Survival and cause-specific mortality of the female eastern wild turkey at its northern range edge

2014 ◽  
Vol 41 (7) ◽  
pp. 545 ◽  
Author(s):  
Britney Niedzielski ◽  
Jeff Bowman

Context In an era of rapid environmental change, many species are shifting their distributions. As temperate-zone species’ expand their ranges north, different and potentially severe limiting factors may begin to affect their ability to survive and reproduce. The wild turkey (Meleagris gallopavo) is one example of a species undergoing rapid northern expansion. Aims An improved understanding of wild turkey demography at the species’ northern range periphery would facilitate effective management of this important game species. Therefore, we undertook a study to evaluate survival, causes of mortality, and behavioural strategies that may govern survival of female wild turkeys. Methods We captured 53 female wild turkeys, and used backpack transmitters to monitor their individual fates during 2012–13. Key results The annual survival estimate was 0.37 (95% CI: 0.25–0.55), with the lowest seasonal survival in the winter. The most frequent cause of mortality was mammalian predation, predominately by coyotes (Canis latrans). Age, proximity to supplemental food, and habitat use did not affect risk of mortality. Conclusions Northern wild turkeys in our study exhibited lower survival and suffered higher predation than did populations in the species’ historic range. Despite our findings, the wild turkey has expanded its range northwards and continues to exist in these peripheral areas. This may be due to high productivity or a source–sink dynamic, whereby high mortality is offset by immigration from the south. Implications The low survival and high predation of wild turkeys in the north must be considered when developing management strategies, particularly if interest exists in translocating turkeys farther north. Further research is needed to better understand whether northern turkey populations persist as sinks.

2018 ◽  
Vol 96 (5) ◽  
pp. 486-496 ◽  
Author(s):  
C.K. Nielsen ◽  
C.R. Bottom ◽  
R.G. Tebo ◽  
E. Greenspan

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.


2003 ◽  
Vol 117 (4) ◽  
pp. 645
Author(s):  
Brian L. Spears ◽  
Warren B. Ballard ◽  
Mark C. Wallace ◽  
Roger D. Applegate ◽  
Phillip S. Gipson

Coyotes (Canis latrans) are widely known to be predators of Wild Turkeys (Meleagris gallopauo sspp.). We describe two observations of single Coyotes coming within 10 m of feeding Wild Turkey flocks without attempting to predate them in Stevens County, Kansas. We relate these observations to Coyote predation on turkeys and mobbing behavior.


2014 ◽  
Vol 5 (1) ◽  
pp. 151-156
Author(s):  
Matthew D. Palumbo ◽  
Francisco J. Vilella ◽  
Bronson K. Strickland ◽  
Guiming Wang ◽  
Dave Godwin

Abstract The Mississippi Department of Wildlife, Fisheries, and Parks utilize data from turkey hunter observations and brood surveys from across the state to manage wild turkey Meleagris gallopavo populations. Since 1995, hunters have collected gobbling and jake observation data, while the Mississippi Department of Wildlife, Fisheries, and Parks' personnel and cooperating wildlife managers of several natural resource agencies throughout the state have collected brood survey data. Both sources of data serve to forecast poult recruitment and gobbling activity. The objective of this study was to evaluate if these data can serve as a viable predictor of gobbling activity. We used three mixed models to investigate the relationship between the number of jakes observed per hour of hunting 1 y prior and the total number of poults per hens 2 y prior (model 1), number of gobblers heard per hour of hunting and the number of jakes observed per hour of hunting 1 y prior (model 2), the number of gobblers heard per hour of hunting and the total number poults per total hens observed 2 y prior (model 3) using data from 1995 to 2008 among five wild turkey management regions encompassing the state. We incorporated region as a random effect to account for spatial variation. We found the number of jakes observed per hour of hunting 1 y prior correlated with the total number of poults per total hens observed 2 y prior. We also found the number of gobblers heard per hour of hunting correlated with the number of jakes observed per hour of hunting 1 y prior. Additionally, we found that the total poults per total hens observed 2 y prior was correlated to the number of gobblers heard per hour of hunting. Our results show promise for using indices of gobbling activity, jake observations, and brood surveys to estimate gobbling activity.


