Exotic species are often vilified as “bad” without consideration of the potential they have for contributing to ecological functions in degraded ecosystems. The red-eared slider turtle (RES) has been disparaged as one of the worst invasive species. Based on this review, we suggest that RES contribute some ecosystem functions in urban wetlands comparable to those provided by the native turtles they sometimes dominate or replace. While we do not advocate for releases outside their native range, or into natural environments, in this review, we examine the case for the RES to be considered potentially beneficial in heavily human-altered and degraded ecosystems where native turtles struggle or fail to persist. After reviewing the ecosystem functions RESs are known to provide, we conclude that in many modified environments the RES is a partial ecological analog to native turtles and removing them may obviate the ecological benefits they provide. We also suggest research avenues to better understand the role of RESs in heavily modified wetlands.
Invasive exotic species have long been recognized for having negative effects on the biodiversity of native ecosystems. As early as 1958, Charles Elton stated “We are living in a period of the world's history when the mingling of thousands of kinds of organisms from different parts of the world is setting up terrific dislocations in nature …” Modern ecologists are now even more aware of the problems caused by the invasion of exotic species into natural areas and the attendant effects on local, regional, and global patterns of biodiversity [1, 2], now and in the future . The spread of exotic species into novel habitats is considered the greatest threat to biodiversity after habitat loss  and/or climate change . Once established, some exotic species can displace or even permanently replace native plant and animal species, as well as disrupt ecosystem processes including nutrient and fire cycles, and cause changes in patterns of plant succession [6, 7].
The documented negative effects of invasive species have produced a deeply entrenched dichotomy of opinions among conservation biologists. Exotic species are often labelled as “bad” and native species are considered to be “good” , with little if any middle ground . The gulf is further widened in the literature by reference to native species as “friends,” and non-native species as “foes” [10,11,12]. We agree that preservation of native biodiversity in natural habitats is an important goal of effective conservation efforts. However, might some exotic species perform compensatory and potentially valuable ecological functions in degraded urban habitat where native species have already lost their competitive advantage? We present a case study of this apparent conundrum using the red-eared slider (RES) turtle (Trachemys scripta elegans), now one of the most widely distributed, and vilified invasive species in the world. Our review is based on in-depth examination of the literature on RESs and our familiarity with the turtle literature in general.
2 Role of introduced species in degraded ecosystems
Modern urban and peri-urban biological communities are often degraded and filled with introduced (and sometimes invasive) species . This is especially true for freshwater ecosystems that are under ever-increasing anthropogenic stress that reduces native biodiversity due to pollution, flow modification, degradation of habitat, and invasive species (as defined in ), as well as climate change and overexploitation of resident species [15, 16]. Wetland environments in many parts of the world have accumulated large inventories of anthropogenically introduced non-native flora and fauna and many of these introduced species have become invasive, causing detrimental ecological impact to the host environment. Non-native species represent increasing percentages of the local biota, from over 6% in North America to over 25% in Europe .
The biological communities in urban ecosystems have novel combinations of species with no analogs in past paleoecological systems to help us understand how each individual community member affects the ecosystem functions of the whole. Furthermore, scientists cannot accurately predict how these novel ecosystems will evolve and how individual species within them will reshuffle in consideration of future combinations of temperature changes, continued anthropogenic disturbances, and introductions of other non-native species .
Non-native plant species are known mediators of both ecosystem services and disservices to humanity. In a review of 335 individual papers focussed on 58 urban areas, 337 non-native plant species were studied and 310 were found to contribute valuable ecosystem services versus 53 species which were found to provide disservices . Similarly, we are beginning to understand that some destructive invasive animals can also offer benefits by virtue of their functions in the ecosystem. In the North American Great Lakes, the arrival of the zebra mussel (Dreissena polymorpha) has caused massive changes in the food web by removing plankton, increasing algal blooms, and clogging water intake infrastructure , yet also reduced the eutrophication of the Great Lakes . In turn, the mussel is part of a complex food chain that supports a native bird: mussels are consumed by another invasive species, the round goby fish (Negobius melanostomus), and the goby along with another invasive species, the alewife (Alosa pseudoharengus), are now some of the preferred foods of the native double-crested cormorant (Phalacrocorax auritus). Ironically, the dietary shift to round goby and alewife by the cormorant is partly responsible for the remarkable recovery of that bird’s population and has also triggered a recovery of native yellow perch (Perca flavescens) and smallmouth bass (Micropterus dolomieu), both native and economically important game fish that once were a major part of the cormorant diet prior to invasion . In this case, the cormorants are benefitting from using a non-native species food web [23, 24] that has allowed native species to recover and provide economic benefits to society.
In Brazil, non-native frugivore primates have been found to help regenerate highly degraded forest sites by dispersing seeds . Non-native species may help in achieving conservation goals as functional substitutes for extinct taxa. An example is the introduction of various Galápagos tortoises  to islands where they never occurred naturally, as ecological surrogates for extinct sister taxa. Similarly, the Aldabra giant tortoise (Aldabrachelys gigantea) and the radiated tortoise (Astrochelys radiata) have been used to emulate the ecosystem functions of the recently extinct Cylindrapsis tortoises in the Mascarene Islands and provide valuable ecosystem restoration services [27, 28].
3 The red-eared slider turtle as an invasive species
Native to the lower Mississippi River Valley in the United States and various other aquatic systems into northeastern Mexico, RESs have been introduced all over the world and now occupy portions of all continents except Antarctica. Many were released as unwanted pets after the colorful turtles (see Fig. 1) outgrew their accommodations  or were released as part of traditional religious traditions . RESs have long been maligned by conservationists as one of the causes of the decline of native turtle species when they are introduced outside of their native range. Assertions in the scientific literature that RESs are responsible for negative impacts to native turtles are sometimes overstated or lack definitive proof from empirical research under natural conditions (see review ). The proliferation of RESs worldwide had earned the species a place on the list of the top 100 worst invasive species worldwide database in 2000 . RESs have been introduced to Europe, reproducing in the warmer Mediterranean climate as well as in more temperate climates , and their presence is reported to have negative effects on the European pond turtle, Emys orbicularis [34, 35], but evidence is speculative or based on small-scale experiments under artificial conditions that may not reflect interactions in complex natural environments .
Wetlands altered and degraded by human activities are the rule rather than the exception globally, providing novel habitats that can challenge native species, including turtles. Disentangling the detrimental impacts of invasive species dominance from other causes of species’ decline is difficult due to the confounding and interacting effects of human impacts to aquatic systems. As an omnivore and habitat generalist , RESs appear to be well adapted to benefit from these changes and often dominate in degraded urban settings where they have been introduced.
4 Why are RESs so successful?
Against the many negative obstacles facing most modern turtles, we find RESs successfully filling niches where many native turtle populations are declining. Their success in areas outside their native geographic range has resulted primarily from continuing human-mediated pet releases into favorable biotic and abiotic conditions in new environments. RESs are now widely distributed  in all 48 US contiguous states and Hawaii as well as in 64 different countries (mostly in urban or peri-urban locations).
