Southeastern Naturalist
531
S.J. Goodman, J.A. Smith, T.A. Gorman, and C.A. Haas
22001188 SOUTHEASTERN NATURALIST 1V7o(3l.) :1573,1 N–5o4. 03
Longevity of Gopher Tortoise Burrows in Sandy Soils
Steven J. Goodman1,*, Jennifer A. Smith1,2, Thomas A. Gorman1,3, and
Carola A. Haas1
Abstract - Gopherus polyphemus (Gopher Tortoise) populations historically occurred
throughout much of the southeastern Coastal Plain, and burrows created by this species
provide refugia for a large suite of commensal species. Our objective was to evaluate the
physical degradation of Gopher Tortoise burrows over time. We provide burrow-status
information from initial and follow-up surveys of a low-density population of Gopher
Tortoises across Eglin Air Force Base (Eglin), FL, a large landscape with very deep, sandy
soils. Approximately 63% (n = 79) of active and/or inactive burrows were collapsed, filled
in, or substantially degraded after 2 y, 82% (n = 65) after 3 y, and 100% (n = 19) after 5
y. Compared to results from a similar study with different soils, burrows degraded more
quickly on Eglin. Our results on burrow longevity can inform interpretation of Gopher
Tortoise surveys and aid in predicting temporal availability of burrows for commensals.
Introduction
Gopherus polyphemus (Daudin) (Gopher Tortoise) inhabits open-upland habitat
throughout the southeastern US. In the western portion of its range, the Gopher
Tortoise is listed as threatened under the US Endangered Species Act, and it is a
candidate species for federal listing in the eastern portion of its range. Both designations
are the result of habitat loss and other primarily anthropogenic factors
(USFWS 2011). Upper respiratory-tract disease may have also contributed to declines
(Berish et al. 2010, USFWS 2011), but further research is needed to assess
any long-term effects of this disease on populations (Berish et al. 2010, McCoy et
al. 2007). Gopher Tortoises excavate and use multiple burrows (up to 35; Diemer
1992, Eubanks et al. 2003, McRae et al. 1981, Smith et al. 1997) in which they
spend >90% of their time (Auffenberg and Iverson 1979). Due to the species’ long
lifespan and the lack of long-term tracking studies, it is not known how long a tortoise
uses a burrow, or how many burrows a tortoise uses in a lifetime. However,
several studies suggest that tortoises readily abandon burrows in poor habitat (Aresco
and Guyer 1999, Berish and Leone 2014, Diemer 1992, Guyer and Hermann
1997) and may colonize or increase use of adjacent areas where habitat conditions
have improved (Ashton et al. 2008, Berish and Leone 2014, Diemer 1992, Yager
et al. 2007). This behavior may be relevant for conservation because their burrows
provide shelter and habitat for up to 60 vertebrate and 302 invertebrate commensal
species (Jackson and Milstrey 1989, Pike and Mitchell 2013), including several
1Department of Fish and Wildlife Conservation, Virginia Tech, Blacksburg, VA 24061. 2Department
of Environmental Science and Ecology, University of Texas at San Antonio, San
Antonio, TX 78249. 3Aquatic Resources Division, Washington State Department of Natural
Resources, Chehalis, WA 98532. *Corresponding author - sjgood@vt.edu.
Manuscript Editor: Cathryn Greenberg
Southeastern Naturalist
S.J. Goodman, J.A. Smith, T.A. Gorman, and C.A. Haas
2018 Vol. 17, No. 3
532
imperiled species (e.g., Drymarchon couperi (Holbrook) [Eastern Indigo Snake]
and Lithobates capito (LeConte) [Gopher Frog]). The burrows also provide focal
points for assessing the presence of Gopher Tortoises and commensals through a
variety of monitoring techniques (e.g., burrow-transect surveys, burrow scoping,
and camera trapping). However, to understand use and project availability of burrows,
it is important to assess their longevity on the landscape.
