Survival, Home Range Size, Habitat Selection, and Reproductive Ecology of Eastern Wild Turkeys in East Texas PDF Download
Are you looking for read ebook online? Search for your book and save it on your Kindle device, PC, phones or tablets. Download Survival, Home Range Size, Habitat Selection, and Reproductive Ecology of Eastern Wild Turkeys in East Texas PDF full book. Access full book title Survival, Home Range Size, Habitat Selection, and Reproductive Ecology of Eastern Wild Turkeys in East Texas by Jason Leo Isabelle. Download full books in PDF and EPUB format.
Author: Jason Leo Isabelle Publisher: 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 (%)
Author: Jason Leo Isabelle Publisher: 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 (%)
Author: William P. Kuvlesky Publisher: Texas A&M University Press ISBN: 1623498562 Category : Nature Languages : en Pages : 396
Book Description
The wild turkey is an iconic game bird with a long history of association with humans. Texas boasts the largest wild turkey population in the country. It is the only state where one can find native populations of three of the five subspecies of wild turkeys—the Eastern wild turkey (Meleagris gallopavo silvestris), the Rio Grande wild turkey (M. g. intermedia), and the Merriam’s wild turkey (M. g. merriami). Bringing together experts on game birds and land management in the state, this is the first book in Texas to synthesize the most current information about ecology and management focused exclusively on these three subspecies. Wild Turkeys in Texas addresses important aspects of wild turkey ecology and management in Texas, but its principles are applicable anywhere Eastern, Rio Grande, or Merriam’s turkeys exist. This book marks the continuation of one of the biggest success stories in the research, restoration, and management of the wild turkey in North America.
Author: Eric Ludwig Publisher: ISBN: Category : Eastern wild turkey Languages : en Pages :
Book Description
With the increase popularity in turkey hunting in the State of Delaware and the increase in turkey numbers since 1984, the state of Delaware and the university of Delaware started a project to investigate the reproduction success of Eastern wild turkey hens (Melagris gallopavo silvestris). I captured 106 turkeys using rocket nets and placed backpack transmitters on 76 hens in December 2009-March 2010 and December 2010-March 2011. I classified each bird as adult or juvenile, marked them with unique bands and placed transmitters on hens weighing>3.4 kg (>7.5lbs). To estimate survival, I took locations from fixed ground telemetry stations 3-7 times a week. The estimated survival rate of adult hens in 2010 was 0.47(SE=0.09), which was 0.21 less than the 2011 survival rate of 0.68 (SE=0.07; X 2 1 = 2.82, P = 0.093). Predation accounted for 87.1% (n = 27) of the moralities with foxes being attributed to most predation events (85.2%, n =23). Most mortalities (61.3%, n=19) occurred during the nesting season (15 April-15 June). The variation in annual survival justifies the need for continued monitoring of this population. Nest success has been found to be an important factor in overall population success. Nesting habitat variables and landscape variables have been studied before with a wide range of what hens select for a nest and what habitat variables effect nest success. I placed 76 transmitters on hens, and used telemetry to determine nesting times and locations from fixed ground stations. I walked in on nest locations to find an exact position, and used telemetry location to estimate other nest sites, creating 2 nest data sets. I sampled 68 nests (2010, n = 27; 2011, n = 41) from 61 hens during the 2010 and 2011. Nest initiation date ranged from 23 April-28 June with most (80%) occurring the first week of May. Most (89%) hatching occurred during the first week of June with a range of 30 May-18 June. The average number of eggs per nests was 8.2 (SE = 0.635). Most nests (75.4%) failed, and I documented hen mortality (30.9%), unknown fate (39.1%), and predation (4%) as causes of nest failure. The estimated probability of daily nest failure was 0.046 (SE = 0.006) and estimated probability of nest failure after 28 days was 0.731 (SE = 0.049). The probability of nest failure increased with increasing distance from the nearest edge, road, and stream. Ground cover was the most important microhabitat variable for nest site selection, which was 40% greater than random plots. Hens selected nests that were closer to roads but farther from edges and streams than random points based on landscape variables. Hen nesting success needs further monitoring to fully understand nesting success on the population. Roost site habitat is an important factor allowing hens a place to avoid predation and thermoregulation during the night. I estimated roost site location by taking at least 2 roost site locations after night fall using telemetry equipment from fixed ground stations. I used ArcGIS to analyze distances from buildings, edge, roads, and streams. I paired these locations with a randomly selected point in the same habitat type. I had 678 roost site locations. Distance to the nearest had the great influence on roost site selection (Table 7). Roost site were 20m farther from roads than random points, whereas distance to nearest edge and stream were similar for roost sites and random points. Protection of large tracts will ensure the quality roost habitat. Poult survival is another important factor affecting population growth. Poult survival shows managers the recruitment into the population. I used telemetry to find nest and then track successful hens. I used flush counts and lost poult calls inorder to see the hens and associated poults. I investigated poult survival from 76 collared hens. I used the 16 (2010, n = 8; 2011, n = 8) successful nests from these hens to estimate poult survival. I estimated poult survival as 0.343. and 0.525 for 2010 and 2011, respectively. My annual average poult survival was 0.434. Poult survival was excellent in Delaware and attributes to a healthy turkey population Home ranges encompass the area that is used by a turkey. This home range estimate can be used to ascertain if there is quality habitat in the area that birds use. The larger the home range could potentially mean the inferior habitat. I collected telemetry location 13 times a month from fixed ground stations. Home ranges did not differ for adult hens among seasons (50%, F3,121=0.68, P=0.565; 95%, F3,121=0.95, P=0.417) or between years (50%, F1,121=1.43, P=0.234; 95%, F1,121=1.27, P=0.263). The adult hen home range size ranged 346-971 ha and 2039-7595 ha for 50% and 95% distributions, respectively. I had too few juvenile birds to test difference in seasonal and annual home range sizes. Juveniles had larger home ranges than hens in all seasons expect the fall. Home ranges in Delaware are similar in size and suggest that there were adequate food sources to support the turkey population. Overall analyzing all aspects of reproduction in hens in Delaware, the population is stable. Nesting success clutch size and survival were all low compared to other studies; however poult survival was much greater than in other studies. The poult survival was compensating for the other deficiencies in reproduction among hens.
Author: Daniel Joseph Sullivan (Jr.) Publisher: ISBN: Category : Languages : en Pages : 406
Book Description
Eastern wild turkey restoration efforts in east Texas have been extensive since the early 1940's. However, restoration efforts have yielded mixed success, resulting in fragmented turkey populations across east Texas. In recent years, the primary objective of restoration has been to reconnect and supplement fragmented populations through continued use of translocation. Translocation is the process where an animal is captured in its current endemic habitat, transported, and then released into a new landscape. Restoration success is dependent on the ability of translocated wild turkeys to adapt and survive in this new landscape. Individual adaptation and survival are influenced by a suite of confounding biotic and abiotic factors (e.g., habitat types and availability, presence of conspecifics, reproduction, spatial structure, prescribed fire). This study investigated how these factors influenced translocation success of eastern wild turkeys. Furthermore, because restoration success is also dependent on fitness, and because translocation may influence reproduction, this study assessed reproductive ecology of translocated eastern wild turkeys. Therefore, results of this study increase our theoretical and applied knowledge of translocation and reproductive ecology of eastern wild turkeys in east Texas.
Author: Jeremy Daniel Wood Publisher: ISBN: Category : Languages : en Pages : 238
Book Description
Longleaf pine (Pinus palustris) forests rely on frequent prescribed fire, but how prescribed fire influences habitat selection, and nest and brood survival of eastern wild turkeys (Meleagris gallopavo silvestris; turkeys) is poorly understood. I captured 63 female turkeys during 2015-2016 and used GPS transmitters to document reproductive chronology, movement, and habitat selection during the reproductive period. I found that increased patch diversity increased nest survival, whereas proximity to stands burned 3 growing seasons prior reduced brood survival. Females selected hardwood stands during pre-nesting and post-nesting phases, open vegetation communities during all phases except pre-nesting, and used pine stands regardless of fire return interval throughout the reproductive period. I suggest managers focus on creating a mosaic of pine seral stages, intermixed with open and hardwood vegetation communities, while applying frequent prescribed fire (1-3 years) to create understory conditions selected by turkeys for foraging and concealment year-round.
