Spatial Ecology and Habitat Use of the Reeves’ Turtle (Mauremys reevesii) in Lentic and Lotic Systems

doi:10.21203/rs.3.rs-8363107/v1

Download PDF

Research Article

Spatial Ecology and Habitat Use of the Reeves’ Turtle (Mauremys reevesii) in Lentic and Lotic Systems

https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-8363107/v1

This work is licensed under a CC BY 4.0 License

You are reading this latest preprint version

Background

The Reeves' turtle (Mauremys reevesii), a globally endangered species listed on CITES Appendix Ⅲ, faces significant threats in South Korea, including habitat fragmentation and competition with invasive species. Effective conservation requires a deep understanding of its spatial ecology, particularly how it differs between distinct habitat types. We compared the spatial ecology of M. reevesii in lentic (reservoir) and lotic (river) ecosystems to elucidate how their spatial behavior and habitat use are shaped by these distinct environments.

Methods

We used GPS telemetry to track 12 adult turtles (6 in a reservoir, 6 in rivers) in South Korea from April to November 2022. We analyzed differences in home range (Minimum Convex Polygon [MCP], Kernel Density Estimation [KDE 95%], Local Convex Hull [LoCoH 99%]), daily movement distance (Generalized Linear Model [GLM] testing habitat, sex, and season), diel terrestrial activity (circular statistics), road-crossing behavior (GLM), and seasonal displacement (Generalized Additive Model [GAM]).

Results

(1) Home range size (LoCoH 99%) did not differ significantly between habitats, but males exhibited significantly larger home ranges than females (MCP: p = 0.015). (2) Daily movement distance was significantly greater in the reservoir than in rivers (t=-5.92, p < 0.001) and significantly greater in spring than in autumn (t=-2.67, p = 0.008). (3) Diel terrestrial activity patterns differed significantly between habitats (Watson’s u² test, p < 0.001); while both groups peaked activity around 14:00 h, the activity of the river population was significantly more concentrated at this time. (4) The rate of road crossing was significantly positively correlated with the area of adjacent paddy fields, but not the length of roads within the home range. (5) GAM analysis revealed distinct movement patterns: reservoir turtles exhibited stable, non-linear displacement (100–400 m), while river turtles showed erratic, linear movements (100–900 m, max 1300 m) with a distinct peak in August.

Conclusions

M. reevesii displays significant plasticity in spatial ecology, adopting divergent movement patterns in response to lentic versus lotic environments. We recommend habitat-specific conservation buffers (e.g., 400 m radius for reservoirs, 1300 m linear distance for rivers) and prioritizing road mitigation measures (e.g., eco-passages, fences) in areas adjacent to paddy fields. These findings underscore the necessity of connectivity within these defined core habitats for effective population management.

Connectivity

Home range

Daily movement

Road ecology

Seasonal displacement pattern

Turtles are among the most threatened vertebrate taxa globally, with more than half of all species facing extinction [1]. Due to their low fecundity and slow recruitment rates, turtle populations are ecologically vulnerable; the loss of even a few adults can lead to rapid population decline and local extirpation [2, 3]. Despite this universal threat, ecological and genetic research on many turtle species is hindered by the scarcity of their populations, leading to a significant lack of understanding, particularly for species inhabiting Asia [4].

Amidst this global crisis, the Reeves’ turtle, Mauremys reevesii (Gray, 1831), faces severe threats in South Korea. Internationally, M. reevesii is also listed on CITES Appendix Ⅲ, reflecting global conservation concerns. M. reevesii plays a crucial role in freshwater ecosystems as both a top predator and a scavenger, contributing significantly to ecosystem stability [5, 6]. However, its populations have drastically declined due to habitat destruction, road mortality, and competition with invasive species. Consequently, M. reevesii was designated as a Class II Endangered Species by the Ministry of Climate, Energy and Environment and as a Natural Monument by the Cultural Heritage Administration [7–10].

Effective conservation hinges on a detailed understanding of a species' spatial ecology. Habitat selection provides critical information for effective habitat planning and management, particularly for the conservation of endangered species [11–13]. Information on wildlife movement patterns is also essential for understanding a species' ecology [14]. A key factor influencing these spatial patterns is the ecosystem structure. Freshwater ecosystems vary greatly in size and structure. Specifically, lentic systems (reservoirs with minimal flow) and lotic systems (rivers with continuous flow) present fundamental differences in hydraulic characteristics, food resource availability, and thermal environments [15, 16]. These environmental differences are known to drive distinct spatial use patterns in other freshwater turtles, such as the Northern map turtle (Graptemys geographica) and the Western pond turtle (Actinemys marmorata) [17, 18]. Therefore, these environmental factors are also expected to be key drivers of distinct spatial use patterns in M. reevesii populations.

Despite this clear need, research specific to M. reevesii movement remains limited. Most existing research has focused on genetic identification [19, 20] or VHF-based tracking limited to specific seasons [21, 22]. Consequently, detailed behavioral data regarding spatial use and home range throughout the entire active season remain scarce. Enhancing the understanding of the behavioral ecology of wild turtles, which are often difficult to observe due to their rarity, is particularly fundamental to effective conservation efforts [23]. Therefore, this study aims to characterize the spatial use of M. reevesii by habitat type (reservoir and river) using GPS telemetry. By tracking released individuals, we investigated home range, daily movement, road use, and seasonal displacement patterns to propose tailored conservation recommendations based on the spatial ecology of the species.

Study site and period

This study was conducted at study sites in Jeollanam-do and Gyeongsangnam-do, South Korea. Fieldwork involving turtle capture and GPS tracking occurred from April to November 2022. To compare spatial ecology based on habitat type, study sites were divided into reservoirs and rivers. The reservoir site selected was Dongsanje Reservoir in Gurye-gun, Jeollanam-do (35°11'20.09"N, 127°27'10.31"E). The river sites selected were Yangcheon River in Sancheong-gun (35°17'16.39"N, 127°57'46.09"E) and Imcheon River in Hamyang-gun, Gyeongsangnam-do (35°26'26.1"N, 127°44'48"E) (Fig. 1).

Turtle captures and tagging

M. reevesii, an omnivorous, 25–45 cm freshwater turtle found in Korea, prefers shallow, stagnant water with abundant cover and is active from April before hibernating in November. Distinguished by its three-keeled carapace, the species mates in autumn, and females lay 4–15 eggs in terrestrial nests around June-July [8]. Custom traps were fabricated for capturing M. reevesii. The basic design, referenced from an open patent (Kangwon National University Industry-University Cooperation Foundation, 10-2011-0085184), consisted of a 70 cm (L) × 70 cm (W) × 80 cm (H) stainless steel frame covered with a 3.5 × 3.5 cm mesh net. A critical design feature was the prevention of drowning if turtles were submerged for extended periods. To achieve this, the netting was shaped into an inverted square pyramid, with the apex tied to the top of a central support post, creating an internal air space. Captured turtles were attached with GPS transmitters, released, and monitored from April to November 2022. A total of 50 turtles were captured from April to June. Traps were typically set and checked 24 hours later. Captured individuals were held at the capture site for transmitter attachment and were released at their point of capture the next day to minimize disruption. This study analyzes data from the 12 individuals (6 reservoir, 6 river) from which sufficient tracking data were recovered (Table 2).

Table 2

Transmitter ID, sex and home range and movement for each *Mauremys reevesii* individual.
Habitat type	Transmitter No.	Sex	Telemetry period (days)	Points	Home range (㎡)				Daily moved distance (m)
					MCP		KDE 95%	LoCoH 99%	mean	max		min
Reservoir	10511	M	19 May– 23 Oct. (158)	1,072	49,050	11,541		10,732	209.71 ± 167.37		662.49		2.74
	10486	F	18 May − 9 Oct. (145)	655	74,058	11,885		23,960	110.37 ± 108.87		578.26		2.93
	10516	F	11 June − 15 Oct. (127)	849	77,003	11,667		18,274	160.91 ± 137.80		840.44		3.07
	10514	F	16 June − 25 July (40)	56	26,582	1,565		11,480	79.96 ± 110.52		365.33		4.85
	9443	F	21 Apr. − 7 July (78)	599	12,366	4,898		6,259	166.30 ± 127.95		494.35		10.2
	10512	F	10 June − 23 June (14) / 21 Aug. − 29 Aug. (9)	185	10,351	4,311		5,913	205.6 ± 129.80		469.25		14.27
River	11336	M	27 Apr. − 8 Sep. (135)	227	50,062	2,607		20,563	125.88 ± 142.08		551.94		1.84
	11342	M	21 May − 19 June (30)	33	96,381	1,044		44,347	158.16 ± 245.42		647.71		3.56
	11341	F	18 May − 15 Aug. (90)	119	9,936	1,489		7.225	76.05 ± 85.14		315.29		1.22
	11343	M	22 June − 12 Nov. (144)	327	204,242	7,702		22,311	78.77 ± 79.40		372.42		2.56
	11311	M	23 June − 28 Oct. (128)	262	83,133	3,977		13,448	50.85 ± 70.20		311.59		3.91
	11348	F	22 June − 21 Sep. (92)	91	8,049	2,268		2,590	51.09 ± 53.73		162.34		4.65