Studies evaluating burrow longevity and degradation rates are scarce and have
focused on a limited number of sites with narrow ranges of soil types. To our
knowledge, only Guyer and Hermann (1997) specifically studied this topic by
comparing burrow longevity across different soil types, though Diemer (1992)
reported burrow-retention rates as a part of a larger study. Here, we report on
burrow longevity for a population of Gopher Tortoises in Pinus palustris Mill.
(Longleaf Pine) sandhills on Eglin Air Force Base, FL (hereafter, Eglin). Upland
soils on Eglin are very deep, excessively drained, and rapidly to very rapidly
permeable (USDA 2018). We estimated the length of time for Gopher Tortoise
burrows to change status from open and available for use by tortoises (i.e., active
or inactive, as described by Auffenberg and Franz 1982, Mushinsky and Esman
1994) to collapsed or filled (i.e., abandoned) using data collected during past and
ongoing burrow-survey projects (Gorman et al. 2015, Haas et al. 2017). We then
compared our results to a subset of data from a previous study by Guyer and Hermann
(1997) that compared burrow longevity in 2 sites—one with clay-based soils
(Wade Tract, GA) and another with sandier loam-based soils (Conecuh National
Forest, AL (hereafter, Conecuh). The former site was located in a Aristida stricta
Michx. (Wiregrass)-dominated ancestral forest with an old-growth Longleaf Pine
component and an intact understory, and the latter site was located in a managed
Pinus elliottii Engelm. (Slash Pine) plantation. Soils at these study sites, like Eglin,
are very deep, but less well-drained and less permeable (least at Wade Tract)
(USDA 2018). Also, the clay content is considerably higher at both sites (most at
Wade Tract), with pronounced argillic horizons within the soil profiles. Whereas
the single-grained sand soil structure on Eglin remains consistent throughout the
soil profile; loose sands and fine granular structures give way at depths of 13–112
cm to less friable subangular blocky structures at the sites (most at Wade Tract)
studied by Guyer and Hermann (1997). Hansen (1963) measured Gopher Tortoise
burrow depths of 140–240 cm. These soil factors combined result in a lower soil
consistence for Eglin soils compared to the Guyer and Hermann (1997) sites. Soil
consistence is the relative strength of a soil, or more specifically, its resistance to
rupture, penetration, or compression (USDA 2017). Based on prior observations,
we predicted that burrows on Eglin would collapse or fill in at a faster rate compared
to sites investigated by Guyer and Hermann (1997).
Study Site
Our study was conducted on Eglin Air Force Base, a large military installation
(188,459 ha) located in the Florida Panhandle (Fig. 1). Eglin is primarily underlain
by the Lakeland Soil Series (USDA 2018), characterized by nearly 100%
Southeastern Naturalist
533
S.J. Goodman, J.A. Smith, T.A. Gorman, and C.A. Haas
2018 Vol. 17, No. 3
sand soil-horizons. This series belongs to the Entisols order (great group Quartzipsamments),
originating from eolian, marine, or fluvio-marine sands typified by
minimal pedogenic-horizon development (USDA 1999, 2018). For older deposits,
low levels of horizon development may be attributable to quartz sand’s resistance
to weathering (USDA 1999). In contrast, the soils studied in Guyer and Hermann
(1997) were Ultisols (great group Kandiudults), which are generally considered
to be older, and thus have greater horizon-development (USDA 1999, 2018). The
landscape on Eglin primarily consists of Longleaf Pine-dominated sandhills interspersed
with large areas (~25–4000 ha) of treeless, open test-ranges (areas used
for bombing and artillery practice, as well as their associated safety-buffer areas)
and pine plantations. In addition, smaller acreages of mesic upland pine and flatwoods
habitats are present. After decades of fire suppression (McCay 2000), Eglin
has maintained an active prescribed burning program for the past 20 years, with
a current burn goal of >35,000 ha/y (USAF 2017). Other habitat-management activities
include removing Pinus clausa (Chapm. ex Engelm.) Vasey ex Sarg. (Sand
Pine) and Quercus spp. (oaks) and planting Longleaf Pine. Eglin has a robust
fire management program at the landscape scale, but fire intensity, frequency, and
effectiveness can vary considerably at finer scales, including areas where small,
remnant Gopher Tortoise populations occur. Gopher Tortoises are distributed at low
densities across most of Eglin (Gorman et al. 2015, Haas et al. 2017, Printiss and
Figure 1. Gopherus polyphemus (Gopher Tortoise) study locations on Eglin Air Force Base,
FL: Base-wide occupancy project, Turtle Creek, and Duck Pond.
