Movement Ecology of the Imperiled Wood Turtle (Glyptemys insculpta) in a Lower Hudson River Watershed
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Knowledge of the spatial ecology of many turtle species is lacking or limited by small sample sizes of study animals, short study periods, or incomplete representation of the species' geographic range, all of which can present barriers to science-based management and conservation. The wood turtle (Glyptemys insculpta) is a declining North American freshwater turtle that is now listed as threatened or endangered in several US states and Canadian provinces. Local-scale knowledge of wood turtle movement patterns and home range sizes is needed for more effective management and regulatory protection, yet the spatial ecology of this species remains undescribed in large portions of its range. We radiotracked 31 wood turtles for 1–5 yrs each in a stream system along the border of New York and Connecticut to describe their movement behavior and inform management efforts in this previously unstudied region. Annual and multiyear 95% minimum convex polygon home range sizes averaged 2.8 (± 3.79 SD) ha and 5.2 (± 7.36 SD) ha, respectively. Males had significantly larger annual and multiyear home ranges than did females, often by severalfold. Overlap of home ranges from one year to the next ranged from 10.5% to 99.7% and averaged 62.6% (± 22.86% SD). Home range centroids shifted 3.8–328.1 m (x̄ = 70.3 ± 80.31 m SD) from year to year and averaged 41.2 m (± 40.56 m SD) from the stream and 138.4 m (± 70.66 m SD) from the nearest road across all individuals. Most turtles' home ranges spanned one or both of the major roads in our study area, illuminating the threat of vehicle collision mortality to the viability of this population. Hibernaculum fidelity was low, with only 15% of turtles hibernating in the same location as in the previous year. Our results suggest that management efforts for wood turtles in western Connecticut and the adjacent region of New York should consider that males (the wider-ranging sex) use an average of 5.3 ha to meet their resource requirements over the course of one annual cycle, buffers of at least 116 m surrounding streams should be protected, habitats that are distant from roads should be prioritized for conservation, and measures that facilitate safe passage beneath roads should be implemented whenever roads are present near occupied wood turtle habitat.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
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".