Chronology of Wild Turkey Nesting, Gobbling, and Hunting in Mississippi Author(s): Darren A. Miller, George A. Hurst and Bruce D. Leopold Source: The Journal of Wildlife Management , Jul., 1997 , Vol. 61, No. 3 (Jul., 1997), pp. 840-845 Published by: Wiley on behalf of the Wildlife Society Stable URL: https://www.jstor.org/stable/3802192 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 128.227.1.12 on Tue, 10 Dec 2024 16:55:06 UTC All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms CHRONOLOGY OF WILD TURKEY NESTING, GOBBLING, AND HUNTING IN MISSISSIPPI DARREN A. MILLER, Department of Wildlife and Fisheries, Box 9690, Mississippi State, MS 39762, USA GEORGE A. HURST, Department of Wildlife and Fisheries, Box 9690, Mississippi State, MS 39762, USA BRUCE D. LEOPOLD, Department of Wildlife and Fisheries, Box 9690, Mississippi State, MS 39762, USA Abstract: Setting dates of spring hunting for wild turkey (Meleagris gallopavo) gobblers often is based on belief that 2 peaks of gobbling occur, with the second peak occurring during peak incubation by hens. second peak offers hunters opportunities to hear gobblers while protecting hens from inadvertent kill. W examined chronology of gobbling, hunter numbers, harvest and nesting within the framework of a long, lib spring gobbler-only hunting season in central Mississippi during 1984-95. Distribution of gobbler harvest ve initiation of incubation, and hunter numbers versus incubation initiation differed in all years; distribution gobblers heard versus initiation of incubation differed during all years except 1995. Distributional relation among hunter numbers, harvest, and gobblers heard varied among years. Gobblers heard versus harvest, a hunter numbers versus harvest were distributed differently during some years. Only 1 gobbling peak occur This lone peak of gobbling was not associated with peak of incubation. Gobbling activity may have b influenced by break up of winter flocks, initiation of egg-laying, and mating opportunities. J. WILDL. MANAGE. 61(3):840-845 Key words: eastern wild turkey, gobbling, goodness-of-fit test, harvest, hunter effort, hunting, incubati Kolmogorov-Smirnov test, Meleagris gallopavo, Mississippi, nesting, turkey, wild turkey. Spring hunting seasons for wild turkey often are set based on the belief that gobbling activity is bimodal with seasons delimited to encompass the presumed second peak of gobbling activity (Kurzejeski and Vangilder 1992:177, Kienzler et al. 1996). This second peak, assumed to be as- sociated with peak nesting, offers hunters qual- ity opportunities while protecting hens from il- legal or inadvertent kill (Bevill 1975, Hoffman 1990, Vangilder 1992, Kienzler et al. 1996). However in Iowa, Kienzler et al. (1996) deter- mined hunter presence influenced gobbling ac- tivity more than chronology of nest initiation. Researchers have hypothesized that peaks of gobbling for eastern wild turkeys (M. g. silves- tris) coincided with breakup of winter flocks and peak of nest incubation (Bailey and Rinell 1967, Bevill 1975, Porter and Ludwig 1980). Research also has been conducted on nesting chronology of eastern wild turkeys (Glidden and Austin 1975, Everett et al. 1980, Vangilder et al. 1987, Miller et al. 1995, Vangilder and Kur- zejeski 1995). However, chronology of wild tur- key breeding activity varies with latitude and year (Vangilder and Kurjezeski 1995). This vari- ation necessitates examining the timing of re- production regionally with long-term datasets so that reliable, repeatable results can be obtained (Leopold et al. 1996). Only Kienzler et al. (1995), in Iowa, used :4 years to examine re- lations among these variables. No results from long-term studies simultaneously have exam- ined gobbling activity, hunting variables, and timing of nesting for eastern wild turkeys in the Southeast. We used 12 years of continuous data to (1) determine interrelations among gobbling activ- ity, hunter numbers, harvest, illegal hen kill and initiation of nest incubation, and (2) examine chronology of nest initiation, hunter numbers, and harvest relative to Mississippi's long (5-6 week), liberal (3 gobblers/season) spring hunt- ing season for gobblers within an intensively hunted public area. We thank L. W. Burger, J. G. Dickson, K. D. Godwin, R. M. Kaminski, M. D. Weinstein and an anonymous reviewer for manuscript