Wild Turkey Nest Success in Pine‐Dominated Forests of the Southeastern United States

Abstract

Nest success is a primary component of productivity for wild turkeys (Meleagris gallopavo; turkeys) and there is concern that turkey productivity is declining across the southeastern United States. We evaluated the influence of nest site and landscape characteristics on risk of nest failure for turkeys in pine (Pinus spp.)‐dominated forests across the southeastern United States. We used Cox proportional hazard models to evaluate daily hazard of nest failure associated with nest site and landscape metrics within 500‐m and 1‐km buffers centered on nests. Of 451 nests monitored (n = 320 females) between 2014 and 2018, 76% failed, with predation as the primary cause. Daily hazard of nest failure increased by 1.2% for each day that females delayed nest incubation following the mean nesting date (29 Apr; βday = 0.010 ± 0.002 [SE]; hazard ratio [HR] = 1.01, 95% CI = 1.006–1.015). Environmental covariates associated with risk of nest failure included the maximum enhanced vegetation index (EVI) and distance to the nearest ecotone. Daily hazard increased with increasing distance away from an ecotone (βecotone = 0.16 ± 0.06; HR = 1.17, CI = 1.03–1.32) and with lower EVI around the nest (βEVI = −0.30 ± 0.06; HR = 0.74, CI = 0.65–0.83). Additional nest site or landscape covariates were included in competitive models but did not influence risk of nest failure significantly. Our study highlights the importance of considering landscape context when designing and implementing land management actions intended to enhance wild turkey reproduction. Our findings suggest that landscape metrics thought to be important to turkeys in northern agro‐forested landscapes may not be relevant to turkeys in pine ecosystems of the southeastern United States. © 2021 The Wildlife Society.

Reproductive asynchrony within social groups of female eastern wild turkeys

“…Researchers have noted similar observations previously, and attributed synchronous nesting behaviors at the population level to the potential that photoperiod most influences timing of reproduction (Healy 1992, Migaud et al 2006, Walton et al 2011. We also noted that average dates of first nest initiation for female wild turkeys on our site were comparable to dates reported across populations throughout the southeastern United States (Thogmartin and Johnson 1999, Palmer et al 2013, Crawford et al 2021. Conversely, within social groups we found substantive temporal variation in timing of nest initiation within years.…”

“…We also observed that ˜30% of successful initial first nests were produced by ˜4% of females in our population, females we presumed to be dominant within their respective social groups. We note that these initial first nests by default were successful early in the nesting season, and previous works have noted the importance of successful early nesting attempts in sustaining wild turkey populations (Porter et al 1983, Crawford et al 2021. Contemporary literature has detailed the ecological significance of having females be successful at hatching clutches early in the nesting season for various species, including willow ptarmigan (Lagopus lagopus ; Wilson et al 2007) and greater sandhill cranes (Antigone canadensis ; Ivey and Dugger 2008).…”

Review of range‐wide vital rates quantifies eastern wild Turkey population trajectory

“… 1 Bakner et al (2019), 2 Badyaev and Faust (1996), 3 Badyaev et al (1996), 4 Byrne and Chamberlain (2018), 5 Chamberlain et al (2012), 6 Chamberlain et al (2020), 7 Conner et al (2006), 8 Crawford et al (2021), 9 Diefenbach et al (2012), 10 Eriksen et al (2010), 11 Fuller et al (2013), 12 Hubbard et al (1999a), 13 Kane et al (2007), 14 Kilburg et al (2014), 15 Lavoie et al (2017), 16 Little et al (2014), 17 Little et al (2016), 18 Lohr et al (2020), 19 Lowrey et al (2000), 20 Miller, Leopold, and Hurst (1998), 21 Miller, Burger, et al (1998), 22 Metzler and Speake (1985), 23 Moore et al (1993), 24 Niedzielski and Bowman (2015), 25 Norman et al (2001), 26 Norman et al (2004), 27 Pack et al (1999), 28 Paisley et al (1998), 29 Petty et al (2005), 30 Pittman and Krementz (2016), 31 Porter et al (1983), 32 Pollentier et al (2014), 33 Reynolds and Swanson (2010), 34 Roberts and Porter (1998a), 35 Roberts and Porter (1998b), 36 Seiss et al (1990), 37 Thogmartin and Johnson (1999), 38 Tyl et al (2020), 39 Vangilder and Kurzejeski (1995), 40 Wright et al (1996), 41 Wood et al (2019), 42 Yeldell et al (2017). …”

Phenology‐specific space use by Rio Grande wild turkeys

“…Replicated studies examining phenology‐specific movement ecology on wild turkeys are rare (Hall et al 2006, 2007), as are studies that allow for population‐level comparisons across a broad spatial extent (Cohen et al 2018, Bakner et al 2019, Crawford et al 2021). Population‐level scaling can significantly increase the strength and accuracy of biological inferences about space use and, by definition, resource use (Börger et al 2006, van Beest et al 2011).…”