Wood Turtle (Glyptemys insculpta): COSEWIC assessment and status report 2018

Official title: COSEWIC Assessment and Status Report on the Wood Turtle (Glyptemys insculpta) in Canada 2018

Committee on the status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada (COSEWIC)
Threatened 2018

COSEWIC assessment summary

Assessment summary – Month 2018

Common name: Wood Turtle

Scientific name: Glyptemys insculpta

Status: Threatened

Reason for designation: This turtle is declining across much of its range, where it occurs in small, increasingly disjunct subpopulations, many of which are separated from each other by distances greater than the species can be expected to disperse. It has strong site fidelity, often returning to restricted nesting and overwintering areas for decades. Although it requires both aquatic and terrestrial habitats, it is more terrestrial than other freshwater turtles, making it vulnerable to road kill, land use practices, and collection for the pet trade. Its ‘slow’ life history, characterized by delayed maturation and extreme longevity, requires exceedingly high adult survival to maintain stable populations. Any chronic increase in adult or juvenile mortality, or a catastrophic adult mortality event, is destabilizing and unsustainable. Increased exposure to traffic on paved and unpaved roads, agricultural activity (particularly mowing and tilling), and expanding populations of subsidized predators, as well as changing regimes in watersheds, have increased mortality and placed subpopulations at risk.

Occurrence: Ontario, Québec, New Brunswick, Nova Scotia

Status history: Designated Special Concern in April 1996. Status re-examined and designated Threatened in November 2007. Status re-examined and confirmed in November 2018.

COSEWIC executive summary

Wood Turtle
Glyptemys insculpta

Wildlife species description and significance

Wood Turtle (Glyptemys insculpta) is a medium-sized freshwater turtle, with adults weighing about 1 kg and having a carapace (upper shell) length of 16 - 25 cm. The carapace ranges from greyish-brown to yellow and is broad and low. Each scute (scale-like section) has pyramidal concentric ridges (growth lines), giving the carapace a sculptured appearance; in older turtles, the ridges on the scutes may become worn smooth. The plastron (bottom shell) does not have a hinge, and is yellow with black blotches on the outer posterior corner of each scute. The plastron is flat in females and juveniles, and becomes concave in males as they reach maturity. Males are slightly larger than females, have a broader head, and longer, thicker tails. The skin is generally brown, but the legs and neck often have yellow, orange or reddish colouring.

Wood Turtle is popular as a pet, largely because of its attractive appearance, terrestrial habits, and non-aggressive response to people. The numerous threats facing Wood Turtles have made the species the focus of many research and conservation activities and given it a high profile as a Species at Risk.

Distribution

Wood Turtle is endemic to eastern North America and has a patchy distribution from Nova Scotia west through New Brunswick, Québec, and Ontario to Minnesota, south to Virginia and Maryland. In Canada, Wood Turtle occurs in Nova Scotia, New Brunswick, south-central Québec, and south-central Ontario, extending west to the southeastern shore of Lake Superior. Approximately 30% of the global distribution is in Canada. The range is discontinuous, and many subpopulations are isolated and small.

Habitat

Wood Turtle is semiaquatic and considerably more terrestrial than most freshwater turtles. It is strongly associated with meandering rivers and streams with moderate current and sand or gravel substrates. Wood Turtles overwinter underwater in streams, rivers, and occasionally ponds. During the active season (spring, summer, early fall), the turtles use riparian habitats and upland forests surrounding their home rivers; mosaics of forest and open-canopy areas are the most commonly used or preferred terrestrial habitats, and Wood Turtles are frequently referred to as an ‘edge species’. Wood Turtles primarily forage in terrestrial or wetland habitats that occur within close proximity to the river/stream, including bogs, marshy pastures, oxbows, beaver ponds, shrubby cover, meadows, coniferous forests, mixed forests, hay and agricultural fields and pastures. Wood Turtles use the same areas each year and are capable of returning to these areas from several kilometres away; males tend to remain close to their home rivers during the active season, whereas females tend to move further inland.

Natural nesting habitat of Wood Turtle consists of sand or gravel-sand beaches or banks of streams that receive moderate to intense exposure to sun. Wood Turtles also nest in anthropogenic open-canopy sites such as gravel pits, road shoulders, and decommissioned railway beds.

Accurate quantitative data on the area of habitat available in the past and at present across the entire range are not available, but estimates using aerial photography show ~16% of current Wood Turtle habitat as low disturbance, with 29% being impacted by agriculture, 41% impacted by forestry, and 14% impacted by development (such as towns/cities and industry). More than 99% of Canadian Wood Turtle occurrences are on watercourses within 300 m of a road. These disturbances are likely deleterious to Wood Turtles, similar to impacts on other turtle species in Canada.

Biology

Wood Turtles hibernate from approximately October to April, and are generally active from May to September. During the active season, they may range up to 500 m from water and several kilometres upstream and downstream from their hibernation sites. Females nest between late May and early July. Rate of embryo development varies directly with ambient temperature and hatching occurs in late summer or early fall. Wood Turtles reach sexual maturity between 11 and 22 years of age; this range largely depends on latitude, with turtles farther north maturing later and at larger body sizes. Mating occurs throughout the active season but is most frequent during spring emergence and at the beginning of the overwintering period. Adult longevity in the wild can exceed 80 years, and a conservative estimated generation time is 35 years. The main predators of adults and juveniles are Raccoons, Coyotes, and foxes; these and other mammals also eat turtle eggs. Various mammals, fishes, and birds prey on hatchlings. Wood Turtles forage primarily in terrestrial habitats for berries, mushrooms, and a wide range of invertebrates.

Population size and trends

An overall estimate of total population size of Wood Turtle in Canada, based on estimates of varying precision from researchers across its Canadian range, is 13,650-31,790 adults. Wood Turtle subpopulations in areas with limited human access may be stable, but many subpopulations are declining where there is road access. The overall trend in Wood Turtle abundance over the past three generations (100+ years) is thought to be one of decline.

Limiting factors and threats

The most significant threats to Wood Turtles across the species’ range are agriculture and transportation corridors. Agriculture causes direct mortality through machinery collisions and destruction of nests during tilling and affects the species indirectly through habitat loss and increases in subsidized predation. Transportation corridors cause direct mortality through vehicle collisions and affect the species indirectly through habitat fragmentation and increased human access to Wood Turtles and their habitats. Wood Turtles are also subjected to many other threats associated with human activities, such as changes in stream flow regimes, illegal collection, and invasive and problematic native species, including subsidized predators.

Like all turtles, Wood Turtles are limited by the low numbers of juveniles that survive to adulthood, and as a result, any adult mortality above the natural rate becomes a potential threat to the long-term viability of a subpopulation. Additionally, Wood Turtles tend to occur in dense concentrations, particularly after emergence in spring, during nesting, and during mating in fall, and poachers can potentially remove significant numbers from a subpopulation in a single event.

Protection, status, and ranks

Globally, Wood Turtle is listed as Endangered by the International Union for Conservation of Nature, and is listed under Appendix II of CITES. Federally, Wood Turtle was assessed as Threatened by COSEWIC in 2007 and listed as such in Schedule 1 of the Species at Risk Act in 2010. Wood Turtle was up-listed from Threatened to Endangered under the Ontario Endangered Species Act in 2008; the species is also designated as a Specially Protected Reptile by the Ontario Fish and Wildlife Conservation Act. An Ontario recovery strategy was published in 2010, which was followed by the Government Response Statement later that year and a ‘five-year review’ in 2015. In Québec, the Wood Turtle is listed as “Vulnerable” under the “Loi sur les espèces menacées ou vulnérables” (RLRQ, c E-12.01) (Act respecting threatened or vulnerable species) (CQLR, c E-12.01) and is afforded protection under the “Loi sur la conservation et la mise en valeur de la faun” (RLRQ, c. C- 61.1) (Act respecting the conservation and development of wildlife) (CQLR, c. C-61.1). A Québec recovery strategy was published in 2005 and a new version is in preparation and should be published in 2019. In New Brunswick, Wood Turtles were listed as Threatened under the Species at Risk Act in 2013; New Brunswick’s Fish and Wildlife Act also offers protection to all vertebrates, preventing collection and trade without a Ministry permit. In Nova Scotia, Wood Turtle was listed as Vulnerable in 2000 under the Endangered Species Act, and it was up-listed to Threatened in 2013.

In the United States, Wood Turtle is listed as Endangered in Iowa, as Threatened in Minnesota, Wisconsin, New Jersey and Virginia, and as Special Concern in Michigan, Connecticut, Maine, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, Vermont, Rhode Island, New York and West Virginia. In Pennsylvania and Maryland, Wood Turtle is not listed but is a protected nongame species. It is also known historically from Ohio and the District of Columbia, but is apparently extirpated from these jurisdictions. As of September 2018, the species’ federal status in the United States is under review.

Technical summary

Scientific name: Glyptemys insculpta

English name: Wood Turtle

French name: Tortue des bois

Range of Occurrence in Canada: Ontario, Québec, New Brunswick, Nova Scotia

Demographic information

Generation time = Age of first reproduction + 1/adult mortality (IUCN 2014 guidelines):

35 years

Is there an [observed, inferred, or projected] continuing decline in number of mature individuals?:

Yes, inferred decline based on range–wide declines in IAO and observed direct mortality, and projected decline based on threats.

Estimated percent of continuing decline in total number of mature individuals within [5 years or 2 generations]:

Insufficient data to estimate.

[Observed, estimated, inferred, or suspected] percent [reduction or increase] in total number of mature individuals over the last [10 years, or 3 generations]:

Insufficient baseline observation data over past 3 generations (105 years). Reduction suspected to be over 30% based on historical landscape change and the observed 24% reduction in IAO Canada-wide since historical times (see Extent of Occurrence and Area of Occupancy and Fluctuations and Trends sections in this document).

[Projected or suspected] percent [reduction or increase] in total number of mature individuals over the next [10 years, or 3 generations]:

Threats Calculator results indicate a suspected10-70% population reduction over 3 generations (100+ years) based on a high overall threat impact.

[Observed, estimated, inferred, or suspected] percent [reduction or increase] in total number of mature individuals over any [10 years, or 3 generations] period, over a time period including both the past and the future:

Over 30% inferred and suspected reduction over 3 generations (100+ years) based on inferred minimum 24% reduction in past due to reduction in IAO nationally and suspected10-70% population reduction in future based on a high overall threat impact

Are the causes of the decline a) clearly reversible and b) understood and c) ceased?:

a. partially
b. yes

c. no

Are there extreme fluctuations in number of mature individuals?:

No

Extent and occupancy information

Estimated extent of occurrence (EOO):

722,874 km² (931,462 km² including historical records)

Index of area of occupancy (IAO) (Always report 2x2 grid value):

3,728 km² (4,936 km² including historical records)

Is the population “severely fragmented” i.e. is >50% of its total area of occupancy is in habitat patches that are (a) smaller than would be required to support a viable population, and (b) separated from other habitat patches by a distance larger than the species can be expected to disperse?:

Unlikely, although data are insufficient to assess across range.

Number of “locations”^* (use plausible range to reflect uncertainty if appropriate):

Probably exceeds 300, using counts of element occurrence records (EOs) as proxies, because the threat of road mortality, in terms of long-term population viability, probably closely approaches the scale of most element occurrence records.

Is there an [observed, inferred, or projected] decline in extent of occurrence?:

Observed (calculated) minimum 22% decline in EOO over past 3 generations.

Is there an [observed, inferred, or projected] decline in index of area of occupancy?:

Observed (calculated) minimum 24% decline in IAO over past 3 generations; Inferred over 30% reduction based on historical landscape change and limited baseline observation data.

Is there an [observed, inferred, or projected] decline in number of subpopulations?:

Observed decline: subpopulations throughout the species’ range have been extirpated.

Is there an [observed, inferred, or projected] decline in number of “locations”*?:

Observed decline, based on loss of element occurrences across species’ range.

Is there an [observed, inferred, or projected] decline in [area, extent and/or quality] of habitat?:

Inferred decline: Roads (top recognized threat) occur within > 99% of Wood Turtle IAO squares. Forestry, agriculture, and development occur within 41%, 29%, and 14% of IAO squares respectively. Minimal human impacts occur in only 16% of IAO squares. The magnitude of these impacts is unknown, but declines in area, extent and quality are all inferred (see Habitat Trends).

Are there extreme fluctuations in number of subpopulations?:

No

Are there extreme fluctuations in number of “locations”?:

No

Are there extreme fluctuations in extent of occurrence?:

No

Are there extreme fluctuations in index of area of occupancy?:

No

^* See Definitions and Abbreviations on COSEWIC website and International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN) (Feb 2014) for more information on this term.

Quantitative analysis

Probability of extinction in the wild is at least [20% within 20 years or 5 generations, or 10% within 100 years]: Unknown for total population

Threats (actual or imminent, to populations or habitats, from highest impact to least)

Was a threats calculator completed for this species? Yes

Calculated overall threats impact High (high range) and High (low range).

1. Roads and railroads, including logging roads: medium.
2. Annual and perennial non-timber crops, particularly mowing (which can directly kill adults) and tilling (which can destroy/expose nests): medium/low
3. Problematic native species, esp. subsidized predators (foxes, Raccoons, skunks, corvids), particularly on nests and juveniles, but adults in some subpopulations as well: low
4. Mining and quarrying for gravel: low.
5. Hunting and collecting terrestrial animals: low
6. Recreational activities, particularly ATVs: low
7. Housing and urban development, including cottages: low
8. Other ecosystem modifications, esp. changing flow regimes in watersheds: low
9. Livestock farming and ranching, due to trampling: low
10. Logging and wood harvesting (excluding logging roads): low.
11. Storms and flooding, particularly through nest flooding: low

What additional limiting factors are relevant?

All turtles are limited by their “bet-hedging” life history strategy, wherein adults are long-lived with high lifetime reproductive output but low annual reproductive success, and few hatchlings survive to adulthood. Even slight increases in adult mortality above natural levels will cause long-term declines in a subpopulation.

Rescue effect (immigration from outside Canada)

Status of outside population(s)?

USA: Declining in most states: listed as S3 in New York, New Hampshire and Vermont, and S4 in Maine.

Is immigration known or possible?

Possible in Québec and New Brunswick

Would immigrants be adapted to survive in Canada?

Yes

Is there sufficient habitat for immigrants in Canada?

Yes

Are conditions deteriorating in Canada?⁺

Yes

Are conditions for the source population deteriorating?⁺

Yes

Is the Canadian population considered to be a sink?⁺

No

Is rescue from outside populations likely?

Possible but unlikely on a large scale, due to declines in source populations, habitat patchiness, and limited dispersal capabilities.

⁺ See Table 3 (Guidelines for modifying status assessment based on rescue effect).

Data-sensitive species

Is this a data sensitive species? Yes

COSEWIC Status

COSEWIC Status History: Designated Special Concern in April 1996. Status re-examined and designated Threatened in November 2007. Status re-examined and confirmed in November 2018. Designated Special Concern in April 1996. Status re-examined and designated Threatened in November 2007. Status re-examined and confirmed in November 2018.

Author of the Technical Summary: Geoffrey Hughes and Amphibians & Reptiles Specialist Subcommittee

Additional Sources of Information: None

Status and reasons for designation:

Status: Threatened

Alpha-numeric codes: A2cd+3cd+4cd

Reasons for designation: This turtle is declining across much of its range, where it occurs in small, increasingly disjunct subpopulations, many of which are separated from each other by distances greater than the species can be expected to disperse. It has strong site fidelity, often returning to restricted nesting and overwintering areas for decades. Although it requires both aquatic and terrestrial habitats, it is more terrestrial than other freshwater turtles, making it vulnerable to road kill, land use practices, and collection for the pet trade. Its ‘slow’ life history, characterized by delayed maturation and extreme longevity, requires exceedingly high adult survival to maintain stable populations. Any chronic increase in adult or juvenile mortality, or a catastrophic adult mortality event, is destabilizing and unsustainable. Increased exposure to traffic on paved and unpaved roads, agricultural activity (particularly mowing and tilling), and expanding populations of subsidized predators, as well as changing regimes in watersheds, have increased mortality and placed subpopulations at risk.

