Fine‐scale resource selection and behavioral tradeoffs of eastern wild turkey broods

Abstract

Resource heterogeneity across the landscape prompts animals to make behavioral tradeoffs to survive and reproduce. Behavioral thermoregulation can buffer organisms from thermal extremes but may conflict with other essential activities such as predator avoidance or foraging, and necessitate tradeoffs among resource requirements. We evaluated patterns of habitat selection relative to thermal conditions, forage availability, and concealment cover for female eastern wild turkeys (Meleagris gallopavo silvestris) with broods to assess potential tradeoffs among resource requirements. We quantified air temperature (°C), vegetation characteristics (e.g., visual obstruction), and arthropod biomass (g/m 2 ) at locations used by broods across 5 study sites in the southeastern United States during May-July 2019-2020. We used conditional logistic regression to estimate brooding female resource selection at the second (home range) and third (within home range) orders. Specifically, we identified differences in selection between brooding and non-brooding females (second order), and factors influencing selection of sites used by brooding females during the day (when loafing and foraging) and night (roosting; third order). Brooding females selected sites with cooler temperatures (β = −0.22; 95% CI = −0.338-−0.102) and greater ground cover vegetation (β = 0.02; 95% CI = 0.013-0.033) than non-brooding females.Additionally, biomass of large prey (Orthoptera) was positively

Age‐based shifts in habitat selection of wild turkey broods

“…Sites with higher NDVI values were initially selected by brooding females, but selection of these sites decreased markedly as broods aged. Higher NDVI values represent denser vegetation that brooding females likely prioritize as both foraging and concealment cover (Nelson et al 2022). Decreasing selection for higher NDVI values as broods age could represent broods shifting predator avoidance strategies as they develop and body size increases.…”

“…Furthermore, hardwoods on our study area had the lowest maximum visual obstruction (Table A1) and thus likely provided easier visual detection of predators by brooding females than in other vegetation communities. Additionally, Nelson et al (2022) reported that brooding females selected areas with higher grass and lower woody understory groundcover composition. Therefore, brooding females may have consistently selected for hardwoods because they provided the most favorable thermoregulatory and foraging conditions for poults given the limited presence of pasture and early successional sites on our study area.…”

“…Similarly, Wood et al (2018) reported that pine sites burned that current year and 1‐year prior were selected by brooding females during daytime. Young pine stands on our study sites were likely not selected initially by brooding females because infrequent disturbance regimes resulted in increased woody understory vegetation that brooding females avoid (Nelson et al 2022). Although woody cover in the understory was only around 10%, Nelson et al (2022) reported that brooding females avoided areas with >10% woody cover in the understory.…”

“…Young pine stands on our study sites were likely not selected initially by brooding females because infrequent disturbance regimes resulted in increased woody understory vegetation that brooding females avoid (Nelson et al 2022). Although woody cover in the understory was only around 10%, Nelson et al (2022) reported that brooding females avoided areas with >10% woody cover in the understory. Collectively, frequent disturbance (i.e., prescribed fire) may play an important role in making pine‐dominated stands brood habitat (Yeldell et al 2017 b , Wood et al 2018, Chamberlain et al 2020), as habitat quality is strongly related to understory vegetative cover (Chance et al 2020).…”

“…If disturbed (e.g., thinning, prescribed fire), diversity of plants in the understory of pine stands increases (Harrington and Edwards 1999, Harrington 2011), and grass and herbaceous vegetation can be continually maintained with frequent disturbance (Kirkman et al 2004). Thus, resource availability for turkeys differs among forest age classes (Nelson et al 2022), and the optimal value of these resources to poults is likely dependent on poult size.…”