Next Article in Journal
Exploring Genetic and Morphological Integrity across Ocean Basins: A Case Study of the Mesopelagic Shrimp Systellaspis debilis (Decapoda: Oplophoridae)
Previous Article in Journal
The Diversity of Arbuscular Mycorrhizal Fungi and Their Associations in South America: A Case Study of Argentinean and Brazilian Cattle Raising Productive Ecosystems: A Review
Previous Article in Special Issue
Do Bats Avoid the Urban Core in the Breeding Season? A Case Study from Temperate Latitudes
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Diversity
Volume 15
Issue 9
10.3390/d15091007
diversity-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles thumb_up
...
Endorse textsms
...
Comment
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

Seasonal Resource Selection and Use of Hardwood Regeneration by Translocated Wild Turkeys in the Mississippi Alluvial Valley

by
M. Kyle Marable
1,†,
Jerrold L. Belant
2,
Dave Godwin
3 and
Guiming Wang
1,*
1
Department of Wildlife, Fisheries and Aquaculture, Mail Stop 9690, Mississippi State University, Mississippi State, MS 39762, USA
2
Department of Fisheries and Wildlife, Michigan State University, East Lansing, MI 48824, USA
3
Mississippi Forest Association, 6311 Ridgewood Road, Suite W405, Jackson, MS 39211, USA
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
†
Current address: Alabama Wildlife Federation, 3050 Lanark Road, Millbrook, AL 36054, USA.
Diversity 2023, 15(9), 1007; https://doi.org/10.3390/d15091007
Submission received: 3 July 2023 / Revised: 6 September 2023 / Accepted: 6 September 2023 / Published: 10 September 2023
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Wildlife Population Ecology and Spatial Ecology under Global Change)
Browse Figure
Versions Notes

Abstract

:
Reforestation practices have intensified in the Mississippi Alluvial Valley (MAV) of the United States of America with the aid of Farm Bill programs during the past three decades. Increases in reforested land also enhance possibilities to restore once-abundant but currently sparse species, such as eastern wild turkeys (Meleagris gallopavo silvestris) in the MAV. However, it is unknown whether <20-year-old hardwood regeneration provides a suitable habitat for re-establishing wild turkey populations in the MAV. We translocated wild turkeys to two study sites in reforested areas of the MAV. We monitored 74 wild turkeys’ habitat use and resource selection using radio telemetry from February 2009 to June 2010. We developed land use and land cover maps for the resource selection analysis of translocated wild turkeys. We found that turkey habitat use varied by site, sex, season, land cover type, and distance to mature hardwoods. Habitat use by wild turkeys decreased as distance to mature hardwood forest increased. Female wild turkeys used more hardwood regeneration during nesting and post-nesting seasons than during pre-nesting seasons. Although wild turkeys did not use regenerating and mature hardwood forests to the same extent, management of these forests appears critical to restoring wild turkeys in the MAV.

