas NatureServe Explorer →
G5SecureGlobal Rank
Least concernIUCN
MediumThreat Impact
Identity
Unique IDELEMENT_GLOBAL.2.104790
Element CodeARAAE02040
Record TypeSPECIES
ClassificationSpecies
Classification StatusStandard
Name CategoryVertebrate Animal
IUCNLeast concern
Endemicoccurs (regularly, as a native taxon) in multiple nations
KingdomAnimalia
PhylumCraniata
ClassChelonia
OrderTestudines
FamilyKinosternidae
GenusSternotherus
Synonyms
Kinosternon odoratum
Other Common Names
Common Musk Turtle (EN) eastern musk turtle (EN) Musk Turtle (EN) Stinkpot (EN) Tortue musquée (FR)
Concept Reference
Collins, J. T., et al. 1982. Standard Common and Current Scientific Names for North American Amphibians and Reptiles, 2nd ed. Society for the Study of Amphibians and Reptiles. Herpetological Circular No. 12. 28 pp.
Taxonomic Comments
Based on species-tree and demographic modeling, Scott et al. (2018) found strong support for the recognition of S. odoratus as has been previously defined.

Crother et al. (2008) has changed the name from Common Map Turtle because of the possibility that the word "common" might be misinterpreted to imply abundance rather than to the fact that it has a broad geographic distribution.
Conservation Status
Rank Method Rank calculation - Biotics v2
Review Date2024-09-29
Change Date1996-10-23
Edition Date2024-09-29
Edition AuthorsCannings, S.
Threat ImpactMedium
Range Extent>2,500,000 square km (greater than 1,000,000 square miles)
Number of Occurrences> 300
Rank Reasons
A widespread, common species, but one facing numerous minor threats.
Range Extent Comments
Throughout most of the eastern U.S. and parts of southeastern Canada: southern Ontario and southern Quebec (Chabot and St-Hilaire 1991, COSEWIC 2012, Environment and Climate Change Canada 2024), parts of New England south to Florida and west to Wisconsin and central Texas. Scattered records from south-central Kansas, western Texas, and Chihuahua, Mexico (Ernst and Barbour 1989, Environment and Climate Change Canada 2024).
Occurrences Comments
Common across a relatively wide range (Iverson and Meshaka 2006, Environment and Climate Change Canada 2024).
Threat Impact Comments
These long-lived turtles depend on high adult survivorship to maintain population levels (COSEWIC 2012). Road mortality is a concern for all freshwater turtles, especially for females traveling to nesting sites (Andrews et al. 2006); however Eastern Musk Turtles are likely less susceptible to road mortality than other species given their more limited use of terrestrial habitat (Environment and Climate Change Canada 2024). One of the greatest threats to this species is probably by-catch in commercial freshwater fisheries (Larocque et al. 2012, Braun and Phelps 2016). Injuries or deaths from collisions with boats and their propellers is another probable threat, but this species' habit of walking on the bottom of water bodies may make them less vulnerable than other turtles (Hollender et al. 2018). The boat-related injury rate for Eastern Musk Turtle was estimated at 4% by Bancroft et al.(1983) and at 2% by Bennett and Litzgus (2014). However, even small increases in turtle mortality can have population-level impacts, and the scope of this threat is likely increasing year over year (Environment and Climate Change Canada 2024).

Shoreline modification (including removal of vegetation and shoreline hardening) may remove or degrade nesting habitat and prevent female turtles from traveling to nesting areas (Environment and Climate Change Canada 2024).

Pollution such as contaminants, pesticides, siltation and fertilizers has the potential to impact freshwater turtles (Bodie 2001).
Ecology & Habitat

Habitat

Inhabits virtually any permanent body of freshwater having a slow current and soft bottom. May bask on tree limbs well above water. Hibernates in bottom mud or debris, under rocks, or in holes in banks; may congregate when hibernating. Eggs are laid up to about 50 m (average 7 m in Pennsylvania) from water in soil; under logs, stumps, and vegetable debris; and in walls of muskrat houses; sometimes on open ground. Hatchlings may overwinter in nest.