For monitoring, we used Debut YAWL (7.75 g) and LEGO (20.4 g) GPS transmitters from Druid (China) with an expected battery life of 12 months. GPS transmitters, which integrate GPS technology with conventional transmitters to enhance location accuracy, are highly effective for tracking the continuous, fine-scale movement paths of animals, thereby elucidating habitat use and temporal movement patterns [24]. Furthermore, GPS transmitters can remotely collect location data at predefined intervals without the researcher being present, ensuring operator safety and preventing accidents. To minimize interference with natural behaviors post-release, transmitters were attached only to turtles for which the device weight was less than 5% of the turtle's body mass. Transmitters were affixed to the highest central point of the carapace using epoxy and non-toxic silicone. This placement was intended to maximize the potential for satellite acquisition during shallow swimming and to increase the charging rate during basking.

Data analysis

We analyzed home range size and daily movement distance, stratified by habitat type (reservoir vs. river) and sex (male vs. female). Daily movement was further analyzed by season. Diel terrestrial activity was analyzed using mean activity time and variance. We also examined the influence of adjacent paddy field area and road length on road use by turtles.

Home range size was calculated using three methods: Minimum Convex Polygon (MCP), Kernel Density Estimation 95% (KDE 95%), and Local Convex Hull 99% (LoCoH 99%) [25–27]. To define the necessary habitat scale for M. reevesii conservation, we utilized the LoCoH 99% method, as it is frequently used for home range estimations that must account for geographical features such as conservation area boundaries, rivers, lakes, and unsuitable habitat [28, 29]. We analyzed the home ranges of GPS-tagged turtles by habitat type (reservoir, n = 6; river, n = 6) and sex (male, n = 5; female, n = 7) using Aligned Rank Transform (ART) ANOVA [30].

Daily movement distance for M. reevesii was calculated by summing the total distance moved by an individual per day, from which we derived the mean, standard deviation, maximum, and minimum daily movement distances for each individual. We used Generalized Linear Models (GLM) to analyze the effects of habitat type, sex, and season (Spring: Apr-May; Summer: Jun-Aug; Autumn: Sep-Nov) on movement distance.

We performed circular statistics analysis to examine diel terrestrial activity patterns using the circular package [31]. We then used the Watson’s u² test, which compares the entire distributions of two groups (mean, variance, shape), to compare activity patterns between habitat types. Terrestrial activity in this study included both terrestrial locomotion and static basking on logs or rocks.

To understand road (paddy roads in reservoir, dike roads in river) mortality risk, we analyzed road-crossing frequency relative to monitoring period, road length, and paddy field area within each turtle's home range. A road-crossing event was operationally defined as any two consecutive GPS points found on opposite sides of a road or a GPS point located directly on a road surface. We used a GLM to determine the influence of road length and paddy area on the road-crossing rate. The varying monitoring duration for each individual was standardized by using an offset term [+ offset(log(telemetry_period))] in the GLM function, allowing us to analyze the effects of the variables on the crossing rate per unit time.

To compare seasonal movement patterns between habitat types, we performed a Generalized Additive Model (GAM) analysis using the mgcv package [32]. After filtering location data, the initial recorded point for each individual was set as the "original point". We then visualized the movement and non-linear trendline for each individual by habitat type, with time (X-axis) plotted against displacement from the original point (Y-axis).

All statistical analyses were performed using R (ver. 4.4.3) [33]. All spatial analyses and map production were conducted using QGIS (ver 3.34) [34].

Home ranges

Using the MCP method, home range size did not differ significantly between habitat types. However, males (96,574 ± 63,360 ㎡) had significantly larger home ranges than females (31,192 ± 30,913 ㎡) (Table 1; F = 9.43, p = 0.015). For the KDE 95% method, no significant differences were found for either habitat or sex (Table 1, Table 2, Fig. 1, Fig. 2). Similarly, the LoCoH method showed no statistically significant differences by habitat or sex, although a trend was observed where male home ranges (22,280 ± 13,241 ㎡) were larger than female home ranges (10,814 ± 7,683 ㎡) (Table 1; F = 5.06, p = 0.055).

