Abundance and harvest proportion of river turtles in Missouri

References

• Aresco MJ, Gunzburger MS. 2007. Ecology and morphology of Chelydra serpentina in northwestern Florida. Southeastern Nat. 6(3):435–448.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Barko VA, Briggler JT. 2006. Midland smooth softshell (Apalone mutica) and spiny softshell (Apalone spinifera) turtles in the middle Mississippi River: habitat associations, population structure, and implications for conservation. Chelonian Conserv Biol. 5:225–231.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Breckenridge WJ. 1955. Observations on the life history of the soft-shelled turtle Trionyx ferox, with especial reference to growth. Copeia. 1955:5–9.
   Google Scholar
• Brooks RJ, Brown GP, Galbraith DA. 1991. Effects of a sudden increase in natural mortality of adults on a population of the common snapping turtle (Chelydra serpentina). Canadian J Zool. 69:1314–1320.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Brown DJ, Farallo CR, Dixon JR, Baccus JT, Simpson TR, Forstner MRJ. 2011. Freshwater turtle conservation in Texas: harvest effects and efficacy of the current management regime. J Wildlife Manage. 75:486–494.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ceballos CP, Fitzgerald LA. 2004. The trade in native and exotic turtles in Texas. Wildlife Soc Bull. 32:881–892.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cheung SM, Dudgeon D. 2006. Quantifying the Asian turtle crisis: market surveys in southern China, 2000–2003. Aquatic Conserv. 16:751–770.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Close LM, Seigel RA. 1997. Differences in body size among populations of red-eared sliders (Trachemys scripta elegans) subjected to different levels of harvesting. Chelonian Conserv Biol. 2(4):563–566.
   Google Scholar
• Colteaux BC, Johnson DM. 2017. Commercial harvest and export of snapping turtles (Chelydra serpentina) in the United States: trends and the efficacy of size limits at reducing harvest. J Nat Conserv. 35:13–19.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Congdon JD, Dunham AE, van Loben Sels RC. 1993. Delayed sexual maturity and demographics of Blanding's turtles (Emydoidea blandingii): implications for conservation and management of long-lived organisms. Conserv Biol. 7:826–833.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Congdon JD, Dunham AE, van Loben Sels RC. 1994. Demographics of common snapping turtles (Chelydra serpentina): implications for conservation and management of long-lived organisms. American Zool. 34:397–408.
   Google Scholar
• Crouse DT, Crowder LB, Caswell H. 1987. A stage-based population model for loggerhead sea turtles and implications for conservation. Ecology. 68:1412–1423.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Crouse DT, Frazer NB. 1995. Population models and structure. In: Bjorndal KA, editor. Biology and conservation of sea turtles. Revised ed. Washington (DC): Smithsonian Institution Press; p. 601–603.
   Google Scholar
• Decker Major P. 1975. Density of snapping turtles, Chelydra serpentina in western West Virginia. Herpetologica. 31:332–335.
   Google Scholar
• Ernst CH, Lovich JE. 2009. Turtles of the United States and Canada. Baltimore (MD): Johns Hopkins University Press; p. 827.
   Google Scholar
• Galat DL, Lipkin R. 2000. Restoring ecological integrity of great rivers: historical hydrographs aid in defining reference conditions for the Missouri River. Hydrobiologia. 422:29–48.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Galbraith DA, Brooks RJ. 1987. Survivorship of adult females in a northern population of common snapping turtles, Chelydra serpentina. Canadian J Zool. 65:1581–1596.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Galbraith DA, Brooks RJ, Brown GP. 1997. Can management intervention achieve sustainable exploitation of turtles? In: Van Abbema J, editor. Proceedings: Conservation, Restoration, and Management of Tortoises and Turtles – An International Conference; Jul 11–16 2003; Purchase, New York. New York (NY): New York Turtle and Tortoise Society. p. 186–194.
   Google Scholar
• Galbraith DA, Brooks RK, Obbard ME. 1989. The influence of growth rate on age and body size at maturity in female snapping turtles (Chelydra serpentina). Copeia. 1989(4):896–904.
   Google Scholar
• Gamble T, Simons AM. 2003. The commercial harvest of painted turtles in Minnesota: final report to the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources, Natural Heritage and Nongame Research Program. In: Conservation Biology Research Grants Program. Natural Heritage and Nongame Research Program, Division of Ecological Services; Minnesota: Department of Natural Resources.
   Google Scholar
• Gamble T, Simons AM. 2004. Comparison of harvested and nonharvested painted turtle populations. Wildlife Soc Bull. 32:1269–1277.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gibbons JW, Scott DE, Ryan TJ, Buhlmann KA, Tuberville TD, Metts BS, Greene JL, Mills T, Leiden Y, Poppy S, et al. 2000. The global decline of reptiles, déjà vu amphibians. BioScience. 50:653–666.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Heppell SS. 1998. An application of life-history theory and population model analysis to turtle conservation. Copeia. 1998:367–375.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Johnson TR. 2000. The amphibians and reptiles of Missouri. Jefferson City (MO): Missouri Department of Conservation; p. 400.