Ecology

Population density was about 150/ha in Oklahoma, 24/ha in Pennsylvania (based on suitable habitat) (see Ernst 1986), 149/ha (16% juveniles) in Alabama, 188-194/ha in Virginia, 8-700/ha elsewhere (see Dodd, 1989, Brimleyana 15:47-56). In a 8.5-ha lake in Texas, 989 stinkpots were captured over a 5-year period (Swannack and Rose 2003).

In Virginia, annual survivorship (juveniles to adults) was 0.84-0.86 (Mitchell 1988). Longevity in nature may exceed 25 years (Ernst 1986).

Reproduction

Eggs are laid February-July in south, May-August (peak in June) in north. May produce multiple clutches per year in some areas. Clutch size averages 2-3 in south, more than 3 in north. Eggs hatch August-September in south, late August-October in north. In Virginia, hatchlings emerged in year of egg deposition (Mitchell 1988). Possibly hatchlings overwinter in nest in some areas. Multiple females may nest in same site.
Palustrine Habitats
HERBACEOUS WETLANDSCRUB-SHRUB WETLANDFORESTED WETLANDRiparian
Other Nations (2)
United StatesN5
ProvinceRankNative
New YorkS4Yes
MissouriS5Yes
VermontS2Yes
ConnecticutS4Yes
GeorgiaS5Yes
OhioSNRYes
MississippiS5Yes
District of ColumbiaS4Yes
MichiganS5Yes
West VirginiaS5Yes
MinnesotaSNRYes
Rhode IslandS4Yes
IllinoisS5Yes
AlabamaS5Yes
PennsylvaniaS4Yes
New JerseyS5Yes
KentuckyS5Yes
KansasS4Yes
TexasS5Yes
IndianaS4Yes
North CarolinaS5Yes
OklahomaSNRYes
New HampshireS5Yes
VirginiaS5Yes
FloridaS5Yes
LouisianaS4Yes
ArkansasS5Yes
IowaS2Yes
MassachusettsS4Yes
WisconsinS4Yes
MaineS3Yes
DelawareS5Yes
MarylandS5Yes
South CarolinaS5Yes
TennesseeS5Yes
CanadaN3
ProvinceRankNative
OntarioS3Yes
QuebecS2Yes
Threat Assessments
ThreatScopeSeverityTiming
1 - Residential & commercial developmentSmall (1-10%)Negligible or <1% pop. declineHigh (continuing)
1.1 - Housing & urban areasSmall (1-10%)Negligible or <1% pop. declineHigh (continuing)
4 - Transportation & service corridorsLarge (31-70%)Slight or 1-10% pop. declineHigh (continuing)
4.1 - Roads & railroadsLarge (31-70%)Slight or 1-10% pop. declineHigh (continuing)
5 - Biological resource usePervasive (71-100%)Slight or 1-10% pop. declineHigh (continuing)
5.4 - Fishing & harvesting aquatic resourcesPervasive (71-100%)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)
7 - Natural system modificationsRestricted (11-30%)Slight or 1-10% pop. declineHigh (continuing)
7.2 - Dams & water management/useRestricted (11-30%)Slight or 1-10% pop. declineHigh (continuing)
7.3 - Other ecosystem modificationsSmall (1-10%)Slight or 1-10% pop. declineHigh (continuing)
8 - Invasive & other problematic species, genes & diseasesSmall (1-10%)Moderate or 11-30% pop. declineHigh (continuing)
8.1 - Invasive non-native/alien species/diseasesSmall (1-10%)Moderate or 11-30% pop. declineHigh (continuing)
8.2 - Problematic native species/diseasesPervasive (71-100%)UnknownHigh (continuing)
9 - PollutionPervasive (71-100%)UnknownHigh (continuing)
9.1 - Domestic & urban waste waterLarge (31-70%)UnknownHigh (continuing)
9.3 - Agricultural & forestry effluentsSmall (1-10%)UnknownHigh (continuing)
11 - Climate change & severe weatherLarge (31-70%)UnknownHigh (continuing)
11.2 - DroughtsLarge (31-70%)UnknownHigh (continuing)
11.3 - Temperature extremesRestricted (11-30%)UnknownHigh (continuing)
11.4 - Storms & floodingRestricted (11-30%)UnknownHigh (continuing)

