Thesis (M.S.)--Ohio University, March, 2004. / Includes bibliographical references (p. 22-27).

Thesis (M.S.)--Ohio University, March, 2004. / Title from PDF t.p. Includes bibliographical references (p. 22-27)

Eastern wild turkeys (Meleagris gallapavo silvestris) were extirpated from most of the Mississippi Alluvial Valley (MAV) by 1980 by overharvest and habitat loss. Federal programs have restored areas of the MAV to hardwood forest, potentially warranting restoring wild turkeys to the MAV. As part of a pilot restoration study, I gathered data on resource use and nest sites from July 2010–August 2011. I observed intraspecific niche specialization and spatial niche separation between genders. Spatiotemporal variation in resource availability and intraspecific competition appear to be factors influencing intraspecific niche specialization. Mature hardwood forest was primary habitat selected by translocated wild turkeys. Hardwood regeneration areas were primary habitat selected by hens for nesting. Visual obstruction from 0.0 m–0.5 m was important in selecting fine-scale nest sites. Hardwood regeneration areas have dual value for restoring wild turkeys to the MAV: future mature hardwood areas; and potential nest sites.

Rio Grande wild turkeys (Meleagris gallopavo intermedia) are a highly mobile, wide ranging, and secretive species located throughout the arid regions of Texas. As a result of declines in turkey abundance within the Edwards Plateau and other areas, Texas Parks and Wildlife Department initiated a study to evaluate methods for estimating Rio Grande wild turkey abundance. Unbiased methods for determining wild turkey abundance have long been desired, and although several different methods have been examined few have been successful. The study objectives were to: (1) review current and past methods for estimating turkey abundance, (2) evaluate the use of portable thermal imagers to estimate roosting wild turkeys in three ecoregions, and (3) determine the effectiveness of distance sampling from the air and ground to estimate wild turkey densities in the Edwards Plateau Ecoregion of Texas. Based on the literature review and the decision matrix, I determined two methods for field evaluation (i.e., infrared camera for detecting roosting turkeys and distance sample from the air and ground). I conducted eight ground and aerial forward-looking infrared (FLIR) surveys (4 Edwards Plateau, 3 Rolling Plains, and 1 Gulf Prairies and Marshes) of roost sites during the study. In the three regions evaluated, I was unable to aerially detect roosting turkeys using the portable infrared camera due to altitudinal restrictions required for safe helicopter flight and lack of thermal contrast. A total of 560 km of aerial transects and 10 (800 km) road based transects also were conducted in the Edwards Plateau but neither method yielded a sufficient sample size to generate an unbiased estimate of the turkey abundance. Aerial and ground distance sampling and aerial FLIR surveys were limited by terrain and dense vegetation and a lack of thermal contrast, respectively. Study results suggest aerial FLIR and ground applications to estimate Rio Grande wild turkeys are of limited value in Texas. In my opinion, a method for estimating Rio Grande wild turkey densities on a regional scale does not currently exist. Therefore, the Texas Parks and Wildlife Department should reconsider estimating trends or using indices to monitor turkey numbers on a regional scale.

Rio Grande wild turkeys (Meleagris gallopavo intermedia) are a highly mobile, wide ranging, and secretive species located throughout the arid regions of Texas. As a result of declines in turkey abundance within the Edwards Plateau and other areas, Texas Parks and Wildlife Department initiated a study to evaluate methods for estimating Rio Grande wild turkey abundance. Unbiased methods for determining wild turkey abundance have long been desired, and although several different methods have been examined few have been successful. The study objectives were to: (1) review current and past methods for estimating turkey abundance, (2) evaluate the use of portable thermal imagers to estimate roosting wild turkeys in three ecoregions, and (3) determine the effectiveness of distance sampling from the air and ground to estimate wild turkey densities in the Edwards Plateau Ecoregion of Texas. Based on the literature review and the decision matrix, I determined two methods for field evaluation (i.e., infrared camera for detecting roosting turkeys and distance sample from the air and ground). I conducted eight ground and aerial forward-looking infrared (FLIR) surveys (4 Edwards Plateau, 3 Rolling Plains, and 1 Gulf Prairies and Marshes) of roost sites during the study. In the three regions evaluated, I was unable to aerially detect roosting turkeys using the portable infrared camera due to altitudinal restrictions required for safe helicopter flight and lack of thermal contrast. A total of 560 km of aerial transects and 10 (800 km) road based transects also were conducted in the Edwards Plateau but neither method yielded a sufficient sample size to generate an unbiased estimate of the turkey abundance. Aerial and ground distance sampling and aerial FLIR surveys were limited by terrain and dense vegetation and a lack of thermal contrast, respectively. Study results suggest aerial FLIR and ground applications to estimate Rio Grande wild turkeys are of limited value in Texas. In my opinion, a method for estimating Rio Grande wild turkey densities on a regional scale does not currently exist. Therefore, the Texas Parks and Wildlife Department should reconsider estimating trends or using indices to monitor turkey numbers on a regional scale.