Author(s):  
Fernando Clemente-Sánchez ◽  
Octavio C. Rosas-Rosas ◽  
Luis A. Tarango-Arámbula

Objective: To estimate the population of wild turkey (Meleagris gallopavo, mexicana) and its density in ecosystems of its distribution.Design / methodology / approach: A method based on random sampling with a population density estimator was designed. The design was based on the observation of wild turkeys that go to attraction sites (feedlots) of 2,500 m 2 (50 X 50 m) counted in 12 h a day, three consecutive days. For the total of random sites, the criterion of one site for every 300 ha of surface under study was used. The study was carried out on March 1, 2 and 3, 2019 in 3,000 ha of pine-oak forest, in Monte Escobedo, Zacatecas, Mexico. Observations were made from a fixed point 25 m from each site, from 6:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. The attraction sites were located at a random distance within 10 systematically fixed transects in the study area.Results: The results showed a population of 66 turkeys in 3,000 ha, with a density of 0.022 turkeys ha -1 . Limitations / implications: The application of the method was useful for the monitoring of wild turkey in the pine-oak forest, showing that it is a method that does not affect the population, which does not require long sampling times, is reliable, low-cost, and easy to carry out. The method is not reliable in ecosystemsthat do not allow the location of high visibility sites.Findings / conclusions: Considering the distribution of wild turkey in Mexico, the method is a new alternative applicable to population studies of wild turkey.


1999 ◽  
Vol 77 (7) ◽  
pp. 1075-1082 ◽  
Author(s):  
R N Coup ◽  
P J Pekins

We investigated the winter bioenergetics of eastern wild turkeys (Meleagris gallopavo sylvestris) by measuring standard metabolic rate (SMR) and existence metabolism (EM) of captive turkeys and field metabolic rate (FMR) of free-ranging turkeys. Mean SMR and EM were 0.511 ± 0.040 mL O2·g-1·h-1 and 499.7 ± 17.7 kJ·kg body mass-0.734·d-1 (mean ± SE) as measured by indirect respirometry and food consumption, respectively. FMR was measured with doubly labeled water and was 10.5% higher in juvenile (0.976 ± 0.039 L CO2·kg-0.734·h-1) than adult turkeys (0.883 ± 0.034 L CO2·kg-0.734·h-1); their FMR:SMR ratios were 1.74 and 1.58, respectively. Juvenile turkeys weighed less and had less body fat (13.5%) than adults (18.9%). Mean FMR was lowest in 1996, when ground forage was unavailable and weather was more windy and cold than in 1995, when ground forage was available and the turkeys' activity and range were greater. Turkeys reduced FMR in 1996 by restricting movement and range, and using proximate shelter and supplemental food. We predict that juvenile turkeys are at an energetic disadvantage when food availability is restricted because of their higher FMR, lower body and fat masses, and higher activity costs than adults.


Author(s):  
W.N. Reynolds

Following the 2007/08 drought, we experienced poor pasture production and persistence on our dairy farm in north Waikato, leading to decreased milksolids production and a greater reliance on bought-in feed. It is estimated that the cost of this to our farming operation was about $1300 per hectare per year in lost operating profit. While climate and black beetle were factors, they did not explain everything, and other factors were also involved. In the last 3 years we have changed our management strategies to better withstand dry summers, the catalyst for which was becoming the DairyNZ Pasture Improvement Focus Farm for the north Waikato. The major changes we made were to reduce stocking rate, actively manage pastures in summer to reduce over-grazing, and pay more attention to detail in our pasture renewal programme. To date the result has been a reduced need for pasture renewal, a lift in whole farm performance and increased profitability. Keywords: Focus farm, over-grazing, pasture management, pasture persistence, profitability


2019 ◽  
Vol 79 (4) ◽  
pp. 587
Author(s):  
Manuel Rangel-Rojas ◽  
Juan F. Charre-Medellín ◽  
Tiberio C. Monterrubio-Rico ◽  
Gloria Magaña-Cota ◽  
José S. Contreras-Robledo ◽  
...  

