{"elementGlobalId":105196,"circumscripConfidence":{"id":1,"circumscripConfidenceDescEn":"1 - Strong","circumscripConfidenceDescEs":"1 - Fuerte","circumscripConfidenceDescFr":"1 – Forte"},"classificationLevel":{"id":7,"classificationLevelNameEn":"Species","classificationLevelNameEs":"Especies","classificationLevelNameFr":"Espèce"},"classificationStatus":{"id":1,"classificationStatusDescEn":"Standard","classificationStatusDescEs":"Estándar","classificationStatusDescFr":"Standard"},"iucn":{"id":5,"iucnDescEn":"Vulnerable","iucnDescEs":"Vulnerable","iucnDescFr":"Vulnérable","iucnCode":"VU"},"nameCategory":{"id":1,"nameCategoryDescEn":"Vertebrate Animal","nameCategoryDescEs":"Animal vertebrado","nameCategoryDescFr":"Animal vertébré","nameTypeCd":"A","nameTypeDesc":"Zoological"},"rankMethodUsed":{"id":7,"rankMethodUsedDescEn":" Rank calculation - Biotics v2","rankMethodUsedDescEs":null,"rankMethodUsedDescFr":null,"rankMethodUsedExternalDescEn":"Ranked by calculator","rankMethodUsedExternalDescEs":null,"rankMethodUsedExternalDescFr":null},"formattedScientificName":"Gopherus polyphemus","scientificName":"Gopherus polyphemus","scientificNameAuthor":"(Daudin, 1802)","primaryCommonName":"Gopher Tortoise","relatedItisNames":"Gopherus polyphemus (Daudin, 1802) (TSN 173858)","uniqueId":"ELEMENT_GLOBAL.2.105196","elcode":"ARAAF01030","conceptRefFullCitation":"King, F. W., and R. L. Burke, editors. 1989. Crocodilian, tuatara, and turtle species of the world: a taxonomic and geographic reference. Association of Systematics Collections, Washington, D.C. 216 pp.","conceptName":"Gopherus polyphemus","taxonomicComments":"Auffenberg (1976), Bramble (1982), Crumly (1987, 1994), and Lamb and Lydeard (1994) provided information on phylogenetic relationships among tortoises of the genus Gopherus, which comprises four living species and nine fossil taxa. A recent study of phylogeny based on mtDNA variation identified the four living North American tortoises as a monophyletic group consisting of two well-defined clades, the agassizii clade and the polyphemus clade (Lamb and Lydeard 1994). MtDNA and osteological data indicate that G. polyphemus is more closely related to G. flavomarginatus of Mexico than it is to the other two species of Gopherus. Gopherus polyphemus is only slightly distinct from G. flavomarginatus based on allozymes (Morafka et al. 1994).

Using mtDNA, Osentoski (1993) assessed rangewide genetic variation and found three major assemblages: (1) a western assemblage consisting of seven haplotypes (Louisiana eastward to Taylor County, Florida, and along the Chattahoochee River drainage north to Talbot County, Georgia); (2) an eastern assemblage containing the two most common haplotypes (South Carolina through peninsular Florida) and (3) a mid-Florida assemblage consisting of seven haplotypes (along the Gulf coast from southern Levy County north to Pinellas County, then east to north of the Hillsborough River, and northeast into Orange/Osceola counties).","roundedGRank":"G3","conservationStatusFactorsEditionDate":"2025-06-10","conservationStatusFactorsEditionAuthors":"Gundy, R. L. (2025)","primaryCommonNameLanguage":"EN","recordType":"SPECIES","elementNationals":[{"elementNationalId":167583,"classifConfidence":null,"nation":{"id":225,"nameEn":"United States","nameEs":"Estados Unidos","nameFr":"États-Unis","isoCode":"US","region":"United States"},"roundedNRank":"N3","elementSubnationals":[{"elementSubnationalId":277681,"subnation":{"id":2,"nameEn":"Alabama","nameEs":"Alabama","nameFr":"Alabama","subnationCode":"AL","dnationId":225},"roundedSRank":"S3","dataSensitive":{"id":2,"dataSensitiveDescEn":"No","dataSensitiveDescEs":null,"dataSensitiveDescFr":null,"dataSensitiveCode":"N"},"dataSensitiveCategory":null,"srank":"S3","speciesSubnational":{"elementSubnationalId":277681,"hybrid":false,"exotic":false,"native":true}},{"elementSubnationalId":286349,"subnation":{"id":32,"nameEn":"Mississippi","nameEs":"Mississippi","nameFr":"Mississippi","subnationCode":"MS","dnationId":225},"roundedSRank":"S1","dataSensitive":{"id":1,"dataSensitiveDescEn":"Yes","dataSensitiveDescEs":null,"dataSensitiveDescFr":null,"dataSensitiveCode":"Y"},"dataSensitiveCategory":{"id":4,"dataSensitiveCategoryDescEn":"Fragile species or habitat","dataSensitiveCategoryDescEs":null,"dataSensitiveCategoryDescFr":null,"nsStandardInd":true},"srank":"S1","speciesSubnational":{"elementSubnationalId":286349,"hybrid":false,"exotic":false,"native":true}},{"elementSubnationalId":303558,"subnation":{"id":12,"nameEn":"Florida","nameEs":"Florida","nameFr":"Floride","subnationCode":"FL","dnationId":225},"roundedSRank":"S3","dataSensitive":{"id":2,"dataSensitiveDescEn":"No","dataSensitiveDescEs":null,"dataSensitiveDescFr":null,"dataSensitiveCode":"N"},"dataSensitiveCategory":null,"srank":"S3","speciesSubnational":{"elementSubnationalId":303558,"hybrid":false,"exotic":false,"native":true}},{"elementSubnationalId":281680,"subnation":{"id":48,"nameEn":"South Carolina","nameEs":"Carolina del Sur","nameFr":"Caroline du Sud","subnationCode":"SC","dnationId":225},"roundedSRank":"S1","dataSensitive":{"id":3,"dataSensitiveDescEn":"Conditional","dataSensitiveDescEs":null,"dataSensitiveDescFr":null,"dataSensitiveCode":"C"},"dataSensitiveCategory":{"id":3,"dataSensitiveCategoryDescEn":"Land Owner Restrictions","dataSensitiveCategoryDescEs":null,"dataSensitiveCategoryDescFr":null,"nsStandardInd":true},"srank":"S1","speciesSubnational":{"elementSubnationalId":281680,"hybrid":false,"exotic":false,"native":true}},{"elementSubnationalId":345980,"subnation":{"id":23,"nameEn":"Louisiana","nameEs":"Louisiana","nameFr":"Louisiane","subnationCode":"LA","dnationId":225},"roundedSRank":"S1","dataSensitive":{"id":2,"dataSensitiveDescEn":"No","dataSensitiveDescEs":null,"dataSensitiveDescFr":null,"dataSensitiveCode":"N"},"dataSensitiveCategory":null,"srank":"S1","speciesSubnational":{"elementSubnationalId":345980,"hybrid":false,"exotic":false,"native":true}},{"elementSubnationalId":395401,"subnation":{"id":14,"nameEn":"Georgia","nameEs":"Georgia","nameFr":"Géorgie","subnationCode":"GA","dnationId":225},"roundedSRank":"S3","dataSensitive":{"id":2,"dataSensitiveDescEn":"No","dataSensitiveDescEs":null,"dataSensitiveDescFr":null,"dataSensitiveCode":"N"},"dataSensitiveCategory":null,"srank":"S3","speciesSubnational":{"elementSubnationalId":395401,"hybrid":false,"exotic":false,"native":true}}],"nrankReviewYear":1996,"nrank":"N3","speciesNational":{"elementNationalId":167583,"exotic":false,"native":true}}],"lastModified":"2026-10-02T21:45:46.826094Z","lastPublished":"2026-10-02T21:32:08.892226Z","promotionalDescription":null,"conceptLineageSummary":null,"nsxUrl":"/Taxon/ELEMENT_GLOBAL.2.105196/Gopherus_polyphemus","grankAdjustmentReasons":null,"grankChangeDate":"1996-03-20","grankReviewDate":"2025-06-10","grankReasons":"This species is endemic to the southeastern U.S. from South Carolina to Louisiana. The population has undergone 80% decline in last 100 years. It continues to decline due to habitat loss, habitat degradation, and disease. Development, agriculture, conversion to pine plantation, and fire exclusion are the primary threats.","grank":"G3","rankInfo":{"elementGlobalId":105196,"aooPercentGood":null,"enviromentalSpecificity":{"id":5,"enviromentalSpecificityDescEn":"Narrow. Specialist or community with key requirements common.","enviromentalSpecificityDescEs":"Estrecho. Especialista o comunidad con requisitos claves comunes.","enviromentalSpecificityDescFr":"Étroit. Spécialistes ou communautés répondant aux critères clés sont répandues."},"intrinsicVulnerability":{"id":1,"intrinsicVulnerabilityDescEn":"Highly vulnerable","intrinsicVulnerabilityDescEs":"Altamente vulnerable","intrinsicVulnerabilityDescFr":"Très vulnérable"},"longTermTrend":{"id":10,"longTermTrendDescEn":"Decline of 80-90%","longTermTrendDescEs":"Disminución del 80-90%.","longTermTrendDescFr":"Diminution de 80 à 90 %"},"numberEos":{"id":15,"numberEosDescEn":"> 300","numberEosDescEs":"> 300","numberEosDescFr":"> 300"},"numberGoodEos":{"id":21,"numberGoodEosDescEn":"Very many (>125)","numberGoodEosDescEs":"Muchos (>125)","numberGoodEosDescFr":"Beaucoup (>125)"},"numberProtEos":{"id":15,"numberProtEosDescEn":"Very many (>40) occurrences appropriately protected and managed","numberProtEosDescEs":"Muchas ocurrencias (>40) protegidas y controladas adecuadamente","numberProtEosDescFr":"Beaucoup d’occurrences (>40) protégées et contrôlées convenablement"},"popSize":{"id":35,"popSizeDescEn":"100,000 to >1,000,000 individuals","popSizeDescEs":"De 100.000 a >1.000.000 de individuos","popSizeDescFr":"De 100 000 à >1 000 000 individus"},"rangeExtent":{"id":33,"rangeExtentDescEn":"200,000-2,500,000 square km (about 80,000-1,000,000 square miles)","rangeExtentDescEs":"200.000 a 2.500.000 kilómetros cuadrados (aproximadamente 80.000 a 1.000.000 millas cuadradas)","rangeExtentDescFr":"De 200 000 à 2 500 000 km carrés (de 80 000 à 1 000 000 miles carrés approximativement)"},"shortTermTrend":{"id":31,"shortTermTrendDescEn":"Decline of 30-50%","shortTermTrendDescEs":"Disminución del 30 al 50%.","shortTermTrendDescFr":"Diminution de 30 à 50 %"},"threatImpactAssigned":{"id":1,"threatImpactAssignedDescEn":"Very high","threatImpactAssignedDescEs":"Muy alto","threatImpactAssignedDescFr":"Très élevé"},"rangeExtentComments":"This species is endemic to the southeastern United States. The range extends from southern South Carolina south through southern Georgia to southern Florida, west through southern Alabama, southeastern Mississippi, and extreme eastern Louisiana (Diemer 1989, Clark et al. 2001, Gaillard et al. 2017, Krysko et al. 2019). Using Global Biodiversity Information Facility (GBIF) (2025) records from 2005-2025, range extent is estimated to be 495,422 km² (RARECAT 2025).","areaOfOccupancy":null,"areaOfOccupancyComments":"It is most common in northern and central Florida, and southern Georgia (Diemer 1989, Krysko et al. 2019). This species is widespread in Florida including nearshore islands, though it is generally absent from the southernmost interior portion of the peninsula and the Florida Keys (Logan 1981, Kushlan and Mazzotti 1984, Mushinsky and McCoy 1994, Krysko et al. 2019). It is scattered in Georgia and southern Alabama, and occasional in Mississippi, Louisiana, and South Carolina. In Georgia, large populations occur in the western Fall Line Sand Hills and the central Tifton Uplands (Landers and Garner 1981). The largest remaining population in Mississippi is in Desoto National Forest (Lohoefener and Lohmeier 1984). A few populations remain at the western edge of the range in eastern Louisiana (Gaillard et al. 2017). At the northern end of the range in South Carolina, it is found in five counties (Wright 1982, Clark et al. 2001, USFWS 2022). For detailed range maps, see Iverson (1992) and Gaillard et al. (2017).","numberEosComments":"There are many hundreds of occurrences throughout the range.","popSizeComments":"The population undoubtedly consists of several hundred thousand individuals and may exceed one million (USFWS 2021).","viabilityComments":"Many occurrences, especially in Florida and Georgia, have good viability.","threatImpactComments":"Habitat loss and habitat degradation are the primary threats impacting this species. Habitat loss occurred throughout the range due to residential development, commercial development, conversion to agriculture, and conversion to pine plantation (Landers and Garner 1981, Auffenberg and Franz 1982, Lohoefener and Lohmeier 1984, Diemer 1989, Krysko et al. 2019, FWC 2024). An estimated 95% of historical longleaf pine habitat was lost in the 1800s and 1900s (Ware et al. 1993). Habitat loss continues and relatively few sites have been adequately restored. Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission (FWC) allowed tens of thousands of tortoise burrows to be entombed in favor of development prior to 2008, and continues to allow the destruction of habitat and tortoise burrows for development (FWC 2024). FWC provides permits for the relocation of over 10,000 tortoises annually, a quantity greater than the capacity of authorized recipient sites (Miller 2021, Turner 2021, FWC 2024). It has been shown that populations at such recipient sites experience higher-than-average mortality rates from starvation due to stress when temporarily held in large (i.e., multiple hectare) soft-release areas used to acclimate tortoises to their new environment (Cozad et al. 2020). Solar energy development is another cause of habitat loss, degradation, and direct mortality throughout the range (USFWS 2021).

Habitat degradation occurs when canopy cover increases and when herbaceous vegetation declines, whether due to conversion to dense pine plantation or from succession caused by long-term fire exclusion (Landers and Buckner 1981, Tuberville et al. 2007, Catano et al. 2014, Krysko et al. 2019). Habitat fragmentation occurs due to development, construction of roads, and construction of railroads (Rautsaw et al. 2018a, Rautsaw et al. 2018b). Roadsides become resident home ranges when the surrounding habitat is suboptimal, but they also increase the risk of mortality from vehicle strikes (Rautsaw et al. 2018b). The increased density of predators (e.g.: raccoons) near development and agriculture subsequently causes increased predation on eggs and juveniles (Butler and Sowell 1996). The invasion of red imported fire ants (Solenopsis invicta) has reduced juvenile survival in affected areas (USFWS 2021).

Upper Respiratory Tract Disease (URTD) is prevalent throughout the range and appears to negatively impact affected populations, especially when individuals are infected with both pathogens causing this disease (Mycoplasma agassizii and M. testudineum) (Smith et al. 1998, Diemer Berish et al. 2000, Siegel et al. 2003, McGuire et al. 2014). Other diseases also impact this species and some have caused large-scale die-offs (Dziadzio et al. 2018).

Intensive harvest for consumption by humans caused severe local declines in some populations, particularly during the Great Depression of the 1930s (Hutt 1967, Landers and Garner 1981, Auffenberg and Franz 1982, Taylor 1982, Diemer 1986, Diemer 1989, FWC 2024). This threat is presumed to be virtually eliminated. Gassing of tortoise burrows for the capture and persecution of rattlesnakes was made illegal in Florida in 1978 and is likely no longer a serious threat (FWC 2024).","shortTermTrendComments":"This species continues to lose habitat throughout the range due to development (USFWS 2021, FWC 2024). Because this species is long-lived, undetected population declines (i.e., no new reproduction while adult tortoises continue to survive) are still ongoing from past actions.","longTermTrendComments":"There has been an approximately 80% decline in the number of gopher tortoises in the last 100 years (Auffenberg and Franz 1982, FWC 2024). An estimated 95% of historical longleaf pine habitat was lost in the 1800s and 1900s (Ware et al. 1993).","inventoryNeeds":"Inventories, population size estimates, and long-term monitoring to assess population trends needed.","numberProtEosComments":"This species occurs in many state and federal conservation lands throughout the range, as well as on a number of conservation lands owned by The Nature Conservancy and university preserves. However, it is estimated around 80% of habitat is in private ownership (USFWS 2021). Additionally, compatibility of habitat management with gopher tortoises varies greatly.","protectionNeeds":"Secure permanent legal protection (e.g., by acquisition or easement) for as much private land as possible within the habitable range of this species. Protect tortoises and habitat from development.","otherConsiderations":"Federally and/or state-listed throughout range; burrows are used by hundreds of other vertebrates and invertebrates, including many rare to threatened species such as the indigo snake, Florida mouse, and Florida gopher frog.","intrinsicVulnerabilityComments":"This species takes 10-20 years to mature, juvenile survival is low, and this species is unlikely to re-colonize fragmented habitat due to physical barriers (Landers et al. 1982, Godley 1989, Mushinsky et al. 1994, FWC 2024).","enviromentalSpecificityComments":"This species occupies xeric pine uplands with low canopy cover, abundant herbaceous vegetation, and soils suitable for digging burrows (Krysko et al. 2019, USFWS 2021, FWC 2024)."},"animalCharacteristics":{"elementGlobalId":105196,"majorHabitat":{"id":3,"majorHabitatDescEn":"Terrestrial","majorHabitatDescEs":"Terrestre","majorHabitatDescFr":"Terrestre"},"nonMigrant":true,"localMigrant":false,"longDistanceMigrant":false,"mobilityMigrationComments":"Individuals generally maintain a well-defined home (activity) range. A large one may encompass up to 6+ hectares over several years (Douglass 1990). Available information indicates that home range size generally is less than 5.3 hectares and averages less than 1.9 hectares, with the largest sizes in adult males and the smallest in juveniles (Auffenberg and Iverson 1979McRae et al. 1981b, Doonan 1986, Diemer 1992c, Wilson et al. 1994, Smith et al. 1997, Eubanks et al. 2003, Riedl 2006, Beauman 2008). Reported movements between and from burrows generally average less than 80 meters and often much less than that (mean of 20 meters or less) (McCrae et al. 1981b, Diemer 1992c, Wilson et al. 1994, Mushinsky et al. 2003). However, in southwestern Georgia, Beauman (2008) recorded multiple movements of around 200-400 meters between successive locations.

Movements of hatchlings tend to be limited but sometimes can be extensive. In east-central Florida, home range size (minimum convex polygon) of hatchlings averaged 1.95 hectares and two hatchlings had home ranges of 4.8 hectares (Pike 2006). Hatchlings moved farther from the nest over time; by the spring following hatching, hatchlings were an average of around 70-80 meters from the nest (Pike 2006). In Mississippi, 7 hatchlings surviving 41-736 days dispersed 17.5 to 458 m (mean about 130-160 m) from their nest (Epperson and Heise 2003). In northern Florida, mean home range of hatchlings during the active period was 363 sq m; mean annual range of nine individuals surviving a year was 2,032 sq m, and their mean total range after about two years was 2,554 +/- 1382 sq m (Butler et al. 1995).

Tortoises sometimes make long distance movements. Using radio-telemetry, Diemer (1992c) found that of her radio-tagged animals the longest movement made was 0.74 km by an emigrating subadult. Juveniles also may make long distance movements, usually following some type of disturbance to the resident burrow (Diemer 1992c, Wilson et al. 1994). Two adult males in Georgia dispersed 1.2 km and 1.5 km (straight-line distance to final known location) (Eubanks et al 2003). An adult female resided in two adjacent burrows for 11 months, then moved 2.1 km to a new location, where it resided for at least 9 months (Ashton, unpublished, in Mushinsky et al. 2006).

Size of home range has been shown to decrease with an increase in the amount of herbaceous ground cover (Auffenberg and Iverson 1979, Mushinsky and Gibson 1991). Management of habitat by controlled burning increases the amount of herbaceous ground cover, such that tortoises do not have to travel far from their burrows to find ample food. Thus, home ranges for this species may vary among populations depending on the quality of the habitat (Diemer 1992c, Mushinsky and McCoy 1994).","foodHabitsComments":"Gopher tortoises feed primarily on grasses and other herbaceous plants (Carr 1952, Garner and Landers 1981). Sometimes eats insects, carrion, and fruits.

Macdonald and Mushinsky (1988) identified 26 families of plants from 68 genera in scat analyses and foraging observations of gopher tortoises. The most common families of plants ingested were the Poaceae, Asteraceae, Fabaceae, Pinaceae and Fagaceae. The most common genus of plants ingested was Aristida (see also Wright 1982). Insects were found in 75% of scats and charcoal in 67% suggesting intentional ingestion of these items. Compared to adults, young tortoises tend to ingest fewer plants of the family Poaceae and plants with external defense mechanisms and more forbs such as legumes; they may negatively select Aristida even if it is abundant (Garner and Landers 1981, Macdonald and Mushinsky 1988, Mushinsky et al. 2003).

Macdonald and Mushinsky (1988) concluded that gopher tortoises tend to fall somewhere between a generalist and a specialist forager and prefer some plants over others with respect to their availability in the habitat. Rocks may be intentionally ingested as a source of minerals. During a study on the reproduction of adult female gopher tortoises in central Florida, radiography revealed that a large proportion of the females contained rocks in their digestive tracts (Mushinsky and Wilson, unpublished data). Digestive efficiencies of the gopher tortoise have been studied by Bjorndal (1987). Feeding occurs usually within 50 m of the burrow (Diemer 1992).","animalPhenologyComments":"Spends a limited amount of time above ground outside of the burrow. With a device that automatically recorded activity, Auffenberg and Iverson (1979) calculated that an adult tortoise was active 9.2% of its time. Juveniles have been reported to spend 90% of their time underground inside their burrows (Wilson et al. 1994).

Active all year except during cold spells (Ernst and Barbour 1972). Activity away from the burrow tends to peak in the late spring and summer. In northern Florida, the number of burrows showing active sign increased in April, peaked in July, and remained high through October (Diemer 1992). In southern Florida, activity peaked May-August (Douglass and Layne 1978). In southwestern Georgia, activity was severely restricted in winter (McRae et al. 1981). For juveniles, Wilson and coworkers (1994) found that 80% of observed activity in fall, winter and spring consisted of basking on the burrow mound; juveniles moved away from their burrows significantly more during the summer months. During the winter months, tortoises have been observed basking at the mouths of their burrows on warm days throughout their range (Douglas and Layne 1978, McRae et al. 1981b, Wilson et al. 1994). Thus, the activities of gopher tortoises away from their burrows are limited in the winter months and increase as seasonal temperatures increase.

