Previous Article in Journal
Plant Biodiversity Along a Protection-Coverage Gradient in the Baekdudaegan Protected Area, South Korea
Previous Article in Special Issue
Urban Wetlands as Reservoirs of Non-Native Turtles: Linking Confiscation Records and Field Observations in a Tropical Urban Environment
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Diversity
Volume 18
Issue 7
10.3390/d18070414
diversity-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Review

Increased State of Knowledge and Extinction Risks of the Tortoise and Freshwater Turtles of Colombia

by
Vivian P. Páez
* and
Brian C. Bock
Instituto de Biología, Universidad de Antioquia, Medellín 050010, Colombia
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Diversity 2026, 18(7), 414; https://doi.org/10.3390/d18070414
Submission received: 2 June 2026 / Revised: 2 July 2026 / Accepted: 6 July 2026 / Published: 8 July 2026
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Freshwater Turtles in Anthropogenic Landscapes)
Browse Figures
Versions Notes

Abstract

A decade ago, several publications summarized the state of knowledge on Colombia’s non-marine turtle species, and in 2015, the Colombian Red Book of Reptiles assessed their national conservation status, yielding information to guide research and conservation priorities in this biodiverse country. However, a recent initiative has produced or updated the global extinction risk assessments of Latin American non-marine turtle species. We summarize the current state of knowledge on Colombian populations of these species and propose new research and conservation priorities. The number of threatened turtle species in Colombia and the magnitude of the threats they face are greater than previously thought. Despite advances in research on the Colombian populations of these species, knowledge biases exist across species, with many important aspects of their life histories and population trends poorly understood. Given the speed of habitat loss and degradation, the current levels of exploitation, and the lack of enforcement of the legislation that protects them, we predict continued declines in population densities and distributions. We emphasize the need for more life-history studies and monitoring of population trends and threats to assign a more realistic category of national extinction risk and request the implementation of conservation legislation and the establishment of conservation programs.

1. Introduction

Turtles (Testudines) are an ancient lineage of reptiles that witnessed the onset and end of every major extinction event from the beginning of the Mesozoic era to modern times [1]. Currently, however, turtles are among the most threatened of all major vertebrate groups, with more than half of the order’s species assessed as threatened with extinction, and this percentage continues to rise [2,3,4]. The threats turtles face during the Anthropocene are no different from those observed in other vertebrate groups, but some are intensified given their remarkable life-history attributes related to longevity and generation length [5]. Turtles are mainly threatened by habitat transformation, degradation, contamination, and fragmentation related to development, agriculture, ranching, and water degradation; commercial and unregulated local human consumption of their meat and eggs; the pet trade; and climate change [2].
Turtle species diversity is anomalous, in that it does not exhibit the usual latitudinal gradient, with the greatest species richness in the tropics; instead, it peaks at around 25° North latitude [6,7]. Even so, the tropical country of Colombia ranks sixth in terms of the total number of turtle species it possesses (34 species, of which 29 are tortoises and freshwater forms [4]), and it is tied for first (with Mexico) in terms of the number of turtle families present (nine, with Colombia having both Cryptodira and Pleurodira families). Colombia also hosts two endemic cryptodiran and two endemic pleurodiran freshwater turtle species. Thus, Colombia must be recognized as an important country for turtle diversity and conservation.
According to the most recent national IUCN Red List Assessment (RLA, Ref. [8]), at that time, 10 of the 27 (37%) known non-marine turtle species in Colombia were assessed as threatened with extinction (Vulnerable [VU], Endangered [EN], or Critically Endangered [CR]). However, this was an underestimation of the threat level of these species, as no data were available to assess three species (Data Deficient [DD]), even though they were known to face anthropogenic threats, and another two species were assigned as Near Threatened (NT), since there was no clarity on the exact percentage of population declines they have suffered. That is, the percentage of threatened species in Colombia could be very close to the global value of 53.8% [4], but we did not know this, partly because we had limited knowledge about their distributional ranges, population sizes, and magnitude of population declines, in order to apply one or more of the five quantitative criteria established by the IUCN Red List of Threatened Species to classify the extinction risk of a species [9].
In 2012, a 523-page edited volume with over 40 contributors summarized the state of knowledge at the time on the Colombian turtle fauna (excluding marine turtles), including literature reviews for all species and general discussions of the conservation problems faced by each species [10]. Forero-Medina et al. [11], primarily using this information, conducted a more quantitative analysis that summarized biological knowledge of non-marine turtle species in Colombia to identify gaps and set future research priorities. They also combined the results of this analysis with conservation assessments of these species from the “Colombian Red Book of Reptiles” [8] to produce a conservation-priority ranking of Colombian non-marine turtle species, based on both research and conservation status. However, studies on Colombian turtle species have been published at an accelerating rate in recent years (summarized in [12,13]). We therefore decided to examine whether the research focus on Colombian turtles has shifted over the past decade in the directions and on the species indicated by the recommendations of Forero-Medina et al. [11]. An updated literature review of publications on Colombian turtles also allows us to re-analyze research and conservation priorities, especially considering recent RLAs (for the first time) or reassessments (when needed) of the global conservation status of all Latin American tortoise and freshwater turtle species [4].
Here, we present an updated evaluation of current research and conservation priorities for non-marine turtle species in Colombia (27 freshwater species and 2 tortoise species). Identifying which aspects of biological knowledge remain missing for each of these species is fundamental to any effort to assess their likely conservation status and, therefore, to help implement the national and international legislation and actions needed to prevent their extirpation from Colombia. These results permitted us to conduct an exploratory analysis to (a) determine whether the current global conservation status of each species was correlated with its historical Area Of Occupancy (AOO) or with its maximum body size; (b) highlight which of the IUCN criteria and sub-criteria were most often used to classify the extinction risk of each of the threatened non-marine turtle species that occur in Colombia.

2. Materials and Methods

We conducted a literature review to identify publications on Colombian non-marine turtle populations. We built upon our personal 36-year literature databases compiled for our publications on Colombian turtles by searching Google Scholar for additional references. We applied no temporal restrictions to our searches, employing keywords related to the taxonomic identity of these species (scientific names, synonyms, and vernacular names), the 17 research topics investigated (see following paragraph), and geography (i.e., Colombia). In the resulting bibliography, we considered only peer-reviewed scientific articles, books, and book chapters. We did not include in our analyses meeting abstracts, undergraduate, master’s, or doctoral theses, or any non-peer-reviewed “gray literature” (governmental or NGO reports, websites, popular press articles, etc.). We also excluded all publications conducted on captive individuals.
We classified the publications in our data set by the biological topics they covered, using 17 topics, that were modified from Forero-Medina et al. [11] in three ways: First, we merged some topics from this previous analysis (“Population dynamics” and “Survival rate”; “Evolutionary significant units”, “Management units”, and “Genetic diversity or molecular ecology”). Second, we eliminated two topics—“Studies ex situ” and “Presence in protected areas”—because in Colombia, there is little evidence that turtle populations face fewer threats or enjoy greater protection in governmental nature reserves [14,15,16]. Finally, we named the remaining topics more explicitly for greater clarity in figures and tables. The topics we used here (column headings in Table 1) were selected for several reasons: (a) because the IUCN uses them to assess a species’ extinction risk, (b) to estimate generation length (the average age of parents for the current cohort [17], which the IUCN criteria employ to standardize the time period over which a population decline or the probability of extinction is measured [9]), and (c) to guide research and conservation actions to protect natural populations. These topics include population distribution and size, habitat requirements and home ranges, several life-history attributes, human-caused threats, phylogenetic clarity, and population genetic singularity and diversity. For 15 of these topics, we included only publications conducted on Colombian populations. We relaxed this requirement for two topics (sexual determination mechanism and phylogenetic studies) because these analyses are often conducted at the species level.
In Table 1, we cited (references [18,19,20,21,22,23,24,25,26,27,28,29,30,31,32,33,34,35,36,37,38,39,40,41,42,43,44,45,46,47,48,49,50,51,52,53,54,55,56,57,58,59,60,61,62,63,64,65,66,67,68,69,70,71,72,73,74,75,76,77,78,79,80,81,82,83,84,85,86,87,88,89,90,91,92,93,94,95,96,97,98,99,100,101,102,103,104,105,106,107,108,109,110,111,112,113,114,115,116,117,118,119,120,121,122,123,124,125,126,127,128]) the most recent reference (or the only one, or the most comprehensive one) for a topic on Colombian populations of that species, since authors frequently cite prior research on that same topic in their literature-cited sections. For each species, we counted the number of topics with at least one peer-reviewed publication and inverted the rankings in the analysis to obtain the first component of our research priority analysis (that is, species with the highest research priorities are assigned a value of 1, with lower-priority species ranked in ascending order).
To assess the conservation priority of these species, we ranked species based on two considerations: (1) the degree of endemism to Colombia, and (2) the conservation status of a species based on the recent global IUCN RLAs for all Colombian non-marine turtle species. This latter component was quantified by ranking species assessed as CR = 5, EN = 4, VU = 3, NT = 2, DD = 2, and LC = 1. We assigned equal weight to NT and DD because, in both cases, the lack of biological information prevented assigning a more precise level of extinction risk (CR, EN, or VU). Our other component in this ranking system was endemism, which is binary (a species is endemic, or not). We wanted to assign equal conservation priority weights to species that are endemic to Colombia as species evaluated as CR, so we gave endemic species a score of 5 and non-endemic species a score of 0. The combined scores from both components were then summed up, and species with the highest composite scores were considered as the highest priority (1), with lower-priority species ranked in ascending order.
Finally, we examined the relationship between the global assessments of the conservation status of Colombian non-marine turtle species and two potentially important variables: the historical AOO of the species and the maximum body size (straight-line carapace length) reported for the species. We used the above conservation status scores (CR = 5, etc.) as a nominal rank variable and conducted nonparametric Spearman correlation tests for both log-transformed AOO values and maximum body size values for the species.