Table 1

Results of the aligned rank transform (ART) ANOVA built to evaluate the effects of habitat type and sex on the minimum convex polygon (MCP), the kernel density estimation (KDE) 95% and the local convex hull (LoCoH) 99% home range size of *Mauremys reevesii*.
Variable	df	MCP		KDE
Variable	df	F	p	F	p	F	p
Habitat type	1	1.06	0.333	3.59	0.095	1.06	0.333
Sex	1	9.43	0.015	0.01	0.941	5.06	0.055
Habitat type × Sex	1	4.09	0.078	0.06	0.811	4.49	0.067

Daily and seasonal movement

Individual daily movement distances (mean ± SD) were 291 ± 157 m (max: 840.44 m, min: 2.74 m) in the reservoir (n = 318 days) and 200 ± 180 m (max: 647.71 m, min: 1.22 m) in the rivers (n = 190 days) (Table 2). The GLM analysis revealed that habitat type and season had statistically significant effects on daily movement distance (Table 3). Habitat type was the most influential factor; river turtles moved, on average, 79.33 m less per day than reservoir turtles, a statistically significant difference (Table 3; t=-5.92, p < 0.001). Season also had a significant effect; compared to the reference season (Spring), movement in Autumn decreased significantly by an average of 49.26 m (Table 3; t=-2.67, p = 0.008). Movement in Summer also showed a tendency to decrease (by 24.62 m), though this was not statistically significant (Table 3; t=-.1.58, p = 0.114). Regarding sex, males tended to move 22.48 m more than females, but this difference did not reach statistical significance (Table 3; t=-1.71, p = 0.087). Analysis of diel terrestrial activity patterns revealed a significant difference in the variance of activity timing between habitat types (Wallraff test, p < 0.05). Consequently, a Watson’s u2 test confirmed that the overall distribution of diel activity patterns differed significantly by habitat. While the mean activity time was nearly identical for reservoir (13:54 h) and river (13:55 h) turtles, the degree of variance was distinct (Circular SD: reservoir = 1.56, river = 0.78). Turtles in rivers exhibited a much more concentrated activity pattern around 14:00 h compared to the reservoir population (F = 8.99, p < 0.001).

Table 3

Results of the generalized linear models (GLM) built to evaluate the variables affecting the daily moved distances (m) of *Mauremys reevesii*.
Variable		Estimate	Standard Error	t value	p
(Intercept)		170.01	14.67	11.59	< 0.001
Habitat type
	River	-79.33	13.39	-5.92	< 0.001
Sex
	Male	22.48	13.12	1.71	0.087
Season
	Summer	-24.64	15.57	-1.58	0.114
	Fall	-49.26	18.46	-2.67	0.008

Road crossing

We analyzed the effects of road length and paddy field area within a turtle's home range on its road-crossing rate, using the data summarized in Table 4. The results indicated that the area of paddy fields within the home range had a significant effect on the road-crossing rate (GLM analysis, z = 2.51, p = 0.01), whereas road length did not (z=-1.11, p = 0.27). This suggests that road crossings are influenced less by the characteristics of the road itself and more by the surrounding habitat features, specifically paddy fields. In other words, turtles with more paddy fields near their habitat tended to cross adjacent roads more frequently.

Table 4

Variables used in the generalized linear models (GLM) to analyze road crossing behavior of *Mauremys reevesii*. The table shows the monitoring period, number of road crossings, and total road length and paddy field area within each individual's home range.
Transmitter ID	Telemetry period (days)	No. of road crossings	Length of road (m) within home range	Area of paddy field (m²) within home range
10511	158	7	154.44	21,189.87
10486	145	5	477.62	28,429.99
10516	127	8	712.98	30,362.90
10514	40	2	83.81	747.18
9443	78	0	43.48	0
10512	23	0	0	0
11336	135	0	0	0
11342	30	0	0	0
11341	90	0	0	0
11343	144	10	1,075.07	42,523.48
11311	128	9	822.64	33,964.97
11348	92	0	34.20	0

Seasonal displacement patterns by habitat type

We conducted a GAM analysis on all 12 monitored turtles (6 reservoir, 6 river). The analysis of movement patterns by habitat type showed that reservoir turtles concentrated their displacement distances between 100–400 m, following a relatively consistent and smooth non-linear curve, with peak movement concentrated between June and August. In contrast, river turtles exhibited a wider range of displacements (100–900 m, max 1300 m) in a more erratic and irregular pattern, with a distinct movement peak observed in August (Fig. 4). The GAM summary statistics showed that, compared to the reference group (reservoir), river turtles had a mean displacement distance that was approximately 66.07 m shorter, a statistically significant difference (Table 5). Furthermore, the dependent variable (displacement) represents the relative distance from the individual's origin point. Therefore, sections where the Y-axis value approaches zero indicate the individual has returned to its original location. This suggests homing behavior or settlement after a period of exploration. This pattern was clearly observed in both habitats and is interpreted as an ecological strategy to return to an initial location to prepare for hibernation. However, some individuals in the rivers were observed to be distributed hundreds of meters away from their origin points even after October, during the typical hibernation period (Fig. 4).

