Phenology‐specific space use by Rio Grande wild turkeys

Abstract

Conservation of wildlife populations necessitates identifying patterns in space use because fitness requirements influence resource selection; however, details on how phenology affects space use are often only cursorily addressed during development of space-and resource-use estimates. Moreover, spaceuse assessments often aggregate distinct, phenology-specific behaviors into generalized realizations of biological processes, such as reproduction. Therefore, to improve the relevance and accuracy of biological inferences for wild turkey (Meleagris gallopavo) space use at the population level, we defined 12 distinct phenology-specific periods to compare and contrast variations in space-use estimates. We calculated 1,568 individual space-use estimates using dynamic Brownian Bridge movement models for Rio Grande wild turkeys (M. g. intermedia; n = 255 females) across Texas, USA, during 2012−2018. Females in each pre-laying state used larger areas than during all other phenological states, suggestive of exploratory movements related to reproductive activities and resource acquisition. Incubation core areas were consistently <1.5 ha and incubation range sizes ranged from 10 ha to 48 ha.Core area and range sizes during the brooding period doubled from 15 days after hatch (3.1 ha and 42 ha) to 30 days after hatch (6.5 ha and 89 ha). Post-breeding and wintering period ranges were >30% smaller than reproductive period ranges.Mean daily distance traveled was similar across phenological states except during incubation and brooding periods. Our results indicate that examining wild turkey space use at

Assessing wild turkey productivity before and after a 14‐day delay in the start date of the spring hunting season in Tennessee

“…We confirmed a hen was nesting once the hen began incubating a nest. A GPS‐transmitted hen was deemed as incubating a nest when GPS locations formed a ~25‐m diameter cluster, and the cluster contained one roost location at the presumed nest site (Moscicki et al., 2023 ; Yeldell et al., 2017 ). Hens with VHF transmitters were deemed incubating when they had decreased movements and then were inactive based on the activity switch during one triangulation (Johnson et al., 2022 ; Miller et al., 1998 ; Thogmartin & Johnson, 1999 ; Vangilder et al., 1987 ).…”

Spatial roost networks and resource selection of female wild turkeys

“…We removed incubation locations from analyses because female wild turkeys remained on the ground at the nest location during this period. From the information described above, we were able to categorize reproductive phases for each female throughout the reproductive season, which we later used as a covariate in models to describe the temporal aspect of female roost selection ([ 64 ]; table 1 ).…”

“…including all covariates), a resource model, a feature model and a null model (table 3). Each model included an interaction of the reproductive phase for each female [64]. We used a generalized linear mixed model with a binomial response distribution (logistic regression) and logit link to the used-available data [81,83].…”

Prospecting during egg laying informs incubation recess movements of eastern wild turkeys

“…Contemporary research has shown that prior to laying, female wild turkeys do not prospect for potential nest sites [ 17 ], but it is plausible that individuals may prospect for resources during the laying period [ 16 ]. Furthermore, pre-nesting and laying ranges show little overlap [ 71 ], and during laying, females increase daily movements but decrease space use, indicative of a lack of site familiarity [ 31 , 48 , 71 ]. It is plausible that movement behaviors during the laying period may maximize foraging success and reduce predation risk during the incubation period [ 2 , 11 ].…”