1. Introduction

Conversion of forests to agriculture is likely the most influential form of habitat loss contributing to species extinctions in terrestrial ecosystems [1]. In the United States of America (USA), average annual gross deforestation is about 800,000 ha/year, with the greatest rates of loss in the southeastern and south central regions [2]. However, reforestation practices have intensified and resulted in an approximate annual net balance of forests nationwide [2] with numerous ecological benefits. In the Mississippi Alluvial Valley (MAV), USA, restoration of forested wetland systems is of great priority to government and non-government organizations [3] and has provided important habitat for numerous wildlife species [4].
Species can occupy suitable habitat through natural recolonization or translocation. Translocation is a species restoration tool often used to re-establish animal populations in areas they formerly occupied [5]. Translocation of wildlife individuals from their natural populations has helped retore many wildlife species successfully in the areas where those species have either become extinct or exist in very low abundance [5]. Success of wildlife translocation and restoration relies on the availability of suitable habitats and associated resources (e.g., food and shelter). However, habitat types and configurations available to translocated populations likely differ from what was available previously [6]. Translocated individuals may need to explore the new environments to acquire required resources for survival and reproduction [7]. Therefore, studies and comparisons of resource uses and selection between the natural and translocated populations help us understand how translocated individuals respond and adjust to the new environments. Wildlife may also protect them from predators by selecting covers and shelters in their new environments [8,9]. For instance, terrestrial birds may use waterbodies or wetlands to help them escape from mammalian predators [9]. It is reasonable to predict habitat generalists may adapt to the new environments with high ecological flexibility. Of fundamental importance to species restoration is knowledge of habitat suitability at potential sites for species translocations [5]. Ecological flexibility, or a species’ ability to adapt to available habitat conditions, is often inferred but generally not well understood [10]. Therefore, understanding how recently translocated populations use available resources is essential for managing existing sites and selecting potential sites for wildlife restoration [10].
The Eastern Wild Turkey (Meleagris gallopavo silvestris, hereafter wild turkey) underwent precipitous population declines across their geographic range from the late 1800s to the early 1900s due to overharvesting and habitat loss [11]. Wild turkeys were restored throughout much of their native range during the 1950s–1970s [12,13]. Later, successful translocations and restoration efforts have helped wild turkey populations expand to agricultural regions of the Midwest [14]. The success of wild turkey restoration has increased public interest in observing and hunting wild turkeys [15]. Likewise, wild turkeys were historically abundant throughout the MAV before being spare or nearly extirpated as bottomland hardwood forests were cleared for agriculture [16]. Although wild turkeys are typically associated with mature hardwood (i.e., deciduous) forests [17], wild turkey populations have been also established successfully in fragmented, agriculture-dominant landscapes and areas with minimal mature hardwoods [17].
Wild turkeys select resources and habitat according to their seasonal ecological and physiological needs and resource availability [18,19]. Hardwood regeneration contains two critical components of wild turkey habitat: trees and herbaceous cover [17]. Although <20-year-old restored forests in the MAV may not provide daytime cover and roost sites as can mature hardwood trees, reforestation may offer wild turkeys potential immediate benefits of early-successional habitat for nesting, feeding, and brood rearing, along with the future benefits of mature forests [17]. Several studies have documented the seasonal spatial resource use of wild turkeys in mixed forest and bottomland hardwood forest habitats in Mississippi and Louisiana, USA [18,20,21,22]. Thogmartin [23] has investigated the use of hardwood regeneration by wild turkeys in a habitat dominated by shortleaf fine forest in Arkansas (AR). However, seasonal use of 8–20-year-old hardwood regeneration by wild turkeys is unknown, particularly in a landscape dominated by agriculture. Furthermore, little is known regarding seasonal habitat use by wild turkeys in agriculture-dominant habitat in southeastern United States (US). Over 275,700 ha of reforestation in the MAV have been implemented since 1985 through Farm Bill programs like the Wetland Reserve Program (WRP) and Conservation Reserve Program (CRP). The regenerated forests may provide potential habitat for wild turkeys in the MAV [4,17,24]. However, it is unknown if the MAV currently has adequate amounts of mature hardwood forests to support wild turkey populations. In this study, we aimed to determine: (1) seasonal population-level resource use by translocated wild turkeys; and (2) if hardwood regeneration is used by wild turkeys similarly to mature hardwoods. Understanding how wild turkeys use hardwood regeneration can help guide future wild turkey restoration in the MAV.

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. Study Areas

Our study was conducted at two sites north and south of Mark (hereafter north and south sites), respectively, 16.5 km apart in the MAV in Quitman County, Mississippi (MS), USA. The two sites were dominated by agricultural fields with remnant mature hardwood forest patches (Nyssa spp., Carya spp., and Quercus spp.) and hardwood regeneration (8–20 years old). The north site (34°19′ N, 90°17′ W) encompassed 6228 ha, including 1344 ha of mature hardwood forests, 876 ha of hardwood regeneration (Quercus spp.), 1108 ha of agriculture, and 22 ha of cotton (Gossypium spp.). The agriculture fields were primarily producing soybeans (Glycine max) and wheat (Triticum aestivum). The south site (34°10′ N, 90°21′ W) was 8180 in size, including 1369 ha of mature hardwood forests, 1249 ha of hardwood regeneration, 2790 ha of agriculture, and 602 ha of cotton. The agriculture comprised mainly soybeans and corn (Zea mays). Wild turkeys are known to depend on hardwood forests for habitats. The mean forest patch was 142 ha, and the largest was 339 ha in the north site. The mean and largest forest patches were 44 ha and 185 ha, respectively, in the south site. Monthly mean temperatures ranged from 5 to 28 °C, with annual average temperature of 17 °C. Monthly precipitation ranged from 3.8 to 26.6 cm and averaged 13.3 cm (Lambert weather station, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration station ID: 224869; 1 km from south site and 11.2 km from north site). To our knowledge, no wild turkey populations were established at either site before this study except for occasional transient birds.