Forests ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 12 (5) ◽  
pp. 522
Author(s):  
Akli Benali ◽  
Ana C. L. Sá ◽  
João Pinho ◽  
Paulo M. Fernandes ◽  
José M. C. Pereira

The extreme 2017 fire season in Portugal led to widespread recognition of the need for a paradigm shift in forest and wildfire management. We focused our study on Alvares, a parish in central Portugal located in a fire-prone area, which had 60% of its area burned in 2017. We evaluated how different fuel treatment strategies may reduce wildfire hazard in Alvares through (i) a fuel break network with different extents corresponding to different levels of priority and (ii) random fuel treatments resulting from a potential increase in stand-level management intensity. To assess this, we developed a stochastic wildfire simulation system (FUNC-SIM) that integrates uncertainties in fuel distribution over the landscape. If the landscape remains unchanged, Alvares will have large burn probabilities in the north, northeast and center-east areas of the parish that are very often associated with high fireline intensities. The different fuel treatment scenarios decreased burned area between 12.1–31.2%, resulting from 1–4.6% increases in the annual treatment area and reduced the likelihood of wildfires larger than 5000 ha by 10–40%. On average, simulated burned area decreased 0.22% per each ha treated, and cost-effectiveness decreased with increasing area treated. Overall, both fuel treatment strategies effectively reduced wildfire hazard and should be part of a larger, holistic and integrated plan to reduce the vulnerability of the Alvares parish to wildfires.


Land ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 10 (4) ◽  
pp. 425
Author(s):  
Rodrigue Vivien Cao Diogo ◽  
Luc Hippolyte Dossa ◽  
Sèyi Fridaïus Ulrich Vanvanhossou ◽  
Badirou Dine Abdoulaye ◽  
Kossi Hélliot Dosseh ◽  
...  

The sustainable use of rangelands in pastoral areas requires the inclusion of all stakeholders to develop sound management strategies. However, the role of these actors in the sustainable management of natural resources is still poorly understood. The present study aims to (i) assess the perception of farmers and herders of the risks and opportunities of transhumance on rangeland resource use and management, and to (ii) generate useful knowledge for the design and implementation of policies that favor the coexistence of these actors and reduce competition over rangeland resources use in Benin. To this end, interviews were conducted with 240 crop farmers and herders using a semi-structured questionnaire in two contrasting agroecological zones in the northern (Kandi) and the southern (Kétou) part of the country. Among the respondents, 64% of farmers in the North were agro-pastoralists (owning 10.6 ha of land and 10.7 cattle) and 36% were herders (keeping 45.8 cattle and cultivating about 3.7 ha of land). They perceived that communal rangelands were entirely degraded. In the South, 36% of respondents were agro-pastoralists (with 0.3 cattle and farming 4 ha of land) and 64% cattle herders (raising 45.3 cattle and farming 0.9 ha of land only). Of the herders, 50% kept cattle for more than 20 years, while agro-pastoralists had no previous experience in cattle herding. Cultivation practices among crop farmers, such as high use of mineral fertilization (23.8%) and bush fires for land clearing (22.5%), were reported in Kandi (North) and Kétou (South) as factors that might contribute to land degradation. However, these farmers perceived transhumance as a threat to the sustainable use of natural resources. In contrast, herders perceived transhumance as an opportunity to valorize unused land and increase the availability of manure to cropland. The prevalent negative attitude of crop farmers regarding transhumant herders increases the vulnerability of cattle herding in both regions. There is an urgent need of raising awareness concerning the mutual benefits provided by the coexistence of crop farmers with herders to promote participative rangeland management strategies. This may contribute towards coping with the current challenges of food insecurity and increasing climate variability as well as to reducing recurrent conflicts in the region.


2007 ◽  
Vol 54 (1) ◽  
pp. 148-152 ◽  
Author(s):  
Matthew J. Butler ◽  
Warren B. Ballard ◽  
Mark C. Wallace ◽  
Stephen J. DeMaso

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document