reviews. Additional support was provided by H. M. and M. M. Miller. Funding was provided by the Na- tional Wild Turkey Federation (NWTF), the Mississippi Chapter of NWTF, and the Missis- sippi Department of Wildlife, Fisheries and Parks through Federal Aid in Wildlife Resto- ration Funds, and the U.S. Forest Service, Southern Forest Experiment Station. This manuscript was a contribution of the Mississippi Cooperative Wild Turkey Research Project and the Forest and Wildlife Research Center. We operated under the Mississippi State University 840 This content downloaded from 128.227.1.12 on Tue, 10 Dec 2024 16:55:06 UTC All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms J. wildl. Manage. 61(3):1997 NESTING, HUNTING, AND GOBBLING CHRONOLOGY * Miller et al. 841 Animal Care and Use Committee (IACUC) Protocol 93-030. STUDY AREA Our study was conducted on the 14,410-ha Tallahala Wildlife Management Area (TWMA) located within the Bienville National Forest in Jasper, Newton, Scott, and Smith counties in central Mississippi, and within the Lower Coastal Plain Province and the Blackland Prai- rie Resource Area (Pettry 1977). Most (95%) of TWMA was forested with 30% in mature bot- tomland hardwood forests, 37% in mature pine (Pinus spp.) forests, 17% in mature mixed pine- hardwood forests (30-70% pine), and 11% in 1 to 14-year-old loblolly pine (P. taeda) planta- tions. METHODS We monitored gobbling activity by conduct- ing gobbling call counts between 10 March and 7 May, beginning 7 days before spring hunting season and ending 7 days after, during 1984- 95. We conducted call counts 3 days per week from 2 routes composed of 8 and 10 sta- tions from 30 minutes before sunrise to 30 min- utes after sunrise (Bevill 1975, Lint et al. 1995). We located stations along U.S. Forest Service roads throughout TWMA at 1.6-km intervals. Observers listened 4 minutes at each station and recorded number of individual gobblers and the number of calls made. Call counts were postponed until the next suitable day when wind exceeded 6.25 km per hour or it was rain- ing. We captured wild turkeys with cannon nets from 7 January to 4 March and 1 July to 25 August, 1984-95 following Miller et al. (1995). We fitted hens with an 108-g mortality-sensitive radiotransmitter (Wildl. Materials, Carbondale, Ill.) attached backpack-style. Beginning 14 March of each year, we located hens ?1 time per day by triangulation. During the nesting period, hens found in the same lo- cation for 2 consecutive days, or those with a transmitter emitting a mortality signal, were considered incubating and date of initiation of incubation was recorded. After 9-12 days of in- cubation behavior, we approached within 50 m of nests and recorded azimuths toward nests from various marked locations. After cessation of nesting activity, we used these azimuths to locate nests to confirm occurance of incubation. Turkey hunters on TWMA were required to 140 120 + 100 + 0+ + Harvest _ 80 + + Permit 60 * o Nests M + m Gobblers S40 a_ 20 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 Weeks from 1 Mar Fig. 1. Chronology of individual gobblers heard, gobblers har- vested, nest initiation, and hunter numbers, pooled across years, on Tallahala Wildlife Management Area, Mississippi, 1984-95. Spring gobbler-only hunting season began during week 3 of each year. deposit daily visitor permits in self-service check stations (n = 6). Compliance to this reg- ulation was estimated as 86% (Palmer et al. 1990). We estimated hunter numbers (no. of hunters/day) from these permit cards. Success- ful hunters were required to check in harvested gobblers at TWMA headquarters. Compliance to this regulation was estimated as 95% (Grib- ben 1986). From checked-in gobblers, we de- termined dates when gobblers were harvested on TWMA and when wing-tagged gobblers, caught on TWMA but killed off the area, were harvested. Mortality dates of radiotagged hens illegally killed during spring gobbler-only season were recorded. Chronology for variables was standardized as the number of days from 1 March that each event occurred (e.g., a gobbler harvested, a hen began incubation, a sportsman hunted; Fig. 1). From this we obtained a daily frequency of oc- currence (i.e., a daily distribution) for each vari- able beginning 1 March and ending 28 May. The ending date was the last nest initiation that represented the last