833
Ecology, 83(3), 2002, pp. 833–843 q 2002 by the Ecological Society of America
B RADLEY W. C OMPTON ,
1,3
J UDITH M. R HYMER ,
1 AND M ARK M C C OLLOUGH 2
1
Department of Wildlife Ecology, University of Maine, Orono, Maine 04469 USA
2
Endangered Species Group, Maine Department of Inland Fisheries and Wildlife,
650 State Street, Bangor, Maine 04401 USA
Within activity areas, wood turtles selected non-forested locations close to water with low canopy cover.
Within the watershed, they selected activity areas close to streams and rivers with moderate forest cover and little open water.
The difference between selection at these two scales suggests that wood turtles select forest edges to balance thermoregulatory and feeding needs. The model of selection of activity areas within the watershed correctly classified 84% of activity areas and random areas. This model may be useful for identifying wood turtle habitat across the landscape as part of regional conservation efforts.
1
2
For conservation and management, it is important to define and distinguish core habitats used by local breeding populations surrounding wetlands. For example, adult frogs, salamanders, and turtles are generally philopatric to individual wetlands and migrate annually between aquatic and terrestrial habitats to forage, reproduce, and overwinter ( e.g., Burke & Gibbons 1995 ; Semlitsch 1998 ). The amount of terrestrial habitats used during migrations to and from wetlands and for foraging defines the terrestrial core habitat of a population. This aggregation of breeding adults constitutes a local population centered on a single wetland or wetland complex. Local populations are connected by dispersal and are part of a larger metapopulation, which extends across the landscape ( Pulliam 1988 ;
Marsh & Trenham 2001 ).
We summarize data from the literature on the use of terrestrial habitats by amphibians and reptiles associated with wetlands. We define wetlands as both lentic ( pond ) and lotic ( stream ) habitats that are either permanent or temporary ( Cowardin et al. 1979 ). Also, we use the term riparian in the broadest sense of encompassing the shore, bank, or edge of any wetland.
Table 1. Mean minimum and maximum core terrestrial habitat for amphibians and reptiles.
*
Group Mean minimum ( m ) Mean maximum ( m )

*
Frogs
Values represent mean linear radii extending outward from the edge of aquatic habitats compiled from summary data in Appendices 1 and 2 .
205 368

Table 1. Mean minimum and maximum core terrestrial habitat for amphibians and reptiles.
*
Group Mean minimum ( m ) Mean maximum ( m )
Salamanders
Amphibians
117
159
218
290
Snakes
Turtles
Reptiles
168
123
127
304
287
289
Herpetofauna 142 289 emydid turtles ( e.g., Chrysemys picta, Clemmys sp., Emydoidea blandingi, Trachemys scripta ) routinely migrate>100 m.
Although wetlands vary in many characteristics related to type, region, topography, climate, and land-use surrounding them, the data we compiled suggest that a single all-encompassing value for the size of core habitats can be used effectively. Maximum values generated from a taxon with the greatest need for terrestrial habitat —that is, the largest core area or home range ( Table 1) —would likely encompass all other taxa and could be used more broadly. On public lands or reserve systems, where first priority is given to conserving biodiversity, this maximum value can facilitate management objectives. On private lands or areas, however, where sustainable land use is the priority, a stratified system of protection zones can minimize impacts on wildlife and support desired land uses. For example, for streams in managed forests in North America, it is recommended by deMaynadier and Hunter ( 1995 ) that criteria be adjusted for stream attributes such as width, intensity of logging, and slope adjacent to the stream. Further, the authors recommend a two-tiered approach in which the terrestrial habitat closest to the water is fully protected and a second, outer area provides limited protection ( e.g., the forestry practice of light partial cutting and removal of no more than 25% of the basal area ).
We propose that stratification should include three terrestrial zones adjacent to core aquatic and wetland habitats ( Fig. 1) : ( 1 ) a first terrestrial zone immediately adjacent to the aquatic habitat, which is restricted from use and designed to buffer the core aquatic habitat and protect water resources; ( 2 ) starting again from the wetland edge and overlapping with the first zone, a second terrestrial zone that encompasses the core terrestrial habitat defined by semiaquatic focal-group use ( e.g., amphibians 159 –
290 m; Table 1 ) ; and ( 3 ) a third zone, outside the second zone, that serves to buffer the core terrestrial habitat from edge effects from surrounding land use ( e.g., 50 m; Murcia 1995 ).