Applicability of criteria

Criterion A (Decline in Total Number of Mature Individuals):

A2.  Suspected reduction in mature adults greater than 30% based on (c) decline in habitat quality over 3 generations (>100 years), and inferred minimum 24% reduction due to observed 24% reduction in IAO Canada-wide since 1997, and (d) exploitation in the form of road and agriculture-related mortality.

A3.  Threats Calculator results indicate a suspected10-70% population reduction based on a high overall threat impact (per Table 4 of Threats Calculator Guidelines), particularly due to (but not limited to) threats associated with roads, agriculture, subsidized predators, and changing flow regimes in watersheds.

A4. Over 30% inferred and suspected reduction based on (c) decline in habitat quality over 3 generations (>100 years), and inferred minimum 24% reduction in past due to observed reduction in IAO nationally, and (d) past exploitation in the form of road and agriculture-related mortality, as well as a suspected 10-70% population reduction in future based on a high overall threat impact.

Criterion B (Small Distribution Range and Decline or Fluctuation): Does not meet criteria. EOO greatly exceeds and IAO exceeds threshold values.

Criterion C (Small and Declining Number of Mature Individuals): Does not meet criteria. Minimum population estimate (13,650) exceeds 10,000.

Criterion D (Very Small or Restricted Population): Does not meet criteria. The population is neither very small nor very restricted.

Criterion E (Quantitative Analysis): Does not apply. Data only available for a few small subpopulations.

Preface

Since the 2007 Report, (COSEWIC 2007), there has been considerable research on Wood Turtle throughout Canada. This new research has included studies on habitat use and spatial ecology (Greaves 2007; Wesley 2007; Paterson et al. 2012; White 2013; Thompson et al. 2018), thermal ecology and energetics (Dubois et al. 2008, 2009; Hughes 2016), assessment of the nest-site incubation conditions selected by female Wood Turtles (Hughes et al. 2009), growth rates (Marchand 2015), and spatial genetics studies (Amato et al. 2008; Fridgen et al. 2013). Surveys have been conducted throughout the species’ range with focus on the northern range in Ontario and the eastern range in Québec. Larger population estimates relative to those in the 2007 Report reflect considerably expanded search effort rather than actual increases in population size. Since 2007, the species has been up-listed in all provinces except Québec, with Ontario up-listing to Endangered in 2008, and New Brunswick and Nova Scotia both up-listing to Threatened in 2013. A proposed federal recovery strategy was posted for review in 2016, but as of September 2018 it is yet to be finalized.

COSEWIC history

The Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada (COSEWIC) was created in 1977 as a result of a recommendation at the Federal-Provincial Wildlife Conference held in 1976. It arose from the need for a single, official, scientifically sound, national listing of wildlife species at risk. In 1978, COSEWIC designated its first species and produced its first list of Canadian species at risk. Species designated at meetings of the full committee are added to the list. On June 5, 2003, the Species at Risk Act (SARA) was proclaimed. SARA establishes COSEWIC as an advisory body ensuring that species will continue to be assessed under a rigorous and independent scientific process.

COSEWIC mandate

The Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada (COSEWIC) assesses the national status of wild species, subspecies, varieties, or other designatable units that are considered to be at risk in Canada. Designations are made on native species for the following taxonomic groups: mammals, birds, reptiles, amphibians, fishes, arthropods, molluscs, vascular plants, mosses, and lichens.

COSEWIC membership

COSEWIC comprises members from each provincial and territorial government wildlife agency, four federal entities (Canadian Wildlife Service, Parks Canada Agency, Department of Fisheries and Oceans, and the Federal Biodiversity Information Partnership, chaired by the Canadian Museum of Nature), three non-government science members and the co-chairs of the species specialist subcommittees and the Aboriginal Traditional Knowledge subcommittee. The Committee meets to consider status reports on candidate species.

Definitions (2018)

Wildlife species

A species, subspecies, variety, or geographically or genetically distinct population of animal, plant or other organism, other than a bacterium or virus, that is wild by nature and is either native to Canada or has extended its range into Canada without human intervention and has been present in Canada for at least 50 years.

Extinct (X)

A wildlife species that no longer exists.

Extirpated (XT)

A wildlife species no longer existing in the wild in Canada, but occurring elsewhere.

Endangered (E)

A wildlife species facing imminent extirpation or extinction.

Threatened (T)

A wildlife species likely to become endangered if limiting factors are not reversed.

Special concern (SC)
(Note: Formerly described as “Vulnerable” from 1990 to 1999, or “Rare” prior to 1990.)

A wildlife species that may become a threatened or an endangered species because of a combination of biological characteristics and identified threats.

Not at risk (NAR)
(Note: Formerly described as “Not In Any Category”, or “No Designation Required.”)

A wildlife species that has been evaluated and found to be not at risk of extinction given the current circumstances.

Data deficient (DD)
(Note: Formerly described as “Indeterminate” from 1994 to 1999 or “ISIBD” [insufficient scientific information on which to base a designation] prior to 1994. Definition of the [DD] category revised in 2006.)

A category that applies when the available information is insufficient (a) to resolve a species’ eligibility for assessment or (b) to permit an assessment of the species’ risk of extinction.

The Canadian Wildlife Service, Environment and Climate Change Canada, provides full administrative and financial support to the COSEWIC Secretariat.

Wildlife species description and significance

Name and classification

Wood Turtle (Glyptemys insculpta) has had numerous taxonomic designations; the species authority is considered to be John Eaton Le Conte, who originally described it as Testudo insculptain 1830. Leopold Fitzinger described the species as Clemmys insculptain 1835, a designation that remained in general usage until 2001. Holman and Fritz (2001) and Feldman and Parham (2002) both suggested the splitting of Clemmysand grouped Wood Turtle and its closest living relative Bog Turtle (Glyptemys muhlenbergii Schoepf 1801) together; Holman and Fritz (2001) revived the name Glyptemys(Agassiz 1857) for these two congeners. One fossil species in the genus is known, G. valentinensis, from the middle Miocene of Nebraska; it is described as morphologically similar to G. insculptaand may be ancestral to it (Holman and Fritz 2001).

Morphological description

Wood Turtle is a medium-sized freshwater turtle with adult carapace length ranging between 16 cm and 25 cm (Litzgus and Brooks 1996; Smith 2002). The greyish-brown to yellow carapace is broad and low, sometimes having dark or yellow markings. Each scute has pyramidal concentric ridges (growth lines), giving the carapace a sculptured appearance. The carapace is strongly keeled and is serrated at the posterior margin (Babcock 1971; Litzgus and Brooks 1996). In older turtles, the ridges on the scutes can be worn smooth to some degree. The plastron lacks a hinge and is yellow with variable black blotches on the outer posterior corners of each scute. The skin is generally brown, but the legs, neck, and chin often have yellow, orange, or reddish colouring (Ernst and Lovich 2009). The feet are slightly webbed with large claws. The irises of the eyes are yellow or brown, and the upper jaw forms a beak with two cusps on the maxilla, arched downwards over the slightly shorter lower jaw. Males are generally larger than females (Lovich et al. 1990). The plastron is flat in juveniles and adult females but becomes strongly concave in males as they reach sexual maturity. In adult females, the cloacal vent is located at the edge of the plastron, while in males it is located distal to the edge of the plastron along the length of the tail; males also have a longer, thicker tail than females.

Population spatial structure and variability

All Canadian Wood Turtles are considered to belong to a single, nationwide population (COSEWIC 2007; Environment Canada 2016). The national population is subdivided into “local subpopulations”, each consisting of an interbreeding concentration of Wood Turtles within a single watershed (Environment Canada 2016). This terminology will be used throughout this report, and is consistent with that used in the draft federal Recovery Strategy. Subpopulations across the species’ range in Canada are in some cases delineated by element occurrences (EOs) as a proxy (see Population Sizes and Trends - Sampling Effort and Methods).

Amato et al. (2008) conducted a study of the phylogeography of Wood Turtles and sampled 117 turtles from 29 localities across the species’ Canadian range. Twenty-one haplotypes were identified and there was little genetic variation, which is typical of turtles in general and the genus Glyptemys in particular (Avise et al. 1992; Rosenbaum et al. 2007). Nested clade analysis indicated a main postglacial dispersal up the east coast from a southern refugium to Nova Scotia, with subsequent westward dispersal (Amato et al. 2008). A BEAST analysis, using a Bayesian skyline plot, indicated the Wood Turtle population size had been growing rapidly over the last 12,000 years. One clade occurs along the eastern USA and Canada and west into the states south of the Great Lakes. A second clade occurs in Ontario and adjacent Québec west of the St. Lawrence, although some presence of the first clade was also found in this region.

Other genetic studies of six local subpopulations of Wood Turtles in Québec found them to be highly polymorphic; each subpopulation could be characterized using five microsatellite loci (Tessier and Lapointe 2002; Tessier et al. 2005). There was high variability within all local subpopulations indicating that putative past declines have not led to significantly reduced genetic variability, although the most genetically distinct subpopulations had the lowest diversity (Tessier et al. 2005).

Ultimately, it appears that there are at least three genetically different units within Québec: two on the north shore of the St. Lawrence River, and a single homogeneous group (of four subpopulations) south of the St. Lawrence River (Tessier et al. 2005). Additionally, the Bas-Saint-Laurent populations (at the eastern end of the Québec range near the New Brunswick border) are more closely linked to New Brunswick turtles than Québec turtles, and could be considered as a distinct conservation unit in Québec (Bouchard et al. 2013). Despite their small size, these subpopulations show high levels of heterozygosity (H0 ranging from 0.561-0.886), and allelic diversity (an average of 10 alleles per locus per population) (Tessier et al. 2005). These data suggest that these Wood Turtles have genetic variation expected of a relatively abundant species, and that until “recently” (given the long generation times of the species) these populations existed in “long-term genetic neighbourhoods” comprising several thousand individuals, based on equilibrium considerations and the stepwise mutation model (Ohta and Kimura 1973). These conclusions further suggest that these subpopulations have undergone rapid, large declines, recent enough that they still show little genetic evidence of inbreeding despite their small sizes and relative isolation.

A study on Wood Turtle in Ontario isolated four subpopulations: one along the north shore of Lake Huron, two in eastern Ontario, and one in southern Ontario (Fridgen et al. 2013). The southern Ontario subpopulation showed “severe” signs of inbreeding (low heterozygosity), and the younger cohorts of Wood Turtles sampled from other subpopulations showed similar levels of inbreeding, indicating a looming genetic crisis for the species in Ontario (Fridgen et al. 2013).

Designatable units

There are no clear distinctions in genetic structure (Tessier et al. 2005; Amato et al. 2008) based on either microsatellites or mitochondrial genes that can be associated with specific faunal provinces. Furthermore, there are no clear disjunctions among subpopulations and some span the boundaries of the Faunal Provinces (Figure 1). Therefore, separate designatable units based on discreteness and evolutionary significance criteria for assigning such units (see COSEWIC Operations and Procedures Manual, Appendix F5, Nov. 2017) do not appear defensible at this time.

Special significance of the species

Wood Turtle is unique among Canadian freshwater turtles in its highly terrestrial behaviour, attractive appearance, and docility, which in past have made it a popular pet. The species was tested in rodent mazes and performed comparably to rats (Tinklepaugh 1932). Turtles are important in Indigenous spiritual beliefs and ceremonies. To First Nations peoples, the turtle is a teacher, possessing a great wealth of knowledge. Turtles play an integral role in the Creation story, by allowing the Earth to be formed on its back. For this reason, some First Nations people traditionally called North America “Turtle Island” (Bell et al. 2010).

Distribution

Global range

Wood Turtle is endemic to eastern North America and has a discontinuous range from Nova Scotia west through New Brunswick, southern Québec and Ontario to Minnesota, south to Virginia and Maryland (Conant and Collins 1998; Ernst and Lovich 2009).

Canadian range

In Canada, Wood Turtle occurs in Nova Scotia, New Brunswick, southern and eastern Québec, and south-central Ontario (Bider and Matte 1994; Conant and Collins 1998; Desroches and Rodrique 2004), with subpopulations in Ontario ranging north and west to western Algoma District in rivers draining into the east end of Lake Superior (Peiman and Brooks 2003; Knudsen 2004; Trottier 2004; Wesley et al. 2004; Figure 1). Approximately 30% of the species’ global distribution is in Canada (Conant and Collins 1998; Ernstand Lovich 2009).

In Canada, the species’ distribution is discontinuous throughout most of its range. Most Wood Turtle subpopulations are associated with watersheds that are widely separated. Wood Turtle is apparently dependent on rivers and streams with particular conditions; even within suitable watersheds local subpopulations are clustered in stream reaches. These subpopulations are isolated (Arvisais et al. 2002, 2004; Smith 2002; Seburn and Seburn 2004; Wesley et al. 2004, Tessier et al. 2005; Wesley and Brooks 2005), because turtles tend to move along streams and rarely move between streams even when they are only a few kilometres apart (e.g., Foscarini and Brooks 1997, but see Gravel et al. 2007). The observed genetic distinctness among nearby subpopulations is likely a reflection of low vagility.

Extent of occurrence and area of occupancy

COSEWIC (2007) reported the extent of occurrence (EOO) as ~500,000 km², based on range maps in Ernst et al.(1994) and Conant and Collins (1998). For the present report, historical (pre-1997) EOO in Canada was calculated as 931,462 km², while recent (since 1997) EOO was calculated as 722,874 km², representing an apparent 22% decline in EOO, assuming that recent search effort has been adequate.

The index of area of occupancy (IAO) was calculated by generating 4 km² IAO squares from all known Wood Turtle occurrence records in Canada. Total IAO values by province, based on recent and historical records, are: Ontario - 932 km², including 240 km² exclusively historical (26% decline); Québec - 1596 km², including 216 km² exclusively historical (14% decline); New Brunswick - 1,476 km², including 224 km² exclusively historical (15% decline); Nova Scotia - 932 km², including 508 km² exclusively historical (55% decline). Total Canadian IAO is 4936 km², including 1,208 km² exclusively historical, showing a 24% decline in occupancy. Extirpation of subpopulations in southern Ontario and southern Nova Scotia were most notable. This analysis assumes that all recent IAO squares also contained Wood Turtle historically, an assumption supported by the long generation time and strong site fidelity of the species. This estimate of decline is likely conservative due to historical landscape change, lack of historical data and limited historical search effort over much of the species’ range. It is additionally conservative because most historical records are well under 100 years old, and the actual decline in IAO over a 3-generation period is more likely to exceed 30%.

Search effort

Prior to 1990, there were very few studies on any aspect of Wood Turtle biology in Canada, but since the species was listed as Vulnerable (Special Concern) by COSEWIC in 1996, many studies have been initiated, and have filled gaps in knowledge of the species’ abundance, demography, habitat requirements and distribution. A number of subpopulations have been studied using radio telemetry (e.g., Quinn and Tate 1991; Brooks and Brown 1992; Walde 1998; Compton 1999; Arvisais et al. 2002, 2004; Cameron et al. 2002; Compton et al. 2002; Smith 2002; Peiman and Brooks 2003; Saumure 2004; Dubois 2006; Wesley et al. 2004; Wesley 2006; Greaves and Litzgus 2009; Roy-McDougall 2010; Hughes 2016). Surveys of new and historical areas were conducted throughout the species’ range, usually completed by walking (one to four people) alongside a river thought to provide good habitat, sometimes with one person walking or canoeing the river or stream.