2.2. Wild Turkey Capture, Release, and Radio Telemetry

Wild turkeys were captured from 22 sites throughout Mississippi during January–March 2009 and 2010 using cannon and rocket nets [25]. The mean straight-line distance from capture site to release site was 207 km (standard deviation [SD] = 133 km). Captured wild turkeys were secured in National Wild Turkey Federation wild turkey transport boxes (35 × 56 × 65 cm; International Paper, Memphis, TN, USA) and transported via truck to one of the two sites for release. Fifty-nine percent of captured wild turkeys were released during the day of capture, and all were released within 24 h of capture. Before release, each wild turkey was marked with an aluminum leg band of a unique identification number and fitted with a 71.2 g backpack very high frequency (VHF) radio transmitter (Model A1540, Advanced Telemetry Systems [ATS], Isanti, MN, USA) of a unique frequency with the harness attachment [21]. Wild turkey capture and handling procedures were approved by the Mississippi State University Institutional Animal Care and Use Committee (protocol 08-059).
Each radio-tagged wild turkey was located using VHF radio telemetry on-foot techniques with a 3-element Yagi antenna (AF Antronics, Inc., Urbana, IL, USA) and ATS R4000 receiver at least 3 times weekly, from 1 July 2009 or time of release in 2010 until time of death or 30 June 2010. Potential location bias was reduced by varying bird order and time of day (06:00–09:59 h, 10:00–12:59 h, and 13:00–16:00 h) for radio telemetry across tracking occasions. Locations of tracked wild turkeys were estimated using triangulation with ≥3 bearings with an overall difference of 60–120 degrees taken within 15 min [18,26]. The Universal Transverse Mercator (UTM) Zone 15 North coordinates of observer positions were obtained with a Garmin eTrex H GPS unit (Garmin, Olathe, KS, USA). UTM coordinates of wild turkey locations were estimated using maximum likelihood methods within program LOCATE III [27]. Only locations with an error ellipse of 2 ha or less were used for analyses.

2.3. Resource Use Analyses

The 30 m resolution US National Land Cover Database (NLCD) does not have the specific regenerating forest land cover class that was required by our study [28]. We developed land use and land cover (LULC) maps for our study area using seven bands of Landsat 5 Thematic Mapper (TM 5) imagery acquired on 22 June 2009. The 7 bands had 30 m spatial resolution and included band 1 (visible blue: wavelength λ = 0.45–0.52 μm), band 2 (visible green: λ = 0.52–0.60 μm), band 3 (visible red: λ = 0.63–0.69 μm), band 4 (near-infrared: λ = 0.76–0.90 μm), band 5 (middle-infrared: λ = 1.55–1.75 μm), and band 7 (middle-infrared: λ = 2.08–2.35 μm). To improve the accuracy of land cover classification for agriculturally dominated areas, we used bands 4 and 7, acquired on 12 November 2009, and included texture images for signature development. We obtained Landsat TM 5 imagery from the United States Geological Survey (USGS) Earth Resources Observation and Science Center (EROS) data archives (http://glovis.usgs.gov/; accessed on 1 March 2010). We classified land cover into 7 types: waterbody (e.g., river, creek, lake, and pond), mature hardwood forest, regenerating hardwood forest or WRP trees, agriculture (e.g., corn, soybeans), cotton, pasture (for hay production), and developed area (mainly residential areas), using Kohonen’s self-organizing map classifier within IDRISI Taiga version 16.05 (Figure 1) [29,30]. We collected our training data for the classification with the known land-cover type labels of the training sites using a hand-held GPS unit to record the UTM Zone 15 north coordinates of training locations. We assessed the accuracy of land cover classification with 250 groundtruth locations randomly selected with stratification, using the IDRISI function errmat. The overall error rate was 0.24 (95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.19–0.28). The main error source was misclassification between developed areas and agriculture in rural areas. We resampled the original land cover map from 30 × 30 m resolution to 2 ha m resolution to match the mean 95% error ellipse (2 ha) of turkey relocation estimates. We removed the waterbody type from the analysis, as wild turkeys do not require open waterbodies in the MAV [11]. We also created distance-to-cover type map layers (i.e., distance from a pixel’s center to center of the nearest pixel of each land cover type) from the resampled land cover map using ArcMap 10 (Environmental Systems Research Institute, Redlands, CA, USA). We used ArcMap 10 to define each site by calculating a population-level minimum convex polygon (MCP) around all locations at each of our previously defined study sites (Figure 1). We used Hawth’s tools to overlay a grid of 2 ha cells on each MCP. Each cell was reclassified based on the dominant land-cover type within it [31]. We then calculated the numbers of times male and female wild turkeys were located within each cell.
We estimated wild turkey resource use for 3 biological seasons: pre-nesting (1 January–15 March), nesting/early reproductive (16 March–30 June), and post-nesting (1 July–31 December) [32]. The number of wild turkeys tracked for each season was 51 (25 north site [N]: 26 south site [S]), 62 (31 N: 31 S), and 23 (13 N: 10 S), respectively. We used generalized linear models with a Poisson distribution to test the effects of categorical variables sex, season, vegetation type (veg), and study site on cell use, with distance to mature hardwoods (distmat) being a continuous covariate. The response variable was the total number of times wild turkeys were relocated within a grid cell. We included models with biologically relevant interactions, such as season and sex. We used Akaike Information Criterion corrected for small sample sizes (AICc), ΔAICc (difference in AICc from the best model), and Akaike weight to select the most parsimonious model and competing models [33]. The model selection was carried out in a backward stepwise manner. At each step, we removed a covariate, of which the removal resulted in the AICc reduction by 2.0 or more. The most parsimonious model had the least AICc value or greatest Akaike weight among candidate models. Models with ΔAICc < 2 were considered competing models. All tests were conducted with α = 0.05. We carried out statistical analysis using PROC GLM of SAS (version 9.2, SAS Institute Inc., Cary, NC, USA).