RESs appear to tolerate human activity better than other turtles  as well as abiding the presence of heterospecifics better than others, like the Mediterranean pond turtle, Mauremys leprosa . Released from competition with many sympatric turtle species in their native range, RESs might have an advantage in new environments with fewer competitors [40, 41]. Non-native RESs are slower to respond to predator threats in California  so will bask longer and, because of a smaller surface-to-volume ratio than the native western pond turtle (Actinemys marmorata), RESs might gain a thermal advantage. As climate change has the potential to warm temperate areas where RESs do not yet reproduce [43, 44], future range expansion is a foreseeable possibility [45, 46].
Introduced RESs may have an advantage in that native prey do not always recognize the invaders as threats [39, 47]. RESs might also be faster at handling prey , permitting greater prey consumption. Juvenile RESs also outcompete other juveniles in limited-resources experiments against red-bellied turtles (Pseudemys rubriventris)  and can outcompete European pond turtles (Emys orbicularis) and the Mediterranean pond turtle (Mauremys leprosa) in experimentally controlled conditions [34, 35, 39].
The potential invasiveness of the RES has been attributed to a variety of impacts, including their ability to outcompete native turtles for basking sites in experimental ponds  or to affect native turtle basking behaviour in human-altered closed waterways . These results have rarely been documented in natural wetlands as basking sites are not a limiting factor in most wetland environments . However, Drost et al.  found that the presence of RESs at a natural albeit unusual wetland (a small collapsed travertine spring) with limited basking sites inhibited basking in Sonoran mud turtles (Kinosternon sonoriensis). In certain cases, invasiveness is presumed without a quantifiable ecological threat. For example, in Queensland, Australia, RESs are declared a Class-1 pest  because they have the “potential” (although not demonstrated in the local habitat) to cause adverse economic, environmental, or social impacts. That assessment is based on presenting a range of attributes that confer significant pest potential such as: climatic suitability, a history of being a pest in non-native countries, a broad geographic range, a general diet, and high fecundity.
In Spain, in a study of two coastal lagoons, researchers found that RESs thrived on a generalist omnivorous diet of leaves, seeds and weeds and that their preferred prey was an invasive species, the red swamp crayfish (Procambarus clarkia) . RESs could also potentially outcompete some native turtles by maturing earlier and having greater fecundity [36, 53]. Similarly, captive breeding stock of RESs in South Africa have shown an ability to adapt their reproductive cycles to match the Southern hemisphere summer months , thereby showing advantageous reproductive plasticity.
Turtles are relatively long-lived and feed at various trophic levels and as such become reservoirs for various toxins and heavy metals  and pass these toxins to their eggs [56, 57]. Degraded urban wetlands are often recipients of heavy metal runoff  and turtles can bioaccumulate various contaminants . Bioaccumulation of toxins can have deleterious effects including suppression of the immune system and the prevalence of shell disease . We suspect that many RESs are released into wetlands as adults after they have outgrown their owner’s abilities or desires to care for them. An online investigation of the age classes of turtles put up for adoption in Ontario (www.littleresq.net) found a vast majority of the available RES turtles were given up as adult (32 of 36). Therefore, if the same holds true for wild-released turtles, these have benefitted from a captive upbringing therefore not being exposed to the same toxin concentrations, microplastics, and other pollutants during their captive lives. Ironically, a partial captive life might give late-released RES founder populations an additional advantage over local turtles that have been bioaccumulating toxins throughout their lives.
5 Threats from RESs
Genetic admixture is a serious threat that RESs pose to other members of their genus as well as other genera. Sixteen species, and numerous subspecies, are currently recognized in Trachemys  throughout North and South America. When RESs are introduced into habitats occupied by other taxa in the genus, hybridization or introgression (among subspecies) can occur , threatening the survival of unique lineages such as the Rio Grande slider turtle (T. gaigeae). Hybrids have also been reported between RESs and northern map turtles (Graptemys geographica—), suggesting that other intergeneric hybrids are possible.
The introduction of RESs may also include the transport and introduction of novel diseases and parasites. For example, RESs are suspected to have transmitted non-native blood flukes, Spirorchis elegans, to a population of European pond turtles (Emys orbicularis) in a natural wetland in Spain in a parasite “spillover” event . Cross-transmission of helminth parasites from RESs to native Spanish turtles was also reported by Hidalgo-Vila et al. . However, populations of western pond turtles (Actinemys spp.) in California, USA, sympatric with non-native RESs did not have increased risk of Mycoplasma spp. infection compared to populations that did not have RESs . Shell disease has been documented in various turtle species and populations, including slider turtles, but the etiology of the disease and cross-species transmission is not well-understood in sliders  or other turtle species . RESs as well as fish are also confirmed carriers of various diseases and can transmit some (e.g., Ranavirus) to amphibians in experimental settings, without being affected themselves .
6 Turtles perform important ecosystem functions
Turtles perform crucial ecosystem functions that fall into the following six categories biomass contributions, energy flow and scavenging value, mineral cycling and bioaccumulation, trophic status, seed dispersal and germination enhancement, and bioturbation in soil dynamics (for an in-depth review see Lovich et al. ). These general categories show the important breadth of ecosystem services that turtles perform, and we can infer that with greater numbers and densities in the past, these services were greatly enhanced. However, even in low densities and in temporary mesocosms some turtles have shown significant positive effects on ecosystem services . Because of the challenges that face turtles worldwide, conservation biologists have tried to find ways to protect turtles and preserve the important ecosystem services they provide. A small percentage of turtles have become naturalized outside of their native range. In a review of introduced reptiles and amphibians, Lever  listed 20 turtles of the 356 species recognized in the most current taxonomic checklist . Almost nothing is known about the potential effects turtle introductions have on native turtles, other than research with RESs.
RESs, like most turtles, perform all six crucial ecosystem services to some degree, yet ironically are considered undesirable species even where native turtles are no longer available in numbers high enough to do so.
Biomass contribution. In non-native environments, slider biomass can become an important proportion of a wetland ecosystem with RES densities in Japan ranging from 89.6 to 299.6 turtles/ha and 47.8–186 kg/ha . These biomass estimates surpass the average biomass of RESs in their native range of 41.8–61.6 turtles/ha and 33.6–37.1 kg/ha. RESs share their native range with many heterospecifics, including snapping turtles (Chelydra serpentina), chicken turtles (Deirochelys reticularia), Eastern mud turtles (Kinosternon subrubrum), Florida cooters (Pseudemys floridana) and stinkpot turtles (Sternotherus odoratus). In these particular communities, RESs can be the dominant turtle species in some habitats, sometimes accounting for over 60% of the turtles present . One of the largest known modern biomasses attained by a vertebrate was for the closely related yellow-bellied slider (T. s. scripta) at 877 kg/ha  and up to 2200 individual turtles/ha in a disturbed nutrient-enriched habitat . In the Sonoran Desert, the Mexican mud turtle (Kinosternon integrum) reached a standing crop biomass of 2860 kg/ha with a density of 20,000 individuals/ha. . Not all habitats can sustain high turtle biomass, but high biomass implies an important role in ecosystem food webs, both as predators and prey . Late Jurassic records of an estimated 1800 turtles in an area less than a hectare, probably concentrated due to drought , nonetheless support the contention that turtles have held an important role in aquatic ecosystems for millions of years.