In Ontario, systematic surveys were carried out across the province from the extreme southwest to western Algoma (Mitchell et al. 1997; Boyd and Brooks 1998; Cross et al. in press). Geographic Information Systems were used in some cases to focus search effort (Smith 2002). There are three localities in Ontario with ongoing study programs. One locality is in the Algoma and Sudbury Districts, with programs being operated by the OMNRF, Laurentian University, and Algoma Highlands Conservancy. At least four watersheds in these two districts have been studied intensively at differing times. Another locality is in central and eastern Ontario, where 5 watersheds have been studied to varying extents by researchers from the OMNRF, University of Guelph, and Laurentian University. Finally, an intensively managed subpopulation exists in southwestern Ontario, studied and managed by University of Guelph, MNRF, and the Huron Stewardship Council.

In Québec, surveys were conducted throughout most of the species’ range in the province between 1998 and 2016. A total of 323 surveys on 150 river segments have occurred. The most recent search effect was focused on local subpopulations in the eastern part of the province north and south of the St. Lawrence River. Since 2010 the majority of survey effort in Québec has been planned based on a province-wide GIS analysis (Habitat suitability index), built for this purpose (Giguère et al. 2011). One subpopulation north of the St. Lawrence is intensively managed by the Ministry of Forests, Fauna, and Parks (Le ministère des Forêts de la Faune et des Parcs).

Historical surveys in the Maritime provinces have been poor, and searches for new Wood Turtle localities is ongoing (A. Downey pers. comm. 2016; H. Collins pers. comm. 2017). Several surveys and studies are ongoing in New Brunswick and Nova Scotia to document the extent of known subpopulations and identify new subpopulations. For example, one survey in New Brunswick used an Internet newsgroup to solicit reports of sightings (McAlpine and Gerreits 1999), while a second in Nova Scotia interviewed local residents (Adams 2002). Over the past decade, search activity in Nova Scotia, by both Department of Natural Resources staff as well as citizen science-based programs, has expanded substantially (Herman pers. comm. 2018).

Habitat

Habitat requirements

Wood Turtles are highly terrestrial for a freshwater emydid turtle, but are still greatly dependent on aquatic habitats (Bishop 1927; Breckenridge 1944; Lazell 1976; Thomas 1983). Wood Turtles are strongly associated with meandering, shallow rivers with sand, gravel, and/or cobble bottoms; these rivers are typically clear, with moderate current and frequent oxbows (DeGraaf and Rudis 1983; Hunter et al. 1992; Ernst et al. 1994; Adams 2003; Wesley 2006). Secondary tributaries (brooks) that feed these rivers may also support Wood Turtles; these tributaries can be used to access resource patches and may also provide subpopulation rescue when episodic events disrupt the subpopulation on the main river. Still water or slow water habitats, such as vernal pools, oxbows, marshes, and beaver ponds are also used, though less frequently than are riverine habitats.

Wood Turtles hibernate aquatically in streams and rivers (October to April, depending on location) (Harding and Bloomer 1979; Green and Pauley 1987; Farrell and Graham 1991; Hunter et al.1992; Smith 2002; Arvisais et al. 2004; Trochu 2004, Wesley 2006; Greaves and Litzgus 2007; Ernst and Lovich 2009); in at least one locality they also hibernate in oxbows (White 2013). Wood Turtles may hibernate alone, communally with other members of the species or with other species of turtles (Breckenridge 1944; Harding and Bloomer 1979; White 2013). Overwintering sites are usually on the bottom of deep pools, often with fallen debris that provides structure and prevents dislodging during high flow events. Wood Turtles also use rivers during the active season for mating (Harding and Bloomer 1979; Ernst 1986; Farrell and Graham 1991), dispersal (Greaves 2007), and thermoregulation (Dubois 2006; Hughes 2016). Wood Turtles rarely move more than 300 m from water (Harding and Bloomer 1979; Quinn and Tate 1991; Kaufmann 1992; Saumure and Bider 1998; Ernst 2001b; Arvisais 2002; Arvisais et al. 2002; Compton et al. 2002; Smith 2002; Wesley 2006), but individuals have been recorded more than 900 m from their home river (Thompson et al. in press). Juveniles appear to remain closer to their home rivers than do adults, suggesting the juveniles rely on riverine habitats for protection.

Wood Turtles use terrestrial habitats for foraging, thermoregulation, and nesting; (Harding and Bloomer 1979; Kaufmann 1992a; Harding 1997; Smith 2002, Arvisais et al. 2002; Compton et al. 2002; Arvisais et al. 2004; Trochu 2004; Dubois 2006; Wesley 2006; Dubois et al. 2009). Natural Wood Turtle terrestrial habitat is most often reported as riparian forest, alder thickets/swale, and open shoreline habitat, although upland forest may be used as well (Daigle 1997; Cameron et al. 2002; Compton et al. 2002; Smith 2002; Adams 2003; Peiman and Brooks 2003; Arvisais et al. 2004; Trochu 2004; Wesley et al. 2004; Wesley 2006). Wood Turtles are frequently described as an “edge” species, and seem to prefer a mosaic of open and closed-canopy habitats that provide for a multitude of needs (Compton 2002; Dubois et al. 2009). Human-impacted land, such as agricultural fields and plantations, may also provide appropriate habitat, and Wood Turtles will use such sites when available. In fact, they have been described as ‘opportunistic’ regarding their terrestrial habitat choices (Quinn and Tate 1991; Saumure et al. 2007).

Naturally occurring nesting habitat includes sand or gravel-sand beaches and banks (Hunter et al. 1992; Walde 1998; Smith 2002; Hughes et al. 2009). However, similar to other terrestrial turtles in North America, Wood Turtles readily nest on gravel and dirt roads, gravel shoulders of paved roads, gravel pits, decommissioned railway beds and similar anthropogenic structures (Buhlmann and Osborn 2011; Litzgus pers. comm. 2016).

Habitat trends

As part of the development of this status report, a province-by-province map of human impacts on Wood Turtle habitat was created using aerial photography and IAO squares. Each IAO square was assessed to determine the greatest impact on it; if more than one impact was observed, the impact type closest to the apparent Wood Turtle occurrence (streams) was counted; each IAO square was counted only once. This method can be subjective, and the varying quality of aerial photography available can make detecting impacts at some sites difficult, but it provides an attempt to quantify human impacts on Wood Turtle habitat. The magnitude of these human activities requires intensive on-the-ground assessment.

Each IAO square was assessed as being: (i) low impact (no obvious impacts based on aerial photography); (ii) agriculture; (iii) forestry (including plantation forest); and (iv) development (towns, cities, golf courses, industry, quarries). IAO squares with roads were counted separately from other human impacts. Because Wood Turtles rarely move more than 300 m from their home streams (Greaves 2007), each IAO square was assessed to determine if there were roads within 300 m of apparent Wood Turtle streams.

In Ontario, 4% of IAO squares were ‘low impact’. Of the higher impact activities, forestry occurred in 72%, agriculture occurred in 17%, and development occurred in 8% of IAO squares. Only three of 279 (1%) ‘recent’ IAO squares in Ontario did not have roads within 300m of the likely Wood Turtle watercourses.

In Québec, 23% of IAO squares were ‘low impact’. Of the higher impact activities, agriculture occurred in 36%, forestry occurred in 24%, and development occurred in 17% of the IAO squares. Only six of 327 (<2%) ‘recent’ IAO squares in Québec did not have roads within 300m of the likely Wood Turtle watercourses.

In New Brunswick, 24% of IAO squares were ‘low impact’. Of the higher impact activities, forestry occurred in 49%, agriculture occurred in 26%, and development occurred in 14% of the IAO squares. No ‘recent’ IAO squares (0 out of 1023) in New Brunswick lacked roads within 300 m of Wood Turtle watercourses.

In Nova Scotia, 24% of IAO squares were ‘low impact’. Of the higher impact activities, agriculture occurred in 31%, forestry occurred in 28%, and development occurred in 16% of IAO squares. Only one of 105 (<1%) ‘recent’ IAO squares in Nova Scotia did not have roads within 300 m of Wood Turtle watercourses.

Canada-wide, 16% of IAO squares contained ‘low impact’ activities whereas higher impacts (agriculture, forestry, development) occurred within 84% of IAO squares; Agriculture occurred within 29%, forestry within 41%, and development within 14%. Less than 1% of Wood Turtle IAO squares in Canada did not have a road within 300 m of the watercourse.

It is unclear what future landscape changes will occur throughout the range of Wood Turtle in Canada. However, if forestry and agriculture continue to intensify as they have, along with human population expansion, for most subpopulations the prognosis is not positive.

Biology

Life cycle and reproduction

Wood Turtles emerge from hibernation in late March to April. They mate throughout the active season (April to September), but most commonly in spring and fall (Kaufmann 1992b; Walde et al. 2003; Trochu 2004). Mating usually occurs in shallow water (DeGraaf and Rudis 1983), although Wood Turtles have occasionally been observed copulating on land (S. Gillingwater pers. comm. 2006 in COSEWIC 2007; Y. Dubois pers. comm. 2017). Females migrate to nesting areas and may stay in “staging” areas adjacent to nesting sites for several days to a few weeks before nesting (Walde et al. 2007). They dig nests in late May to early July (Bishop 1927; Thomas 1983; Schaffer 1991; Brooks et al. 1992; Kaufmann 1992b; Walde 1998; Smith 2002; Brooks et al. 2003; Trochu 2004). Nesting can occur throughout the day or night depending primarily on climatic conditions, but usually occurs in the evening (Walde 1998; R. Brooks pers. comm. 2005 in COSEWIC 2007). Female Wood Turtles lay only one clutch per year (Powell 1967; Farrell and Graham 1991; Brooks et al. 1992), although individual females may not nest every year (R. Brooks pers. comm. 2005 in COSEWIC 2007).

Sex determination in Wood Turtles is genetic rather than temperature-based as in many other turtles (Ernst 2001b). Montiel et al. (2016) showed that Wood Turtles have an XX/XY sex chromosome system, and estimated that this system evolved in the genus Glyptemys~8-20 million years ago. However, temperature constraints on embryogenesis likely determine the northern limit of distribution of the species (Compton 1999).

Successful embryonic development and hatching require sufficiently warm temperatures, and eggs may not hatch in years when the summer temperatures are too low for incubation to be completed; eggs or hatchlings that fail to emerge in the fall do not survive the winter in the nest (Brooks et al. 1992; Compton 1999; Hughes et al. 2009). However, variable nest temperatures accelerate embryonic development in the lab (Compton 1999), and Hughes et al. (2009) found that females appear to select nest sites with variable incubation temperatures in the wild. Hatching occurs in late August to September or early October (Schaffer 1991; Smith 2002).

Females lay clutches of 1-20 eggs, with an average of 8-12 eggs (Powell 1967; Harding and Bloomer 1979; Brooks et al. 1992; Walde 1998; Peiman and Brooks 2003). Hatching success is often low due to cool summers or to nests being destroyed by predators (Brooks and Brown 1992; Brooks et al. 1992; Walde 1998; Cameron et al. 2002). Mortality of embryos is normally 20-80%, but can reach 100% (Brooks and Brown 1992; Brooks et al. 1992). In addition, Sarcophagid fly larvae may attack and kill embryos and newly hatched turtles in the nest (Smith 2002), but it is possible that the larvae more commonly only feed on dead embryos/hatchlings (Bolton 2007).

Hatchling Wood Turtles are difficult to find and study because of their small size and cryptic colouration (Peiman and Brooks 2003). In a recent study in central Ontario the period from first emergence from the nest to overwintering was characterized by low survivorship (11%), and smaller hatchlings had a higher survival rate than larger hatchlings (Paterson et al. 2014), perhaps due to predator avoidance (i.e., smaller hatchlings were harder to detect). The hatchlings spent most of their time in creeks, or on land hiding under cover (Paterson et al. 2012).

Sexual maturity is related to body size not age, and size at maturity is greater in northern subpopulations than in southern ones (Brooks et al. 1992; Daigle 1997; Cameron et al. 2002; Smith 2002; Peiman and Brooks 2003; Walde et al. 2003). In northern subpopulations, this size is reached between 11 and 22 years of age (Brooks et al. 1992; Walde et al. 2003; Marchand 2015).

Maximum ages for Wood Turtles in the wild are difficult to estimate due to the turtles’ longevity and wear on the carapace, which prevents counts of growth lines in older turtles (Harding and Bloomer 1979). Growth slows dramatically after turtles reach maturity; after maturity, new growth lines become increasingly more difficult to detect. Nevertheless, some researchers have counted between 30 and 50 growth lines on some turtles (Cameron et al. 2002; D. Coulson pers. comm. 2004 in COSEWIC 2007). In a subpopulation of marked individuals in southeastern Pennsylvania, Ernst (2001a) recorded a marked female living at least 46 years. One female captured as an adult on the New Jersey Turnpike has survived over 40 years in captivity (R. Brooks pers. comm. 2005 in COSEWIC 2007). Other records suggest that Wood Turtles survive beyond 80 years in the wild, with no evidence of reproductive senescence (Jones 2009). Generation time (GT) (average age of adults) has not been calculated in the literature, but an estimation based on published values for age at maturity (AM) and adult rates of mortality (MR) and using the IUCN formula would be: GT= AM + (1/MR) = 15 + (1/0.05) = 35 years

Physiology and adaptability

There have been few investigations of the physiology of Wood Turtles, although there are recent studies of their thermal ecology (Tamplin 2006, 2009; Dubois et al. 2008, 2009; Hughes 2016). Tamplin (2006, 2009) investigated thermal preferences in hatchling and juvenile Wood Turtles, and found that they preferred a temperature of 27°C, and that older juveniles were better at distinguishing temperatures than younger ones. Dubois et al. (2008) reported a preferred temperature for digestion of (Tset) ~30°C. Dubois et al. (2009) found that free-living turtles were able to use basking to keep their metabolic activity up to 26% higher than if their body temperature was conforming to local air temperature. Hughes (2016) found that thermoregulation did not govern large scale (>20 m) movements for Wood Turtles, conforming with the findings of Compton et al. (2002), who found that small-scale habitat selection was determined by temperature, and that large-scale habitat selection was determined by foraging needs. During overwintering, body temperature is usually just above freezing (~0.5°C) (Greaves and Litzgus 2007; Hughes unpublished data).

Dispersal and migration

Wood Turtles are philopatric, using the same general area (home range) both during a year and over many years; males are territorial and show dominance hierarchies (Thomas 1983; Lovich et al. 1990; Quinn and Tate 1991; Ross et al.1991; Brooks and Brown 1992; Kauffman 1992b; Walde 1998; Arvisais et al. 2002; Cameron et al. 2002; Smith 2002; Peiman and Brooks 2003; Wesley et al.2004). Home range sizes of 0.25 ha up to 70+ ha have been reported in Canada and the adjacent United States (Quinn and Tate 1991; Ross et al. 1991; Brooks and Brown 1992; Arvisais et al. 2002; Smith 2002; Trochu 2004; Greaves 2007). Greaves (2007) reported mean linear home ranges (home range peripheries in relation to the home river) of 1.6 km, with males having larger linear home ranges than females (excluding nesting movements).

Home range sizes vary in response to many factors, including age, sex, distance to nesting and hibernation sites, and habitat productivity (Daigle 1997). Size of home ranges varies greatly both among study sites and among individual turtles within sites; males tend toward larger but linear home ranges, as they defend territories along their home rivers, while females have broader home ranges as they tend to move away from rivers in summer (Thompson et al. 2018). The amount and quality of available habitat also affect home range size.