3. Results

Our literature review identified 111 publications that addressed one or more of the 17 research topics for Colombian non-marine turtle species (Table 1; Figure 1). In general, there remains limited published information on these topics for Colombian tortoise and freshwater turtle species, with an average of 7.7 topics per species (range: 2–16). The seven biological topics that were most documented (for 18 or more of the 29 species) were, in order: Geographic range, Taxonomic/Phylogenetic studies, Human induced threats, Habitat requirements, Sexual determination, No. reproductive seasons/year, and No. eggs/clutch (Figure 1). As mentioned before, most studies of sexual determination mechanisms were not conducted in Colombia, but it is reasonable to assume that populations of those species in Colombia will exhibit the same sex-determining mechanism, since there is no evidence of intraspecific variation in these mechanisms in turtles [129]. Also, important advances over the last decade were made in studies related to population genetics (Phylogeography/ESUs/MUs) and Relative density estimates (with studies of these topics across more than 15 species). Unfortunately, for the remaining topics, fewer than 8 species have published information. Most life-history attributes (Size/age at first reproduction, Generation length/Longevity, and Body growth rates), Population size estimates, and Population growth/survival rates are unknown for Colombian non-marine turtle populations, and this information is most relevant for assessing the species’ extinction risk under the IUCN RLA methodology [9]. To date, there are no published studies for Colombian species on the number of clutches per female per season, a fundamental parameter for estimating annual fecundity rates [130].
As in the previous analysis by Forero-Medina et al. [11], it remains true that certain species have received above-average research attention. In our analysis, Podocnemis lewyana, Rhinoclemmys nasuta, Rhinoclemmys melanosterna, Podocnemis vogli, Trachemys venusta callirostris, Mesoclemmys dahli, and Chelus orinoscencis are the species with the highest level of knowledge, with nine to sixteen topics documented. Podocnemis vogli, Mesoclemmys dahli, and Rhinoclemmys melanosterna now appear on this list thanks to recent publications since Forero-Medina et al. [11]. However, many other Colombian species remain relatively or even entirely unstudied (Mesoclemmys wermuthi, Mesoclemmys gibba, Phrynops geoffroanus, Platemys platycephala, Rhinoclemmys diademata, Rhinoclemmys annulata, Chelus fimbriata, Kinonsternon dunni, Podocnemis sextuberculata, and Rhinemys rufipes), with fewer than seven topics documented (Figure 2). The three most recently described Colombian species (Kinonsternon albogulare, Chelus orinocensis, and Trachemys medemi) have been relatively well-studied. Species in the lower half of Figure 2, with scores from 1 to 6, are obvious priorities for future studies.
From 2022 to 2025, an initiative led by the IUCN/SSC Tortoise and Freshwater Turtle Specialist Group assessed or updated the global extinction risk of Latin American tortoise and freshwater turtle species [4]. Of the 29 non-marine turtle species occurring in Colombia, 11 were reassessed (mean time between the previous and new evaluations = 27 years). The endemic species Podocnemis lewyana (CR) was not reassessed because its assessment was relatively recent [131]. Only Rhinemys rufipes among these species received a lower (less threatened) ranking, while five species remained in the same extinction risk category and five were reassessed as having an increased risk of extinction. The remaining 17 species were ranked for the first time, with five assessed in one of the three threatened categories (CR, EN, and VU), and two classified as NT [4]. This yielded 15 of Colombia’s 29 non-marine turtle species as Threatened (52%), or 62% as Threatened + NT (Table 2). All four of the endemic species, the two tortoise species (Family Testudinidae), and all the large river turtle species in the Families Podocnemididae and Emydidae were classified as having some level of threat, while most species in the Families Kinosternidae and Chelidae were considered Least Concern (LC).
For all but one of the eighteen Colombian non-marine turtle species assessed as threatened or NT in the most recent global RLA [4], the criterion used was A (population size reduction measured over the longer of 10 years or 3 generations [9]). Specifically, the assessors used either A2 (population reduction observed, estimated, inferred, or suspected in the past where the causes of reduction may not have ceased OR may not be understood OR may not be reversible) and/or A4 (an observed, estimated, projected or suspected population reduction where the time period must include both the past and the future, and where the causes of reduction may not have ceased OR may not be understood OR may not be reversible); Table 2, Ref. [9]. Only with Kinosternon dunni did the assessors use the B criterion (small range). For endangered or NT species, sub-criterion c (a decline in Area of Occupancy (AOO) or Extent of Occurrence (EOO), and/or habitat quality) was used in 44% of the assessments, and sub-criterion d (actual or potential levels of exploitation) was used in 38.5% of the species. That is, these two threats were associated with a population size reduction measured over 10 years or 3 generations (Criterion A) for 82.2% of tortoise and freshwater turtle species in Colombia (Table 2).
Upon simultaneously considering our analyses on Colombian species that should be research priorities, the recent global IUCN Red List assessments, and these two factors related to the extinction risk level (AOO and body size); we conclude that the following nine species (ranked 1 to 3 on Table 2) should be highest priority species for the implementation of conservation actions: the four endemics to Colombia (Mesoclemmys dahli, Trachemys medemi, Kinonsternon dunni and Podocnemis lewyana), followed by Rhinoclemmys diademata (a semi-endemic), and four of the most severely exploited and large non-marine turtles in Colombia: Podocnemis expansa, Podocnemis sextuberculata, Chelonoidis carbonarius and Chelonoidis denticulatus. Obviously, the remaining species also need and deserve conservation attention.
Finally, our inspection of the relationships between the conservation status scores of the species and their AOO and body sizes yielded a significant negative result for AOO (Spearman ρ = −0.4269, p = 0.024), with species with smaller ranges having higher conservation status scores (i.e., being more threatened). Maximum body size was also marginally significant (Spearman ρ = 0.3250, p = 0.091), with larger species tending to be more threatened (Figure 3).

4. Discussion

Progress has been made in recent years in filling the knowledge gaps identified by Forero-Medina et al. [11], both by focusing studies on previously understudied topics and on previously understudied species (such as Podocnemis vogli, Chelonoidis carbonarius, Rhinoclemmys melanosterna, Chelonoidis orinocensis, Podocnemis dumerilianus, and Kinosternon leucostomum). However, knowledge biases persist across species, with most chelids and geoemydids understudied. In the past decade, topics related to phylogenetic relationships, population genetics, identified threats, and aspects of reproductive biology had numerous contributions for several of these species. Even so, there clearly is a need for more studies on more topics and species to continue improving our understanding of turtle biology and conservation status in Colombia. Our analysis showed that the number of threatened turtle species in Colombia and the magnitude of the threats they face are greater than previously thought. The percentage of threatened (CR, EN, or VU) non-marine turtle species in Colombia (52%) considerably exceeds the national percentage reported in the Colombian Red Book of Reptiles (37%; [8]), and, if we include species assessed as NT, the threat level increases to 62% (almost twice what it is currently recognized in Colombia).
Our inspection of the relationships between the species’ conservation status and their AOO and body sizes is not unexpected. In the case of the AOO result, it has been generally observed for reptiles (and many other vertebrates) that species with smaller ranges tend to be more threatened, due in part to anthropogenic effects being more impactful if their distribution is associated with specific habitat requirements [132] or affected by stochastic events [133]. Also, it is not surprising that turtle species with a larger maximum body size tended to be more threatened due to increased pressure from harvests. This phenomenon has been well documented in many turtle communities and helps explain the patterns of historical turtle extinctions caused by hominids [132,134]. This preference for humans to harvest the largest species also generates the “substitution” phenomenon often observed, in which smaller turtle species become increasingly threatened when larger sympatric species are extirpated or experience severe numerical declines [135].
The previous underestimation of the threatened status of Colombian non-marine turtle species can be explained by three non-exclusive factors:
(1) The lack of information needed to use the five qualitative criteria the IUCN Red List uses to classify a species according to its extinction risk [9]. As Table 1 illustrates, few studies of non-marine turtle species in Colombia have focused on quantifying population range reductions, monitoring population size trends, or gathering the data necessary to calculate generation length. The specific information needed to estimate generation length varies depending on the method employed [130,136] but is generally related to life table parameters (class-specific population survival and fecundity rates) or lifespan, as well as age at first reproduction [137]. By no means are we saying the other topics of biological knowledge for these species are less valuable. We are only pointing out that those aspects of their biology, combined with population trend monitoring, are what is needed to apply the IUCN-standardized criteria for RLAs. Indeed, conservation actions such as implementing national and international conservation legislation and establishing conservation and management programs are based on information from all 17 topics included in this analysis, as well as on others not considered here (i.e., diet, physiological and behavioral ecology, etc.).
(2) The accelerated worsening of the genuine conservation status for most non-marine turtle species in Colombia. These increases in threat levels could be due to increased habitat loss and degradation in Colombia, exacerbated by the armed conflict and the expansion of areas converted to pastures, monocultures (oil palm, bananas, rice, etc.), illicit crops, or excessive logging throughout the country, including protected areas [138,139]. Freshwater biodiversity is declining even faster than marine or terrestrial biodiversity worldwide, and Colombia is no exception [140,141]. The fact that 27 of the 29 non-marine turtle species depend on freshwater ecosystems, which in Colombia are being impacted by mining, damming, pollution, and climate change, makes the persistence of non-marine turtles in Colombia a biodiversity crisis [142]. For example, the estimated rate of wetland loss due to drainage to expand cattle grazing land was 56% in the Magdalena River drainage [143]. Many freshwater habitats in Colombia also suffer from high levels of contamination by urban centers, agricultural runoff, and heavy metals from mining activities. Mercury contamination is particularly severe because of the use in Colombia of mercury-containing agricultural fungicides and pesticides, and especially because local artisanal gold miners employ a mercury–gold amalgamation method that releases large amounts of elemental mercury into the environment, where it is converted into methylmercury that readily bioaccumulates and biomagnifies as it moves through food webs [144,145]. In northern Colombia, for example, bioaccumulation of mercury has been demonstrated in adult tissues and in eggs of Trachemys venusta callirostris [146,147] as well as in adult tissues of Podocnemis lewyana [148]. Finally, one of the most notorious threats to river turtles is the construction of hydroelectric dams, which release water to generate electricity. Since river turtle species nest on beaches or other surfaces exposed during the dry months of the year, when river levels are low, the water released from the hydroelectric plants during these times of high energy demand submerges all or most of the available nesting areas for varying periods, causing the loss of the reproductive effort of the entire season [126,131].
(3) The increases in threat levels observed in Colombian non-marine turtle species could also be due to increased and cumulative harvest rates. Harvesting is conducted to meet demands for subsistence and commercial consumption [110,142,149], to supply the national and international pet trade [150,151], and for use in traditional medicine by local people. Colombia’s human population continues to grow at approximately 1%/year, and with a median age of only 33 years, the country’s population is likely to continue increasing into the foreseeable future. Yet there is a widespread belief that human harvests using traditional methods will remain sustainable [152]. Most turtle harvests also now employ modern technology to increase harvest rates. Yet in Colombia, while national legislation that is intended to protect wildlife species, including turtles, exists, implementation of this legislation is inadequate [153].
In summary, the conservation status of turtles in Colombia, including freshwater turtles, is worsening. Even in areas of low human density, such as the Amazonas Department (with fewer than 1 person/km2), freshwater turtles suffer from habitat loss and degradation, overexploitation, environmental contamination, and, presumably, climate change. Furthermore, human population densities are increasing there, as in the rest of the country. National Natural Parks and other protected areas throughout Colombia overlap broadly with areas recognized by the government as reserves where people of indigenous and African descent retain the right to harvest wildlife species, and armed groups make ample use of many protected areas for cultivating illicit crops or engaging in illegal mining activities. Seen in this light, there are no areas in Colombia where turtles are free of anthropogenic threats; therefore, their conservation status is understandably declining over time.