3. Results

We radio-tracked 74 wild turkeys overall, resulting in 3265 locations (N: 2075; S: 1190) with 898 locations (N 608: S 290) during pre-nesting season, 1568 locations (N 927: S 641) during nesting season, and 799 locations (N 540: S 259) during post-nesting season. Locations occurred in 326 of 1737 total cells at the north site and 385 of 3155 total cells at the south site. The population-level MCPs of tracked wildlife turkeys at the north and south sites did not overlap (Figure 1).
Wild turkeys used resources differently between the north and south sites (F1, 331,000 = 647.84, p < 0.01). Resource use by wild turkeys differed among seasons (F2, 331,000 = 218.83, p < 0.01), between sexes (F1, 331,000 = 10.53, p < 0.01), and among land cover types (F5, 331,000 = 46.46, p < 0.01). Distance to mature hardwood forest influenced resource use (F1, 331,000 = 721.89, p < 0.01).
The model with the least AICc (36,191.0) and greatest wi (1.0) included distance to mature hardwood forest and a three-way interaction among sex, season, and vegetation (Table 1). There were no competing models (∆AICc ≥ 181.17). Cell usage by wild turkeys during all seasons decreased as distance to mature hardwood forest increased. Females increased use of hardwood regeneration during the nesting and post-nesting seasons, but reduced use of hardwood regeneration during the pre-nesting season, whereas males increased use of hardwood regeneration during the post-nesting season but not during the nesting and pre-nesting seasons. Mature hardwood forests were used more by females during the nesting and post-nesting seasons and by males during post-nesting season than by males during pre-nesting season (Table 2). During all seasons, females and males used developed areas less compared to the use of mature hardwood forests by males during pre-nesting season (Table 2).

4. Discussion

Hardwood regeneration (<20 years old) did provide suitable habitat and appeared to be an important component of wild turkey habitat in the MAV. Hardwood regeneration contains more herbaceous ground-level vegetation (mainly forbs) compared to mature hardwood forests and was used more by females during nesting and post-nesting seasons. Broad-leafed forbs have greater nutritional values (e.g., more proteins and less fiber) than grasses in the pasture for hay production. Studies outside the MAV have also documented female wild turkeys selecting habitats with herbaceous components, including upland forests, young (<20 years old) pine (Pinus spp.)-dominated forests [18,22,34], bottomland hardwood forests [35], and early-successional openings in Arkansas during nesting and post-nesting seasons. Use of hardwood regeneration in our study was not limited to females, as males used this land cover more during the post-nesting season. Wild turkey use of similar-aged pine forests has been documented on fragmented landscapes in Georgia [34], further demonstrating the importance of early-successional habitats produced by forest regeneration to wild turkeys. Reduced use of hardwood regeneration by both sexes during the pre-nesting season was likely due to limited food availability, unsuitable cover, and both sexes using more open areas for breeding [11].
Comparatively greater use of mature hardwood forests during all seasons is consistent with wild turkey habitat requirements [17]. Although increased female uses of hardwood regeneration occurred during nesting seasons, females also increased use of mature hardwood forests during nesting seasons. However, increased use of mature hardwood forests by females during nesting seasons is likely explained by individuals that did not nest [36]. Males and females selected mature hardwood forests during the post-nesting season similarly to other studies in West Virginia, Georgia, and central Mississippi [22,34,36]. The requirement of mature hardwood forests is further emphasized by wild turkeys being less likely to select resources more distant from mature hardwood forests with shelter from inclement weather and predators [23]. For example, limited woody wetlands (or bottomland hardwood) on our sites may provide roost trees that protect wild turkeys from mammalian predators.
During late spring–summer, agriculture may provide an additional food source for wild turkeys. In contrast to the study of Morgan et al. [28], who concluded wild turkeys selected against agriculture fields, wild turkeys in our study typically used agriculture similarly to random use, with increased use by males during the post-nesting season and by females during the nesting season. Increased use of agriculture fields by males during the post-nesting season may be explained by possible insect abundance or the function of these fields as ecological corridors (e.g., for travel) between other land covers. Female use of agriculture fields is likely due to nesting along field borders adjacent to cropland or an effect of non-nesting females using different resources than nesting females (M. K. Marable, Mississippi State University, unpublished data). Furthermore, the use of agriculture fields by wild turkeys on our study sites may be because our sites were agriculture-dominant in the land use, with far fewer hardwood forests than those of Morgan et al. [28].
Pasture and developed areas were used differently by wild turkeys in our study sites. Pasture was used similarly to random use by males and females for all seasons. Despite the potential for pasture to provide nesting and brood-rearing habitats, our study was consistent with other studies where pasture was not selected due to the selection of regenerating and mature hardwood forests [34,36]. Developed areas were used comparatively less by males and females for all seasons. Developed areas in our study sites were mainly rural residential sites, such as farmer’s houses and small towns of 200–300 residents. Our translocated wild turkeys probably avoided human disturbances and the risk of being killed by domestic dogs by staying away from developed areas. The limited uses of pastures and developed areas also suggest that two LULC types do not provide suitable resources, such as adequate amounts of food resources, to wild turkeys, so that they would take risks to select the two LULC types.
Seasonal variation in resource use highlights the requirement for multiple habitat types to meet wild turkey needs during different seasons. For instance, increased selection for hardwood forests and regenerating forests during the nesting seasons suggests that females need forest cover for nesting and protection from predators while incubating eggs on the nest. Nesting female wild turkeys in the bottomland hardwood forests in Louisiana, southeastern USA, select bottomland hardwood forests for ground level cover during the nesting seasons [37]. Our study suggests that regenerating and mature hardwood forests are important to wild turkeys in the MAV, despite variation in the intensity of use across three seasons. Translocating wild turkeys to areas in the MAV with mature and regenerating hardwood forests is a step toward reestablishing the historic ecosystem and restoring native species. The spatiotemporal resolutions of the VHF radio telemetry are not as high as desirable for evaluating spatial variation in habitat and resource selection by wild turkeys. Sullivan et al. [38] used GPS transmitters to investigate spatial variation in habitat selection by translocated female wild turkeys in Texas. To better guide the future translocation of wild turkeys in the MAV, habitat suitability maps of wild turkeys can help us select the sites for successful translocations of wild turkeys in the MAV [39].

5. Conclusions

Hardwood regeneration (<20 years old) and mature hardwoods appear critical to wild turkey restoration in the MAV. We recommend establishing hardwood regeneration and allowing current areas of hardwood regeneration to mature. Increased occurrence of mature hardwood forests and early-successional areas may increase habitat quality for wild turkeys in the MAV. We recommend using the north site as an example of minimum habitat requirements for wild turkeys in the MAV because less wild turkey movement was required at the north site [40]. Based on habitat at the north site, we recommend choosing release sites with ≥1300 ha of mature hardwood forests and ≥900 ha of hardwood regeneration in patches ≥ 340 ha.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, G.W., J.L.B. and D.G.; methodology, G.W., M.K.M. and D.G.; software, M.K.M.; formal analysis, M.K.M.; investigation, M.K.M. and G.W.; resources, G.W. and D.G.; data curation, M.K.M.; writing—original draft preparation, M.K.M.; writing—review and editing, M.K.M., J.L.B., G.W. and D.G.; visualization, G.W.; supervision, G.W. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This study was funded by the MDWFP grant number [Study 38] through the Federal Aid in Wildlife Restoration W-48 Statewide Wildlife Investigations grant.

Institutional Review Board Statement

Wild turkey capture and handling procedures were approved by the Mississippi State University Institutional Animal Care and Use Committee (protocol 08-059).

Data Availability Statement

The data presented in this study are available on request from the corresponding author.

Acknowledgments

We thank R. Hardman, M. McKinney, H. Cooper, D. Ohlrich, J. Rodgers, E. Wengert, and B. Winter for assistance with field work. Mississippi Department of Wildlife, Fisheries, and Parks (MDWFP) conducted turkey captures and translocations and provided field housing for this study. We are grateful to R.A. Carson Jr. and other private landowners for allowing access to their properties and providing field housing. We thank MDWFP for funding this project (Study 38) through the Federal Aid in Wildlife Restoration W-48 Statewide Wildlife Investigations grant. Delta Wildlife Inc., the Mississippi Chapter of the National Wild Turkey Federation, and the Forest and Wildlife Research Center and Department of Wildlife, Fisheries, and Aquaculture at Mississippi State University provided additional funding.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References