Wood Turtles can home reliably over 2 km, and there are accounts of them homing distances up to 8 km (Harding and Bloomer 1979). Straight-line distances travelled have been recorded up to 8.3 km in one year (Daigle 1997; Adams 2002; Cameron et al. 2002; Smith 2002; Wesley et al. 2004), and 23 km over 5 years (Brooks and Brown 1992).

Interspecific interactions

Wood Turtles are opportunistic omnivores at all stages of life (Bishop 1927; Breckenridge 1944; Harding and Bloomer 1979; DeGraaf and Rudis 1983; Schaffer 1991; Walde et al. 2003). Important foods include berries, green plants, soft-bodied invertebrates (particularly worms and slugs), amphibian larvae, and carrion (Harding and Bloomer 1979; Ernst et al. 1994). Mushrooms have also been identified as a particularly important food source (Harding and Bloomer 1979; Ernst et al. 1994). Wood Turtles exhibit a unique “worm stomping” behaviour (Brooks et al. 2003). They alternately stamp their forefeet and plastron on the substrate and then consume earthworms that come to the surface. Why, or even whether, earthworms come to the surface is not clear. An alternative hypothesis for this behaviour is that the turtles scuffle and bounce to flush small invertebrates from the litter on the forest floor and in doing so may uncover worms (Kaufmann 1989).

The main predators of adult Wood Turtles are Raccoon (Procyon lotor), Striped Skunk (Mephitis mephitis), Coyote (Canis latrans), Mink (Mustela vison), River Otter (Lutra Canadensis), Red Fox (Vulpes vulpes), and Common Raven (Corvus corax) (Peiman and Brooks 2003; Bourgeois et al. 2004; Ernst and Lovich 2009). Predators will consume turtles or amputate limbs and tails (Saumure and Bider 1998; Cameron et al. 2002; Smith 2002; Peiman and Brooks 2003; Litzgus pers. comm. 2016; Mullin pers. comm. 2016). Large fish such as Largemouth Bass (Micropterus salmoides) (Breckenridge 1944) and Northern Pike (Esox lucius) and birds such as Great Blue Heron (Ardea herodias) will prey on hatchlings (Seburn 1996). Raccoons, skunks and foxes dig up and eat eggs (Brooks et al. 1992), resulting in high levels of nest failure.

Major predation events have been observed in several localities. For example, Raccoons killed seven of 37 (19%) female Wood Turtles on a Québec nesting site in 2004 (D. Masse pers. comm. 2005 in COSEWIC 2007). During the spring survey in 2005, eight additional dead females were found near the main nesting site. These females were marked and had nested at the site in previous years. It is estimated that predators killed 40% of the nesting females at this site over a relatively short period (Adams et al.2007). In New Brunswick 47 of 57 individual Wood Turtles showed signs of attempted predation over a three-year period (2005-2007); the mortality rate was 15% (Gravel et al. 2007). Common Ravens have been observed preying on adult Wood Turtles in New Brunswick (D. McCullum pers. comm. 2016); the birds flip the turtle on its back and attack the leg pockets. At least 48 Wood Turtles within one subpopulation have been killed in this way. Wood Turtles are more susceptible to major predation events where predators are subsidized by human activities, particularly agriculture.

There has been at least one account of Wood Turtles and Blanding’s Turtles (Emydoidea blandingii) mating and at least one account of Wood-Blanding’s hybrids from a semi-captive study population; genetic analysis of one of the hatchlings showed it to be the offspring of a female Wood Turtle and a male Blanding’s Turtle (Harding and Davis 1999). Wild hybrids between Wood Turtles and Blanding’s Turtles are not known, and the typical habitats for the two species are sufficiently different that interactions in the wild would be rare.

Wood Turtles display “anting behaviour” (use of ants to remove epibionts) (McCurdy and Herman 1997; Hughes et al. 2016), and remain still while being cleaned by Blacknose Dace (Rhinichthyes spp.) (Kaufmann 1991). There are many accounts of Wood Turtles with leeches, Placobdella parasitica and P. ornata, on their legs, necks and carapaces (Brewster and Brewster 1986; Farrell and Graham 1991; Saumure and Bider 1996; Smith 2002), but it is not clear how these ectoparasites affect the Wood Turtle (Kaufmann 1991). Other parasites of the Wood Turtle include trematodes, an acanthocephalan, caddisfly larvae (an epibiont), and the flesh fly, Sarcophagus spp., which may parasitize both eggs and hatchlings (Walde 1998; Smith 2002).

Population sizes and trends

Sampling effort and methods

Accurate estimates of population size of Wood Turtle in Canada cannot be made because size estimates are only available for a small number of local subpopulations. However, a rough estimate of population size for Canada has been calculated by summing estimates derived for each local subpopulation delineated by element occurrence (EO) when available or by watershed unit. Where possible, recent (<10 years old) estimates of subpopulation size were acquired directly from researchers. Alternatively, when sufficient surveys had been conducted and EOs had been characterized expert opinion was used to estimate the subpopulation. Finally, when only observational data were available, subpopulations were estimated with standardized minimum and maximum values of 25 and 100 individuals/local subpopulation (based in part on size distributions of known subpopulations) to generate minimum and maximum population size respectively.

The Natural Heritage Information Centre in Ontario and the Québec Conservation Data Centre (CDC) have created element occurrence (EO) layers using Wood Turtle observations to roughly delineate Wood Turtle subpopulations in these provinces. Points close to each other are grouped within the same EO. Points that are farther than 5 km along riverine corridors, 3 km in intermediate habitat, 1 km across continuous upland habitat, or separated by barriers (e.g., busy highway, obstructions, cliffs, etc.) are assigned to different EOs (NatureServe 2018). An EO rank was assigned to each EO to estimate viability when sufficient data exist. EO layers are not available for the Maritime provinces, but an estimated number of EOs was calculated and reported in the proposed Recovery Strategy for Wood Turtle in Canada (Environment Canada 2016).

Several studies have reported density estimates for Wood Turtle; however, these could not be applied here because the proportions of streams/rivers used by Wood Turtles within each area are unknown. Experience indicates that even in rivers with apparently good habitat throughout their length, Wood Turtles are usually patchily distributed, with much of the river unoccupied except by transients (R. Brooks pers. comm. 2005 in COSEWIC 2007; Wesley 2006; Hughes pers. obs.). For such patchy subpopulations, extrapolating estimates evenly across an entire river can severely overestimate true subpopulation size. For example, virtually all sightings of Wood Turtles along a 20 km stretch of a major river in central Ontario occurred at two sites, one 1.2 km and the other 0.4 km in length. Extrapolation from these sites over the 20 km surveyed would have given an estimate of over 2000 adults, when the real subpopulation of adults was likely fewer than 150 (R. Brooks pers. comm. 2005 in COSEWIC 2007). Such extrapolation has been avoided in this report when possible.

Abundance

Subpopulations in Ontario

There are three major clusters of extant Wood Turtle subpopulations in Ontario: one along the north shore of Lake Huron, one in eastern and central Ontario, and one in southern Ontario. The Wood Turtle population in Ontario is estimated to be ~1100 adults (Environment Canada 2016). Alternatively, using the number of EOs to calculate an estimate produces a similar estimate. There are 44 EOs in Ontario considered to be extant, thus multiplying this number by low (25 adults) and high (100 adults) estimates for abundance give a range of 1100-4400 adult Wood Turtles.

Subpopulations in Québec

Subpopulation estimates were made for 50 EOs (subpopulations) in Québec. In Québec, EO were derived from considerable survey effort conducted over the last 20 years. Population estimates derived from mark recapture data were available for three subpopulations. For the remaining 47 EOs subpopulation estimates were based on expert opinion considering the number of observations within each EO, the quality of the habitat within the EO, and the size of the EO (Yohann Dubois pers. comm. 2005). Estimates should be considered a conservative minimum subpopulation size for each EO. The total minimum population of adult Wood Turtle for Québec was estimated as 8,725 mature individuals. To provide a range of population estimates comparable with the other regions, the estimate was arbitrarily increased by 50% based on expert opinion to an upper estimate of 13,087. At the provincial level, data from Quebec are more precise and accurate than those in the rest of the Canadian range, due to more intensive and extensive sampling.

Subpopulations in New Brunswick

An estimated population size for New Brunswick was calculated using the Wood Turtle management units from New Brunswick to define subpopulations. The number of extant management units (73) multiplied by low (25 adults) and high (100 adults) estimates for abundance give a range of 1,825-7,300 adult Wood Turtles. A best estimate was calculated by assigning 100 adults to management units with ≥ 10 observations (21 sites), and 25 adults to management units with < 10 observations (52 sites), which gave an estimate of (21x100)+(52x25) = 3,400 adult Wood Turtles.

An alternate method to estimate the provincial population would be to use the number of defined EOs and a high and low population estimate. There are 101 EOs in New Brunswick (Environment Canada 2016), thus multiplying this number by low (25 adults) and high (100 adults) estimates for abundance gives a range of 2,525-10,100 adult Wood Turtles. Search effort in some areas of the province has been limited to date; additional effort may expand estimates in future.

Subpopulations in Nova Scotia

No recent population size estimates were made directly available for Nova Scotia subpopulations, so an estimate was taken from the proposed Recovery Strategy for the Wood Turtle in Canada (Environment Canada 2016). The Wood Turtle population in Nova Scotia is estimated to be 2,000-7,000 adults (Environment Canada 2016). This estimate is comparable to one that would be calculated using the number of EOs. There are 122 EOs in Nova Scotia (Environment Canada 2016), thus multiplying this number by low (25 adults) and high (100 adults) estimates for abundance gives a range of 3,050-12,200 adult Wood Turtles.

Total Canadian Population Estimate

Combining the provincial minimum estimates and maximum estimates yields a range of 13,650-31,790 individual adult Wood Turtles throughout Canada. However, this range must be interpreted with caution given the limited available data used for the calculation, assumptions made, and that very few subpopulations have been estimated with certainty.

Fluctuations and trends

Across Canada there have been a few studies of sufficient length to estimate changes in subpopulation size.

In Ontario, one population has been subjected to yearly monitoring, including capture-mark-recapture population estimates, since 2005. These estimates show a steady decline in the wild adult population. However, a headstarting project has resulted in an increase in the total number of adult turtles (Litzgus pers. comm. 2018) (but see Limiting Factors). This population is noted for a high rate of adult mortality from subsidized predators (J. Mullen pers. comm. 2016) and has shown severe signs of inbreeding (Fridgen et al. 2013). Subpopulations in eastern and central Ontario are considered to be in decline (L. Trute pers. comm. 2017). Subpopulations along the north shore of Lake Huron are considered likely stable by researchers, although no quantifiable projections have been made.

In Québec, there are three subpopulations with multi-year population estimates showing different trends: 1) showing a 50% decline between 1997 and 2002 (Daigle et al. 2005) and a stable population between 2002 and 2013, 2) showing a slight decline that is within the confidence intervals of the population estimates, and 3) showing a slight increase within the confidence intervals of the population estimate. However, sampling duration in all three is well under a single generation. Trend information is not available for other subpopulations in Québec because only presence-absence surveys have been conducted.

In New Brunswick relatively large populations of Wood Turtle remain in two regions of the province. However, three sites within these areas experienced mass mortality events in 2016 that have resulted in approximately 110 documented mortalities, primarily adults (Browne pers. comm. 2018). Ravens were identified as the agent at one site; the cause remains unknown at the other two sites, but the limited information available is consistent with predation. Insufficient data exist to assess trends in population sizes in New Brunswick; however, anecdotal information suggests that declines have occurred in some regions.

No long-term population data are available to estimate trends in subpopulation sizes in Nova Scotia. Personnel in Nova Scotia Department of Natural Resources, Nova Scotia Museum of Natural History and Acadia University have reported that several of the small subpopulations (and possibly the largest subpopulation) in the province have apparently declined in the past 30 years (Herman pers. comm. 2018). The current distribution of clusters of high and low density subpopulations is due to urban settlement and land use practices/disturbances that have fragmented the linear continuity of subpopulations along the primary waterway, and degraded capillary waterways that might support additional subpopulations or harbour hibernacula.

Since there are too few long-term data on patterns of abundance to assess directly decline in total number of mature individuals, the report relies on changes in IAO (and secondarily EOO) to infer declines in abundance. The use of IAO, EOO, or element occurrences as a proxy to measure population trends and sizes is potentially biased by changes in patterns and intensity of search effort over time. Although not all historical sites have been re-visited, there has been an enormous increase in sampling in the past 20 years by resource agencies and citizen science groups, in part as a result of recovery efforts and initiatives across the species’ range in Canada; under these circumstances the use of these proxies is probably justified. In fact, rather than recent (1997 to date) records underestimating IAO since all historical sites might not have been re-visited, it is far more likely that historical (pre-1997) records of IAO woefully underestimated actual historical IAO.

Rescue effect

There are five current and three historical Wood Turtle subpopulations in Québec that are part of watersheds that extend into the US. There are also several border-crossing watersheds between Maine and New Brunswick. However, most Wood Turtle populations in the United States, including those in Maine, New Hampshire and Vermont, are apparently declining (NatureServe 2016), and there is likely only limited exchange of individuals across the border.

Threats and limiting factors

Threats

The threats calculator identified an overall High threat level for the Wood Turtle in Canada (Appendix I). This ranking indicates that the species is expected to decline by 10-70% over the next 100 years (approx. 3 generations) based on ongoing threats over the next 10 years. The sheer diversity of threats is compelling. Agriculture and transportation corridors, particularly roads, were identified as the greatest threats to the species. Other threats identified by the threats calculator were: residential and commercial development (low impact threat), energy production and mining (low impact threat), biological resource use (low impact threat), human intrusions and disturbance (low impact threat), natural system modifications (low impact threat), invasive and other problematic species/genes (low impact threat), and climate change and severe weather (low impact threat) (Appendix I). The analysis of activities within IAO squares (see Habitat Trends) supports the Threats Calculator results. It revealed that Canada-wide, only 16% of IAO squares contained only ‘low impact’ activities. In contrast higher impacts – forestry, agriculture and development – occurred within 84% of IAO squares. Less than 1% of Wood Turtle IAO squares in Canada did not have a road within 300 m of the watercourse.

Transportation and service corridors

Transportation and service corridors – roads in particular – were ranked by the threats calculator as a medium-level threat and were identified as the most significant threat to the Wood Turtle in Canada (Appendix 1). Turtles are slow-moving on land and typically hide in their shells rather than flee from danger, making them especially vulnerable to vehicle collisions. Given the long-lived life history of freshwater turtles (see Limiting Factors), rates of annual adult mortality as low as 1-5% can result in population decline and extirpation (Congdon et al. 1993 [Blanding’s Turtle]; Compton 1999 [Wood Turtle]; Enneson and Litzgus 2008 [Spotted Turtle Clemmys guttata]). Annual mortality rates on roads likely exceed these thresholds in many parts of North America, particularly in areas with high road densities and/or adjacent to roads with high traffic volumes (e.g., Gibbs and Shriver 2002; Beaudry et al. 2008). There is a general lack of data on the scope or severity of the threat posed by smaller roads, such as logging roads and secondary highways. However, secondary or tertiary roads that occur within close proximity to and/or follow watercourses were also identified as a potentially significant threat to subpopulations during the threats calculator assessment, and Wood Turtle mortality has been documented on a variety forestry roads with differing characteristics (size, speed, etc.) in Ontario (L. Trute unpublished data; J. Crowley pers. comm. 2018). Gravel road embankments attract nesting female turtles, putting them at higher risk of collision as they search for nesting sites. This increased risk to females can result in skewed sex ratios, further impairing the population’s ability to cope with ongoing mortality (Steen and Gibbs 2002; Aresco 2005; Gibbs and Steen 2005, 2006). Further, roads and water crossings may also act as ecological traps for the nests and hatchlings due to the associated vehicular traffic and road maintenance activities (e.g., grading of the road shoulder during the incubation period). Generally, roads can also act as a vector for the spread of invasive species and pathogens, provide access for illegal collection and result in direct and indirect habitat loss and fragmentation (Forman et al. 2000; Trombulak and Frissell 2000) – all of which are threats to Wood Turtle subpopulations (see below).