Energy transfer and scavenging value. Turtle eggs and hatchlings, and to a lesser extent larger juveniles and adults, contribute to a transfer in energy flow from aquatic to terrestrial environments as prey. Eggs are rich in lipids and proteins and are an important source of food for many native and introduced predators . RESs in their natural range often have the largest biomass of eggs, due to the sheer number of females in the community, even though the mean number of eggs per clutch is not as large as other sympatric species (e.g., C. serpentina averages 35.2 eggs (range 4–109 eggs) versus RESs 10.5 eggs (range 1–30 eggs), ). However, RESs in non-native habitats may have greater reproductive output than local turtles; for example, in Japan, RES turtles produce 1–19 eggs per clutch compared to the Japanese pond turtle (Mauremys japonica) clutch sizes of 5–8 eggs, . RESs are also known to scavenge [29, 80] and survive in effluent ponds with no emergent vegetation, surviving on detritus that falls into the water .
Mineral cycling and bioaccumulation. Because turtles are long-lived and accumulate and store minerals (calcium, phosphorous) in their shells, as well as the calcium required for the annual egg production, they may play an important role in biogeochemical cycles . RESs and other Trachemys relatives also accumulate several environmental pollutants (coal ash residue and copper—, mercury—[83, 84], cadmium—[84, 85], other metals—, radioactive compounds—. Amazingly, studies on T. s. scripta, showed tolerance to low doses of gamma and beta radiation .
Trophic status. RESs are omnivorous and opportunistic, starting out as mostly carnivorous as hatchlings and becoming progressively more herbivorous as they age , although adults become preferential carnivores when animal food is available . RESs are also an important prey as hatchlings, which suffer predation by a wide variety of predators including ants , frogs, snapping turtles, snakes, alligators, mammals, and birds. Ironically, T. scripta hatchlings appear to be rejected as a prey item by largemouth bass (Micropterus salmoides) as behavioural adaptations or shell architecture make them unpalatable . Adult slider turtles fall prey to a variety of carnivorous mammals, e.g., raccoons (Procyon lotor) and river otters (Lontra canadensis) and alligators (Alligator mississippiensis). These predator/prey roles presumably continue in novel environments, although with a slightly different cast of predators in many cases. In a study of experimental ponds stocked with RESs or devoid of turtles, researchers found that turtle-filled ponds showed significantly improved pH levels, conductivity, sediment accumulation, leaf litter decomposition rates, and a higher abundance of invertebrates .
Seed dispersal. Turtles are well known fruit and seed dispersers and passage through turtle digestive tracts enhance germination of many seeds and spread them across the landscape [28, 94, 95]. RESs have been shown to disperse seeds  similarly to midland painted and snapping turtles , including Nymphaea seeds [96, 98]. However, passage through the gut of RESs is not beneficial to all seed germination  since mulberry (Morus sp.) seeds are often damaged in the process.
Bioturbation in soil dynamics. Unlike tortoises, where the digging of burrows can alter the landscape and benefit multiple species including invertebrates, snakes, lizards, mammals, and birds, we know little about the role of RESs in soil dynamics. Females have been documented to move up to 1.6 km away from water to find suitable nesting sites . Certainly, in large densities, RESs will have cumulative bioturbation effects on land where they nest by digging up the soil to create the nesting cavity and where egg predators dig up their nests. Plants also benefit from having turtle eggs in the soil and can access nutrients by tapping into the eggs [99, 100].
7 Ecological functions are diminished when turtle populations decline
Turtle populations worldwide have declined precipitously because of anthropogenic pressures [101, 102], especially overutilization and habitat destruction . Although we often do not have rigorous historical estimates of turtle population abundance or densities, convincing evidence exists that past densities of some turtle species were orders of magnitude greater than they are today. As a result, current densities of both freshwater and marine turtles are likely a mere fraction of what they once were [70, 104, 105]. This has significant ecological consequences, since turtles often represent the major vertebrate portion of an aquatic community by virtue of their potential for high population density and thus biomass [75, 106].
Depleted turtle populations continue to be negatively affected by a multitude of anthropogenic factors including habitat loss [107,108,109,110], road mortality , altered sex ratios due to climate change [112, 113], subsidized predators [114, 115], disease , boat activity and related injuries/mortalities [117, 118], over-collection , microplastic exposure , and invasive species [121, 122]. Even when habitat is putatively protected, studies have documented declines in freshwater turtle population densities due to subsidized predators, habitat succession, and poaching [123,124,125]. Even in undisturbed non-urban areas, climate change, including changes to precipitation patterns and the accompanying risk of drought and flood, could have far-reaching consequences on native turtles unable to adapt to or escape from new climatic conditions [45, 126, 127].
8 Are RES a potential solution in degraded ecosystems?
RESs are not newcomers to New World turtle assemblages, which have fluctuated over time due to glacial movements, changes in climate, and the connection of North and South America by the Isthmus of Panama . At a fossil-rich site in South Carolina, late Pleistocene Trachemys fossils were found in a diverse fourteen-member turtle community that has no modern analog. Ancestors of the modern sliders were sympatric with turtles of the genera Kinosternon, Sternotherus, Chelydra, Macrochelys, Chrysemys, Clemmys, Glyptemys, Terrapene, Deirochelys, Emydoidea, Pseudemys, and Apalone , some of which have not been found in sympatry since then. This suggests that sliders have a long history of coexistence with many other turtle species and that modern assemblages might have some degree of tolerance for new combinations of species. In modern times, RESs live in varying degrees of sympatry with as many as nine other freshwater turtle species in some areas [74, 75].
We are not advocating for further releases or maintenance of RES populations in natural wetlands. However, we do suggest delving more deeply into the impacts, both positive and negative, of this introduced species as contributors to ecosystem functions in degraded wetlands and advocate for managing the species based on these impacts . We recognize that some fragile native turtle populations in natural wetlands can be negatively affected by the introduction of RESs [31, 50] or that genetic admixture can potentially threaten native turtles inhabiting small ranges. When does the balance of ecological functions tip in favour of not removing RES in degraded isolated wetlands versus removing RES from wetlands that are connected to more pristine waterways and native turtle populations?
RESs in novel, degraded ecosystems pose an ecological conundrum (see Fig. 2). On the one hand, RESs are non-native, but on the other hand they provide important ecological functions, especially in areas where native turtle populations are much reduced or absent. In addition, RESs in urban and or degraded environments are often conspicuous to potentially large numbers of wildlife watchers  and increase turtle appreciation that could further awareness and effective conservation action at the local level , with proper interpretative programs. However, to date mixed evidence exists that general awareness of turtles translates into more research on the most critically endangered species  or that turtle eco-tourism results in effective conservation action . Also, evidence has been provided that the conspicuousness and pervasiveness of RESs in non-native environments can cause a form of generational amnesia where the RES is accepted as a native species and creeps into local culture .
Conservation biologists have raised alarms about the diminishing numbers and species of turtles and the fact that most known turtle species are either extinct or threatened by extinction worldwide [70, 101, 102]. By vilifying RESs instead of admonishing the poor behaviour by pet owners, scientists risk confusing and even alienating the public from the broader issue of the global need for turtle conservation  when RES are targeted for removal from urban and peri-urban wetlands where they are visible to large numbers of people. Would it be better to let RES persists in these environments, knowing that they contribute to ecological functions in wetlands? Is it time to rethink the entrenched dogma that RESs always have negative effects?
