by Nicolette L. Cagle, Ph.D., May 20, 2026
In the last post, I explored the early Western scientific descriptions of the Eastern, or Woodland, Box Turtle (Terrapene carolina carolina): a turtle that early naturalists struggled to name, classify, and even describe, but repeatedly recognized for its most remarkable feature: the ability to close itself away inside its own shell. In this post, we move from the turtle’s body to the landscape around it. Here, we review what the Western scientific literature has found about Eastern Box Turtle movement and home range, and we find that the life of a box turtle is far more spatially complex than its reputation as a slow mover would suggest.
Western scientists have been studying Eastern Box Turtle movement for a long time. Lucille Stickel’s foundational 1950 study in Maryland remains one of the earliest and most important works on Eastern Box Turtle populations and home ranges (Stickel, 1950). A few decades later, Stephen Porter Hall’s 1987 dissertation at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill used detailed spool-trailing methods to examine the actual routes traveled by free-ranging Eastern Box Turtles in the North Carolina Piedmont (Hall, 1987). Hall’s work is especially helpful because it asks us not just where turtles are found, but how their movements are organized through time and space. His conclusion complements and adds nuance to the larger literature: Eastern Box Turtle movement is not random wandering, but a complex mixture of spatial memory, search, orientation, individual difference, and response to local habitat (Hall, 1987).
To understand this work, it helps to begin with a few terms. A home range is the area an animal uses repeatedly for ordinary life activities such as feeding, resting, mating, nesting, thermoregulating, and overwintering. It is not usually defended like a territory. In box turtles, it is better imagined as a large-scale, familiar living area: a remembered set of paths, refuges, and seasonal destinations. Researchers estimate home range in different ways. A minimum convex polygon, or MCP, draws the smallest possible polygon around all recorded locations. A kernel density estimate, or KDE, estimates areas of more and less intense use; a 95% KDE approximates the broader activity area, while a 50% KDE often represents the “core area,” or most heavily used portion of the home range. These methods matter because different tools can produce different size estimates for the same turtle’s world.
A Familiar Home
Across the scientific literature, Eastern Box Turtle home ranges are usually small enough to show strong site fidelity, but variable enough to resist any single easy number. In Stickel’s early Maryland work, adult female home-range length averaged 370 ft ± 29 SE, and she found no significant difference between male and female range size (Stickel, 1950).
Later studies using radio telemetry showed home ranges ranging from under 1 ha to more than 100 ha, depending on region, method, tracking intensity, landscape context, and individual behavior. In eastern Tennessee, Donaldson and Echternacht (2005) found average home ranges of 1.88 ± 0.49 ha using MCP and 2.26 ± 0.76 ha using 95% fixed kernel analysis. In the North Carolina Piedmont, Kapfer et al. (2013) reported an overall average home range of 2.68 ha using 100% MCP, with males averaging 4.3 ha and females 1.3 ha, as summarized in later comparative work (Kapfer et al., 2013; Jones et al., 2026). In southwestern Georgia longleaf pine habitat, Greenspan et al. (2015) found much larger and more variable 95% MCP home ranges, averaging 10.33 ± 3.33 SE ha, with a range of 0.33–54.37 ha; when two unusually wide-ranging individuals were excluded, the mean dropped to 5.87 ± 1.36 SE ha (Greenspan et al., 2015).
Recent studies continue to show this variability. In Tennessee, Harris et al. (2020) reported an average 100% MCP home range of 9.30 ± 3.00 SE ha, a 95% KDE of 8.25 ± 2.88 SE ha, and a 50% KDE core area of 1.50 ± 0.56 SE ha. In Connecticut, Quinn (2008) found intermediate home-range estimates across two trap-rock ridge sites, with 14 radio-tracked adults averaging 4.97 ha and ranging from 0.99 to 16.2 ha; females averaged 4.00 ha and males averaged 6.74 ha. In North Carolina, Roe et al. (2020) found site- and sex-specific differences: at Lumber River, females averaged 17.3 ± 4.2 SE ha MCP and males 9.1 ± 2.9 SE ha MCP, while at Weymouth Woods females averaged 9.5 ± 1.4 SE ha MCP and males 4.7 ± 0.8 SE ha MCP. In a South Carolina managed landscape, Grant (2024) found smaller average home ranges, with females averaging 2.07 ± 2.76 SD ha and males 1.49 ± 1.97 SD ha.
As a whole, these studies suggest that Eastern Box Turtles usually maintain recognizable home areas, but the size of those areas depends on the turtle, the landscape, the season, and the way researchers measure space.
