Winter Roost Site Characteristics of Eastern Wild Turkeys Author(s): Howard J. Kilpatrick, Thomas P. Husband and Carol A. Pringle Source: The Journal of Wildlife Management , Jul., 1988 , Vol. 52, No. 3 (Jul., 1988), pp. 461-463 Published by: Wiley on behalf of the Wildlife Society Stable URL: https://www.jstor.org/stable/3801591 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 128.227.106.130 on Thu, 13 Mar 2025 23:31:34 UTC All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms WINTER ROOST SITE CHARACTERISTICS OF EASTERN WILD TURKEYS HOWARD J. KILPATRICK, Department of Wildlife, University of New Hampshire, Durham, NH 03824 THOMAS P. HUSBAND, Department of Natural Resources Science, University of Rhode Island, Kingston, RI 02881 CAROL A. PRINGLE, Department of Natural Resources Science, University of Rhode Island, Kingston, RI 02881 Abstract: We compared 9 winter roost sites used by eastern wild turkeys (Meleagris gallopavo silve in Rhode Island to 9 random plots. Roost sites were closer (P < 0.001) to open water than random plo = 39.8 ? 19.6 [SD] vs. 280.9 ? 114.2 m). White pine (Pinus strobus) and oaks (Quercus spp.) comp 43.7 and 24.2%, respectively, of trees within roost sites and 24.3 and 46.7%, respectively, of trees on co plots. Mean diameter at breast height (dbh) of roost trees was larger (P < 0.001) than trees on contro (: = 48.4 ? 14.8 vs. 20.2 ? 5.8 cm). Of 25 roost trees, 23 were white pines and 2 were eastern hem (Tsuga canadensis). Stands with white pines >48 cm dbh within 39.8 m of water were used for w roosting before other sites. J. WILDL. MANAGE. 52(3):461-463 Roost sites are an important habitat require- ment for eastern wild turkeys (Bailey and Rinell 1967), especially during winter when turkeys experience high mortality due to adverse weath- er conditions (Austin and DeGraaf 1975, Wunz and Hayden 1975, Porter 1978). Roost tree and site characteristics for the Merriam's turkey (M. g. merriami) (Hoffman 1968, Boeker and Scott 1969, Mackey 1984) and the Rio Grande turkey (M. g. intermedia) (Crockett 1973, Haucke 1975) have been examined. Only Tzilkowski (1971) recorded winter roost site characteristics for the eastern wild turkey; he found no differences between roosts and other sites in southwest Pennsylvania. The objective of our paper is to describe the winter roost sites of the eastern wild turkey in Rhode Island. We thank J. W. Chadwick for his support of this project, K. T. Killingbeck for providing helpful suggestions regarding vegetation anal- ysis, J. P. Wood for his assistance in the field, and the landowners for allowing us access to their properties. Financial support for this study was provided through the Rhode Island Division of Fish and Wildlife, the Federal Aid to Wildlife Restoration Act Project W-23-R, and by the Uni- versity of Rhode Island Agriculture Experiment Station. This is Contribution 2361, University of Rhode Island, Agriculture Experiment Station. STUDY AREA Glocester (13,883 ha) and Richmond (10,207 ha), Rhode Island, encompassed the study areas in the northern and southern portions of the state, respectively. Private landholdings com- prised 97% of Glocester and 88% of Richmond. The Glocester and Richmond landscapes were dominated by 83 and 78% commercial forests, and 7 and 12% agricultural lands, respectively. The terrain of Glocester and Richmond was characterized by rolling hills with elevations ranging from 145 to 244 m and 32 to 92 m, respectively. Both towns included numerous forested wetlands and drainage systems with hardwood forests dominated by northern red oak (Quercus rubra), white oak (Q. alba), and black oak (Q. velutina). White pine and eastern hemlock occurred in pure and mixed stands scattered throughout the study areas. Mean annual precipitation in Rhode Island is 111.8 cm. Seasonal snowfall averages 72.6 cm, with mean monthly snow cover greatest in Feb- ruary (15.2 cm). Mean monthly maximum daily temperatures for the study area are 3.9 and 7.6 C for February and March, respectively. The corresponding minimum temperatures are -6.4 and -2.6 C. METHODS We located winter roosting sites between 4 February and 5 March 1986 by searching areas where turkeys were known to range based on reports from the public, by tracking flocks after snowfalls, and by locating radio-telemetered birds on their roosts between sunset and sunrise. Eastern wild turkeys were captured and equipped with radios as part of a larger study of brood habitat preferences (C. A. Pringle, un- publ. data). The presence of fresh turkey drop- pings and tracks indicated active roosting trees (Hoffman 1968). 461 This content downloaded from 128.227.106.130 on Thu, 13 Mar 2025 23:31:34 UTC All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms 462 ROOST SITES OF WILD TURKEYS * Kilpatrick et al. J. Wildl. Manage. 52(3):1988 Species, dbh, and height for each roost tree were recorded at winter sites. Roost sites were delineated by pacing the perimeter around a definable clump of trees within which the roost tree was found. In more homogeneous habitats, a 0.1-ha circular area centered on the roost tree was used. To establish control plots, 9 points were randomly selected from a map that en- compassed the known roost sites. For each roost site and control plot a 0.1-ha circular plot cen- tered on each point was sampled for slope, as- pect, elevation, and distance to a permanently open water source. To determine stand com- position, a randomly selected compass line was projected out from the center of roost sites and control plots. Seven additional compass lines were established at 450 increments. Along each com- pass line, points midway between the center and the edge of the site were sampled with the ran- dom-pairs method (Cottam and Curtis 1949) to measure density of tree species. Only trees > 10.2 cm dbh were measured. Analysis of variance was used to test differences between roost sites and control plots. All data are presented as means ?1 SD. RESULTS Characteristics of Roosting Sites We observed the use of 9 roost sites by >3 flocks of turkeys. Turkeys used roost sites from 1 to 14 consecutive nights. The number of trees used/roost site ranged from 1 to 7 for a flock of 12-15, and from 1 to 3 for a flock of 3 birds. Roost site elevations averaged 101.3 ? 69.8 m and did not differ (P = 0.95) from controls. West-southwest exposures were selected 6 times; the remaining sites had easterly exposures. The slope of roost sites averaged 16 ? 9.2% and did not differ (P = 0.95) from controls. Roost sites were situated a mean of 39.8 ? 19.6 m from permanent water sources (e.g., seepages and streams), closer (P < 0.001) than the 280.9 + 114.2 m measured for control plots. White pine and oaks comprised 43.7 and 24.2%, respectively, of trees within roost sites. In control plots white pine and oak comprised 24.3 and 46.7% of the stand, respectively. Red maple (Acer rubrum) comprised 18.8% of roost site trees, but comprised only 3.5% of trees in control plots. The higher density of red maple in roost sites may have been a result of the proximity of roost sites to wetlands rather than active selection by turkeys for sites with red maples. Roosting Trees The dbh and height of 25 individual roost trees within the 9 winter roost sites were mea- sured. Twenty-three of the roost trees were white pine and 2 were eastern hemlock. Roost tree crowns typically showed layered, horizontal branching, a normal growth pattern for these species. The mean dbh of roost trees, 48.4 ? 14.8 cm, was larger (P < 0.001) than that of trees in the control plots (20.2 ? 5.8 cm). Rio Grande tur- keys selected trees with dbh's and heights that were greater than those of trees at potential roosts (Haucke 1975). In our study, roost trees were the tallest trees in each site (18.9 ? 3.9 m, range = 11.6-25.9 m); however, the mean size of roost trees was not greater (P = 0.75) than the mean size of other trees. DISCUSSION AND MANAGEMENT IMPLICATIONS Stands dominated by large white pines ap- peared to be preferred for winter roosting. The tallest- and largest-dbh trees with open crowns and layered, horizontal branching were chosen for roost trees. These trees may be selected be- cause the configuration of their branches allows easy access, or because large open branches fa- cilitate close grouping and social interaction by roosting turkeys (Haucke 1975). The preference for white pines may be due to the protection afforded by their foliage. Rob- bins (1971) suggested that dense conifer cano- pies can improve an animal's thermal balance by reducing wind velocities. Other studies (Co- wardin 1961, Colby 1965, Tzilkowski 1971), however, have found a majority of winter roosts of turkeys in deciduous trees. In West Virginia, Glover (1948) and Bailey and Rinell (1968) re- ported that although turkeys normally used ma- ture hardwood stands for roosting, during storms they preferred clumps of tall pines, red spruce (Picea rubens), or hemlocks in protected areas. The proximity of open water may also be an important factor in the selection of roost sites. Several studies have suggested that open water sources are an important component of winter habitat for eastern wild turkeys (Walls 1964, Healy 1977, Cardoza 1983). Water may be a factor in roost site selection for Merriam's turkey (Boeker and Scott 1969). Turkeys often seek water to drink just after leaving the roost in the morning (Wheeler 1948). Although spring and summer foods have sufficient water content This content downloaded from 128.227.106.130 on Thu, 13 Mar 2025 23:31:34 UTC All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms J. Wildl. Manage. 52(3):1988 ROOST SITES OF WILD TURKEYS * Kilpatrick et al. 463 (Exum et al. 1985), winter foods may be too low in moisture to meet metabolic needs. Spring seeps also provide areas where food is available during periods of deep snow (Good 1982). It is possible, however, that the proximity of roost sites to water is simply an artifact, the result of accelerated growth of trees in moist environ- ments (Crockett 1973). Although our sample size was limited, our findings confirm other observations (C. A. Prin- gle, unpubl. data) of roost sites in Rhode Island. Based on our information, we suggest that man- agers of wild turkeys in southern New England preserve stands with large white pines near open water, particularly where development and fur- ther fragmentation of the forest are expected. LITERATURE CITED AUSTIN, D. E., AND L. W. DEGRAFF. 1975. Winter survival of wild turkeys in the southern Adiron- dacks. Proc. Natl. Wild Turkey Symp. 3:55-60. BAILEY, R. W., AND K. T. RINELL. 1967. Manage- ment of the eastern turkey in the northern hard- woods. Pages 261-302 in O. H. Hewitt, ed. The wild turkey and its management. The Wildl. Soc., Washington, D.C. , and . 1968. History and manage- ment of the wild turkey in West Virginia. W.Va. Dep. Nat. Resour. Bull. 6. 59pp. BOEKER, E. L., AND V. E. SCOTT. 1969. Roost tree characteristics for Merriam's turkey. J. Wildl. Manage. 33:121-124. CARDOZA, J. E. 1983. Wild turkey restoration study: experimental turkey stocking. Mass. Dep. Fish and Game, Fed. Aid Wildl. Restor. Final Rep., Proj. W-35-R. 100pp. COLBY, D. R. 1965. Populations and habitat of the wild turkey in western Massachusetts. M.S. The- sis, Univ. Massachusetts, Amherst. 152pp. COTTAM, G., AND J. T. CURTIS. 1949. A method for making rapid surveys of woodlands by means of pairs of randomly selected trees. Ecology 30:101- 104. COWARDIN, L. M. 1961. The wild turkey in Mas- sachusetts: an experiment in restoration. M.S. Thesis, Univ. Massachusetts, Amherst. 175pp. CROCKETT, B. C. 1973. Quantitative evaluation of winter roost sites of the Rio Grande turkey in north-central Oklahoma. Pages 211-218 in G. C. Sanderson and H. C. Schultz, eds. Wild turkey management: current problems and programs. Univ. Missouri Press, Columbia. 355pp. ExUM, J. H., J. A. MCGLINCY, D. W. SPEAKE, J. L. BUCKNER, AND F. M. STANLEY. 1985. Evidence against dependence upon surface water by tur- key hens and poults in southern Alabama. Proc. Natl. Wild Turkey Symposium 5:83-89. GLOVER, F. A. 1948. Winter activities of wild tur- key in West Virginia. J. Wildl. Manage. 12:416- 427. GOOD, P. L. 1982. Winter habitat of the wild turkey in southeastern New Hampshire. M.S. Thesis, Univ. New Hampshire, Durham. 61pp. HAUCKE, H. H. 1975. Winter roost characteristics of the Rio Grande turkey in south Texas. Proc. Natl. Wild Turkey Symp. 3:164-169. HEALY, W. M. 1977. Wild turkey winter habitat in West Virginia cherry-maple forests. Trans. Northeast Fish and Wildl. Conf. 34:7-12. HOFFMAN, D. M. 1968. Roosting sites and habits of Merriam's turkeys in Colorado. J. Wildl. Manage. 32:859-866. MACKEY, D. L. 1984. Roosting habitat of Merriam's turkeys in south-central Washington. J. Wildl. Manage. 48:1377-1382. PORTER, W. F. 1978. The ecology and behavior of the wild turkey (Meleagris gallopavo) in south- eastern Minnesota. Ph.D. Thesis, Univ. Minne- sota, St. Paul. 122pp. ROBBINS, C. T. 1971. Energy balance of white- tailed deer in winter as affected by cover and diet. Spec. Rep., Biothermal Laboratory, Cornell Univ., Ithaca, N.Y. 30pp. TZILKOWSKI, W. M. 1971. Winter roost sites of wild turkeys in southwest Pennsylvania. Trans. North- east Fish and Wildl. Conf. 28:167-178. WALLS, D. T. 1964. Wild turkey brood range re- quirements and contributions of spring seeps to the winter range, Cameron County, Pennsylva- nia. Trans. Northeast Fish and Wildl. Conf. 21: 113-129. WHEELER, R. J. 1948. The wild turkey in Alabama. Ala. Dep. Conserv. Bull. 12. 92pp. WUNZ, G. A., AND A. H. HAYDEN. 1975. Winter mortality and supplemental feeding of turkeys in Pennsylvania. Proc. Natl. Wild Turkey Symp. 3:61-69. Received 7 July 1986. Accepted 29 January 1988. This content downloaded from 128.227.106.130 on Thu, 13 Mar 2025 23:31:34 UTC All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms