Reproductive Characteristics of a Wild Turkey Population in Central Mississippi

Miller, Darren A.; Leopold, Bruce D.; Hurst, George A.

doi:10.2307/3802541

Cited by 32 publications

(46 citation statements)

References 10 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Female turkeys on KNF had a longer reproductive season and higher nesting rates relative to other populations in the southeastern United States (Burk et al 1990, Palmer et al 1993, Miller et al 1998, Thogmartin and Johnson 1999, Moore et al 2010, and rates of second and third nest attempts were noticeably higher than in the aforementioned studies. We also observed 1 instance of a fourth nest attempt, which to our knowledge has only been reported once in the literature (Exum et al 1987).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 74%

“…We developed 7 models to understand what landscape‐scale variables best predicted nest site selection. Turkey nest site selection may be influenced by proximity to mature pine plant communities (Miller et al , Thogmartin , Kilburg et al , Streich et al ), young pine plant communities (Burk et al ), mixed pine‐hardwood plant communities (Burk et al , Streich et al ), hardwood plant communities (Thogmartin ), and open areas (Byrne and Chamberlain , Streich et al ). Concurrently, turkeys are often reported to nest near linear landscape features such as roads or trails (Hon et al , Thogmartin , Moore et al ) and edges between 2 vegetation types (Byrne and Chamberlain , Kilburg et al ).…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Nest site selection and nest survival of eastern wild turkeys in a pyric landscape

et al. 2017

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Pine (Pinus spp.)‐dominated forests are commonly managed with prescribed fire in the southeastern United States to reduce fuel loads, maintain diverse plant communities, and increase habitat quality for wildlife. Prescribed fire alters understory vegetation, which is a key component of nesting habitat for ground‐nesting birds. We assessed the influences of vegetation, prescribed fire, and landscape features (e.g., roads, edge) on nest site selection and nest survival of eastern wild turkeys (Meleagris gallopavo silvestris) in a pine‐dominated ecosystem in west‐central Louisiana. We radio‐marked 55 female wild turkeys and evaluated vegetation and landscape characteristics associated with 69 nests during the 2014 and 2015 reproductive periods. We used conditional logistic regressions with matched‐pairs case‐control sampling and information‐theoretic approaches to determine if vegetation characteristics within 15 m of a nest site, distances to surrounding vegetation communities and edges, and prescribed fire history of patches where a nest was located influenced nest site selection. We calculated hazard ratios for covariates in our top‐performing models to determine if any of these characteristics affected nest site survival. Turkeys in our study had a longer reproductive season and higher nesting and renesting rates relative to other populations in the southeastern United States. At the local scale, turkeys nested in areas with higher percent ground cover vegetation. At the landscape scale, turkeys nested closer to roads and farther from edges of 2 plant communities. Turkeys selected to nest in forest stands burned 2 years prior. Nest survival was not affected by percent ground cover, distance to roads, or distance to edge but was negatively associated with time‐since‐fire; turkey nests in stands burned ≥3 years prior had lower survival than nests in stands burned the current year. We suggest that burning on a 3‐year fire return interval is compatible with management for wild turkeys in southeastern pine‐dominated forests. © 2017 The Wildlife Society.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 74%

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Nest site selection and nest survival of eastern wild turkeys in a pyric landscape

et al. 2017

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The first 2 weeks posthatch are the most critical period for wild turkey (Meleagris gallopavo) survival, with observed survival rates ranging from 12% to 52% during this period (Vander Haegen et al 1988, Sisson et al 1991, Peoples et al 1995, Miller et al 1998b. Several factors may affect preflight poult survival, including predation, weather, starvation, and disease (Hurst et al 1996, Roberts and Porter 1998.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Habitat Use and Survival of Preflight Wild Turkey Broods