   Google Scholar
• Klemens MW, Thorbjarnarson JB. 1995. Reptiles as a food resource. Biodivers Conserv. 4:281–298.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Luiselli L, Starita A, Carpaneto GM, Segniagbeto GH, Amori G. 2016. A short review of the international trade of wild tortoises and freshwater turtles across the world and throughout two decades. Chelonian Conserv Biol. 15(2):167–172.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mali I, Vandewege MW, Davis SK, Forstner MRJ. 2014. Magnitude of the freshwater turtle exports from the US: long term trends and early effects of newly implemented harvest management regimes. PLoS ONE. 9(1):e86478.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Moll D, Moll EO. 2004. The ecology, exploitation, and conservation of river turtles. New York (NY): Oxford University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Nickerson MA, Pitt AL. 2012. Historical turtle population decline and community changes in an Ozark River. Bull Fl Mus Nat Hist. 41:257–267.
   Google Scholar
• Pegg MA, Pierce CL, Roy A. 2003. Hydrological alteration along the Missouri River Basin: a time series approach. Aquat Sci. 65:63–72.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Powell LA. 2007. Approximating variance of demographic parameters using the delta method: a reference for avian biologists. The Condor. 109:949–954.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Powell R, Conant R, Collins JT. 2016. Peterson field guide to reptiles and amphibians of eastern and central North America. Boston (NY): Houghton Mifflin Harcourt; p. 494.
   Google Scholar
• Reid BN, Thiel RP, Peery MZ. 2016. Population dynamics of endangered Blanding's turtles in a restored area. J Wildlife Manage. 80(3):553–562.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Schlaepfer MA, Hoover C, Dodd CK Jr. 2005. Challenges in evaluating the impact of the trade in amphibians and reptiles on wild populations. BioScience. 55:256–264.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Shipman PA, Riedle JD. 2008. Status and distribution of the alligator snapping turtle (Macrochelys temminckii) in southeastern Missouri. Southeastern Nat. 7(3):331–338.
   Google Scholar
• Sigouin A, Pinedo-Vasquez M, Nasi R, Poole C, Horne B, Lee TM. 2017. Priorities for the trade of less charismatic freshwater turtle and tortoise species. J Appl Ecol. 54:345–350.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Skalski JR, Robson DS. 1992. Techniques for wildlife investigations: design and analysis of capture data. San Diego (CA): Academic Press Inc.
   Google Scholar
• Telecky TM. 2001. United States import and export of live turtles and tortoises. Turtle Tortoise Newsl. 4:8–13.
   Google Scholar
• [USACE] U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. 2014. Lower missouri river navigation charts; Rulo, Nebraska to St. Louis, Missouri. Kansas City (MO): U.S. Army Corps of Engineers [ accessed 2017 Jun 16]. http://www.nwk.usace.army.mil/Portals/29/docs/civilworks/navigation/NavCharts/MoRiver_NavCharts_fullbook.pdf
   Google Scholar
• [USDA] U.S. Department of Agriculture. 2015. USDA's national agricultural statistics service Heartland regional field office (and the Missouri field office). Washington (DC): U.S. Department of Agriculture National Agricultural Statistics Service [ accessed 2016 Jan 4]. http://www.nass.usda.gov/Statistics_by_State/Missouri/Publications/Weather_Data/
   Google Scholar
• [USFDA] U.S. Food and Drug Administration. 2015. Sec. 1240.62 turtles intrastate and interstate requirements. Silver Spring (MD): U.S. Food and Drug Administration [accessed 2016 Jan 4]. http://www.accessdata.fda.gov/scripts/cdrh/cfdocs/cfcfr/cfrsearch.cfm?fr=1240.62
   Google Scholar
• [USGS] U.S. Geological Survey. 2015. USGS water-data site information for Missouri. [accessed 2016 Jan 4]. http://waterdata.usgs.gov/mo/nwis/si
   Google Scholar
• White GC, Burnham, KP. 1999. Program MARK: survival estimation from populations of marked animals. Bird Stud. 46 Suppl:S120–S138.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Zhou Z, Jiang Z. 2008. Characteristics and risk assessment of international trade in tortoises and freshwater turtles in China. Chelonian Conserv Biol. 7:28–36.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Zimmer SA. 2013. Implications of commercial harvest of river turtles in Missouri [thesis]. Columbia (MO): University of Missouri.
   Google Scholar
• Zimmer-Shaffer SA, Briggler JT, Millspaugh JJ. 2014. Modeling the effects of commercial harvest on population growth of river turtles. Chelonian Conserv Biol. 13:227–236.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar