Prescribed fire influences habitat selection of female eastern wild turkeys

Abstract

Prescribed fire is widely used in southeastern pine (Pinus spp.) forests to maintain desirable forest conditions and provide early successional vegetation. However, it is unclear how fires applied just prior to and during the reproductive cycle of ground nesting Galliformes influence resource selection. We examined the short-term influence of prescribed fire on habitat selection of female eastern wild turkeys (Meleagris gallopavo silvestris) throughout their reproductive cycle (FebÀAug) at Kisatchie National Forest in west-central Louisiana, USA during 2014 and 2015. Kisatchie was dominated (>60%) by pine stands managed with prescribed fire at a frequent (i.e., 1-3 yr) return interval. We captured 46 females and equipped them with backpack-style global positioning system (GPS) transmitters programmed to collect relocation data hourly from 0600 to 2000 each day. We used distance-based analysis to estimate selection or avoidance of vegetation communities relative to reproductive phenology of individual females. Hardwood and mixedpine hardwood vegetation communities were selected for before and after reproductive efforts; hardwood stands were avoided during brooding. While laying their first clutch of the reproductive period, females selected mature pines burned 0-5 months prior. Females avoided mature pine stands 2 growing seasons postburn prior to initiating their first nests. Females avoided mature pine stands 3 growing seasons post-burn when brooding. Turkeys did not select for pine stands that had experienced !3 growing seasons post-burn during any reproductive period, and may avoid these stands during pre-nesting and brooding. Frequent fire return intervals maintain vegetation communities that females select at some point during the reproductive season in pine-dominated landscapes. Ó 2017 The Wildlife Society.

Home range estimator method and GPS sampling schedule affect habitat selection inferences for wild turkeys

“…Home ranges estimated using KDEs and reduced fix rates likely give reasonable estimates of home range size and do not omit areas used by individual turkeys. However, we should not be surprised when contemporary studies using increased fix rates and improved estimators similar to dBBMM, which reduce commission error, show patterns of habitat selection and avoidance different from older studies examining wild turkey habitat selection (Yeldell et al ). Technology will continue to improve our ability to monitor wild turkeys and estimate habitat selection.…”

“…We then identified the location that had the most surrounding locations within 30 m, and if the number of these locations was >30% of the total number of locations in the 3‐day window, we considered the collective group of locations to be a nesting location and removed it from further analyses. We confirmed if a female was nesting or if she had successfully hatched a brood following the methodology of Yeldell et al (). Briefly, we monitored females we suspected to be incubating for up to 30 days.…”

“…We performed these brood surveys 2 times/week up to 56 days posthatch or until we failed to detect poults during 2 consecutive brood surveys. Broods were considered successfully raised if ≥1 poult was present 56 days posthatch (Yeldell et al ).…”

Nest and brood site selection of eastern wild turkeys

“…We downloaded GPS locations from each turkey ≥1 time/week. We viewed GPS locations and considered a female to be incubating when female locations became concentrated around a single point (Yeldell et al a, b ). We monitored incubating females daily and after nest termination we located the nest site to determine nest fate and conduct vegetation sampling.…”

Spatiotemporal variability of fire characteristics affect animal responses in pyric landscapes

“…The eastern wild turkey (Meleagris gallopavo silvestris Linnaeus, 1758; hereafter, turkey) inhabits pinedominated ecosystems in southeastern United States that are frequently managed with prescribed fire. Recent evidence suggests that turkeys select for recently burned (≤2 yr post burn) pine stands within these landscapes (Yeldell et al 2017a;Yeldell et al 2017bYeldell et al , 2017cWood et al 2018). Herbaceous vegetation comprises a substantial component of turkey diets (Exum et al 1987;Hurst 1992), and changes in groundcover vegetation (Wiggers et al 2013), herbaceous plants (Ellair and Platt 2013), and invertebrates (New 2014) after prescribed fire may shift forage availability (Campo et al 1989;Burk et al 1990;Sisson et al 1990;Still and Bauman 1990).…”