et al. 2007

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Wild turkey (Meleagris gallopavo) broods spend the first several days of life on the ground until poult flight capabilities are attained. This is a critical period of wild turkey life history, with poult survival ranging from 12% to 52%. We measured vegetation in plots used by Rio Grande wild turkey (M. g. intermedia) preflight broods at 4 sites in southwest Kansas and the Texas Panhandle, USA, to determine microhabitat selection for ground roosting and to determine if microhabitat was related to poult survival. Hens selected ground‐roost locations with more visual obstruction from multiple observation heights than random sites. Plots surrounding ground roosts had 1) greater visual obstruction; 2) increased tree decay; 3) higher percent grass, shrub, litter, and forb cover; and 4) lower percent bare ground cover than random sites. Grass, shrubs, and downed trees appeared to provide desired cover for ground‐roosting broods. Poult survival increased with age of poult, size of brood, and density of shrubs 1–2 m tall. Plots used by broods <10 days old with above average survival contained more visual obstruction and shrubs than plots used by broods 10–16 days old with above average survival, signifying a shift in habitat use by successful broods as poults attain flight abilities. Density of shrubs 1–2 m tall in brood‐use areas appears to be important for poult survival to 16 days of age on southern Great Plains rangeland habitats. Ground‐level vegetative cover appears to be a significant factor in preflight poult survival. Provisions of ground‐level vegetative cover should be considered during wild turkey brooding periods where increased poult survival is desired.

show abstract

“…We calculated each weather metric for each month in the breeding season (March, April, May, and June), resulting in 24 individual metrics. We then averaged county metrics to form regional metrics (Miller et al ). Furthermore, we assumed extrinsic factors would have the greatest influence on turkey abundance after the exponential growth phase of the population, so these analyses were limited to the years 1980–2010 when the population had reached carrying capacity.…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…In addition to providing information useful in assessing hunter behavior, historical reconstructions can be helpful in identifying potential drivers of wildlife abundance trends. Long‐term series of demographic parameters can elucidate trends not seen in short‐term studies (Miller et al ). For ground‐nesting, short‐lived, highly fecund species, weather and recruitment are often highly influential factors in population dynamics (Bridges et al ).…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Trends in male wild turkey abundance and harvest following restoration efforts in the southeast region of Missouri, 1960–2010

et al. 2014

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Long-term estimates of abundance can be useful in elucidating wildlife population and hunter dynamics as well as other potential factors affecting populations. We used estimated vulnerability coefficients from a statistical population reconstruction (SPR) analysis (1996)(1997)(1998)(1999)(2000)(2001)(2002)(2003)(2004)(2005)(2006)(2007)(2008)(2009)(2010), along with a 50-year time series of harvest and hunter-effort data to reconstruct a male wild turkey (Meleagris gallopavo) population in southeastern Missouri, USA (1960-2010Gast et al. 2013). Following restoration efforts, the male wild turkey population in the Ozarks East turkey productivity region grew rapidly following a logistic growth pattern, from 2,932 turkeys in 1960 to 15,764 in 1980, and vacillated around a stable equilibrium from 1980 to 2010. Distance from St. Louis, Missouri, explained 19.8% of the variation in hunter density while turkey density only explained 1.1%, suggesting that factors beyond game density influenced hunter distribution. To explain the high inter-annual variation of abundance found in the historical reconstruction, we examined the relationship between spring weather, recruitment, and abundance metrics. A multiple linear regression found total precipitation in June to be positively correlated and the number of cold days in April to be negatively correlated with yearling male (1 year old): adult male ratios in the following spring. Our results suggest the current wild turkey population is controlled primarily by extrinsic factors through effects on reproduction. Evidence of a stable population with high inter-annual variation lends support for using consistent harvest regulations rather than altering regulations annually to accommodate short-term trends in abundance. Our research highlights the utility of SPR models to assess factors affecting historical wildlife population demographics. Ó

show abstract

Reproductive Characteristics of a Wild Turkey Population in Central Mississippi

Cited by 32 publications

References 10 publications

Nest site selection and nest survival of eastern wild turkeys in a pyric landscape

Nest site selection and nest survival of eastern wild turkeys in a pyric landscape

Habitat Use and Survival of Preflight Wild Turkey Broods

Trends in male wild turkey abundance and harvest following restoration efforts in the southeast region of Missouri, 1960–2010

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About