Figure 1. Proposed zones of protection of ( a ) wetlands and ( b ) streams. Both core habitat and aquatic buffer requirements are met within the second zone, which may range from 142 to 289 m for amphibians and reptiles ( see Table 1 for taxon-specific values ). An additional 50-m buffer is recommended to protect core habitat from edge effects ( Murcia 1995 ).
All things being equal, these zones of protection should extend outward from the edge of wetlands far enough to encompass all species populations.
However, the habitats used by various species or at different life-history stages are probably not evenly distributed. To protect those habitats essential for species functions, we need to know more about species requirements at each life-history stage and season of the year.
Adjusting the size of terrestrial zones, such as the core habitat, could be done on the basis of protecting different portions of the population ( e.g., for turtles 50 –90%[ Burke & Gibbons 1995 ]; for ambystomatid salamanders 50 –95%[Semlitsch 1998] ). It is not known, however, how protecting different amounts of terrestrial habitat affects the population persistence of any species or how habitat quality ( e.g., density of mammal burrows; Loredo et al. 1996 might influence that decision.
We provide biologically based estimates for the protection of terrestrial habitats surrounding wetlands.
Our data clearly indicate that buffers of 15 –30 m, used to protect wetland species in many states, are inadequate for amphibians and reptiles. Further, we emphasize that our estimates are derived from the core terrestrial habitats used by amphibians and reptiles and therefore are not buffers per se but necessary habitat. Additional area of terrestrial habitat is needed to fully protect core habitats and minimize edge effects ( Fig. 1) .

HABITAT USE BY WOOD TURTLES IN CENTRAL PENNSYLVANIA
Author(s): KAUFMANN, JH (KAUFMANN, JH)
Source: JOURNAL OF HERPETOLOGY Volume: 26 Issue: 3 Pages: 315-327 DOI: 10.2307/1564887
Published: SEP 1992
Abstract: The behavior of a population of wood turtles was observed visually and by radio-tracking from
1984-1989. Their activity was centered around a creek that flowed through a mosaic of hemlock forest, hemlock swamp, deciduous forest, alder thickets, open grassy areas, and a cornfield. From November through March, the turtles hibernated in the creek. In April and October, when air temperatures were usually below 10 C at night and 20 C during the day, they usually remained in the creek. During other months they spent more time on land, mostly in the alder thickets, open areas, and cornfield. Males spent significantly more time in the creek and less time in open areas than did females. Within each sex there was considerable variation in the use of the different plant associations. The turtles spent each night in the creek or in shallow forms on land. Turtles on land, especially males, often returned to the creek at night, probably because of dehydration, cool temperatures, or social attraction. Some agricultural operations may locally benefit wood turtles by providing a mixture of different food and cover types near wooded creeks. http://www.jstor.org/stable/3892538?origin=JSTOR-pdf http://apps.webofknowledge.com.ezproxy.library.wisc.edu/InterService.do?product=UA&toPID=UA&actio n=AllCitationService&isLinks=yes&highlighted_tab=UA&last_prod=WOS&fromPID=WOS&returnLink=http
%3a%2f%2fapps.webofknowledge.com%2ffull_record.do%3fhighlighted_tab%3dWOS%26last_prod%3d
WOS%26mode%3dFullRecord%26UT%3dA1992JN00800011%26qid%3d4%26log_event%3dno%26vie wType%3dfullRecord%26SID%3d1B7dG66AMGmP7p2CoPl%26SID%3d1B7dG66AMGmP7p2CoPl%26 product%3dWOS%26product%3dWOS%26SrcApp%3dWiley_Online_Library%26doc%3d1%26search_ mode%3dFullRecord&srcDesc=RET2WOS&srcAlt=Return+to+Web+of+Science%26reg%3b&REFID=28
680993&SID=1B7dG66AMGmP7p2CoPl&search_mode=CitingArticles&parentProduct=WOS&parentQid
=4&parentDoc=1&betterCount=20&cacheurlFromRightClick=no
EFFECTS OF PATCH SIZE AND HABITAT STRUCTURE ON THE MOVEMENTS OF ADULT MALE
WOOD TURTLES, GLYPTEMYS INSCULPTA
Author(s): Saumure, RA (Saumure, Raymond A.) 1 ; Herman, TB (Herman, Thomas B.) 2 ; Titman, RD
(Titman, Rodger D.) 1
Source: HERPETOLOGICAL CONSERVATION AND BIOLOGY Volume: 5 Issue: 3 Pages: 403-413
Published: DEC 2010
Times Cited: 0 (from Web of Science)
Abstract: Populations of the North American Wood Turtle (Glyptemys insculpta) are often encountered in agricultural landscapes. We used thread-trailing techniques to record the movements of six adult male G. insculpta translocated to an experimental hayfield patch-matrix. We investigated the effects of patch size and habitat structure on path sinuosity, turning angles, and move length. Paths confirm the occurrence of three movement phases previously described in other animals: agitation dispersal, local search, and ranging. Within-patch movements revealed a left-turning bias that was not the result of a
serial autocorrelation of turning angles. We propose that the arced paths observed are a result of handedness and/or diagonal sequence gait. As patch size had no effect on path sinuosity or move
length, our results demonstrate the consistency of path characteristics within hayfield patches up to 30 m in diameter. Local search was characterized by a unidirectional series of zigzag moves. Habitat