—

Roadless Areas (7)
Arkansas (2)
AreaForestAcres
East ForkOzark-St. Francis National Forest13,037
PenhookOzark-St. Francis National Forest6,566
Florida (1)
AreaForestAcres
Alexander Springs CreekOcala National Forest2,954
Georgia (1)
AreaForestAcres
Ellicott Rock AdditionChattahoochee National Forest690
North Carolina (1)
AreaForestAcres
Catfish Lake NorthCroatan National Forest11,299
Virginia (1)
AreaForestAcres
Seng MountainJefferson National Forest6,428
West Virginia (1)
AreaForestAcres
Middle MountainMonongahela National Forest19,020
References (38)
  1. Andrews, K. M., J.W. Gibbons, and D.M. Jochimsen. 2006. Literature synthesis of the effects of roads and vehicles on amphibians and reptiles. Federal Highway Administration, U.S. Department of Transportation, Report No. FHWA-HEP-08-005. Washington, D.C. 151 p.
  2. Bancroft G.T., J.S. Godley, D.T. Gross, N.N. Rojas, D.A. Sutphen, and R.W. McDiarmud. 1983. The herpetofauna of Lake Conway: species accounts. U.S. Army Corps Eng., Misc. Pap., A-83-5:164207.
  3. Bennett, A. M., and J. D. Litzgus. 2014. Injury rates of freshwater turtles on a recreational waterway in Ontario, Canada. Journal of Herpetology 48:262-266.
  4. Bodie, J.R. 2001. Stream and riparian management for freshwater turtles. Journal of Environmental Management 62(4):443-455. https://doi.org/10.1006/jema.2001.0454
  5. Braun, A.P. and Q.E. Phelps. 2016. Habitat use by five turtle species in the Middle Mississippi River. Chelonian Conservation and Biology 15(1): 62-68. https://doi.org/10.2744/CCB-1156.1
  6. Buhlmann, K. A., and J. W. Gibbons. 2001. Terrestrial habitat use by aquatic turtles from a seasonally fluctuating wetland: implications for wetland conservation boundaries. Chelonian Conservation and Biology 4:115-127.
  7. Chabot, J., and D. St-Hilaire. 1991. Premiere mention de la tortue musquee, <i>Sternotherus odoratus</i>, au Quebec. Can. Field-Nat. 105:411-412.
  8. Collins, J. T. 1990. Standard common and current scientific names for North American amphibians and reptiles. 3rd ed. Society for the Study of Amphibians and Reptiles. Herpetological Circular No. 19. 41 pp.
  9. Collins, J. T., et al. 1982. Standard Common and Current Scientific Names for North American Amphibians and Reptiles, 2nd ed. Society for the Study of Amphibians and Reptiles. Herpetological Circular No. 12. 28 pp.
  10. Congdon, J. D., J. L. Greene, and J. W. Gibbons. 1986. Biomass of freshwater turtles: a geographic comparison. American Midland Naturalist 115:165-173.
  11. 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
  12. 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]
  13. DeGraaf, R. M., and D. D. Rudis. 1983a. Amphibians and reptiles of New England. Habitats and natural history. Univ. Massachusetts Press. vii + 83 pp.
  14. Dixon, J. R. 2000. Amphibians and reptiles of Texas. Second edition. Texas A & M University Press, College Station. 421 pp.
  15. Dodd, C. K., Jr. 1989. Population structure and biomass of <i>Sternotherus odoratus </i>(Testudines: Kinosternidae) in a northern Alabama lake. Brimleyana (15):47-56.
  16. Environment and Climate Change Canada. 2024. Management Plan for the Eastern Musk Turtle (<i>Sternotherus odoratus</i>) in Canada. Species at Risk Act Management Plan Series. Environment and Climate Change Canada, Ottawa. iv + 62 pp.
  17. Ernst, C. H. 1986. Ecology of the turtle, <i>Sternotherus odoratus</i>, in southeastern Pennsylvania. Journal of Herpetology 20:341-352.
