Survival and Spatial Ecology of the Snapping Turtle, Chelydra serpentina, on the Upper Mississippi River

Authors

  • R. Neal Paisley Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources, 3550 Mormon Coulee Road, LaCrosse, Wisconsin 54601
  • John F. Wetzel Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources, 3550 Mormon Coulee Road, LaCrosse, Wisconsin 54601
  • John S. Nelson Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources, 3550 Mormon Coulee Road, LaCrosse, Wisconsin 54601
  • Cindy Stetzer Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources, 3550 Mormon Coulee Road, LaCrosse, Wisconsin 54601
  • Mark G. Hamernick Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources, 3550 Mormon Coulee Road, LaCrosse, Wisconsin 54601
  • Benjamin P. Anderson Independent Analyst, 4733 Sharon Lane, White Bear Lake, Minnesota 55110

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.22621/cfn.v123i4.1002

Keywords:

Snapping Turtle, Chelydra serpentina, habitat use, hibernacula, home range, radio-telemetry, survival, Upper Mississippi River

Abstract

We studied the survival and spatial ecology of adult Snapping Turtles (Chelydra serpentina) on Pool 8 of the Upper Mississippi River (UMR) during 1997-2001. We captured 597 Snapping Turtles 745 times (333 adult males; 238 adult females; and 26 juveniles) at two study sites; Goose Island, Wisconsin and Lawrence Lake, Minnesota. From this sample, we radio-marked 104 Snapping Turtles of legal harvest size 128 times. Annual survival ranged from 0.857 to 1.000 and averaged 0.944 with Goose Island and Lawrence Lake estimates pooled. Legal harvest was the most important cause of mortality and accounted for 57% of documented deaths. Annual home range size using the Poly-Buff (PB) method averaged 11.13 ha and ranged from 2.20 ha to 37.18 ha. Emergent and rooted-floating aquatic vegetation were used disproportionally more than their availability and 72% of all locations collected during the active period occurred within these habitat types. Overall, radio-marked Snapping Turtles selected hibernacula in the following habitat categories; marshes (38%), main/side channels (28%), backwater sloughs and small ponds (14%), spring areas (10%), small tributary streams (7%), and tertiary channels (3%). Developing conservative, consistent harvest regulations among the states that border the UMR should be a management priority.

Downloads

Issue

Section

Articles