  1. Pereira, H.M.; Leadley, P.W.; Proença, V.; Alkemade, R.; Scharlemann, J.P.W.; Fernandez-Manjarrés, J.F.; Araújo, M.B.; Balvanera, P.; Biggs, R.; Cheung, W.W.L.; et al. Scenarios for global biodiversity in the 21st century. Science 2010, 330, 1496–1501. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  2. Masek, J.G.; Cohen, W.B.; Leckie, D.; Wulder, M.A.; Vargas, R.; de Jong, B.; Healey, S.; Law, B.; Birdsey, R.; Houghton, R.A.; et al. Recent rates of forest harvest and conversion in North America. J. Geophys. Res. 2011, 116, 22. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  3. Faulkner, S.; Barrow, J.W.; Keeland, B.; Walls, S.; Telesco, D. Effects of conservation practices on wetland ecosystem services in the Mississippi Alluvial Valley. Ecol. Appl. 2011, 21, S31–S48. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  4. King, S.L.; Twedt, D.J.; Wilson, R.R. The role of the Wetland Reserve Program in conservation efforts in the Mississippi River Alluvial Valley. Wildl. Soc. Bull. 2006, 34, 914–920. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  5. Wolf, C.M.; Griffith, B.; Reed, C.; Temple, S.A. Avian and mammalian translocations: Update and reanalysis of 1987 survey data. Conserv. Biol. 1996, 10, 1142–1154. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. Fleishman, E.; Mac Nally, R. Measuring the response of animals to contemporary drivers of fragmentation. Can. J. Zool. 2007, 85, 1080–1090. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Marable, M.K.; Belant, J.L.; Godwin, D.; Wang, G. Effects of resource dispersion and site familiarity on movements of translocated wild turkeys on fragmented landscapes. Behav. Process. 2012, 91, 119–124. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Caro, T. Antipredator Defenses in Birds and Mammals; University of Chicago Press: Chicago, IL, USA, 2005. [Google Scholar]
  9. Albrecht, T.; Hořák, D.; Kreisinger, J.; Weidinger, K.; Klvaňa, P.; Michot, T.C. Factors determining pochard nest predation along a wetland gradient. J. Wildl. Manag. 2006, 70, 784–791. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Van Daele, L.J.; Barnes, V.G., Jr.; Belant, J.L. Ecological flexability of brown bears on Kodiak Island, Alaska. Ursus 2012, 23, 21–29. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Dickson, J.G. Wild Turkey. In Wildlife of Southern Forests: Habitat and Management; Dickson, J.G., Ed.; Hancock House Publishers: Blaine, WA, USA, 2001; pp. 108–121. [Google Scholar]
  12. Brooks, E.N.; Alpizar-Jara, R.; Pollack, K.H.; Steffen, D.E.; Pack, J.C.; Norman, G.W. An online wild turkey population dynamics model. Wildl. Soc. Bull. 2002, 30, 31–45. [Google Scholar]
  13. Kennamer, J.E.; Kennamer, M.; Brenneman, R. History. In The Wild Turkey: Biology and Management; Dickson, J.G., Ed.; Stackpole: Harrisburg, PA, USA, 1992; pp. 6–17. [Google Scholar]
  14. Humberg, L.A.; Devault, T.L.; Rhodes, O.E. Survival and cause-specific mortality of wild turkeys in northern Indiana. Am. Midl. Nat. 2009, 161, 313–322. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Kurzejeski, E.W.; Vangilder, L.D. Population management. In The Wild Turkey: Biology and Management; Dickson, J.G., Ed.; Stackpole: Mechanisticsburg, PA, USA, 1992; pp. 165–184. [Google Scholar]
  16. Leopold, A. Game Survey of Mississippi; Sporting Arms and Ammunition Manufacturers Institute: Vienna, VI, USA, 1929. [Google Scholar]
  17. Porter, W.F. Habitat requirements. In The Wild Turkey: Biology and Management; Dickson, J.G., Ed.; Stackpole: Mechanicsburg, PA, USA, 1992; pp. 202–213. [Google Scholar]
  18. Chamberlain, M.J.; Leopold, B.D. Habitat sampling and selection by female wild turkeys during preincubation. Wilson Bull. 2000, 112, 326–331. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Lehman, C.P.; Rumble, M.A.; Flake, L.D. Winter habitat selection patterns of Merriam’s turkeys in the southern Black Hills, South Dakota. West. N. Am. Nat. 2007, 67, 278–291. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Wilson, W.B.; Chamberlain, M.J.; Kimmel, F.G. Seasonal space use and habitat selection of female wild turkeys in a Louisiana bottomland hardwood forest. In Proceedings of the Fifty-Ninth Annual Conference on Southeast; Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies: Washington, DC, USA, 2005; Volume 59, pp. 114–125. [Google Scholar]
  21. Godwin, K.D. Habitat Use, Home Range Size, and Survival Rates of Wild Turkey Gobblers of Tallahala Wildlife Management Area. Master’s Thesis, Mississippi State University, Mississippi State, MS, USA, 1991. [Google Scholar]
