Wild Turkey Home Ranges in the Ouachita Mountains Author(s): T. Bently Wigley, James M. Sweeney, Michael E. Garner and M. Anthony Melchiors Source: The Journal of Wildlife Management , Oct., 1986 , Vol. 50, No. 4 (Oct., 1986), pp. 540-544 Published by: Wiley on behalf of the Wildlife Society Stable URL: https://www.jstor.org/stable/3800960 JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org. Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at https://about.jstor.org/terms Wiley and Wildlife Society are collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to The Journal of Wildlife Management This content downloaded from 128.227.183.183 on Fri, 31 Jan 2025 18:13:12 UTC All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms WILD TURKEY HOME RANGES IN THE OUACHITA MOUNTAINS T. BENTLY WIGLEY, Department of Forest Resources, University of Arkansas at Monticello, Monticello, AR 71655 JAMES M. SWEENEY, U.S. Forest Service, North Central Forest Experiment Station, 1-26 Agriculture Building, Col 65211 MICHAEL E. GARNER, Department of Forest Resources, University of Arkansas at Monticello, Monticello, AR 716 M. ANTHONY MELCHIORS, Weyerhaeuser Company, P.O. Box 1060, Hot Springs, AR 71902 Abstract: Home-range areas were determined for 21 wild turkeys (Meleagris gallopavo) in the O Mountains of Arkansas. Annual minimum ranges were larger than previously reported for wild tur 3,514 ha), and seasonal minimum ranges averaged 1,295 ha. Variation in annual home rang correlated with the percentage of the area within each home range composed of habitat charac typical of young pine (Pinus spp.) plantations. Reducing the rate at which native stands have been c to plantations, distributing young plantations evenly among native stands, and applying sawtimber are suggested to enhance turkey habitat. J. WILDL. MANAGE. 50(4):540-544 The wild turkey is a species of management importance throughout much of the United States. For example, during the spring of 1983, approximately 120,000 wild turkeys were har- vested in the southeastern United States (Ken- namer 1983), and the aesthetic appeal of the wild turkey makes it valuable to the noncon- sumptive public. The Ouachita Mountains region is important to users of the wild turkey resource in Arkansas. Although this region constitutes only 14% of the Arkansas land base and 19% of the commercial forestland, it yielded an annual average of 37% of turkeys harvested throughout the state be- tween 1980 and 1983 (Arkansas Game and Fish Comm. 1983). The proximity of the Ouachita Mountains to major urban areas of the state adds to the value of this region. Knowledge of home-range parameters is a near requisite for management of a species. Al- though home-range area for wild turkeys has been reported in numerous studies (Brown 1980), habitat conditions reported in other stud- ies are not representative of the Ouachita Mountains. Soils in this region are less produc- tive than in many portions of the state, and many areas are under even-aged pine manage- ment. The objectives of this study, therefore, were to estimate home-range parameters for wild turkeys in the Ouachita Mountains region of Arkansas and to identify habitat character- istics that influence those parameters. We thank all personnel with the Arkansas Game and Fish Comm., U.S. For. Serv., and Weyerhaeuser Co. who assisted with this study. Special thanks are due E. H. Black, B. G. Can- trell, R. L. Crossett, D. M. Harris, T. Scott, and D. F. Urbston. The editorial assistance of R. S. Beasley, J. M. Guldin, J. A. Rochelle, and L. C. Thompson also is gratefully acknowledged. This study was financed through McIntire-Stennis funds and a grant by Weyerhaeuser Co., and is a contribution of the Arkansas Agric. Exp. Stn. STUDY AREA The study was conducted in the Ouachita Mountains region of Montgomery, Scott, and Yell counties, Arkansas. The Ouachita Moun- tains are a series of steep ridges and basins with a somewhat parallel east-west orientation. Ele- vations range from 150 to 850 m above mean sea level (Divine 1972). Most (98%) of the 20,250-ha study area is managed by the U.S. Forest Service or forest industries for a variety of forest products, including pulpwood and sawlogs. It is composed of natural pine stands (58%), mixed pine-hardwood (20%), and pine plantations (22%) from 0 to approximately 32 years old. Overstory vegetation in natural stands is dominated by shortleaf pine (P. echinata), hickories (Carya spp.), American sweetgum (Liquidambar styraciflua), post oak (Quercus stellata), southern red oak (Q. falcata), and white oak (Q. alba). Dominant understory species are flameleaf sumac (Rhus copallina) and smooth sumac (R. glabra), common poke- berry (Phytolacca americana), blueberry (Vac- cinium spp.), panicum (Panicum spp.), green- brier (Smilax spp.), blackberry (Rubus spp.), tickclover (Desmodium spp.), and lespedeza (Lespedeza spp.). 