Southeastern Naturalist
S.J. Goodman, J.A. Smith, T.A. Gorman, and C.A. Haas
2018 Vol. 17, No. 3
534
Hipes 1999) when compared to densities found by prior range-wide and Floridawide
surveys (Auffenberg and Franz 1982, McCoy and Mushinsky 1995, Smith and
Howze 2016) and lower than what is generally considered minimally viable (0.40
individuals/ha; Gopher Tortoise Council 2013, Guyer et al. 2012, USFWS 2011).
Current low densities on Eglin are likely primarily caused by past human predation
that was prevalent in the Florida Panhandle (Auffenberg and Franz 1982, Diemer
1986, FWC 2012) along with past habitat degradation (e.g., fire suppression) and
other causal factors attributed to Gopher Tortoise declines throughout its range
(Auffenberg and Franz 1982, Diemer 1986, FWC 2012, USFWS 2011).
Methods
Field surveys
We surveyed for Gopher Tortoise burrows using a 2-observer, complete-survey
method, in which 2 observers walked 10-m-wide adjacent transects covering an
entire plot (modified from FWC 2007). Data for this study were collected as part
of 3 different surveys on Eglin described as follows during: (1) a base-wide occupancy
project (hereafter Occupancy Project) conducted in 2014 (Gorman et al.
2015) with a follow-up visit in 2016; (2) surveys at one of our long-term monitoring
sites, Turtle Creek, initially in 2012 with a follow-up visit in 2015; and (3) annual
surveys conducted at another long-term monitoring site, Duck Pond, from 2010 to
2016 (Fig. 1; Haas et al. 2017). We conducted all surveys and follow-up visits from
April through November.
During the surveys, we recorded the location (UTM) of burrows using a Garmin
GPSMap78 (Garmin International, Inc., Olathe, KS) and measured burrow-tunnel
width at a 50-cm depth (McCoy et al. 2006). We examined burrows with a flashlight
or mirror and probed with a meter stick to evaluate the degree of ceiling collapse
or soil accumulation due to erosion. We determined burrow condition using the following
classes and criteria based on previous studies (Auffenberg and Franz 1982,
McCoy and Mushinsky 1995, Mushinsky and Esman 1994, Mushinsky and McCoy
1994, Smith et al. 2005):
Active/Inactive - Exhibits signs of recent tortoise activity, including footprints,
scat, plastron scraping, and/or recent tortoise digging near entrance, or
if no obvious signs of recent activity, has a tortoise-shaped entrance and tunnel,
suggesting relatively recent maintenance, though the burrow may be partially occluded
by debris.
Abandoned - Burrow entrance or upper portion of tunnel substantially degraded
due to soil accumulation from erosion, ceiling collapse, or substantial vegetation
growing at the entrance. Major burrow modification would be needed to become
available for tortoise use. Burrows converted to Canis latrans Say (Coyote) dens or
usurped by Dasypus novemcinctus L. (Nine-banded Armadillo), indicated by size
and shape of burrow and tracks (Kinlaw 2006, Landers and Speake 1980), were also
included in this category. Includes burrows completely filled in with soil, resulting
in only the apron being visible.
Southeastern Naturalist
535
S.J. Goodman, J.A. Smith, T.A. Gorman, and C.A. Haas
2018 Vol. 17, No. 3
Data analysis
We only included burrows categorized as active/inactive during initial surveys
and did not incorporate any new burrows observed during the follow-up work.