Agriculture and Aquaculture

The ongoing conversion of natural areas into agricultural land (crop fields, pasture, etc.) has resulted in widespread destruction, degradation and fragmentation of Wood Turtle habitat across the species’ Canadian range (see Habitat Trends). Of the 357 watersheds within New Brunswick, 73% have agricultural land within 200 m of the streams/rivers. Within the watersheds in which Wood Turtles have been documented, 94% are within close proximity to agriculture (NB ERD unpublished data). In addition to the direct impacts to habitat, agricultural practices can result in significant and unsustainable mortality rates (Saumure et al. 2007; R. White unpublished data). For example, six of the 30 turtles that were tracked during a 2-year telemetry study in Québec were killed by farming machinery, and the authors concluded that agricultural activities reduced annual adult survival by 10-13% and annual juvenile survival by up to 18% (Saumure et al. 2007). Most of the surviving individuals in this subpopulation showed evidence of non-fatal injuries from farming machinery. Such high levels of annual mortality are not sustainable, and reduced numbers of captures in subsequent years indicate that this subpopulation is rapidly declining and will become locally extirpated without intervention. Agricultural areas may also create ecological traps for nesting females, which are attracted to open-canopy areas with exposed soil. Nests in agricultural areas are at risk of destruction or disturbance from a variety of activities, including tilling and trampling by cattle. Further, egg development in agricultural sites may be compromised by shading from crop growth (Mui et al. 2016). Agriculture was identified as a low-to-medium threat by the threats calculator.

Biological Resource Use

Illegal Collection

Wood Turtle is listed under CITES Appendix II, and the collection of Wood Turtles from the wild is illegal in all Canadian provinces. However, there is still a high demand for Wood Turtles in the commercial pet trade (Crowley pers. comm. 2018), and illegal collection has been attributed to the decline of several Wood Turtle subpopulations across their North American range (Lazell 1976; Harding and Bloomer 1979; Garber and Burger 1995; Litzgus and Brooks 1996; Galois and Bonin 1999). Wood Turtles are particularly vulnerable to collection in early spring when they bask in high concentrations along watercourses. Thus, it is possible for poachers to remove large numbers of Wood Turtles over a short time, resulting in significant and often permanent declines in the subpopulation. In one case, poachers removed over 50% of the adult turtles from a subpopulation in southwestern Ontario, resulting in a high likelihood of local extirpation over the short-term (reference suppressed as sensitive information). Only through intensive conservation intervention, including headstarting for over a decade, is this subpopulation beginning to recover (R. White pers. comm. 2018). Their curious, calm demeanor, terrestrial nature and colourful appearance make Wood Turtles attractive pets, and opportunistic collection by members of the public may also pose a serious risk to populations in areas with a high volume of human use (Garber and Burger 1995). Although illegal collection can be detrimental to subpopulations, with the potential for a single collection event to render a subpopulation non-viable, it is unlikely to affect a large portion of the Canadian population over the next 10 years, and was ranked as a low overall threat by the threats calculator.

Forestry

There is a paucity of information on the effects of forestry activities on Wood Turtles. The large scale-removal of forest cover (e.g., clear cutting) likely reduces habitat suitability for Wood Turtles, at least in the short term (Arvisais 2000; J. Crowley pers. comm. 2018). However, several studies have demonstrated that Wood Turtles readily use regenerating stands several years post-harvest (Arvisais 2000; Tingley and Herman 2008), suggesting that the effects of some harvest activities may be relatively short-lived. Forestry activities that occur within Wood Turtle habitat during the active season also have the potential to result in the direct mortality of turtles. This species is particularly susceptible to being struck and killed by heavy machinery (e.g., skidders) during forestry operations due to their preference for forested areas during the summer months, as well as their limited ability to evade heavy machinery. Ontario, Québec and Nova Scotia have developed guidance for forestry activities in Wood Turtle habitat, such as restricting activities during certain times of year (Environment Canada 2016). Although these practices help to reduce the likelihood of forestry-related impacts to Wood Turtles and their habitat, they do not completely eliminate this threat (J. Crowley pers. comm. 2018). Forestry roads, which can be pervasive throughout Wood Turtle habitat (J. Crowley pers. comm. 2018), also result in direct mortality to Wood Turtles (see Transportation and Service Corridors). Logging and wood harvesting were ranked as a low overall threat by the threats calculator.

Invasive and Other Problematic Species

Problematic native species

Predators of turtles and their eggs, such as Raccoon, Coyote, Striped Skunk, Red Fox, American Crow (Corvus brachyrhynchos), and Common Raven (Corvus corax), can occur at unnaturally high densities in human-altered landscapes, owing to increased access to food and other resources (Rosatte 2000; Phillips and Murray 2005). In areas with high densities of subsidized predators, nest predation rates can approach 100%, effectively eliminating recruitment (S. Gillingwater unpublished data). Several studies have documented high and potentially unsustainable rates of nest predation in Canadian Wood Turtle populations (Brooks et al.1991; Greaves 2007). Subsidized predators can also exert high predation pressure on hatchlings, juveniles and adults, and unusually high incidences of predation of adult Wood Turtles have been documented in multiple subpopulations across Canada (McCullum 2015; Environment Canada 2016; R. White unpublished data). For example, at a site in southern Ontario with a heavily subsidized Raccoon population, Raccoon predation resulted in the mortality of over 40 Wood Turtles (hatchlings, juveniles and adults) over a 2-year period (R. White unpublished data). This threat was ranked as having a low impact by the threats calculator.

Problematic species/diseases of unknown origin

Although few significant disease threats have been reported in Wood Turtle in Canada to date, there is growing concern that these may become a problem. Necrotic shell disease and ranavirus have been reported from one Ontario subpopulation; in 2018 the first case of herpes virus was documented in the same subpopulation (Litzgus pers. comm. 2018).

Residential and commercial development

Residential and commercial development can pose a significant threat to freshwater turtle populations, including the Wood Turtle, by directly removing the species’ habitat, as well as degrading and fragmenting shoreline and riparian areas on which Wood Turtles depend. However, the majority of Wood Turtle subpopulations in Canada occur in relatively remote areas or rural agricultural regions where residential and commercial development is limited. Consequently, this threat was ranked by the threats calculator as having a low impact.

Energy Production and Mining

Quarries (i.e., gravel and sand pits) can result in large-scale damage or destruction of Wood Turtle habitat through the direct removal of foraging and shelter habitat. Quarries may result in the creation of new nesting habitat, and Wood Turtles are known to nest in gravel and sand pits (e.g., Walde et al. 2007). However, when active, these quarries can create sink habitats for nesting females and their nests, which are at risk of mortality from heavy equipment. Although quarries can have a significant impact when they occur within Wood Turtle habitat, this threat will only affect a small portion of Wood Turtle subpopulations across Canada and, thus, was ranked by the threats calculator as having a low impact.

Natural systems modification

The large-scale modification of terrestrial habitat surrounding Wood Turtle streams, particularly through conversion to agricultural land uses or clear-cutting, can result in increased frequency and severity of flood events. Repeated flooding events can displace large portions of Wood Turtle subpopulations and increase mortality rates of displaced individuals (Jones and Sievert 2009). Winter flooding can cause the mortality of overwintering Wood Turtles (Norden 1999), while flooding during the active season can also result in the direct mortality of turtles, particularly hatchlings and juveniles, which can get trapped under water in debris. Wood Turtles nest within close proximity to streams, often using gravel and sand bars within the riparian zone (see Habitat Requirements), making their nests especially vulnerable to mortality from flooding (Compton 1999). The modification of terrestrial and riparian habitats surrounding streams, particularly the removal of forest cover, can lead to increased erosion and sedimentation of streams, degradation of water quality, and changes to stream temperature, chemistry, and biotic communities (Lenat 1984; Campbell and Doeg 1989; Davies and Nelson 1994). Wood Turtle subpopulations may be susceptible to many of these changes, particularly those that reduce the suitability of overwintering sites. This threat was ranked as low in the threats calculator.

Climate change and severe weather

As climate continues to warm, Canada is experiencing higher seasonal and daily temperatures, increases in the frequency and intensity of extreme weather events, changes to levels of precipitation, stream flow, and sea level, and several other atmospheric and hydrological changes (Warren and Lemmen 2014). Some of these changes are likely to negatively affect Wood Turtle subpopulations, particularly as these trends continue and extremes become more frequent. For example, flooding events can displace Wood Turtles, result in direct mortality of adults and juveniles, and reduce recruitment by flooding nesting habitat (see Natural systems modification). Reductions in stream flow, resulting from drought or reduced precipitation in some regions, may also affect the suitability of streams to support Wood Turtle subpopulations over the long-term. This threat was ranked by the threats calculator as having a low impact.

Human intrusion and disturbance

Increasing popularity of off-road vehicles (ATVs/trucks) and in particular their use along and through watercourses creates potential for disturbance to Wood Turtles throughout the year, particularly during nesting and hibernation. This is in part due to increased accessibility via growing networks of forestry roads, and is an issue across all jurisdictions. This threat was ranked by the threats calculator as having a low impact.

Limiting factors

Like most turtles, Wood Turtles are long-lived and vulnerable to acute and chronic increases in mortality of adults or older juveniles. Modelling studies suggest that a chronic annual increase in adult mortality rate as low as 1% can lead to extirpation of a population of Wood Turtles (Compton 1999). A southern Ontario Wood Turtle subpopulation experienced an acute poaching event in the mid-1990s that removed approximately 50% of the turtles (reference suppressed as sensitive information). PVA modelling using VORTEX indicates that without headstarting there was a 100% probability of extinction in 50 years (Mullin et al. n.d.). The subpopulation has been subjected to intensive intervention using a headstarting program since 2003. If the headstarting program ceased immediately (in 2018), or even 50 years after the start of the program (in 2053), there is still a 100% probability of extinction after 50 years (Mullin et al.n.d.). In addition, in 2017 and 2018, subsidized predation has increased mortality rates of wild adult and headstarted turtles, further impacting this already heavily managed subpopulation, and requiring implementation of a predator removal program (Litzgus pers. comm. 2018). In other turtle species with similar age of maturity and reproductive output, increases of 3-5% in annual rates of adult mortality can result in population declines (Enneson and Litzgus 2008, Spotted Turtle; Congdon et al.1993, Blanding’s Turtle).

Female Wood Turtles reproduce at most once per year, and lack the ability for compensatory recruitment if subpopulations decline (Brooks et al. 1991, 1992). Nesting success and survival of hatchlings over their first year are extremely low (usually between 0 - 30%) (Ernst and Lovich 2009). Over their entire lifespan, female Wood Turtles are likely to produce only a few offspring that survive to maturity.

Headstarting of hatchlings is underway in Ontario and Québec, but it will take several years for headstarting turtles to affect population trends (M. Malhiot pers. comm. 2004 in COSEWIC 2007; D. Mullin pers. comm. 2016). Headstarting programs on freshwater turtles, including Wood Turtles and Blanding's Turtles, are also underway in the United States; evaluations of these programs conclude that unless adult mortality is curbed, headstarting juveniles is ineffective as a conservation tool (Heppel et al. 1996; Spinks et al. 2003). Turtles have evolved in circumstances in which subpopulations experience high juvenile mortality but low adult mortality, and introducing large numbers of juveniles can only bolster a subpopulation if causes of adult mortality are rectified (Heppel et al. 1996; Spinks et al. 2003). Further, headstarted juveniles may be less vigorous, less acclimated to harsh wild conditions, or more accustomed to humans than their wild-born counterparts (Bolten et al. 1990; Spinks et al. 2003).

Number of locations

“Location” is defined by COSEWIC as a geographically or ecologically distinct area in which a single threatening event can rapidly affect all individuals of the taxon present. The size of the location depends on the area covered by the threatening event and may include part of one or many subpopulations (see COSEWIC 2016 for full definition).

Transportation and service corridors – roads in particular – were identified as the most significant threat to Wood Turtle in Canada. While roads and the risks associated with them are ubiquitous across most of the species’ range in Canada, as a threatening event, their impact on individuals/subpopulations is more local. The extent of that impact, in terms of long-term population viability, probably closely approaches the scale of most element occurrence records (EOs); counts of EOs were therefore used as a proxy for number of locations: 44(ON), 97(QC), 101(NB) and 122 (NS).

Protection, status and ranks

Legal protection and status

Internationally, Wood Turtle is listed in Part 1 of the Schedule to the Wild Animal and Plant Trade Regulations, made under the Wild Animal and Plant Protection and Regulation of International and Interprovincial Trade Act (S.C. 1992, c. 52) (WAPPRIITA), which controls the trade of species listed under the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES); this treaty requires an export permit for international trade in Wood Turtles.

Wood Turtle is listed as Threatened under the federal Species at Risk Act (SARA). SARA provides protection for individuals of threatened and endangered species, as well the areas that are identified as ‘critical habitat’ for those species. Critical habitat protection is generally only enforced on federal lands (e.g., military bases, national parks), although the federal government does have the ability to enforce critical habitat protection on provincial/private lands, if necessary. The SARA listing also necessitates the completion of a federal Recovery Strategy, which is currently being drafted. An Action Plan for the recovery of the species will be posted in or before 2021.

Wood Turtle is listed as Endangered on the Species at Risk in Ontario List under the Ontario Endangered Species Act, 2007 (ESA 2007). ESA provides protection for threatened and endangered species, as well as the habitat on which they depend, on all Crown and private land, but not on federal lands. Wood Turtle is also listed as a specially protected reptile under the Ontario Fish and Wildlife Conservation Act, which prohibits hunting, possessing, selling, purchasing, and taking of any listed such reptile for educational or scientific purposes except under the authority of a licence and subject to the regulations. Forestry activities within regulated habitat is regulate by the Crown Forest Sustainability Act. An Ontario recovery strategy was published in 2010, which was followed by the Government Response Statement later that year and a ‘five-year review’ in 2015.

In Québec, the Wood Turtle is listed as “Vulnerable” under the “Loi sur les espèces menacées ou vulnérables” (RLRQ, c E-12.01) (LEMV) (Act respecting threatened or vulnerable species) (CQLR, c E-12.01) (MRNF 2011) and is afforded protection under the “Loi sur la conservation et la mise en valeur de la faune” (RLRQ, c. C- 61.1) (LCMVF) (Act respecting the conservation and development of wildlife) (CQLR, c. C-61.1). Under article 26 of the LCMVF, it is illegal to disturb, destroy, or damage the eggs or nest of an animal. It is also prohibited to capture, hunt, and/or keep in captivity any species of turtles that are native to Québec. The aquatic habitat of Wood Turtles in Québec is also indirectly protected by Article 128.6 of this same act (LCMVF). Because the Wood Turtle is an also an aquatic species, the “Loi sur la qualité de l’environnement” (RLRQ, c. Q-2) (Environment Quality Act) (CQLR, c. Q-2) generally, and more specifically through the “Politique de protection des rives, du littoral et des plaines inondables” (RLRQ, c. Q-2, a. 2.1) (Protection Policy for Lakeshores, Riverbanks, Littoral Zones and Floodplains) (CQLR, c. Q-2, a. 2.1), protects this species’ aquatic habitat.

