Reproductive Parameters of Wild Turkey Hens in North Missouri

Vangilder, Larry D.; Kurzejeski, Eric W.; Kimmel-Truitt, Vicki L.; Lewis, John B.

doi:10.2307/3801265

Cited by 49 publications

(69 citation statements)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Additionally, apparent nesting success during our study was 0.256, and, consistent with nest survival, was slightly higher in forested landscapes compared to open landscapes. Apparent nesting success during this study was higher than previously observed by Paisley et al (1998) in southwest Wisconsin (0.217), but our measures of apparent nesting success were much lower than those reported elsewhere in the Midwest (0.365-0.588; Porter et al 1983;Vangilder et al 1987Vangilder et al , 2001. Even though estimates of apparent nesting success from this study and Paisley et al (1998) were comparatively low, the similarity between these 2 studies indicates that turkey populations in Wisconsin may be relatively stable.…”

Section: Reproduction and Poult Survivalcontrasting

confidence: 71%

Survival and productivity of eastern wild turkey females in contrasting landscapes in Wisconsin

2014

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Eastern wild turkeys (Meleagris gallopavo silvestris) have colonized the entire state of Wisconsin, USA since being successfully reintroduced in the 1970s. Recently, conservation groups have expressed concerns regarding habitat quantity and quality in association with population plateaus and declines in local abundance in some portions of the state. Estimates of survival and productivity are needed to identify the current population status and for drafting effective management plans. We evaluated female eastern wild turkey demographic parameters and the relationship of these parameters to landscape composition between townships that were forest-dominated and those that were primarily open (e.g., cropland, pasture) in southwest and west-central Wisconsin. We radiomarked 129 female eastern wild turkeys during a 2-year field study (2010)(2011)(2012). Seasonal variation and landscape effects on survival were important components in our top models, which accounted for >98% of the relative support. Seasonal survival (AESE) was lowest during spring ( Management of eastern wild turkeys that enhances female and poult survival during the nesting and brood-rearing periods can greatly influence population growth, particularly in forest-dominant landscapes.

show abstract

Section: Reproduction and Poult Survivalcontrasting

confidence: 71%

Survival and productivity of eastern wild turkey females in contrasting landscapes in Wisconsin

2014

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Average rates of predation on ground nests are generally greater in suburban than in rural woodlots (Wilcove 1985), and predators are consistently responsible for most nest failures (Vangilder et al 1987, Vander Haegen et al 1988, Thomas & Litvaitis 1993, Vangilder & Kurzejeski 1995. Predator densities are often greater in suburban areas (Hoffman & Gottschang 1977, Wilcove 1985, Rosenberg et al 1999) and predation on artificial nests reportedly increases with human housing density (Thorington & Bowman 2003).…”

mentioning

confidence: 98%

Nest survival of wild turkeys Meleagris gallopavo silvestris in a mixed‐use landscape: influences at nest‐site and patch scales

et al. 2013

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Nest survival is a critical factor affecting avian demographics, and can be influenced by nesting chronology, fine scale nestsite selection and broad-scale landscape characteristics. We modeled the relative influences of nest age, temporal variation in nest success and habitat-related covariates at two spatial scales (nest-site and patch scale) on daily nest survival during incubation for eastern wild turkeys Meleagris gallopavo silvestris in a mixed-use landscape. Daily survival rate of turkey nests during incubation increased as percent understory cover (vegetation , 1 m tall) increased and decreased with increasing density of woody shrubs and saplings and herbaceous stems , 1 m tall (understory vegetation density) around the nest. We suggest that nest survival may be dependent on a balance of sufficient understory cover around nests to provide concealment for hens and nests, but with understory vegetation density below levels that reduce the hen's ability to detect a predator or to escape after detecting a potential threat. The balance between sufficient understory cover and limited density of understory vegetation occurred where understory (, 1 m tall) cover exceeded 50% and understory vegetation density was , 25 stems/m 2 . Models that included variables related to the patch scale (e.g. fragmentation, edge and dominant land-cover class in a patch) did not receive strong support, demonstrating the relative importance of finer scale nest-site variables over patch-scale variables in determining survival of wild turkey nests in our highly variable mixed-use landscape.

show abstract

“…Survival rates reportedly increase after poults reach approximately 2 weeks of age (Speake et al 1985, Vangilder et al 1987, Peoples et al 1995, Hubbard et al 1999. By this point, poults are able to escape ground predators by flushing to trees and roosting in trees at night.…”

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

Reproductive Parameters of Wild Turkey Hens in North Missouri

Cited by 49 publications

References 0 publications

Survival and productivity of eastern wild turkey females in contrasting landscapes in Wisconsin

Survival and productivity of eastern wild turkey females in contrasting landscapes in Wisconsin

Nest survival of wild turkeys Meleagris gallopavo silvestris in a mixed‐use landscape: influences at nest‐site and patch scales

Habitat Use and Survival of Preflight Wild Turkey Broods

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About