Therefore, we followed a single cohort of active/inactive burrows for each study
area. We calculated the proportion of burrows abandoned for each site: annually
for Duck Pond; over a 2-y period for sites used as part of the Occupancy Project;
and over a 3-y period for Turtle Creek (Table 1). To allow us to compare our results
to a subset of data from Guyer and Herman (1997:table 2), we categorized
burrows into 3 size-classes, ≤20 cm, >20 to ≤30 cm, and >30 cm. Furthermore, we
combined Guyer and Hermann (1997) burrow-status categories of “abandoned”,
“invaded by armadillo,” and “filled with soil” into one category that corresponded
with our abandoned designation. We did this because, for abandoned burrows observed
during our study, it was hard to classify burrows into one of the categories
used by Guyer and Hermann (1997). Most of the abandoned burrows we monitored
were essentially or completely filled in or completely obstructed within 1 m of the
opening. Once abandoned, burrows on Eglin quickly became degraded, and rarely
(1 out of 66 observed over 4–5 years) reverted back to active/inactive status (S.J.
Goodman, unpubl. data). We also evaluated the relationship between burrow-status
change (over time) and burrow size (largest 2 size-categories) and compared our
results to Guyer and Hermann (1997). For all comparisons, we used a contingencytable
analysis in JMP Pro 13 (SAS Institute, Inc., Cary, NC) to assess significance
of differences.
Results and Discussion
We recorded initial and follow-up activity status for 125 individual burrows:
60 from the Occupancy Project, 46 at Turtle Creek, and 19 at Duck Pond (Table 1,
Fig. 2). The 19 burrows at Duck Pond were re-checked annually and are included
in all the following totals. Of the burrows re-checked after 1 y, 16% (3/19) reached
abandoned status; of those re-checked after 2 y, 63% (50/79); of those re-checked
Table 1. Before and after burrow-activity status of Gopherus polyphemus (Gopher Tortoise) burrows
(all sizes) collected from a base-wide occupancy project and 2 long-term monitoring plots, Turtle
Creek and Duck Pond, on Eglin Air Force Base, FL. Duck Pond burrows were tracked annually from
2010 to 2016.
Active + inactive Abandoned* Abandoned/
Dataset Period (y) Iinitial Follow-up (follow-up) total
Occupancy Project 2 60 19 41 0.68
Turtle Creek 3 46 8 38 0.83
Duck pond 1 19 16 3 0.16
Duck Pond 2 19 10 9 0.47
Duck Pond 3 19 4 15 0.79
Duck Pond 4 19 3 16 0.84
Duck Pond 5 19 0 19 1.00
Duck Pond 6 19 0 19 1.00
*Two burrows were invaded by Nine-banded Armadillos.
Southeastern Naturalist
S.J. Goodman, J.A. Smith, T.A. Gorman, and C.A. Haas
2018 Vol. 17, No. 3
536
after 3 y, 82% (53/65); of those re-checked after 4 y, 84% (16/19); and of those rechecked
after 5 y, 100% (19/19). Guyer and Hermann (1997:table 2) reported 31%
(29/94) and 60% (118/196) of their study burrows (all size classes combined) as
abandoned, invaded by Nine-banded Armadillos, or filled in after 3 y at the Wade
Tract and Conecuh, respectively.
Misclassification of burrow status may result in so-called abandoned burrows
actually having Gopher Tortoises inside (Smith et al. 2005, Witz et al. 1991; but see
Mushinsky and Esman [1994]). We minimized the potential for this error by thoroughly
examining the burrow with a light or mirror and probing inside the burrow
with a yard stick. Most, if not all, burrows classified as abandoned had substantial
ceiling collapse or were mostly filled in with soil within 1 m of the burrow opening.
Furthermore, burrow assessments were primarily conducted during seasons when
Gopher Tortoises were known to be active on Eglin, which reduced errors associated
with limited Gopher Tortoise burrow-maintenance activity.