daily event recorded. This time period encompassed the spring gobblers- only hunting season. We used 1-way analysis of variance (ANOVA), with year as treatment effect, to test hypotheses that mean number of days from 1 March for hunter numbers, gobbler harvest, individual gobblers heard, number of calls heard, and ini- tiation of incubation did not differ among years. We used Levine's test and the Shapiro-Wilks statistic to test for validity of the assumptions of homoscadacity of variances and normality. We used Type III sum of squares F-tests due to unequal within year sample sizes. To partially offset low power resultant from small sample This content downloaded from 128.227.1.12 on Tue, 10 Dec 2024 16:55:06 UTC All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms 842 NESTING, HUNTING, AND GOBBLING CHRONOLOGY * Miller et al. J. Wildl. Manage. 61(3):1997 Table 1. Sample sizes and median dates for initiation of nest incubation (Nest), number of individual gobblers heard (Gobbler), number of calls heard (Calls), harvest (Harvest), and hunter numbers (Numbers) on Tallahala Wildlife Management Area, Mis- sissippi, 1984-95. Nest Gobbler Calls Harvest Numbers Year na mdh n md n md n md n md 1984 8 4/19 N/A N/A N/A N/A 59 4/01 463 4/03 1985 19 4/25 82 4/01 226 4/01 51 4/07 443 4/05 1986 12 4/21 121 3/31 388 3/31 58 4/05 497 4/05 1987 N/Ac N/A 90 3/27 255 3/27 63 4/03 593 4/03 1988 15 4/29 20 4/08 61 4/08 29 4/08 399 3/30 1989 23 4/20 31 4/12 83 4/12 31 4/05 587 4/01 1990 7 4/27 27 4/02 78 3/23 36 3/26 395 3/31 1991 7 4/16 30 4/01 81 3/25 27 3/26 321 3/30 1992 10 4/14 44 3/31 141 3/27 22 3/26 427 4/03 1993 6 5/03 19 4/21 60 4/23 8 N/A 344 4/05 1994 8 4/28 97 4/02 307 4/02 29 3/22 490 4/01 1995 6 4/23 5 4/07 11 4/07 14 3/27 346 3/25 Total 121 4/23 566 4/02 1,691 4/01 419 4/01 5,305 4/02 a Sample size. h Median date. C Data not available. sizes (<20) for some parameters within some years, all hypotheses were tested at a = 0.10. If ANOVA assumptions were violated, we used the nonparametric Kruskall-Wallace procedure to test for year effects (Daniel 1990). Within years, we tested for differences in dis- tribution (daily frequency of occurence during 1 Mar-28 May) between (1) initiation of incu- bation and hunter numbers, (2) harvest and hunter numbers, (3) individual gobblers heard and hunter numbers, (4) individual gobblers heard and incubation initiation, (5) harvest and initiation of incubation, (6) individual gobblers heard and number of calls heard, and (7) har- vest and individual gobblers heard. We wanted to determine if events (e.g., tur- key harvested, hen initiated incubation) were distributed similarly to determine the chronol- ogy of these pairwise comparisons. A test of central tendency would indicate if the mean or median were different but would not provide information regarding timing (i.e., daily fre- quency and temporal distribution) of these events. Therefore, we tested the hypothesis that distribution of each of these 7 pairwise com- parisons did not differ within years using the Kolmogorov-Smirnov 2-sample goodness-of-fit test (Daniel 1990) with PROC NPAR1WAY in SAS (SAS Inst. Inc. 1988). RESULTS Harvest dates (n = 8) were not available for 1993, only 4 hens nested in 1987, and the 1984 call count survey encompassed only 12 days (as compared to >20 in other years) and was not conducted during week 5. Therefore, analyses involving these parameters excluded these years. During 1984-95, we recorded 121 nest ini- tiations, 566 individual gobblers, 1,691 calls, 419 harvested gobblers, and 5,305 hunter days (Table 1). Variance associated with all variables violated the assumption of variance homosca- dacity (P < 0.001), even for loge-transformed data, except for days until initiation of incuba- tion (P = 0.356). This variable also was distrib- uted normallly within year (P > 0.10) for every year but 1989 (P = 0.002). Due to assumption violations for most variables, we used the Krus- kall-Wallace test for all within-year compari- sons. Median dates differed among years fo ation of incubation (2 = 25.67, 10 d 0.004), individual gobblers heard (,2 10 df, P < 0.001), calls heard (4 = 14 df, P < 0.001), harvest (2 = 48.08, 10 0.001), and hunter numbers (t2 = 21 df, P < 0.001). Median dates ranged 14 April and 5 May for initiation of inc 31 March-21 April for individual g heard, 23 March-23 April for calls h March-8 April for harvest, and 25 M April for hunter numbers (Table 1). During 1984-95, 13 radiotagged he killed illegally. Of these, 5 were killed spring gobbler season. Three of the hens were killed during the first 2 wee season. This content downloaded from 128.227.1.12 on Tue, 10 Dec 2024 16:55:06 UTC All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms J. Wildl. Manage. 