The Wood Turtle was listed as Threatened under the New Brunswick Species at Risk Act in 2013. The New Brunswick Species at Risk Act prohibits the killing, harming, harassment, collection, or sale of listed species and the protection of survival habitat. New Brunswick's Fish and Wildlife Act prohibits the collection, possession, and trade in all native vertebrate species. Forestry in New Brunswick is regulated by the Crown Lands and Forests Act on Crown lands. The New Brunswick Clean Water Act regulates activities within 30m of a watercourse, which helps protect the species’ habitat.

In Nova Scotia the Wood Turtle is listed as Threatened under the Nova Scotia Endangered Species Act, which prohibits killing or disturbing species at risk, destroying or disturbing residences, and destroying or disturbing core habitat. Forestry in Nova Scotia is regulated by the Forests Act.

Non-legal status and ranks

Internationally, Wood Turtle is considered Endangered (declining) by the International Union for the Conservation of Nature (IUCN). Its Global Rank is G3 (vulnerable). In the United States, the Wood Turtle is listed as N3 (vulnerable), and occurs (or occurred) in 19 states, where it ranges in rank from SH (presumed eliminated: 1 state + D.C.), S1 (critically imperilled: 1 state), S2 (imperilled: 6 states), S3 (vulnerable: 8 states), and S4 (apparently secure: 3 states) (Table 1). Note: these values include uncertainty ranges (e.g., S2S3).

^*G- Global; N- National; S- Sub-national; 1– Critically Imperilled; 2– Imperilled; 3- Vulnerable; 4- Apparently Secure; 5- Secure

Wood Turtle’s Canadian ranking is N3 (vulnerable), and its sub-national ranks in the provinces are S2 (imperilled: Ontario) and S3 (vulnerable: Québec, New Brunswick and Nova Scotia) (Table 1).

Habitat protection and ownership

Approximately 2% of Wood Turtle habitat is located inside national parks and ~8% is located inside provincial parks, nationwide.

Approximately 2% of Wood Turtle occupancy is located inside Canadian Forces bases [CFB Petawawa, CFB Valcartier, and CFB Gagetown]. Public access to military bases is restricted in most cases, but the public can access portions of some bases with approval. Military bases are federal lands and all provisions of SARA apply. The Canadian Forces have strict regulations and protocols for the protection of Species at Risk on their properties, and personnel typically avoid any activities that might harm or kill Wood Turtles or damage their habitat.

A limited amount of habitat is located inside conservation properties owned by the Nature Conservancy of Canada. These NCC properties are primarily located in Ontario and Québec; one additional property with known Wood Turtle sightings is located in New Brunswick. Additionally, several Protected Natural Areas on New Brunswick Crown Land contain Wood Turtle habitat, and at least one Nova Scotia Nature Trust property protects Wood Turtle habitat in Nova Scotia. Collectively, these protected habitats probably represent less than 1% of the total habitat.

Acknowledgements and authorities contacted

Information sources

Pierre-André Bernier
Biologist
Former Coordonnateur de l’équipe de rétablissement des tortues du Québec

Sean Blaney
Executive Director and Senior Scientist
Atlantic Canada Conservation Data Centre

Jim Bogart
Co-chair, Amphibians and Reptiles Specialist Sub-Committee
COSEWIC

Geneviève Bourget
Direction de la gestion de la faune du Bas-Saint-Laurent
Ministère des Forêts, de la Faune et des Parcs

Constance Browne
Amphibians and Reptiles Specialist Sub-Committee
COSEWIC

James Churchill
Data Manager
Atlantic Canada Conservation Data Centre

Daryl Coulson
Management Biologist - Pembroke District
Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources and Forestry

Joe Crowley
Herpetology Species at Risk Specialist
Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources and Forestry

Greg Cull
Management Biologist - Sault Ste. Marie District
Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources and Forestry

Christina Davy
Wildlife Research and Monitoring Section
Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources and Forestry

Pascale Dombrowski
Biologiste - Direction de la gestion de la faune Mauricie – Centre-du-Québec
Ministère des Forêts, de la Faune et des Parcs

Yohann Dubois
Président et trésorier de l’Équipe de rétablissement des tortues du Québec et Coordonnateur amphibiens et reptiles, Ministère des Forêts, de la Faune et des Parcs

Samara Eaton
Wildlife Biologist, Conservation Planning and Engagement Unit
Environment and Climate Change Canada

Chris Edge
Research Scientist
Natural Resources Canada – Canadian Forest Service

Mark Elderkin
Species at Risk Biologist
Nova Scotia Department of Natural Resources

Gabrielle Fortin
Biologiste, Ministère des Forêts, de la Faune et des Parcs

Isabelle Gauthier
Biologiste, Coordonnatrice provinciale des espèces fauniques menacées ou vulnérables, Ministère des Forêts, de la Faune et des Parcs

Paul Gelok
Acting Zone Ecologist for Algonquin
Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources and Forestry

Sylvain Giguère
Biologiste – Planification de la conservation
Environnement et Changement climatique Canada

Marie-Josée Goulet
Direction de la gestion de la faune Estrie-Montréal-Montérégie-Laval
Ministère des Forêts, de la Faune et des Parcs

Tom Herman
Co-chair, Amphibians and Reptiles Specialist Sub-Committee
COSEWIC

Jennifer Hoare
Algonquin Park Biologist
Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources and Forestry

Neil Jones
Scientific Project Officer & ATK Coordinator
COSEWIC

Allison Lake
Assistant Park Biologist, Algonquin Provincial Park
Ontario Parks

Jacqueline Litzgus
Professor - Department of Biology
Laurentian University

Denis Masse
Membre de l’Équipe de rétablissement des tortues du Québec
Parks Canada

Mhairi McFarlane
Conservation Science Manager - Ontario Region
Nature Conservancy of Canada

Jory Mullen
Lead Species at Risk Technician
Huron Stewardship Council

Damien Mullin
M.Sc. candidate
Laurentian University

Brian Naylor
Crown Forests and Lands Policy Branch
Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources and Forestry

Simon Pelletier
Membre de l’Équipe de rétablissement des tortues du Québec

Jean-Louis Provencher
Species at Risk Recovery Specialist
Parks Canada

Mary Sabine
Biologist - Species at Risk
Fish and Wildlife Branch - Energy and Resource Development

Jim Saunders
Crown Forests and Lands Policy Branch
Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources and Forestry

Maureen Toner
Biologist - Species at Risk
Fish and Wildlife Branch - Energy and Resource Development

Eric Tremblay
Park Biologist - New Brunswick North Field Unit
Parks Canada

Jim Trottier
Management Biologist - Algoma District
Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources and Forestry

Lauren Trute
Acting Algonquin Park Biologist
Ontario Parks

Rachel White
Species at Risk Stewardship Coordinator
Huron Stewardship Council

Information sources

Adams, J.D. 2002. An evaluation of Wood Turtle distribution in the northern Cape Breton ecosystem using traditional ecological knowledge. Unpublished report. Cape Breton Highlands National Park, Ingonish Beach, Nova Scotia.

Adams, J., D. Masse, and J.-C. Bourgeois. 2007. Impacts de la prédation par le raton laveur (Procyon lotor) sur les populations de tortues: emphase sur la population de tortues des bois (Glyptemys insculpta) de la rivière Shawinigan. Internal report, Ministère des Ressources Naturelles et de la Faune du Québec and Mauricie National Park, 49 pp.

Amato, M.L., R.J. Brooks, and J. Fu. 2008. A phylogeographic analysis of populations of the Wood Turtle (Glyptemys insculpta) throughout its range. Molecular Ecology 17:570-581.

Aresco, M.J. 2005. The effect of sex-specific terrestrial movements and roads on the sex ratio of freshwater turtles. Biological Conservation 123:37-44.

Arvisais, M. 2000. Caractérisation et sélection d’habitats à l’intérieur des domaines vitaux chez la tortue des bois (Clemmys insculpta) au nord de son aire de répartition, Québec, Canada. Master of Science thesis, Université du Québec à Trois-Rivières, Canada. 150 pp.

Arvisais, M., J.-C. Bourgeois, E. Levesque, C. Daigle, D. Masse, and J. Jutras. 2002. Home range and movements of a Wood Turtle (Clemmys insculpta) population at the northern limit of its range. Canadian Journal of Zoology 80:402-408.

Arvisais, M., E. Levesque, J.-C. Bourgeois, C. Daigle, D. Masse, and J. Jutras. 2004. Habitat selection by the Wood Turtle (Clemmys insculpta) at the northern limit of its range. Canadian Journal of Zoology 82:391-198.

Avise, J.C., B.W. Bowen, T. Lamb, A.B. Meylan, and E. Bermingham. 1992. Mitochondrial DNA evolution at a turtle’s pace: evidence for low genetic variability and reduced microevolutionary rate in the Testudines. Molecular Biology and Evolution 9:457-473.

Babcock, H.L. 1971. Turtles of the Northeastern United States. Dover Publications, Inc. New York. 105 pp.

Beaudry, F., P.G. deMaynadier, and M.L. Hunter Jr. 2008. Identifying road mortality threat at multiple spatial scales for semi-aquatic turtles. Biological Conservation 141: 2550-2563.

Bell, N., E. Conroy, K. Wheatley, B.Michaud, C. Maracle, J. Pelletier, B. Filion, and B. Johnson. 2010. The ways of knowing guide. Toronto Zoo. Gage Printing.

Bider, J.R., and S. Matte. 1994. Atlas des amphibians et des reptiles du Québec. Société d’histoire naturelle de la vallée du Saint-Laurent et ministère de l’Environnement et de la Faune du Québec. Québec. 106 pages.

Bishop, S.C. 1927. The Amphibians and Reptiles of Allegany State Park. The University of the State of New York, Albany. 139 pp.

Blomme, C., pers. comm. 2015. Conversations and email correspondence between C. Blomme and G. Hughes in 2015. Technologist at Laurentian University.

Bolten, A.B., H.R. Martins, M.L. Natali, J.C. Thome, and M.A. Marcovaldi. 1990. Loggerhead released in Brazil recaptured in Azores. Marine Turtle Newsletter, 48:24–25.

Bolton, R. 2007. Nesting behaviour and embryo hatching success in spiny softshells (Apalone spinifera). MSc thesis, University of Guelph. May 2007.

Bouchard, C., N. Tessier, W. Bertacchi, et F.-J. Lapointe. 2013. Caractérisation génétique de la population de tortues des bois (Glyptemys insculpta) du Bas-Saint-Laurent. Université de Montréal, ConservAction ACGT inc. Rapport présenté au ministère des Ressources naturelles, région du Bas-Saint-Laurent. Montréal. 32 p.

Bourgeois, J.-C., pers. comm. 2005. Email correspondence with R.J. Brooks, October 2005.

Bourgeois, J.-C., D. Masse, and N. Deshaies. 2004. Status of the Shawinigan River Wood Turtle Population. Unpublished report, 20 pp.

Bourget, G., pers. comm. 2017. Email correspondence with G. Hughes. Direction de la gestion de la faune du Bas-Saint-Laurent. Ministère des Forêts, de la Faune et des Parcs.

Boyd, N.J., and R.J. Brooks. 1998. Survey and Monitoring study for the Wood Turtle (Clemmys insculpta) in Ontario: 1998 Research project results. Dept of Zoology, University of Guelph. 31 pp.

Breckenridge, W.J. 1944. Reptiles and Amphibians of Minnesota. University of Minnesota Press, Minneapolis. 202 pp.

Brewer, P.C., pers. comm. 2004-2005. Email correspondence with T.S. Kraus and R.J. Brooks, August 2004 to October 2005. Wildlife artist, WildArt, Keswick, New Brunswick.

Brewster, K.N., and C.M. Brewster. 1986. Clemmys insculpta (Wood Turtle) ectoparasitism. Herpetological Review 17(2):48.

Brooks, R.J., pers. comm. 2004-2005. Discussions in person with T. Kraus. Professor, Department of Zoology, University of Guelph, Guelph, Ontario.

Brooks, R.J., and G.P. Brown. 1992. Population biology of the Wood Turtle, Clemmys insculpta, in the Madawaska River Drainage. 1991 progress report and proposal to the Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources, Algonquin District.

Brooks, R.J., G.P. Brown, and D.A. Galbraith. 1991. Effects of a sudden increase in natural mortality of adults on a population of the common snapping turtle (Chelydra serpentina). Canadian Journal of Zoology 69:1314-1320.

Brooks, R.J., C.M Shilton, C.P. Brown, and N.W.S. Quin. 1991. Body size, age distribution, and reproduction in a northern population of wood turtles (Clemmys insculpta). Canadian Journal of Zoology 70:462-469.

Brooks, R.J., D. Strickland, and R.J. Rutter. 2003. Reptiles and Amphibians of Algonquin Provincial Park. Friends of Algonquin. 48 pp.

Browne, C., pers. comm. 2018. Discussions in person with T. Herman, COSEWIC SSC Co-chair. Member, Amphibians and Reptiles Specialist Sub-Committee, COSEWIC.

Buhlmann, K.A., and C.P. Osborn. 2011. Use of an artificial nesting mound by wood turtles (Glyptemys insculpta): a tool for turtle conservation. Northeastern Naturalist 18(3):315-334.

Burghardt, G.M. 1998. The evolutionary origins of play revisited: lessons from turtles. Animal Play: Evolutionary, Comparative, and Ecological Perspectives. 26 pp.

Cameron, M., and R.J. Brooks. 2002. Maitland River Valley Wood Turtle Population Analysis. Report to the Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources. 45 pp.

Cameron, M., N. Goodenough, K. McNichols, and P. Wesley. 2002. Demography, home range and habitat utilization of Wood Turtles (Clemmys insculpta) in the Algoma District. 2002 Project Report for Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources, Sault Ste. Marie District. 26 pp.

Campbell, I.C., and T.J. Doeg. 1989. Impact of timber harvesting and production on streams: a review. Australian Journal of Marine and Freshwater Research 40: 519-539.

Churchill, J. 2016. Email correspondence with G. Hughes. Atlantic Canada Conservation Data Centre, Sackville, NB.

Collins, H., pers. comm. 2017. Email correspondence with G. Hughes.

Compton, B.W. 1999. Ecology and conservation of the Wood Turtle (Clemmys insculpta) in Maine. (MSc thesis) University of Maine. 91 pp.

Compton, B.W., J.M. Rhymer, and J. McCollough. 2002. Habitat selection by Wood Turtles (Clemmys insculpta). Herpetological Review 33(3):166.

Conant, R., and J.T. Collins. 1998. A Field Guide to Reptiles and Amphibians of Eastern and Central North America, 3rd edition, expanded. Houghton Mifflin Company. 616 pp.

Congdon, J.D., A.E. Dunham, and R.C. van Loben Sels. 1993. Delayed sexual maturity and demographics in Blanding’s turtles (Emydoidea blandingii: implications for conservation and management of long-lived organisms. Conservation Biology 7:826-833.

COSEWIC. Supplemental Information. (2007). COSEWIC status report on the Wood Turtle (Glyptemys insculpta) in Canada. Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada. Ottawa.

COSEWIC. 2016. COSEWIC definitions and abbreviations. Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife. Approved November 2016. Last accessed October 2018.

Coulson, D., pers. comm. 2004. Email correspondence and telephone conversation with T.S. Kraus. October 2004. Area Biologist, Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources, Pembroke District, Pembroke, Ontario.