Table 5

Parametric coefficient estimates from the generalized additive model (GAM) analyzing the effect of habitat type on the displacement of *Mauremys reevesii*. The intercept represents the baseline for the reservoir.
Variable		Estimate	Standard Error	t value	p
(Intercept)		181.44	2.58	70.44	< 0.001
Habitat type
	River	-66.07	5.53	-11.95	< 0.001

A comparison of home range size by habitat type revealed no significant difference between reservoirs and rivers. The mean MCP home range size in this study was 41,568 ㎡ for reservoirs and 75,301 ㎡ for rivers. These values are much closer to the average MCP home range size reported for semi-aquatic turtles (12.08 ha) than for aquatic turtles (41.29 ha), suggesting M. reevesii aligns numerically with semi-aquatic species [35]. Furthermore, Song et al. [36], studying M. reevesii in the same reservoir as our study, reported KDE 95% home ranges between 28,003 ㎡ and 61,379 ㎡. This is considerably larger than our KDE 95% findings (mean ± SD: 7,645 ± 4,482 ㎡) and reinforces the conclusion that home range sizes are not consistently different between lentic and lotic habitats. Regarding sex, males had significantly larger MCP and LoCoH home ranges than females. This difference is likely attributable to reproductive behaviors; males typically patrol larger areas to locate mates, resulting in larger home ranges [37].

The analysis of daily movement distance showed that environmental factors (habitat type, season) had a greater influence than intrinsic factors (sex). Reservoir turtles moved more than river turtles, and spring movement was greater than autumn. To date, no studies have reported significant comparisons of daily movement distance by habitat type and sex for M. reevesii or other semi-aquatic turtles. Related research on the Mexican mud turtle (Kinosternon integrum) found an average movement of 51.44 ± 4.50 m, with 87.3% of movements under 100 m; movement was greater in the wet season than the dry season, and longer in water than on land [38]. The Alligator snapping turtle (Macrochelys temminckii) had an average daily movement of 82.3 ± 12.5 m, with most movements under 100 m [39]. In our study, 46.9% (238 of 508 days total) of M. reevesii movements were under 100 m, suggesting they are somewhat more mobile than K. integrum or M. temminckii. Further research comparing climatic patterns and aquatic vs. terrestrial movements is needed. Seasonally, movement increased in spring compared to autumn, consistent with findings from the National Park Research Institute [40]. This is likely due to rising water temperatures increasing metabolic activity and foraging efforts to replenish energy stores depleted during hibernation [40].

Diel terrestrial activity patterns, while differing in concentration (variance), showed a shared peak activity time around 14:00 h in both habitats, indicating a common diurnal activity pattern. This finding, coupled with Kim's [41] study showing that "resting" was the most frequent behavior for M. reevesii (peaking at 12:00–13:00 h), suggests this mid-day "resting" is not mere inactivity, but rather essential basking behavior for thermoregulation and metabolic activation [42–44].

Our analysis reveals a critical link between landscape-scale resource availability and movement patterns. We found that the road-crossing rate was not significantly influenced by the length of roads within the home range, but was significantly and positively correlated with the area of adjacent paddy fields. This suggests that road-crossing is not a random event but a consequence of resource-driven movement. Paddy fields function as important supplemental habitats, providing M. reevesii with high food availability and refuge sites, which in turn encourages activity and expands their movement radius [22, 45].

The GAM analysis clearly demonstrates that M. reevesii employs heterogeneous spatial patterns and seasonal rhythms contingent on habitat type. This plasticity manifests as two distinct movement strategies: reservoir turtles exhibited stable, non-linear displacement, while river turtles showed more erratic, linear, and long-distance movements. The significantly shorter mean displacement in rivers compared to reservoirs is likely attributable to the physical structure of the habitats. Unlike the non-linear, open space of a reservoir, a river is a linear ecosystem that constrains movement to upstream or downstream paths. This structural difference appears to be the key factor shaping the spatial ecology in rivers [17]. The observation that some river individuals remained highly displaced from their origin points into the hibernation period (post-October) is interpreted as an optimal hibernaculum search strategy in response to the dynamic lotic environment. For semi-aquatic turtles, overwinter survival depends on securing microhabitats with stable temperatures and dissolved oxygen [46]. While lentic environments are relatively uniform, allowing turtles to find suitable hibernacula within their summer range, lotic environments are characterized by fluctuating flow and water levels. In rivers, suitable sites (e.g., deep pools, silted areas) are likely patchy. Thus, river turtles face greater ecological pressure to leave their summer range to find these optimal sites, resulting in the late-season long-distance movements observed in this study [47]. This movement may also be linked to pre-hibernation mating (Oct-Nov), where males searching for females along the river corridor overlap their search for hibernacula [48]. Consequently, the late-season movement of the river population is a complex, active behavioral adaptation to solve the dual challenges of overwinter survival and reproduction.