We suggest that there is scientific merit in discussing and debating the potential ecological value of non-native RESs in novel and degraded ecosystems while reiterating our position that future releases are not condoned or promoted. As Davis et al.  argue: “don’t judge species on their origins” but on the ecological functions they provide. We suggest that the “guilty until proven innocent” construct  that pervades invasion biology overlooks the ecological functions non-native RESs might bring to impoverished urban wetlands. In degraded anthropogenic environments, where urbanisation has introduced hundreds of non-native species that have colonized, naturalized, or invaded the host ecosystem, RESs as generalist turtles show adaptability to these novel ecosystems .
9 Future research avenues
Although RESs are probably the most studied turtle species in the world , their ecological role in novel ecosystems has not been investigated in depth or detail. More research is needed to understand the ecological carrying capacity for turtles, and how a plethora of anthropogenic issues suppress populations below that density. A major consideration for field experiments examining the role of RESs in non-native habitat is that comparison with control systems in which RESs have not been introduced is essential. Other research questions that deserve attention include.
Do non-native RES turtles have beneficial, detrimental, or neutral impacts on native turtle populations in degraded habitats/environments?
How do non-native RESs turtles compare with other introduced turtle species in terms of beneficial, detrimental, or neutral impacts?
Is adding non-native RESs to an existing turtle community an ecological zero-sum game?
Which localities have the greatest danger of genetic admixture and what are the likely outcomes?
In degraded urban and peri-urban ecosystems where native turtles are in decline or absent, are there potential benefits of adding RESs or maintaining existing RES populations?
How should conservationists manage RESs if these turtles are truly better adapted to the no-analog urban wetland ecosystems?
Is there value to having a large colourful and conspicuous non-native turtle species like RESs that can lead to an increase in public awareness of less conspicuous and endangered native species?
Obviously, conservationists care deeply about native turtles and preserving a pristine environment for them. However, many of the urban and peri-urban wetlands around the world have been highly disturbed, and the novel communities of organisms living in these degraded wetlands no longer resemble the wetland communities in which native turtles evolved. Native turtles everywhere are assaulted by varying degrees of anthropogenic stressors that limit their ability to reach carrying capacity and fulfill their ecological roles . Based on the discussion above we suggest that:
RESs can be partial ecological analogs for native turtle species;
RESs persist or even prosper because of human introduction, propagule pressure and modification of wetlands that are detrimental to native turtles. Thus, in many cases RESs are “passengers” and not “drivers” of the decline in local turtle populations, i.e., RES are not directly interacting with subordinate native species and limiting native species survival but are more likely “along for the ride” ;
Preservation of native species and habitats is a primary goal of conservation but in urban and peri-urban wetlands dominated by non-native species, RESs might be useful ecological surrogates for populations of native turtles that are reduced or eliminated by anthropogenic pressures.
Considering these conclusions, the adaptability of RES turtles may have value to the ecological functioning of novel ecosystems. The often-reflexive response of conservation biologists who view RESs and other invasive species as villainous, when instead they might be an asset under some circumstances, should be reconsidered.
Data sharing not applicable to this article as no datasets were generated or analysed during the current study.
Doherty TS, Glen AS, Nimmo DG, Ritchie EG, Dickman CR. Invasive predators and global biodiversity loss. Proc Natl Acad Sci. 2016;113:11261–5.
Linders TEW, Schaffner U, Eschen R, Abebe A, Choge SK, Nigatu L, Mbaabu PR, et al. Direct and indirect effects of invasive species: biodiversity loss is a major mechanism by which an invasive tree affects ecosystem functioning. J Ecol. 2019;107:2660–72.
Sala OE, Stuart Chapin FIII, Armesto JJ, Berlow E, Bloomfield J, Dirzo R, et al. Global biodiversity scenarios for the year 2100. Science. 2000;287:1770–4.
Wilcove DS, Rothstein D, Dubow J, Phillips A, Losos E. Quantifying threats to imperiled species in the United States. Bioscience. 1998;48:607–15.
Hellmann JJ, Byers JE, Bierwagen BG, Dukes JS. Five potential consequences of climate change for invasive species. Conserv Biol. 2008;22:534–43.
Vitousek PM. Biological invasions and ecosystems processes: towards an integration of population biology and ecosystem studies. Oikos. 1990;57:7–13.
D’Antonio CM, Vitousek PM. Biological invasions by exotic grasses, the grass/fire cycle, and global change. Annu Rev Ecol Syst. 1992;23:63–87.
Brown JH, Sax DF. An essay on some topics concerning invasive species. Austral Ecol. 2004;29:530–6.
Foster J, Sandberg LA. Friends or foe? Invasive species and public green space in Toronto. Geogr Rev. 2004;94:178–98.
Birtchnell M, Gibson M. Friend or foe: exotic flora and ecosystem function. Vic Nat. 2010;127:124–36.
Belnap J, Ludwig JA, Wilcox BP, Betancourt JL, Dean WRJ, Hoffmann BD, Milton SJ. Introduced and invasive species in novel rangeland ecosystems: friends or foes? Rangel Ecol Manag. 2012;65:569–78.
Downing JL, Liu H. Friend or foe? Impacts of the introduced tropical oil bee Centris nitida on a threatened and specialized native mutualism in southern Florida. Biol Invasions. 2012;14:2175–85.
Lambert MR, Donihue CM. Urban biodiversity management using evolutionary tools. Nat Ecol Evol. 2020;4(7):903–10.
Beck KG, Zimmerman K, Schardt JD, Stone J, Lukens RR, Reichard S, Randall J, Cangelosi AA, Cooper D, Thompson JP. Invasive species defined in a policy context: recommendations from the Federal Invasive Species Advisory Committee. Invasive Plant Sci Manag. 2008;1(4):414–21.
Dudgeon D, Arthington AH, Gessner MO, Kawabata ZI, Knowler DJ, Leveque C, Naiman RJ, Prieur-Richard AH, Soto D, Stiassny MLJ, Sullivan CA. Freshwater biodiversity: importance, threats, status and conservation challenges. Biol Rev. 2006;81(2):163–82. https://doi.org/10.1017/s1464793105006950.
Reid AJ, Carlson AK, Creed IF, Eliason EJ, Gell PA, Johnson PTJ, Kidd KA, MacCormack TJ, Olden JD, Ormerod SJ, Smol JP, Taylor WW, Tockner K, Vermaire JC, Dudgeon D, Cooke SJ. Emerging threats and persistent conservation challenges for freshwater biodiversity. Biol Rev. 2019;94:849–73.
Genovesi P. Towards a European Strategy to halt biological invasions in inland waters. In: Gherardi F, editor. Biological invaders in inland waters: profiles, distribution and threats, vol. 2. Invading nature—Springer series in invasion ecology. Knoxville: University of Tennessee; 2007.
Williams JW, Jackson ST. Novel climates, no-analog communities, and ecological surprises. Front Ecol Environ. 2007;5(9):475–82.
Potgieter LJ, Gaertner M, Kueffer C, Larson BMH, Livingstone SW, O’Farrell PJ, Richardson DM. Alien plants as mediators of ecosystem services and disservices in urban systems: a global review. Biol Invasions. 2017;19:3571–88.