Daily activity has been reported as unimodal in the spring and bimodal in the summer in a Georgia population (McRae et al. 1981b). These investigators suggested that adult tortoises may be active in the late morning and late afternoon in summer to avoid the hottest part of the day. In contrast, Douglass and Layne (1978) and Wilson et al. (1994) found that juvenile tortoises were more active in mid-afternoon and did not display a bimodal activity pattern in the summer. Activity patterns of juvenile tortoises may be influenced by the risk of predation and thermoregulatory behavior (see Wilson et al. 1994 and Wilson 1991). No evidence of nocturnal activity has been reported for the gopher tortoise.","colonialBreeder":false,"length":28,"width":null,"weight":null,"animalPhenologies":[{"animalCagPhenologyId":100546,"animalPhenology":{"id":3,"animalPhenologyDescEn":"Diurnal","animalPhenologyDescEs":"Diurno","animalPhenologyDescFr":"Diurne","displayOrder":3},"adult":true,"immature":true}],"animalFoodHabits":[{"animalCagFoodHabitsId":101170,"foodHabits":{"id":4,"foodHabitsDescEn":"Herbivore","foodHabitsDescEs":"Herbívoro","foodHabitsDescFr":"Herbivore","displayOrder":4},"adult":true,"immature":true}]},"occurrenceDelineations":[{"eoSpecsDetailId":1458,"locationUseClass":{"id":1,"locationUseClassDescEn":"Not applicable","locationUseClassDescEs":"No se aplica","locationUseClassDescFr":"Sans objet","displayOrder":1},"eoSpecGroupName":null,"subtypes":null,"inferredExtentDistance":null,"inferredExtentNotes":"Inferred Extent is a flexible concept that may encompass environmental review areas, predicted ranges, or other similar tools.

An inferred extent (IE) polygon and a mapped occurrence are independent but related spatial representations. Except in the case of extirpated occurrences or populations, an occurrence represents known occupied habitat plus nearby suitable habitat. An inferred extent polygon includes the occurrence plus additional areas that represent the area likely encompassed by the population, as inferred from mapped source features (known occupied habitat) and knowledge of the biology of the species. For example, the IE polygon for an occurrence based on a single gopher tortoise observation in a patch of suitable habitat could encompass the entire patch and any closely adjacent patches, as well as presumed migration/dispersal corridors. The outer extent of the IE polygon should be kept within a reasonable distance of the known occupied habitat (i.e., the occurrence itself), generally not more than the maximum known single-year migration distance for the species (use 1.5 km for the gopher tortoise), and certainly not more than the separation distance for suitable habitat (4 km). It should exclude areas not likely to be regularly occupied. The extent of the IE polygon should be determined by a biologist experienced with a species and its habitat. As a projection of an occurrence's probable extent, the IE polygon is useful for environmental review, especially when data limitations result in inappropriately conservative approximations of occurrence dimensions.","minimumEoCriteria":"Occurrences are based on evidence of historical presence, or current and likely recurring presence, at a given location. Such evidence includes reliable observation and documentation of one or more individuals (including burrows) in or near appropriate habitat where the species is (or was) presumed to be established.","mappingGuidance":"As a general rule, extant (E) or A-D-ranked occurrences generally should be mapped as polygons that encompass known occupied habitat patches, including suitable habitat within at least 20 meters of known active or inactive (but not abandoned) burrows. An active burrow is a burrow that shows evidence of recent tortoise activity. An inactive burrow lacks evidence of recent tortoise activity but retains general structure near the entrance. An abandoned burrow is one that needs to be excavated before use is possible. These definitions are slightly modified from McCoy et al. (2006).

Single occurrences may comprise multiple polygons as long as the distance between the polygons does not exceed the separation distance for suitable or unsuitable habitat, as appropriate.

Depending on the particular evidence, a single location in a small patch of suitable habitat may be sufficient to justify mapping the entire patch as the occurrence, although alternatively it may be mapped as a point. For any occupied patch that is smaller than 0.5 hectare (individual home ranges generally are larger than this), the entire patch may be mapped as the occurrence.

The appropriate size and boundaries of an occurrence become ambiguous in situations characterized by just one or a few locations in a small portion of a large patch of contiguous suitable habitat (substantially larger than the typical or average home range size). In such cases, the occurrence should be mapped as a polygon that minimally includes all locations that are not separated by a gap larger than the separation distance for suitable habitat (4 km). In addition, this polygon may also include suitable habitat outside a minimum convex polygon defined by available observation locations; this area may extend up to 20 meters from known active and inactive burrows. However, if the area of the mapped feature includes more than 70 percent of the total contiguous area of suitable habitat, then one may include the entire patch of suitable habitat in the occurrence, using unsuitable habitat to define the boundary. [Note: The value of 70 percent serves as an arbitrary threshold deemed appropriate as an indicator that, for all practical purposes, the entire patch likely is occupied.]

The boundaries of patches of suitable habitat sometimes can be readily identified by their abrupt transitions into adjacent areas of unsuitable habitat. In other situations, suitable habitat may grade gradually into unsuitable habitat. In these latter circumstances, occurrences should include only suitable habitat and contiguous marginally suitable habitat.

Suitable habitat may be interrupted by narrow or wide areas of unsuitable habitat that are smaller than the separation distance. Whether or not to include these areas in the occurrence is a subjective determination that should take into consideration the relative size and nature of the suitable and unsuitable habitats. Narrow habitat interruptions should be ignored if those areas are relatively inconsequential discontinuities in an otherwise continuous tract of suitable habitat.","separationBarriers":"Unsuitable habitat or structure of such extent that tortoises rarely if ever cross or circumnavigate successfully. Examples include: busy highway or highway with obstructions such that individuals rarely if ever cross successfully; untraversable topography; stream, lake, marsh, or floodplain that completely separates suitable upland habitats and is unlikely to be traversed at any time; developed area dominated by buildings and pavement; large, intensively managed agricultural areas.","separationDistanceUnsuitableHabitatat":1.0,"separationDistanceSuitableHabitatat":4.0,"altSeparationProcedure":null,"separationJustification":"Multiple movements of a few to several hundred meters have been documented for this species (see Migration/Mobility comments), and in a one-year study in high quality habitat in Georgia, Eubanks et al. (2003) found that two adult males emigrated 1.2 km and 1.5 km. An adult female moved 2.1 km between two locations, each of which was occupied for at least several months (Ashton, in Mushinsky et al. 2006). In Mississippi, hatchlings dispersed up to 458 meters from their nest (Epperson and Heise 2003). Hence, nomadic or emigration movements may unite populations over fairly large distances. The gopher tortoise recovery plan (USFWS 1990) defined a \"colony\" of tortoises on Camp Shelby, Mississippi, as \"three or more active adult burrows...within 300 feet of each other.\" This concept was thought to distinguish groups of interacting individuals from other such isolates, but currently available data indicate that tortoises could readily cross this distance through suitable habitat. It seems unlikely that two locations separated by a gap of less than several kilometers of suitable habitat would represent independent occurrences over the long term.","versionDate":"2011-05-27","versionAuthor":"Hammerson, G., D. Jackson, M. Barbour, M. Elliot, J. Jensen, and T. Mann","versionNotes":null,"lastModified":"2020-02-25T18:24:22.064919Z"}],"plantCharacteristics":null,"elementManagement":{"elementGlobalId":105196,"eoManagementGroupName":null,"stewardshipOverview":"Protect large tracts of upland xeric habitat such as sandhill, scrub, and scrubby flatwoods. Apply prescribed fire during the growing season to maximize the health and diversity of herbaceous groundcover plants. Avoid burning during the winter, which can be logistically convenient but is generally ecologically unsound because it promotes woody plant encroachment. Avoid activities that result in soil compaction. Avoid the creation of high tree density or closed canopy situations in habitats occupied by this species. Avoid the practice of roller-chopping, which provides only short-term reductions in the density of woody groundcover and saw palmetto. Provide travel corridors beneath roads and railroads. Protect the species from development.","impacts":"Gopher tortoises compact soil and alter vegetation composition near their burrows (Boglioli et al. 2000).","restorationPotential":"At Camp Shelby in Mississippi, low hatching success and high hatchling mortality may limit recruitment and inhibit recovery of the population from previous declines (Epperson and Heise 2003).","siteConservationPlansConsidered":"Landers and Speake (1980) recognized that gopher tortoises can be maintained on small management units, but they proposed that larger units (up to several hundred hectares) would lessen the impact of emigration and mortality. Similarly, Cox et al. (1987) suggested that areas of 10-25 ha (25- 70 acres) of favorable, managed habitat should be set aside for populations occupying lands slated for development. Perhaps the most extensive study of gopher tortoise populations was that conducted by McCoy and Mushinsky (1988). They surveyed a wide variety of sites for tortoises, including some of the largest federal lands in Florida as well as numerous, relatively-small, largely unprotected populations of tortoises. They recognized the importance of protecting, if possible, large areas (tens to hundreds of hectares) of gopher tortoise habitat, but emphasized the value of the numerous small isolated populations that exist throughout the range of the tortoise. McCoy and Mushinsky (1988) pointed out that gopher tortoises function as \"keystone species\" (Campbell and Christman 1982, Jackson and Milstrey 1989), and therefore merit special consideration in ranking conservation priorities.

Conservation of large areas of land has the potential side-effect of creating false security about the future of resident tortoises. Continuous management is critical to these populations; but tortoises occupying extant large conservation areas typically have not been so managed (McCoy and Mushinsky 1992b). Development patterns throughout peninsular Florida are such that it is not practical to set aside even 10 ha of land in many places. McCoy and Mushinsky (1988) believed it unwise to place full emphasis upon the single large area notion of conservation. Rather they proposed that greater emphasis be placed upon alternate conservation strategies for the gopher tortoise in Florida. They proposed a two-pronged approach. Whenever feasible, large areas of land should be secured, with the stipulation that rigorous management practices are to be employed to monitor continuously the demographic health of the resident population. In parallel with the securing of large areas, they recognized a need to secure large numbers of small areas. Such small areas allow \"banking\" of genetic diversity, as well as of individuals, for decades or perhaps longer. Management practices tailored to these small areas might even be able to perpetuate a metapopulation for tens of decades or longer.

Dichotomies created between apparently suitable and less-than-suitable gopher tortoise habitats may be misleading, and cause some small sites to be dismissed too quickly as unworthy of conservation effort. It seems imperative to view tortoise habitat quality as a dynamic gradient. Area reduction and habitat degradation are two of the greatest threats to the future of tortoise populations: as either increases, the probability of extinction also increases. In combination, the effects of area reduction and habitat degradation likely increase the probability in a synergistic fashion. Hence, while tortoises on large areas of land are in need of continuous monitoring, tortoises on small areas are likely in need of continuous management as well. Each state in which the gopher tortoise resides should serve as steward over these small areas of land, to coordinate research efforts designed to address critical questions regarding tortoise management on them, and to serve as a clearing house for all translocations of individuals among them. Research priorities concerning management of small areas should include delineation of the potential consequences of tortoise translocation and derivation of methods of increasing site tenacity.","managementMethods":"Recommendations for specific management procedures for gopher tortoises have been made by Landers and Speak (1980) for Georgia, Wright (1982) for South Carolina, Lohoefener and Lohmeier (1984) for Louisiana, Mississippi, and Alabama, and Auffenberg and Franz (1982) and Diemer (1986, 1994) for Florida. Conservation measures include habitat management, establishment of preserves, protection from overharvest, and public education (Landers 1980, Diemer 1986, Diemer-Berish 1994).

Maintenance of gopher tortoises populations generally requires active habitat management, even on seemingly \"protected\" lands owned by states or the federal government (McCoy and Mushinsky 1992b). Active management of upland habitats increases food abundance and nest site availability for gopher tortoises (Landers and Speak 1980). Gopher tortoises prefer, and attain their highest densities, in grassy, open-canopied sites (Auffenberg and Franz 1982, Mushinsky and McCoy 1994). Prescribed burning is the preferred method for managing gopher tortoise habitats (Landers 1980, Mushinsky and Gibson 1991).

The details of any habitat management program aimed at maintaining or increasing the number of gopher tortoises present in an area must be site specific. However, the goal should be to produce a mosaic of vegetation density by altering the frequency and timing of controlled burns (Diemer-Berish 1994). Habitat management that reduces excessive canopy cover and promotes a lush herbaceous ground cover (burning or stand thinning) is desirable. Optimal conditions include multi-aged forest, ranging from treeless areas with high diversities and abundances of grasses and herbaceous plants to areas with tree canopies that cover about 30-50% of the area. Summer burning mimics the natural fire cycle, promotes flowering of annual herbaceous plants, and facilitates the production of seeds by many of the grasses. Sandhill habitat responds well to summer burns on a 2-7 year periodicity. Pine flatwoods also should be subjected to summer burns on a 2-5 year cycle to encourage the production of the plants used as forage by gopher tortoises. Sand pine scrub habitat should be burned less frequently, perhaps every 15-30 years. A highly overgrown site may be first burned during the winter months to reduce the risk of a very hot fire and to thin the canopy prior to implementing a cycle of summer burns which promote vegetative regrowth. Activities that involve root-raking and windrowing should be avoided.

Because predation on tortoise eggs and hatchlings is great, protection of these stages of their life history has been recommended (Wright 1982). Nests can be protected by predator-proof enclosures, and predators can be removed by hunting or trapping (Landers 1980).

Restocking of all ages of tortoises to sites they formerly occupied has been attempted. Over the years, these relocations have involved thousands of individuals, particularly in Florida. However, the fate of most relocated tortoises is unknown (Diemer 1986). In south Georgia, about 40% of the tortoises introduced into an area remained in that area three years after their introduction (Landers 1981). In north Florida, Diemer (1987b) recaptured about 30% of relocated tortoises five years after their release. These studies suggest that most tortoises quickly abandon sites to which they have been relocated (or that mortality rate is high).

See Burke (1989) and Dodd and Seigel (1991) for a discussion of, and references pertaining to, tortoise relocations.

See Kpoeny (1991) for information on Florida's proposed incidental take rule.","monitoringMethods":"Determining population size directly by use of underground cameras (Spillers and Speake 1988) or bucket trapping of burrows can be expensive and time consuming. More commonly, estimates of the number of tortoises in a population have been based on surveys of tortoise burrows (Carr 1952, Alford 1980, Cox et al. 1987). Because not all burrows in a population are occupied, this indirect method requires the calculation of a correction factor that relates number of tortoises to the number of burrows. Burrows are classified as active or inactive. Based on the results of a long-term study (Auffenberg and Franz 1982), a \"standard correction factor\" of 0.614 was adopted by the Florida Game and Fresh Water Fish Commission. Counts of active and inactive burrows are multiplied by the correction factor to determine the number of tortoises present relative to the number of burrows in an area. Several authors have suggested that accurate correction factors must be site specific (Burke 1989, Godley 1989, Stout et al. 1989, Breininger et al. 1991, Diemer 1992b). A study of 26 populations of gopher tortoises showed that the \"standard correction factor\" overestimated the number of tortoises present in a population in 22 of the 26 populations. With proper caution, an accurate estimate of tortoises present in a population can be made by an accurate assessment of active burrows in a population (see McCoy and Mushinsky 1992a). However, it should be noted that Brandt et al. (1993, Herpetol. Rev. 24:149) found no tortoises in 59 excavated burrows, of which 78% had been classified as active.

Because burrow size (width) is related to the size (carapace length) of the resident tortoise (Alford 1980, Martin and Layne 1987, Wilson et al. 1991, Doonan and Stout 1994), demographic profiles can be constructed by evaluating the size distributions of burrows. Burrow size is measured normally at a depth of 50 cm because the mouth of the burrow is frequently enlarged or eroded (Martin and Layne 1987). To measure the width of a burrow, calipers are constructed from two meter sticks hinged together at the 50 cm mark. The calipers are inserted into the burrow and the width is measured across the open arms.

Repeated surveys, perhaps spaced over a period of 5-10 years, could provide information about population trends. One can use population profiles derived from burrow surveys to evaluate the relative demographic \"health\" of populations (Mushinsky and McCoy 1994). A healthy population should have some very large (old) tortoises and show signs of recent recruitment (see Cox et al. 1987).

See Blankenship et al. (1990) for information on a tracking method using fluorescent powder.

See Bryan et al. (1991) for information on a method of capturing tortoises using snare traps at burrow entrances.

See Carthy et al. (2005) for an anlysis of population estimation techniques. See Smith et al. (2009) for a handbook of survey methods.","managementProgramContacts":"In north Florida, a gopher tortoise management area has recently been developed (Ashton et al. 1994). The site is along the Sumter and Marion County line, where a 2,000-acre retirement and golf community is being developed. The site has been used for farming and ranching for the past 100 years. The goal for the management area is to establish and maintain optimal habitats for gopher tortoises, burrowing owls, and American kestrels. Three tortoise preserves, totaling about 150 acres, have been created. Each preserve was surrounded by fencing, above and below the ground, to insure the integrity of the designated preserve sites. These preserves have not been in place for a sufficiently long time period to draw any meaningful conclusions about their success or future. However, the concept of a multiple species approach to on-site mitigation for non-competitive species is one that should appeal to developers and conservation biologists and has great promise for these taxa.

Mitigation standards and requirements for gopher tortoises have developed in Florida over the last decade. Mitigation options include avoidance of individual burrows during development, habitat protection on or off site (usually preserving an area equal to 15-25% of the occupied tortoise habitat being developed), and relocation of tortoises to suitable habitat (Diemer- Berish 1994). The habitat protection option may be fulfilled by contribution to a mitigation banking fund to purchase the requisite acreage in a mitigation park. Tortoise relocation is controversial, especially since the discovery of the upper respiratory tract disease (URTD) in some gopher tortoise populations. Current relocation practices prohibit relocation of infected tortoises, so testing of individuals slated for relocation is now required.

Gopher Tortoise Council has initiated an Upland Habitat Protection Project (see 1992 Herp. Review 23:7).

A library focusing on GOPHERUS has been established at the Archbold Biological Station, Lake Placid, FL 33852.","monitoringProgramContacts":"In 1978, a group of concerned biologists and citizens formed the Gopher Tortoise Council (GTC). Members of the GTC meet each year to discuss the current research and problems facing the gopher tortoise and its habitat. The major goals of the GTC are to 1) offer professional advice on management, conservation, and protection of the gopher tortoise, 2) encourage research on the life history, ecology and behavior of the gopher tortoise, 3) educate the public by public awareness programs, and 4) seek protection for the species and its habitat throughout its range. The GTC elects a state representative for each state where the gopher tortoise occurs. These individuals have the most recent information concerning the status of the species in their state. The current 1994-1995 GTC state representatives are as follows: Alabama: Ed Wester, Dept. of Zoology & Wildl. Serv., 101 Cary Hall, Auburn University, AL 36847. Florida: Joan Diemer-Berish, Florida Game and Fresh Water Fish Comm., 4005 S. Main St., Gainesville, FL 32601. Georgia: Bob Herrington, Dept. of Biology, Georgia Southwestern College, Americus, GA. 31709. Louisiana: Janie Hurley, Dept. of Biology, S. E. Louisiana Univ., P. O. Box 814, Hammond, LA 70402. Mississippi: Michael Hurst, U. S. Forest Serv., P. O. Box 428, Wiggins, MS 39577. South Carolina: Jeff McLemore, S. C. Wildl. and Marine Resources Dept., Nongame and Heritage Trust Section, P. O. Box 167, Columbia, SC 29202.","managementResearchPrograms":"Numerous universities in the southeast United states have active research programs on gopher tortoises. The University of Florida has a long history of tortoise researchers (see Auffenberg and Franz 1982). Dr. Elliot Jacobson and coworkers (UF) are currently studying the upper respiratory tract disease in gopher tortoises. Several papers have been published on the population of gopher tortoises at the University of South Florida's Ecological Research Area (i.e., Macdonald and Mushinsky 1988, Kaczor and Hartnett 1990, Linley and Mushinsky 1994, Mushinsky et al. 1994, Wilson et al. 1994), others are in progress. Researchers at the University of Southeast Louisiana (e.g., Dr. Richard Seigel), Auburn University (e.g., Dr. Craig Guyer), Georgia Southern University (e.g., Dr. Doug Rostal), the University of North Florida (e.g., Dr. Joe Butler), the University of Central Florida (e.g., Dr. Jack Stout) and several others are studying various aspects of gopher tortoise biology, many of which have direct management implications.","managementResearchNeeds":"Three recent reports summarize topics in need of further study for North American tortoises (Burke and Cox 1988, Germano and Bury 1994, McCoy 1994). Below is a selected summary of those recommendations that are particularly pertinent to management needs.