  22. Miller, D.A.; Conner, L.M. Habitat selection of female turkeys in a managed pine landscape in Mississippi. J. Wildl. Manag. 2007, 71, 744–751. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Thogmartin, W.E. Home-range size and habitat selection of female wild turkeys (Meleagris gallopavo) in Arkansas. Am. Midl. Nat. 2001, 145, 247–260. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. King, S.L.; Keeland, B.D. Evaluation of reforestation in the Lower Mississippi River Alluvial Valley. Restor. Ecol. 1999, 7, 348–359. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. Harmon, S.A.; Van Den Bussche, R.A. Genetic attributes of a declining population of reintroduced eastern wild turkeys (Meleagris gallopavo silvestris). Southwest. Nat. 2000, 45, 258–266. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. Cochran, W.W.; Lord, R.D. A radio-tracking system for wild animals. J. Wildl. Manag. 1963, 27, 9–24. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. Nams, V.O. Locate III User’s Guide; Pacer Computer Software: Tatamagouche, NS, Canada, 2006. [Google Scholar]
  28. Homer, C.; Dewitz, J.; Fry, J.; Coan, M.; Hossain, N.; Larson, C.; Herold, N.; McKerrow, A.; VanDriel, J.N.; Wickham, J. Completion of the 2001 national land cover database for the counterminous United States. Photogramm. Eng. Remote Sens. 2007, 73, 337–340. [Google Scholar]
  29. Eastman, J.R. IDRISI Taiga: Guide to GIS and Remote Sensing; Clark Labs, Clark University: Worcester, MA, USA, 2009. [Google Scholar]
  30. Li, Z.; Eastman, J.R. Commitment and typicality measures for the self-organizing map. Int. J. Remote Sens. 2010, 31, 4265–4280. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Belant, J.L.; Griffith, B.; Zhang, Y.; Follman, E.H.; Adams, L.G. Population-level resource selection by sympatric brown and American black bears in Alaska. Polar Biol. 2010, 33, 31–40. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Chamberlain, M.J. Ecology of Wild Turkeys in Bottomland Hardwood Forests in the Mississippi Alluvial Valley. Ph.D. Dissertation, Mississippi State University, Mississippi State, MS, USA, 1995. [Google Scholar]
  33. Burnham, K.P.; Anderson, D.R. Model Selection and Inference: A Practical Information-Theoretic Approach, 2nd ed.; Springer: New York, NY, USA, 2002. [Google Scholar]
  34. Morgan, J.J.; Schweitzer, S.H.; Carroll, J.P. Summer Meleagris gallopavo silvestris use of a landscape dominated by agriculture and Pinus spp. plantations. Southeast. Nat. 2006, 5, 637–648. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  35. Wilson, W.B. Seasonal Space Use, Habitat Preference and Survival of Female Wild Turkeys in a Louisiana Bottomland Hardwoord Forest. Master’s Thesis, Louisiana State University, Baton Rouge, LA, USA, 2005. [Google Scholar]
  36. Swanson, D.A.; Pack, J.C.; Taylor, C.I.; Brown, P.W.; Samuel, D.E. Habitat use of wild turkey hens in northwestern West Virginia. In Proceedings of the 48 Annual Conference of Southeastern Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencie; Southeastern Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies: Washington, DC, USA, 1994; Volume 48, pp. 123–133. [Google Scholar]
  37. Byrne, M.E. Nesting ecology of wild turkeys in a bottomland hardwood forest. Am. Midl. Nat. 2013, 170, 95–110. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. Sullivan, D.J.; Little, A.R.; Poteet, M.L.; Collier, B.A.; Chamberlain, M.J. Selection of landcover types by translocated female eastern wild turkeys in east Texas. Wildl. Soc. Bull. 2022, 46, e1282. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. Farrell, A.; Wang, G.; Rush, S.A.; Martin, J.A.; Belant, J.L.; Butler, A.B.; Godwin, D. Machine learning of large-scale spatial distributions of wild turkeys with high-dimensional environmental data. Ecol. Evol. 2019, 9, 5938–5949. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  40. Marable, M.K. Movement, Space Use, and Cause-Specific Mortality of Translocated Wild Turkeys in the Mississippi Delta. Master’s Thesis, Mississippi State University, Mississippi State, MS, USA, 2012. [Google Scholar]
Diversity 15 01007 g001
Figure 1. Land use and land cover (LULC) map of the study sites in Quitman County, Mississippi, the United States. Black polygons are the minimum convex polygons of all VHF telemetry locations of wild turkeys at a site. The legend is the LULC class. Initial WRP stands for Wetland Reserve Program. The X axis the Easting (m) of the UTM zone 15 north. The Y axis is the Northing (m).
Figure 1. Land use and land cover (LULC) map of the study sites in Quitman County, Mississippi, the United States. Black polygons are the minimum convex polygons of all VHF telemetry locations of wild turkeys at a site. The legend is the LULC class. Initial WRP stands for Wetland Reserve Program. The X axis the Easting (m) of the UTM zone 15 north. The Y axis is the Northing (m).
