Interpond Movements of Western Painted Turtles (Chrysemys Picta) in East-Central Kansas (Report‪)‬

The frequency that animals move between patches of available habitat is an important variable in conservation biology (e.g., Travis et al., 1999; Bowne et al., 2006). Inadequate rates of interchange between patches of habitat can result in serious consequences to a population (e.g., increased risk of localized extinction; Ricklefs, 2001). Therefore, it is important to understand strategies of dispersal and how various factors might influence an organism to remain within a particular patch or move to another patch (Travis et al., 1999). Such questions are particularly relevant to turtles given that turtles are one of the most endangered clades of vertebrates (Gibbons et al., 2000). Several semi-aquatic species of turtles make overland movements between aquatic habitats (e.g., Sexton, 1959; Gibbons, 1970; McAuliffe, 1978; Gibbons et al., 1990; Buhlmann and Gibbons, 2001). Potential benefits of such travel include increasing frequency of encounters with potential mates (Morreale et al., 1984; Gibbons et al., 1990; Parker, 1990; Thomas and Parker, 2000), gaining access to resources not available in a previous aquatic habitat (Gibbons et al., 1990; Parker, 1990; Stone, 2001), and escaping dramatic declines in quality of habitat (e.g., drought; Gibbons et al., 1983; Buhlmann and Gibbons, 2001; Aresco, 2005; Cash and Holberton, 2005; Roe and Georges, 2008). Potential costs associated with these movements include increased expenditure of energy (Gibbons et al., 1990), increased risk of desiccation (Gibbons et al., 1990), and predation (Gibbons et al., 1990; Spencer and Thompson, 2005), and time spent moving between aquatic habitats cannot be devoted to other important activities (e.g., feeding or mating). The general paradigm commonly associated with movement of semi-aquatic turtles between aquatic habitats (also known as the reproductive-strategies hypothesis; Morreale et al., 1984) predicts that males move more frequently and for longer distances than females, with a differential-benefits argument serving as the basis for this prediction (e.g., Morreale et al., 1984; Gibbons, 1986; Gibbons et al., 1990; Tuberville et al., 1996). This paradigm assumes that increased mobility of males enhances their fitness by increasing frequency of encounters with conspecific females (Morreale et al., 1984; Gibbons, 1986; Thomas and Parker, 2000). Conversely, females capable of storing sperm for multiple years (Gist and Congdon, 1998; Pearse and Avise, 2001; Pearse et al., 2002) and juveniles, not yet capable of reproduction, might not obtain those same benefits (Morreale et al., 1984). A differential-costs argument serves as the rationale for the prediction that larger individuals will move more frequently and for longer distances than smaller individuals (Gibbons et al., 1990; Congdon et al., 1999; Tucker, 2000). In general, smaller individuals are more prone to desiccation and predation than larger individuals (McAuliffe, 1978; Parker, 1984; Zweifel, 1989; Janzen et al., 2000; Finkler, 2001; Bowne, 2003), and these relatively high costs can make it more difficult for the cost-benefit ratio to favor terrestrial movements by juveniles.