Cross, J., R. Cross, D. Chartrand, and D.G. Thompson. in press. Characterizing Wood Turtle (Glyptemys insculpta) Populations at the Northwestern Periphery of the Species’ Range in Canada. Northeastern Naturalist.

Crowley, J., pers. comm. 2018. Discussions in person with T. Herman, COSEWIC SSC Co-chair. Herpetology Species at Risk Specialist, Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources and Forestry, Peterborough, Ontario.

Cull, G. 2016. Email correspondence with G. Hughes in September 2016. Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources and Forestry.

Daigle, C. 1996. Inventaires de la tortue des bois au Québec – rapport d’étape années 1994 et 1995. Ministère de l’Environnement et de la Faune du Québec. 15 pp.

Daigle, C. 1997. Size and characteristics of a Wood Turtle, Clemmys insculpta, population in southern Québec. Canadian Field-Naturalist 111:440-444.

Daigle, C., and J. Jutras. 2005. Quantitative evidence of decline in a southern Québec Wood Turtle (Glyptemys insculpta) population. Journal of Herpetology 39:130-132.

Daigle, C., pers. comm. 2005. Written comments emailed to T.S. Kraus via COSEWIC SSC Co-chair. February 2005. Technicien de la faune, Ministère des Ressources Naturelles, de la Faune et des Parcs du Québec, Québec, QC.

Davies, P.E., and M. Nelson. 1994. Relationships between Riparian Buffer Widths and the Effects of Logging on Stream Habitat, Invertebrate Community Composition and Fish Abundance. Australian Journal of Marine and Freshwater Research 45:1289-1305.

DeGraaf, R.M., and D.D. Rudis. 1983. Amphibians and Reptiles of New England: Habitats and Natural History. The University of Massachusetts Press, Amherst. 85 pp.

Desroches, J.-F., and D. Rodrigue. 2004. Amphibiens et Reptiles du Québec et des Maritimes. Éditions Michel Quintin, Waterloo, Québec. 288 pp.

Downey, A., pers. comm. 2016. Email correspondence with G. Hughes.

Dubois, Y. 2005 Conversations (several) and email correspondence with R.J. Brooks 2005. M.Sc. student, U. de Sherbrooke and Univ. Guelph.

Dubois, Y. 2006. Écologie thermique et sélection d’habitats chez la tortue des bois (Glyptemys insculpta) à la limite nord de sa distribution. M.Sc. Thesis, Université de Sherbrooke. 106 pp.

Dubois, Y., G. Blouin-Demers, and D. Thomas. 2008. Temperature selection in wood turtles (Glyptemys insculpta) and its implications for energetics. Ecoscience 15:398-406.

Dubois, Y., G. Blouin-Demers, B. Shipley, and D. Thomas. 2009. Thermoregulation and habitat selection in wood turtles: chasing the sun slowly. Journal of Animal Ecology 78:1023-1032.

Dubois, Y., pers. comm. 2017. Written comments to Amphibians and Reptiles SSC.

Elderkin, M., pers. comm. 2005. Email correspondence with R.J. Brooks, October 2005.

Enneson, J.J. and J.D. Litzgus. 2008. Using long-term survey data and a stage-classified matrix to assess conservation strategies for an endangered turtle (Clemmys guttata). Biological Conservation 141:1560-1568.

Environment Canada. 2016. Recovery Strategy for the Wood Turtle (Glyptemys insculpta) in Canada [Proposed]. Species at Risk Act Recovery Strategy Series. Environment Canada, Ottawa. v + 48 pp.

Équipe de rétablissement des tortues du Québec. 2005. Plan de rétablissement de cinq espèces de tortues au Québec: la tortue des bois (Glyptemys insculpta), la tortue géographique (Graptemys geographica), la tortue mouchetée (Emydoidea blandingii), la tortue musquée (Sternotherus odoratus) et la tortue ponctuée (Clemmys guttata). Ministère des Ressources naturelles et de la Faune Québec.

Erkila, K., and L. Keable. 2004. Sudbury District Wood Turtle Survey May 24th 2004 - July 30th, 2004. Unpublished report. 9 pages.

Ernst, C.H. 2001a. Some ecological parameters of the wood turtle, Clemmys insculpta, in southeastern Pennsylvania. Chelonian Conservation and Biology 4:94-99.

Ernst, C.H. 2001b. An overview of the North American turtle genus Clemmys Ritgen, 1828. Chelonian Conservation and Biology 4:211-216.

Ernst, C.H., and J.E. Lovich. 2009. Turtles of the United States and Canada (2nd edition). Johns Hopkins Univ. Press, Maryland. 840 pp.

Farmer, R.G. 2006. Factors associated with roadkill in southern Ontario parks. M.Sc. Thesis, University of Guelph.

Farrell, R.F., and T.E. Graham. 1991. Ecological notes on the Wood Turtle Clemmys insculpta in Northwestern New Jersey. Journal of Herpetology 25:1-9.

Featherstone, D., pers. comm. 2017. Email correspondence with G. Hughes.

Feldman, C.R., and J.F. Parham. 2002. Molecular Phylogenetics of Emydine Turtles: taxonomic revision and the evolution of shell kinesis. Molecular Phylogenetics and Evolution 22:388-398.

Forman, R.T.T., D. Sperling, J.A. Bissonette, A.P. Clevenger, C.D. Cutshall, V.H. Dale, L. Fahrig, R.L. France, C.R. Goldman, K. Heanue, J. Jones, F. Swanson, T. Turrentine and T.C. Winter. 2002. Road Ecology: Science and Solutions (2nd ed.). Island Press, Washington.

Foscarini, D.A., and R.J. Brooks. 1997. A proposal to standardize data collection and implications for management of the Wood Turtle, Clemmys insculpta, and other freshwater turtles in Ontario, Canada. In: J. Van Abbema (ed.). Proceedings: Conservation, Restoration, and Management of Tortoises and Turtles: an International Conference. New York Tortoise and Turtle Society. pp. 203-209.

Fridgen, C., L. Finnegan, C. Reaume, J. Cebek, J. Trottier, and P.J. Wilson. 2013. Conservation genetics of wood turtle (Glyptemys insculpta) populations in Ontario, Canada. Herpetological Conservation and Biology 8:351-358.

Gagné, C. 2008. Cartographie des menaces et cibles de conservation à l’échelle provinciale pour les populations de tortue des bois (Glyptemys insculpta) au Québec. Essay, Department of Geology and Geological Engineering, Laval University, vi+126 pp.

Galois, P., and J. Bonin. 1999. Rapport sur la situation de la tortue des bois (Clemmys insculpta) au Québec, Faune et Parcs Québec. Direction de la faune et des habitats, Québec, 45 pp.

Garber, S.D., and J. Burger. 1995. A 20-yr study documenting the relationship between turtle decline and human recreation. Ecological Applications 5:1151-1162.

Gibbs, J.P., and W.G. Shriver. 2002. Estimating the effects of road mortality on turtle populations. Conservation Biology 16:1647-1652.

Gibbs, J.P, and D.A. Steen 2005. The effect of sex-specific terrestrial movements and roads on the sex ratio of freshwater turtles. Conservation Biology 19:552-556.

Gilhen, J. 1984. Amphibians and Reptiles of Nova Scotia. Nova Scotia Museum, Halifax, N.S.

Gillingwater, S. Unpublished data on Spiny Softshell nest success and population structure in southwestern Ontario 1995 - present. Species at Risk Biologist. Upper Thames River Conservation Authority, London, ON.

Gillingwater, S., pers. comm. 2006. Written comments emailed to R.J. Brooks as part of review of 2007 Status Report.

Graf, A., J. Gilhen, and J.D. Adams. 2003. The Wood Turtle Glyptemys insculpta, at River Denys: A Second Population for Cape Breton Island, Nova Scotia. Canadian Field-Naturalist 117:415-418.

Graham, T.E., and J.E. Forsberg. 1991. Aquatic oxygen uptake by naturally wintering Wood Turtles Clemmys insculpta. Copeia 3:836-838.

Gravel et al. 2007. Population dynamics of wood turtles (Glyptemys insculpta) in the greater Kouchibouguac Ecosystem, New Brunswick. Final Report, Resource Conservation, Kouchibouguac National Park of Canada.

Greaves, W.F. 2007. A cold and harsh environment: demography and spatial ecology of a northern population of wood turtles (Glyptemys insculpta). M.Sc. thesis Laurentian University. 183 pp.

Greaves, W.F., and J.D. Litzgus. 2007. Overwintering ecology of wood turtles (Glyptemys insculpta) at the species' northern range. Journal of Herpetology 41:32-40.

Green, N.B., and T.K. Pauley. 1987. Amphibians and reptiles in West Virginia. University of Pittsburgh Press. 241 pp.

Giguère, S., M.-J. Côté and C. Daigle. 2011. Atlas des habitats potentiels de la tortue des bois (Glyptemys insculpta) au Québec (PDF). Environnement Canada, Service canadien de la faune – Région du Québec; ministère du Développement durable, de l’Environnement et des Parcs – Direction du patrimoine écologique et des parcs; ministère des Ressources naturelles et de la Faune – Direction de l’expertise sur la faune et ses habitats, Québec. Unpublished report. 21 pp. + 66 maps.

Harding, J.H. 1997. Amphibians and Reptiles of the Great Lakes Region. University of Michigan Press. Ann Arbor. 378 pp.

Harding, J.H., and T.J. Bloomer. 1979. The Wood Turtle, Clemmys insculpta a natural history. Herp. Bulletin. New York Herpetological Society 15:9-26.

Harding, J.H., and S.K. Davis. 1999. Clemmys insculpta (Wood Turtle) and Emydoidea blandingii (Blanding’s turtle). Hybridization. Herpetological Review 30:225-226.

Hawbaker, T.J., V.C. Radeloff, M.K. Clayton, R.B. Hammer, and C.E. Gonzalez- Abraham. Road development, housing growth, and landscape fragmentation in northern Wisconsin: 1937-1999. Ecological Applications 16:1222-1237.

Heppel, S.S., L.B. Crowder, and D.T. Crouse. 1996. Models to evaluate headstarting as a management tool for long-lied turtles. Ecological Applications 62:556-565.

Herman, T.B., pers. comm. 2018. Conversation with Amphibian and Reptile SSC. Biology Department, Acadia University, Wolfville, NS.

Holman, J.A., and U. Fritz. 2001. A new emydine species from the Middle Miocene (Barstovian) of Nebraska, USA with a new generic arrangement for the species of Clemmys sensu McDowell (1964) (Reptilia: Testudines: Emydidae). Zoologische Abhandlungen, Staatliches Museum fur Tierkunde Dresden. Band 51, Nr. 20.

Hughes, G.N., W.F. Greaves, and J.D. Litzgus. 2009. Nest-site selection by wood turtles (Glyptemys insculpta) in a thermally limited environment. Northeastern Naturalist 16:321-338.

Hughes, G.N. 2016. Navigating the thermal landscape: thermo-spatial ecology of wood turtles (Glyptemys insculpta) in the north. M.Sc. thesis Laurentian University. 124 pp.

Hughes, G.N., L. Monck-Whipp, and J.D. Litzgus. 2016. Glyptemys insculpta (wood turtle) potential anting behaviour. Herpetological Review 47(3):445-446.

Hunter, M.L. Jr., J. Albright, and J. Arbuckle, eds. 1992. The amphibians and reptiles of Maine. Maine Agricultural Research Station Bulletin no. 838.

Huron Stewardship Council. 2016 Wood Turtle (Glyptemys insculpta) Recovery Project - Summary Report 2016. Prepared by Jory Mullen, Rachel White, and Geoff Hughes. 62 pp.

Jones, M.T. 2009. Spatial ecology, population structure, and conservation of the Wood Turtle, Glyptemys insculpta, in central New England. University of Massachusetts Amherst.

Jones, M.T., and P.R. Sievert. 2009. Effects of Stochastic Flood Disturbance on Adult Wood Turtles, Glyptemys insculpta, in Massachusetts. Canadian Field Naturalist 123:313-323.

Kaufmann, J.H. 1989. The Wood Turtle stomp. Natural History 8:8-11.

Kaufmann, J.H. 1991. Clemmys insculpta (Wood Turtle) cleaning symbiosis. Herpetological Review 22(3):98.

Kaufmann, J.H. 1992a. Habitat use by Wood Turtles in central Pennsylvania. Journal of Herpetology 26(3):315-321.

Kauffman, J.H. 1992b. The social behavior of Wood Turtles, Clemmys insculpta, in central Pennsylvania. Bulletin Museum of Zoology, University of Florida.

Keable, L., and A. Cairns. 2004. Sudbury District Wood Turtle Survey. Cambrian College and Sudbury District Ministry of Natural Resources, unpublished report.

Kerr, J.T., and J. Cihlar. 2004. Patterns and causes of species endangerment in Canada. Ecological Applications 14:743-753.

Knudsen, R. 2004. Draft Summary of 2004 Northshore Area Wood Turtle Monitoring. Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources, unpublished data.

Lazell, J.D. Jr. 1976. This Broken Archipelago: Cape Cod and the Islands, Amphibians and Reptiles. Quadrangle/New York Times Book Co. 260 pp.

Lenat, D.R. 1984. Agriculture and stream water quality: A biological evaluation of erosion control practices. Environmental Management 8:333-343.

Litzgus, J.D., pers. comm. 2016. Correspondence and conversations with G. Hughes. Dept. of Biology, University of Sudbury.

Litzgus, J.D., pers. comm. 2018. Correspondence and conversations with T. Herman, Co-chair COSEWIC Amphibian and Reptile SSC. September 2018.

Litzgus, J.D., and R.J. Brooks. 1996. Status of the Wood Turtle, Clemmys insculpta, in Canada. Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada. 64 pp.

Lovich, J.E., C.H. Ernst, and J.F. McBreen. 1990. Growth, maturity, and sexual dimorphism in the wood turtle, Clemmys insculpta. Can. J. Zool. 68:672-677.

Malhiot, M., pers. comm. 2004. Email correspondence with T.S. Kraus. September 2004.

Marchand, K. 2015. Geographic variation in somatic growth rate of wood turtles (Glyptemys insculpta). B.Sc. thesis. Laurentian University. 42 pp.

Masse, D., pers. comm. 2005. Written comments emailed to T.S. Kraus via COSEWIC SSC Chair. February 2005. M.Sc. biol., Responsable de la gestion de la faune, Parc national de la Mauricie, Saint-Mathieu-du-Parc, QC.

Masse, D., J.-C. Bourgeois, and Y. Robitaille. In preparation. Bilan du suivi de la nidification de la tortue des bois (Glyptemys insculpta) à la rivière Shawinigan (1994-2004) et efficacité du programme de protection des nids. Parcs Canada et ministère des Ressources naturelles, de la Faune et des Parcs du Québec.

McAlpine, D. F., and S. H. Gerriets. 1999. Using the Internet to establish the status of an easily distinguished, vulnerable species, the Wood Turtle (Clemmys insculpta) in New Brunswick, Canada. Herpetological Review 30(3):139-140.

McCauley, R.H. Jr. 1945. The Reptiles of Maryland and the District of Columbia. Published by the author, Hagerstown. 194 pp.

McCullum, D.L. 2015. Wood Turtle Mortality: Corvidae Predation? Platform presentation at the Canadian Herpetological Society Conference, St. John, NB.

McCullum, D., pers. comm. 2016. Email correspondence between D. McCullum and G. Hughes.

McCurdy, D.G., and T.B. Herman. 1997. Putative anting behavior in Wood Turtles. Herpetological Review 28(3):127-128.

MRNF [Ministère des Ressources Naturelles et de la Faune du Québec]. 2007. Protection des espèces menacées et vulnérables en forêt publique. La tortue des bois (Glyptemys insulpta). Secteur Faune Québec, Direction du développement de la faune et Secteur Forêt Québec, Direction de l'environnement forestier. 15 pp.

Mitchell, J., S.R. de Solla, and R.J. Brooks. 1997. Survey and monitoring study for the Wood Turtle (Clemmys insculpta) in Ontario. Dept. of Zoology, University of Guelph.

Montiel, E.E., D. Badenhorst, J. Tamplin, R.L. Burke, and N. Valenzuela. 2016. Discovery of the youngest sex chromosomes reveals first case of convergent co-option of ancestral autosomes in reptiles. Chromosoma 2016:1-9.

Mui, A.B., C.B. Edge, J.E. Paterson, B. Caverhill, J.D. Litzgus, B. Johnson, and Y. He. 2016. Nesting sites in agricultural landscapes are a potential sink for Blanding’s turtle (Emydoidea blandingii) populations. Canadian Journal of Zoology94:61-67.

Mullen, J., pers. comm. 2016. Conversations between J. Mullen and G. Hughes. Huron Stewardship Council.

Mullin, D. 2016. Conversations and email correspondence between D. Mullin and G. Hughes. M.Sc. Candidate at Laurentian University.

Mullin, D.I., R.C. White, J.L. Mullen, and J.L. Litzgus. n.d. Cameron & Brooks (2002) Population Viability Analyses, recreated using VORTEX.

Natural Heritage Information Centre. 2005. (Reference for Québec occurrences) Natural Heritage Information Centre. 2004a. Element Occurrence Summary: Glyptemys insculpta. Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources, Peterborough. 7 pp.

Natural Heritage Information Centre. 2004b. Element Report: Glyptemys insculpta. Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources, Peterborough. 7 pp.

NatureServe. 2016. NatureServe Explorer: An online encyclopedia of life [web application]. Version 3.1. NatureServe, Arlington, Virginia. (Accessed October 4, 2016).

NatureServe. 2018. NatureServe Explorer: An online encyclopedia of life [web application]. Version 7.1. NatureServe, Arlington, Virginia. (Accessed: September 11, 2018).

New Brunswick Energy and Resource Development / Développement de l’Énergie et des Ressources. 2018. Unpublished data.

Norden, A.W. 1999. Flood induced winter mortality of wood turtles (Clemmys insculpta LeConte) in Maryland. The Maryland Naturalist 43:3-4.

Obbard, M.E. 1985. A status report for the Wood Turtle (Clemmys insculpta) in Ontario. For Wildlife Branch, Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources. 43 pp.

Ohta T., and M. Kimura.1973. A model of mutation appropriate to estimate the number of electrophoretically detectable alleles in a finite population. Genet Res. 22:201-204.

Oldham, M.J. 1998. COSSARO Candidate V, T, E species evaluation form for Wood Turtle (Clemmys insculpta). Natural Heritage Information Centre, Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources, Peterborough. 5 p.

Oldham, M.J., pers. comm. 2007. Email correspondence to R.J. Brooks Sept. 10, 2007.

Parren, S.G., and M.A. Rice. 2004. Terrestrial overwintering of hatchling turtles in Vermont nests. Northeasthern Naturalist 11:229-233.

Paterson, J.E., B.D. Steinberg, and J.D. Litzgus. 2012. Revealing a cryptic life-history stage: differences in habitat selection and survivorship between hatchlings of two turtle species at risk (Glyptemys insculpta and Emydoidea blandingii). Wildlife Research 39:408-418.

Paterson, J.E., B.D. Steinberg, and J.D. Litzgus. 2014. Effects of body size, habitat selection, and exposure on hatchling survival. Journal of Zoology 294:278-285.

Peiman, K., and R.J. Brooks. 2003. Wood Turtle (Clemmys insculpta) demography, home range, nesting and habitat utilization in the Algoma District and Sault Ste. Marie. Final Project Report for the Ministry of Natural Resources. February 2003. Department of Zoology, University of Guelph. 78 pp.

Phillips, J. and D. Murray. 2005. Raccoon (Procyon lotor) population demographics in Point Pelee National Park and implications for the management of turtle species at risk. Unpublished report to Point Pelee National Park, Parks Canada. 49 pp.

Powell, C.B. 1967. Female sexual cycles of Chrysemys picta and Clemmys insculpta in Nova Scotia. Canadian Field-Naturalist 81:134-140.

Quinn, N.W.S., and D.P. Tate. 1991. Seasonal movements and habitat of Wood Turtles (Clemmys insculpta) in Algonquin Park, Canada. Journal of Herpetology 25:217-220.

Rosatte, R.C. 2000. Management of raccoons (Procyon lotor) in Ontario, Canada: do human intervention and disease have significant impact on raccoon populations? Mammalia 64:369-390.

Rosenbaum, P.A., J.M. Robinson, and K.R. Zamudio. 2007. Unexpectedly low genetic divergences among populations of the threatened bog turtle (Glyptemys muhlenbergii). Conservation Genetics 8:331-342.

Ross, D.A., R.K. Anderson, C.M. Brewster, K.N. Brewster, and N. Ratner. 1991. Aspects of the ecology of Wood Turtles (Clemmys insculpta) in Wisconsin. Canadian Field-Naturalist 195:363-367.

Roy-McDougall, V. 2010. Habitat selection by wood turtles in central New Brunswick. M.Sc. thesis. University of New Brunswick.

Saumure, R.A. 1997. Growth, mutilation and age structure of two populations of Wood Turtle (Clemmys insculpta) in southern Québec. CAH/ACH Bulletin 11(1):18-19.

Saumure, R.A. 2004. Spatial ecology and conservation of the North American Wood Turtle (Glyptemys insculpta) in a fragmented agri-forest landscape. Ph.D. thesis, Department of Natural Resource Sciences, McGill University.

Saumure R.A., and J.R. Bider. 1996. Clemmys insculpta (Wood Turtle) ectoparasites. Herpetological Review 27(4):197-198.

Saumure, R.A. and J.R. Bider. 1998. Impact of agricultural development on a population of Wood Turtles (Clemmys insculpta) in Southern Québec, Canada. Chelonian Conservation and Biology 3:37-45.

Saumure, R.A., T.B. Herman, and R.D. Titman. 2007. Effects of haying and agricultural practices on a declining species: the North American wood turtle, Glyptemys insculpta. Biological Conservation 135:656-575.

Seburn, D. 1996. Loved to death. Seasons. Spring p. 16-21.

Seburn, C.N.L. 1997. Ontario Recovery Plan for Wood Turtle (Clemmys insculpta). Draft. Seburn Ecological Services for COSSARO, Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources.

Seburn, D., and C. Seburn. 2000. Conservation priorities for the amphibians and reptiles of Canada. World Wildlife Fund Canada and the Canadian Amphibian and Reptile Conservation Network.

Seburn, D.C., and C.N.L. Seburn. 2004. Ontario Recovery Strategy for Wood Turtle (Glyptemys insculpta) Phase Two. Seburn Ecological Services for Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources. 38 pp.

Shaffer, L.L. 1991. Pennsylvania amphibians and reptiles. Pennsylvania Fish Commission. 161 pp.

Smith, K.A. 2002. Demography and spatial ecology of Wood Turtles (Clemmys insculpta) in Algonquin Provincial Park. M.Sc. Thesis, University of Guelph.

Smith, K.A. pers. comm. 2002. Discussions with T.S. Kraus. May to October, 1999 and 2000. M.Sc. Candidate, University of Guelph, Guelph, Ontario.

Spinks, P.Q., G.B. Pauly, J.J. Crayon, and H.B. Shaffer. 2003. Survival of the western pond turtles (Emys marmorata) in an urban California environment. Biological Conservation 113:257-267.

Steen, D.A., and J.P. Gibbs. 2002. Effects of roads on the structure of freshwater turtle populations. Conservation Biology 18:1143-1148.

Steen, D.A. et al. (+ 18 authors). 2006. Relative vulnerability of female turtles to road mortality. Animal Conservation 9:269-273.

Tamplin, J. 2006. Response of hatchling wood turtles (Glyptemys insculpta) to an aquatic thermal gradient. J. Therm. Bio. 31:400-405.

Tamplin, J. 2009. Effect of age and body size on selected temperature by juvenile wood turtles (Glypetmys insculpta). J. Therm. Bio. 34:41-48.

Taylor,B., A. Fenech, R. Hansell, and G. Whitelaw. 2001. Major road changes in southern Ontario 1935-1995. In: D. MacIver and H. Auld (eds). 2001. Integrated Mapping Assessment Project (IMAP): Proceedings of the Workshop January, 2000. Environment Canada. Toronto, Ontario, Canada

Tessier, N., and J-F. Lapointe. 2002. Caractérisation génétique et conservation des populations de la tortue des bois (Clemmys insculpta) au Québec. Université de Montréal, Département de sciences biologiques, Montréal, 46 pages. Rapport non publié.

Tessier, N., S.R. Paquette, and F.-J. Lapointe. 2005. Conservation genetics of the Wood Turtle (Glyptemys insculpta) in Québec, Canada. Canadian Journal of Zoology 83:765-772.

Thomas, M.L.H., ed. 1983. Marine and coastal systems of the Quoddy Region, New Brunswick. Department of Fisheries and Oceans Canada, Ottawa.

Thompson, F.G. 1953. Further evidence of the occurrence of the Wood Turtle, Clemmys insculpta (Le Conte) in Northeastern Ohio. Herpetologica 9:74.

Thompson, D.G., T. Swystun, J. Cross, R.L. Cross, D. Chartrand, and C.B. Edge. 2018. Fine- and coarse-scale movements and habitat use by Wood Turtles (Glyptemys insculpta) based on probabilistic modeling of radio- and GPS-telemetry data. Canadian Journal of Zoology. DOI: doi.org/10.1139/cjz-2017-0343

Tingley, R., and T.B. Herman. 2008. The effects of agriculture and forestry on the distribution, movements and survival of wood turtles in an intensively managed landscape. Report to the Nova Scotia Habitat Conservation Fund.

Tinkelpaugh, O. 1932. Maze learning of a turtle. Journal of Comparative Psychology 13:201-206.

Trochu, K. 2004. Écologie et conservation d’une population de tortues des bois (Clemmys insculpta) en Outaouais (Québec, Canada). M.Sc. Université du Québec à Rimouski, Rimouski. 122 pp.

Trombulak, S.C. and C.A. Frissell. 2000. Review of ecological effects of roads on terrestrial and aquatic communities. Conservation Biology 14:18-30.

Trottier, J., pers. comm. 2016. Email correspondence with J. Trottier in September 2016. Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources.

Trute, L., pers. comm. 2005. Written comments emailed to T. S. Kraus via COSEWIC SSC Chair. February 2005. Biologist, Ministry of Natural Resources, Pembroke District, Pembroke, Ontario.

Trute, L., pers. comm. 2017. Written and phone correspondence with G. Hughes. April and May 2017. Biologist, Ministry of Natural Resources, Pembroke District, Pembroke, Ontario.

Trute, L. unpublished data on Wood Turtle mortality on forestry roads in Ontario. Biologist, Ministry of Natural Resources, Pembroke District, Pembroke, Ontario.

Trute, L., D. Coulson, and T. Haxton. 2004. Recommended Forest Management Practices for the Protection of Wood Turtles in Ontario. Draft. Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources.

Walde, A.D. 1998. Nesting ecology and hatchling success of the Wood Turtle, Clemmys insculpta. M.Sc. thesis, Department of Natural Resource Sciences, McGill University, Montréal, Canada.

Walde, A.D., J.R. Bider, C. Daigle, D. Masse, J.-C. Bourgeios, J. Jutras, and R.D. Titman. 2003. Ecological aspects of a Wood Turtle, Glyptemys insculpta, population at the northern limit of its range in Québec. Canadian Field-Naturalist 117:377-388.

Walde, A.D., J.R. Bider, D. Masse, R.A. Saumure and R.D. Titman. 2007. Nesting ecology and hatching success of the Wood Turtle, Glyptemys insculpta, in Québec. Herpetological Conservation and Biology 2:49-60.

Warren, F.J., and D.S. Lemmen. Editors. 2014. Canada in a Changing Climate: Sector Perspectives on Impacts and Adaptation. Government of Canada, Ottawa, ON, 286pp.

Wesley, P.A. 2007. Written and email communications Feb. 2007.

Wesley, P.A. 2006. Local and regional scale habitat selection by Wood Turtles (Glyptemys insculpta) in Ontario. M.Sc. Thesis, University of Guelph.

Wesley, P., M. Amato, and R.J. Brooks. 2004. Demography and ecology of Wood Turtles (Glyptemys insculpta) in Western Algoma District: 2004 Project report for the Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources. 39 pp.

Wesley, P., and R.J. Brooks. 2005. A comprehensive study of stream and local scale habitat by Wood Turtles (Glyptemys insculpta) at the northern limit of their range. Report to the Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources. 20 pp.

White, R., pers. comm. 2016. Email and in-person communication with G. Hughes during Hughes' employment with Huron Stewardship Council. September 2016 to January 2017. Stewardship Coordinator, Huron Stewardship Council.

White, R., pers. comm. 2018. Email correspondence between J. White and J. Crowley (COSEWIC amphibian and reptile subcommittee) in August 2018. County Biologist / Stewardship Coordinator, Huron County, Ontario.

White, R. Unpublished data on Wood Turtle nesting ecology and predation rates in southwestern Ontario. County Biologist / Stewardship Coordinator, Huron County, Ontario.

White, T.B. 2013. In the cold and near the edge: hypoxia tolerance, seasonal site fidelity, and communal hibernation in a peripheral population of wood turtles (Glyptemys insculpta). M.Sc. thesis. Acadia University. 152 pp.

Biographical summary of report writers

Geoffrey Hughes completed his Honour’s Bachelor of Science at Laurentian University in 2007, with a specialization in Wildlife and Habitat Ecology; he wrote his undergraduate thesis on the nest-site selection of Wood Turtles in northern Ontario. He also received a Graduate Diploma in Science Communication from Laurentian University in 2008. Geoffrey then spent the next eight years working for research projects and performing science outreach for universities, not-for-profits, and environmental consulting firms, primarily with SAR reptiles in Ontario. In 2014, he began a Master’s thesis on the thermal ecology of Wood Turtles, working on the same population that he studied for his undergraduate thesis, graduating in 2016.

Appendix 1. threats calculator

Threats assessment worksheet

Species or ecosystem scientific name:

Glyptemys insculpta

Element ID:

180751

Elcode:

Not applicable

Date:

2017-04-13

Assessor(s):

Kristiina Ovaska (facilitator), Geoffrey Hughes (status report writer); provincial jurisdictions: Mary Sabine (NB), Maureen Toner (NB), Gabrielle Fortin (QC), Lauren Trute (ON), Alison Lake (ON), Jim Trottier (ON), Paul Gelok (ON), Jenn Hoare (ON); federal jurisdictions: Eric Tremblay (PC), Daniel Gallant (PC), Deanna McCullum (DND), Sylvain Giguère (CWS), Jean-Louis Provencher (PC); Other: Rachel White (Huron Stewardship Council); Amphibians and Reptiles SSC: Tom Herman (Co-chair), Connie Browne, Joe Crowley, Chris Edge, Jackie Litzgus; COSEWIC Secretariat: Bev McBride

References:

Draft COSEWIC status report (Jan2017)

Assigned overall threat impact:

B = High

Impact adjustment reasons:

Not applicable

Overall threat comments:

Assumptions: Generation time 35 years.

 

Assessments, particularly for i) Agriculture (annual & perennial non-timber crops), ii) Roads, and iii) Problematic native species are considered by some reviewers to be overly conservative.