61(3):1997 NESTING, HUNTING, AND GOBBLING CHRONOLOGY Miller et al. 843 Distribution of individual gobblers heard did not differ significantly from that of number of calls heard for all years (1985-95; Table 2). In- dividual gobblers have different propensities to gobble and call with different frequency (Bevill 1975, Hoffman 1990). Number of calls heard incorporates variation resulting from both an in- dividual's propensity to gobble and variation from frequency of gobbling due to differences in individual gobbler behavior. Therefore, we chose to use individual gobblers heard to index gobbling activity. In all years (1985-86, 1988-95), except 1995, distribution of number of individual gobblers heard differed from distribution of initiation of incubation (Table 2). During all years (1984-92, 1994-95), significant differences in distribution were detected between initiation of incubation and harvest (Table 2). In comparing distribution of individual gob- blers heard versus that of harvest, significant differences were detected during 1985-87, 1991 and 1994-95 (Table 2). No significant dif- ferences were detected during 1988-90 or 1992. Distribution of daily hunter numbers dif- fered from that of nest initiation all years (1984-86, 1988-95; Table 2). Comparison be- tween individual gobblers heard and hunter numbers yielded significantly different distri- butions during 1985-89, 1991 and 1994-95; no significant differences were detected during 1990 or 1992 (Table 2). Finally, distribution of hunter numbers versus that of harvest signifi- cantly differed during 1988 and 1994 (Table 2). No significant differences were detected during 1984-1987, 1989-92, and 1995. DISCUSSION On TWMA, peaks of gobbling and initiation of incubation did not coincide except during 1995. In addition, contrary to the pattern ob- served elsewhere (Bevill 1975, Porter and Lud- wig 1980, Hoffman 1990), we observed only one peak of gobbling on TWMA. Our results challenge the generality of the assumption that hunters can be offered maximum opportunity while protecting nesting hens and that spring hunting seasons can be designed to encompass a second peak of gobbling. Previous work has determined that many fac- tors influence gobbling activity (Hoffman 1990, Lint et al. 1995) and initiation of incubation (Vangilder and Kurzejeski 1995). On TWMA, wide annual variations in parameters measured (t (U H t- 0ca "z- 0) -.0 'P (U (U c C 0 V C (0 u- c 0 C c .2- o E o0 (U (U r 0. o. E >, 0 CCO (U > (U 0. 0 (U (U V ca (U C)r .yat E0. S0(U Eo (U= t- C a N co x tv 0 V 00 Tl C S--q -q oX t- q m? In 0c m co 0 00 03 N 0 0 0 10 10 c 0t m 4 t - q 0: 0 0) oco co10t 0 0 - 0 0 Q 0 0 C 0 5 0 5 cO --10-q 0 0o Z 6 666 " 0. ,0 c c o - q co t- ,c c c N 0 ? t- 10 t- It o 0 COc --q x cc 't - --q c --4 w a cn o z 0 0 tc 0 0 00 C 0 o C5 cc C 0 0 C 0c 0 0t0 0 0 0 0 00 o e c C q cq It, cq - 0 CIO In C) tcc x co- to - m t-ccx a c~?z E t;: c 3 c "p ?, P ~;O ~~~i~" c3C~10"j; '$ ,C iS ~ 3~S1C 3cao31 C~LiC33= This content downloaded from 128.227.1.12 on Tue, 10 Dec 2024 16:55:06 UTC All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms 844 NESTING, HUNTING, AND GOBBLING CHRONOLOGY * Miller et al. J. Wildl. Manage. 61(3):1997 were evident, supporting the contention that gobbling activity and initiation of incubation were influenced by a complex array of factors. Such complex relations indicated that gobbling activity cannot be predicted and was not related to only 1 biological event (e.g., initiation of in- cubation). In Iowa, hunter numbers depressed gobbling activity (Kienzler et al. 1996). However, previ- ous research on TWMA demonstrated a posi- tive relation between hunter numbers and gob- bling activity (Palmer et al. 1990). High gob- bling activity may have resulted in more hunters pursuing gobblers; as gobbling decreased dur- ing the season, so did hunter numbers. Differ- ences between this study and the one in Iowa may be related to varying hunter densities. Per- haps a threshold