For the comparison to Guyer and Hermann (1997), we combined medium (>20
to ≤30 cm) and large (>30 cm) burrow categories, both for simplicity and also because
longevity was not different between the 2 sizes on Eglin (n = 79: 52 medium
and 27 large, P = 0.30). This similarity partially contrasts with Guyer and Hermann
(1997) where larger burrows had greater longevity at Conecuh (n = 158: 95 medium
and 63 large, P = 0.01), but not at Wade Tract (n = 94: 8 medium and 86 large,
P = 0.25). The proportion of burrows >20 cm reaching abandonment status on Eglin
(0.71, n = 79) was higher than at the more clay-based site, Wade Tract (0.31, n =
94, P < 0.0001), and at the sandy loam-based site, Conecuh National Forest (0.57,
n = 158, P = 0.05; Table 2), during a similar time period. For burrows ≤20 cm, the
proportion of abandoned burrows at Eglin (0.83, n = 46, P = 0.42) was marginally,
but not significantly, higher than the proportion abandoned on Conecuh (0.74). Due
Figure 2. Before and after burrow-activity status of Gopherus polyphemus (Gopher Tortoise)
burrows (all sizes) collected from a base-wide occupancy project and 2 long-term
monitoring plots on Eglin Air Force Base, FL. This figure shows only the presence of burrows
detected initially in Year 0, so each line represents a decline in the cohort of burrows
present in Year 0 of each study and does not necessarily indicate a decline in the total active
burrows at a site (i.e., burrows that newly appeared in later years were not counted).
Southeastern Naturalist
537
S.J. Goodman, J.A. Smith, T.A. Gorman, and C.A. Haas
2018 Vol. 17, No. 3
to a small sample size of small burrows on the Wade Tract, burrows in this category
were not reported for this site (Guyer and Hermann 1997).
Our results suggest that burrows on Eglin reach a state of abandonment and
subsequent collapse at a faster rate than those at other locations (Guyer and Hermann
1997). The cessation of maintenance by Gopher Tortoises clearly decreases
the lifespan of most burrows. For example, during past and current Gopher Tortoise
monitoring, we have often observed burrows change status from active to
abandoned within a couple of months. In addition, using camera traps at our study
site has revealed that the entrances of some active burrows begin to fill in with soil
after 1 large rain event, only to resume the characteristic half-moon shape once the
Gopher Tortoises have conducted burrow maintenance. Burrow-entrance collapse
during rain events has also been reported in the sandy soils of Highland County,
FL (Mushinsky and Esman 1994). Physical degradation of burrows may depend
on a combination of factors, including modification and disturbance by mammals,
erosion from rain and wind, impacts from land-management activities, and/or soil
type. Burrows on Eglin may be especially susceptible to physical degradation based
on soil type, as the site is primarily underlain by the Lakeland Soil Series, which
is characterized by very loose, sandy soils resulting in a very low soil-consistence
(USDA 2017, 2018). However, the ultimate cause of the higher level of burrows
reaching abandoned status on Eglin is likely due to a combination of factors, including
decreasing Gopher Tortoise densities due to changes in habitat conditions
or mortality, anthropogenic impacts from land-management activities, and diminished
structural integrity and increased erosion and filling of burrows because of
the sandier soils.
Whether the higher burrow-abandonment rate on Eglin is indicative of changes
in Gopher Tortoise populations is unclear; our long-term monitoring data has indicated
burrow density decreases across Eglin (Haas et al. 2017). However, these
results are difficult to interpret because our survey-site boundaries are area-constrained
within an increasingly open landscape from ongoing habitat management.
Certainly, we have observed “a continual cycle of burrow creation and abandonment”
across Eglin as similarly reported by Diemer (1992). Land-management
disturbances do occur on Eglin within tortoise populations, including mowing
operations on test ranges that could increase burrow abandonment. However, this
Table 2. Comparison of proportion of Gopher Tortoise burrows abandoned by size class after 2–3 y at
sites on Eglin Air Force Base, FL, and at sites in Georgia and Alabama studied by Guyer and Hermann
(1997). Size columns ≤20 cm and >20 cm refer to burrow widths.