MacIsaac HJ. Potential abiotic and biotic impacts of zebra mussels on the inland waters of North America. Am Zool. 1996;36:287–99.
Estepp LR, Reavie ED. The ecological history of Lake Ontario according to phytoplankton. J Great Lakes Res. 2015;41:669–87.
Johnson JH, Ross RM, McCullough RD, Mathers A. Diet shift in double-crested cormorants in eastern Lake Ontario associated with the expansion of the invasive round goby. J Great Lakes Res. 2010;36:242–7.
Gozlan RE. Introduction of non-native freshwater fish: is it all bad? Fish Fish. 2008;9(1):106–15.
Andrews DW, Fraser GS, Weseloh DV. Double-crested cormorants during the chick-rearing period at a large colony in southern Ontario: analyses of chick diet, feeding rates and foraging directions. Waterbirds. 2012;35:82–90.
Oliveira-Silva LRB, Campêlo AC, Lima IMS, Araújo ACL, Bezerra BM, Souza-Alves JP. Can a non-native primate be a potential seed disperser? A case study on Saimiri sciureus in Pernambuco State, Brazil. Folia Primatol. 2018;89:138–49.
Gibbs JP, Marquez C, Sterling EJ. The role of endangered species reintroduction in ecosystem restoration: tortoise-cactus interactions on Española Island, Galápagos. Restor Ecol. 2008;16:88–93.
Griffiths CJ, Harris S. Prevention of secondary extinctions through taxon substitution. Conserv Biol. 2010;24:645–6.
Falcón W, Moll D, Hansen DM. Frugivory and seed dispersal by chelonians: a review and synthesis. Biol Rev. 2020;95(1):142–66. https://doi.org/10.1111/brv.12558.
Ernst CH, Lovich JE. Turtles of the United States and Canada. 2nd ed. Baltimore: John Hopkins University Press; 2009.
Khudamrongsawat J, Meetan D, Chansue N. Turtles in temple ponds in Thailand: species, abundance, and health issues. Soc Anim. 2019;28(3):215–32. https://doi.org/10.1163/15685306-12341532.
Drost CA, Lovich JE, Rosen PC, Malone M, Garber SD. Non-native pond sliders cause long-term decline of native Sonora mud turtles: a 33-year before-after study in an undisturbed natural environment. Aquat Invasions. 2021;16(3):542–70. https://doi.org/10.3391/ai.2021.16.3.10.
Lowe S, Browne M, Boudjelas S, De Poorter M. 100 of the World’s worst invasive alien species a selection from the global invasive species database. Published by The Invasive Species Specialist Group (ISSG) a specialist group of the Species Survival Commission (SSC) of the World Conservation Union (IUCN). 2000. p. 12.
Standfuss B, Lipovšek G, Fritz U, Vamberger M. Threat or fiction: is the pond slider (Trachemys scripta) really invasive in Central Europe? A case study from Slovenia. Conserv Genet. 2016;17(3):557–63. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10592-015-0805-2.
Cadi A, Joly P. Competition for basking places between the endangered European pond turtle (Emys orbicularis galloitalica) and the introduced red-eared slider (Trachemys scripta elegans). Can J Zool. 2003;81(8):185–9.
Cadi A, Joly P. Impact of the introduction of the red-eared slider (Trachemys scripta elegans) on survival rates of the European pond turtle (Emys orbicularis). Biodivers Conserv. 2004;13(13):2511–8. https://doi.org/10.1023/B:BIOC.0000048451.07820.9c.
Gibbons JW, editor. Life history and ecology of the slider turtle. Washington D.C: Smithsonian Institution Press; 1990. p. 368.
Kraus F. Appendices, Table A.1. In: Kraus F, editor. Alien reptiles and amphibians—a scientific compendium and analysis. Dordrecht: Springer; 2009. p. 345–56.
Lambert MR, Nielsen SN, Wright AN, Thomson RC, Shaffer HB. Habitat features determine the basking distribution of introduced red-eared sliders and native western pond turtles. Chelonian Conserv Biol. 2013;12(1):192.
Polo-Cavia N, Gonzalo A, López P, Martín J. Predator recognition of native but not invasive turtle predators by naïve anuran tadpoles. Anim Behav. 2010;80(3):461–6. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.anbehav.2010.06.004.
Espindola S, Parra JL, Vázquez-Domínguez E. Fundamental niche unfilling and potential invasion risk of the slider turtle Trachemys scripta. PeerJ. 2019;7: e7923. https://doi.org/10.7717/peerj.7923.
Taniguchi M, Lovich J, Mine K, Ueno S, Kamezaki N. Unusual population attributes of invasive red-eared slider turtles (Trachemys scripta elegans) in Japan: do they have a performance advantage? Aquat Invasions. 2017;12(1):97–108. https://doi.org/10.3391/ai.2017.12.1.10.
Costa ZJ. Responses to predators differ between native and invasive freshwater turtles: environmental context and its implications for competition. Ethology. 2014;120(7):633–40. https://doi.org/10.1111/eth.12235.
Ficetola GF, Thuiller W, Padoa-Schioppa E. From introduction to the establishment of alien species: bioclimatic differences between presence and reproduction localities in the slider turtle. Divers Distrib. 2009;15(1):108–16. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1472-4642.2008.00516.x.
Zenni RD, Nuñez MA. The elephant in the room: the role of failed invasions in understanding invasion biology. Oikos. 2013;122(6):801–15. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1600-0706.2012.00254.x.
Cerasoli F. Between the hammer and the anvil: how the combined effect of global warming and the non-native common slider could threaten the European pond turtle. Manag Biol Invasions. 2019;10(3):428–48. https://doi.org/10.3391/mbi.2019.10.3.02.
Seburn DC. Distribution of the exotic pond slider (Trachemys scripta) in Ontario. Can Field Nat. 2015;129(4):342–8.
Berec M, Klapka V, Zemek R. Effect of an alien turtle predator on movement activity of European brown frog tadpoles. Ital J Zool. 2016;83(1):68–76. https://doi.org/10.1080/11250003.2016.1139195.
Nishizawa H, Tabata R, Hori T, Mitamura H, Arai N. Feeding kinematics of freshwater turtles: what advantage do invasive species possess? Zoology. 2014;117(5):315–8. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.zool.2014.04.005.
Pearson SH, Avery HW, Spotila JR. Juvenile invasive red-eared slider turtles negatively impact the growth of native turtles: implications for global freshwater turtle populations. Biol Conserv. 2015;186:115–21. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2015.03.001.
Lambert MR, McKenzie JM, Screen RM, Clause AG, Johnson BB, Mount GG, Shaffer HB, Pauly GB. Experimental removal of introduced slider turtles offers new insight into competition with a native, threatened turtle. PeerJ. 2019;7: e7444.
Csurhes S, Hankamer C. Trachemys scripta (subspecies elegans). Department of Agriculture and Fisheries, Biosecurity Queensland, State of Queensland. 2016. p. 23.
Pérez-Santigosa N, Hidalgo-Vila J, Florencio M, Díaz-Paniagua C. Does the exotic invader turtle, Trachemys scripta elegans, compete for food with coexisting native turtles? Amphibia-Reptilia. 2011;32(2):167–75. https://doi.org/10.1163/017353710X552795.