540 This content downloaded from 128.227.183.183 on Fri, 31 Jan 2025 18:13:12 UTC All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms J. Wildl. Manage. 50(4):1986 TURKEY HOME RANGES ? Wigley et al. 541 Table 1. Linear relationships between forest stand characteristics and annual home range size of wild turkeys in the Ouachita Mountains, Arkansas, 1982-84. i (SD) % of Stand characteristics Classa N standsb home rangee r P Plantation age <4 54 2.1 (2.5) +0.71 0.001 (years) 4-7 15 4.5 (3.7) +0.47 0.049 8-15 50 6.5 (4.6) +0.43 0.078 16-32 10 7.2 (9.5) -0.14 0.568 Natural stand age 33-39 2 0.9 (1.5) -0.19 0.438 (years) > 40 362 78.8 (12.8) -0.29 0.235 Area (ha) <41 354 36.4 (12.3) +0.01 0.980 41-81 97 36.4 (12.3) -0.61 0.007 81-121 31 10.4 (5.9) +0.47 0.049 122-162 7 4.2 (5.3) +0.15 0.552 > 162 13 10.1 (8.7) +0.45 0.063 Total basal area <11 47 10.1 (11.2) +0.55 0.017 (m2/ha) 11-15 14 5.4 (4.9) +0.41 0.089 15-20 66 29.6 (20.9) -0.16 0.538 20-24 99 41.1 (16.9) -0.03 0.915 >24 33 13.8 (10.4) -0.43 0.076 Diversity indexd 1-2 383 80.8 (11.4) -0.39 0.111 2-3 47 13.8 (9.9) +0.43 0.076 >3 11 13.8 (9.9) -0.02 0.950 a Numeric classification of stand characteristic. b Total N unequal between stand characteristics because relevant data not available from data source. c % of the region within annual home ranges composed of stand characteristic class d From Patton (1975). METHODS Twenty-one wild turkeys (3 adult and 2 ju- venile males and 6 adult and 10 juvenile fe- males) were captured with 3 firings of a rocket net (Austin 1966) during January and February 1982 and 1983. Sex and age of turkeys in the 3 captures suggested that as many as 7 flocks were represented. Each bird was equipped with a solar-powered radio transmitter in the 151-MHz range and released <2 km of its capture site. Flock integrity was not maintained after tur- keys were released. Turkeys were monitored an average of 10 months. Locations were deter- mined using 2 bearings that differed by 45-900 and were taken <10 minutes apart and <0.4 km from the turkey. Efforts were made to lo- cate each bird at least once daily. Seasonal and annual home ranges were cal- culated by the minimum area method (Mohr 1947). Seasonal home ranges were measured if >15 locations were available; annual home ranges were determined if >3 seasonal ranges were available. Timber inventory data were acquired from landowners for all stands on the study area. These data included total basal area (BA), pine BA, hardwood BA, shortleaf pine site index (base-age 50), stand age, stand area, and aver- age diameter at breast height (dbh), but all pa- rameters were not available for all stands. In addition, a diversity index (Patton 1975) was calculated for each stand. Each stand charac- teristic was divided into several classes (Table 1). The area of each timber stand within each annual home range was calculated using a dig- itizer. From these data the percentage of each home range composed of each stand character- istic class was calculated. For example, an av- erage of 2.1 ? 2.5 (SD) % of the region within annual home ranges was composed of pine plantations <4 years old (Table 1). Gobbling-count surveys (Porter and Ludwig 1980) were conducted from 24 March through 29 April during 1981-83. Two routes, each with 11 stops an average of 1.8 km apart, were trav- elled an average of 21 days/year. Surveys were initiated 30 minutes before sunrise, and the di- rection of travel along the routes was reversed each day. Differences in home-range size were tested using analysis of variance. Mean separation was accomplished using Duncan's new multiple range test. Regression analysis was utilized to evaluate the relationships between home-range This content downloaded from 128.227.183.183 on Fri, 31 Jan 2025 18:13:12 UTC All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms 542 TURKEY HOME RANGES * Wigley et al. J. Wildl. Manage. 50(4):1986 size and the percentage of each home range composed of stand characteristic classes. Statis- tical significance was accepted at the 0.05 prob- ability level. All analyses were done using SPSSx (SPSS Inc. 1983). RESULTS AND DISCUSSION A total of 2,279 acceptable telemetry loca- tions was determined. Annual home ranges of 18 wild turkeys averaged 3,514 ? 2,257 (SD) ha. Brown (1980) reported minimum annual ranges of wild turkeys varying from 140 ha in Alabama to 553 ha in Missouri. Annual ranges in this study ranged from 856 to 7,775 ha. Sea- sonal home-range areas did not differ (P = 0.06) by season and averaged 1,295 + 1,189 (SD) ha (N = 54). Seasonal-range sizes in other areas, however, varied from 65 ha in Minnesota to 683 ha in Michigan (Brown 1980). In the Ouachita Mountains annual home- range size was affected by 5 variables (Table 1). A positive linear relationship (P < 0.05) was found between home-range, size and 4 vari- ables: plantations <4 years old, plantations 4- 7 years old, stands 81-121 ha, and stands with <11 m2/ha total BA. Home-range size de- creased as the proportion of the home range made up of 41-81-ha stands increased (P < 0.05). Most of the stand characteristics that resulted in increased home-range size are typical of young pine plantations (<4 years old) found on the study area. These stands are the major type of opening available on the study area. Al- though young plantations increased home-range sizes, they can provide good feeding areas as well as nesting, brooding, and escape cover if sufficient herbaceous cover is available (Sims 1979, Pack et al. 1980, Hurst 1981). Herbaceous vegetation averaged 1,196 kg/ha in stands <4 years old in the Ouachita Mountains (Fenwood et al., 1984). However, herbaceous vegetation is most abundant in clearings only during the growing season of late spring, summer, and ear- ly fall. As a group, agricultural clearings and openings such as young plantations provided equivalent feeding sites for turkey poults in West Virginia (Healy and Nenno 1983). Dickson et al. (1978) reported that habitats in Louisiana with larger proportions of openings generally had higher turkey populations. Lewis (1967), however, found no relationship between per- cent of habitat in forest openings and turkey populations in Tennessee. Home-range size also increased as the num- ber of stands 81-121 ha increased within home ranges. Conversely, stands 41-81 ha decreased home-range size and often were used by tur- keys (33% of locations). Management guide- lines for southern national forests recommend stand areas of 8-40 ha (Bowman 1981). There was little correlation between home-range size and the diversity index of stands within the home range (Table 1), suggesting that stand shape does not necessarily moderate the effects of stand size. The large home ranges we observed also may have resulted from factors other than manage- ment history. Ligon (1946) and Korschgen (1967) suggested that home-range size is depen- dent on the suitability of available resources, particularly food supply. Availability of forage resources is a function of site productivity and turkey population density as well as manage- ment history. For example, site quality in West Virginia influenced feeding rates of turkey broods, invertebrate density, and vegetative abundance (Healy and Nenno 1983). Site quality in the Ouachita Mountains is in- herently lower than in many portions of the state. Most of the study area (90%) has site in- dices <21 m. Production of legumes in the Ouachita Mountains is significantly correlated with site index (Fenwood et al., 1984). Mean values for nutrient content of understory vege- tation also are low, averaging 7.7% for crude protein, 0.1% for phosphorous, and 1.1% for cal- cium (Fenwood et al., 1984). Turkey density on the study area is not understood well. Gobbling counts indicate a turkey density lower than in other portions of the state. Turkeys were heard at an average of only 2.5% of the listening stops at a rate of 2.9 gobblers/100 stops from 1981 to 1983. On a similar area approximately 80 km southwest of this study area, Melchiors (1984) heard gob- bling during the same years at 10.7% of listen- ing stops at a rate of 13.7 gobblers/100 stops. However, turkey harvests in the 3-county re- gion that includes the study area have been higher than in the remainder of the state, sug- gesting a relatively dense turkey population. An average of 1,494 turkeys was harvested an- nually in this region from 1978 to 1983. This represents 26% of the statewide harvest during this period from an area that constitutes only 5% of the Arkansas land base. Some species use their entire home range on This content downloaded from 128.227.183.183 on Fri, 31 Jan 2025 18:13:12 UTC All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms J. Wildl. Manage. 