density must be reached be- fore hunter numbers depress gobbling activity. Regardless, it does not appear that hunting pressure, as measured by the number of hunt- ers, negatively influenced gobbling activity on TWMA. Within the Southeast, the first peak of gob- bling has been associated with breakup of win- ter flocks (Bevill 1975). On TWMA, winter flocks gradually broke up from mid- to late March (Palmer 1990). In all years except 1988-89, 1993, and 1994, the observed peak of gobbling occurred during this time, suggesting that the gobbling peak on TWMA may coincide with breakup of winter flocks. However, incon- sistency among years indicates additional factors may be involved. We hypothesize that 2 additional factors may influence the observed peak of gobbling on TWMA. First, Bailey and Rinell (1967) ob- served that in Ohio, peak of mating was 2-3 weeks after onset of gobbling activity. This hy- pothesized peak of mating also may influence observed gobbling patterns on TWMA. We pro- pose that increased mating activity may stimu- late gobblers to attract as many mates as pos- sible during hens' peak receptivity to displaying males and subsequent copulation. Secondly, peak of gobbling may be influenced by initiation of laying behavior, not incubation behavior. Hens require about 2 weeks to lay a clutch of eggs (Healy 1992). Based on our data, hens began laying close to the time of peak gob- bling. Movement of hens away from gobblers during this period may stimulate males to gob- ble more frequently. We were unable to test this hypothesis because a low number of successful nests across years (n = 38) produced a sample size inadequate for backdating, and destroyed nests did not have necessarily a full comple- ment of eggs (e.g., removal of eggs by preda- tors). Distribution of hunter numbers and harvest differed from distribution of initiation of incu- bation in all years, further challenging estab- lished assumptions. Hens were not incubating when the highest numbers of hunters were present on TWMA, possibly causing hens to be more vulnerable to illegal kill. Although most hens (3 of 5) known to be poached were killed within the first 2 weeks of the hunting season, this is based on a small sample. However, some general conclusions can be proposed. The high- est density of hunters occurred on TWMA dur- ing the first 2 weeks of the hunting season (Fig. 1). Hunter density, among other factors, may govern occurrence of illegal hen kill more than timing of incubation (Vangilder and Kurzejeski 1995). Illegal hen kill during spring gobbler sea- son may be affected by a higher density of hunt- ers during the first part of a turkey season. Previous work on TWMA has demonstrated relations among hunter numbers, gobbling ac- tivity and harvest (Palmer et al. 1990, Lint et al. 1995). Results of 3 pairwise comparisons (gob- blers heard vs. harvest and hunter numbers; hunter numbers vs. harvest) demonstrate that these factors affected one another differently, depending on year. For example, during 1985- 87, daily distribution of hunter numbers and harvest did not differ. However, daily distribu- tion of individual gobblers heard differed from that of harvest and hunter numbers. Our data indicates that during these years, harvest was a function of hunter numbers. However, in 1988, harvest was a function of gobbling activity. In 1990 and 1992, all 3 factors were interrelated (Table 2). Why 1994 did not have any nonsig- nificant distributional patterns among these variables is not apparent. Distribution of gob- bler harvest may have been confounded by the peak of gobbling and high hunter numbers, but independently different enough from each to be significantly different. Graphical examination of pooled data (Fig. 1) revealed a second peak of harvest during week 7. However, this peak was not associated with a similar peak in gobbling activity or hunter num- bers. We believe that this peak may be a reflec- tion of hens leaving gobblers to begin incuba- tion. Fifty percent of all nest initiations oc- This content downloaded from 128.227.1.12 on Tue, 10 Dec 2024 16:55:06 UTC All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms J. Wildl. Manage. 