1. Quantification of habitat use.

2. Definition of habitat requirements.

3. Determination of what constitutes \"quality\" habitat.

4. Improving methods to determine tortoise density.

5. Long-term studies to determine temporal variability.

6. Studies on egg and hatchling survivorship.

7. Behavioral studies to determine social interactions and hierarchies.

8. Genetic studies of parentage and selective mate assortment.

9. Genetic studies to determine gene exchange among neighboring populations.

10. Studies on homing and orientation.

11. Studies of the long-term success of relocated tortoises.

12. Studies of diseases and disease transmission among populations.

13. Studies of nutritional requirements and foraging preferences of free ranging tortoises.

14. Long-term studies designed to understand natural population trends.

15. Identification of factors that contribute to local extinctions of small populations.

16. Estimates of minimum viable population size.

17. Genetic studies to determine variation and heterozygosity of populations of tortoises throughout their range.

18. More studies concerning alternate habitat management techniques in areas where burning is not feasible.","biologicalResearchNeeds":null,"additionalTopics":null},"occurrenceViabilities":[{"eoRankSpecsDetailId":106630,"eoRankSpecsGroupName":null,"locationUseClass":{"id":1,"locationUseClassDescEn":"Not applicable","locationUseClassDescEs":"No se aplica","locationUseClassDescFr":"Sans objet","displayOrder":1},"excellentViability":"Occurrence exhibits optimal or at least highly favorable characteristics with respect to population size and/or quality and quantity of occupied habitat; and, if current conditions prevail, the occurrence is very likely to persist for the foreseeable future (i.e., at least 20-30 years) in its current condition or better. These occurrences have characteristics (e.g., size, condition, landscape context) that make them relatively invulnerable to extirpation or sustained population declines, assuming that habitat conditions are maintained or improved, even if they have declined somewhat relative to historical levels. Occurrences of this rank typically include at least 250 mature individuals (assuming that the population is not strongly male-biased). Occurrences of this size have a very high probability of long-term persistence (e.g., Tuberville et al. 2009). However, occurrences may be ranked A even if population size is not definitely known (e.g., the population is clearly very large but it is not known how large; the area of occupied habitat is exceptionally large [at least 100 hectares] and the tortoise population appears to exhibit at least average density). Occurrences with excellent estimated viability are ranked A even if one or more other occurrences have a much larger population size and/or much greater quantity of occupied habitat. In most cases, occurrences ranked A will occupy natural habitats. However, \"natural\" is an ambiguous concept, and occurrences that have been somewhat modified by human actions may still be assigned a rank of A if they otherwise meet the criteria. Occurrences that have significant populations of invasive plants or red imported fire ants (Solenopsis invicta) such that negative impacts on tortoises are expected should be ranked B if they otherwise meet the A criteria. Occurrences that meet the population size criteria for A but show little or no evidence of recruitment over the past 10-15 years (based on adequate information on population structure) may be ranked B, BC, or C, depending on the severity of the recruitment limitation (rationale: demographic models indicate that gopher tortoise population viability depends importantly on relatively high levels of hatchling survivorship; Tuberville et al. 2009). An occurrence rank may be down-ranked (e.g., from A to AB, or from A to B, etc.) as deemed appropriate if the tortoise population is known to be strongly male-biased; this ranking policy applies also to occurrences that otherwise meet the B or C criteria.","goodViability":"Occurrence exhibits favorable but not optimal characteristics with respect to population size and/or quality and quantity of occupied habitat; and, if current conditions prevail, the occurrence is likely to persist for the foreseeable future (i.e., at least 20-30 years) in its current condition or better. B-ranked occurrences have good estimated viability and, if protected, contribute importantly to maintaining or improving the conservation status of the species. Occurrences of this rank typically should include at least 100 mature individuals (e.g., see Tuberville et al. 2009). However, occurrences can be ranked B even if population size is not known or is less than 100 mature individuals as long as the occurrence meets the qualitative conceptual guidelines for this rank. Occurrences that show little or no evidence of recruitment over the past 10-15 years but otherwise meet the B criteria should be ranked C.","fairViability":"Occurrence characteristics (size, condition, and landscape context) are non-optimal such that occurrence persistence is uncertain under current conditions, or the occurrence does not meet A or B criteria but may persist for the foreseeable future (i.e., at least 20-30 years) with appropriate protection or management, or the occurrence is likely to persist but not necessarily maintain current or historical levels of population size or genetic variability. This rank may be applied to relatively low-quality occurrences with respect to size, condition, and/or landscape context if they still appear to have reasonable prospects for persistence for the foreseeable future. Occurrences of this rank typically should include at least 20-25 mature individuals. Demographic models indicate that even small populations (20-50 individuals) of gopher tortoises have a high probability of persistence for at least several decades (Cox et al. 1987, Cox 1989, Miller et al. 2001, Tuberville et al. 2009).","poorViability":"If current conditions prevail, occurrence has a high risk of extirpation (because of small population size or area of occupancy, deteriorated habitat, poor conditions for reproduction, ongoing inappropriate management that is unlikely to change, unusually high adult mortality, or other factors). Questionably viable occurrences that could be restored to at least fair viability should not be ranked D if restoration is deemed feasible and plausible; in most such cases CD should be used. Very small occurrences that may be vulnerable to deleterious stochastic events may be ranked as follows: If the stochastic event is highly theoretical or of very low probability in the appropriate time frame (e.g., 20-30 years), then a C or CD rank may be appropriate. If a minority of other similar occurrences have disappeared as a result of, say, disease or inbreeding, then perhaps CD is best. If most of these small occurrences have been extirpated or are disappearing due to such events, then D is probably appropriate.","viabilityJustification":null,"versionDate":"2011-05-27","versionAuthor":"Hammerson, G., D. Jackson, M. Barbour, M. Elliot, J. Jensen, and T. Mann","versionNotes":null,"lastModified":"2020-05-14T02:28:26.480503Z"}],"references":[{"id":147948,"citation":"Alford, R. A. 1980. Population structure of Gopherus polyphemus in northern Florida. Journal of Herpetology 14:177-182.","shortCitationAuthor":"Alford","shortCitationYear":1980,"referenceCode":"A80ALF01NAUS","lastModified":"2020-02-25T18:24:22.111765Z"},{"id":134583,"citation":"Allen, E. R., and W. T. Neill. 1951. The gopher. Florida Wildlife 5:10, 32.","shortCitationAuthor":"Allen and Neill","shortCitationYear":1951,"referenceCode":"A51ALL01NAUS","lastModified":"2020-02-25T18:24:22.096144Z"},{"id":118774,"citation":"Allen, E. R., and W. T. Neill. 1953. Juveniles of the tortoise Gopherus polyphemus. Copeia 1953:128.","shortCitationAuthor":"Allen and Neill","shortCitationYear":1953,"referenceCode":"A53ALL01NAUS","lastModified":"2020-02-25T18:24:22.080524Z"},{"id":125049,"citation":"Arata, A. A. 1958. Notes on the eggs and young of Gopherus polyphemus (Daudin). Quarterly Journal of the Florida Academy of Science 21:274-280.","shortCitationAuthor":"Arata","shortCitationYear":1958,"referenceCode":"A58ARA01NAUS","lastModified":"2020-02-25T18:24:22.096144Z"},{"id":146604,"citation":"Aresco, M. J. 1999. Habitat structures associated with juvenile gopher tortoise burrows on pine plantations in Alabama. Chelonian Conservation and Biology 3:507-509.","shortCitationAuthor":"Aresco","shortCitationYear":1999,"referenceCode":"A99ARE01NAUS","lastModified":"2020-02-25T18:24:22.127456Z"},{"id":761754,"citation":"Ashton, K. G., B. M. Engelhardt, and B. S. Branciforte. 2008. Gopher tortoise (Gopherus polyphemus) abundance and distribution after prescribed fire reintroduction to Florida scrub and sandhill at Archbold Biological Station. Journal of Herpetology 42(3):523-529.","shortCitationAuthor":"Ashton et al.","shortCitationYear":2008,"referenceCode":"A08ASH02HQUS","lastModified":"2020-02-25T18:24:22.096144Z"},{"id":153444,"citation":"Ashton, R. E., Jr., and P. S. Ashton. 1985. Handbook of reptiles and amphibians of Florida. Part two. Lizards, turtles & crocodilians. Windward Pub., Inc., Miami. 191 pp.","shortCitationAuthor":"Ashton and Ashton","shortCitationYear":1985,"referenceCode":"B85ASH01NAUS","lastModified":"2020-02-25T14:38:20.126743Z"},{"id":112257,"citation":"Ashton, R. E., Jr., and P. S. Ashton. 2001. Gopherus polyphemus. Use of abandoned burrows by juveniles. Herpetological Review 32:185-186.","shortCitationAuthor":"Ashton and Ashton","shortCitationYear":2001,"referenceCode":"A01ASH03NAUS","lastModified":"2020-02-25T18:24:22.080524Z"},{"id":131554,"citation":"Ashton, R. E., Jr., P. S. Ashton, and E. L. Mosura-Bliss. 1994. Tortoise management as urbanization encroaches. Pages 13-17 in North American Tortoise Conference Proceedings, Mapimi Biosphere Preserve, Durango, Mexico.","shortCitationAuthor":"Ashton et al.","shortCitationYear":1994,"referenceCode":"A94ASH01NAUS","lastModified":"2020-02-25T18:24:22.096144Z"},{"id":138144,"citation":"Auffenberg, W. 1966. On the courtship of Gopherus polyphemus. Herpetologica 22:113-117.","shortCitationAuthor":"Auffenberg","shortCitationYear":1966,"referenceCode":"A66AUF01NAUS","lastModified":"2020-02-25T18:24:22.127456Z"},{"id":131109,"citation":"Auffenberg, W. 1969. Tortoise behavior and survival. Rand McNally, Chicago, Illinois.","shortCitationAuthor":"Auffenberg","shortCitationYear":1969,"referenceCode":"B69AUF01NAUS","lastModified":"2020-02-25T18:24:22.080524Z"},{"id":128624,"citation":"Auffenberg, W. 1976. The genus Gopherus (Testudinidae). Part I. Osteology and relationships of extant species. Bulletin Florida State Museum 20:47-110.","shortCitationAuthor":"Auffenberg","shortCitationYear":1976,"referenceCode":"A76AUF01NAUS","lastModified":"2020-02-25T18:24:22.111765Z"},{"id":115014,"citation":"Auffenberg, W. 1978. Threatened: gopher tortoise, Gopherus polyphemus (Daudin). Pages 33-35 in R. W. McDiarmid, editor. Rare and endangered biota of Florida. Volume 3: amphibians and reptiles. University Press of Florida, Gainesville.","shortCitationAuthor":"Auffenberg","shortCitationYear":1978,"referenceCode":"A78AUF05NAUS","lastModified":"2020-02-25T18:24:22.127456Z"},{"id":136648,"citation":"Auffenberg, W., and J. B. Iverson. 1979. Demography of terrestrial turtles. Pages 541-569 in M. Harless and H. Morlock, editors. Turtles: perspectives and research. John Wiley & Sons, New York.","shortCitationAuthor":"Auffenberg and Iverson","shortCitationYear":1979,"referenceCode":"A79AUF01NAUS","lastModified":"2020-02-25T18:16:41.526796Z"},{"id":101882,"citation":"Auffenberg, W., and R. Franz. 1978. Gopherus polyphemus. Cat. Am. Amph. Rep. 215.1-215.2.","shortCitationAuthor":"Auffenberg and Franz","shortCitationYear":1978,"referenceCode":"A78AUF02NAUS","lastModified":"2020-02-25T18:24:22.127456Z"},{"id":141315,"citation":"Auffenberg, W., and R. Franz. 1982. The status and distribution of the gopher tortoise (Gopherus polyphemus). Pp. 95-126 in R. B. Bury, editor. North American tortoises: conservation and ecology. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.","shortCitationAuthor":"Auffenberg and Franz","shortCitationYear":1982,"referenceCode":"A82AUF01NAUS","lastModified":"2020-02-25T18:24:22.111765Z"},{"id":154462,"citation":"Auffenberg, W., and W. Weaver. 1969. Gopherus berlandieri in southeastern Texas. Bulletin Florida State Museum 13:141-203.","shortCitationAuthor":"Auffenberg and Weaver","shortCitationYear":1969,"referenceCode":"A69AUF01NAUS","lastModified":"2020-02-25T18:24:22.096144Z"},{"id":668183,"citation":"Beauman, R. L. 2008. The effects of burrow collapse on the gopher tortoise (Gopherus polyphemus). M.S. thesis, Auburn University, Auburn, Alabama.","shortCitationAuthor":"Beauman","shortCitationYear":2008,"referenceCode":"U08BEA01NAUS","lastModified":"2020-02-25T18:24:22.127456Z"},{"id":128273,"citation":"Bjorndahl, K. A. 1987. Digestive efficiency in a temperate herbivorous reptile, Gopherus polyphemus. Copeia 1987:714-720.","shortCitationAuthor":"Bjorndahl","shortCitationYear":1987,"referenceCode":"A87BJO01NAUS","lastModified":"2020-02-25T18:24:22.127456Z"},{"id":110522,"citation":"Blankenship, E. L., T. W. Bryan, and S. P. Jacobsen. 1990. A method for tracking tortoises using fluorescent powder. Herpetol. Rev. 21:88-89.","shortCitationAuthor":"Blankenship et al.","shortCitationYear":1990,"referenceCode":"A90BLA02NAUS","lastModified":"2020-02-25T18:24:22.111765Z"},{"id":121060,"citation":"Bogert, C. M., and R. B. Cowles. 1947. Moisture loss in relation to habitat selection in some Florida reptiles. American Museum Novitates 1358:1-34.","shortCitationAuthor":"Bogert and Cowles","shortCitationYear":1947,"referenceCode":"B47BOG01NAUS","lastModified":"2020-02-25T18:24:22.111765Z"},{"id":108437,"citation":"Boglioli, M. D., W. K. Michener, and C. Guyer. 2000. Habitat selection and modification by the gopher tortoise, Gopherus polyphemus, in Georgia longleaf pine forest. Chelonian Conservation and Biology 3:699-705.","shortCitationAuthor":"Boglioli et al.","shortCitationYear":2000,"referenceCode":"A00BOG01NAUS","lastModified":"2020-02-25T18:24:22.127456Z"},{"id":104198,"citation":"Bramble, D. M. 1982. Scaptochelys: generic revision and evolution of gopher tortoises. Copeia 1982:852-867.","shortCitationAuthor":"Bramble","shortCitationYear":1982,"referenceCode":"A82BRA01NAUS","lastModified":"2020-02-25T18:24:22.111765Z"},{"id":142867,"citation":"Breininger, D. R., P. A. Schmalzer, and C. R. Hinkle. 1991. Estimating occupancy of gopher tortoise (Gopherus polyphemus) burrows in coastal scrub and slash pine flatwoods. J. Herpetology 25:317-321.","shortCitationAuthor":"Breininger et al.","shortCitationYear":1991,"referenceCode":"A91BRE01NAUS","lastModified":"2020-02-25T18:24:22.080524Z"},{"id":122705,"citation":"Breininger, D. R., P. A. Schmalzer, and C. R. Hinkle. 1994. Gopher tortoise (Gopherus polyphemus) densities in coastal scrub and slash pine flatwoods in Florida. J. Herpetology 28:60-65.","shortCitationAuthor":"Breininger et al.","shortCitationYear":1994,"referenceCode":"A94BRE01NAUS","lastModified":"2020-02-25T18:24:22.127456Z"},{"id":140018,"citation":"Brode, W. E. 1959. Notes on behavior of Gopherus polyphemus. Herpetologica 15:101-102.","shortCitationAuthor":"Brode","shortCitationYear":1959,"referenceCode":"A59BRO01NAUS","lastModified":"2020-02-25T18:24:22.127456Z"},{"id":112948,"citation":"Bryan, T. W., E. L. Blankenship, and C. Guyer. 1991. A new method of trapping gopher tortoises (GOPHERUS POLYPHEMUS). Herpetol. Rev. 22:19-21.","shortCitationAuthor":"Bryan et al.","shortCitationYear":1991,"referenceCode":"A91BRY01NAUS","lastModified":"2020-02-25T18:24:22.080524Z"},{"id":110932,"citation":"Burke, R. 1989a. Burrow-to-tortoise conversion factors: comparison of three gopher tortoise survey techniques. Herpetol. Rev. 20:92-94.","shortCitationAuthor":"Burke","shortCitationYear":1989,"referenceCode":"A89BUR05NAUS","lastModified":"2020-02-25T18:24:22.127456Z"},{"id":149574,"citation":"Burke, R. L. 1989b. Florida gopher tortoise relocation: overview and case study. Biological Conservation 48:295-309.","shortCitationAuthor":"Burke","shortCitationYear":1989,"referenceCode":"A89BUR06NAUS","lastModified":"2020-02-25T18:24:22.064919Z"},{"id":102736,"citation":"Burke, R. L., and J. Cox. 1988. Evaluation and review of field techniques used to study and manage gopher tortoises. Pages 205-215 in R. C. Szaro, et al., technical coordinators. Management of amphibians, reptiles, and small mammals in North America. USDA For. Serv., Gen. Tech. Rep. RM-166. 458 pp.","shortCitationAuthor":"Burke and Cox","shortCitationYear":1988,"referenceCode":"A88BUR01NAUS","lastModified":"2020-02-25T18:24:22.127456Z"},{"id":108306,"citation":"Burke, R. L., E. R. Jacobson, M. J. Griffith, and L. J. Guillette. 1994. Noninvasive sex identification of juvenile gopher and desert tortoises (genus GOPHERUS). Amphibia-Reptilia 15:183-189.","shortCitationAuthor":"Burke et al.","shortCitationYear":1994,"referenceCode":"A94BUR04NAUS","lastModified":"2020-02-25T18:24:22.096144Z"},{"id":136934,"citation":"Burke, R. L., M. A. Ewert, J. B. McLemore, and D. R. Jackson. 1996. Temperature-dependent sex determination and hatching success in the gopher tortoise (GOPHERUS POLYPHEMUS). Chelonian Conservation and Biology 2(1):86-88.","shortCitationAuthor":"Burke et al.","shortCitationYear":1996,"referenceCode":"A96BUR01NAUS","lastModified":"2020-02-25T18:24:22.127456Z"},{"id":108055,"citation":"Bury, R. B., and D. J. Germano. 1994. Biology of North American tortoises. USDI National Biological Survey, Fish and Wildlife Research 13. vi + 204 pp.","shortCitationAuthor":"Bury and Germano","shortCitationYear":1994,"referenceCode":"B94BUR01NAUS","lastModified":"2020-02-25T18:24:22.080524Z"},{"id":155350,"citation":"Butler, J. A., and S. Sowell. 1996. Survivorship and predation of hatchling and yearling gopher tortoises, Gopherus polyphemus. Journal of Herpetology 30:455-458.","shortCitationAuthor":"Butler and Sowell","shortCitationYear":1996,"referenceCode":"A96BUT02NAUS","lastModified":"2025-07-03T22:36:52.797755Z"},{"id":135393,"citation":"Butler, J. A., and T. W. Hull. 1996. Reproduction of the tortoise, GOPHERUS POLYPHEMUS, in northeastern Florida. Journal of Herpetology 30:14-18.","shortCitationAuthor":"Butler and Hull","shortCitationYear":1996,"referenceCode":"A96BUT01NAUS","lastModified":"2020-02-25T18:24:22.111765Z"},{"id":142321,"citation":"Butler, J. A., R. D. Bowman, T. W. Hull, and S. Sowell. 1995a. Movements and home range of hatchling and yearling gopher tortoises, Gopherus polyphemus. Chelonian Conservation and Biology 1(3):173-180.","shortCitationAuthor":"Butler et al.","shortCitationYear":1995,"referenceCode":"A95BUT01NAUS","lastModified":"2020-02-25T18:24:22.127456Z"},{"id":116907,"citation":"Campbell, H. W., and S. P. Christman. 1982a. The herpetological components of Florida sandhill and sand pine scrub associations. Pages 163-171 in N. J. Scott (editor). Herpetological communities. U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service, Wildlife Res. Rep. 13.","shortCitationAuthor":"Campbell and Christman","shortCitationYear":1982,"referenceCode":"A82CAM01NAUS","lastModified":"2020-02-25T18:13:46.461599Z"},{"id":117297,"citation":"Carr, A. 1952. Handbook of turtles. Comstock Publishing Associates, Ithaca, New York. 542 pp.","shortCitationAuthor":"Carr","shortCitationYear":1952,"referenceCode":"B52CAR01NAUS","lastModified":"2020-02-25T18:12:49.210733Z"},{"id":668426,"citation":"Carthy, R. R., M. K. Oli, J. B. Wooding, J. E. Berish, and W. D. Meyer. 2005. Analysis of gopher tortoise population estimation techniques. Engineer Research and Development Center, Construction Engineering Research Laboratory ERDC/CERL TR-05-27.","shortCitationAuthor":"Carthy et al.","shortCitationYear":2005,"referenceCode":"N05CAR01NAUS","lastModified":"2020-02-25T18:24:22.143041Z"},{"id":1154569,"citation":"Catano, C. P., J. J. Angelo, and I. J. Stout. 2014. Sample grain influences the functional relationship between canopy cover and gopher tortoise (Gopherus polyphemus) burrow abandonment. Chelonian Conservation and Biology, 2014, 13(2): 166-172.","shortCitationAuthor":"Catano et al.","shortCitationYear":2014,"referenceCode":"A14CAT01NAUS","lastModified":"2025-07-03T22:36:52.872768Z"},{"id":114615,"citation":"Clark, E. E., R. N. Tsaliagos, and A. B. Pittman. 2001. Geographic distribution: Gopherus polyphemus. Herpetological Review 32:191.","shortCitationAuthor":"Clark et al.","shortCitationYear":2001,"referenceCode":"A01CLA01NAUS","lastModified":"2020-02-25T18:24:22.064919Z"},{"id":104608,"citation":"Conant, R. and J. T. Collins. 1991. A field guide to reptiles and amphibians: eastern and central North America. Third edition. Houghton Mifflin Co., Boston, Massachusetts. 450 pp.","shortCitationAuthor":"Conant and Collins","shortCitationYear":1991,"referenceCode":"B91CON01NAUS","lastModified":"2020-02-25T18:11:51.303794Z"},{"id":100757,"citation":"Cox, J. 1989. Survival characteristics of small gopher tortoise populations and their possible influence on relocation efforts. Pages 7-14 in J. E. Diemer, et al., editors. Gopher tortoise relocation symposium. Florida Game and Fresh Water Fish Commission, Non-game Wildlife Program Technical Report 5, Tallahassee.","shortCitationAuthor":"Cox","shortCitationYear":1989,"referenceCode":"A89COX01NAUS","lastModified":"2020-02-25T18:24:22.080524Z"},{"id":120664,"citation":"Cox, J., D. Inkley, and R. Kautz. 1987. Ecology and habitat protection needs of gopher tortoise (GOPHERUS POLYPHEMUS) populations found on lands slated for large-scale development in Florida. Florida Game and Fresh Water Fish Commission Nongame Wildlife Program Technical Report 4, Tallahassee. 74 pp.","shortCitationAuthor":"Cox et al.","shortCitationYear":1987,"referenceCode":"A87COX01NAUS","lastModified":"2020-02-25T18:24:22.127456Z"},{"id":1154567,"citation":"Cozad, R. A., S. M. Hernandez, T. M. Norton, T. D. Tuberville, N. I. Stacy, N. L. Stedman, and M. J. Aresco. 2020. Epidemiological investigation of a mortality event in a translocated gopher tortoise (Gopherus
polyphemus) population in Northwest Florida. Frontiers in Veterinary Science 7: 120. doi: 10.3389/fvets.2020.00120","shortCitationAuthor":"Cozad et al.","shortCitationYear":2020,"referenceCode":"A20COZ01NAUS","lastModified":"2025-07-03T22:36:52.829769Z"},{"id":621810,"citation":"Crother, B. I. (editor). 2008. Scientific and standard English names of amphibians and reptiles of North America north of Mexico, with comments regarding confidence in our understanding. Sixth edition. Society for the Study of Amphibians and Reptiles Herpetological Circular 37:1-84. Online with updates at: http://www.ssarherps.org/pages/comm_names/Index.php","shortCitationAuthor":"Crother","shortCitationYear":2008,"referenceCode":"B08CRO01NAUS","lastModified":"2020-02-25T14:38:20.142383Z"},{"id":943912,"citation":"Crother, B. I. (editor). 2017. Scientific and standard English names of amphibians and reptiles of North America north of Mexico, with comments regarding confidence in our understanding. 8th edition. SSAR Herpetological Circular 43:1-104. [Updates in SSAR North American Species Names Database at: https://ssarherps.org/cndb]","shortCitationAuthor":"Crother","shortCitationYear":2017,"referenceCode":"B17CRO01EHUS","lastModified":"2020-02-25T18:11:53.413199Z"},{"id":120141,"citation":"Crumly, C. R. 1987. The genus name for North American gopher tortoises. Proc. Desert Tortoise Council 1984 Symp., pp. 147-148.","shortCitationAuthor":"Crumly","shortCitationYear":1987,"referenceCode":"A87CRU02NAUS","lastModified":"2020-02-25T18:24:22.111765Z"},{"id":120420,"citation":"Crumly, C. R. 1994. The phylogenetic systematics of North American tortoises (genus GOPHERUS): evidence for their classification. Pages 7-32 in R. B. Bury and D. J. Gemano, editors. Biology of North American tortoises. National Biological Survey, Fish and Wildlife Research 13.","shortCitationAuthor":"Crumly","shortCitationYear":1994,"referenceCode":"A94CRU01NAUS","lastModified":"2020-02-25T18:24:22.127456Z"},{"id":149231,"citation":"Diemer-Berish, J. E. 1994. Status and conservation of the gopher tortoise. Pages 24-28 in North American Tortoise Conference Proceedings, Mapimi Biosphere Preserve, Durango, Mexico.","shortCitationAuthor":"Diemer-Berish","shortCitationYear":1994,"referenceCode":"A94DIE02NAUS","lastModified":"2020-02-25T18:24:22.096144Z"},{"id":140070,"citation":"Diemer Berish, J. E., L. D. Wendland, and C. A. Gates. 2000. Distribution and prevalence of upper respiratory tract disease in gopher tortoises in Florida. Journal of Herpetology 34:5-12.","shortCitationAuthor":"Diemer Berish et al.","shortCitationYear":2000,"referenceCode":"A00DIE01NAUS","lastModified":"2020-02-25T18:24:22.127456Z"},{"id":103901,"citation":"Diemer, J. E. 1986. The ecology and management of the gopher tortoise in the southeastern United States. Herpetologica 42:125-133.","shortCitationAuthor":"Diemer","shortCitationYear":1986,"referenceCode":"A86DIE01NAUS","lastModified":"2020-02-25T18:24:22.111765Z"},{"id":114418,"citation":"Diemer, J. E. 1987a. The status of the gopher tortoise in Florida. Proceedings Southeastern Nongame and Endangered Wildlife Symposium 3:72-83. Athens, Georgia.","shortCitationAuthor":"Diemer","shortCitationYear":1987,"referenceCode":"A87DIE01NAUS","lastModified":"2020-02-25T18:24:22.080524Z"},{"id":145240,"citation":"Diemer, J. E. 1987b. Tortoise relocation in Florida: solution or problem? 1984 Proceedings Desert Tortoise Council.","shortCitationAuthor":"Diemer","shortCitationYear":1987,"referenceCode":"A87DIE02NAUS","lastModified":"2020-02-25T18:24:22.096144Z"},{"id":133990,"citation":"Diemer, J. E. 1989. Gopherus polyphemus. Pages 14-19 in I. R. Swingland and M. W. Klemens, editors. The conservation biology of tortoises. Occasional Papers IUCN Species Survival Commission 5.","shortCitationAuthor":"Diemer","shortCitationYear":1989,"referenceCode":"A89DIE01NAUS","lastModified":"2020-04-30T02:24:27.678319Z"},{"id":139948,"citation":"Diemer, J. E. 1992a. Gopher tortoise GOPHERUS POLYPHEMUS (Daudin). Pages 123-127 in P. E. Moler, editor. Rare and endangered biota of Florida. Vol. III. Amphibians and reptiles. Univ. Press of Florida.","shortCitationAuthor":"Diemer","shortCitationYear":1992,"referenceCode":"A92DIE01NAUS","lastModified":"2020-02-25T18:24:22.096144Z"},{"id":130349,"citation":"Diemer, J. E. 1992b. Demography of the tortoise GOPHERUS POLYPHEMUS in northern Florida. J. Herpetology 26:281-289.","shortCitationAuthor":"Diemer","shortCitationYear":1992,"referenceCode":"A92DIE03NAUS","lastModified":"2020-02-25T18:24:22.111765Z"},{"id":117113,"citation":"Diemer, J. E. 1992c. Home range and movements of the tortoise GOPHERUS POLYPHEMUS in northern Florida. J. Herpetology 26:158-165.","shortCitationAuthor":"Diemer","shortCitationYear":1992,"referenceCode":"A92DIE02NAUS","lastModified":"2020-02-25T18:24:22.111765Z"},{"id":146354,"citation":"Diemer, J. E., and C. T. Moore. 1994. Reproduction of gopher tortoises in north-central Florida. Pages 129-137 in R. B. Bury and D. J. Germano, editors. Biology of North American tortoises. National Biological Survey, Fish and Wildlife Research 13.","shortCitationAuthor":"Diemer and Moore","shortCitationYear":1994,"referenceCode":"A94DIE01NAUS","lastModified":"2020-02-25T18:24:22.127456Z"},{"id":120224,"citation":"Dodd, C. K., and R. A. Seigel. 1991. Relocation, repatriation, and translocation of amphibians and reptiles: are they conservation strategies that work? Herpetologica 47:336-350.","shortCitationAuthor":"Dodd and Seigel","shortCitationYear":1991,"referenceCode":"A91DOD01NAUS","lastModified":"2020-02-25T18:12:03.194383Z"},{"id":108112,"citation":"Doonan, T. J. 1986. A demographic study of an isolated population of the gopher tortoise, GOPHERUS POLYPHEMUS; and an assessment of a relocation procedure for tortoises. M.S. thesis, University of Central Florida, Orlando.","shortCitationAuthor":"Doonan","shortCitationYear":1986,"referenceCode":"U86DOO01NAUS","lastModified":"2020-02-25T18:24:22.096144Z"},{"id":138214,"citation":"Doonan, T. J., and I. J. Stout. 1994. Effects of gopher tortoise (Gopherus polyphemus) body size on burrow structure. American Midland Naturalist 131:273-280.","shortCitationAuthor":"Doonan and Stout","shortCitationYear":1994,"referenceCode":"A94DOO01NAUS","lastModified":"2020-02-25T18:24:22.080524Z"},{"id":105736,"citation":"Douglass, J. F. 1975. Bibliography of the North American land tortoises (genus GOPHERUS). USFWS Spec. Sci. Rep. - Wildl. 190:1-60.","shortCitationAuthor":"Douglass","shortCitationYear":1975,"referenceCode":"B75DOU01NAUS","lastModified":"2020-02-25T18:24:22.111765Z"},{"id":109625,"citation":"Douglass, J. F. 1976. The mating system of the gopher tortoise, GOPHERUS POLYPHEMUS, in southern Florida. M.S. thesis, University of South Florida, Tampa. 79 pp.","shortCitationAuthor":"Douglass","shortCitationYear":1976,"referenceCode":"U76DOU01NAUS","lastModified":"2020-02-25T18:24:22.080524Z"},{"id":122223,"citation":"Douglass, J. F. 1978. Refugia of juvenile gopher tortoises, Gopherus polyphemus (Reptilia, Testudines, Testudinidae). Journal of Herpetology 12:413-415.","shortCitationAuthor":"Douglass","shortCitationYear":1978,"referenceCode":"A78DOU02NAUS","lastModified":"2020-02-25T18:24:22.064919Z"},{"id":148552,"citation":"Douglass, J. F. 1990. Patterns of mate seeking and aggression in a southern Florida population of the gopher tortoise, GOPHERUS POLYPHEMUS. Proceedings of the Desert Tortoise Council 1986:155-199.","shortCitationAuthor":"Douglass","shortCitationYear":1990,"referenceCode":"A90DOU01NAUS","lastModified":"2020-02-25T18:24:22.080524Z"},{"id":145231,"citation":"Douglass, J. F., and C. E. Winegarner. 1977. Predators of eggs and young of the gopher tortoise, Gopherus polyphemus (Reptilia, Testudines, Testudinidae), in southern Florida. Journal of Herpetology 11:236-238.","shortCitationAuthor":"Douglass and Winegarner","shortCitationYear":1977,"referenceCode":"A77DOU01NAUS","lastModified":"2020-02-25T18:24:22.080524Z"},{"id":136455,"citation":"Douglass, J. F., and J. N. Layne. 1978. Activity and thermoregulation of the gopher tortoise (Gopherus polyphemus) in southern Florida. Herpetologica 34:359-374.","shortCitationAuthor":"Douglass and Layne","shortCitationYear":1978,"referenceCode":"A78DOU01NAUS","lastModified":"2020-02-25T18:24:22.111765Z"},{"id":1154573,"citation":"Dziadzio, M. C., E. R. Sievers, and D. Burr. 2018. Investigation of a large-scale gopher tortoise (Gopherus polyphemus) mortality event on a public conservation land in Florida, USA. Journal of Wildlife Diseases 54(4): 809–813.","shortCitationAuthor":"Dziadzio et al.","shortCitationYear":2018,"referenceCode":"A18DZI01NAUS","lastModified":"2025-07-03T22:36:52.929757Z"},{"id":121741,"citation":"Eisenberg, J. F. 1983. The gopher tortoise as a keystone species. In R. J. Bryant and R. Franz, editors. The gopher tortoise: a keystone species. Proceedings of the 4th Annual Meeting, Gopher Tortoise Council, Valdosta, Georgia.","shortCitationAuthor":"Eisenberg","shortCitationYear":1983,"referenceCode":"A83EIS01NAUS","lastModified":"2020-02-25T18:24:22.096144Z"},{"id":201956,"citation":"Epperson, D. M., and C. D. Heise. 2003. Nesting and hatchling ecology of gopher tortoises (Gopherus polyphemus) in southern Mississippi. Journal of Herpetology 37:315-324.","shortCitationAuthor":"Epperson and Heise","shortCitationYear":2003,"referenceCode":"A03EPP01NAUS","lastModified":"2020-02-25T18:24:22.064919Z"},{"id":761719,"citation":"Ernst, C. H., and R. W. Barbour. 1972. Turtles of the United States. Univ. Press of Kentucky, Lexington. x + 347 pp.","shortCitationAuthor":"Ernst and Barbour","shortCitationYear":1972,"referenceCode":"B72ERN01HQUS","lastModified":"2020-02-25T14:38:20.126743Z"},{"id":134320,"citation":"Ernst, C. H., and R. W. Barbour. 1989a. Turtles of the world. Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington, D.C. xii + 313 pp.","shortCitationAuthor":"Ernst and Barbour","shortCitationYear":1989,"referenceCode":"B89ERN01NAUS","lastModified":"2020-02-25T14:38:20.142383Z"},{"id":215419,"citation":"Eubanks, J. O., W. K. Michener, and C. Guyer. 2003. Patterns of movement and burrow use in a population of gopher tortoises (Gopherus polyphemus). Herpetologica 59:311-321.","shortCitationAuthor":"Eubanks et al.","shortCitationYear":2003,"referenceCode":"A03EUB01NAUS","lastModified":"2020-02-25T18:24:22.080524Z"},{"id":108278,"citation":"Fitzpatrick, J. W., and G. E. Woolfenden. 1978. Red-tailed hawk preys on juvenile gopher tortoise. Florida Field Naturalist 6:49.","shortCitationAuthor":"Fitzpatrick and Woolfenden","shortCitationYear":1978,"referenceCode":"A78FIT01NAUS","lastModified":"2020-02-25T18:24:22.127456Z"},{"id":1154507,"citation":"Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission (FWC). 2024. Gopher tortoise management plan. Tallahassee, Florida. 60 p.","shortCitationAuthor":"FWC","shortCitationYear":2024,"referenceCode":"N24FWC01NAUS","lastModified":"2025-07-03T21:56:21.76478Z"},{"id":132494,"citation":"Folk, M. 1993. Gopher tortoise and Sherman's fox squirrel densities in sandhill communities on three TNC preserves in Florida. RJSE Grant R91SE02 Final Report. 13 pp.","shortCitationAuthor":"Folk","shortCitationYear":1993,"referenceCode":"U93FOL01NAUS","lastModified":"2020-02-25T18:24:22.080524Z"},{"id":109419,"citation":"Franz, R. 1986. Gopherus polyphemus (gopher tortoise). Burrow commensals. Herpetological Review 17:64.","shortCitationAuthor":"Franz","shortCitationYear":1986,"referenceCode":"A86FRA02NAUS","lastModified":"2026-01-09T23:27:37.12774Z"},{"id":147672,"citation":"Fucigna, T. F., Jr., and D. K. Nickerson, Jr. 1989. Relocations of two groups of gopher tortoises from Palm Beach County to Martin County, Florida. Pages 59-71 in J. E. Diemer, et al., editors. Gopher Tortoise Relocation Symposium Proceedings, Florida Game and Fresh Water Fish Commission, Nongame Wildlife Program Technical Report 5, Tallahassee.","shortCitationAuthor":"Fucigna and Nickerson","shortCitationYear":1989,"referenceCode":"A89FUC01NAUS","lastModified":"2020-02-25T18:24:22.080524Z"},{"id":1154565,"citation":"Gaillard, D., J. R. Ennen, B. R. Kreiser, C. P. Qualls, S. C. Sweat, R. Birkhead, T. D. Tuberville, M. Aresco, E. D. McCoy, H. R. Mushinsky, and T. W. Hentges. 2017. Range-wide and regional patterns of population structure and genetic diversity in the gopher tortoise. Journal of Fish and Wildlife Management 8(2): 497–512; e1944-687X. doi: 10.3996/022017-JFWM-010","shortCitationAuthor":"Gaillard et al.","shortCitationYear":2017,"referenceCode":"A17GAI01NAUS","lastModified":"2025-07-03T22:36:52.970069Z"},{"id":142456,"citation":"Garner, J., and J. Landers. 1981. Foods and habitat of the gopher tortoise in southwestern Georgia. Proceedings of the Annual Conference Southeastern Association Fish Wildlife Agencies 35:120-134.","shortCitationAuthor":"Garner and Landers","shortCitationYear":1981,"referenceCode":"A81GAR01NAUS","lastModified":"2020-02-25T18:24:22.127456Z"},{"id":147535,"citation":"Germano, D. J. 1993. Shell morphology of North American tortoises. American Midland Naturalist 129:319-335.","shortCitationAuthor":"Germano","shortCitationYear":1993,"referenceCode":"A93GER02NAUS","lastModified":"2020-02-25T18:17:06.605232Z"},{"id":136205,"citation":"Germano, D. J. 1994a. Growth and age at maturity of North American tortoises in relation to regional climates. Canadian J. Zoology 72:918-931.","shortCitationAuthor":"Germano","shortCitationYear":1994,"referenceCode":"A94GER02NAUS","lastModified":"2020-02-25T18:16:41.542329Z"},{"id":121777,"citation":"Germano, D. J., and R. B. Bury. 1994. Research on North American tortoises: a critique with suggestions for the future. Pages 187-204 in R. B. Bury and D. J. Germano, editors. Biology of North American tortoises. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Fish and Wildlife Research 13.","shortCitationAuthor":"Germano and Bury","shortCitationYear":1994,"referenceCode":"A94GER03NAUS","lastModified":"2020-02-25T18:17:06.605232Z"},{"id":1149297,"citation":"Global Biodiversity Information Facility (GBIF). 2025. Global Biodiversity Information Facility (GBIF) data portal. Online. Available: https://www.gbif.org/ (accessed 2025).","shortCitationAuthor":"GBIF","shortCitationYear":2025,"referenceCode":"W25GBI01HQUS","lastModified":"2025-01-31T22:50:24.303678Z"},{"id":155192,"citation":"Godley, J. S. 1989. A comparison of gopher tortoise populations relocated onto reclaimed phosphate-mined sites in Florida. Pages 43-58 in J. E. Diemer, et al., editors. Gopher Tortoise Relocation Symposium Proceedings, Florida Game and Fresh Water Fish Commission, Nongame Wildlife Program Technical Report 5, Tallahassee.","shortCitationAuthor":"Godley","shortCitationYear":1989,"referenceCode":"A89GOD01NAUS","lastModified":"2020-02-25T18:24:22.127456Z"},{"id":127947,"citation":"Guyer, C., and S. M. Hermann. 1997. Patterns of size and longevity of gopher tortoise (GOPHERUS POLYPHEMUS) burrows: implications for the longleaf pine ecosystem. Chelonian Conservation and Biology 2:5-7-513.","shortCitationAuthor":"Guyer and Hermann","shortCitationYear":1997,"referenceCode":"A97GUY01NAUS","lastModified":"2020-02-25T18:24:22.111765Z"},{"id":148988,"citation":"Hallinan, T. 1923. Observations made in Duval County, northern Florida, on the gopher tortoise (Gopherus polyphemus). Copeia 1923:11-20.","shortCitationAuthor":"Hallinan","shortCitationYear":1923,"referenceCode":"A23HAL01NAUS","lastModified":"2020-02-25T18:24:22.127456Z"},{"id":156144,"citation":"Hansen, K. L. 1963. The burrow of the gopher tortoise. Journal Florida Academy Science 26:353-360.","shortCitationAuthor":"Hansen","shortCitationYear":1963,"referenceCode":"A63HAN01NAUS","lastModified":"2020-02-25T18:24:22.096144Z"},{"id":142663,"citation":"Hutchison, V. H., A. Vinegar, and R. J. Kosh. 1966. Critical thermal maxima in turtles. Herpetologica 22:32-41.","shortCitationAuthor":"Hutchison et al.","shortCitationYear":1966,"referenceCode":"A66HUT02NAUS","lastModified":"2020-02-25T18:12:49.210733Z"},{"id":128026,"citation":"Hutt, A. 1967. The gopher tortoise, a versatile vegetarian. Florida Wildlife 21:20-24.","shortCitationAuthor":"Hutt","shortCitationYear":1967,"referenceCode":"A67HUT01NAUS","lastModified":"2020-02-25T18:24:22.096144Z"},{"id":108699,"citation":"Iverson, J. B. 1980. The reproductive biology of Gopherus polyphemus (Chelonia: Testudinidae). American Midland Naturalist 103:353-359.","shortCitationAuthor":"Iverson","shortCitationYear":1980,"referenceCode":"A80IVE01NAUS","lastModified":"2020-02-25T18:24:22.127456Z"},{"id":123076,"citation":"Iverson, J. B. 1991c. Patterns of survivorship in turtles (order Testudines). Canadian J. Zoology 69:385-391.","shortCitationAuthor":"Iverson","shortCitationYear":1991,"referenceCode":"A91IVE04NAUS","lastModified":"2020-02-25T18:12:03.209999Z"},{"id":135699,"citation":"Iverson, J. B. 1992. A revised checklist with distribution maps of the turtles of the world. Privately printed. Earlham College, Richmond, Indiana.","shortCitationAuthor":"Iverson","shortCitationYear":1992,"referenceCode":"B92IVE01NAUS","lastModified":"2020-02-25T14:38:20.126743Z"},{"id":150601,"citation":"Jackson, D., and E. G. Milstrey. 1989. The fauna of gopher tortoise burrows. Pages 86-98 in J. E. Diemer, et al., editors. Gopher Tortoise Relocation Symposium Proceedings, Florida Game and Fresh Water Fish Commission, Nongame Wildlife Program Technical Report 5, Tallahassee. 109 pp.","shortCitationAuthor":"Jackson and Milstrey","shortCitationYear":1989,"referenceCode":"A89JAC02NAUS","lastModified":"2020-02-25T18:24:22.096144Z"},{"id":142043,"citation":"Kaczor, S. A., and D. C. Hartnett. 1990. Gopher tortoise (Gopherus polyphemus) effects on soils and vegetation in a Florida sandhill community. American Midland Naturalist 123:100-111.","shortCitationAuthor":"Kaczor and Hartnett","shortCitationYear":1990,"referenceCode":"A90KAC01NAUS","lastModified":"2020-02-25T18:24:22.080524Z"},{"id":118569,"citation":"King, F. W., and R. L. Burke, editors. 1989. Crocodilian, tuatara, and turtle species of the world: a taxonomic and geographic reference. Association of Systematics Collections, Washington, D.C. 216 pp.","shortCitationAuthor":"King and Burke","shortCitationYear":1989,"referenceCode":"B89KIN01NAUS","lastModified":"2020-02-25T14:38:20.126743Z"},{"id":150760,"citation":"Kopeny, M. T. 1991. Florida's proposed incidental take rule for gopher tortoises. Endangered Species Update 8(7):1-4.","shortCitationAuthor":"Kopeny","shortCitationYear":1991,"referenceCode":"A91KOP01NAUS","lastModified":"2020-02-25T18:24:22.127456Z"},{"id":1039160,"citation":"Krysko, K. L., K. M. Enge, and P. E. Moler. 2019. Amphibians and Reptiles of Florida. University of Florida Press, Gainesville, Florida, USA, 706 pp.","shortCitationAuthor":"Krysko et al.","shortCitationYear":2019,"referenceCode":"B19KRY01NAUS","lastModified":"2021-11-06T21:46:03.276156Z"},{"id":152375,"citation":"Kushlan, J. A., and F. J. Mazzotti. 1984. Environmental effects on a coastal population of gopher tortoises. J. Herpetology 18:231-239.","shortCitationAuthor":"Kushlan and Mazzotti","shortCitationYear":1984,"referenceCode":"A84KUS01NAUS","lastModified":"2020-02-25T18:24:22.111765Z"},{"id":151545,"citation":"Lamb, T., and C. Lydeard. 1994. A molecular phylogeny of the gopher tortoises, with comments on familial relationships within the Testudinoidea. Molecular Phylogenetics and Evolution 3:283-291.","shortCitationAuthor":"Lamb and Lydeard","shortCitationYear":1994,"referenceCode":"A94LAM01NAUS","lastModified":"2020-02-25T18:24:22.111765Z"},{"id":116310,"citation":"Landers, J. L. 1980. Recent research on the gopher tortoise and its implications. Pages 8-14 in R. Franz and R. J. Bryant, editors. The dilemma of the gopher tortoise--is there a solution? Proceedings of the 1st Annal Meeting, Gopher Tortoise Council.","shortCitationAuthor":"Landers","shortCitationYear":1980,"referenceCode":"A80LAN02NAUS","lastModified":"2020-02-25T18:24:22.111765Z"},{"id":133402,"citation":"Landers, J. L., and D. W. Speake. 1980. Management needs of sandhill reptiles in southern Georgia. In Proceedings of the Annual Conference of the South Eastern Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies 34:515-529.","shortCitationAuthor":"Landers and Speake","shortCitationYear":1980,"referenceCode":"A80LAN03NAUS","lastModified":"2020-02-25T18:24:22.080524Z"},{"id":128727,"citation":"Landers, J. L., and J. A. Garner. 1981. Status and distribution of the gopher tortoise in Georgia. In R. Odum and J. Guthrie, editors. Proceedings of the Nongame and Endangered Wildlife Symposium.","shortCitationAuthor":"Landers and Garner","shortCitationYear":1981,"referenceCode":"A81LAN03NAUS","lastModified":"2020-02-25T18:24:22.127456Z"},{"id":106859,"citation":"Landers, J. L., and J. L. Buckner. 1981. The gopher tortoise: effects of forest management and critical aspects of its ecology. Southlands Experimental Forest Technical Note (56):1-7.","shortCitationAuthor":"Landers and Buckner","shortCitationYear":1981,"referenceCode":"A81LAN02NAUS","lastModified":"2020-02-25T18:24:22.080524Z"},{"id":133635,"citation":"Landers, J. L., J. A. Garner, and W. A. McRae. 1980. Reproduction of gopher tortoises (Gopherus polyphemus) in southwestern Georgia. Herpetologica 36:353-361.","shortCitationAuthor":"Landers et al.","shortCitationYear":1980,"referenceCode":"A80LAN01NAUS","lastModified":"2020-02-25T18:24:22.127456Z"},{"id":146514,"citation":"Landers, J. L., W. A. McRae, and J. A. Garner. 1982. Growth and maturity of the gopher tortoise in southwestern Georgia. Bulletin Florida State Museum, Biological Sciences 27:81-110.","shortCitationAuthor":"Landers et al.","shortCitationYear":1982,"referenceCode":"A82LAN01NAUS","lastModified":"2020-02-25T18:24:22.111765Z"},{"id":143486,"citation":"Linley, T. A., and H. R. Mushinsky. 1994. Organic composition and energy content of eggs and hatchlings of the gopher tortoise. Pages 113-128 in R. B. Bury and D. J. Germano, editors. Biology of North American tortoises. National Biological Survey, Fish and Wildlife Research 13.","shortCitationAuthor":"Linley and Mushinsky","shortCitationYear":1994,"referenceCode":"A94LIN01NAUS","lastModified":"2020-02-25T18:24:22.111765Z"},{"id":131344,"citation":"Lips, K. R. 1991. Vertebrates associated with tortoise (GOPHERUS POLYPHEMUS) burrows in four habitats in south-central Florida. J. Herpetology 25:477-481.","shortCitationAuthor":"Lips","shortCitationYear":1991,"referenceCode":"A91LIP01NAUS","lastModified":"2020-02-25T18:24:22.127456Z"},{"id":139793,"citation":"Logan, T. 1981. Survey of gopher tortoise (GOPHERUS POLYPHEMUS) populations on federal lands in Florida. Unpublished report, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service National Fish and Wildlife Laboratory, Gainesville, Florida. 104 pp.","shortCitationAuthor":"Logan","shortCitationYear":1981,"referenceCode":"U81LOG01NAUS","lastModified":"2020-02-25T18:24:22.080524Z"},{"id":133549,"citation":"Lohoefener, R., and L. Lohmeier. 1984. The status of GOPHERUS POLYPHEMUS (Testudines, Testudinidae) west of the Tombigbee and Mobile rivers. Report to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service in support of petition to list this population under the Endangered Species Act of 1973. 116 pp.","shortCitationAuthor":"Lohoefener and Lohmeier","shortCitationYear":1984,"referenceCode":"U84LOH01NAUS","lastModified":"2020-02-25T18:24:22.080524Z"},{"id":148135,"citation":"Macdonald, L. A., and H. R. Mushinsky. 1988. Foraging ecology of the gopher tortoise, GOPHERUS POLYPHEMUS, in a sandhill habitat. Herpetologica 44:345-353.","shortCitationAuthor":"Macdonald and Mushinsky","shortCitationYear":1988,"referenceCode":"A88MAC02NAUS","lastModified":"2020-02-25T18:24:22.080524Z"},{"id":132481,"citation":"Martin, P. L., and J. N. Layne. 1987. Relationship of gopher tortoise body size to burrow size in a south-central Florida population. Florida Scientist 50:264-267.","shortCitationAuthor":"Martin and Layne","shortCitationYear":1987,"referenceCode":"A87MAR02NAUS","lastModified":"2020-02-25T18:24:22.127456Z"},{"id":147920,"citation":"Martin, R. P. 1989. Notes on Louisiana gopher tortoise (GOPHERUS POLYPHEMUS) reproduction. Herpetol. Rev. 20:36-37.","shortCitationAuthor":"Martin","shortCitationYear":1989,"referenceCode":"A89MAR05NAUS","lastModified":"2020-02-25T18:24:22.096144Z"},{"id":144137,"citation":"Matthews, J.R. and C.J. Moseley (eds.). 1990. The Official World Wildlife Fund Guide to Endangered Species of North America. Volume 1. Plants, Mammals. xxiii + pp 1-560 + 33 pp. appendix + 6 pp. glossary + 16 pp. index. Volume 2. Birds, Reptiles, Amphibians, Fishes, Mussels, Crustaceans, Snails, Insects, and Arachnids. xiii + pp. 561-1180. Beacham Publications, Inc., Washington, D.C.","shortCitationAuthor":"Matthews and Moseley","shortCitationYear":1990,"referenceCode":"B90MAT01NAUS","lastModified":"2020-02-25T14:38:17.314212Z"},{"id":136647,"citation":"McCoy, E. D. 1994. Field techniques for studying North American tortoises. Pages 69-73 in North American Tortoise Conference Proceedings.","shortCitationAuthor":"McCoy","shortCitationYear":1994,"referenceCode":"A94MCC05NAUS","lastModified":"2020-02-25T18:24:22.111765Z"},{"id":109310,"citation":"McCoy, E. D., and H. R. Mushinsky. 1988. The demography of GOPHERUS POLYPHEMUS (Daudin) in relation to size of available habitat. Unpublished report to Florida Game and Fresh Water Fish Commission, Nongame Wildlife Program, Tallahassee. 71 pp.","shortCitationAuthor":"McCoy and Mushinsky","shortCitationYear":1988,"referenceCode":"U88MCC01NAUS","lastModified":"2020-02-25T18:24:22.127456Z"},{"id":137748,"citation":"McCoy, E. D., and H. R. Mushinsky. 1991. A survey of gopher tortoise populations residing on twelve state parks in Florida. Florida Department of Natural Resources, Technical Report 1. 78 pp.","shortCitationAuthor":"McCoy and Mushinsky","shortCitationYear":1991,"referenceCode":"B91MCC02NAUS","lastModified":"2020-02-25T18:24:22.111765Z"},{"id":139549,"citation":"McCoy, E. D., and H. R. Mushinsky. 1992a. Studying a species in decline: gopher tortoises and the dilemma of \"correction factors.\" Herpetologica 48:402-407.","shortCitationAuthor":"McCoy and Mushinsky","shortCitationYear":1992,"referenceCode":"A92MCC01NAUS","lastModified":"2020-02-25T18:24:22.080524Z"},{"id":114664,"citation":"McCoy, E. D., and H. R. Mushinsky. 1992b. Studying a species in decline: changes in populations of the gopher tortoise on federal lands in Florida. Florida Scientist 55:116-125.","shortCitationAuthor":"McCoy and Mushinsky","shortCitationYear":1992,"referenceCode":"A92MCC02NAUS","lastModified":"2020-02-25T18:24:22.080524Z"},{"id":1154572,"citation":"McGuire, J. L., L. L. Smith, C. Guyer, J. M. Lockhart, G. W. Lee, and M. J. Yabsley. 2014. Surveillance for upper respiratory tract disease and Mycoplasma in free-ranging gopher tortoises (Gopherus polyphemus) in Georgia, USA. Journal of Wildlife Diseases 50(4): 733-744.","shortCitationAuthor":"McGuire et al.","shortCitationYear":2014,"referenceCode":"A14MCG02NAUS","lastModified":"2025-07-03T22:36:52.909857Z"},{"id":105303,"citation":"McRae, W. A., J. L. Landers, and G. D. Cleveland. 1981a. Sexual dimorphism in the gopher tortoise (Gopherus polyphemus). Herpetologica 37:46-52.","shortCitationAuthor":"McRae et al.","shortCitationYear":1981,"referenceCode":"A81MCR02NAUS","lastModified":"2020-02-25T18:24:22.096144Z"},{"id":138753,"citation":"McRae, W. A., J. L. Landers, and J. A. Garner. 1981b. Movement patterns and home range of the gopher tortoise. American Midland Naturalist 106:165-179.","shortCitationAuthor":"McRae et al.","shortCitationYear":1981,"referenceCode":"A81MCR01NAUS","lastModified":"2020-02-25T18:24:22.080524Z"},{"id":156210,"citation":"Means, D. B. 1982. Responses to winter flooding of the gopher tortoise (Gopherus polyphemus Daudin). Herpetologica 38:521-525.","shortCitationAuthor":"Means","shortCitationYear":1982,"referenceCode":"A82MEA01NAUS","lastModified":"2020-02-25T18:16:29.47968Z"},{"id":668427,"citation":"Meyer, W. D., H. E. Balbach, and J. T. Berner. 2007. Existing geospatial knowledge of gopher tortoise population and abundance. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Engineer Research and Development Center, ERDC/CERL SR-07-5.","shortCitationAuthor":"Meyer et al.","shortCitationYear":2007,"referenceCode":"N07MEY01NAUS","lastModified":"2020-02-25T18:24:22.111765Z"},{"id":1154508,"citation":"Miller, K. 2021. 'Recipient sites' in Florida charging up to $6,000 for relocating gopher tortoises... is that sustainable? The Palm Beach Post. 29 September 2021. https://www.palmbeachpost.com/story/weather/2021/09/29/florida-asks-help-finding-homes-threatened-gopher-tortoise/5840929001/ [Accessed 9 June 2025].","shortCitationAuthor":"Miller","shortCitationYear":2021,"referenceCode":"W21MIL01NAUS","lastModified":"2025-07-03T21:56:21.767783Z"},{"id":668625,"citation":"Miller, P. S., and participants. 2001. Preliminary population viability assessment for the gopher tortoise (Gopherus polyphemus) in Florida. Gopher Tortoise Population Viability Workshop, Tallahassee, FL, 11-12 September 2001. 45 pp.","shortCitationAuthor":"Miller et al.","shortCitationYear":2001,"referenceCode":"N01MIL01NAUS","lastModified":"2020-02-25T18:24:22.096144Z"},{"id":114987,"citation":"Milstrey, E. G. 1986. Ticks and invertebrate commensals in gopher tortoise burrows: implications and importance. Pages 4-25 in D. R. Jackson and R. Bryant, editors. The gopher tortoise and its community. Proceedings 5th Annual Meeting Gopher Tortoise Council, Florida State Museum, Gainesville.","shortCitationAuthor":"Milstrey","shortCitationYear":1986,"referenceCode":"A86MIL04NAUS","lastModified":"2020-02-25T18:24:22.096144Z"},{"id":118851,"citation":"Morafka, D. J., G. Aguirre L., and R. W. Murphy. 1994. Allozyme differentiation amoung gopher tortoises (GOPHERUS): Conservation genetics and phylogenetic and taxonomic implications. Canadian Journal of Zoology 72:1665-1671.","shortCitationAuthor":"Morafka et al.","shortCitationYear":1994,"referenceCode":"A94MOR03NAUS","lastModified":"2020-02-25T18:24:22.111765Z"},{"id":120174,"citation":"Mount, R. H. 1975. The reptiles and amphibians of Alabama. Auburn University Agricultural Experiment Station, Auburn, Alabama. vii + 347 pp.","shortCitationAuthor":"Mount","shortCitationYear":1975,"referenceCode":"B75MOU01NAUS","lastModified":"2020-02-25T18:11:56.616394Z"},{"id":125211,"citation":"Mushinsky, H. R., and D. J. Gibson. 1991. The influence of fire periodicity on habitat structure. Pages 237-259 in S. E. Bell, E. D. McCoy, and H. R. Mushinsky, editors. Habitat structure: the physical arrangement of objects in space. Chapman and Hall Ltd.","shortCitationAuthor":"Mushinsky and Gibson","shortCitationYear":1991,"referenceCode":"A91MUS01NAUS","lastModified":"2020-02-25T18:24:22.080524Z"},{"id":145727,"citation":"Mushinsky, H. R., and E. D. McCoy. 1994. Comparison of gopher tortoise populations on islands and on the mainland in Florida. Pages 39-47 in R. B. Bury and D. J. Germano, editors. Biology of North American Tortoises. National Biological Survey, Fish and Wildlife Research 13.","shortCitationAuthor":"Mushinsky and McCoy","shortCitationYear":1994,"referenceCode":"A94MUS03NAUS","lastModified":"2020-02-25T18:24:22.096144Z"},{"id":145461,"citation":"Mushinsky, H. R., D. S. Wilson, and E. D. McCoy. 1994. Growth and sexual dipmorphism of Gopherus polyphemus in central Florida. Herpetologica 50: 119-128.","shortCitationAuthor":"Mushinsky et al.","shortCitationYear":1994,"referenceCode":"A94MUS01NAUS","lastModified":"2025-07-03T22:36:52.796755Z"},{"id":235654,"citation":"Mushinsky, H. R., T. A. Stilson, and E. D. McCoy. 2003. Diet and dietary preference of the juvenile gopher tortoise (Gopherus polyphemus). Herpetologica 59:475-483.","shortCitationAuthor":"Mushinsky et al.","shortCitationYear":2003,"referenceCode":"A03MUS01NAUS","lastModified":"2020-02-25T18:24:22.127456Z"},{"id":153521,"citation":"Osentoski, M. F. 1993. MtDNA variation in the gopher tortoise, GOPHERUS POLYPHEMUS. M.S. thesis, East Carolina University.","shortCitationAuthor":"Osentoski","shortCitationYear":1993,"referenceCode":"U93OSE01NAUS","lastModified":"2020-02-25T18:24:22.096144Z"},{"id":121391,"citation":"Palmer, B. D., and L. J. Guillette, Jr. 1988. Histology and functional morphology of the female reproductive tract of the tortoise GOPHERUS POLYPHEMUS. American Journal of Anatomy 183:200-211.","shortCitationAuthor":"Palmer and Guillette","shortCitationYear":1988,"referenceCode":"A88PAL01NAUS","lastModified":"2020-02-25T18:24:22.111765Z"},{"id":668182,"citation":"Pike, D. 2006. Movement patterns, habitat use, and growth of hatchling tortoises, Gopherus polyphemus. Copeia 2006: 68-76.","shortCitationAuthor":"Pike","shortCitationYear":2006,"referenceCode":"A06PIK01NAUS","lastModified":"2020-02-25T18:24:22.096144Z"},{"id":1152494,"citation":"