≤20 cm >20 cm
Dataset Soil series Period (yrs.) n Abandoned n Abandoned
Eglin Occupancy Project Lakeland 2 19 0.79 41 0.63
Eglin Turtle Creek Lakeland 3 25 0.84 21 0.81
Eglin Duck Pond Lakeland 3 2 1.00 17 0.76
Wade Tract Faceville, Lucy, 3 0 n/a 94 0.31
Norfolk, Orangeburg
Conecuh Troup, Fuquay 3 38 0.74 158 0.57
Southeastern Naturalist
S.J. Goodman, J.A. Smith, T.A. Gorman, and C.A. Haas
2018 Vol. 17, No. 3
538
study suggests that there was no difference (P = 0.16) in proportion of burrows
abandoned between test ranges (0.57, n = 21) and forested sites (0.76, n = 58), suggesting
that burrow abandonment is similar across habitat types.
In summary, we cannot confidently differentiate between higher rates of burrows
becoming vacant and higher rates of structural deterioration of vacant burrows.
However, we conclude there is sufficient evidence that burrows on Eglin reach a
state of abandonment and subsequent collapse at a faster rate than those at other
sites, likely because of the lower consistence of sandy soils. Gaining insight into the
longevity of Gopher Tortoise burrows is valuable, regardless of the ultimate cause
of abandonment and collapse. As burrows become increasingly important as thermal
refugia on the landscape (Pike and Mitchell 2013), estimating their temporal
availability for commensal species is essential. Furthermore, land managers may
use burrow surveys to determine the potential effects of management activities on
Gopher Tortoises and high priority commensals, and/or to determine if available
habitat is suitable for Gopher Tortoises (e.g., Wigley et al. 2012). Using burrow
surveys in this way may or may not provide reliable information depending on how
long burrows persist and how rapidly habitats change. Monitoring burrow longevity
in areas with different soil types and with different amounts of disturbance would
provide valuable information for future researchers and managers.
Acknowledgments
We thank J. Preston, J. Johnson, K. Gault, and B. Hagedorn of Jackson Guard, and the
Natural Resource Division of Eglin Air Force Base for ongoing funding and logistical support.
We also thank the Department of Defense Legacy-Resource Management Program
for their financial support. This work was also supported by the US Department of Agriculture
National Institute of Food and Agriculture, McIntire Stennis project 1006328. We
are indebted to C. Abeles, R. Bilbow, L. Blanc, A. Briant, K. Erwin, A. Hillman, K. Jones,
S. Konkolics, W. Moore, J. Newman, J. Newton, S. Piccolomini, V. Porter, B. Rincon, and
T. Williams for their outstanding fieldwork and enthusiasm.
Literature Cited
Aresco, M.J., and C. Guyer. 1999. Burrow abandonment by Gopher Tortoises in Slash Pine
plantations of the Conecuh National Forest. Journal of Wildlife Management 63:26–35.
Ashton, K.G., B.M. Engelhardt, and B.S. Branciforte. 2008. Gopher Tortoise (Gopherus
polyphemus) abundance and distribution after prescribed fire reintroduction to Florida
scrub and sandhill at Archbold Biological Station. Journal of Herpetology 42:523–529.
Auffenberg, W., and R. Franz. 1982. The status and distribution of the Gopher Tortoise
(Gopherus polyphemus). Pp 95–126, In R.B. Bury (Ed.). North American Tortoises:
Conservation and Ecology. Wildlife Research Report 12. United States Fish and Wildlife
Service, Washington, DC. 126 pp.
Auffenberg, W., and J.B. Iverson. 1979. Demography of terrestrial turtles. Pp. 541–569, In
M. Harless and H. Morlock (Eds.). Turtles: Perspectives and Research. Wiley-International,
New York, NY. 695 pp.
Berish (Diemer), J.E. and E.H. Leone. 2014. Follow-up demographic survey of a Florida
Gopher Tortoise population. Southeastern Naturalist 13:639–648.