Our analysis of seasonal displacement found that from June to September, turtles moved up to 400 m from their origin point in reservoirs and up to 1,300 m in rivers. These data provide the first quantitative metrics for defining conservation buffers in these distinct landscapes. Finally, with the exception of one individual that moved to a nearby reservoir and ceased transmitting, all turtles exhibited homing behavior. Previous research indicates turtle navigation operates via chemical signals, spatial memory, and sun compass navigation [49, 50]. This high site fidelity, even after extensive seasonal movements, underscores the paramount importance of their core territory [51].

This study reveals that M. reevesii exhibits significant behavioral plasticity, adopting divergent movement patterns in response to the fundamental structure of lentic versus lotic environments. As M. reevesii also exhibits high site fidelity and homing behavior, the conservation of its specific core territory is paramount [51]. Our findings provide the first evidence-based metrics for this conservation: we recommend conservation buffers should extend 400 m from reservoir core habitats and 1,300 m along river core habitats to encompass their maximum seasonal displacement range.

Furthermore, our analysis identifies the key driver of human-wildlife conflict for this species. Given that the area of adjacent paddy fields, not road length, was the primary driver of road-crossing risk, mitigation strategies must evolve beyond simply managing roads and instead focus on landscape connectivity. We recommend prioritizing road sections that transect major agricultural areas for the installation of fences and eco-passages. Ultimately, effective conservation for M. reevesii requires management that not only preserves the core spatial scale (home range) but also maintains the connectivity between aquatic habitats and adjacent terrestrial resources, such as paddy fields, managing them as a single, functional habitat unit.

Ethics approval

This study was conducted in strict accordance with the Act on Conservation and Utilization of Natural Heritage. We obtained permits for the alteration of state-designated cultural heritage from the Korea Heritage Service for the periods of 2022–2023 (Permit Nos. 2022-0507, 2022-0959, and 2022-0510). All animal handling and experimental procedures complied with the Animal Protection Act and the Laboratory Animal Act of the Republic of Korea. The study protocol was reviewed and approved by the Institutional Animal Care and Use Committee (IACUC) of the National Institute of Ecology (Approval Nos. NIEIACUC-R-2021-011 and NIEIACUC-R-2022-003; period: 2021–2023).

Consent for publication

Not applicable.

Availability of data and materials

The datasets used and/or analyzed during the current study are available from the corresponding author on reasonable request.

Competing interests

The authors declare that they have no competing interests.

Funding

This work was supported by the National Institute of Ecology (NIE), funded by the Ministry of Climate, Energy and Environment (MCEE) of the Republic of Korea (Grant number: NIE- B-2025-47).

Authors' contributions

CDP conceived and designed the study, performed the fieldwork, analyzed the data, and wrote the original draft of the manuscript. JDY supervised the project, provided critical feedback, and reviewed and edited the manuscript. KK, JY and NY assisted with data collection and field surveys. CYC supervised the data analysis and critically reviewed the manuscript. All authors read and approved the final manuscript.

Acknowledgements

We are grateful to the staff of the National Institute of Ecology for their administrative support and assistance during the fieldwork. We also thank Moon Seong Heo and Eun-Mi Jo for their valuable help with data collection.