Pérez-Santigosa N, Díaz-Paniagua C, Hidalgo-Vila J. The reproductive ecology of exotic Trachemys scripta elegans in an invaded area of southern Europe. Aquat Conserv Mar Freshw Ecosyst. 2008;18(7):1302–10. https://doi.org/10.1002/aqc.974.
Ramsay NF, Ng PKA, O’Riordan RM, Chou LM. The red-eared slider (Trachemys scripta elegans) in Asia: a review. In: Gherardi F, editor. Biological invaders in inland waters: profiles, distribution, and threats, vol. 2. Dordrecht: Springer Netherlands; 2007. p. 161–74.
Bergeron CM, Husak JF, Unrine JM, Romanek CS, Hopkins WA. Influence of feeding ecology on blood mercury concentrations in four species of turtles. Environ Toxicol Chem. 2007;26(8):1733–41. https://doi.org/10.1897/06-594r.1.
Pagano JJ, Rosenbaum PA, Roberts RN, Sumner GM, Williamson LV. Assessment of maternal contaminant burden by analysis of snapping turtle eggs. J Great Lakes Res. 1999;25(4):950–61. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0380-1330(99)70792-6.
Henny CJ, Beal KF, Bury RB, Goggans R. Organochlorine pesticides, PCBs, trace elements and metals in western pond turtle eggs from Oregon. Northwest Sci. 2003;77:46–53.
Mason Y, Ammann AA, Ulrich A, Sigg L. Behavior of heavy metals, nutrients, and major components during roof runoff infiltration. Environ Sci Technol. 1999;33(10):1588–97. https://doi.org/10.1021/es980922q.
Aplasca AC, Titus V, Ossiboff RJ, Murphy L, Seimon TA, Ingerman K, Sykes JM. Health assessment of free-ranging chelonians in an urban section of the Bronx River, New York, USA. J Wildl Dis. 2019;55(2):352–62.
Garner MM, Herrington R, Howerth EW, Homer BL, Nettles VF, Isaza R, Shotts EB, Jacobson ER. Shell disease in river cooters (Pseudemys concinna) and yellow-bellied turtles (Trachemys scripta) in a Georgia (USA) lake. J Wildl Dis. 1997;33:78–86.
Vamberger M, Ihlow F, Asztalos M, Dawson JE, Jasinski SE, Praschag P, Fritz U. So different, yet so alike: North American slider turtles (Trachemys scripta). Vertebr Zool. 2020;79:87–96.
Parham JF, Papenfuss TJ, Sellas AB, Stuart BL, Simison WB. Genetic variation and admixture of red-eared sliders (Trachemys scripta elegans) in the USA. Mol Phylogenet Evol. 2020;145: 106722.
Gooley AC, Bluett RD, Woolard DA. Trachemys scripta elegans (red-eared slider) and Graptemys geographica (northern map turtle) hybridization. Nat Hist Notes Herpetol Rev. 2016;47(4):657–9.
Iglesias R, García-Estévez JM, Ayres C, Acuña A, Cordero-Rivera A. First reported outbreak of severe spirorchiidiasis in Emys orbicularis, probably resulting from a parasite spillover event. Dis Aquat Org. 2015;113:75–80.
Hidalgo-Vila J, Diaz-Paniagua C, Ribas A, Florencio M, Perez-Santigosa N, Casanova JC. Helminth communities of the exotic introduced turtle, Trachemys scripta elegans in southwestern Spain: transmission from native turtles. Res Vet Sci. 2009;86:463–5.
Silbernagel C, Clifford DL, Bettaso J, Worth S, Foley J. Prevalence of selected pathogens in western pond turtles and sympatric introduced red-eared sliders in California, USA. Dis Aquat Org. 2013;107:37–47.
Lovich JE, Gotte SW, Ernst CH, Harshbarger JC, Laemmerzahl AF, Gibbons JW. Prevalence and histopathology of shell disease in turtles from Lake Blackshear, Georgia. J Wildl Dis. 1996;32:259–65.
Haman K, Hallock L, Schmidt T, Holman E, Murphie B. Shell disease in northwestern pond turtles (Actinemys marmorata) in Washington state, USA. Herpetol Rev. 2019;50:495–502.
Brenes R, Gray MJ, Waltzek TB, Wilkes RP, Miller DL. Transmission of ranavirus between ectothermic vertebrate hosts. PLoS ONE. 2014;9(3): e92476. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0092476.
Lovich JE, Ennen JR, Agha M, Gibbons JW. Where have all the turtles gone, and why does it matter? Bioscience. 2018;68(10):771–81. https://doi.org/10.1093/biosci/biy095.
Garig DF, Ennen JR, Davenport JM. The effects of common snapping turtles on a freshwater food web. Copeia. 2020;108:132–9.
Lever C. Naturalized reptiles and amphibians of the world. Oxford: Oxford University Press; 2003. p. xx + 318. ISBN: 0-198-50771-2.
Turtle Taxonomy Working Group [Rhodin AGJ, Iverson JB, Bour R, Fritz U, Georges A, Shaffer HB, van Dijk PP]. Turtles of the world: annotated checklist and atlas of taxonomy, synonymy, distribution, and conservation status, 8th edition. In: Rhodin AGJ, Iverson JB, van Dijk PP, Saumure RA, Buhlmann KA, Pritchard PCH, Mittermeier RA, editors. Conservation biology of freshwater turtles and tortoises: a compilation project of the IUCN/SSC tortoise and freshwater turtle specialist group, vol. 7. Chelonian research monographs; 2017. p. 1–292. https://doi.org/10.3854/crm.7.checklist.atlas.v8.2017.
Dreslik MJ, Phillips CA. Turtle communities in the upper Midwest, USA. J Freshw Ecol. 2005;20(1):149–64. https://doi.org/10.1080/02705060.2005.9664948.
Congdon JD, Greene JL, Gibbons JW. Biomass of fresh-water turtles—a geographic comparison. Am Midl Nat. 1986;115(1):165–73. https://doi.org/10.2307/2425846.
DeGregorio BA, Grosse AM, Gibbons JW. Density and size class distribution of yellow-bellied sliders (Trachemys scripta scripta) inhabiting two barrier island wetlands. Herpetol Conserv Biol. 2012;7(3):306–12.
Berry JF, Legler JM. A new turtle (genus Kinosternon) from northwestern Mexico. Contrib Sci Nat Hist Mus Los Angeles County. 1980;325:1–12.
Wings O, Rabi M, Schneider JW, et al. An enormous Jurassic turtle bone bed from the Turpan Basin of Xinjiang, China. Naturwissenschaften. 2012;99:925–35.
Ernst CH, Barbour RW. Turtles of the world. Washington, D.C: Smithsonian Institution Press; 1989. p. xii + 313.
Burroughs RW, Morris ZS, Marsh AD. Trachemys scripta (red-eared slider), Pseudemys texana (Texas river cooter), Chelydra serpentina (snapping turtle) feeding behavior and scavenging. Herpetol Rev. 2014;45(2):321–2.
Cagle FR. The life history of the slider turtle, Pseudemys scripta troostii (Holbrook). Ecol Monogr. 1950;20:31–54.
