Use of pine-dominated forests by female eastern wild turkeys immediately after prescribed fire

Yeldell, Nathan A.; Cohen, Bradley S.; Prebyl, Thomas J.; Collier, Bret A.; Chamberlain, Michael J.

doi:10.1016/j.foreco.2017.05.003

Cited by 17 publications

(32 citation statements)

References 33 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Insects are important prey items for turkeys in spring and summer (Hurst ), and time‐post‐burn does not substantially affect macroarthropod biomass in frequently burned pine landscapes (Chitwood et al ). Recent evidence suggests turkeys prefer to use space near the edge of stands 0 years post‐fire and stands ≥1 year post‐fire because they provide the juxtaposition between foraging opportunities and escape cover (Yeldell et al ). We observed that brooding females selected for both types of these areas, further emphasizing the importance of providing a mosaic of stands of differing times‐since‐fire when managing for brooding habitat.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Burn patch size and spatial distribution of fire application affect landscape heterogeneity, and may affect turkey behavior (Yeldell et al ). Because we wanted to understand how spatial distribution of fire and distribution of time‐since‐fire classifications across a landscape affects turkeys, we used a circular moving window analysis in FRAGSTATS (McGarigal et al ) with a radius of 95 m to calculate Shannon's diversity index (SHDI) and contagion index (CONTAG) based only on distribution of fire.…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Nest and brood site selection of eastern wild turkeys

et al. 2018

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Management of longleaf pine (Pinus palustris) forests relies on frequent prescribed fire to maintain desirable plant communities. Prescribed fire is often applied while female wild turkeys (Meleagris gallopavo) are reproductively active and may immediately affect habitat availability and demographic outcomes. We identified covariates affecting selection of areas used by nesting and brooding females and determined if these covariates influenced nest and brood survival in a longleaf pine ecosystem. We captured 63 female wild turkeys and measured vegetation and landscape characteristics surrounding nests, brood roosts, and daytime use sites. We used conditional logistic regression to determine which vegetation and landscape‐scale characteristics influenced nest, brood roost, or daytime use sites. We generated Cox proportional hazard models at multiple spatial scales to determine if selection influenced nest and brood survival. Females selected nest sites with greater visual obstruction and increased ground cover, and also nested closer to roads. We observed relevant differences in vegetation and landscape variables associated with where females chose to roost broods compared to sites chosen for foraging or loafing. Females roosted broods at sites with increased ground cover and decreased visual obstruction, and daytime use by broods was most related to increases in ground cover. Time‐since‐fire was an informative covariate for brood site selection but not for nest site selection. Females selected brood roost sites in stands not recently burned (3–6 yr post‐fire), and selected daytime use sites in stands burned the current year (0 yr post‐fire) and 2 years post‐fire. We failed to observe links between selection of vegetation and landscape covariates and probability of nest or brood survival. Notably, our results suggest short (i.e., 1–2 yr) fire return intervals do not provide vegetation communities selected by females to roost broods. Conversely, stands burned within the current year were important for daytime use by broods. Collectively, our findings demonstrate the importance of maintaining diverse fire return intervals to ensure availability of vegetation conditions necessary for nesting and brooding. © 2018 The Wildlife Society.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Nest and brood site selection of eastern wild turkeys

et al. 2018

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Beside predators, hunting and other human activities create disturbance and risk that affect animals' habitat use in a fashion analogue to the fear of predation (Tolon et al, 2009;Ciuti et al, 2012;Cromsigt et al, 2013;Lone et al, 2015Lone et al, , 2017Norum et al, 2015;Little et al, 2016;B€ otsch et al, 2017). In such landscapes, animals are therefore expected to place their home-ranges at the interface of patches of contrasting forage quality and risk levels to be able to solve the forage-safety trade-off (Yeldell et al, 2017).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Safety first: seasonal and diel habitat selection patterns by red deer in a contrasted landscape