50(4):1986 TURKEY HOME RANGES * Wigley et al. 543 a routine basis and can readily manipulate home-range area in response to demands for energy. For example, Smith (1968) observed that the territories of tree squirrels (Tamiasciurus spp.) are adjusted to provide just enough energy to sustain them on an annual basis. Turkeys in our study did not routinely use all of their home range. Within individual home ranges, widely separated areas of intense activity often were present, even within seasons. We observed 15 such areas that were used by 6 turkeys. These areas of intense activity contained an average of 15 locations and averaged 54 ha, as deter- mined by the minimum area method. They were occupied an average of 25 days, and the centers of activity were separated by a mean distance of 3 km. Such an adaptive strategy results in large home ranges but enables turkeys to benefit from familiarity with areas of intense activity and to take advantage of resources in other portions of the annual range as they be- come available. CONCLUSIONS The large home-range areas observed during this study may represent adjustment by turkeys for forest management practices, site quality, and population density. Wilson (1975:266) sug- gested that the home range of an animal must be sufficiently large to provide an adequate en- ergy supply, yet not so large that the animal is excessively exposed to predation or forced on a negative energy budget. Home-range area should be small enough that the animal gains some advantage from familiarity with the area (Marchinton 1969). The relationships between forest character- istics and home-range size in this study indicate that the rate at which native stands have been converted to an even-aged structure may have reduced the quality of wild turkey habitat in the Ouachitas. Many timberland owners con- vert natural stands to even-aged structure as rapidly as possible to recover the value of the existing stands and to initiate a more efficient timber management regime. Extending the pe- riod of stand conversion, distributing young plantations evenly among more highly pre- ferred older natural stands (Wigley et al. 1985), and adopting sawtimber rotations within man- agement units will improve wild turkey habi- tat. Burning and thinning young plantations as soon as feasible and throughout the rotation are other favorable management practices (Hurst 1981). Newly regenerated stands preferably should be between 41 and 81 ha. Based on our observations, the shape of stands is of less con- cern than characteristics of the timber. LITERATURE CITED ARKANSAS GAME AND FISH COMMISSION. 1983. 1982-83 fall and spring wild turkey harvest. Wildl. Manage. Div. Adm. Rep., Little Rock, Arkansas. 11pp. AUSTIN, D. H. 1966. Trapping turkeys in Florida with the cannon net. Proc. Annu. Conf. South- east. Assoc. Game and Fish Comm. 19:16-22. BOWMAN, J. A. 1981. Forest management impact on the wild turkey in mountain habitats of the Southeast. Pages 149-158 in P. T. Bromley and R. L. Carlton, eds. Habitat requirements and habitat management for the wild turkey in the Southeast. Va. Wild Turkey Fed., Richmond. BROWN, E. K. 1980. Home range and movements of wild turkeys-a review. Natl. Wild Turkey Symp. 4:251-261. DICKSON, J. G., C. D. ADAMS, AND S. H. HANLEY. 1978. Response of turkey populations to habitat variables in Louisiana. Wildl. Soc. Bull. 6:163- 166. DIVINE, D. W. 1972. Guide to Arkansas geology. M.S. Thesis, Northeast Louisiana Univ., Monroe. 210pp. FENWOOD, J. D., D. F. URBSTON, AND R. F. HARLOW. 1984. Deer habitat capability of pine stands in the Ouachita National Forest. Proc. Annu. Conf. Southeast. Assoc. Fish and Wildl. Agencies 38: 13-22. HEALY, W. M., AND E. S. NENNO. 1983. Minimum maintenance versus intensive management of clearings for wild turkeys. Wildl. Soc. Bull. 11: 113-120. HURST, G. A. 1981. Habitat requirements of the wild turkey on the Southeast Coastal Plain. Pages 2-13 in P. T. Bromley and R. L. Carlton, eds. Habitat requirements and habitat management for the wild turkey in the Southeast. Va. Wild Turkey Fed., Richmond. KENNAMER, J. E., editor. 1983. Status of the wild turkey in the United States. Natl. Wild Turkey Fed., Edgefield, S.C. 102pp. KORSCHGEN, L. J. 1967. Feeding habits and food. Pages 137-198 in O. H. Hewitt, ed. The wild turkey and its management. The Wildl. Soc., Washington, D.C. LEWIS, J. C. 1967. Population of wild turkey in relation to fields. Proc. Annu. Conf. Southeast. Assoc. Game and Fish Comm. 18:49-56. LIGON, J. S. 1946. History and management of Merriam's wild turkey. N.M. Game and Fish Comm. 84pp. MARCHINTON, R. L. 1969. Portable radios in de- termination of ecological parameters of large vertebrates with reference to deer. Pages 148- 163 in P. L. Johnson, ed. Remote sensing in ecol- ogy. Univ. Georgia Press, Athens. MELCHIORS, M. A. 1984. Population trends of east- ern wild turkey on managed forest lands in This content downloaded from 128.227.183.183 on Fri, 31 Jan 2025 18:13:12 UTC All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms 544 TURKEY HOME RANGES * Wigley et al. J. Wildl. Manage. 50(4):1986 southwest Arkansas: summary report for 1983. Weyerhaeuser Co. Tech. Rep., Proj. 050-5301/ 14, Hot Springs, Arkansas. 17pp. MOHR, C. 0. 1947. Table of equivalent populations of North American small mammals. Am. Midl. Nat. 37:223-249. PACK, J. C., R. P. BURKERT, W. K. IGO, AND D. J. PYBus. 1980. Habitat utilized by wild turkey broods within oak-hickory forests of West Vir- ginia. Natl. Wild Turkey Symp. 4:213-224. PATTON, D. R. 1975. A diversity index for quan- tifying habitat edge. Wildl. Soc. Bull. 3:171-173. PORTER, W. F., AND J. R. LUDWIG. 1980. Use of gobbling counts to monitor the distribution and abundance of wild turkeys. Natl. Wild Turkey Symp. 4:61-68. SIMS, K. R. 1979. Seasonal habitat preferences and food habits of the eastern wild turkey in an area under intensive even-aged timber management in west-central Alabama. M.S. Thesis, Auburn Univ., Auburn, Ala. 66pp. SMITH, C. C. 1968. The adaptive nature of social organization in the genus of tree squirrels Tami- asciurus. Ecol. Monogr. 38:31-63. SPSS INC. 1983. User's guide: SPSSx McGraw-Hill Book Co., New York, N.Y. 806pp. WIGLEY, T. B., J. M. SWEENEY, M. E. GARNER, AND M. A. MELCHIORS. 1985. Forest habitat use by wild turkeys in the Ouachita Mountains. Natl. Wild Turkey Symp. 5:183-197. WILSON, E. 0. 1975. Sociobiology: the new syn- thesis. The Belknap Press of Harvard Univ. Press, Cambridge, Mass. 697pp. Received 20 August 1985. Accepted 13 March 1986. ESTIMATING AGE OF NESTLING AND JUVENILE FERAL ROCK DOVES J. EDWARD KAUTZ,' New York Cooperative Wildlife Research Unit, Fernow Hall, Cornell University, Ithaca, NY THOMAS W. SEAMANS,2 New York Cooperative Wildlife Research Unit, Fernow Hall, Cornell University, Ithaca Abstract: Because age is important in studying population dynamics, we developed methods for age (in days) of young feral rock doves (Columba livia) by using plumage characteristics and and cere color change in juvenile rock doves between 41 and 80 days of age; therefore, these chara be used to distinguish fledglings from adults at a distance. J. WILDL. MANAGE. 50(4):544-547 Studies of feral rock dove population dynam- ics may require estimates of age for nestlings and juveniles. Brown (1970) reported a method for aging nestlings into weekly age classes using eye lens weight, but this required sacrificing the birds. Rock dove primaries are molted sequen- tially from I to X, and primary molt has been used to estimate the age of other juvenile col- umbids such as band-tailed pigeons (Columba fasciata) (White and Braun 1978). However, we know of no previous work that uses this character in feral rock doves or permits aging live nestlings. The objective of this study was to develop such aging techniques. R. A. Malecki administered this research, was instrumental in obtaining funding, and re- viewed the manuscript. A. Dickerman, G. Cohn, M. Kraut, S. J. Lewis, L. G. Wheeler, and T. J. Rawinski helped collect data and/or care for the captive birds. C. E. Braun, C. J. Feure, J. D. Nichols, M. A. Kautz, M. E. Richmond, and R. A. Dolbeer reviewed the manuscript. Over 80 landowners permitted access to their barns, outbuildings, and silos. The N.Y. Dep. Environ. Conserv. (NYDEC) provided use of computer terminals and a microcomputer. Funding was provided by the U.S. Fish and Wildl. Serv. (USFWS), Off. Migr. Bird Manage., and Patux- ent Wildl. Res. Cent. The work was done at the N.Y. Coop. Wildl. Res. Unit, Cornell Univ., NYDEC, USFWS, and Wildl. Manage. Inst. co- operating. METHODS Feral rock doves were trapped in Ithaca, New York, and placed in outdoor wire pens with nest 'Present address: N.Y. Dep. Environmental Con- servation, Wildlife Resources Center, Delmar, NY 12054. 2 Present address: 3807 Ridgewood Court, Apt. C-3, Pittsburgh, PA 15239. This content downloaded from 128.227.183.183 on Fri, 31 Jan 2025 18:13:12 UTC All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms

الإبلاغ عن إساءة

تفاصيل ال-PDF

معلومات الاتصال

Wigley et al 1986