Thesis (M.S.)--Oklahoma Agricultural and Mechanical College. / Prepared through the facility of the Oklahoma Cooperative Wildlife Research Unit, Stillwater ... [et al.]. eContent provider-neutral record in process. Description based on print version record. Includes bibliographical references (leaves 63-65).

Thesis (M.S.)--Oklahoma Agricultural and Mechanical College. / Prepared through the facility of the Oklahoma Cooperative Wildlife Research Unit, Stillwater ... [et al.]. eContent provider-neutral record in process. Description based on print version record. Includes bibliographical references (leaves 63-65).

The Virginia Department of Game and Inland Fisheries (VDGIF), prior to this study, knew little about stakeholder desires for wild turkeys, and had no modern means to assess turkey habitat. My objectives were to (1) identify stakeholders in management of wild turkeys in Virginia, assess their attitudes and opinions regarding turkey management, and incorporate that knowledge in developing a management plan for wild turkeys in Virginia; during this process, assess how involvement in a management planning process affects stakeholders and agency personnel, and (2) develop a preliminary habitat assessment for wild turkeys in Virginia. I employed collaborative planning techniques to develop the management plan. I utilized surveys to assess changes in knowledge, attitudes, and opinions by the Stakeholder Advisory Committee (SAC) and VDGIF staff. I performed a review of wild turkey habitat requirements and habitat assessments, and utilized surveys and the Delphi method to select variables and suitability values for the habitat assessment. The SAC improved their knowledge of wild turkeys, and the SAC and Wild Turkey Technical Committee, and became more accepting of public involvement in decision-making. Wildlife Bureau staff placed more importance on minority stakeholders' values, had more positive views of the agency and wild turkey management, and desired professional opinion in decision-making. I developed a 2-step comprehensive habitat assessment for wild turkeys. The first step examines habitat at the landscape-level (5,167 acres); the second step applies a rapid habitat appraisal tool that uses aerial imagery and data collected from on-site inspection to assess habitats of <1,000 acres. / Master of Science

Overwinter survival of wild turkeys on industrial forests managed for short-rotation pines (treatment) and typical Piedmont forests and farmland (control), was investigated in Virginia's central Piedmont during 1986-1988. Ninety-six percent of the turkeys (N =106) were captured in early fall with alpha-chloralose laced bait. Sixty-three percent of the captured turkeys recovered and were released with transmitters; 15% were released without transmitters; and 21% died from capture related causes. Overwinter survival for all turkeys was <2% regardless of area or year. Daily survival was lower on the control areas (P < 0.01), however, due to the small (13) and scattered sample of turkeys captured over the 3 years on control areas, these data were omitted from further analyses. Daily survival on treatment areas over the 3 years was 97.6%. Thirty-seven percent of radio-equipped turkeys on treatment areas died within 2 weeks of release suggesting that factors related to the trapping process influenced survival. Possibilities considered were residual effects from alpha-chloralose, capture myopathy, and/or a negative effect from the transmitter and/or harness. Four weeks after release daily survival rates improved significantly (P < 0.01) indicating the influence from trapping had subsided. While hardwoods composed 38% of the primary treatment area, 65% of turkeys died in hardwood stands; predation accounted for 81% of the turkey mortality (N =42). Field evidence and necropsy results plus scent station data indicated that gray foxes (Urocyon cinereoargenteus) were the main turkey predators. Fox scats contained no detectable turkey remains but indicated that eastern cottontails (Silvilagus floridanus) were a primary prey species. / Master of Science

Optimum brood cover for wild turkeys is composed of herbaceous cover <0.5 m tall that conceals poults from predators and allows travel underneath. On tracts of hardwoods where early succession stages and young forest cover are scarce, a lack of understory development can limit turkey populations. Additionally, retaining oak on these sites after logging or habitat enhancement is important to provide future timber value and hard mast. I compared the effects of silvicultural practices (multiple fires [F], shelterwood cutting [S], shelterwood cutting with one fire [SF], retention cutting [R], retention cutting with multiple fires [RF], retention cutting with herbicide application [RH], and retention cutting with herbicide application and multiple fires [RHF]) with controls (C) on wild turkey brood habitat and oak regeneration in upland central hardwood stands. I measured structure and food resources to quantify the quality of wild turkey brood cover. Shelterwood and retention cuts increased photosynthetically active radiation. However, herbaceous, vine, and bramble groundcover did not increase. Woody regeneration was greater following canopy reduction and understory disturbance compared to C. Disturbance (fire or herbicide) was required to maintain vegetation at the ideal height for wild turkey broods. Soft mast production increased after canopy reduction with and without fire. Invertebrate biomass did not increase following any treatment, but availability exceeded the dietary requirements of a wild turkey brood. I also counted stem density of oak and competitor regeneration in response to these treatments. Seedlings <12.7 cm were ephemeral. S and SF had a greater density of oak stems >1.4 m than C and F. However, S and SF also had the greatest density of oak >1.4 m prior to treatment. Canopy reduction increased oak competitors, but prescribed fire reduced competitors. I recommend canopy reduction, followed by repeated low-intensity prescribed fire to maintain low groundcover to enhance brood habitat for wild turkeys in mature closed-canopy upland hardwood stands.