  18. Ernst, C. H., and R. W. Barbour. 1972. Turtles of the United States. Univ. Press of Kentucky, Lexington. x + 347 pp.
  19. Ernst, C. H., and R. W. Barbour. 1989a. Turtles of the world. Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington, D.C. xii + 313 pp.
  20. Ernst, C. H., R. W. Barbour, and J. E. Lovich. 1994. Turtles of the United States and Canada. Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington, D.C. xxxviii + 578 pp.
  21. Hollender, E.C., T.L. Anthony and D.B. Ligon. 2018. Motorboat injury rates and patterns in aquatic turtle communities. Chelonian Conservation and Biology 17(2), 298-302. https://doi.org/10.2744/CCB-1284.1
  22. Hunter, M. L., Jr., A.J.K. Calhoun, and M. McCollough, editors. 1999. Maine amphibians and reptiles. University of Maine Press, Orono.
  23. Iverson, J. B. 1991b. Phylogenetic hypotheses for the evolution of modern kinosternine turtles. Herpetological Monographs 5:1-27.
  24. Iverson, J. B. 1992. A revised checklist with distribution maps of the turtles of the world. Privately printed. Earlham College, Richmond, Indiana.
  25. 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.
  26. Larocque, S.M., A.H. Colotelo, S.J. Cooke, G. Blouin-Demers, T. Haxton, and K.E. Smorowski. 2012. Seasonal patterns in bycatch composition and mortality associated with a freshwater hoop net fishery. Animal Conservation 15:53-60. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1469-1795.2011.00487.x
  27. Mahmoud, I. Y. 1969. Comparative ecology of the kinosternid turtles of Oklahoma. Southwestern Naturalist 14(1):31-66.
  28. Mitchell, J. C. 1985. Female reproductive cycle and life history attributes in a Virginia population of stinkpot turtles, <i>Sternotherus odoratus</i>. Copeia 1985:941-949.
  29. Mitchell, J. C. 1988. Population ecology and life histories of the freshwater turtles <i>Chrysemys picta</i> and <i>Sternotherus odoratus</i> in an urban lake. Herpetol. Monogr. 2:40-61.
  30. Reynolds, S.L. and M.E. Seidel. 1982. <i>Sternotherus odoratus</i>.Catalogue of American amphibians and reptiles. SSR. No. 287:1-4.
  31. Risley, P.L. 1933. Observations on the common musk turtle, <i>Sternotherus odoratus</i> (Latreille). Pap. Mich. Acad. Sci., Arts and Lett. 17:685-711.
  32. Scott, P. A., T. C. Glenn, and L. J. Rissler. 2018. Resolving taxonomic turbulence and uncovering cryptic diversity in the musk turtles (<i>Sternotherus</i>) using robust demographic modeling. Molecular Phylogenetics and Evolution 120:1-15. Advance online publication 2017.
  33. Seidel, M. E., J. B. Iverson, and M. D. Adkins. 1986. Biochemical comparisons and phylogenetic relationships in the family Kinosternidae (Testudines). Copeia 1986:285-294.
  34. Swannack, T. M., and F. L. Rose. 2003. Seasonal and ontogenetic changes in the sex ratio of a population of stinkpots (Kinosternidae: <i>Sternotherus odoratus</i>). Southwestern Naturalist 48:543-549.
  35. 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.
  36. 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/.
  37. Vogt, R. C. 1981c. Natural history of amphibians and reptiles of Wisconsin. Milwaukee Public Museum. 205 pp.
  38. Walker, D., W. S. Nelson, K. A. Buhlmann, and J. C. Avise. 1997c. Mitochondrial DNA phylogeography and subspecies issues in the monotypic freshwater turtle <i>Sternotherus odoratus</i>. Copeia 1997:16-21.