Southeastern Naturalist
539
S.J. Goodman, J.A. Smith, T.A. Gorman, and C.A. Haas
2018 Vol. 17, No. 3
Berish (Diemer) J.E., L.D. Wendland, R.A. Kiltie, E.P. Garrison, and C.A. Gates. 2010. Effects
of mycoplasmal upper respiratory-tract disease on morbidity and mortality of Gopher
Tortoises in northern and central Florida. Journal of Wildlife Diseases 46:695–705.
Diemer, J.E. 1986. The ecology and management of the Gopher Tortoise in the southeastern
United States. Herpetologica 42:125–133.
Diemer, J.E. 1992. Demography of the tortoise Gopherus polyphemus in northern Florida.
Journal of Herpetology 26:281–289.
Eubanks J.O., W.K. Michener, and C. Guyer. 2003. Patterns of movement and burrow use in
a population of Gopher Tortoises (Gopherus polyphemus). Herpetologica 59:311–321.
Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission (FWC). 2007. Gopher Tortoise Management
Plan (Gopherus polyphemus). Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission,
Tallahassee, FL. 143 pp.
FWC. 2012. Gopher Tortoise Management Plan (Gopherus polyphemus). Tallahassee, FL.
243 pp.
Gopher Tortoise Council. 2013. Gopher Tortoise Minimum Viable Population and Minimum
Reserve Size Working Group Report. Available online at http://www.gophertortoisecouncil.
org/conserv/MVP_Report_Final-1.2013.pdf. Accessed 3 July 2017.
Gorman, T.A., S.J. Goodman, and C.A. Haas. 2015. Developing a survey protocol for
landscapes with a low-density of Gopher Tortoises. Project 14-762. Legacy-Resource
Management Program, US Department of Defense, Washington, DC. 19 pp.
Guyer, C., and S.M. Hermann. 1997. Patterns of size and longevity of Gopher Tortoise (Gopherus
polyphemus) burrows: Implications for the Longleaf Pine ecosystem. Chelonian
Conservation and Biology 2:507–513.
Guyer, C., V.M. Johnson, and S.H. Hermann. 2012. Effects of population density on patterns
of movement and behavior of Gopher Tortoises (Gopherus polyphemus). Herpetological
Monographs 26:122–134.
Haas, C.A., S.J. Goodman, K.C. Jones, G.C. Brooks, J.A. Smith, V.H. Porter, and B.K.
Rincon. 2017. Endangered-species management on Eglin Air Force Base and Hulbert
Field, Florida: 2016 Annual report on amphibian and reptile objectives. Department of
Fish and Wildlife Conservation, Virginia Tech, Blacksburg, VA. 22 pp.
Hansen, K.L. 1963. The burrow of the Gopher Tortoise. Quarterly Journal of the Florida
Academy of Sciences 26:353–360.
Jackson, D.R. and E.G. Milstrey. 1989. The fauna of Gopher Tortoise burrows. Pp 86–98,
In J.E. Diemer, D.R. Jackson, J.L. Landers, J.N. Layne, and D.A. Wood (Eds.). Proceedings
of the Gopher Tortoise Relocation Symposium. Nongame Wildlife Program Technical
Report No. 5. Florida Game and Fresh Water Fish Commission, Tallahassee, FL.
Kinlaw, A.E. 2006. Burrow dispersion of central Florida armadillos. Southeastern Naturalist
5:523–534.
Landers, J.L., and D.W. Speake. 1980. Management needs of sandhill reptiles in southern
Georgia. Proceedings of the Annual Conference of the Southeastern Association of Fish
and Wildlife Agencies 34:515–529.
McCay, D.H. 2000. Effects of chronic human activities on invasion of Longleaf Pine forests
by Sand Pine. Ecosystems 3:283–292.
McCoy, E.D., and H.R. Mushinsky. 1995. The demography of Gopherus polyphemus
(Daudin) in relation to size of available habitat. Nongame Wildlife Program Project
GFC-86-013. Florida Game and Fresh Water Fish Commission, Tallahassee, FL. 77 pp.
McCoy, E.D., H.R. Mushinsky, and J. Lindzey. 2006. Declines of the Gopher Tortoise on
protected lands. Biological Conservation 128:120–127.