61(3):1997 NESTING, HUNTING, AND GOBBLING CHRONOLOGY * Miller et al. 845 curred during weeks 7 (n = 24) and 8 (n = 36). We hypothesize that gobblers are more suscep- tible to calling when they are not with hens, potentially causing them to be more easily har- vested without necessarily gobbling more. MANAGEMENT IMPLICATIONS We observed only 1 peak of gobbling on TWMA. Accepting the assumption of 2 gob- bling peaks and structuring spring gobbler sea- son around this assumption may be erroneous. Many researchers/resource managers may as- sume they can simultaneously protect wild tur- key hens and afford hunters maximum harvest opportunity. Current regulations in Mississippi dictate spring gobbler season to open the Sat- urday nearest March 20. Moving opening day until mid-April would severly limit opportuni- ties to harvest vocal birds on TWMA. We be- lieve replication of our long-term research on other areas is important because our results challenge the assumption that peaks of gobbling activity and peaks of nest incubation coincide. LITERATURE CITED BAILEY, R. W., AND K. T. RINELL. 1967. Events in the turkey year. Pages 73-91 in O.H. Hewitt, ed. The wild turkey and its management. The Wildl. Soc., Washington, D. C. BEVILL, W. V., JR. 1975. Setting spring gobbler sea- sons by timing peak gobbling. Proc. Natl. Wild Turkey Symp. 3:198-204. DANIEL, W. W 1990. Applied nonparametric statis- tics. Second ed. PWS-KENT Publ. Co. Boston, Mass. 635pp. EVERETT, D. D., D. W. SPEAKE, AND W. K. MADDOX. 1980. Natality and mortality of a north Alabama wild turkey population. Proc. Natl. Wild Turkey Symp. 4:117-126. GLIDDEN, J. W, AND D. E. AUSTIN. 1975. Natality and mortality of wild turkey poults in southwest- ern New York. Proc. Natl. Wild Turkey Symp. 3:48-54. GRIBBEN, K. J. 1986. Population estimates for the wild turkey in east-central Mississippi. M.S. The- sis, Mississippi State Univ., Mississippi State. 95pp. HEALY, W M. 1992. Behavior. Pages 46-65 in J. G. Dickson, ed. The wild turkey, biology and man- agement. Stackpole Books, Harrisburg, Pa. HOFFMAN, R. W. 1990. Chronology of gobbling and nesting activities of Merriam's wild turkeys. Proc. Natl. Wild Turkey Symp. 6:25-31. KIENZLER, J. M., T. W LITTLE, AND W. A. FULLER. 1996. Effects of weather, incubation, and hunting on gobbling activity in wild turkeys. Proc. Natl. Wild Turkey Symp. 7:61:68. KURZEJESKI, E. W., AND L. D. VANGILDER. 1992. Population management. Pages 165-187 in J. G. Dickson, ed. The wild turkey, biology and man- agement. Stackpole Books, Harrisburg, Pa. LEOPOLD, B. D., G. A. HURST, AND D. A. MILLER. 1996. Long- versus short-term research and ef- fective management: a case study using the wild turkey. Trans. North Am. Wildl. Nat. Resour. Conf. 61:472-482. LINT, J. R., B. D. LEOPOLD, AND G. A. HURST. 1995. Comparison of abundance indexes and popula- tion size estimates for wild turkey gobblers. Wildl. Soc. Bull. 23:164-168. MILLER, D. A., M. WEINSTEIN, S. R. PRIEST, B. D. LEOPOLD, AND G. A. HURST. 1995. Wild turkey reproductive parameters from two different for- est ecosystems in central Mississippi. Proc. Annu. Conf. Southeast. Assoc. Fish and Wildl. Agencies 49:468-477. PALMER, W. E. 1990. Relationships of wild turkey hens and their habitat on Tallahala Wildlife Man- agement Area. M.S. Thesis, Mississippi State Univ. Mississippi State. 117pp. , G. A. HURST, AND J. R. LINT. 1990. Effort, success, and characteristics of spring turkey hunt- ers on Tallahala Wildlife Management Area, Mis- sissippi. Proc. Natl. Wild Turkey Symp. 6:208- 213. PETTRY, D. E. 1977. Soil resource areas of Mississip- pi. Miss. Agri. For. Exp. Stn. Info. Sheet 1278. 4pp. PORTER, W F., AND J. R. LUDWIG. 1980. Use of gob- bling call counts to monitor the distribution and abundance of wild turkeys. Proc. Natl. Wild Tur- key Symp. 4:61-68. SAS INSTITUTE INC. 1988. SAS/STAT user's guide, Version 6.03. SAS Inst. Inc. Cary, N.C. 1028pp. VANGILDER, L. D. 1992. Population dynamics. Pages 144-164 in J. G. Dickson, ed. The wild turkey, biology and management. Stackpole Books, Har- risburg, Pa. , AND E. W. KURZEJESKI. 1995. Population ecology of the eastern wild turkey in northern Missouri. Wildl. Monogr. 130. 50pp. V. L. KIMMEL-TRUITT, AND J. B. LEWIS. 1987. Reproductive parameters of wild turkey hens in northern Missouri. J. Wildl. Man- age. 51:535-540. Received 22 April 1996. Accepted 20 February 1997. Associate Editor: Porter This content downloaded from 128.227.1.12 on Tue, 10 Dec 2024 16:55:06 UTC All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms