Artificial Nests Identify Possible Nest Predators of Eastern Wild Turkeys

Melville, Haemish; Conway, Warren C.; Morrison, Michael L.; Comer, Christopher E.; Hardin, Jason B.

doi:10.1656/058.013.0106

Cited by 12 publications

(13 citation statements)

References 31 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…28,53 , which leads us to www.nature.com/scientificreports www.nature.com/scientificreports/ re-pose the question of whether depredation by wild pigs is additive to that observed by native predators. In the absence of wild pigs, depredation rates of non-artificial wild turkey eggs ranged widely from 18-65% [54][55][56] , but were always lower than the 80% we observed with artificial eggs and a dense population of wild pigs present. For other ground nesting species (e.g., sea turtles), the addition of wild pigs with native predators did appear to produce additive nest predations 57,58 .…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 78%

Invasive Wild Pigs as Primary Nest Predators for Wild Turkeys

Sanders

Hewitt

Perotto‐Baldivieso

et al. 2020

Sci Rep

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

similar to natural turkey nests 34. Additionally, simulated nest studies allow for assessment of the influence of the density of nests on nest depredation 35. We used simulated wild turkey nests to evaluate the magnitude of nest predation by wild pigs relative to native nest predators throughout the nesting season in 2016. We also simulated differing densities of nests to evaluate for changes in the frequency of nest predation. Our first objective was compare the frequency of nest consumption by wild pigs to that of native nest predators. Secondly, we assessed the role of seasonality and density of nests in the depredation of nests by wild pigs. Finally, we evaluated differences in consumption of nests by sex and age of wild pigs. Our results will inform efforts to mitigate the impacts of wild pigs on wild turkeys. Methods Study area. Our study area was located in south-central Texas (Bexar County), USA (Latitude 29.622 N, Longitude 98.572 W). Specifically, we worked on Camp Bullis Military Reserve, an 11,000 ha military training base that is bordered by both urban and rural ecosystems. Topography on Camp Bullis is typical of the Edwards Plateau: rolling hills with limestone outcrops and rocky soils 36. Vegetation is an oak woodland and grassland matrix 37,38. Streams and pools are available seasonally during periods of high precipitation. Camp Bullis contains populations of both wild pigs and Rio Grande wild turkey (M. gallopavo intermedia), as well as potential nest predators including raccoons (Procyon lotor), gray foxes (Urocyon cinereoargenteus), coyotes (Canis latrans), bobcats (Lynx rufus), opossums (Didelphis virginiana), striped skunks (Mephitis mephitis), armadillos (Dasypus novemcinctus), corvids, and snakes 23,28. In 2006, a suspected release or immigration from surrounding properties of wild pigs occurred on Camp Bullis, resulting in abundant wild pigs throughout the study area (M. L. Cooksey, U.S. Army Environmental Command, personal communication). In 2017, the density of wild pigs was reported to average 3.5 wild pigs per km 2 39. capture and monitoring of wild pigs. Methods for this study were similarly reported for a simultaneous study 23. We captured wild pigs using corral and box traps baited with whole-kernel corn between 15 January and 15 March 2016. We immobilized adult wild pigs (estimated to be >45 kg) using an intramuscu

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 78%

Invasive Wild Pigs as Primary Nest Predators for Wild Turkeys

Sanders

Hewitt

Perotto‐Baldivieso

et al. 2020

Sci Rep

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Opposums are regular mesocarnivore predators of bird nests (Staller et al 2005, Lumpkin et al 2012, Melville et al 2014) and they even prey on poultry (Amador-Alcala et al 2013), although they also eat fruits, invertebrates and other small vertebrates (Eisenberg 1989). The common opossum is sympatric with house finches in the area where birds were captured (Eisenberg 1989).…”

Section: Study Speciesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Evidence that the house finch (Carpodacus mexicanus) uses scent to avoid omnivore mammals

Amo

López‐Rull

Pagán

et al. 2015

Rev. Chil. de Hist. Nat.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background: The detection of predator chemical cues is an important antipredatory behaviour as it allows an early assessment of predation risk without encountering the predator and therefore increases survival. For instance, since chemical cues are often by-products of metabolism, olfaction may gather information not only on the identity but also about the diet of predators in the vicinity. Knowledge of the role of olfaction in the interactions of birds with their environment, in contexts as important as predator avoidance, is still scarce. We conducted two two-choice experiments to explore 1) whether the house finch Carpodacus mexicanus can detect the chemical cues of a marsupial predatory mammal, the common opossum (Didelphis marsupialis), and 2) whether its response to such cues is influenced by the recent diet of this omnivorous predator, as this would increase the accuracy with which the risk of predation is assessed. Results: House finches avoided the area of the apparatus containing the scent of the predator, and this effect did not depend on the recent diet (bait used to lace the traps) of the predator. Conclusions: Our results provide clear evidence that house finches detect and use the chemical cues of predators to assess the level of predation risk of an area and avoid it.

