Author: Joel A. SchmutzPublisher:
ISBN:
Category : Wild turkey
Languages : en
Pages : 102
Book Description
Reproductive Performance and Habitat Use of Rio Grande Wild Turkeys
Author: Joel A. SchmutzPublisher:
ISBN:
Category : Wild turkey
Languages : en
Pages : 102
Book Description
Habitat Use and Productivity of Rio Grande Wild Turkey Hens in Southwestern Oregon
Author: Thomas Wright KeeganPublisher:
ISBN:
Category : Wild turkey
Languages : en
Pages : 162
Book Description
Rio Grande Wild Turkey Hen Habitat and Edge Use, Survival, and Reproductive Characteristics in the Texas Rolling Plains
Author: Amy Elizabeth Smith-BlairPublisher:
ISBN:
Category : Wild turkey
Languages : en
Pages : 118
Book Description
Seasonal Habitat Use by Female Rio Grande Wild Turkey in South Texas
Author: Cody W. LawsonPublisher:
ISBN:
Category : Wild turkey
Languages : en
Pages : 72
Book Description
Survival, Reproduction, Home Range, and Habitat Use of Translocated Eastern Wild Turkeys in the Wessington Hills, South Dakota
Author: Chad T. SwitzerPublisher:
ISBN:
Category : Wild turkey
Languages : en
Pages : 48
Book Description
Reproductive Ecology and Habitat Use of Female Wild Turkeys in Waldo County, Maine
Author: Beatrix Elisabeth TreitererPublisher:
ISBN:
Category : Wild turkey
Languages : en
Pages : 142
Book Description
Nesting Ecology of Rio Grande Wild Turkeys in the Edwards Plateau of Texas
Author: Justin Zachary DreibelbisPublisher:
ISBN:
Category :
Languages : en
Pages :
Book Description
Rio Grande wild turkey (Meleagris gallopavo intermedia) numbers in the southeastern region of the Edwards Plateau (EP) have shown a significant decline since the 1970s; however, the remainder of the EP had stable populations during this period. Since 2001, research has been conducted in the southeastern EP evaluating factors which could be responsible for the decline of Rio Grande turkeys in this region of Texas. I used digital cameras to evaluate the effect of nest predation on the reproductive success of Rio Grande wild turkeys in the region. Nest predation was the leading cause of nest loss in my study and I documented frequent predation events involving 9́Æ1 predator species. While studying nest predation, I examined the effects of my methods, and those commonly used by others, on nest success. Nests with cameras failed at the same frequency as those without cameras but at a faster rate. Predation rates observed for artificial nests underestimated predation rates of real nests. Additionally, I photographed known turkey nest predators at 27% of random points with no eggs, suggesting that nest predation could be a random process depending on the nest predator0́9s unique search image. I also examined the spatial structure of the habitat surrounding nest locations of turkeys on my study sites to evaluate the effect of disturbance on nest-site selection. Out of 59 nests located on the Kerr Wildlife Management Area from 2005 through 2007, only 5 were in areas that had not been burned in the 9 years prior. Turkeys in my study consistently chose areas characteristic of the fire maintained, oak0́3juniper savanna historically found in the region.
Reproductive Ecology of Rio Grande Wild Turkeys in South Central Kansas
Author: Daniel Joseph BufordPublisher:
ISBN:
Category : Turkeys
Languages : en
Pages : 120
Book Description
Reproductive Ecology and Habitat Use of Wild Turkeys in Pine Plantations in the Coastal Plain of South Carolina
Author: Haven Roy BarnhillSurvival, Home Range Size, Habitat Selection, and Reproductive Ecology of Eastern Wild Turkeys in East Texas
Author: Jason Leo IsabellePublisher:
ISBN:
Category :
Languages : en
Pages : 630
Book Description
Historically, eastern wild turkeys (Meleagris gallopavo silvestris) occupied an estimated 12 million ha in east Texas, but overharvesting of both turkeys and timber led to their near extirpation from the region by 1900. Despite >70 years of restoration efforts, including translocation of >7,000 wild-captured eastern turkeys from >10 states since the late 1970s, estimated east Texas turkey densities remain low. Moreover, regional research has reported poor reproductive performance of translocated turkeys, heightening concerns regarding long-term stability, expansion, and permanence of turkey populations in east Texas. Although previous restoration attempts have involved traditional block-stocking and supplemental-stocking approaches (i.e., release of 15--20 turkeys per site), the use of larger release sizes (i.e., 'super-stocking'; 70 turkeys per site), may be more successful. During 2007 and 2008, 37 resident female turkeys were captured at two sites within the region, fitted with transmitters, and released at respective capture sites. An additional 347 eastern wild turkeys were captured in South Carolina and Tennessee and translocated to four sites in east Texas to evaluate the effectiveness of super-stocking in regional turkey restoration. Prior to release, 178 (115 females/63 males) turkeys were fitted with radio-transmitters and divided among sites; release sizes varied from 83--94, with approximately 45 transmittered turkeys per site. Specifically, the objectives of this research were to quantify survival, home range size, habitat selection, and reproductive ecology of both resident and translocated wild turkeys. Annual survival of resident female turkeys ranged between 0.38--0.68. Annual survival of translocated turkeys during the release year ranged from 0.55--0.71 (x̄ = 0.63) and from 0.73--1.00 (x¯ = 0.85) among sites for female and male turkeys, respectively. Female survival tended to increase in the second year following release (range: 0.63--0.82; x¯ = 0.73), while male survival tended to decrease (range: 0.47--0.66; x¯ = 0.54). Most mortality of resident and translocated females occurred during spring; male mortality was nearly evenly distributed throughout the annual cycle. Resident turkey home ranges averaged 1,146 ha in spring and mean summer home range size ranged from 628--1,118 ha between sites. Spring home ranges of translocated turkeys (x¯ = 901 ha) were larger than summer (x¯ = 443 ha), and female (x¯ = 846 ha) and male (x¯ = 498 ha) home range sizes were similar. Burned and/or thinned pine forests, mixed forests, and herbaceous openings were preferred spring and summer habitats, whereas pre-thin pine forests and forested wetlands were used less frequently by both resident and translocated turkeys. Twenty-five and 74 nests were initiated by resident and translocated hens, respectively. Nesting and renesting rates of resident hens averaged 0.66 and 0.29, respectively. Nesting rates of translocated turkeys varied substantially (range: 0.15--0.77) among sites during the release year, but tended to increase the year following release (range: 0.69--0.92). Renesting rates of translocated hens were considerably lower, averaging 0.21 across sites and years. Most nests of resident and translocated hens were located in thinned and/or burned pine forests, with nests generally having greater ground/screening cover and greater living woody vegetation (%)