structure affected path sinuosity and move length. Generally, paths were straighter and move lengths
longer in the harvested area. These results are consistent with the findings of studies on small mammals and insects moving through exposed or resource-poor areas. Boundary permeability was absolute, with all subjects crossing patch perimeters without any hesitation in movement. Translocated
G. insculpta exhibit predetermined search phenotypes, and move to maximize the likelihood of locating resources, while minimizing the probability of revisiting previously searched areas.
Intra-specific niche partitioning obscures the importance of fine-scale habitat data in species distribution models
Author(s): Tingley, R (Tingley, Reid) 1 ; Herman, TB (Herman, Tom B.) 1 ; Pulsifer, MD (Pulsifer, Mark D.) 2 , 3 ;
McCurdy, DG (McCurdy, Dean G.) 4 ; Stephens, JP (Stephens, Jeff P.) 4
Source: BIODIVERSITY AND CONSERVATION Volume: 19 Issue: 9 Pages: 2455-2467 DOI:
10.1007/s10531-010-9852-7 Published: AUG 2010
Abstract: Geographic information systems (GIS) allow researchers to make cost-effective, spatially explicit predictions of species' distributions across broad geographic areas. However, there has been little research on whether using fine-scale habitat data collected in the field could produce more robust models of species' distributions. Here we used radio-telemetry data collected on a declining species, the
North American wood turtle (Glyptemys insculpta), to test whether fine-scale habitat variables were better predictors of occurrence than land-cover and topography variables measured in a GIS. Patterns of male and female occurrence were similar in the spring; however, females used a much wider array of land-cover types and topographic positions in the summer and early fall, making it difficult for GISbased models to accurately predict female occurrence at this time of year. Males on the other hand consistently selected flat, low-elevation, riparian areas throughout the year, and this consistency in turn led to the development of a strong GIS-based model. These results demonstrate the importance of taking a more sex-specific and temporally dynamic view of the environmental niche.
http://www.turtleconservationproject.org/wood-turtle-facts.html http://www.woodturtle.com/Recent.html http://people.wcsu.edu/pinout/herpetology/cinsculpta/repro.html
http://www.jstor.org/stable/3858690?seq=1 http://el.erdc.usace.army.mil/emrrp/turtles/species/wood.html http://www.mrlc.gov/nlcd06_leg.php http://soils.usda.gov/technical/handbook/contents/part622.html

https://www.google.com/search?hl=en&client=firefox-a&hs=uH3&tbo=d&rls=org.mozilla%3Aen-
US%3Aofficial&channel=fflb&biw=1920&bih=929&sclient=psyab&q=wood+turtle+migration+movement+conspecific+cues&oq=wood+turtle+migration+movement+cons pecific+cues&gs_l=serp.12...10018.22516.0.23205.18.17.1.0.0.0.92.1123.17.17.0.les%3B..0.0...1c.1.j4ke
WLbHUGo http://connection.ebscohost.com/c/articles/18603246/movements-behavior-hatchling-wood-turtlesglyptemys-insculpta http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wood_turtle http://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=wood+turtle+migration+movement&btnG=&hl=en&as_sdt=0%2C50& as_vis=1 http://www.esajournals.org/doi/pdf/10.1890/0012-
9658%282002%29083%5B0833:HSBWTC%5D2.0.CO%3B2