show abstract

“…Despite the success of turkey restoration, many states in the Midwestern U.S. have reported declining population trends for wild turkeys, with mesocarnivores indicated as a possible limiting factor Hubbard et al 1999;Thogmartin and Johnson 1999;Hughes et al 2005;Eriksen et al 2015). Nest success and survival rates of wild turkey adults and poults can be impacted greatly by mesocarnivores (Melville et al 2014;Peyton et al 2014;Pollentier et al 2014;Kiss et al 2015b;Little et al 2016). Being a ground nesting species with a relatively long incubation period of about 26 days (Healy 1992), wild turkeys are especially susceptible to predators with nest depredation rates ranging from 61% to 87% (Canfilder et al 1987;Hughes et al 2005;Melville et al 2014).…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Nest success and survival rates of wild turkey adults and poults can be impacted greatly by mesocarnivores (Melville et al 2014;Peyton et al 2014;Pollentier et al 2014;Kiss et al 2015b;Little et al 2016). Being a ground nesting species with a relatively long incubation period of about 26 days (Healy 1992), wild turkeys are especially susceptible to predators with nest depredation rates ranging from 61% to 87% (Canfilder et al 1987;Hughes et al 2005;Melville et al 2014). Raccoons (Procyon lotor (L., 1758)) are the primary mammalian predator of wild turkey nests (Speake 1980;Williams and Austin 1988;Paisley et al 1998;Melville et al 2014), though many mesocarnivore and avian species may prey on wild turkey nests (Melville 2012;Martin et al 2015).…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Being a ground nesting species with a relatively long incubation period of about 26 days (Healy 1992), wild turkeys are especially susceptible to predators with nest depredation rates ranging from 61% to 87% (Canfilder et al 1987;Hughes et al 2005;Melville et al 2014). Raccoons (Procyon lotor (L., 1758)) are the primary mammalian predator of wild turkey nests (Speake 1980;Williams and Austin 1988;Paisley et al 1998;Melville et al 2014), though many mesocarnivore and avian species may prey on wild turkey nests (Melville 2012;Martin et al 2015). Mammalian predators, mainly canids, have been cited as the primary cause of wild turkey hen mortalities (Wright et al 1996; D r a f t 5 mortalities, and poult survival was estimated to be 25% at 4 weeks post-hatch (Delahunt 2011).…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Habitat overlap among bobcats (Lynx rufus), coyotes (Canis latrans), and Wild Turkeys (Meleagris gallopavo) in an agricultural landscape

2018

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Wild Turkey (Meleagris gallopavo Linnaeus, 1758) populations have grown considerably in the Midwestern U.S. alongside mesocarnivores, such as coyotes (Canis latrans Say, 1823) and bobcats (Lynx rufus (Schreber, 1777)). However, few studies have assessed habitat overlap between mesocarnivores and turkeys with a goal to understand potential impacts of mesocarnivores on turkeys. We captured and radiomarked bobcats, coyotes, and Wild Turkey hens in southern Illinois during 2011–2013 in an agricultural landscape and created single-species resource selection and overlap models. Wild Turkeys and bobcats demonstrated concentrated use in forested areas, whereas coyote use was highest in agricultural areas. We documented Wild Turkey nests (n = 107) and hen mortalities (n = 28), which were used to model the effect of bobcat, coyote, and Wild Turkey habitat use on turkey nest success and mortality. Increased coyote use was associated with higher nest success and increased turkey use was associated with higher probability of mortality. These findings suggest that top predators, such as coyotes, may be important and beneficial for ground-nesting avian species. With coyotes acting as the top predator throughout much of the Midwest, they are likely reducing densities of other important turkey nest predator species, thereby increasing nest success.

show abstract

Artificial Nests Identify Possible Nest Predators of Eastern Wild Turkeys

Cited by 12 publications

References 31 publications

Invasive Wild Pigs as Primary Nest Predators for Wild Turkeys

Invasive Wild Pigs as Primary Nest Predators for Wild Turkeys

Evidence that the house finch (Carpodacus mexicanus) uses scent to avoid omnivore mammals

Habitat overlap among bobcats (Lynx rufus), coyotes (Canis latrans), and Wild Turkeys (Meleagris gallopavo) in an agricultural landscape

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About