Haskins DL, Hamilton MT, Jones AL, Finger JW, Bringolf RB, Tuberville TD. Accumulation of coal combustion residues and their immunological effects in the yellow-bellied slider (Trachemys scripta scripta). Environ Pollut. 2017;224:810–9. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envpol.2017.01.048.
Zapata LM, Bock BC, Palacia JA. Mercury concentrations in tissues of Colombian slider turtles, Trachemys callirostris, from northern Colombia. Bull Environ Contam Toxicol. 2014;92(5):562–6.
Burger J, Gibbons JW. Trace elements in egg contents and egg shells of slider turtles (Trachemys scripta) from the Savannah River Site. Arch Environ Contam Toxicol. 1998;34(4):382–6. https://doi.org/10.1007/s002449900334.
Guirlet E, Das K. Cadmium toxicokinetics and bioaccumulation in turtles: trophic exposure of Trachemys scripta elegans. Ecotoxicology. 2012;21(1):18–26.
Tryfonas AE, Tucker JK, Brunkow PE, Johnson KA, Hussein HS, Lin Z-Q. Metal accumulation in eggs of the red-eared slider (Trachemys scripta elegans) in the Lower Illinois River. Chemosphere. 2006;63(1):39–48. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chemosphere.2005.07.080.
Hinton TG, Whicker FW, Pinder JE III, Shawki IS. Comparative kinetics of 47Ca, 85Sr and 226Ra in the freshwater turtle, Trachemys scripta. J Environ Radioact. 1992;16(1):25–47.
Lamb T, Bickham JW, Gibbons JW, Smolen MJ, McDowell S. Genetic damage in a population of slider turtles (Trachemys scripta) inhabiting a radioactive reservoir. Arch Environ Contam Toxicol. 1991;20(1):138–42.
Clark DB, Gibbons JW. Dietary shift in turtle Pseudemys scripta (Schoepff) from youth to maturity. Copeia. 1969;4:704–6.
Parmenter RR, Avery HA. Chapter 20: The feeding ecology of the slider turtle. In: Whitfield Gibbons J, editor. Life history and ecology of the slider turtle. Washington. D.C: Smithsonian Institution Press; 1990. p. 257–66.
Aresco MJ. Reproductive ecology of Pseudemys floridana and Trachemys scripta (Testudines: Emydidae) in Northwestern Florida. J Herpetol. 2004;38(2):249–56. https://doi.org/10.1670/169-03A.
Semlitsch RD, Gibbons JW. Lack of largemouth bass predation on hatchling turtles (Trachemys scripta). Copeia. 1989;4:1030–1. https://doi.org/10.2307/1445990.
Lindsay MK, Zhang Y, Forstner MRJ, Hahn D. Effects of the freshwater turtle Trachemys scripta elegans on ecosystem functioning: an approach in experimental ponds. Amphibia-Reptilia. 2013;34(1):75–84. https://doi.org/10.1163/15685381-00002871.
Hanish CJ, Velez S, Moore JA, Anderson CD. Endozoochory of Chrysobalanus icaco (Cocoplum) by Gopherus polyphemus (Gopher Tortoise) facilitates rapid germination and colonization in a suburban nature preserve. AoB PLANTS. 2020;12:4.
Karraker NE, Dikari Kusrini M, Atutubo JR, Healey RM, Yusratul A. Non-marine turtle plays important functional roles in Indonesian ecosystems. Ecol Evol. 2020;10:9613–23.
Kimmons JB, Moll D. Seed dispersal by red-eared sliders (Trachemys scripta elegans) and common snapping turtles (Chelydra serpentina). Chelonian Conserv Biol. 2010;9(2):289–94. https://doi.org/10.2744/CCB-0797.1.
Moldowan PD, Keevil MG, Mills PB, Brooks RJ, Litzgus JD. Diet and feeding behaviour of snapping turtles (Chelydra serpentina) and midland painted turtles (Chrysemys picta marginata) in Algonquin Provincial Park, Ontario. Can Field Nat. 2016;129(4):403. https://doi.org/10.22621/cfn.v129i4.1764.
Parmenter RR. Effects of food availability and water temperature on the feeding ecology of pond sliders (Chrysemys s. scripta). Copeia. 1980;1980(3):503. https://doi.org/10.2307/1444528.
Stegman EW, Primack RB, Ellmore GS. Absorption of nutrient exudates from terrapin eggs by roots of Ammophila breviligulata (Gramineae). Can J Bot. 1988;66:714–8.
Lazell JD Jr, Auger PJ. Predation on diamondback terrapin (Malaclemys terrapin) eggs by dunegrass (Ammophila breviligulata). Copeia. 1981;1981:723–4.
Rhodin AGJ, Stanford CB, van Dijk PP, Eisemberg C, Luiselli L, Mittermeier RA, et al. Global conservation status of turtles and tortoises (order Testudines). Chelonian Conserv Biol. 2018;17(2):135–61. https://doi.org/10.2744/CCB-1348.1.
Stanford CB, Iverson JB, Rhodin AGJ, van Dijk PP, Mittermeier RA, et al. Turtles and tortoises are in trouble. Curr Biol. 2020;30:R721–35.
Gibbons JW, Scott DE, Ryan TJ, Buhlmann KA, Tuberville TD, Metts BS, Greene JL, et al. The global decline of reptiles, déjá vu amphibians. Bioscience. 2000;50:653–66.
Jackson JBC, Kirby MX, Berger WH, Bjorndal KA, Botsford LW, Bourque BJ, Bradbury RH, Cooke RG, Erlandson J, Estes JA, Hughes TP, Kidwell SM, Lange CB, Lenihan HS, Pandolfi JM, Peterson CH, Steneck RS, Tegner MJ, Warner RR. Historical overfishing and the recent collapse of coastal ecosystems. Science. 2001;293:629–37.
O’Brien S, Emahalala ER, Beard V, Rakotondrainy RM, Reid A, Raharisoa V, Coulson T. Decline of the Madagascar radiated tortoise Geochelone radiata due to overexploitation. Oryx. 2003;37(3):338–43. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0030605303000590.
Iverson JB. Biomass in turtle populations: a neglected subject. Oecologia. 1982;55(1):69–76. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00386720.
Doak P, Kareiva P, Kleptetka B. Modeling population viability for the desert tortoise in the western Mojave Desert. Ecol Appl. 1994;4(3):446–60.
Burke VJ, Gibbons JW. Terrestrial buffer zones and wetland conservation: a case study of freshwater turtles in a Carolina bay. Conserv Biol. 1995;9(6):1365–9. https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1523-1739.1995.09061365.x.
Rizkalla CE, Swihart RK. Community structure and differential responses of aquatic turtles to agriculturally induced habitat fragmentation. Landsc Ecol. 2006;21(8):1361–75. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10980-006-0019-6.
Quesnelle PE, Fahrig L, Lindsay KE. Effects of habitat loss, habitat configuration and matrix composition on declining wetland species. Biol Conserv. 2013;160:200–8. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2013.01.020.
Gibbs JP, Shriver WG. Estimating the effects of road mortality on turtle populations. Conserv Biol. 2002;16:1647–52.
Hulin V, Delmas V, Girondot M, Godfrey MH, Guillon JM. Temperature-dependent sex determination and global change: are some species at greater risk? Oecologia. 2009;160:493–506.