Fattebert

Мorelle

Jurkiewicz³

et al. 2019

Journal of Zoology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Spatially heterogeneous landscapes provide solutions to the forage‐safety trade‐off when animals can access risky but energetically rewarding patches, or safer but resource‐poor patches. It can be advantageous for an animal to secure access to habitat heterogeneity at a broader scale in order to be able to dynamically adjust finer scale habitat use through time. We tested the hypothesis of a forage‐safety trade‐off optimization tactic in a hunted red deer (Cervus elaphus) population following a large accidental forest fire. We used telemetry data and fitted resource selection functions at the second‐ and third‐order scales. We then integrated the order‐specific probabilities into single, all‐in‐one multi‐level layers that synthetically captured the habitat selection patterns across scales by informing landscape‐scale annual habitat selectivity with finer within‐home‐range seasonal and diel processes. At the landscape scale, red deer anchored their home‐range at the interface of the disturbed and undisturbed patches, thereby securing habitat heterogeneity. This consequently enabled them to modulate within‐home‐range habitat selection depending on the season and the time of the day. In both seasons, red deer consistently used the burnt area for cover more during the day, and foraged in the unburnt forest and open fields at night. Interestingly there were no major seasonal differences in this diel habitat selection patterns. Increased mortality risk during the hunting season did not substantially change their spatial behaviour. We conclude that year‐round avoidance of non‐lethal human disturbance is the main driver of red deer habitat use in this system.

show abstract

“…Although VHF radiotelemetry has provided guidance on management of wild turkey populations for decades, data suffer biases associated with distance between observer and the transmitter, intersection angle of triangulated bearings, and animal movement between readings (Saltz , Withey et al ). The advent of GPS transmitters for wild turkeys has facilitated a myriad of research possibilities (Collier and Chamberlain , Guthrie et al ), which were previously difficult, if not impossible, such as effects of hunting on behavior (Gross et al ), influences of fire disturbances on movements (Oetgen et al , Yeldell et al ), identification of precise nest initiation dates (Byrne et al , Yeldell et al ), space use of incubating females (Conley et al ), and movements of translocated individuals (Cohen et al ). Accurate range estimators are critical to assess landscape attributes animals select and avoid; therefore, they continue to be important aspects of research on many species, including wild turkeys (Porter et al ).…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

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

et al. 2018

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Understanding patterns in the spatial distribution of individuals in a population is a central question in ecology. Concurrent with advances in biotelemetry devices, development of home range estimator methods incorporating the temporal component of locational fixes are increasingly used to investigate these patterns at finer scales. However, these methods may necessitate sampling schedules that limit battery life and study period length. Practically, evaluating how home range estimator methods affect calculations of space use and habitat selection prior to deployment of biotelemetry devices could help researchers optimize data acquisition schedules. We quantified spatial overlap between a home range estimator using temporal information (dynamic Brownian bridge movement model [dBBMM]) and home range estimators not incorporating the temporal component of fixes (ad hoc and href kernel density estimator [KDE]) across differing sample schedules, and the resulting error in habitat selection ratios using data collected from wild turkeys (Meleagris gallopavo) equipped with Global Positioning Systems units in Texas, Georgia, South Carolina, and Louisiana, USA, during February-May 2015. When comparing ranges created from KDEs to dBBMM, commission errors were large (20-80%) and did not diminish with increased sampling rates. In contrast, omission error rate declined quicker and improvements were minimal when fix rates increased beyond 4/day. Compared with ranges estimated with dBBMM, KDEs poorly defined the spatial bearings of an individual's range, overestimated areas of use, underestimated areas avoided, and showed different patterns of habitat selection. Our results suggest home range estimator methods incorporating temporal information seem capable of estimating ranges encompassing nearly all area used by an individual and should be used even at relatively low-frequency collection schedules to assess home ranges of wild turkeys. If researchers are interested in describing habitat selection of wild turkeys, we recommend a sampling schedule of 1 location/ hour during daytime and dBBMM for range estimation. Ó 2018 The Wildlife Society. KEY WORDS dynamic Brownian Bridge movement models, Global Positioning Systems, home range estimators, isopleth, kernel density, Meleagris gallopavo, movement-based utilization distribution, wild turkey.

show abstract

Use of pine-dominated forests by female eastern wild turkeys immediately after prescribed fire

Cited by 17 publications

References 33 publications

Nest and brood site selection of eastern wild turkeys

Nest and brood site selection of eastern wild turkeys

Safety first: seasonal and diel habitat selection patterns by red deer in a contrasted landscape

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

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About