Author Contributions

All authors wrote the manuscript and contributed to the revision. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research received no external funding.

Data Availability Statement

The original contributions presented in this study are included in the article. Further inquiries can be directed to the corresponding author.

Acknowledgments

During the preparation of this manuscript, the authors used Google Scholar for the purposes of locating references on studies on Colombian turtles. The authors have reviewed and edited the output and take full responsibility for the content of this publication.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflicts of interest.

References

  1. Chen, C.; Wang, J.; Holyoak, M.; Lin, L.; Wang, Y. Global assessment of current extinction risks and future challenges for turtles and tortoises. Nat. Commun. 2025, 16, 7114. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  2. TCC (Turtle Conservation Coalition) (Ed.) Turtles in Trouble: The World’s Most Endangered Tortoises and Freshwater Turtles—2025; IUCN SSC Tortoise and Freshwater Turtle Specialist Group, Turtle Conservancy, Turtle Survival Alliance, Turtle Conservation Fund, Re:wild, and Chelonian Research Foundation: Ojai, CA, USA, 2025; 77p. [Google Scholar]
  3. TTWG (Turtle Taxonomy Working Group). Turtles of the World: Annotated Checklist and Atlas of Taxonomy, Synonymy, Distribution, and Conservation Status (8th Ed). Chelon. Res. Monog. 2017, 7, 1–292. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  4. TTWG (Turtle Taxonomy Working Group). Turtles of the World: Annotated Checklist and Atlas of Taxonomy, Synonymy, Distribution, and Conservation Status (10th Ed.). Chelon. Res. Monog. 2025, 10, 1–575. [Google Scholar]
  5. Congdon, J.D.; Nagle, R.D.; Kinney, O.M. Front-loading life histories: The enduring influence of juvenile growth on age, size, and reproduction of primiparous female freshwater turtles. Evol. Ecol. Res. 2018, 19, 353–364. [Google Scholar]
  6. Angielczyk, K.D.; Burroughs, R.W.; Feldman, C.R. Do turtles follow the rules? Latitudinal gradients in species richness, body size, and geographic range area of the world’s turtles. J. Exp. Zool. Part B Mol. Dev. Evol. 2015, 324B, 270–294. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  7. Ennen, J.R.; Agha, M.; Sweat, S.C.; Matamoros, W.A.; Lovich, J.E.; Rhodin, A.G.J.; Iverson, J.B.; Hoagstrom, C.W. Turtle biogeography: Global regionalization and conservation priorities. Biol. Cons. 2020, 241, 108323. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Morales-Betancourt, M.A.; Lasso, C.A.; Páez, V.P.; Bock, B.C. (Eds.) Libro Rojo de Reptiles de Colombia (2015); Instituto de Investigación de Recursos Biológicos Alexander von Humboldt: Bogotá, Colombia, 2015; 258p. [Google Scholar]
  9. IUCN. IUCN Red List Categories and Criteria: Version 3.1, 2nd ed.; IUCN: Gland, Switzerland, 2012; 32p, Available online: https://portals.iucn.org/library/node/10315 (accessed on 1 July 2026).
  10. Páez, V.P.; Morales-Betancourt, M.A.; Lasso, C.A.; Castaño-Mora, O.V.; Bock, B.C. (Eds.) V. Biología y Conservación de las Tortugas Continentales de Colombia. Serie Editorial Recursos Hidrobiológicos y Pesqueros Continentales de Colombia; Instituto de Investigación de los Recursos Biológicos Alexander von Humboldt (IAvH): Bogotá, Colombia, 2012; 528p. [Google Scholar]
  11. Forero-Medina, G.; Páez, V.P.; Garcés-Restrepo, M.F.; Carr, J.L.; Giraldo, A.; Vargas-Ramírez, M. Research and conservation priorities for tortoises and freshwater turtles of Colombia. Trop. Cons. Sci. 2016, 9, 1940082916673708. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Bock, B.C.; Páez, V.P. Meta-analysis of the history of the study of the freshwater turtle and tortoise fauna of Colombia. Acta Biol. Colomb. 2017, 22, 67–76. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Páez, V.P.; Bock, B.C.; Alzate-Estrada, D.A.; Barrientos-Muñoz, K.G.; Cartagena-Otálvaro, V.M.; Echeverry-Alcendra, A.; Gómez-Rincón, M.T.; Ramírez-Gallego, C.; del Río, J.S.; Vallejo-Betancur, M.M. Turtles of Colombia: An annotated analysis of their diversity, distribution, and conservation status. Amphib. Reptile Cons. 2022, 16, 106–135. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. Martínez Viloria, H.M.; Franke Ante, R.; Saldaña Pérez, P.; Cano Correa, M.; Angarita Jiménez, L.E.; García Llano, C.; Martínez Whisgman, L.; Castro, B.A.; Posada, S.; Gómez, C.; et al. Caracterización del uso y aprovechamiento de recursos hidrobiológicos en áreas protegidas del Parques Nacionales Naturales en el Caribe de Colombia. Bol. Investig. Mar. Cost. 2014, 43, 277–306. [Google Scholar]
  15. de Paurcq, K.; Thomas, E.; van Damme, P.; Léon-Sicard, T. Análisis de los conflictos entre comunidades locales y autoridades de conservación en Colombia. Causas y recomendaciones. Gest. Ambiente 2017, 20, 122–139. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. Bernal, J.; Sudarsky, J.; Riveros, C. Illicit crop cultivation in Colombia’s national natural parks: Dynamics, drivers, and policy responses. J. Illicit Econ. Devel. 2021, 3, 22–35. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Stearns, S.C. The Evolution of Life Histories; Oxford University Press: Oxford, UK, 1992. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Thépot, D. Sex chromosomes and master sex-determining genes in turtles and other reptiles. Genes 2021, 12, 1822. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  19. Cunha, F.A.G.; Fernandes, T.; Franco, J.; Vogt, R.C. Reproductive biology and hatchling morphology of the Amazon toad-headed turtle (Mesoclemmys raniceps) (Testudines: Chelidae), with notes on species morphology and taxonomy of the Mesoclemmys group. Chelon. Cons. Biol. 2019, 18, 195–209. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Forero-Medina, G.; Yusti-Muñoz, A.P.; Castaño-Mora, O.V. Distribución geográfica de las tortugas continentales de Colombia y su representación en áreas protegidas. Acta Biol. Colomb. 2014, 19, 415–426. [Google Scholar]
  21. Holley, J.A.; Sterli, J.; Basso, N.G. Dating the origin and diversification of Pan-Chelidae (Testudines, Pleurodira) under multiple molecular clock approaches. Contri. Zool. 2020, 89, 146–174. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Ferreira, G.S.; Bronzati, M.; Langer, M.C.; Sterli, J. Phylogeny, biogeography and diversification patterns of side-necked turtles (Testudines: Pleurodira). J. R. Soc. Open Sci. 2018, 5, 171773. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  23. Armesto, O.; Acevedo, A.A.; Gallardo, A.; Franco, R. Rhinoclemmys diadimata (Mertens 1954). Inguensa, Galápago de Maracaibo. Cat. Anfibios Reptiles Colomb. 2014, 2, 47–52. [Google Scholar]
  24. Morales-Betancourt, M.A.; Lasso, C.A.; Rojas-Runjaic, F.J.M. Rhinoclemmys diademata. IUCN Red List Threat. Species 2024, e.T170510A1315527. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. Thomson, R.C.; Spinks, P.Q.; Shaffer, H.B. A global phylogeny of turtles reveals a burst of climate-associated diversification on continental margins. Proc. Nat. Acad. Sci. USA 2021, 118, e2012215118. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  26. Carr, J.L.; Moll, D.; Giraldo, A.; Garcés-Restrepo, M.F. Rhinoclemmys annulata (Gray 1860)—Brown Wood Turtle, Montañero, Bambera. Chelon. Res. Monog. 2023, 5, 123.1–123.16. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. Garcés-Restrepo, M.F.; Giraldo, A.; Carr, J.L.; Brown, L.D. Turtle ectoparasites from the Pacific coastal region of Colombia. Biota Neotrop. 2013, 13, 74–79. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Cunha, F.A.; Fagundes, C.K.; Brito, E.S.; Vogt, R.C.; Maffei, F.; Pezzuti, J.; Félix-Silva, D.; Rojas-Runjaic, F.J.M.; Lasso, C.A.; Morales-Betancourt, M.A.; et al. Distribution of Chelus fimbriata and Chelus orinocensis (Testudines: Chelidae). Chelon. Cons. Biol. 2021, 20, 109–115. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Pritchard, P.C.H. Chelus fimbriata (Schneider 1783)—Matamata turtle. Chelon. Res. Monog. 2008, 5, 020.1–020.10. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Viana, P.F.; Eliana Feldberg, E.; Hiroshi Takagui, F.; Menezes, S.; Vogt, R.C.; Ezaz, T. Matamatas Chelus spp. (Testudines, Chelidae) have a remarkable evolutionary history of sex chromosomes with a long-term stable XY microchromosome system. Sci. Rep. 2022, 12, 6676. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  31. Lasso, C.A.; Trujillo, F.; Morales-Betancourt, M.A.; Amaya, L.; Caballero, S.; Castañeda, B. Conservación y tráfico de la tortuga matamata, Chelus fimbriata (Schneider, 1783) en Colombia: Un ejemplo del trabajo conjunto entre el Sistema Nacional Ambiental, ONG y academia. Biota Colomb. 2018, 19, 147–159. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Vargas-Ramírez, M.; Caballero, S.; Morales-Betancourt, M.A.; Lasso, C.A.; Amaya, L.; Martínez, J.G.; das Neves Silva Viana, M.; Vogt, R.C.; Farias, I.P.; Hrbek, T.; et al. Genomic analyses reveal two species of the matamata (Testudines: Chelidae: Chelus spp.) and clarify their phylogeography. Mol. Phylogenet. Evol. 2020, 148, 106823. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  33. Renteria-Moreno, L.E.; Forero-Medina, G.; Garcés-Restrepo, M.F.; Carr, J.L.; Rueda-Almonacid, J.V. Range extension of Kinosternon dunni Schmidt, 1947 (Reptilia, Testudines, Kinosternidae) in Chocó, Colombia. Check List 2012, 8, 1310–1312. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. Medem, F. La distribución geográfica y ecología de los Crocodylia y Testudinata en el Departamento del Chocó. Rev. Acad. Colomb. Cienc. Exact. Fís. Nat. 1962, 11, 279–303. [Google Scholar]