Stanford CB, Iverson JB, Rhodin AG, van Dijk PP, Mittermeier RA, Kuchling G, et al. Turtles and tortoises are in trouble. Curr Biol. 2020;30(12):R721–35.
Innes RJ, Babbitt KJ, Kanter JJ. Home range and movement of Blanding's Turtles (Emydoidea blandingii) in New Hampshire. Northeast Nat. 2008;15(3):431–44.
Keevil MG, Brooks RJ, Litzgus JD. Post-catastrophe patterns of abundance and survival reveal no evidence of population recovery in a long‐lived animal. Ecosphere. 2018;9(9):e02396.
Shen JW, Pike DA, Du WG. Movements and microhabitat use of translocated big-headed turtles (Platysternon megacephalum) in southern China. Chelon Conserv Biol. 2010;9(2):154–61.
Bonnet XD, Pearson M, Ladyman O, Lourdais O, Bradshaw D. Heaven' for serpents? A mark-recapture study of tiger snakes (Notechis scutatus) on Carnac Island, Western Australia. Austral Ecol. 2002;27:422–50.
Park CD, Yoo JW, Kwon K, Yoo N, Heo M, Yoon J. Habitat suitability model of endangered wildlife class II Mauremys reevesii in Gurye-gun, the Republic of Korea. J Environ Impact Assess. 2023;32(2):83–93.
Lee JH, Jang HJ, Suh JH. Ecological guide book of herpetofauna in Korea. Incheon: National Institute of Environmental Research; 2011.
Lee JH, Park D. Ecological guide book of Korean amphibians. Paju: Nature and Ecology; 2016.
Jo SI, Na SM, An CK, Kim HJ, Jung YJ, Lim YM, et al. Comparison of habitat use patterns between the korean endangered species, Mauremys reevesii and the exotic species, Trachemys scripta elegans. Korean J Environ Ecol. 2017;31(4):397–408.
National Institute of Biological Resources (NIBR). Korean endangered species. Incheon: National Institute of Biological Resources; 2018.
Conner LM, Godbois IA. Habitat associated with daytime refugia of fox squirrels in a longleaf pine forest. Am Midl Nat. 2003;150(1):123–9.
Carrière MA, Blouin-Demers G. Habitat selection at multiple spatial scales in Northern Map Turtles (Graptemys geographica). Can J Zool. 2010;88(9):846–54.
Edge CB, Steinberg BD, Brooks RJ, Litzgus JD. Habitat selection by Blanding's turtles (Emydoidea blandingii) in a relatively pristine landscape. Ecoscience. 2010;17(1):90–9.
Kapfer JM, Muñoz DJ, Groves JD, Kirk RW. Home range and habitat preferences of eastern box turtles (Terrapene carolina Linnaeus, 1758) in the Piedmont Ecological Province of North Carolina (USA). Herpetol Notes. 2013;6:251–60.
Minns CK. Allometry of home range size in lake and river fishes. Can J Fish Aquat Sci. 1995;52(7):1499–508.
Irz P, Odion M, Argillier C, Pont D. Comparison between the fish communities of lakes, reservoirs and rivers: can natural systems help define the ecological potential of reservoirs? Aquat Sci. 2006;68(1):109–16.
Carrière MA, Bulté G, Blouin-Demers G. Spatial ecology of northern map turtles (Graptemys geographica) in a lotic and a lentic habitat. J Herpetol. 2009;43(4):597–604.
Pilliod DS, Llewellyn D, Arkle JC. Terrestrial movement patterns of western pond turtles (Actinemys marmorata) in Central California. Herpetol Conserv Biol. 2013;8(1):206–19.
Oh HS, Park SM, Han SH. Mitochondrial haplotype distribution and phylogenetic relationship of an endangered species, Reeve's turtle (Mauremys reevesii), in East Asia. J Asia-Pac Biodivers. 2017;10(1):27–31.
Baek HJ, Cheong E, Kim Y, Koo KS, Kim SH, Park CD, Yoon JD. Geographical distribution of Mauremys sinensis, Mauremys reevesii, and their hybrids in South Korea. Animals. 2024;14(18):2626.
Haramura T, Yamane M, Mori A. Radiotelemetric study of movement patterns of lotic freshwater turtles during breeding and hibernation seasons. J Freshw Ecol. 2010;25:251–9.
Bu R, Ye Z, Shi H. Habitat selection and home range of Reeves’ Turtle (Mauremys reevesii) in Qichun County, Hubei Province, China. Animals. 2023;13(9):1514.
Litzgus JD, Mousseau TA. Home range and seasonal activity of southern spotted turtles (Clemmys guttata): Implications for management. Copeia. 2004;2004(4):804–17.
Lee WS, Park CY, Lim SJ, Heo WH, Jeong OS, Choi CY, et al. Wildlife ecology and management. Seoul: Life Science; 2010.
Yoo SH, Lee KS, Park JH. MCP, kernel density estimation and LoCoH analysis for the core area zoning of the Red-crowned Crane's feeding habitat in Cheorwon, Korea. J Korean Env Ecol. 2013;27(1):11–21.
Yoo SY, Hong MJ, Moon YM, Choi JH, Lee JY, Yoo JC, et al. Study on the distribution of waterbirds and their core habitats in coastal wetlands in Incheon and Gyeonggi bay. Korean J Ornithol. 2022;29(2):119–30.
Lee SJ, Lee HS. Animal home range estimators1a- a review and a case study. J Korean Env Ecol. 2022;36(2):202–16.