Sex, Nesting, & the Shape of Movement
Sex matters, especially when females make nesting movements, influencing timing and distance of travel across the landscape and varying with habitat. As an example, Roe et al. (2020) found that females used areas about twice as large as males at both North Carolina study sites, with sex significantly affecting both 95% KDE and MCP home-range estimates. Harris et al. (2020) documented six females making abrupt linear nesting excursions and an additional 12 females making annual movements up to 1.26 km from core home ranges, likely related to unobserved nesting since those females often followed the same travel paths in successive years.
But sex effects are not universal. Stickel (1950) found no significant difference between male and female range sizes at Patuxent. Harris et al. (2020) reported that movement rates and home ranges did not differ between males and females in their Tennessee dataset. While Grant (2024) also found no statistically significant difference in home-range size between males and females in South Carolina.
While female Eastern Box Turtles may require expanded or more complex landscapes during nesting season, the strength of this pattern in the Western scientific corpus depends on the site, sample size, study design, and simply whether nesting movements were captured during tracking.
Short walks and Long Shots
Eastern Box Turtles often move short distances in a day, but occasional long excursions can dramatically change how we understand their spatial needs. Exemplifying studies showing short movements, Harris et al. (2020) reported an overall active-season average daily movement of 11 ± 0.21 m/day across Tennessee sites, with site-specific means of 13 ± 1.0 m/day, 9 ± 0.6 m/day, and 10 ± 0.6 m/day. Adding nuance to this, Roe et al. (2020) found that movement rates differed by month, sex, body size, and the sex × month interaction, increasing from spring to summer, peaking in July, and declining into fall.
Some individuals move much farther. Greenspan et al. (2015) documented one male moving 1,913 m over 8 days and later returning 1,757 m over 2 days; one female moved at least 553 m over 3 days. Harris et al. (2020) documented one adult male making a linear movement of 3.46 km from its core home range, which inflated the study’s mean MCP estimate by 2.74 ha; excluding that outlier reduced the average MCP to 6.6 ha. In fragmented Delaware landscapes, Iglay et al. (2007) found that turtles in isolated areas moved less than turtles in more continuous habitat, with movements also varying by season and sex-related life-history context.
These movements remind us that a box turtle’s life is not measured only by daily step count. Some important movements are seasonal and directional: a female going to a nesting site, a turtle heading to water, a male searching for mates, or an individual following a remembered route across a landscape that may now be cut by roads or development.
Methods Matter
Methods matter in movement studies; how we study turtles changes how we see them. Liles et al. (2025) point out that T. c. carolina MCP home ranges generally average 2–9 ha, but reported individual home ranges range from 0.21 ha to 113 ha, while mean daily movement estimates range from 8.6 m/day to 24.0 m/day across studies. How we report the data, i.e., as an average or a range, can shift our understanding of box turtle ecology. Liles and colleagues also emphasize that many box turtle studies track individuals only 1–3 times per week, every 7–10 days, or monthly, while few studies use daily or near-daily tracking.
A broader synthesis by Habeck et al. (2020) reinforces this methodological caution. Reviewing decades of box turtle home-range studies, they found that reported home-range sizes vary not only because turtles differ by species, sex, region, and habitat, but also because researchers use different analytical methods. Minimum convex polygons, kernel estimates, tracking intervals, study duration, and sample size can all shape the apparent size and structure of a turtle’s home. This matters because a home range estimate can look deceptively precise while still being partly an artifact of method. For Eastern Box Turtles, the scientific literature now shows both a biological pattern and a methodological warning: turtles have familiar home areas, but our measurements of those homes depend heavily on how patiently, how frequently, and how closely we follow them.
Hall (1987) deserves special mention here because his entire dissertation was, in many ways, an argument that traditional home-range methods were not enough. He emphasized that continuous tracking methods, including radio telemetry and spool-trailing, can show how movements are organized in time as well as in space, but that earlier methods often lacked the analytical tools needed to interpret long sequences of movement. Using Eastern Box Turtles as his test case, he argued that their routes reveal a complex mixture of spatial constraints, orientation, search, and individual variation.
Marchand et al. (2004) also give a clear example of how methods shape what researchers see. Using thread-trailing, they showed that a turtle may travel much farther than a simple straight-line distance suggests. One female moved 99.5 m in total thread length during a one-day sample, but ended within only 5 m straight-line distance of her release location. The authors caution that re-sightings or telemetry points separated by long intervals represent only minimum distances traveled and may miss both daily movement complexity and seasonal shifts.
That means home range is not only a property of the turtle. It is also a property of the study. A turtle tracked once a week may seem to operate in a cleaner, simpler world than a turtle tracked every day. A short study may miss nesting excursions, drought movements, temporary pond use, or repeated routes. The more closely we look, the more complex the box becomes.
The Turtle’s Remembered Map
The Eastern Box Turtle carries its box on its back, but its life depends on what lies beyond the shell. A box turtle’s home is not simply a patch of woods. It is a map of remembered places: a shaded refuge, a nesting route, a damp hollow, a temporary pond, a winter shelter, a familiar log, a corridor traveled year after year.
This first part of the movement story shows us that Eastern Box Turtles are not aimless wanderers. They know and use their landscapes in patterned ways. They return. They detour. They search. They remember. And in a world increasingly divided by roads, lawns, fields, subdivisions, and fences, those remembered routes matter.
In the next post, we will explore those details and review what the Western scientific literature has found about Eastern Box Turtle habitat use, microhabitat selection, moisture, temperature, and overwintering.
References
Donaldson, B. M., & Echternacht, A. C. (2005). Aquatic habitat use relative to home range and seasonal movement of Eastern Box Turtles (Terrapene carolina carolina: Emydidae) in eastern Tennessee. Journal of Herpetology, 39(2), 278–284. https://doi.org/10.1670/0022-1511(2005)039%5B0278:AHURTH%5D2.0.CO;2
Grant, S. (2024). Effects of different land-use types on the space use of the Woodland Box Turtle [Master’s thesis, Winthrop University].
Greenspan, S. E., Condon, E. P., & Smith, L. L. (2015). Home range and habitat selection in the Eastern Box Turtle (Terrapene carolina carolina) in a longleaf pine (Pinus palustris) reserve. Herpetological Conservation and Biology, 10(1), 99–111.
Habeck CW, Figueras MP, Deo JE, Burke RL. 2020. A surfeit of studies: what have we learned from all the box turtle (Terrapene carolina and T. ornata) home range studies? Diversity. 12(2):68. https://doi.org/10.3390/d12020068
Hall, S. P. (1987). The movement patterns of free-ranging animals: New theory and methods of study illustrated by comparisons of the routes of travel associated with residency, transiency and experimental displacement in a population of eastern box turtles (Terrapene c. carolina) [Doctoral dissertation, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill]. ProQuest Dissertations & Theses.
Harris, K. A., Clark, J. D., Elmore, R. D., & Harper, C. A. (2020). Spatial ecology and resource selection of Eastern Box Turtles. The Journal of Wildlife Management, 84(8), 1590–1600. https://doi.org/10.1002/jwmg.21945
Iglay, R. B., Bowman, J. L., & Nazdrowicz, N. H. (2007). Eastern Box Turtle (Terrapene carolina carolina) movements in a fragmented landscape. Journal of Herpetology, 41(1), 102–106. https://doi.org/10.1670/0022-1511(2007)41%5B102:EBTTCC%5D2.0.CO;2
Jones, M. D., Ferebee, K. B., Ford, W. M., & Hunter, E. A. (2026). Boxed in or branching out? Movement and resource selection of eastern box turtles (Terrapene carolina carolina) in an urban green space. Urban Ecosystems, 29, Article 72. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11252-026-01938-0
Kapfer, J. M., Muñoz, D. J., Groves, J. D., & Kirk, R. W. (2013). Home range and habitat preferences of Eastern Box Turtles (Terrapene carolina Linnaeus, 1758) in the Piedmont Ecological Province of North Carolina (USA). Herpetology Notes, 6, 251–260.
Liles, K. E., Barajas-Salazar, K., & Mali, I. (2025). Using high-resolution radiotracking to improve inference about the spatial ecology of small, slow-moving ectotherms. Ecology and Evolution, 15, e72137. https://doi.org/10.1002/ece3.72137
Marchand, M. N., Quinlan, M. M., & Swarth, C. W. (2004). Movement patterns and habitat use of Eastern Box Turtles at the Jug Bay Wetlands Sanctuary, Maryland. In C. W. Swarth, W. M. Roosenburg, & E. Kiviat (Eds.), Conservation and ecology of turtles of the Mid-Atlantic Region (pp. 55–62). Bibliomania.
Quinn, D. P. (2008). A radio-telemetric study of the Eastern Box Turtle (Terrapene carolina carolina): Home-range, habitat use, and hibernacula selection in Connecticut [Master’s thesis, Central Connecticut State University].
Roe, J. H., Kish, A. L., & Nacy, J. P. (2020). Variation and repeatability of home range in a forest-dwelling terrestrial turtle: Implications for prescribed fire in forest management. Journal of Zoology, 310(1), 71–82. https://doi.org/10.1111/jzo.12732Stickel, L. F. (1950). Populations and home range relationships of the box turtle, Terrapene c. carolina (Linnaeus). Ecological Monographs, 20(4), 351–378. https://doi.org/10.2307/1943570
Sense of Place 
Leave a comment