  35. Liao, W.; Cao, S.; Jiang, Y.; Shao, W.; Zhao, L.; Yan, C. Predicting conservation status of Testudoformes under climate change using habitat models. Animals 2024, 14, 2300. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  36. Hurtado-Gómez, J.P.; Vargas-Ramírez, M.; Iverson, J.B.; Joyce, W.G.; McCranie, J.R.; Paetzold, C.; Fritz, U. Diversity and biogeography of South American mud turtles elucidated by multilocus DNA sequencing (Testudines: Kinosternidae). Mol. Phylogenet. Evol. 2024, 197, 108083. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  37. Camillo, C.S.; Valenzuela, N.; Johnson, S.A. Effects of semi-constant temperature on embryonic and hatchling phenotypes of six-tubercled Amazon River turtles, Podocnemis sextuberculata. J. Ther. Biol. 2022, 108, 103292. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  38. Aponte-Gutiérrez, A.F.; Arbeláez, F.; Parra-Torres, M.; Forero-Medina, G. Conservación y ecología reproductiva de tres especies del género Podocnemis en la Amazonía Colombo-peruana, con participación de las comunidades indígenas de la zona. In Homenaje a Federico Medem, Aportes a la Herpetología Colombiana; Ardila Robayo, M.C., Martínez Barreto, W., Eds.; Instituto de Ciencias Naturales, Universidad Nacional de Colombia: Bogotá, Colombia, 2019; pp. 133–146. [Google Scholar]
  39. Pereira, A.G.; Sterli, J.; Moreira, F.R.; Schrago, C.G. Multilocus phylogeny and statistical biogeography clarify the evolutionary history of major lineages of turtles. Mol. Phylogenet. Evol. 2017, 113, 59–66. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  40. Hugh-Jones, S.; Hugh-Jones, C. Fred Medem and Rhinemys rupifes. In Homenaje a Federico Medem, Aportes a la Herpetología Colombiana; Ardila Robayo, M.C., Martínez Barreto, W., Eds.; Instituto de Ciencias Naturales, Universidad Nacional de Colombia: Bogotá, Colombia, 2019; pp. 167–169. [Google Scholar]
  41. Rueda-Almonacid, J.V.; Carr, J.L.; Mittermeier, R.A.; Rodríguez-Mahecha, J.V.; Mast, R.B.; Vogt, R.C.; Rhodin, A.G.J.; De la Ossa-Velásquez, J.; Rueda, J.N.; Mittermeier, C.G. Las Tortugas y los Cocodrilianos de los Países Andinos del Trópico. Serie de Guías Tropicales de Campo No. 6; Editorial Panamericana, Formas e Impresos, Conservación Internacional: Bogotá, Colombia, 2007; 538p, Available online: https://iucn-tftsg.org/wp-content/uploads/file/Articles/Rueda-Almonacid_etal_2007.pdf (accessed on 1 July 2026).
  42. Lamar, W.W.; Medem, F. Notes on the chelid turtle Phrynops rufipes in Colombia. Salamandra 1982, 18, 305–321. [Google Scholar]
  43. Young-Valencia, K.; Ortega, A.F.; Botero-Botero, A. Densidad y estructura de las poblaciones de tortuga pímpano (Chelydra acutirostris Peters 1862) (Chelydridae) en las quebradas Cajones y Los Coclí, departamento del Quindío, Colombia. Rev. Biodivers. Neotrop. 2014, 4, 149–161. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  44. Young-Valencia, K.; Ortega-Guio, A.; Botero-Botero, A. Influencia de las variables de hábitat sobre la presencia de la tortuga pímpano (Chelydra acutirostris, Peters 1862) (Chelydridae) en las quebradas Cajones y los Coclí, Quindío, Colombia. Rev. Colomb. Cienc. Anim. 2017, 9, 6–13. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  45. Henao, L.D.; Ruiz-Palma, H.J. Estado actual de la tortuga “bache” (Chelydra serpentina acutirostris) en el Valle de Cauca. Cacería y cautiverio en la comunidad de San Cipriano, Buenaventura. In Investigación y Manejo de Fauna para la Construcción de Sistemas Sostenibles; Osoriom, H., Ed.; CIPAV: Cali, Colombia, 1996; pp. 157–160. [Google Scholar]
  46. Arango-Lozano, J.; Young Valencia, K.; Giraldo, A.; Botero Botero, A. Estructura etaria y morfometría poblacional de la tortuga pímpano (Chelydra acutirostris, Peters 1862) (Chelydridae) en tres afluentes del río La Vieja, departamento del Quindío, Colombia. Bol. Cient. Mus. Hist. Nat. 2017, 21, 122–137. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  47. Gentíl, E.; De Medeiros, L.A.; Vogt, R.C.; Barnett, A.A. Biology of the Big-headed Amazon River Turtle, Peltocephalus dumerilianus (Schweigger, 1812) (Testudines, Pleurodira): The basal extant Podocnemididae species. Herpetozoa 2021, 34, 207–222. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  48. Parra-Henao, K.D.; Páez, V.P.; Morales-Betancourt, M.A.; Lasso, C.A. A pilot study of habitat and population characteristics of the big-headed Amazon river turtle, Peltochephalus dumirilianus (Schweigger 1812), during the dry season in the Bojonawi Nature Reserve, Vichada, Colombia. Herpet. Notes 2019, 12, 1113–1120. [Google Scholar]
  49. Morales-Betancourt, M.A.; Lasso, C.A.; Bernal-Sierra, S.; Sepúlveda-Seguro, A.M.; Parra-Henao, K.D.; Gómez-Rincón, M.T.; Páez, V.P.; Castañeda, B.; Marín, B. VIII: Historia natural de las tortugas acuáticas de la Reserva Natural Bojonawi (Escudo Guayanés), Orinoquia, Vichada, Colombia. Serie Editorial Fauna Silvestre Neontropical. In Biodiversidad de la Reserva Natural Bojonawi, Vichada, Colombia: Río Orinoco y Planicie de Inundación; Lasso, C.A., Trujillo, F., Morales-Betancourt, M.A., Eds.; Instituto de Investigación de Recursos Biológicos Alexander von Humboldt: Bogotá, Colombia, 2020; pp. 431–453. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  50. Gaviria-Hernández, J.; Rojas-Soto, O.; Ceballos, C.P. Distribution of the Atrato slider Trachemys medemi, future projections under climate change scenarios and conservation insights. Oryx 2026, 1–11, first view. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  51. Gaviria-Hernández, J.; Ceballos, C.P. An approximation of the reproductive cycle of the Atrato River Slider, Trachemys medemi. Chelon. Con. Biol. 2025. ahead of print online publication. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  52. Cuadrado-Ríos, S.; Vargas-Ramírez, M.; Kehlmaier, C.; Fritz, U. Complete mitochondrial genome and phylogenetic analysis of the Atrato slider, Trachemys medemi (Testudines, Emydidae). ZooKeys 2025, 1224, 253–260. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  53. Stevenson, P.; Borda, C.; Rojas, A.; Alvarez, M. Population size, habitat choice and sexual dimorphism of the Amazonian tortoise (Geochelone denticulata) in Tinigua National Park, Colombia. Amphibia-Reptilia 2007, 28, 217–226. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  54. Echeverry-Alcendra, A.M.; Guzmán, M.A.; Stevenson, P.; Cortés-Duque, J. Chelonoidis denticulata (Linnaeus, 1766). In V. Biología y Conservación de las Tortugas Continentales de Colombia. Serie Editorial Recursos Hidrobiológicos y Pesqueros Continentales de Colombia; Páez, V.P., Morales-Betancourt, M.A., Lasso, C.A., Castaño Mora, O.V., Bock, B.C., Eds.; Instituto de Investigación de Recursos Biológicos Alexander von Humboldt: Bogotá, Colombia, 2012; pp. 412–418. [Google Scholar]
  55. Castaño-Mora, O.V.; Rugeles-Lugo, M. Estudio comparativo del comportamiento de dos especies de morrocoy: Geochelone carbonaria y Geochelone denticulata y aspectos comparables de su morfología externa. Cespedasia 1981, 10, 55–122. [Google Scholar]