NatureServe's Rapid Analysis of Rarity and Endangerment Conservation Assessment Tool (RARECAT). 2025. Version: 2.1.1 (released April 04, 2025).

","shortCitationAuthor":"RARECAT","shortCitationYear":2025,"referenceCode":"W25NSR01HQUS","lastModified":"2025-04-04T22:11:27.25988Z"},{"id":131802,"citation":"Pope, C.H. 1939. Turtles of the United States and Canada. Alfred A. Knopf, New York. 343 pp.","shortCitationAuthor":"Pope","shortCitationYear":1939,"referenceCode":"B39POP01NAUS","lastModified":"2020-02-25T18:12:49.226348Z"},{"id":1154571,"citation":"Rautsaw, R. M., S. A. Martin, B. A. Vincent, K. Lanctot, M. R. Bolt, R. A. Siegel, and C. L. Parkinson. 2018. On the road again: assessing the use of roasdsides as wildlife corridors for gopher tortoises (Gopherus polyphemus). Journal of Herpetology 52(2): 136-144. doi: 10.1670/17-013","shortCitationAuthor":"Rautsaw et al.","shortCitationYear":2018,"referenceCode":"A18RAU02NAUS","lastModified":"2025-07-03T22:36:52.894754Z"},{"id":1154570,"citation":"Rautsaw, R. M., S. A. Martin, B. A. Vincent, K. Lanctot, M. R. Bolt, R. A. Siegel, and C. L. Parkinson. 2018. Stopped dead in their tracks: the impact of railways on gopher tortoise (Gopherus polyphemus) movement and behavior. Copeia 106(1): 135-143. doi: 10.1643/CE-17-635","shortCitationAuthor":"Rautsaw et al.","shortCitationYear":2018,"referenceCode":"A18RAU01NAUS","lastModified":"2025-07-03T22:36:52.879746Z"},{"id":761789,"citation":"Richter, S. C., J. A. Jackson, M. Hinderliter, D. Epperson, C. W. Theodorakis, and S. M. Adams. 2011. Conservation genetics of the largest cluster of federally threatened gopher tortoise (Gopherus polyphemus) colonies with implications for species management. Herpetologica 67:406-419.","shortCitationAuthor":"Richter et al.","shortCitationYear":2011,"referenceCode":"A11RIC02HQUS","lastModified":"2020-02-25T18:24:22.127456Z"},{"id":668181,"citation":"Riedl, S. C. 2006. Effects of gopher tortoise (Gopherus polyphemus) translocation on movements, reproductive activity, and body condition of resident and translocated individuals in central Florida. M.S. thesis, University of South Florida. ","shortCitationAuthor":"Riedl","shortCitationYear":2006,"referenceCode":"U06RIE01NAUS","lastModified":"2020-02-25T18:24:22.080524Z"},{"id":1108759,"citation":"Rostal, D. C., E. D. McCoy, and H. R. Mushinsky, eds. 2014. Biology and Conservation of North American Tortoises. John Hopkins University Press. 208 pp.","shortCitationAuthor":"Rostal et al.","shortCitationYear":2014,"referenceCode":"B14ROS01NAUS","lastModified":"2022-01-11T02:24:35.104091Z"},{"id":215431,"citation":"Seigel, R. A., R. B. Smith, and N. A. Seigel. 2003. Swine flu or 1918 pandemic? Upper Respiratory Tract Disease and the sudden mortality of gopher tortoises (Gopherus polyphemus) on a protected habitat in Florida. Journal of Herpetology 37:137-144.","shortCitationAuthor":"Seigel et al.","shortCitationYear":2003,"referenceCode":"A03SEI01NAUS","lastModified":"2020-02-25T18:24:22.096144Z"},{"id":138119,"citation":"Smith, K. R., J. A. Hurley, and R. A. Seigel. 1997b. Reproductive biology and demography of gopher tortoises (Gopherus polyphemus) from the western portion of their range. Chelonian Conservation and Biology 2:596-600.","shortCitationAuthor":"Smith et al.","shortCitationYear":1997,"referenceCode":"A97SMI04NAUS","lastModified":"2020-02-25T18:24:22.096144Z"},{"id":668425,"citation":"Smith, L. S., J. Stober, H. E. Balbach, and W. D. Meyer. 2009. Gopher tortoise survey handbook. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Engineer Research and Development Center, ERDC/CERL TR-09-7.","shortCitationAuthor":"Smith et al.","shortCitationYear":2009,"referenceCode":"N09SMI01NAUS","lastModified":"2020-02-25T18:24:22.080524Z"},{"id":151730,"citation":"Smith, R. B., D. R. Breininger, and V. L. Larson. 1997c. Home range characteristics of radiotagged gopher tortoises on Kennedy Space Center, Florida. Chelonian Conservation and Biology 2(3):358-362.","shortCitationAuthor":"Smith et al.","shortCitationYear":1997,"referenceCode":"A97SMI02NAUS","lastModified":"2020-02-25T18:24:22.127456Z"},{"id":131526,"citation":"Smith, R. B., R. A. Seigel, and K. R. Smith. 1998. Occurrence of Upper Respiratory Tract Disease in gopher tortoise populations in Florida and Mississippi. Journal of Herpetology 32:426-430.","shortCitationAuthor":"Smith et al.","shortCitationYear":1998,"referenceCode":"A98SMI03NAUS","lastModified":"2020-02-25T18:24:22.064919Z"},{"id":146408,"citation":"Spillers, D. M., and D. W. Speake. 1988. A survey method for measuring gopher tortoise density and habitat distribution. Pages 199-204 in B88SZA01NA.","shortCitationAuthor":"Spillers and Speake","shortCitationYear":1988,"referenceCode":"A88SPI01NAUS","lastModified":"2020-02-25T18:24:22.111765Z"},{"id":145576,"citation":"Stewart, M. C., D. F. Austin, and G. R. Bourne. 1993. Habitat structure and the dispersion of gopher tortoises on a nature preserve. Florida Scientist, Biological Sciences 56:70-81.","shortCitationAuthor":"Stewart et al.","shortCitationYear":1993,"referenceCode":"A93STE06NAUS","lastModified":"2020-02-25T18:24:22.096144Z"},{"id":113122,"citation":"Stout, I. J., T. J. Doonan, R. E. Roberts, and D. R. Richardson. 1989. Comparison of results of three gopher tortoise relocations in central and southeast Florida. Pages 15-42 in J. E. Diemer, et al., editors. Gopher Tortoise Relocation Symposium Proceedings, Florida Game and Fresh Water Fish Commission, Nongame Wildlife Program Technical Report 5, Tallahassee. 109 pp.","shortCitationAuthor":"Stout et al.","shortCitationYear":1989,"referenceCode":"A89STO02NAUS","lastModified":"2020-02-25T18:24:22.096144Z"},{"id":761780,"citation":"Styrsky, J. N., C. Guyer, H. Balbach, and A. Turkmen. 2010. The relationship between burrow abundance and area as a predictor of gopher tortoise population size. Herpetologica 66:403-410.","shortCitationAuthor":"Styrsky et al.","shortCitationYear":2010,"referenceCode":"A10STY01HQUS","lastModified":"2020-02-25T18:24:22.127456Z"},{"id":143225,"citation":"Taylor, R. W., Jr. 1982j. Human predation on the gopher tortoise (GOPHERUS POLYPHEMUS) in north-central Florida. Bulletin Florida State Museum, Biological Sciences 28:79-102.","shortCitationAuthor":"Taylor","shortCitationYear":1982,"referenceCode":"A82TAY01NAUS","lastModified":"2020-02-25T18:24:22.127456Z"},{"id":118056,"citation":"Thomas, D., and E. Blankenship. 2002. Mycoplasma testing in the gopher tortoise, Gopherus polyphemus, along a pipeline transect in Mississippi. Herpetological Review 33:101-103.","shortCitationAuthor":"Thomas and Blankenship","shortCitationYear":2002,"referenceCode":"A02THO01NAUS","lastModified":"2020-02-25T18:24:22.127456Z"},{"id":668552,"citation":"Tuberville, T. D., J. W. Gibbons, and H. E. Balbach. 2009. Estimating viability of gopher tortoise populations. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Engineer Research and Development Center, Construction Engineering Research Laboratory, ERCD/CERL TR-09-2. viii + 47 pp.","shortCitationAuthor":"Tubeerville et al.","shortCitationYear":2009,"referenceCode":"N09TUB01NAUS","lastModified":"2020-02-25T18:24:22.111765Z"},{"id":1154568,"citation":"Tuberville, T. D., K. A. Buhlmann, H. E. Balbach, S. H. Bennett, J. P. Nestor, J. W. Gibbons, and R. R. Sharitz. 2007. Habitat selection by the gopher tortoise (Gopherus polyphemus). U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Engineer Research and Development Center, ERDC/CERL TR-07-1. 34 pp.","shortCitationAuthor":"Tuberville et al.","shortCitationYear":2007,"referenceCode":"N07TUB01NAUS","lastModified":"2025-07-03T22:36:52.859748Z"},{"id":1154509,"citation":"Turner, J. 2021. Florida wildlife officials support expanding how far gopher tortoises can be relocated. Herald-Tribune, Sarasota, Florida. https://www.heraldtribune.com/story/news/environment/2021/12/16/florida-officials-support-gopher-tortoise-change-favors-developers/8923938002/ [Accessed 9 June 2025].","shortCitationAuthor":"Turner","shortCitationYear":2021,"referenceCode":"W21TUR01NAUS","lastModified":"2025-07-03T21:56:21.770777Z"},{"id":1107320,"citation":"Turtle Taxonomy Working Group (TTWG) [Rhodin, A. G. J., J. B. Iverson, R. Bour, U. Fritz, A. Georges, H. B. Shaffer, and P. P. van Dijk]. 2021. Turtles of the World: Annotated Checklist and Atlas of Taxonomy, Synonymy, Distribution, and Conservation Status (9th Ed.). In: Rhodin, A. G. J., J. B. Iverson , P. P. van Dijk, C. B. Stanford, E. V. Goode, K. A. Buhlmann, and R. A. Mittermeier (Eds.). Conservation Biology of Freshwater Turtles and Tortoises: A Compilation Project of the IUCN/SSC Tortoise and Freshwater Turtle Specialist Group. Chelonian Research Monographs 8:1–472. doi: 10.3854/crm.8.checklist.atlas.v9.2021.","shortCitationAuthor":"TTWG","shortCitationYear":2021,"referenceCode":"B21TTW01NAUS","lastModified":"2022-07-02T00:44:58.794768Z"},{"id":722662,"citation":"Turtle Taxonomy Working Group [van Dijk, P.P., Iverson, J.B., Shaffer, H.B., Bour, R., and Rhodin, A.G.J.]. 2012. Turtles of the world, 2012 update: annotated checklist of taxonomy, synonymy, distribution, and conservation status. In: Rhodin, A.G.J., Pritchard, P.C.H., van Dijk, P.P., Saumure, R.A., Buhlmann, K.A., Iverson, J.B., and Mittermeier, R.A. (Eds.). Conservation Biology of Freshwater Turtles and Tortoises: A Compilation Project of the IUCN/SSC Tortoise and Freshwater Turtle Specialist Group. Chelonian Research Monographs No. 5:000.243-000.328. Online. Available: www.iucn-tftsg.org/cbftt/.","shortCitationAuthor":"van Dijk et al.","shortCitationYear":2012,"referenceCode":"B12VAN01EHUS","lastModified":"2020-02-25T14:38:20.126743Z"},{"id":154021,"citation":"Ultsch, G. R., and J. F. Anderson. 1986. The respiratory microenvironment within the burrows of gopher tortoises (GOPHERUS POLYPHEMUS). Copeia 1986:787-795.","shortCitationAuthor":"Ultsch and Anderson","shortCitationYear":1986,"referenceCode":"A86ULT01NAUS","lastModified":"2020-02-25T18:24:22.096144Z"},{"id":143776,"citation":"U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 1990. Endangered and threatened species recovery program: report to Congress. 406 pp.","shortCitationAuthor":"USFWS","shortCitationYear":1990,"referenceCode":"B90FWS03NAUS","lastModified":"2020-02-25T14:38:17.314212Z"},{"id":215420,"citation":"U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 1990. Gopher tortoise recovery plan. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Jackson, Mississippi.","shortCitationAuthor":"USFWS","shortCitationYear":1990,"referenceCode":"A90FWS04NAUS","lastModified":"2020-02-25T18:24:22.096144Z"},{"id":650537,"citation":"U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 2009. Endangered and threatened wildlife and plants; 90-day finding on a petition to list the eastern population of the gopher tortoise (Gopherus polyphemus) as threatened. Federal Register 74(173):46401-46406.","shortCitationAuthor":"USFWS","shortCitationYear":2009,"referenceCode":"N09FWS11EHUS","lastModified":"2020-02-25T18:24:22.096144Z"},{"id":671231,"citation":"U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 2011. Endangered and threatened wildlife and plants; 12-month finding on a petition to list the Gopher Tortoise as threatened in the eastern portion of its range. Federal Register 76(144):45130-45162.","shortCitationAuthor":"USFWS","shortCitationYear":2011,"referenceCode":"N11FWS11EHUS","lastModified":"2020-02-25T18:24:22.080524Z"},{"id":1046584,"citation":"U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 2019. Review of Domestic and Foreign Species That Are Candidates for Listing as Endangered or Threatened; Annual Notification of Findings on Resubmitted Petitions; Annual Description of Progress on Listing Actions. Federal Register 84(197):54732-54757.","shortCitationAuthor":"U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS)","shortCitationYear":2019,"referenceCode":"N19FWS06HQUS","lastModified":"2023-06-30T22:02:26.500919Z"},{"id":1068554,"citation":"U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 2020. Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Review of Domestic Species That Are Candidates for Listing as Endangered or Threatened; Annual Notification of Findings on Resubmitted Petitions; Annual Description of Progress on Listing Actions. Federal Register 85(221):73164-73179.","shortCitationAuthor":"U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS)","shortCitationYear":2020,"referenceCode":"N20FWS11HQUS","lastModified":"2023-06-30T22:02:26.500919Z"},{"id":1154566,"citation":"U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 2021. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service species assessment and listing priority assignment form: gopher tortoise (Gopherus polyphemus). U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Florida Ecological Services Field Office. 54 pp.","shortCitationAuthor":"USFWS","shortCitationYear":2021,"referenceCode":"N21FWS66NAUS","lastModified":"2025-07-03T22:36:52.799744Z"},{"id":1119116,"citation":"U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 2022. Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Finding for the Gopher Tortoise Eastern and Western Distinct Population Segments. Federal Register 87(196):61834-61868.","shortCitationAuthor":"USFWS","shortCitationYear":2022,"referenceCode":"N22FWS33NAUS","lastModified":"2022-11-04T00:26:58.586161Z"},{"id":1114047,"citation":"U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 2022. Review of Species That Are Candidates for Listing as Endangered or Threatened; Annual Notification of Findings on Resubmitted Petitions; Annual Description of Progress on Listing Actions. Notification of Review Federal Register 87(85): 26152-26178.","shortCitationAuthor":"USFWS","shortCitationYear":2022,"referenceCode":"N22FWS09HQUS","lastModified":"2022-06-03T23:02:08.899148Z"},{"id":111688,"citation":"U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 7 July 1987. Determination of threatened status forthe gopher tortoise (Gopherus polyphemus)[sic]. Federal Register 52:25376-25380.","shortCitationAuthor":"USFWS","shortCitationYear":1987,"referenceCode":"A87USF05NAUS","lastModified":"2020-02-25T18:24:22.096144Z"},{"id":138961,"citation":"Walker, D., and J. C. Avise. 1998. Principles of phylogeography as illustrated by freshwater and terrestrial turtles in the southeastern United States. Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics 29:23-58.","shortCitationAuthor":"Walker and Avise","shortCitationYear":1998,"referenceCode":"A98WAL04NAUS","lastModified":"2020-02-25T14:38:20.126743Z"},{"id":138570,"citation":"Ware, S., C. Frost and P. D. Doerr. 1993. Southern mixed hardwood forest: the former longleaf pine forest. Pages 447-93 in W. H. Martin, S. G. Boyce, and A. C. Echternacht (editors). Biodiversity of the southeastern United States, lowland terrestrial communities. John Wiley and Sons, New York.","shortCitationAuthor":"Ware et al.","shortCitationYear":1993,"referenceCode":"A93WAR02NAUS","lastModified":"2020-02-25T18:16:29.464043Z"},{"id":120529,"citation":"Wilson, D. S. 1991d. Estimates of survival for juvenile gopher tortoises, GOPHERUS POLYPHEMUS. J. Herpetology 25:376-379.","shortCitationAuthor":"Wilson","shortCitationYear":1991,"referenceCode":"A91WIL03NAUS","lastModified":"2020-02-25T18:24:22.111765Z"},{"id":150679,"citation":"Wilson, D. S., H. R. Mushinsky, and E. D. McCoy. 1991a. Home range, activity, and use of burrows of juvenile gopher tortoises in central Florida. Pages 147-160 in R. B. Bury and D. J. Germano, editors. Biology of North American tortoises. National Biological Survey, Fish and Wildlife Research 13.","shortCitationAuthor":"Wilson et al.","shortCitationYear":1991,"referenceCode":"A94WIL01NAUS","lastModified":"2020-02-25T18:24:22.096144Z"},{"id":114515,"citation":"Wilson, D. S., H. R. Mushinsky, and E. D. McCoy. 1991b. Relationship between gopher tortoise body size and burrow width. Herpetol. Rev. 22:122-124.","shortCitationAuthor":"Wilson et al.","shortCitationYear":1991,"referenceCode":"A91WIL08NAUS","lastModified":"2020-02-25T18:24:22.111765Z"},{"id":110570,"citation":"Witz, B. W., D. S. Wilson, and M. D. Palmer. 1991. Distribution of Gopherus polyphemus and its vertebrate symbionts in three burrow categories. American Midland Naturalist 126:152-158.","shortCitationAuthor":"Witz et al.","shortCitationYear":1991,"referenceCode":"A91WIT01NAUS","lastModified":"2020-02-25T18:24:22.127456Z"},{"id":115173,"citation":"Witz, B. W., D. S. Wilson, and M. D. Palmer. 1992. Estimating population size and hatchling mortality of GOPHERUS POLYPHEMUS. Florida Scientist 55:14-19.","shortCitationAuthor":"Witz et al.","shortCitationYear":1992,"referenceCode":"A92WIT03NAUS","lastModified":"2020-02-25T18:24:22.080524Z"},{"id":130340,"citation":"Wright, J. S. 1982. Distribution and population biology of the gopher tortoise, GOPHERUS POLYPHEMUS, in South Carolina. M.S. thesis, Clemson, South Carolina. 70 pp.","shortCitationAuthor":"Wright","shortCitationYear":1982,"referenceCode":"U82WRI01NAUS","lastModified":"2020-02-25T18:24:22.080524Z"},{"id":128601,"citation":"Young, F. N., and C. C. Goff. 1939. An annotated list of arthropods found in the burrows of the Florida gopher tortoise Gopherus polyphemus (Daudin). Florida Entomologist 22:53-62.","shortCitationAuthor":"Young and Goff","shortCitationYear":1939,"referenceCode":"A39YOU01NAUS","lastModified":"2020-02-25T18:24:22.096144Z"}],"otherCommonNames":[{"id":144717,"name":"gopher tortoise","language":"EN"}],"speciesGlobal":{"elementGlobalId":105196,"cites":{"id":2,"citesDescEn":"Appendix II","citesDescEs":"Apéndice II","citesDescFr":"Annexe II"},"cosewic":null,"fwsRegion":{"id":4,"fwsRegionDescEn":"Southeast","fwsRegionDescEs":"Sureste","fwsRegionDescFr":"Sud-Est"},"genusSize":{"id":2,"genusSizeDescEn":"Very small genus","genusSizeDescEs":"Un género muy pequeño","genusSizeDescFr":"Très petit genre"},"jurisEndem":{"id":3,"jurisEndemDescEn":"endemic to a single nation","jurisEndemDescEs":"Endémico de una nación","jurisEndemDescFr":"Endémique à une nation"},"nomenclaturallyEst":null,"usesa":null,"informalTaxonomy":{"informalTaxonomyId":8,"level1":"Animals","level2":"Vertebrates","level3":"Turtles","level":3,"hasChildren":false,"parentId":2,"distributionStatus":"complete","displayOrder":1110},"parentSpecies":null,"infraspecies":false,"kingdom":"Animalia","phylum":"Craniata","taxclass":"Chelonia","taxorder":"Testudines","family":"Testudinidae","genus":"Gopherus","americanFisheriesStatus":null,"americanFisheriesStatusDate":null,"saraStatus":null,"saraStatusDate":null,"cosewicDate":null,"interpretedCosewic":null,"cosewicComments":null,"usesaDate":null,"interpretedUsesa":"PS:T","usesaComments":"USFWS (2022) announced the following findings on the status of this species both rangewide and in the eastern (east of the Mobile and Tombigbee Rivers) and western (west of the Mobile and Tombigbee Rivers) portions of the range under the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (Act):

After a review of the best available scientific and commercial information, they find that listing the gopher tortoise as an endangered or a threatened species rangewide is not warranted. They find that the gopher tortoise in the eastern portion of its range and the gopher tortoise in the western portion of its range meet the criteria of separate distinct population segments (DPS), as defined by their Policy Regarding the Recognition of Distinct Vertebrate Population Segments Under the Endangered Species Act. They determine the Eastern DPS of the gopher tortoise is not warranted for listing at this time. Further, they confirm that the Western DPS of the gopher tortoise meets the definition of a threatened species. Additionally, the Federal Register notice (FR Document: 2022-21659) serves as the completed 5-year review of the Western DPS of the gopher tortoise.","completeDistribution":true,"synonyms":[],"infraspeciesList":[],"ebarId":null,"ebarCanadianScope":false,"ebarGlobalScope":false,"ebarKbaGroup":"Amphibians and Reptiles","caGeneralStatusId":null},"speciesCharacteristics":{"elementGlobalId":105196,"reproductionComments":"Male tortoises seek females for mating from May to July. There is some evidence that dominant males breed with several females (Douglass 1990). When seeking a female, a male moves to the mouth of a burrow occupied by a female and displays a head bobbing behavior (Auffenberg 1966, Wright 1982). If the female exits her burrow the courting male walks in a circle around the female, periodically stopping and performing the head bobbing behavior. When the female approaches the courting male, he bobs his head violently, and bites her on the forelegs, head, anterior edge of the carapace, and gular projection. The female then backs in a semicircle, stops, and extends her hindlimbs. Thereafter, she rotates her body about 180 degrees, so that her posterior end is near the male's head. The courting male then attempts to mount the female; if unsuccessful, he repeats the courting behavior (Auffenberg 1966, Ernst and Barbour 1972).

Nesting occurs from late April to mid-July (mainly mid-May to mid-June) (Iverson 1980, Landers et al. 1980, Wright 1982, Epperson and Heise 2003)). Clutch size usually is 5-9, averages 3.8 in South Carolina, 5-6 in Florida (e.g., Butler and Hull 1996), 7 in Georgia (see Diemer and Moore 1994), 4.8 in Mississippi (Epperson and Heise 2003). A large female from central Florida produced an unusually large clutch of 25 eggs (Godley 1989). Clutch size increases with increasing female size (Landers et al. 1980, Diemer and Moore 1994). Adult females produce one clutch/year (but some adults do not nest every year). The ovarian cycle was described by Iverson (1980) and Palmer and Guillette (1988). Incubation lasts about 110 days in South Carolina, 80-90 days in northern Florida (Iverson 1980, Landers et al. 1980), mean of 105 days in northeastern Florida (Butler and Hull 1996), mean of 88 dyas in Mississippi (Epperson and Heise 2003). Hatching occurs from August through September. In northeastern Florida, hatchlings emerged from the nest from late August through early October (Butler and Hull 1996). At hatching, and about 24-48 hours prior to emergence, hatchlings exhibit a large external yolk sac (Linley and Mushinsky 1994). The external yolk sac is absorbed as the hatchlings remain in the nest cavity prior to emergence. Just after emergence a deep transverse groove across the plastron is visible; it disappears two to three days after emergence as the anterior- posterior axis of the body becomes straight and the plastron flattens (Ernst and Barbour 1972). This species exhibits temperature-dependent sex determination (Burke et al. 1996, Chelonian Conservation and Biology 2:86-88).

In Georgia, Landers and coworkers (1982) found that pronounced growth occurred through the age of 11 years, after which growth rate gradually decreased. In central Florida, Mushinsky and coworkers (1994) reported an average increase of 18.9 mm/year for ages 1-11, after which time growth slowed to approximately 3%/year until age 20.

Females become sexually mature at a carapace length of 23-24 cm. Body size, rather than age, seems to determine sexual maturity in gopher tortoises. In southern Georgia, it may take from 19-21 years for females to become sexually mature (Landers et al. 1982), while in central Florida females may mature in 9-11 years (Mushinsky et al. 1994). In part, this variation reflects the long activity season available to tortoises in central Florida. In addition to geographic location, however, local conditions also influence the number of years required to achieve sexual maturity. For example, one study of gopher tortoises in central Florida (Godley 1989) found that females attain sexual maturity in 14-16 years, while another study in the same county found that females attain sexual maturity in 9-11 years (Mushinsky et al. 1994). The study area occupied by the faster maturing females was a frequently burned sandhill habitat, whereas the other study area was a mosaic of habitats including pine flatwoods and mixed mesic forests. Males likely mature at a smaller size than females. In north Florida, Diemer and Moore (1994) reported males that were apparently mature at a carapace length of about 18 cm. Potential longevity is several decades.

The level of predation on eggs and young is high. For example, over a two- year period in South Carolina, 17 of 24 (74%) nests were destroyed (Wright 1982). In Georgia, an average female is estimated to produce a successful clutch of eggs (eggs are not destroyed prior to hatching) once a decade (Landers et al. 1980), because about 90% of their nests are destroyed annually. Common predators of eggs are armadillos (DASYPUS NOVEMCINCTUS), raccoons (PROCYON LOTOR), grey foxes (UROCYON CINEREOARGENTEUS), striped skunks (MEPHITIS MEPHITIS), and opossums (DIDELPHIS VIRGINIANUS) (Hallinan 1923, Ernst and Barbour 1972, Douglass and Winegarner 1977, Landers et al. 1980). Hatchling gopher tortoises (individuals in their first year of life) also are subjected to high levels of predation. From egg laying to one year of age, gopher tortoises in northern Florida were estimated to have a mortality rate of 94.2% (Alford 1980). Results from another study in central Florida, which also combined mortality of eggs and hatchlings, suggested an annual mortality rate of 92.3% (Witz et al. 1992). Estimated rates of survivorship of juvenile gopher tortoises (age 1 to 4 years) have been reported from one location in central Florida (Wilson 1991). Wilson (1991) found that predation of juvenile tortoises was higher in October-November and April-May than any other two month interval of the year. Juvenile tortoises are known to bask at the mouths of their burrows more often in the spring and fall of the year than during the summer or winter months (Wilson et al. 1994). It appears that a juvenile tortoise, when positioned at the mouth of the burrow to thermoregulate during the cool months of the year may be quite vulnerable to predation by avian and mammalian predators (Wilson 1991, see also Fitzpatrick and Woolfenden 1978).","ecologyComments":"BURROWING AND BURROW ECOLOGY: Gopher tortoises excavate deep burrows that provide shelter from climatic extremes and refuge from predation. Adult burrows average approximately 4.5 m in length and about 2 m deep (Diemer 1989; see Guyer and Hermann 1997 for information on burrow size and longevity at sites in Georgia and Alabama). Burrows have been found to be significantly shorter in clayey soils than sandy soils which may be a result of respiratory limitations (Ultsch and Anderson 1986); oxygen decrements and carbon dioxide increments were greatest in clayey soils and were positively correlated with burrow length. The high humidity associated with the burrow may offer the tortoise protection from desiccation (Auffenberg and Weaver 1969, Means 1982). At the mouth of each burrow is a mound of subsoil excavated by the burrow resident. Kaczor and Hartnett (1990) found that these soil mounds undergo microsuccession and contribute toward increased plant species diversity in the surrounding habitat.