Southeastern Naturalist
S.J. Goodman, J.A. Smith, T.A. Gorman, and C.A. Haas
2018 Vol. 17, No. 3
540
McCoy, E.D., H.R. Mushinsky, and J. Lindzey. 2007. Conservation strategies and emergent
diseases: The case of upper respiratory-tract disease in the Gopher Tortoise. Chelonian
Conservation and Biology 6:170–176.
McRae, W.A., J.L. Landers, and J.A. Garner. 1981. Movement patterns and home range of
the Gopher Tortoise. American Midland Naturalist 106:165–179.
Mushinsky, H.R., and L.A. Esman. 1994. Perceptions of Gopher Tortoise burrows over
time. Florida Field Naturalist 22:1–7.
Mushinsky, H.R., and E.D. McCoy. 1994. Comparison of Gopher Tortoise populations on
islands and on the mainland in Florida. Pp 39–48, In R.B. Bury and D.J. Germano (Eds.).
Biology of North American Tortoises. Fish and Wildlife Research 13. National Biological
Survey, Washington, DC.
Pike, D.A., and J.C. Mitchell. 2013. Burrow-dwelling ecosystem engineers provide thermal
refugia throughout the landscape. Animal Conservation 16:694–703.
Printiss, D., and D. Hipes. 1999. Rare amphibian and reptile survey of Eglin Air Force Base,
Florida. Final Report. Florida Natural Areas Inventory, Tallahassee, FL. 57 pp.
Smith, L.L., and J.M. Howze. 2016. Gopher Tortoise (Gopherus polyphemus) surveys and
population evaluations. Final Report. Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission
Contract #13161. Joseph W. Jones Ecological Research Center, Newton, GA. 50 pp.
Smith, R.B., D.R. Breininger, and V.L. Larson. 1997. Home-range characteristics of radiotagged
Gopher Tortoises on Kennedy Space Center, Florida. Chelonian Conservation
and Biology 2:358–362.
Smith, R.B., T.D. Tuberville, A.L. Chambers, K.M. Herpich, and J.E. Berish. 2005. Gopher
Tortoise burrow surveys: External characteristics, burrow cameras, and truth. Applied
Herpetology 2:161–170.
Soil Science Division Staff, US Department of Agriculture (USDA). 2017. C. Ditzler, K.
Scheffe, and H.C. Monger (Eds.). Soil Survey Manual. USDA Handbook 18. Government
Printing Office, Washington, DC. 639 pp.
Soil Survey Staff, US Department of Agriculture (USDA). 1999. Soil Taxonomy: A Basic
System of Soil Classification for Making and Interpreting Soil Surveys. Agricultural
Handbook 436. Government Printing Office, Washington, DC. 886 pp.
US Air Force (USAF). 2017. US Air Force Integrated Natural Resource Management Plan:
Eglin Air Force Base, Florida. Niceville, FL. 249 pp.
US Department of Agriculture Natural Resources Conservation Service (USDA). 2018.
Web soil survey. Available online at https://soilseries.sc.egov.usda.gov/. Accessed 10
January 2018.
US Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 2011. Endangered and threatened wildlife and
plants: 12-month finding on a petition to list the Gopher Tortoise as threatened in the
eastern portion of its range. Federal Register 76:45130–45162.
Wigley, T.B., C.W. Hedman, C. Loehle, M. Register, J.R. Poirier, and P.E. Durfield. 2012.
Density of Gopher Tortoise burrows on commercial forestland in Alabama and Mississippi.
Southern Journal of Applied Forestry 36:38–43.
Witz, B.W., D.S. Wilson, and M.D. Palmer. 1991. Distribution of Gopherus polyphemus
and its vertebrate symbionts in three burrow categories. American Midland Naturalist
126:152–158.
Yager, L.Y., M.G. Hinderliter, C.D. Heise, and D.M. Epperson. 2007. Gopher Tortoise response
to habitat management by prescribed burning. Journal of Wildlife Management
71:428–434.