  56. Vargas-Ramírez, M.; Maran, J.; Fritz, U. Red- and yellow-footed tortoises (Chelonoidis carbonaria, C. denticulata) in South American savannahs and forests: Do their phylogeographies reflect distinct habitats? Organ. Divers. Evol. 2010, 10, 161–172. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  57. Forero-Medina, G.; Castaño-Mora, O.V.; Montenegro, O. Abundance, population structure, and conservation of Kinosternon scorpioides albogulare on the Caribbean island of San Andrés, Colombia. Chelon. Cons. Biol. 2007, 6, 163–169. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  58. Forero-Medina, G.; Castaño-Mora, O.V. Kinosternon scorpioides albogulare (Duméril and Bocourt 1870)—White-Throated Mud Turtle, Swanka Turtle. Chelon. Res. Monog. 2011, 5, 064.1–064.5. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  59. Caballero, S.; Martínez, J.G.; Morales-Betancourt, M.A.; Bolaños, N.; Lasso, C.A. Genomic analyses of the scorpion mud turtle Kinosternon scorpioides) (Linnaeus, 766) in insular and continental Colombia: Evidence for multiple conservation and taxonomic units. Front. Conserv. Sci. 2022, 3, 938040. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  60. Bedoya-Cañón, M.A.; Muñoz-Avila, J.A.; Vargas-Salinas, F. Morphology and natural history of the mud turtle Kinosternon scorpioides scorpioides in populations of northern Colombia. Herpet. Rev. 2018, 49, 210–214. [Google Scholar]
  61. Montes-Correa, A.C.; Saboyá-Acota, L.P.; Páez, V.P.; Renjifo, J.M. Kinosternon scorpioides (Linnaeus 1766). Tapaculo, Bisagra, Casquito, Guachupe, Pecho quebrado, Swanka. Cat. Anfibios Reptiles Colomb. 2017, 3, 17–24. [Google Scholar]
  62. Braga, B.; Oliveira-Bahia, V.; Ferreira, M.A.; Marques, J.R.F.; Guimarés, D.A. Gonadal development in scorpion mud turtles, Kinosternon scorpioides, in a controlled environment. Anat. Rec. 2025. online early view. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  63. Ardila-Marulanda, M.; de la Ossa, V.J.; De la Ossa-Lacayo, A. Uso de quelonios continentales en el Golfo de Morrosquillo, Sucre, Colombia. Rev. Colomb. Cienc. Anim. 2016, 8, 361–367. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  64. Mittermeier, R.A.; Vogt, R.C.; Bernhard, R.; Ferrara, C.R. Podocnemis erythrocephala (Spix 1824)—Red-headed Amazon River Turtle, Irapuca. Chelon. Res. Monog. 2015, 5, 087.1–087.10. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  65. Michels, J.; Vargas-Ramírez, M. Red-headed Amazon River Turtles in Venezuela and Colombia: Population separation and connection along the famous route of Alexander von Humboldt. Zoology 2018, 130, 67–78. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  66. Castaño-Mora, O.V.; Galvis-Peñuela, P.A.; Molano, J.G. Reproductive ecology of Podocnemis erythrocephala (Testudines: Podocnemididae) in the Lower Inírida River, Colombia. Chelon. Con. Biol. 2003, 4, 664–670. [Google Scholar]
  67. Morales-Betancourt, M.A.; Lasso, C.A. Chipiro Podocnemis erythrocephala (Spix, 1824). In Libro Rojo de Reptiles de Colombia (2015); Morales-Betancourt, M.A., Lasso, C.A., Páez, V.P., Bock, B.C., Eds.; Instituto de Investigación de Recursos Biológicos Alexander von Humboldt: Bogotá, Colombia, 2015; pp. 158–160. Available online: http://biblioteca.humboldt.org.co/en/biodiversity/item/905-libro-rojo-reptiles (accessed on 1 July 2026).
  68. Gallego-García, N.; Vargas-Ramírez, M.; Shaffer, H.B. The importance of cryptic diversity in the conservation of wide-ranging species: The red-footed tortoise Chelonoidis carbonarius in Colombia. Mol. Ecol. 2023, 32, 4531–4545. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  69. Rojano, C.; Urbano Bonilla, A.; Díaz Timoté, J. Aspectos ecológicos del morrocoy (Chelonoidis carbonarius, spix 1824) en la cuenca del río Cravo Sur y otras cuencas del Orinoquia. In El Reto de Conservar y Producir: Biodiversidad y Sistemas Productivos en la Cuenca Media y Baja del Río Cravo Sur; Antelo Albertos, R., Diaz Olaya, M.R., Durán Hernández, Z., Rojano, C., Eds.; Sello Editorial Universidad Nacional Abierta y a Distancia (UNAD): Bogotá, Colombia, 2021; pp. 304–319. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  70. Hernández-Montoya, V.; Páez, V.P.; Ceballos, C.P. Effects of temperature on sex determination and embryonic development in the Red-footed Tortoise, Chelonoidis carbonarius. Chelon. Cons. Biol. 2017, 16, 164–171. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  71. Gaviria-Hernández, J.; Páez, V.P.; Ramírez, D.M.; Ceballos, C.P. Embryo development and sex ratios in the Red-Footed Tortoise (Chelonoidis carbonarius) at masculinizing temperatures. Chelon. Cons. Biol. 2021, 20, 71–81. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  72. Cárdenas-Arévalo, G.; Medina-Rangel, G.F.; Castaño-Mora, O.V. Evaluación de poblaciones de Chelonoidis carbonarius y caracterización de su hábitat en el departamento del Cesar, Colombia. In Homenaje a Federico Medem, Aportes a la Herpetología Colombiana; Ardila Robayo, M.C., Martínez Barreto, W., Eds.; Instituto de Ciencias Naturales, Universidad Nacional de Colombia: Bogotá, Colombia, 2019; pp. 121–132. [Google Scholar]
  73. Arias Sosa, L.A.; Rodríguez-Castro, K.G.; Agudelo-González, M.H.; Ramos-Villalba, B.; Cuadrado-Ríos, S.; Brieva, C.; del Valle-Useche, C.M.; Balcero-Deaquiz, M.C.; Vargas-Ramírez, M. Mitochondrial sequencing to guide the management of endangered turtles in Colombia. Rev. Biol. Trop. 2025, 73, e60604. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  74. Arango-Lozano, J.; Patiño, S.D.; Benítez, C.L.; Botero, B.A. New records of Kinosternon leucostomum postinguinale (Duméril and Bibron, 1851) from the Central Cordillera of Colombia. Rev. Colomb. Cienc. Anim. 2018, 10, 82–85. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  75. Patiño-Siro, D.; Arango-Lozano, J.; Botero-Botero, A. Population structure, size and morphometry of the white-lipped mud turtle Kinosternon leucostomum postinguinale in pond systems in Quindío, central Andes of Colombia. Herpetol. Bull. 2018, 146, 25–31. [Google Scholar]
  76. Ceballos, C.P.; Zapata, D.; Alvarado, C.; Rincón, E. Morphology, diet, and population structure of the Southern White-lipped Mud Turtle Kinosternon leucostomum postinguinale (Testudines: Kinosternidae) in the Nus River drainage, Colombia. J. Herpetol. 2016, 50, 374–380. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  77. Vogt, R.C.; Flores-Villela, O. Effects of incubation temperature on sex determination in a community of Neotropical freshwater turtles in southern Mexico. Herpetologica 1992, 48, 265–270. [Google Scholar]
  78. Corredor, L.G.; Kattan, G.; Galvis, R.C.A.; Amorocho, D. Tortugas del Valle del Cauca; Corporación Autónoma Regional del Valle del Cauca (CVC): Cali, Colombia, 2007; 74p. [Google Scholar]
  79. Giraldo, A.; Garcés-Restrepo, M.F.; Carr, J.L. Kinosternon leucostomum (Duméril y Bibron 1851). Cat. Anfibios Reptiles Colomb. 2013, 1, 45–49. [Google Scholar]
  80. Figueroa, I.C.; Fachín-Terán, A.; Duque, S.R. Hábitat, uso y estructura poblacional de las tortugas acuáticas Podocnemis unifilis y Podocnemis expansa (Testudines: Podocnemididae) en el resguardo Curare-Los Ingleses, La Pedrera, Amazonas, Colombia. Mundo Amaz. 2013, 4, 153–173. [Google Scholar]
  81. Martínez-Callejas, S.; Durán-Prieto, C.; Páez, V.P.; Trujillo, F.; Trujillo-Pérez, A. Podocnemis expansa Müller 1935. In Libro Rojo de Reptiles de Colombia (2015); Morales-Betancourt, M.A., Lasso, C.A., Páez, V.P., Bock, B.C., Eds.; Instituto de Investigación de Recursos Biológicos Alexander von Humboldt (IAvH): Bogotá, Colombia, 2015; pp. 132–136. Available online: https://www.minambiente.gov.co/documento-entidad/libro-rojo-de-reptiles-de-colombia/ (accessed on 1 July 2026).
  82. Valenzuela, N. Constant, shift, and natural temperature effects on sex determination in Podocnemis expansa turtles. Ecology 2001, 82, 3010–3024. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  83. von Hildebrand, P.; Bermúdez, N.; Peñuela, M.C. La Tortuga Charapa Podocnemis Expansa en el bajo Río Caquetá, Amazonas, Colombia. Aspectos de la Biología Reproductiva y Técnicas para su Manejo; Disloque Editores Ltd.a.: Bogotá, Colombia, 1997; 152p. [Google Scholar]