Ihlow F, Dambach J, Engler JO, Flecks M, Hartmann T, Nekum S, Rajaei H, Rödder D. On the brink of extinction? How climate change may affect global chelonian species richness and distribution. Glob Change Biol. 2012;18(5):1520–30.
Daly JA, Buhlmann KA, Todd BD, Moore CT, Peaden JM, Tuberville TD. Survival and movements of head-started Mojave desert tortoises. J Wildl Manag. 2019;83(8):1700–10. https://doi.org/10.1002/jwmg.21758.
Garrott RA, White PJ, White CAV. Overabundance: an issue for conservation biologists? Conserv Biol. 1993;7:946–9.
Spencer R-J, Van Dyke J, Petrov K, Ferronato B, McDougall F, Austin M, Keitel C, Georges A. Profiling a possible rapid extinction event in a long-lived species. Biol Conserv. 2018;221:190–7. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2018.03.009.
Jain-Schlaepfer SMR, Blouin-Demers G, Cooke SJ, Bulté G. Do boating and basking mix? The effect of basking disturbances by motorboats on the body temperature and energy budget of the northern map turtle. Aquat Conserv Mar Freshw Ecosyst. 2017;27:547–58.
Hollender EC, Anthony TL, Ligon DB. Motorboat injury rates and patterns in aquatic turtle communities. Chelonian Conserv Biol. 2018;17:298–302.
Seateun S, Karraker NE, Stuart BL, Aowphol A. Population demography of Oldham’s leaf turtle (Cyclemys oldhamii) in protected and disturbed habitats in Thailand. PeerJ. 2019;7: e7196. https://doi.org/10.7717/peerj.7196.
Banaee M, Gholamhosseini A, Sureda A, Soltanian S, Fereidouni MS, Ibrahim ATA. Effects of microplastic exposure on the blood biochemical parameters in the pond turtle (Emys orbicularis). Environ Sci Pollut Res. 2020;28:9221–34. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11356-020-11419-2.
Bolton RM, Brooks RJ. Impact of the seasonal invasion of Phragmites australis (Common Reed) on turtle reproductive success. Chelonian Conserv Biol. 2010;9(2):238–43. https://doi.org/10.2744/ccb-0793.1.
Nicholson EG, Manzo S, Devereux Z, Morgan TP, Fisher RN, Brown C, Dagit R, Scott PA, Shaffer HB. Historical museum collections and contemporary population studies implicate roads and introduced predatory bullfrogs in the decline of western pond turtles. PeerJ. 2020;8: e9248. https://doi.org/10.7717/peerj.9248.
Garber SD, Burger J. A 20-yr study documenting the relationship between turtle decline and human recreation. Ecol Appl. 1995;5:1151–62.
Howell HJ, Legere RH, Holland DS, Seigel RA. Long-term turtle declines: protected is a verb, not an outcome. Copeia. 2019;107(3):493. https://doi.org/10.1643/CH-19-177.
Lovich JE. The spotted turtles of Cedar Bog: historical analysis of a declining population. In: Glotzhober RC, Kochman A, Schultz WT, editors. Cedar Bog Symposium II. Columbus: Ohio Historical Society; 1989. p. 23–8.
Butler CJ, Stanila BD, Iverson JB, Stone PA, Bryson M. Projected changes in climatic suitability for Kinosternon turtles by 2050 and 2070. Ecol Evol. 2016;6(21):7690–705. https://doi.org/10.1002/ece3.2492.
Chessman BC. Declines of freshwater turtles associated with climatic drying in Australia’s Murray-Darling Basin. Wildlife Res. 2011;38(8):664–71. https://doi.org/10.1071/WR11108.
Legler JM. The genus Pseudemys in Mesoamerica: taxonomy, distribution, and origins. In: Gibbons JW, editor. Life history and ecology of the slider turtle. Washington, D.C: Smithsonian Institution Press; 1990. p. 82–105.
Bentley CC, Knight JL. Turtles (Reptilia: Testudines) of the Ardis local fauna late Pleistocene (Rancholabrean) of South Carolina. Brimleyana. 1998;25:3–33.
García-Díaz P, Cassey P, Norbury G, Lambin X, Montti L, Pizarro JC, Powell PA, Burslem DFRP, Cava M, Damasceno G, Fasola L, Fidelis A, Huerta MF, Langdon B, Linardaki E, Moyano J, Núñez MA, Pauchard A, Phimister E, Raffo E, Roesler I, Rodríguez-Jorquera I, Tomasevic JA. Management policies for invasive alien species: addressing the impacts rather than the species. Bioscience. 2021;71:174–85.
Lindeman PV. A few moments with turtles: the value of freshwater chelonians as watchable wildlife spectacles. Chelonian Conserv Biol. 2020;19:291–7.
Dupuis-Désormeaux M, D’Elia V, Cook C, Tan T, Lawrie D, Karch M, MacDonald SE. Mitigating herpetological road mortality: a case study of how citizen science motivated municipal cooperation. In: Walls SC, O’Donnell KM, editors. Strategies for conservation success in herpetology. Society for the Study of Amphibians and Reptiles (In Press).
Lovich JE, Ennen JR. A quantitative analysis of the state of knowledge of turtles of the United States and Canada. Amphibia-Reptilia. 2013;34(1):11–23. https://doi.org/10.1163/15685381-00002860.
Waylen KA, McGowan PJK, Milner-Gulland EJ, Pawi Study Group. Ecotourism positively affects awareness and attitudes but not conservation behaviours: a case study at Grande Riviere, Trinidad. Oryx. 2009;43(3):343–51.
Lovich JE, Yamamoto K. Measuring the impact of invasive species on popular culture: a case study based on toy turtles from Japan. Hum Nat. 2016;27:1–11.
Davis M, Chew M, Hobbs R, et al. Don’t judge a species on their origins. Nature. 2011;474:153–4. https://doi.org/10.1038/474153a.
Guiaşu RC. Non-native species and their role in the environment: the need for a broader perspective. Leiden: Brill Publishers; 2016.
Miyake M, Miyashita T. Identification of alien predators that should not be removed for controlling invasive crayfish threatening endangered odonates. Aquat Conserv Mar Freshw Ecosyst. 2011;21(3):292–8. https://doi.org/10.1002/aqc.1178.
MacDougall AS, Turkington R. Are invasive species the drivers or the passengers of change in degraded ecosystems? Ecology. 2005;86:42–55.
The authors thank Scott Gillingwater, Species at Risk Biologist for the Upper Thames River Conservation Authority, and James Harding, Michigan State University Museum, for their helpful comments and suggestions. The authors thank Greg Warren for his artwork.
Any use of trade, firm, or product names is for descriptive purposes only and does not imply endorsement by the US Government.
The authors declare that they have no competing interests.
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Rights and permissions
Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/.
About this article
Cite this article
Dupuis-Desormeaux, M., Lovich, J.E. & Whitfield Gibbons, J. Re-evaluating invasive species in degraded ecosystems: a case study of red-eared slider turtles as partial ecological analogs. Discov Sustain 3, 15 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1007/s43621-022-00083-w
- Trachemys scripta elegans
- Invasion biology
- Ecological functions
- Novel ecosystems