Author: Kenneth Scott Delahunt Publisher: ISBN: Category : Languages : en Pages : 174
Book Description
Most research on eastern wild turkeys (Meleagris gallopavo silvestris) has occurred in extensively forested habitats atypical of midwestern landscapes. This study focused on the ecology of female wild turkeys in a portion of southern Illinois consisting of an agricultural matrix interspersed with forest, and grassland cover types. This research provides vital information for turkey populations and describes key habitat variables affecting turkey nest site selection and success. Wildlife managers can use this information to improve turkey populations in the Midwest.
Author: Haemish Ian Melville Publisher: ISBN: Category : Languages : en Pages :
Book Description
Early in the 20th century wild turkeys (Meleagris gallopavo) in North America were on the brink of extinction. Conservation and reintroduction efforts ensured that this species recovered throughout most of its historic range. Efforts to reintroduce eastern wild turkeys (Meleagris gallopavo sylvestris) to the Pineywoods of east Texas have achieved limited success. Previous research suggested that predation may have confounded this reintroduction. My aim was to quantify the influence of mesopredators on the wild turkey population in the Pineywoods. Raccoons (Procyon lotor), bobcats (Lynx rufus) and coyotes (Canis latrans) occur sympatrically in east Texas and are thought to prey on wild turkeys, their nests and poults. I fitted bobcats, coyotes and raccoons with both GPS and VHF collars and used location data and GIS applications to estimate home ranges, home range overlap and habitat selection for these mesopredators. I used scat analysis to determine diet of mesopredators and to establish whether they preyed on wild turkeys. I used capture mark recapture (CMR) techniques to investigate small mammal population dynamics at annual and seasonal bases. I used spotlight counts and track plates to assess seasonal relative abundance of eastern cottontail rabbits (Sylvilagus floridana). I used artificial nests to identify likely nest predators of wild turkey nests. I found that mesopredators in the Pineywoods had larger home ranges than elsewhere in the Southeast. Bobcat and coyote home ranges varied seasonally, being largest in fall. Raccoon home ranges did not vary seasonally. Bobcats and coyotes shared space more than did raccoons with bobcats or coyotes. There was differential habitat selection between species, but mature pine and young pine were important to the mesopredators and as nesting habitat for eastern wild turkeys. I found no evidence of wild turkey remains in scat samples. White tailed deer (Odocoileus virginianus), lagomorphs and small mammals occurred in the diets of all three mesopredators. Small mammal numbers varied seasonally, declining from spring to summer, in synchrony with mesopredator diet diversification, and wild turkey nesting and brood rearing. Lagomorph abundance did not vary seasonally. Bobcats were predominantly carnivorous while coyotes and raccoons were omnivorous, consuming seasonal fruit and insects. American crows (Corvus brachyrhynchos) and raccoons were the primary artificial nest predators. Crows depredated most artificial nests, except in summer, when raccoons depredated the most nests. I concluded that the impact of mesopredators on wild turkeys was not as severe as suggested by previous research. I suggest a combination of video monitoring live wild turkey nests to identify nest predators, improvement of nesting habitat to reduce mesopredator / wild turkey nest encounters, and a program of conditioned taste aversion to reduce any nest predation by mesopredators and crows. The electronic version of this dissertation is accessible from http://hdl.handle.net/1969.1/148361
Author: Jason Leo Isabelle
Author: Jason Leo Isabelle
Author: William P. Kuvlesky
Author: Chad T. Switzer
Author: Eric Ludwig
Author: Daniel Joseph Sullivan (Jr.)
Author: Anthony P. Leif
Author: Jeremy Daniel Wood
Author: Derrick Philip Holdstock
Author: Kenneth Scott Delahunt
Author: Haemish Ian Melville