  84. Forero-Medina, G.; Ferrara, C.R.; Vogt, R.C.; Fagundes, C.K.; Balestra, R.A.M.; Andrade, P.C.M.; Lacava, R.; Bernhard, R.; Lipman, A.J.; Lenz, A.J.; et al. On the future of the giant South American river turtle Podocnemis expansa. Oryx 2021, 55, 73–80. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  85. Pearse, D.E.; Arndt, A.D.; Valenzuela, N.; Miller, B.A.; Cantarelli, V.; Sites, J.W., Jr. Estimating population structure under nonequilibrium conditions in a conservation context: Continent-wide population genetics of the giant Amazon river turtle, Podocnemis expansa (Chelonia; Podocnemididae). Mol. Ecol. 2006, 15, 985–1006. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  86. Páez, V.P.; Bock, B.C. Factores pre y poseclosión que afectan las tasas de crecimiento de juveniles de la tortuga tericay (Podocnemis unifilis). Actual. Biol. 2004, 26, 137–151. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  87. Bock, B.C.; Páez, V.P.; White, M.M. Genetic population structure of two threatened South American river turtle species, Podocnemis expansa and Podocnemis unifilis. Chelon. Cons. Biol. 2001, 4, 47–52. [Google Scholar]
  88. Cárdenas-Arévalo, G.; Gallego-García, N.; Castaño-Mora, O.V. Distribución, historia natural y estado de conservación de las tortugas continentales en el departamento de Córdoba, Colombia. In Homenaje a Federico Medem, Aportes a la Herpetología Colombiana; Ardila Robayo, M.C., Martínez Barreto, W., Eds.; Instituto de Ciencias Naturales, Universidad Nacional de Colombia: Bogotá, Colombia, 2019; pp. 99–120. [Google Scholar]
  89. Forero-Medina, G.; Cárdenas-Arevalo, G.; Castaño-Mora, O.V. Abundance, home range, and movement patterns of the endemic species Dahl’s Toad-Headed Turtle (Mesoclemmys dahli) in Cesar, Colombia. Chelon. Cons. Biol. 2011, 10, 228–236. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  90. Sampedro-Marín, A.; Tobíos-Atencio, P.; Trespalacio-Solana, T. Estado de conservación de la tortuga “Carranchina” (Batrachemys dahli) en localidades del departamento de Sucre, Colombia. Rev. Colomb. Cienc. Anim. 2012, 4, 69–88. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  91. Vargas-Ramírez, M.; Michels, J.; Castaño-Mora, O.V.; Cárdenas-Arevalo, G.; Gallego-García, N.; Fritz, U. Weak genetic divergence between the two South American toad-headed turtles Mesoclemmys dahli and M. zuliae (Testudines: Pleurodira: Chelidae). Amphibia-Reptilia 2012, 33, 373–385. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  92. Gallego-García, N.; Forero-Medina, G.; Vargas-Ramírez, M.; Caballero, S.; Shaffer, H.B. Landscape genomic signatures indicate reduced gene flow and forest-associated adaptive divergence in an endangered neotropical turtle. Mol. Ecol. 2019, 28, 2757–2771. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  93. Sepúlveda-Seguro, A.M.; Páez, V.P.; Gómez-Rincón, M.T.; Morales-Betancourt, M.A.; Lasso, C.A. Assessment of population characteristics and habitat use of Podocnemis vogli (Müller 1935) during a reproductive season at the Bojonawi Private Nature Reserve (Vichada Department, Colombia). Rev. Latinoamer. Herpetol. 2020, 3, 49–60. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  94. Páez, V.P.; Pérez, J.; Parra, F.; Bock, B.C. An approximation to the sex determination patterns in the Savanna Side-Necked Turtle Podocnemis vogli (Podocnemididae). Chelon. Cons. Biol. 2024, 22, 175–183. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  95. Ortiz-Moreno, M.L.; Rodríguez-Pulido, J.A. Estado del conocimiento y amenazas de la tortuga sabanera (Podocnemis vogli, Podocnemididae) en Colombia. Orinoquia 2017, 21, 26–33. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  96. González, L.P.; Pacheco, M.A.; Escalante, A.A.; Jiménez Maldonado, A.D.; Cepeda, A.S.; Rodríguez-Fandiño, O.A.; Vargas-Ramírez, M.; Matta, N.E. Haemocystidium spp., a species complex infecting ancient aquatic turtles of the family Podocnemididae: First report of these parasites in Podocnemis vogli from the Orinoquia. Intern. J. Parasit. Parasit. Wildl. 2019, 10, 299–309. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  97. Cadena, E.A.; Vanegas, R.D. A new fossil turtle ends the controversy on the occurrence of the extant genus Podocnemis Wagler, 1830 at the Miocene fauna of La Venta, Colombia. Geodiversitas 2023, 45, 127–138. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  98. Cárdenas-Barrantes, M.; Matta, N.E.; Rodríguez-Fandiño, O.A.; Fritz, U.; Vargas-Ramírez, M. Genetic structure and loss of genetic diversity in the savannah side-necked turtle Podocnemis vogli (Testudines: Podocnemididae). Chelon. Cons. Biol. 2024, 23, 92–102. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  99. Quintero-Corzo, A. Protocolo para el Monitoreo de la Tortuga Hicotea (Trachemys Callirostris Callirostris) en las Ciénagas de Bañó y Los Negros; Conservación Internacional Colombia: Bogotá, Colombia, 2012; 54p. [Google Scholar]
  100. Restrepo, A.; Piñeros, V.J.; Páez, V.P. Nest site selection by female Trachemys callirostris (Testudinata: Emydidae) in the Mompos Depression of Colombia. Chelon. Cons. Biol. 2006, 5, 249–254. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  101. Daza, J.M.; Páez, V.P. Morphometric variation and its effect on reproductive potential in female Colombian slider turtles (Trachemys callirostris callirostris). Herpetologica 2007, 63, 125–134. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  102. Bock, B.C.; Páez, V.P.; Daza, J.M. Trachemys callirostris (Gray 1856)—Colombian slider, jicotea, hicotea, galápago, morrocoy de agua. Chelon. Res. Monog. 2010, 5, 042.1–042.9. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  103. Restrepo, A.; Páez, V.P.; Bock, B.C.; Daza, J.M.; Díazgranados, I. Trachemys callirostris (Gray 1856). Cat. Anfibios Reptiles Colomb. 2014, 2, 7–12. [Google Scholar]
  104. Vargas-Ramírez, M.; del Valle, C.; Ceballos, C.P.; Fritz, U. Trachemys medemi n. sp. from northwestern Colombia turns the biogeography of South American slider turtles upside down. J. Zool. Syst. Evol. Res. 2017, 55, 326–339. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  105. Fritz, U.; Herrmann, H.W.; Rosen, P.C.; Auer, M.; Vargas-Ramírez, M.; Kehlmaier, C. Trachemys in Mexico and beyond: Beautiful turtles, taxonomic nightmare, and a mitochondrial poltergeist (Testudines: Emydidae). Vert. Zool. 2024, 74, 435–452. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  106. Cuesta, E.Y.; Cetre Mosquera, Z. Riqueza de quelonios y estructura poblacional de Rhinoclemmys melanosterna (Quelonia: Geoemididae) en Managrú, municipio de Cantón de San Pablo, Chocó, Colombia. Rev. Bioetnia 2018, 15, 23–35. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  107. Echeverri-Garcia, L.P.; Carr, J.L.; Garcés-Restrepo, M.F.; Galvis Rizo, C.A.; Giraldo, A. Rhinoclemmys melanosterna (Gray 1861). In V. Biología y Conservación de las Tortugas Continentales de Colombia. Serie Editorial Recursos Hidrobiológicos y Pesqueros Continentales de Colombia; Páez, V.P., Morales-Betancourt, M.A., Lasso, C.A., Castaño Mora, O.V., Bock, B.C., Eds.; Instituto de Investigación de Recursos Biológicos Alexander von Humboldt: Bogotá, Colombia, 2012; pp. 308–314. [Google Scholar]
  108. Páez, V.P.; Bock, B.C.; Cartagena-Otálvaro, V.M. Life history characteristics of the Colombian Wood Turtle, Rhinoclemmys melanosterna (Geoemydidae), in the middle Magdalena River, Colombia. Herpetol. Notes 2025, 18, 921–930. [Google Scholar]
  109. Dahl, G.; Medem, F. Los reptiles acuáticos de la hoya del Sinú. In Informe Sobre la Fauna Acuática del Río Sinú; Corporación Autónoma Regional de los Valles de la Magdalena y Sinú: Bogotá, Colombia, 1964; pp. 110–129. [Google Scholar]
  110. De la Ossa, V.J.; Pérez-Cordero, A.; Montes-Vergara, D. Subsistence hunting of Podocnemis Lewyana and Rhinoclemmys melanosterna (Testudines) in the region of the lowSan Jorge River, Caribbean, Colombia. Indian J. Sci. Technol. 2018, 11, 29. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  111. Vargas-Ramírez, M.; Carr, J.L.; Fritz, U. Complex phylogeography in Rhinoclemmys melanostera: Conflicting mitochondrial and nuclear evidence suggests past hybridization (Testudines: Geoemydidae). Zootaxa 2013, 3670, 238–254. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  112. Carr, J.L.; Giraldo, A.; Garcés-Restrepo, M.F. Rhinoclemmys nasuta. Cat. Anfibios Reptiles Colomb. 2017, 3, 43–49. [Google Scholar]
  113. Garcés-Restrepo, M.F.; Giraldo, A.; Carr, J.L. Variación demográfica temporal de la tortuga de río chocoana, Rhinoclemmys nasuta (Geoemydidae), en Isla Palma, Bahía Málaga, Pacífico del Valle del Cauca. Acta Biol. Colomb. 2014, 19, 489–497. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  114. Carr, J.L.; Giraldo, A.; Garcés-Restrepo, M.F. Rhinoclemmys nasuta (Boulenger 1902). In V. Biología y Conservación de las Tortugas Continentales de Colombia. Serie Editorial Recursos Hidrobiológicos y Pesqueros Continentales de Colombia; Páez, V.P., Morales-Betancourt, M.A., Lasso, C.A., Castaño Mora, O.V., Bock, B.C., Eds.; Instituto de Investigación de Recursos Biológicos Alexander von Humboldt: Bogotá, Colombia, 2012; pp. 315–322. [Google Scholar]