Diversity 15 01007 g001
Table 1. Generalized linear models for seasonal habitat selection by translocated wild turkeys, north central Mississippi Alluvial Valley, Mississippi, USA, July 2009–June 2010 a.
Table 1. Generalized linear models for seasonal habitat selection by translocated wild turkeys, north central Mississippi Alluvial Valley, Mississippi, USA, July 2009–June 2010 a.
Model bKAICcΔAICcwi
site distmat sex * season * veg c3836,191.00.01.00
site distmat veg * season2036,372.2181.20.00
site distmat sex * season836,449.7258.70.00
distmat sex * season * veg3736,497.6306.60.00
distmat veg * season1936,689.2498.20.00
distmat sex * season736,753.4562.40.00
distmat237,337.41146.40.00
site sex * season * veg3737,443.01252.00.00
site veg * season1937,623.91432.90.00
site sex * season737,726.11535.10.00
sex * veg * season3638,003.51812.50.00
veg * season1838,199.52008.50.00
site238,269.12078.10.00
sex * season638,343.12152.10.00
season338,482.32291.30.00
veg638,693.52502.50.00
sex238,939.12748.10.00
null138,947.92756.90.00
a Model comparison was made using Akaike’s Information Criteria corrected for a small sample size (AICc), the difference in AICc from the best model (ΔAICc), and model weight (wi). b Model terms are study site (site), distance to mature hardwoods (distmat), sex, season, and vegetation type (veg). c Interactions are indicated by *. Letter K stands for the number of unknown parameters.
Table 2. Parameter estimates from the generalized linear model (site + distmat + sex * veg * season) d for estimating seasonal habitat selection of translocated wild turkeys, northern central Mississippi Alluvial Valley, Mississippi, USA, July 2009–June 2010.
Table 2. Parameter estimates from the generalized linear model (site + distmat + sex * veg * season) d for estimating seasonal habitat selection of translocated wild turkeys, northern central Mississippi Alluvial Valley, Mississippi, USA, July 2009–June 2010.
Parameter Standard
Season eSexVegetationEstimateErrorUCILCI
Pre-nestingFemaleAgriculture−0.4000.122−0.161−0.639
Cotton−0.8760.277−0.332−1.419
Developed−2.2630.510−1.264−3.262
Mature hardwoods0.0380.1130.260−0.184
Pasture−13.134392.730756.600−782.870
Hardwood regeneration−0.6820.137−0.414−0.950
MaleAgriculture−0.0740.1440.207−0.356
Cotton0.8110.2211.2440.378
Developed−0.5130.3670.207−1.232
Pasture−0.1581.0051.812−2.127
Hardwood regeneration−0.7370.193−0.358−1.116
NestingFemaleAgriculture0.6550.1090.8680.441
Cotton0.7740.1611.0900.459
Developed−0.6940.269−0.168−1.221
Mature hardwoods0.5790.1090.7920.365
Pasture−13.138429.900829.450−855.720
Hardwood regeneration0.6060.1120.8260.385
MaleAgriculture−0.1900.1510.106−0.487
Cotton0.4400.2460.921−0.042
Developed−0.2650.3480.416−0.946
Mature hardwoods0.1960.1370.464−0.072
Pasture−13.081716.0201390.310−1416.470
Hardwood regeneration−0.5960.192−0.221−0.972
Post-nestingFemaleAgriculture0.2020.1380.474−0.069
Cotton1.0870.2401.5580.615
Developed−1.8600.714−0.461−3.260
Mature hardwoods0.7130.1200.9490.477
Pasture−13.243668.0301296.070−1322.560
Hardwood regeneration0.5280.1340.7910.266
MaleAgriculture0.9030.1311.1590.647
Cotton1.2500.2321.7040.795
Developed−12.909232.430442.650−468.470
Mature hardwoods0.6280.1370.8960.359
Pasture−13.150888.2901727.870−1754.170
Hardwood regeneration0.5890.1510.8850.293
d Symbol distmat represents distance to mature hardwoods; site for effects of study site; sex for sex effects; and asterisk (*) for interaction; e Pre-nesting: 1 January–15 March; nesting: 16 March–30 June; post-nesting: 1 July–31 December; LCI for the lower limit of 95% confidence interval; and UCI for the upper limit of 95% confidence interval.
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Marable, M.K.; Belant, J.L.; Godwin, D.; Wang, G. Seasonal Resource Selection and Use of Hardwood Regeneration by Translocated Wild Turkeys in the Mississippi Alluvial Valley. Diversity 2023, 15, 1007. https://doi.org/10.3390/d15091007

AMA Style

Marable MK, Belant JL, Godwin D, Wang G. Seasonal Resource Selection and Use of Hardwood Regeneration by Translocated Wild Turkeys in the Mississippi Alluvial Valley. Diversity. 2023; 15(9):1007. https://doi.org/10.3390/d15091007

Chicago/Turabian Style

Marable, M. Kyle, Jerrold L. Belant, Dave Godwin, and Guiming Wang. 2023. "Seasonal Resource Selection and Use of Hardwood Regeneration by Translocated Wild Turkeys in the Mississippi Alluvial Valley" Diversity 15, no. 9: 1007. https://doi.org/10.3390/d15091007

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop