Identity
Unique IDELEMENT_GLOBAL.2.105200
Element CodeARAAE01041
Record TypeSPECIES
ClassificationSubspecies
Classification StatusStandard
Name CategoryVertebrate Animal
IUCNCritically endangered
Endemicoccurs (regularly, as a native taxon) in multiple nations
KingdomAnimalia
PhylumCraniata
ClassChelonia
OrderTestudines
FamilyKinosternidae
GenusKinosternon
Concept ReferenceCollins, 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.
Conservation Status
Review Date2008-09-02
Change Date1998-01-06
Edition Date2011-02-18
Edition AuthorsHammerson, G. (2011)
Threat ImpactVery high - high
Range Extent<100-250 square km (less than about 40-100 square miles)
Number of Occurrences1 - 5
Rank ReasonsSmall range and few occurrences in Arizona and Sonora, Mexico; small populations; probably negatively affected by agricultural contaminants and dewatering; overgrazing and exotic aquatic frogs and fishes are potential threats.
Range Extent CommentsThis turtle is known from pond and limited stream habitat at Quitobaquito Springs in Organ Pipe Cactus National Monument, Arizona, and from a few locations in the nearby Rio Sonoyta, Sonora, Mexico, including the Sonoyta sewage ponds adjacent to the Rio Sonoyta (Rosen and Lowe 1996). It likely occurs or occurred in other perennial reaches in addition to those from which currently known (Ernst et al. 1994, Rosen and Lowe 1996). In 2002, a population was discovered at Quitovac, a spring complex approximately 40 km south of the town of Sonoyta (Knowles et al. 2002).
Quitobaquito Springs and the Rio Sonoyta may have been joined by perennial flows in the past but now are separated by about 1.5 km of desert and a highway.
Occurrences CommentsThis subspecies is represented by just a few known occurrences.
Threat Impact CommentsHabitat loss/degradation appears to be the major current threat. Aquatic habitat in the Rio Sonoyta is being lost and degraded due to groundwater pumping, livestock grazing, and pesticide application (McMahon and Miller 1982, Hendrickson and Varela-Romero 1989).
Exotic species are not now a threat, but bullfrogs, predatory fishes, or crayfish (Fernandez and Rosen 1996), if introduced, could reduce the mud turtle population.
Insecticides and herbicides are used in agricultural areas along the Rio Sonoyta and possibly detrimentally impact turtles (Rosen and Lowe 1996). Turtle tissue contaminants and/or low availability of protein-rich foods may be limiting survival at Quitobaquito (King et al. 1996).
The pond at Quitobaquito was drained twice to eliminate non-native fishes, and some mud turtles were removed and given away; National Park Service is now cognizant of the turtle's management needs.
Natural climatic extremes periodically may reduce populations, which can recover only slowly due to a low reproductive and recruitment rate. Demographic chracteristics make collecting a potential threat, though current collecting pressure likely is low.
The remaining population is vulnerable to the usual effects of small population size.
The turtle is basically tolerant of nondestructive intrusion, but excessive visitation potentially could disrupt nesting.