  115. Carr, J.L.; Giraldo, A. Rhinoclemmys nasuta (Boulenger 1902)—Large-nosed wood turtle, Chocoan river turtle. Chelon. Res. Monog. 2009, 5, 034.1–034.6. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  116. Carr, J.L.; Garcés-Restrepo, M.F.; Giraldo, A. Rhinoclemmys nasuta—(Boulenger, 1902). IUCN Red List Threat. Species 2009, in press. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  117. Garcés-Restrepo, M.F.; Carr, J.L.; Giraldo, A. Long-term variation in survival of a neotropical freshwater turtle: Habitat and climatic influences. Diversity 2019, 11, 97. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  118. Garcés-Restrepo, M.F.; Rivera-Domínguez, N.; Giraldo, A.; Carr, J.L. Reproductive aspects of the Chocoan River turtle (Rhinoclemmys nasuta, Geoemydidae) along the Colombian Pacific coast. Amphibia-Reptilia 2017, 38, 351–361. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  119. Castillo-Cutiva, L.A.; Giraldo, A.; Barreto, G. Diversidad genética en una población de Rhinoclemmys nasuta (Testudines: Geoemydidae) asociada a un ambiente insular del Chocó Biogeográfico. Acta Biol. Colomb. 2014, 19, 513–519. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  120. Ortiz, Y.C.; Restrepo, A.; Páez, V.P. Distribución potencial de Podocnemis lewyana (Reptilia: Podocnemididae) y su posible fluctuación bajo escenarios de cambio climático global. Acta Biol. Colomb. 2014, 19, 471–481. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  121. Páez, V.P.; Bock, B.C.; Espinal-García, P.A.; Rendón-Valencia, B.H.; Alzate-Estrada, D.; Cartagena-Otálvaro, V.M.; Heppell, S.S. Life history and demographic characteristics of the Magdalena River turtle (Podocnemis lewyana): Implications for management. Copeia 2015, 103, 1058–1074. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  122. Páez, V.P.; Bock, B.C.; Toro-Cardona, F.A.; Cartagena-Otálvaro, V.M. Lessons learned during a twelve-year monitoring project with the endangered Magdalena River turtle (Podocnemis lewyana): Hunting pressure, habitat degradation, and methodological considerations. Environ. Monit. Assess. 2024, 196, 862. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  123. Alzate-Estrada, D.A.; Páez., V.P.; Cartagena-Otálvaro, V.M.; Bock, B.C. Linear home range and seasonal movements of Podocnemis lewyana in the Magdalena River, Colombia. Copeia 2020, 108, 29–38. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  124. Páez, V.P.; Echeverri-Garcia, L.; Bock, B.C.; Bowden, R.M.; Hinestroza, L. Pre-ovulatory maternal effects on intra- and inter-population variation in sex ratios and phenotypic characteristics of the Magdalena River turtle (Podocnemis lewyana). Herpetologica 2015, 71, 196–202. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  125. Correa, H.J.C.; Cano-Castaño, A.M.; Páez, V.P.; Restrepo, A. Reproductive ecology of the Magdalena River turtle (Podocnemis lewyana) in the Mompos Depression, Colombia. Chelon. Cons. Biol. 2010, 9, 70–78. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  126. Bock, B.C.; Espinal-Garcia, P.A.; Silva-Macias, J.D.; Páez, V.P. Risk of nest flooding in a population of the Magdalena River turtle (Podocnemis lewyana) inhabiting the climatic equator in northern Colombia. S. Am. J. Herpet. 2021, 20, 92–99. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  127. Lenis, C.; Vélez, I. Digeneans in Trachemys callirrostris callirostris and Podocnemis lewyana (Testudinata) from the Magdalena River, Colombia: Description of Pseudonematophila n. gen. and amendment of Nematophila Travassos, 1934 (Cladorchiidae: Schizamphistominae). Zootaxa 2011, 3095, 49–62. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  128. Gallego-García, N.; Caballero, S.; Shaffer, H.B. Are genomic updates of well-studied species worth the investment for conservation? A case study of the critically endangered Magdalena river turtle. J. Hered. 2021, 112, 575–589. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  129. Cornejo-Páramo, P.; Lira-Noriega, A.; Ramírez-Suástegui, C.; Méndez-de-la-Cruz, F.R.; Székely, T.; Urrutia, A.O.; Cortez, D. Sex determination systems in reptiles are related to ambient temperature but not to the level of climatic fluctuation. BMC Evol. Biol. 2020, 20, 103. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  130. Mancini, G.; Santini, L.; Cazalis, V.; Ficetola, G.F.; Meiri, S.; Roll, U.; Silvestre, S.; Pincheira-Donoso, D.; Di Marco, M. Generation length of the world’s amphibians and reptiles. Ecography 2025, 7, e07527. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  131. Páez, V.P.; Gallego-García, N.; Restrepo, A. Podocnemis lewyana. IUCN Red List Threat. Species 2016, e.T17823A1528580. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  132. Ripple, W.J.; Wolf, C.; Newsome, T.M.; Hoffman, M.; Wirsing, A.J.; McCauley, D.J. Extinction risk is most acute for the world’s largest and smallest vertebrates. Proc. Nat. Acad. Sci. USA 2017, 114, 10678–10683. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  133. Murray, N.J.; Keith, D.A.; Bland, L.M.; Nicholson, E.; Regan, T.J.; Rodríguez, J.P.; Bedward, M. The use of range size to assess risks to biodiversity from stochastic threats. Divers. Distrib. 2017, 23, 474–483. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  134. Rhodin, A.G.J.; Thomson, S.; Georgalis, G.L.; Karl, H.-V.; Danilov, I.G.; Takahasi, A.; de la Fuente, M.S.; Bourque, J.R.; Delfino, M.; Bour, R.; et al. Turtles and tortoises of the world during the rise and global spread of humanity: First checklist and review of extinct Pleistocene and Holocene chelonians. Chelon. Res. Monog. 2015, 5, 000e.1–000e.66. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  135. Caputo, F.P.; Canestrelli, D.; Boitani, L. Conserving the terecay (Podocnemis unifilis, Testudines: Pelomedusidea) through a community-based sustainable harvest of its eggs. Biol. Cons. 2005, 126, 84–92. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  136. Bird, J.P.; Martin, R.; Reşit, H.; Akçakaya, R.; Gilroy, J.; Burfield, I.J.; Garnett, S.T.; Symes, A.; Taylor, J.; Gan, Ç.; et al. Generation lengths of the world’s birds and their implications for extinction risk. Conserv. Biol. 2020, 34, 1252–1261. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  137. Iverson, J.B. Estimating generation time in freshwater and terrestrial turtles. Herpet. Rev. 2023, 54, 546–549. [Google Scholar]
  138. Clerici, N.; Armenteras, D.; Kareiva, P.; Botero, R.; Ramírez-Delgado, J.P.; Forero-Medina, G.; Ochoa, J.; Pedraza, C.; Schneider, L.; Lora, C.; et al. Deforestation in Colombian protected areas increased during post-conflict periods. Sci. Rep. 2020, 10, 4971. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  139. Negret, P.J.; Maron, M.; Fuller, R.A.; Possingham, H.P.; Watson, J.E.M.; Simmonds, J.S. Deforestation and bird habitat loss in Colombia. Biol. Cons. 2021, 257, 109044. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  140. Tomiczek, T.; García Márquez, J.; Arlinghaus, R.; Domisch, S. The spatial discrepancy between Colombian freshwater fish suitable habitats and existing protected areas. Divers. Distrib. 2026, 32, e70168. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  141. Strayer, D.L.; Dudgeon, D. Freshwater biodiversity conservation: Recent progress and future challenges. J. N. Am. Benth. Soc. 2010, 29, 344–358. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  142. Morales-Betancourt, M.A.; Lasso, C.A.; Trujillo, F.; de La Ossa, J.; Forrero, G.; Páez, V.P. Amenazas a las poblaciones de tortugas continentales de Colombia. In V. Biología y Conservación de las Tortugas Continentales de Colombia. Serie Editorial Recursos Hidrobiológicos y Pesqueros Continentales de Colombia; Páez, V.P., Morales-Betancourt, M.A., Lasso, C.A., Castaño Mora, O.V., Bock, B.C., Eds.; Instituto de Investigación de Recursos Biológicos Alexander von Humboldt: Bogotá, Colombia, 2012; pp. 453–492. [Google Scholar]
  143. Garzón, N.V.; Gutiérrez, J.C. Deterioro de Humedales en el Magdalena Medio: Una llamada para su Conservación; Fundación Alma—Instituto de Recursos Biológicos Alexander von Humboldt: Bogotá, Colombia, 2013; 145p. [Google Scholar]
