Predation of Rio Grande Wild Turkey Nests on the Edwards Plateau, Texas

Dreibelbis, Justin Z.; Melton, Kyle B.; Aguirre, Ray; Collier, Bret A.; Hardin, Jason B.; Silvy, Nova J.; Peterson, Markus J.

doi:10.1676/07-183.1

Cited by 23 publications

(25 citation statements)

References 12 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…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. , Collier et al. ; Melton et al.…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

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 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 1 more Smart Citation

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: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Capture and Monitoringmentioning

confidence: 99%

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

“…Numbers in parentheses below predator name indicate sample size for the egg and nestling stage and Granfors 2000; Teunissen et al 2008), and frequency of post-predation nest visits by predators (Stake and Cimprich 2003), could be similar in various ecological contexts. The frequency of (partial) depredation of the same nest by multiple predators is seldom reported (Liebezeit and George 2003;Stake and Cimprich 2003;Small 2005;Dreibelbis et al 2008), as it is difficult to quantify. Similarly scarce is the evidence for non-lethal visits to active nests by potential predators (Sanders and Maloney 2002;Stake and Cimprich 2003).…”

Section: Predator Behaviourmentioning

confidence: 99%

Foraging behaviour of nest predators at open-cup nests of woodland passerines

Weidinger

2010

J Ornithol

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Nest predation patterns and processes cannot be understood without studying the behaviour of predators. I videotaped the behaviour of 22 species of predators at 171 depredated nests of 13 passerine species, in woodland in the Czech Republic. About 32% (60/187) of all events occurred during the night; mammals accounted for 95% (57/60) and 22% (28/127) of nocturnal and diurnal predation, respectively. About 67% (57/85) of mammalian predation, but only 3% (3/102) of avian predation, occurred during night. Multiple predations by the same species were detected in at least 7% (6/82) and 42% (37/88) of nests depredated by mammals and birds, respectively. Martens Martes martes/foina took nest content mostly all at once; birds (mainly Jay Garrulus glandarius) revisited partially depredated nest during 1-4 consecutive days. Martens stayed at the depredated nest about five times longer than Jays. Martens spent similar time at nests with eggs and nestling, while Jays stayed about twice longer at nests with eggs. Mammals consumed eggs always at the nest (23/23), but took nestlings away in at least 48% (31/64) cases. Birds took the eggs and nestling away in at least 31% (18/58) and 76% (71/94) cases, respectively. Predator visits to active nests without taking the content, repeated partial predation and revisitation of previously depredated nests suggest an effect of memory on predator's foraging behaviour.

show abstract

“…Interestingly, there were no negative correlations in visitation frequencies between species to suggest the effects of mesopredator release (Ritchie & Johnson 2009) or predator avoidance (Sih 1984;Ritchie & Johnson 2009). For example, we found no significant negative correlation between turkey and predator visitation, despite coyotes', bobcats', raccoons', and skunks' reputation for preying on turkeys or their eggs (Thogmartin & Schaeffer 2000;Dreibelbis et al 2008). Similarly, deer presence did not correlate negatively with other predators, and remained generally even across all forest age categories (Derugin 2013).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 77%

Response of medium‐ and large‐sized terrestrial fauna to corridor restoration along the middle Sacramento River

Derugin

Silveira

Golet

et al. 2015

Restoration Ecology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

A fundamental challenge in restoration ecology is to understand when species are expected to colonize newly created habitat. Determining this is important for assessing progress toward restoration goals and, more generally, for gaining insight into ecosystem functioning and dynamics. We studied this question as it relates to mid‐ to large‐sized terrestrial fauna in restored riparian habitats at the Sacramento River National Wildlife Refuge, in northern California. We used camera traps to document use of 16 riparian corridor sites of varying restoration age. Comparisons of species richness (diversity) and visitation frequency (activity) were made across different‐aged sites. We found that predator diversity and activity levels tended to be higher in restored forests than in remnant forests, and that they tended to be highest in young restored forests. This trend persisted when data from variable sampling periods were pooled, although significant differences occurred more often in wet and cold sampling periods. The trend did not always hold for the animal community at large (consisting of both predator and non‐predator species). We conclude that restoration age affects predator diversity and activity levels in restored and remnant floodplain forests, and that predator communities can establish soon after restoration. Our results suggest that restoring natural river processes that promote habitat regeneration may benefit mid‐ to large‐sized terrestrial predators that appear to mostly use early successional habitat.

show abstract

Predation of Rio Grande Wild Turkey Nests on the Edwards Plateau, Texas

Cited by 23 publications

References 12 publications

Do movement behaviors identify reproductive habitat sampling for wild turkeys?

Do movement behaviors identify reproductive habitat sampling for wild turkeys?

Foraging behaviour of nest predators at open-cup nests of woodland passerines

Response of medium‐ and large‐sized terrestrial fauna to corridor restoration along the middle Sacramento River

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About