MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Emydoidea blandingii (Holbrook 1838) – Blanding’s Turtle

2008· book-chapter· en· W2480281020 on OpenAlexaffabout
Justin D. Congdon, Terry E. Graham, Tom Herman, Jeffrey W. Lang

Bibliographic record

VenueChelonian research monographs · 2008
Typebook-chapter
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicWildlife Ecology and Conservation
Canadian institutionsAcadia University
FundersUniversity of Michigan
KeywordsTurtle (robot)ZoologyBiologyEcology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In Canada and the United States, the Blanding's turtle, Emydoidea blandingii (Family Emydidae), is officially designated as endangered or threatened in several provinces and a number of states.In many areas, it has become a "poster species" for attracting public interest in issues common to conservation of freshwater turtles in general.Over the past three decades, knowledge of Blanding's turtle biology and ecology has increased dramatically, and among species with conservation concerns, it now ranks as one of the best known turtle species throughout much of its range.Blanding's turtles seldom occur in dense populations such as those of sympatric painted turtles, but two large populations exist in southeastern Minnesota, and in north-central Nebraska.Individuals delay maturity from 14-21 yrs, and can attain ages greater than 75 yrs and still reproduce successfully.Most populations of Blanding's turtles are threatened by collecting, road mortality, and the reduction and degradation of both aquatic and terrestrial portions of their core habitats.Adults of both sexes make extensive forays onto land to visit temporary wetlands, and adult females move overland on pre-nesting movements and to nest; both activities exposes adults to increased risk of mortality associated with roads, farm machinery, and terrestrial predators.Proposed conservation measures include: 1) methods to reduce road mortality (e.g., fencing and road passages); 2) elimination of commercial collecting; 3) protection of large resident wetlands and smaller ephemeral wetlands; 4) protection and management of adjacent terrestrial areas used for nesting and as corridors for movements among wetlands; 5) research on risks associated with the timing and duration of terrestrial movements of both sexes; and 6) where necessary, removal of nest predators.More extensive regional information can be found in Herman et al. (2003), COSEWIC (2005), and Congdon and Keinath (2006).DistriBution.-Canada, USA.Distributed disjunctly from southeastern Ontario, adjacent Quebec, and southern Nova Scotia, south into New England, and west through the Great Lakes to western Nebraska, Iowa, and extreme northeastern Missouri.synonymy.-Testudo flava Lacépède 1788 (name suppressed), Testudo meleagris Shaw 1793 (name suppressed), Lutremys meleagris, Emys meleagris, Cistuda blandingii Holbrook 1838, Cistudo blandingii, Emys blandingii, Emydoidea blandingii, Neoemys blandingii, Emys twentei Taylor 1943.suBsPeCies.-None recognized, but three separate evolutionarily significant units have been identified: 1) the main populations west of the Appalachian Mountains, 2) the disjunct populations east of the Appalachians in southern New York and New England, and 3) the highly disjunct eastern population in southern Nova Scotia.status.-IUCN 2007 Red List: Near Threatened (LR/nt) (assessed 1996, needs updating); CITES: Not Listed; US ESA: Category 2 (Candidate for Listing); Canada Species at Risk Act: Endangered (Nova Scotia), Threatened (Great Lakes / St. Lawrence).Taxonomy.-The Blanding's turtle was originally described by Holbrook (1838) and no subspecies are recognized.According to Pritchard (1979), this turtle used to be considered congeneric with the European pond turtle, Emys orbicularis, until clarified by Loveridge and Williams (1957).Whereas the etymology of Emydoidea refers to the similarity between it and the genus Emys (McCoy 1973), the skull is more similar to that of Deirochelys (McDowell 1964).Frair (1982) and Seidel and Adkins (1989) refuted kinship between Emydoidea and Deirochelys on the basis of serology and myoglobins, and Bramble (1974) claimed that Emydoidea was more closely related to Emys and Terrapene based on anatomical and functional similarities, e.g., plastral kinesis.He hypothesized that Emydoidea was

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.048
Threshold uncertainty score0.095

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0070.001

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.071
GPT teacher head0.303
Teacher spread0.233 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreOther

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations36
Published2008
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueChelonian research monographsSame topicWildlife Ecology and ConservationFrench-language works237,207