  144. UNEP (United Nations Environment Programme). Global Mercury Assessment; United Nationals Environment Programme: Geneva, Switzerland, 2002; pp. 102–112. Available online: https://www.unep.org/globalmercurypartnership/resources/report/global-mercury-assessment-2002 (accessed on 1 July 2025).
  145. Güiza, L.; Aristizabal, J.D. Mercury and gold mining in Colombia: A failed state. Univ. Sci. 2013, 18, 33–49. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  146. Zapata, L.M.; Bock, B.C.; Palacio, J.A. Mercury concentrations in tissues of Colombian slider turtles, Trachemys callirostris, from northern Colombia. Bull. Environ. Contam. Toxicol. 2014, 92, 562–566. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  147. Meza Martínez, M.; de la Ossa, J.; Hernández Gómez, J.; Marrugo Negrete, J. Mercurio total en hígado de Trachemys callirostris (Gray, 1856) (Testudines: Emydidae) en tres zonas de la Mojana, Sucre-Colombia. Rev. UDCA Actual. Divulg. Cient. 2020, 23, e1239. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  148. Zapata, L.M.; Bock, B.C.; Palacio, J.A. Podocnemis lewyana. Mercury levels. Herpet. Rev. 2014, 45, 141. [Google Scholar]
  149. Cuesta-Ríos, E.Y.; Valencia-Mazo, J.D.; Jiménez Ortega, A.M. Aprovechamiento de los vertebrados terrestres por una comunidad humana en bosques tropicales (Tutunendo, Chocó, Colombia). Rev. Inst. Univ. Tecnol. Chocó Investig. Biodiv. Desarr. 2007, 26, 37–43. [Google Scholar]
  150. Arroyave Bermúdez, F.J.; Romero Goyeneche, O.Y.; Bonilla Gómez, M.A.; Hurtado Heredia, R.G. Tráfico ilegal de tortugas continentales (Testudinata) en Colombia: Una aproximación desde el análisis de redes. Act. Biol. Colomb. 2014, 19, 381–391. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  151. Bonilla, M.A.; Luque, N.; Cuervo, M.A.; Pinzón, M.; Vásquez, E.A. Tortugas Terrestres y de Agua Dulce de Colombia y Manejo de los Decomisos; Ministerio de Ambiente y Desarollo Sostenible and Universidad Nacional de Colombia: Bogotá, Colombia, 2012; 100p.
  152. Bock, B.C. ¿Uso o desarrollo sostenible? ¿Hoy o mañana? Actual. Biol. 2003, 25, i–ii. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  153. Ramírez-Zamudio, N. Fines for illegal trade of wild fauna: A difficult to impose sanction in Colombia? Rev. Derecho 2022, 57, 133–134. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Diversity 18 00414 g001
Figure 1. Comparison of levels of knowledge on 17 topics related to the biology of non-marine turtle species in Colombia (* = topics that include some studies conducted on non-Colombian populations).
Figure 1. Comparison of levels of knowledge on 17 topics related to the biology of non-marine turtle species in Colombia (* = topics that include some studies conducted on non-Colombian populations).
Diversity 18 00414 g001
Diversity 18 00414 g002
Figure 2. Number of the 17 topics that have been studied for each of the 29 non-marine turtle species in Colombia.
Figure 2. Number of the 17 topics that have been studied for each of the 29 non-marine turtle species in Colombia.
Diversity 18 00414 g002
Diversity 18 00414 g003
Figure 3. (A) Log Area of Occupancy (AOO) vs. Threat level classification for each species; (B) Maximum body size vs. Threat level classification for each species. Each data points in the graph represents one species.
Figure 3. (A) Log Area of Occupancy (AOO) vs. Threat level classification for each species; (B) Maximum body size vs. Threat level classification for each species. Each data points in the graph represents one species.
Diversity 18 00414 g003
Table 1. Most recent (or complete) citation available on 17 different topics for Colombian populations for each of the 29 non-marine turtle species that occur there. The * indicates the two topics in which the requirement that evidence be obtained from Colombian populations was relaxed.
Table 1. Most recent (or complete) citation available on 17 different topics for Colombian populations for each of the 29 non-marine turtle species that occur there. The * indicates the two topics in which the requirement that evidence be obtained from Colombian populations was relaxed.
SpeciesGeographic rangePopulation size estimatesRelative density estimatesHome range estimatesHabitat requirementsBody growth ratesSize/age at first reproductionGeneration length/LongevityAnnual population growth/survival ratesSexual determination *No. clutches/female/seasonNo. eggs/clutchNo. of reproductive seasons/yearHuman induced threatsParasites, diseasesTaxonomic/Phylogenetic studies *Phylogeography/ESUs/MUs
Mesoclemmys wermuthi 18 19
Mesoclemmys gibba20 18 21
Phrynops geoffroanus20 18 22
Platemys platycephala20 18 22
Rhinoclemmys diademata23 24 24 25
Rhinoclemmys annulata26 26 26 262725
Chelus fimbriata28 29 30 31 3232
Kinosternon dunni20 33 343435 36
Podocnemis sextuberculata20 37 383838 39
Rhinemys rufipes20 40 18 414242 21
Chelydra acutirostris20 43 44 454546 25
Mesoclemmys raniceps 42 18 4142424221
Peltocephalus dumerilianus47 48 49 20 4949 47
Trachemys medemi50 50 50 51 52
Chelonoidis denticulatus20 53 54 18 555554 56
Kinosternon albogulare5757 57 575757 3659
Kinosternon scorpioides20 60 61 62 63603659
Podocnemis erythrocephala64 65 20 666667 2265
Chelonoidis carbonarius69 696869 70 717172 73
Kinosternon leucostomum74 75 76 77 78 79273636
Podocnemis expansa20 80 81 82 838384 2285
Podocnemis unifilis20 80 80 86 383838 2287
Chelus orinocensis5649 4949 4930 49 3232
Mesoclemmys dahli8889908990 18 4190 9192
Podocnemis vogli20 93 93 93 94 949395969798
Trachemys venusta callirostris209999 100 101 102 10110010310410573
Rhinoclemmys melanosterna20 106 107108108108 881091102711173
Rhinoclemmys nasuta11211327 114113115116117 118118782725119
Podocnemis lewyana120121122123121121121121121124 12512112612722128
Table 2. Ranking of Colombian non-marine turtle species, in terms of their conservation priorities.
Table 2. Ranking of Colombian non-marine turtle species, in terms of their conservation priorities.
SpeciesGlobal StatusConservation Status ScoreCriteria used to EvaluateColombia Status [8] AOOMax Size SCL cm and SexIncluded in CITESEndemismAdjusted Conservation Priority
Mesoclemmys dahliCR5A2c + 4c EN28,459F 29.7No51
Podocnemis lewyanaCR 5A2acd + 4acd CR66,926F 50II51
Trachemys medemiEN4A4cd NE12,113F 28.1No52
Kinosternon dunniEN4B2ab (ii, iii)VU26,484M 18II52
Rhinoclemmys diademataEN 4A2cde + 4cdeEN38,711F 28.5II03
Podocnemis expansaEN 4A2cd + 4cd CR1,706,101F 109II03
Podocnemis sextuberculataEN 4A2ad + 4cd DD614,881F 34II03
Chelonoidis carbonariusEN 4A2cd + 4cdeVU5,323,930M 59.3II03
Chelonoidis denticulatusEN 4A2bcd + 4bcdLC5,799,636M 82II03
Trachemys venusta callirostrisVU3A2bcd + 4cdeVU117,703F 33No04
Rhinoclemmys nasutaVU 3A2bcd + 4bcdNT83,24422.8II04
Peltocephalus dumerilianusVU 3A2cd + 4cd DD97,845M 50II04
Podocnemis erythrocephalaVU 3A2cd + 4cd VU432,578F 32.2II04
Podocnemis unifilisVU 3A2cd + 4bcdEN5,213,904F 50II04
Podocnemis vogliVU 3A2cd + 4cd LC364,561F 36.9II04
Chelydra acutirostrisNT 2A2bcd + 4bcd LC363,578M 42.7No05
Rhinoclemmys annulataNT2A2c + 4c LC302,983F 22.5II05
Rhinoclemmys melanosternaNT 2A2c + 4cdNT187,077F 30.4II05
Mesoclemmys wermuthiDD2 NE1,953,977F 33.8No05
Chelus fimbriataLC1 LC1,173,941F 43.7II06
Chelus orinocensisLC1 NE1,032,210F 52.6II06
Mesoclemmys gibbaLC1 LC4,445,462F 23.3No06
Mesoclemmys ranicepsLC1 DD3,434,777F 33.5No06
Phrynops geoffroanusLC1 LC3,407,292F 46.3No06
Platemys platycephalaLC1 LC5,283,733M 18No06
Rhinemys rufipesLC1 DD458,10725.6No06
Kinosternon albogulareLC1 VU126,189M 20.5II06
Kinosternon leucostomumLC1 LC65,773M 21.4II06
Kinosternon scorpioidesLC1 LC6,451,732F 19.5II06
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Páez, V.P.; Bock, B.C. Increased State of Knowledge and Extinction Risks of the Tortoise and Freshwater Turtles of Colombia. Diversity 2026, 18, 414. https://doi.org/10.3390/d18070414

AMA Style

Páez VP, Bock BC. Increased State of Knowledge and Extinction Risks of the Tortoise and Freshwater Turtles of Colombia. Diversity. 2026; 18(7):414. https://doi.org/10.3390/d18070414

Chicago/Turabian Style

Páez, Vivian P., and Brian C. Bock. 2026. "Increased State of Knowledge and Extinction Risks of the Tortoise and Freshwater Turtles of Colombia" Diversity 18, no. 7: 414. https://doi.org/10.3390/d18070414

APA Style

Páez, V. P., & Bock, B. C. (2026). Increased State of Knowledge and Extinction Risks of the Tortoise and Freshwater Turtles of Colombia. Diversity, 18(7), 414. https://doi.org/10.3390/d18070414

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Article metric data becomes available approximately 24 hours after publication online.
Back to TopTop