Abnormal Eggs of Rio Grande Wild Turkeys on the Edwards Plateau, Texas

Melton, Kyle B.; Dreibelbis, Justin Z.; Aguirre, Ray; Collier, Bret A.; Schwertner, T. Wayne; Peterson, Markus J.; Silvy, Nova J.

doi:10.1676/07-037.1

Cited by 2 publications

(12 citation statements)

References 39 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…) with the bulk of nesting occurring in April through June (Melton et al. ). More importantly, our results provide no evidence that females search for and locate sites where their future nests occur during the prenesting period, as suggested by Badyaev et al.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…For instance, our sample of Eastern wild turkeys existed on a landscape managed with extensive use (32,602 ha) of prescribed fires during the reproductive season (18-22% of the available landscape). Likewise, our sample of Rio Grande wild turkeys existed on a landscape driven by a drought-precipitation cycle occurring typically in March and April (Collier et al 2009) with the bulk of nesting occurring in April through June (Melton et al 2011). More importantly, our results provide no evidence that females search for and locate sites where their future nests occur during the prenesting period, as suggested by and Chamberlain and Leopold (2000).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Upon suspected incubation, we located the general area of each nest site (visually locating without flushing) and continued to monitor the nesting female daily without disturbing the nest site to reduce researcher‐induced abandonment (Melton et al. ) until nest success or failure. We classified nest fate for our analysis as apparent success (i.e., hatching of ≥1 egg and locating a female with a brood) or failure via female absence at the nest ≥2 days, female mortality, or disposition of egg remains or lack or poults with the female immediately posthatch based on methods used wild turkey nest success studies (Dreibelbis et al.…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…We located radio-tagged females >four times weekly during the nesting season (beginning approximately 15 March) so that nest location and initiation of incubation could be approximated by female movement patterns (Chamberlain and Leopold 2000;Collier et al 2009). Upon suspected incubation, we located the general area of each nest site (visually locating without flushing) and continued to monitor the nesting female daily without disturbing the nest site to reduce researcher-induced abandonment (Melton et al 2011) until nest success or failure. We classified nest fate for our analysis as apparent success (i.e., hatching of ≥1 egg and locating a female with a brood) or failure via female absence at the nest ≥2 days, female mortality, or disposition of egg remains or lack or poults with the female immediately posthatch based on methods used wild turkey nest success studies (Dreibelbis et al 2008, Collier et al 2009Melton et al 2011;Conley et al 2015).…”

Section: Capture and Monitoringmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 3 more Smart Citations

Do movement behaviors identify reproductive habitat sampling for wild turkeys?

Conley

Yeldell

Chamberlain

et al. 2016

Ecology and Evolution

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Selection of habitats has regularly been suggested to influence species demography at both local and broad scales. The expectation is that selection behaviors have positive benefits via greater fitness or increased survival. The current paradigm of habitat selection theory suggests a hierarchical process, where an individual first selects where they choose to live (e.g., range) and then searches and selects locations within this range meeting life history needs. Using high‐frequency GPS data collected from reproductively active Rio Grande (n = 21) and Eastern (n = 23) wild turkeys, we evaluated a long‐standing theory for ground‐nesting galliformes, in that movements during the prenesting period are behaviorally focused on sampling available habitats to optimize the selection of nesting sites. Contrary to expectations, we found no evidence that reproductively active females engage in habitat sampling activities. Although most nest sites (>80% for both subspecies) fell within the prenesting range, the average minimum daily distance from nest sites for Rio Grande and Eastern wild turkey females was large [1636.04 m (SE = 1523.96) and 1937.42 m (SE = 1267.84), respectively] whereas the average absolute minimum distance from the nest site for both Rio Grande and Eastern wild turkey females was 166.46 m (SE = 299.34) and 235.01 m (SE = 337.90), respectively, and showed no clear temporal reduction as laying approached. Overall, predicted probability that any female movements before laying were initiated intersected with her nesting range (area used during incubation) was <0.25, indicating little evidence of habitat sampling. Our results suggest that the long‐standing assumption of hierarchical habitat selection by wild turkeys to identify nest sites may be incorrect. As such, habitat selection may not be the proximate driver of nest success and hence population‐level fitness. Rather, based on our results, we suggest that wild turkeys and other ground‐nesting species may be fairly plastic with regard to the selection of reproductive habitats, which is appropriate given the stochasticity of the environments they inhabit.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Capture and Monitoringmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Do movement behaviors identify reproductive habitat sampling for wild turkeys?

Conley

Yeldell

Chamberlain

et al. 2016

Ecology and Evolution

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Average number of days per nesting attempt during this period was 13 (SE=1.01) for the stable region vs 18 (SE=1.24) for the declining region. Juvenile and adult hens in the stable region spent an average of 22.31 (SE=10.12) and 21.26 Melton 2007). Differences in breeding season survival over these periods were largely attributable to our regional classification, as those regions characterized by historically stable populations had much higher breeding season survival (0.88) than locations where abundance had declined since the late 1970s (0.67).…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 93%