Ryan SJ, Knechtel CU, Getz WM. Range and habitat selection of African buffalo in South Africa. J Wildl Manag. 2006;70(3):764–76.
Getz WM, Fortmann-Roe S, Cross PC, Lyons AJ, Ryan SJ, Wilmers CC. LoCoH: nonparameteric kernel methods for constructing home ranges and utilization distributions. PLoS ONE. 2007;2(2):e207.
Wobbrock JO, Findlater L, Gergle D, Higgins JJ. The aligned rank transform for nonparametric factorial analyses using only anova procedures. In: Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. 2011. pp. 143–146.
Agostinelli C, Lund U. R Package 'circular': Circular Statistics. R package version 0.4–93. 2017. https://r-forge.r-project.org/projects/circular/
Wood SN. Generalized additive models: an introduction with R. 2nd ed. Chapman and Hall/CRC; 2017.
R Core Team, Vienna. R: A Language and Environment for Statistical Computing. Austria: R Foundation for Statistical Computing; 2025. https://www.R-project.org/.
QGIS Development Team. QGIS Geographic Information System. QGIS Association; 2024. https://www.qgis.org.
Slavenko A, Itescu Y, Ihlow F, Meiri S. Home is where the shell is: predicting turtle home range sizes. J Anim Ecol. 2016;85(1):106–14.
Song J, Chang M, Koo K. Distribution and movement of Reeve’s turtle (Mauremys reevesii) in South Korea. Chin J Wildl. 2014;35:329–34.
Ernst CH, Lovich JE. Turtles of the United States and Canada. 2nd ed. Johns Hopkins University; 2009.
Ariano-Sánchez D, Mortensen RM, Reinhardt S, Rosell F. Escaping drought: seasonality effects on home range, movement patterns and habitat selection of the Guatemalan Beaded Lizard. Glob Ecol Conserv. 2020;23:e01178.
Adams CS, Gartenstein S, Pierce JB, Glasscock JL, Schalk CM. Movment Patterns, Home Range, and Microhabitat Use of Alligator Snapping Turtle (Macrochelys temminckii) in a Small East Texas Stream System. Tex J Sci. 2024;76(1):Article 1.
Korea National Park Research Institute. A study on the propagation and restoration of Reeve's turtle (Chinemys reevesii) Ⅲ. National Institute of Biological Resources; 2012.
Kim JW. A Study on circadian behavior pattern and social interaction of Mauremys reevesii in captivity in the Wolchulsan National Park [master's thesis]. Chonnam National University; 2022.
Boyer DR. Ecology of the Basking Habit in Turtles. Ecology. 1965;46(1–2):99–118.
Lefevre K, Brooks RJ. Effects of sex and body size on basking behavior in a northern population of the painted turtle, Chrysemys picta. Herpetologica. 1995;51(2):217–24.
Seburn D, Birch M, Burns M, Hounsell R, Neville S, Nguyen C. Do exotic Red-eared Sliders (Trachemys scripta elegans) bask with native Canadian turtles? Herpetol Notes. 2023;16:501–6.
Wallace SD, Forbes GJ, Nocera JJ. Habitat selection, movement, and food preferences of Wood Turtles (Glyptemys insculpta) in an agri-forested landscape. Can J Zool. 2020;98(11):743–50.
Steen DA, Sterrett SC, Miller SA, Smith LL. Terrestrial movements and microhabitat selection of overwintering subadult eastern mud turtles (Kinosternon subrubrum) in southwest Georgia. J Herpetol. 2007;41(3):532–5.
Brown DJ, Nelson MD, Rugg DJ, Buech RR, Donner DM. Spatial and temporal habitat-use patterns of wood turtles at the western edge of their distribution. J Herpetol. 2016;50(3):347–56.
Kaufmann JH. Habitat use by wood turtles in central Pennsylvania. J Herpetol. 1992;315–21.
Yeomans RS. Water-finding in adult turtles: Random search or oriented behaviour? Anim Behav. 1995;49(4):977–87.
Roth TC, Krochmal AR. The role of age-specific learning and experience for turtles navigating a changing landscape. Curr Biol. 2015;25(3):333–7.
Xiao F, Bu R, Lin L, Wang J, Shi H. Home-site fidelity and homing behavior of the big‐headed turtle Platysternon megacephalum. Ecol Evol. 2021;11(11):5803–8.

No competing interests reported.

Download PDF

Reviewers agreed at journal
18 Dec, 2025
Reviewers agreed at journal
18 Dec, 2025
Reviewers invited by journal
17 Dec, 2025
Editor assigned by journal
17 Dec, 2025
Submission checks completed at journal
16 Dec, 2025
First submitted to journal
15 Dec, 2025

You are reading this latest preprint version

Spatial Ecology and Habitat Use of the Reeves’ Turtle (Mauremys reevesii) in Lentic and Lotic Systems

Status:

Version 1

Abstract

Background

Methods

Results

Conclusions

Figures

Background

Methods

Study site and period

Turtle captures and tagging

Data analysis

Results

Home ranges

Daily and seasonal movement

Road crossing

Seasonal displacement patterns by habitat type

Discussion

Conclusions

Declarations

References

Additional Declarations

Status:

Version 1