In northern Florida, Diemer (1992c) found that, on average, adult male tortoises use 5.5 burrows and adult female tortoises use 2.7 burrows per activity season (April-December). In Georgia, tortoises were reported to use 7 and 4 burrows for males and females, respectively (McRae et al. 1981b). Average number of burrows used annually by juvenile tortoises was 1.1 by 0-1- year-olds, 2.2 by 2-year-olds, and 1.7 by 4-5-year-olds in a southern Georgia population (McRae et al. 1981b) and 4.4 by 1-4-year-olds in a central Florida population (Wilson et al. 1994). At the Kennedy Space Center in Florida, Smith et al. (1997) documented the use of individual burrows by several tortoises at different times and occupation of individual burrows by two tortoises at the same time. Suggested reasons for differences in burrow use between populations include differences in ground cover, soil composition, temperature extremes at different latitudes, and number of disturbances to burrows.

Although juvenile tortoises use several burrows they spend most of their time in a primary burrow. Annual use of the primary burrow for juvenile tortoises in a central Florida population was 75% of the use of all burrows (Wilson et al. 1994). The data for estimated use of the primary burrow for adult gopher tortoises are not available. Hatchlings dig burrows (Epperson and Heise 2003) and, in their first year, use multiple burrows (Butler et al. 1995). Several studies have noted that gopher tortoises sometimes use shallow depressions, possibly as resting sites when traveling far from their burrows (Fucigna and Nickerson 1989, Godley 1989, Stout et al. 1989, Diemer 1992c), and windrows, possibly for protection from cattle and machinery (Diemer 1992c). On pine plantations in Alabama, most burrows of juveniles were associated with stumps, fallen logs or tree limbs, or shrub stems, which could interfere with excavation attempts by predators (Aresco 1999). Ashton and Ashton (2001) documented the use of apparently abandoned burrows by juveniles in Citrus County, Florida.

In Northern Florida, Diemer (1992b) studied tortoise populations for several years. She found that the number of burrows showing signs of recent activity increased in April, peaked in July, and remained high through October. The burrow surveys showed a continuous cycle of burrow creation and abandonment. The ratio of captured tortoises to burrows (active and inactive) varied among sites and years; the ratio of burrows to tortoises ranged from 0.45-0.69. Percentages of adult individuals in the three populations studied ranged from 40-62%.

Gopher tortoises desiccate more rapidly when deprived of a burrow than any other member of the genus GOPHERUS (Auffenberg and Weaver 1969). They may withstand relatively high body temperatures (Bogert and Cowles 1947) but froth at the mouth and breathe rapidly when heat stressed. Critical thermal maximum is reported as 43.9 C (Hutchinson et al. 1966).

Many vertebrate and invertebrate species have been recorded from gopher tortoise burrows (Young and Goff 1939, Brode 1959, Hansen 1963, Franz 1986, Jackson and Milstrey 1989, Lips 1991, Witz et al. 1991), including protected species such as the eastern indigo snake (DRYMARCHON CORAIS COUPERI) and the gopher frog (RANA CAPITO) (Auffenberg 1969, 1978; Diemer 1986). Some burrow associates prefer active burrows over inactive or abandoned ones (Lips 1991); these can be distinguished by characteristics of the burrow entrance (Auffenberg and Franz 1982, Cox et al. 1987). Eisenberg (1983) found that 73.7% of gopher frogs censused were found in active tortoise burrows. Witz and coworkers (1991) excavated 1019 burrows and found that of the vertebrate symbionts captured only lizards were found significantly more often in active burrows than in either inactive or abandoned burrows. Fecal material and other organic debris in the enlarged area at the bottom of the burrow serves as an important food source for some burrow associates (Milstrey 1986).

POPULATION ECOLOGY:

Often occurs in more or less isolated colonies of up to about 57 individuals; population density within a colony was estimated at 3-27/ha in Florida (Auffenberg and Franz 1982). Folk (1993) estimated density at about 1-2/ha, 3-5/ha, and 16-25/ha on 3 TNC preserves in Florida. At the Kennedy Space Center, Florida, fall densities ranged from a mean of 2.7/ha in disturbed habitat to 0.0/ha in saw palmetto habitat; spring densities ranged from a mean of 2.5/ha in saw palmetto habitat to 0.7/ha in oak-palmetto habitat (Breininger et al. 1994).

A comprehensive study of about 50 populations of gopher tortoises in Florida (McCoy and Mushinsky 1988) found several trends. Gopher tortoise populations residing on sites that had experienced severe area reduction (greater than 25% reduction over the past 20 years), or occurred on sites with greater than 50% tree canopy, or occurred on sites of small size (< 2 ha), tended to have truncated demographic profiles. A truncated profile suggests little recruitment of individuals into the population and abandonment of the site by larger, mature individuals. In contrast, tortoise populations on sites with no or limited area reduction, or sites with less than 50% tree canopy, or relatively large sites (> 2 ha) tended to have a high proportion of large, mature individuals and evidence of recruitment of young into the population (McCoy and Mushinsky 1988).

Comparisons of tortoise populations on true islands with populations on the mainland suggested that tortoises do respond to relatively small, isolated habitats (Mushinsky and McCoy 1994). Both island and mainland tortoise populations show a positive relationship between the number of active and inactive burrows and the area of habitat. Density of burrows, however, decreased as area increased on the mainland, but density of burrows was not related to area on the islands. Also, on the mainland, the ratio of inactive to active burrows (a measure of the tendency of individuals to construct new burrows) increased with area of habitat, and burrow density increased with increasing herbaceous vegetation, but neither of these relations could be demonstrated on islands. Collectively, these findings suggest that tortoises have a greater selection of habitats on the mainland than on islands. Tortoises on islands are confined and may be forced to live in less than ideal conditions. The implications of these findings are profound for tortoises living in small, fragmented \"habitat islands\" on the mainland. In time, perhaps a few decades, as the quality of their habitat island is degraded, mature adults may be forced to abandon a site in search of better habitat quality. Such individuals, which may be forced to abandon isolated patches of habitat in areas surrounded by human dwellings seem doomed to perish. From a practical perspective, prior to this study (Mushinsky and McCoy 1994), observation of large numbers of active and inactive gopher tortoise burrows in a confined area likely would have been viewed as indicators of a \"healthy\" population; however, these findings suggest just the opposite. Rather than a signal of a healthy population, large numbers of active and inactive gopher tortoise burrows, relative to the actual number of tortoises, may signal a stressed population (see also Stewart et al. 1993).","habitatComments":"Commonly occupies habitats with a well-drained sandy substrate, ample herbaceous vegetation for food, and sunlit areas for nesting (Hallinan 1923, Landers 1980, Landers et al. 1980, Diemer 1989). These habitat types include sandhill (pine-turkey oak), sand pine scrub, xeric hammock, pine flatwoods, dry prairie, coastal grasslands and dunes, and mixed hardwood-pine communities (Landers and Speake 1980, Auffenberg and Franz 1982, Kushlan and Mazzotti 1984, Diemer 1986, 1992a). Prefers open habitats that support a wide variety of herbaceous ground cover vegetation for forage; usually abandons densely canopied areas and frequently can be found in disturbed habitats such as roadsides, fence-rows, old fields, and the edges of overgrown (unburned) uplands (see Diemer 1989, Stewart et al. 1993, Breininger et al. 1994). Upland habitats with extensive canopies reduce the amount of direct sunlight on the ground which may hamper tortoises from reaching minimum thermal requirements for normal daily activities. Also, excessive shade decreases herbaceous vegetation essential for growth, development, and reproduction (Mushinsky and McCoy 1994).

Temporarily abandons marginal habitats during periods of drought; increasing habitat isolation eventually may result in marginal habitats being completely abandoned (Matthews and Moseley 1990). In Georgia, adults congregated on droughty sites in early spring, and many moved to more mesic soils for autumn-winter (McRae et al. 1981).

Densities of gopher tortoises are known to be relatively high in sandhill communities, however, high densities may not be indicative of a healthy population (Mushinsky and McCoy 1994). Mushinsky and McCoy (1994) reported that high densities of some tortoise populations may be the result of tortoises confined to a true or \"habitat\" island. Tortoises in this situation are unable to move freely to new locations as the quality of the habitat degenerates. More research is needed on the demography of tortoises in confined areas.

Gopher tortoises are highly fossorial and construct extensive burrow systems. They spend much of the time underground. See ecology section for further information on burrows.

Eggs are deposited in a typical flask-shaped nest cavity excavated by the hindlimbs of the female to a depth of about 10-15 cm. Nests may be located in any open sunny area near the burrow of the female, but most often, nests are placed in the spoil mound immediately outside the female's burrow (e.g., Hallinan 1923, Allen and Neil 1951, Arata 1958, Mount 1975, Landers et al. 1980, Butler and Hull 1996).","generalDescription":"The gopher tortoise is a relatively large (carapace length often 15-28 cm, but up to 38 cm) terrestrial turtle with a domed carapace, short elephantine hindlimbs, shovellike forelimbs, a gular projection from the anterior plastron, and a short tail. The anterior surface of the flattened forelimb is covered with 7-8 rows of large scales. Often the surface of the carapace is quite smooth in adults, reflecting the abrasion it receives as an individual enters or exits its burrow. The carapace is keelless and oblong, with the greatest width just anterior to the well-developed bridge (connecting the carapace to the plastron), and the greatest height in the sacral region. The carapace drops off abruptly to the rear of the highest region (Ernst and Barbour 1972). The carapace of an adult varies from dark- brown to grayish-black. In Florida, individuals from coastal areas are generally darker than those from central populations. The gular scutes of the robust, hingeless plastron project below the chin. Males often have longer gular projections than do females. However, because both sexes use their projections during agonistic encounters, the gular projections are often broken and may not be an accurate diagnostic feature of the sex of an individual (Mushinsky et al. 1994). Most gopher tortoises have well defined \"growth rings\" on the scutes of the yellowish plastron. Use of the growth rings to age individuals must be done with caution, as there is much variation in the number of \"false\" growth rings throughout the range of this taxon.

Female gopher tortoises become sexually mature at a carapace length of about 23-24 cm. Males are somewhat smaller at maturity and do not obtain the large body size of females. The best indicator of the sex of an adult gopher tortoise is the depth of the plastral concavity (Mushinsky et al. 1994). Mature males have a shallow depression in the posterior, central portion of the plastron to facilitate mounting a female for copulation. Large females may have a shallow plastral concavity (2-4 mm) compared to the deeper concavity found on mature males (5-8 mm). Males often have larger integumentary glands under the chin than do females (Ernst and Barbour 1989), but the size of these integumentary glands varies seasonally. Based upon numerous anatomical measurements, McRae et al. (1981a) developed a discriminant function that accurately identified the sex of adult individuals. Using a stepwise multiple regression on numerous morphological measurements, Burke et al. (1994) developed a non-invasive sex identification technique for determining the sex of hatchling and juvenile gopher tortoises.

Hatchlings emerge from their eggs at a carapace length of generally about 3-5 cm. Coloration of the vertebral and costal scutes of the carapace of hatchlings is yellowish to yellowish-orange, and each scute is bordered by brownish coloration (Allen and Neill 1953). The skin on the head and limbs is likewise brightly colored yellow to yellowish-orange. The bright coloration of hatchlings darkens during the first year or two of life. The gular scutes of young tortoises do not project forward as in the adult tortoises, and the claws of young tortoises are long and sharp (Allen and Neill 1953). Hatchlings dig their own burrows, often just a few meters away from the nest from which they emerged. Hatchlings and juveniles, up to an age of 5-7 years, have relatively soft shells and are highly vulnerable to predation (Wilson 1991).

Eggs are white, nearly spherical, and brittle-shelled. For photographs of eggs see Allen and Neil (1951) and Pope (1939). Iverson (1980) reported an average maximum egg diameter of 42-43 mm and an average wet mass of 40.9 g (also see Arata 1958, Landers et al. 1980).","diagnosticCharacteristics":"This is the only terrestrial tortoise east of the Mississippi River. The only other terrestrial turtle within the geographic range of the gopher tortoise is the eastern box turtle. Box turtles are smaller than gopher tortoises, have a high domed carapace, and a hinged plastron. Box turtles can close their shells completely so that neither the head nor any appendage is visible when retracted completely. Gopher tortoises cannot withdraw completely into their shells. A startled gopher tortoise will withdraw its limbs into the shell, but the limbs are visible when retracted.

Gopher tortoise differs from the desert, Texas, and bolson tortoises (none of which occur in the range of the gopher tortoise) in having relatively smaller hind feet. In the desert, Texas, and bolson tortoises, the distance from the base of the first claw to the base of the fourth claw on the forefoot is approximately equal to the same measurement on the hind foot; in the gopher tortoise, the measurement is smaller on the hind foot (Ernst and Barbour 1989).","speciesMarineHabitats":[],"speciesTerrestrialHabitats":[{"cagTerrHabId":-104135,"terrestrialHabitat":{"id":4,"terrestrialHabitatDescEn":"Woodland - Hardwood","terrestrialHabitatDescEs":"Lote de madera - Madera dura","terrestrialHabitatDescFr":"Terrain boisé — Feuillu","displayOrder":6}},{"cagTerrHabId":-104136,"terrestrialHabitat":{"id":5,"terrestrialHabitatDescEn":"Woodland - Conifer","terrestrialHabitatDescEs":"Lote de madera - Conífera","terrestrialHabitatDescFr":"Terrain boisé — Résineux","displayOrder":7}},{"cagTerrHabId":-104137,"terrestrialHabitat":{"id":6,"terrestrialHabitatDescEn":"Woodland - Mixed","terrestrialHabitatDescEs":"Lote de madera - Mixto","terrestrialHabitatDescFr":"Terrain boisé — Mixte","displayOrder":8}},{"cagTerrHabId":-104139,"terrestrialHabitat":{"id":8,"terrestrialHabitatDescEn":"Savanna","terrestrialHabitatDescEs":"Sabana","terrestrialHabitatDescFr":"Savane","displayOrder":10}},{"cagTerrHabId":-104138,"terrestrialHabitat":{"id":9,"terrestrialHabitatDescEn":"Grassland/herbaceous","terrestrialHabitatDescEs":"Pastizales/cobertura herbácea","terrestrialHabitatDescFr":"Prairie/couverture herbacée","displayOrder":11}},{"cagTerrHabId":-104140,"terrestrialHabitat":{"id":10,"terrestrialHabitatDescEn":"Old field","terrestrialHabitatDescEs":"Terreno baldío","terrestrialHabitatDescFr":"Friche","displayOrder":12}},{"cagTerrHabId":-115396,"terrestrialHabitat":{"id":16,"terrestrialHabitatDescEn":"Sand/dune","terrestrialHabitatDescEs":"Arena/duna","terrestrialHabitatDescFr":"Dune","displayOrder":18}},{"cagTerrHabId":-115397,"terrestrialHabitat":{"id":19,"terrestrialHabitatDescEn":"Cropland/hedgerow","terrestrialHabitatDescEs":"Tierras cultivadas/cerco vivo","terrestrialHabitatDescFr":"Terre cultivée/haie","displayOrder":22}}],"speciesRiverineHabitats":[],"speciesPalustrineHabitats":[],"speciesLacustrineHabitats":[],"speciesSubterraneanHabitats":[],"speciesEstuarineHabitats":[]},"primaryReference":{"id":1107320,"citation":"Turtle Taxonomy Working Group (TTWG) [Rhodin, A. G. J., J. B. Iverson, R. Bour, U. Fritz, A. Georges, H. B. Shaffer, and P. P. van Dijk]. 2021. Turtles of the World: Annotated Checklist and Atlas of Taxonomy, Synonymy, Distribution, and Conservation Status (9th Ed.). In: Rhodin, A. G. J., J. B. Iverson , P. P. van Dijk, C. B. Stanford, E. V. Goode, K. A. Buhlmann, and R. A. Mittermeier (Eds.). Conservation Biology of Freshwater Turtles and Tortoises: A Compilation Project of the IUCN/SSC Tortoise and Freshwater Turtle Specialist Group. Chelonian Research Monographs 8:1–472. doi: 10.3854/crm.8.checklist.atlas.v9.2021.","shortCitationAuthor":"TTWG","shortCitationYear":2021,"referenceCode":"B21TTW01NAUS","lastModified":"2022-07-02T00:44:58.794768Z"},"predecessors":[],"elementGlobalThreatAssessments":[{"elementGlobalThreatAssessId":33601,"iucnThreatCategory":{"id":1,"iucnThreatCategoryCd":"1","iucnThreatCategoryDescEn":"Residential & commercial development","iucnThreatCategoryDescEs":null,"iucnThreatCategoryDescFr":null,"displayValueEn":"1 - Residential & commercial development","displayValueEs":null,"displayValueFr":null,"displayOrder":10,"iucnThreat":"Y","parentThreatId":null,"iucnThreatLevel":1},"iucnThreatScope":{"id":2,"iucnThreatScopeDescEn":"Large: Affects most (31-70%) of the total population or occurrences or extent","iucnThreatScopeDescEs":null,"iucnThreatScopeDescFr":null,"displayValueEn":"Large (31-70%)","displayValueEs":null,"displayValueFr":null,"displayOrder":2},"iucnThreatSeverity":{"id":2,"iucnThreatSeverityDescEn":"Serious: Likely to seriously degrade/reduce affected occurrences or habitat, or reduce population 31-70%","iucnThreatSeverityDescEs":null,"iucnThreatSeverityDescFr":null,"displayValueEn":"Serious or 31-70% pop. decline","displayValueEs":null,"displayValueFr":null,"displayOrder":2},"iucnThreatTiming":{"id":1,"iucnThreatTimingDescEn":"High: Continuing","iucnThreatTimingDescEs":null,"iucnThreatTimingDescFr":null,"displayValueEn":"High (continuing)","displayValueEs":null,"displayValueFr":null,"displayOrder":1},"threatImpactCalc":{"id":5,"threatImpactCalcCd":"B","threatImpactCalcDescEn":"High","threatImpactCalcDescEs":null,"threatImpactCalcDescFr":null,"displayValueEn":"B = High","displayValueEs":null,"displayValueFr":null,"displayOrder":2}},{"elementGlobalThreatAssessId":34071,"iucnThreatCategory":{"id":2,"iucnThreatCategoryCd":"1.1","iucnThreatCategoryDescEn":"Housing & urban areas","iucnThreatCategoryDescEs":null,"iucnThreatCategoryDescFr":null,"displayValueEn":"1.1 - Housing & urban areas","displayValueEs":null,"displayValueFr":null,"displayOrder":20,"iucnThreat":"Y","parentThreatId":1,"iucnThreatLevel":2},"iucnThreatScope":{"id":2,"iucnThreatScopeDescEn":"Large: Affects most (31-70%) of the total population or occurrences or extent","iucnThreatScopeDescEs":null,"iucnThreatScopeDescFr":null,"displayValueEn":"Large (31-70%)","displayValueEs":null,"displayValueFr":null,"displayOrder":2},"iucnThreatSeverity":{"id":2,"iucnThreatSeverityDescEn":"Serious: Likely to seriously degrade/reduce affected occurrences or habitat, or reduce population 31-70%","iucnThreatSeverityDescEs":null,"iucnThreatSeverityDescFr":null,"displayValueEn":"Serious or 31-70% pop. decline","displayValueEs":null,"displayValueFr":null,"displayOrder":2},"iucnThreatTiming":{"id":1,"iucnThreatTimingDescEn":"High: Continuing","iucnThreatTimingDescEs":null,"iucnThreatTimingDescFr":null,"displayValueEn":"High (continuing)","displayValueEs":null,"displayValueFr":null,"displayOrder":1},"threatImpactCalc":{"id":5,"threatImpactCalcCd":"B","threatImpactCalcDescEn":"High","threatImpactCalcDescEs":null,"threatImpactCalcDescFr":null,"displayValueEn":"B = High","displayValueEs":null,"displayValueFr":null,"displayOrder":2}},{"elementGlobalThreatAssessId":69844,"iucnThreatCategory":{"id":3,"iucnThreatCategoryCd":"1.2","iucnThreatCategoryDescEn":"Commercial & industrial areas","iucnThreatCategoryDescEs":null,"iucnThreatCategoryDescFr":null,"displayValueEn":"1.2 - Commercial & industrial areas","displayValueEs":null,"displayValueFr":null,"displayOrder":30,"iucnThreat":"Y","parentThreatId":1,"iucnThreatLevel":2},"iucnThreatScope":{"id":7,"iucnThreatScopeDescEn":"Large - restricted","iucnThreatScopeDescEs":null,"iucnThreatScopeDescFr":null,"displayValueEn":"Large - restricted","displayValueEs":null,"displayValueFr":null,"displayOrder":8},"iucnThreatSeverity":{"id":3,"iucnThreatSeverityDescEn":"Moderate: Likely to moderately degrade/reduce affected occurrences or habitat, or reduce population 11-30%","iucnThreatSeverityDescEs":null,"iucnThreatSeverityDescFr":null,"displayValueEn":"Moderate or 11-30% pop. decline","displayValueEs":null,"displayValueFr":null,"displayOrder":3},"iucnThreatTiming":{"id":1,"iucnThreatTimingDescEn":"High: Continuing","iucnThreatTimingDescEs":null,"iucnThreatTimingDescFr":null,"displayValueEn":"High (continuing)","displayValueEs":null,"displayValueFr":null,"displayOrder":1},"threatImpactCalc":{"id":9,"threatImpactCalcCd":"CD","threatImpactCalcDescEn":"Medium - low","threatImpactCalcDescEs":null,"threatImpactCalcDescFr":null,"displayValueEn":"CD = Medium - low","displayValueEs":null,"displayValueFr":null,"displayOrder":15}},{"elementGlobalThreatAssessId":69845,"iucnThreatCategory":{"id":4,"iucnThreatCategoryCd":"1.3","iucnThreatCategoryDescEn":"Tourism & recreation areas","iucnThreatCategoryDescEs":null,"iucnThreatCategoryDescFr":null,"displayValueEn":"1.3 - Tourism & recreation areas","displayValueEs":null,"displayValueFr":null,"displayOrder":40,"iucnThreat":"Y","parentThreatId":1,"iucnThreatLevel":2},"iucnThreatScope":{"id":4,"iucnThreatScopeDescEn":"Small: Affects a small proportion (1-10%) of the total population or occurrences or extent","iucnThreatScopeDescEs":null,"iucnThreatScopeDescFr":null,"displayValueEn":"Small (1-10%)","displayValueEs":null,"displayValueFr":null,"displayOrder":4},"iucnThreatSeverity":{"id":2,"iucnThreatSeverityDescEn":"Serious: Likely to seriously degrade/reduce affected occurrences or habitat, or reduce population 31-70%","iucnThreatSeverityDescEs":null,"iucnThreatSeverityDescFr":null,"displayValueEn":"Serious or 31-70% pop. decline","displayValueEs":null,"displayValueFr":null,"displayOrder":2},"iucnThreatTiming":{"id":1,"iucnThreatTimingDescEn":"High: Continuing","iucnThreatTimingDescEs":null,"iucnThreatTimingDescFr":null,"displayValueEn":"High (continuing)","displayValueEs":null,"displayValueFr":null,"displayOrder":1},"threatImpactCalc":{"id":10,"threatImpactCalcCd":"D","threatImpactCalcDescEn":"Low","threatImpactCalcDescEs":null,"threatImpactCalcDescFr":null,"displayValueEn":"D = Low","displayValueEs":null,"displayValueFr":null,"displayOrder":4}},{"elementGlobalThreatAssessId":33602,"iucnThreatCategory":{"id":5,"iucnThreatCategoryCd":"2","iucnThreatCategoryDescEn":"Agriculture & aquaculture","iucnThreatCategoryDescEs":null,"iucnThreatCategoryDescFr":null,"displayValueEn":"2 - Agriculture & aquaculture","displayValueEs":null,"displayValueFr":null,"displayOrder":50,"iucnThreat":"Y","parentThreatId":null,"iucnThreatLevel":1},"iucnThreatScope":{"id":2,"iucnThreatScopeDescEn":"Large: Affects most (31-70%) of the total population or occurrences or extent","iucnThreatScopeDescEs":null,"iucnThreatScopeDescFr":null,"displayValueEn":"Large (31-70%)","displayValueEs":null,"displayValueFr":null,"displayOrder":2},"iucnThreatSeverity":{"id":3,"iucnThreatSeverityDescEn":"Moderate: Likely to moderately degrade/reduce affected occurrences or habitat, or reduce population 11-30%","iucnThreatSeverityDescEs":null,"iucnThreatSeverityDescFr":null,"displayValueEn":"Moderate or 11-30% pop. decline","displayValueEs":null,"displayValueFr":null,"displayOrder":3},"iucnThreatTiming":{"id":1,"iucnThreatTimingDescEn":"High: Continuing","iucnThreatTimingDescEs":null,"iucnThreatTimingDescFr":null,"displayValueEn":"High (continuing)","displayValueEs":null,"displayValueFr":null,"displayOrder":1},"threatImpactCalc":{"id":8,"threatImpactCalcCd":"C","threatImpactCalcDescEn":"Medium","threatImpactCalcDescEs":null,"threatImpactCalcDescFr":null,"displayValueEn":"C = Medium","displayValueEs":null,"displayValueFr":null,"displayOrder":3}},{"elementGlobalThreatAssessId":34072,"iucnThreatCategory":{"id":6,"iucnThreatCategoryCd":"2.1","iucnThreatCategoryDescEn":"Annual & perennial non-timber crops","iucnThreatCategoryDescEs":null,"iucnThreatCategoryDescFr":null,"displayValueEn":"2.1 - Annual & perennial non-timber crops","displayValueEs":null,"displayValueFr":null,"displayOrder":60,"iucnThreat":"Y","parentThreatId":5,"iucnThreatLevel":2},"iucnThreatScope":{"id":3,"iucnThreatScopeDescEn":"Restricted: Affects some (11-30%) of the total population or occurrences or extent","iucnThreatScopeDescEs":null,"iucnThreatScopeDescFr":null,"displayValueEn":"Restricted (11-30%)","displayValueEs":null,"displayValueFr":null,"displayOrder":3},"iucnThreatSeverity":{"id":3,"iucnThreatSeverityDescEn":"Moderate: Likely to moderately degrade/reduce affected occurrences or habitat, or reduce population 11-30%","iucnThreatSeverityDescEs":null,"iucnThreatSeverityDescFr":null,"displayValueEn":"Moderate or 11-30% pop. decline","displayValueEs":null,"displayValueFr":null,"displayOrder":3},"iucnThreatTiming":{"id":1,"iucnThreatTimingDescEn":"High: Continuing","iucnThreatTimingDescEs":null,"iucnThreatTimingDescFr":null,"displayValueEn":"High (continuing)","displayValueEs":null,"displayValueFr":null,"displayOrder":1},"threatImpactCalc":{"id":10,"threatImpactCalcCd":"D","threatImpactCalcDescEn":"Low","threatImpactCalcDescEs":null,"threatImpactCalcDescFr":null,"displayValueEn":"D = Low","displayValueEs":null,"displayValueFr":null,"displayOrder":4}},{"elementGlobalThreatAssessId":34073,"iucnThreatCategory":{"id":7,"iucnThreatCategoryCd":"2.2","iucnThreatCategoryDescEn":"Wood & pulp plantations","iucnThreatCategoryDescEs":null,"iucnThreatCategoryDescFr":null,"displayValueEn":"2.2 - Wood & pulp plantations","displayValueEs":null,"displayValueFr":null,"displayOrder":110,"iucnThreat":"Y","parentThreatId":5,"iucnThreatLevel":2},"iucnThreatScope":{"id":7,"iucnThreatScopeDescEn":"Large - restricted","iucnThreatScopeDescEs":null,"iucnThreatScopeDescFr":null,"displayValueEn":"Large - restricted","displayValueEs":null,"displayValueFr":null,"displayOrder":8},"iucnThreatSeverity":{"id":3,"iucnThreatSeverityDescEn":"Moderate: Likely to moderately degrade/reduce affected occurrences or habitat, or reduce population 11-30%","iucnThreatSeverityDescEs":null,"iucnThreatSeverityDescFr":null,"displayValueEn":"Moderate or 11-30% pop. decline","displayValueEs":null,"displayValueFr":null,"displayOrder":3},"iucnThreatTiming":{"id":1,"iucnThreatTimingDescEn":"High: Continuing","iucnThreatTimingDescEs":null,"iucnThreatTimingDescFr":null,"displayValueEn":"High (continuing)","displayValueEs":null,"displayValueFr":null,"displayOrder":1},"threatImpactCalc":{"id":9,"threatImpactCalcCd":"CD","threatImpactCalcDescEn":"Medium - low","threatImpactCalcDescEs":null,"threatImpactCalcDescFr":null,"displayValueEn":"CD = Medium - low","displayValueEs":null,"displayValueFr":null,"displayOrder":15}},{"elementGlobalThreatAssessId":33603,"iucnThreatCategory":{"id":14,"iucnThreatCategoryCd":"4","iucnThreatCategoryDescEn":"Transportation & service corridors","iucnThreatCategoryDescEs":null,"iucnThreatCategoryDescFr":null,"displayValueEn":"4 - Transportation & service corridors","displayValueEs":null,"displayValueFr":null,"displayOrder":280,"iucnThreat":"Y","parentThreatId":null,"iucnThreatLevel":1},"iucnThreatScope":{"id":3,"iucnThreatScopeDescEn":"Restricted: Affects some (11-30%) of the total population or occurrences or extent","iucnThreatScopeDescEs":null,"iucnThreatScopeDescFr":null,"displayValueEn":"Restricted (11-30%)","displayValueEs":null,"displayValueFr":null,"displayOrder":3},"iucnThreatSeverity":{"id":4,"iucnThreatSeverityDescEn":"Slight: Likely to only slightly degrade/reduce affected occurrences or habitat, or reduce population 1-10%","iucnThreatSeverityDescEs":null,"iucnThreatSeverityDescFr":null,"displayValueEn":"Slight or 1-10% pop. decline","displayValueEs":null,"displayValueFr":null,"displayOrder":4},"iucnThreatTiming":{"id":1,"iucnThreatTimingDescEn":"High: Continuing","iucnThreatTimingDescEs":null,"iucnThreatTimingDescFr":null,"displayValueEn":"High (continuing)","displayValueEs":null,"displayValueFr":null,"displayOrder":1},"threatImpactCalc":{"id":10,"threatImpactCalcCd":"D","threatImpactCalcDescEn":"Low","threatImpactCalcDescEs":null,"threatImpactCalcDescFr":null,"displayValueEn":"D = Low","displayValueEs":null,"displayValueFr":null,"displayOrder":4}},{"elementGlobalThreatAssessId":69846,"iucnThreatCategory":{"id":15,"iucnThreatCategoryCd":"4.1","iucnThreatCategoryDescEn":"Roads & railroads","iucnThreatCategoryDescEs":null,"iucnThreatCategoryDescFr":null,"displayValueEn":"4.1 - Roads & railroads","displayValueEs":null,"displayValueFr":null,"displayOrder":290,"iucnThreat":"Y","parentThreatId":14,"iucnThreatLevel":2},"iucnThreatScope":{"id":3,"iucnThreatScopeDescEn":"Restricted: Affects some (11-30%) of the total population or occurrences or extent","iucnThreatScopeDescEs":null,"iucnThreatScopeDescFr":null,"displayValueEn":"Restricted (11-30%)","displayValueEs":null,"displayValueFr":null,"displayOrder":3},"iucnThreatSeverity":{"id":4,"iucnThreatSeverityDescEn":"Slight: Likely to only slightly degrade/reduce affected occurrences or habitat, or reduce population 1-10%","iucnThreatSeverityDescEs":null,"iucnThreatSeverityDescFr":null,"displayValueEn":"Slight or 1-10% pop. decline","displayValueEs":null,"displayValueFr":null,"displayOrder":4},"iucnThreatTiming":{"id":1,"iucnThreatTimingDescEn":"High: Continuing","iucnThreatTimingDescEs":null,"iucnThreatTimingDescFr":null,"displayValueEn":"High (continuing)","displayValueEs":null,"displayValueFr":null,"displayOrder":1},"threatImpactCalc":{"id":10,"threatImpactCalcCd":"D","threatImpactCalcDescEn":"Low","threatImpactCalcDescEs":null,"threatImpactCalcDescFr":null,"displayValueEn":"D = Low","displayValueEs":null,"displayValueFr":null,"displayOrder":4}},{"elementGlobalThreatAssessId":33604,"iucnThreatCategory":{"id":19,"iucnThreatCategoryCd":"5","iucnThreatCategoryDescEn":"Biological resource use","iucnThreatCategoryDescEs":null,"iucnThreatCategoryDescFr":null,"displayValueEn":"5 - Biological resource use","displayValueEs":null,"displayValueFr":null,"displayOrder":330,"iucnThreat":"Y","parentThreatId":null,"iucnThreatLevel":1},"iucnThreatScope":{"id":10,"iucnThreatScopeDescEn":"Unknown","iucnThreatScopeDescEs":null,"iucnThreatScopeDescFr":null,"displayValueEn":"Unknown","displayValueEs":null,"displayValueFr":null,"displayOrder":11},"iucnThreatSeverity":{"id":10,"iucnThreatSeverityDescEn":"Unknown","iucnThreatSeverityDescEs":null,"iucnThreatSeverityDescFr":null,"displayValueEn":"Unknown","displayValueEs":null,"displayValueFr":null,"displayOrder":12},"iucnThreatTiming":{"id":10,"iucnThreatTimingDescEn":"Unknown","iucnThreatTimingDescEs":null,"iucnThreatTimingDescFr":null,"displayValueEn":"Unknown","displayValueEs":null,"displayValueFr":null,"displayOrder":10},"threatImpactCalc":{"id":15,"threatImpactCalcCd":"U","threatImpactCalcDescEn":"Unknown","threatImpactCalcDescEs":null,"threatImpactCalcDescFr":null,"displayValueEn":"Unknown","displayValueEs":null,"displayValueFr":null,"displayOrder":9}},{"elementGlobalThreatAssessId":34074,"iucnThreatCategory":{"id":20,"iucnThreatCategoryCd":"5.1","iucnThreatCategoryDescEn":"Hunting & collecting terrestrial animals","iucnThreatCategoryDescEs":null,"iucnThreatCategoryDescFr":null,"displayValueEn":"5.1 - Hunting & collecting terrestrial animals","displayValueEs":null,"displayValueFr":null,"displayOrder":340,"iucnThreat":"Y","parentThreatId":19,"iucnThreatLevel":2},"iucnThreatScope":{"id":10,"iucnThreatScopeDescEn":"Unknown","iucnThreatScopeDescEs":null,"iucnThreatScopeDescFr":null,"displayValueEn":"Unknown","displayValueEs":null,"displayValueFr":null,"displayOrder":11},"iucnThreatSeverity":{"id":10,"iucnThreatSeverityDescEn":"Unknown","iucnThreatSeverityDescEs":null,"iucnThreatSeverityDescFr":null,"displayValueEn":"Unknown","displayValueEs":null,"displayValueFr":null,"displayOrder":12},"iucnThreatTiming":{"id":10,"iucnThreatTimingDescEn":"Unknown","iucnThreatTimingDescEs":null,"iucnThreatTimingDescFr":null,"displayValueEn":"Unknown","displayValueEs":null,"displayValueFr":null,"displayOrder":10},"threatImpactCalc":{"id":15,"threatImpactCalcCd":"U","threatImpactCalcDescEn":"Unknown","threatImpactCalcDescEs":null,"threatImpactCalcDescFr":null,"displayValueEn":"Unknown","displayValueEs":null,"displayValueFr":null,"displayOrder":9}},{"elementGlobalThreatAssessId":33606,"iucnThreatCategory":{"id":32,"iucnThreatCategoryCd":"8","iucnThreatCategoryDescEn":"Invasive & other problematic species, genes & diseases","iucnThreatCategoryDescEs":null,"iucnThreatCategoryDescFr":null,"displayValueEn":"8 - Invasive & other problematic species, genes & diseases","displayValueEs":null,"displayValueFr":null,"displayOrder":590,"iucnThreat":"Y","parentThreatId":null,"iucnThreatLevel":1},"iucnThreatScope":{"id":2,"iucnThreatScopeDescEn":"Large: Affects most (31-70%) of the total population or occurrences or extent","iucnThreatScopeDescEs":null,"iucnThreatScopeDescFr":null,"displayValueEn":"Large (31-70%)","displayValueEs":null,"displayValueFr":null,"displayOrder":2},"iucnThreatSeverity":{"id":3,"iucnThreatSeverityDescEn":"Moderate: Likely to moderately degrade/reduce affected occurrences or habitat, or reduce population 11-30%","iucnThreatSeverityDescEs":null,"iucnThreatSeverityDescFr":null,"displayValueEn":"Moderate or 11-30% pop. decline","displayValueEs":null,"displayValueFr":null,"displayOrder":3},"iucnThreatTiming":{"id":1,"iucnThreatTimingDescEn":"High: Continuing","iucnThreatTimingDescEs":null,"iucnThreatTimingDescFr":null,"displayValueEn":"High (continuing)","displayValueEs":null,"displayValueFr":null,"displayOrder":1},"threatImpactCalc":{"id":8,"threatImpactCalcCd":"C","threatImpactCalcDescEn":"Medium","threatImpactCalcDescEs":null,"threatImpactCalcDescFr":null,"displayValueEn":"C = Medium","displayValueEs":null,"displayValueFr":null,"displayOrder":3}},{"elementGlobalThreatAssessId":69852,"iucnThreatCategory":{"id":33,"iucnThreatCategoryCd":"8.1","iucnThreatCategoryDescEn":"Invasive non-native/alien species/diseases","iucnThreatCategoryDescEs":null,"iucnThreatCategoryDescFr":null,"displayValueEn":"8.1 - Invasive non-native/alien species/diseases","displayValueEs":null,"displayValueFr":null,"displayOrder":600,"iucnThreat":"Y","parentThreatId":32,"iucnThreatLevel":2},"iucnThreatScope":{"id":2,"iucnThreatScopeDescEn":"Large: Affects most (31-70%) of the total population or occurrences or extent","iucnThreatScopeDescEs":null,"iucnThreatScopeDescFr":null,"displayValueEn":"Large (31-70%)","displayValueEs":null,"displayValueFr":null,"displayOrder":2},"iucnThreatSeverity":{"id":4,"iucnThreatSeverityDescEn":"Slight: Likely to only slightly degrade/reduce affected occurrences or habitat, or reduce population 1-10%","iucnThreatSeverityDescEs":null,"iucnThreatSeverityDescFr":null,"displayValueEn":"Slight or 1-10% pop. decline","displayValueEs":null,"displayValueFr":null,"displayOrder":4},"iucnThreatTiming":{"id":1,"iucnThreatTimingDescEn":"High: Continuing","iucnThreatTimingDescEs":null,"iucnThreatTimingDescFr":null,"displayValueEn":"High (continuing)","displayValueEs":null,"displayValueFr":null,"displayOrder":1},"threatImpactCalc":{"id":10,"threatImpactCalcCd":"D","threatImpactCalcDescEn":"Low","threatImpactCalcDescEs":null,"threatImpactCalcDescFr":null,"displayValueEn":"D = Low","displayValueEs":null,"displayValueFr":null,"displayOrder":4}},{"elementGlobalThreatAssessId":34054,"iucnThreatCategory":{"id":34,"iucnThreatCategoryCd":"8.2","iucnThreatCategoryDescEn":"Problematic native species/diseases","iucnThreatCategoryDescEs":null,"iucnThreatCategoryDescFr":null,"displayValueEn":"8.2 - Problematic native species/diseases","displayValueEs":null,"displayValueFr":null,"displayOrder":610,"iucnThreat":"Y","parentThreatId":32,"iucnThreatLevel":2},"iucnThreatScope":{"id":2,"iucnThreatScopeDescEn":"Large: Affects most (31-70%) of the total population or occurrences or extent","iucnThreatScopeDescEs":null,"iucnThreatScopeDescFr":null,"displayValueEn":"Large (31-70%)","displayValueEs":null,"displayValueFr":null,"displayOrder":2},"iucnThreatSeverity":{"id":4,"iucnThreatSeverityDescEn":"Slight: Likely to only slightly degrade/reduce affected occurrences or habitat, or reduce population 1-10%","iucnThreatSeverityDescEs":null,"iucnThreatSeverityDescFr":null,"displayValueEn":"Slight or 1-10% pop. decline","displayValueEs":null,"displayValueFr":null,"displayOrder":4},"iucnThreatTiming":{"id":1,"iucnThreatTimingDescEn":"High: Continuing","iucnThreatTimingDescEs":null,"iucnThreatTimingDescFr":null,"displayValueEn":"High (continuing)","displayValueEs":null,"displayValueFr":null,"displayOrder":1},"threatImpactCalc":{"id":10,"threatImpactCalcCd":"D","threatImpactCalcDescEn":"Low","threatImpactCalcDescEs":null,"threatImpactCalcDescFr":null,"displayValueEn":"D = Low","displayValueEs":null,"displayValueFr":null,"displayOrder":4}},{"elementGlobalThreatAssessId":69847,"iucnThreatCategory":{"id":47,"iucnThreatCategoryCd":"11","iucnThreatCategoryDescEn":"Climate change & severe weather","iucnThreatCategoryDescEs":null,"iucnThreatCategoryDescFr":null,"displayValueEn":"11 - Climate change & severe weather","displayValueEs":null,"displayValueFr":null,"displayOrder":840,"iucnThreat":"Y","parentThreatId":null,"iucnThreatLevel":1},"iucnThreatScope":{"id":4,"iucnThreatScopeDescEn":"Small: Affects a small proportion (1-10%) of the total population or occurrences or extent","iucnThreatScopeDescEs":null,"iucnThreatScopeDescFr":null,"displayValueEn":"Small (1-10%)","displayValueEs":null,"displayValueFr":null,"displayOrder":4},"iucnThreatSeverity":{"id":4,"iucnThreatSeverityDescEn":"Slight: Likely to only slightly degrade/reduce affected occurrences or habitat, or reduce population 1-10%","iucnThreatSeverityDescEs":null,"iucnThreatSeverityDescFr":null,"displayValueEn":"Slight or 1-10% pop. decline","displayValueEs":null,"displayValueFr":null,"displayOrder":4},"iucnThreatTiming":{"id":1,"iucnThreatTimingDescEn":"High: Continuing","iucnThreatTimingDescEs":null,"iucnThreatTimingDescFr":null,"displayValueEn":"High (continuing)","displayValueEs":null,"displayValueFr":null,"displayOrder":1},"threatImpactCalc":{"id":10,"threatImpactCalcCd":"D","threatImpactCalcDescEn":"Low","threatImpactCalcDescEs":null,"threatImpactCalcDescFr":null,"displayValueEn":"D = Low","displayValueEs":null,"displayValueFr":null,"displayOrder":4}},{"elementGlobalThreatAssessId":69848,"iucnThreatCategory":{"id":51,"iucnThreatCategoryCd":"11.4","iucnThreatCategoryDescEn":"Storms & flooding","iucnThreatCategoryDescEs":null,"iucnThreatCategoryDescFr":null,"displayValueEn":"11.4 - Storms & flooding","displayValueEs":null,"displayValueFr":null,"displayOrder":880,"iucnThreat":"Y","parentThreatId":47,"iucnThreatLevel":2},"iucnThreatScope":{"id":4,"iucnThreatScopeDescEn":"Small: Affects a small proportion (1-10%) of the total population or occurrences or extent","iucnThreatScopeDescEs":null,"iucnThreatScopeDescFr":null,"displayValueEn":"Small (1-10%)","displayValueEs":null,"displayValueFr":null,"displayOrder":4},"iucnThreatSeverity":{"id":4,"iucnThreatSeverityDescEn":"Slight: Likely to only slightly degrade/reduce affected occurrences or habitat, or reduce population 1-10%","iucnThreatSeverityDescEs":null,"iucnThreatSeverityDescFr":null,"displayValueEn":"Slight or 1-10% pop. decline","displayValueEs":null,"displayValueFr":null,"displayOrder":4},"iucnThreatTiming":{"id":1,"iucnThreatTimingDescEn":"High: Continuing","iucnThreatTimingDescEs":null,"iucnThreatTimingDescFr":null,"displayValueEn":"High (continuing)","displayValueEs":null,"displayValueFr":null,"displayOrder":1},"threatImpactCalc":{"id":10,"threatImpactCalcCd":"D","threatImpactCalcDescEn":"Low","threatImpactCalcDescEs":null,"threatImpactCalcDescFr":null,"displayValueEn":"D = Low","displayValueEs":null,"displayValueFr":null,"displayOrder":4}}]}