BioOne Complete (complete.BioOne.org) is a full-text database of 200 subscribed and open-access titles in the biological, ecological, and environmental sciences published by nonprofit societies, associations, museums, institutions, and presses. Your use of this PDF, the BioOne Complete website, and all posted and associated content indicates your acceptance of BioOne’s Terms of Use, available at www.bioone.org/terms-of-use Usage of BioOne Complete content is strictly limited to personal, educational, and non-commercial use. Commercial inquiries or rights and permissions requests should be directed to the individual publisher as copyright holder. BioOne sees sustainable scholarly publishing as an inherently collaborative enterprise connecting authors, nonprofit publishers, academic institutions, research libraries, and research funders in the common goal of maximizing access to critical research. Nesting perseverance by a female Gould's Wild Turkey (Meleagris gallopavo mexicana) under multiple direct predation threats Authors: Nathan Fyffe, Alex Smallwood, Brittany Oleson, Michael J. Chamberlain, and Bret A. Collier Source: The Wilson Journal of Ornithology, 130(4) : 1041-1047 Published By: Wilson Ornithological Society URL: https://doi.org/10.1676/1559-4491.130.4.1041 Downloaded From: https://bioone.org/journals/The-Wilson-Journal-of-Ornithology on 1/24/2019 Terms of Use: https://bioone.org/terms-of-use Access provided by Louisiana State University The Wilson Journal of Ornithology 130(4):1041–1047, 2018 Nesting perseverance by a female Gould’s Wild Turkey ( Meleagris gallopavo mexicana ) under multiple direct predation threats Nathan Fyffe, 1 Alex Smallwood, 2 Brittany Oleson, 2 Michael J. Chamberlain, 3 and Bret A. Collier 1 * ABSTRACT—Nest loss due to depredation or mortality of nesting females is a primary factor limiting Wild Turkey ( Meleagris gallopavo ) population growth. As such, significant research has focused on identifying nest site characteristics influencing success. While evaluations of factors driving nest success and predation are common, to our knowledge few events of female perseverance leading to nest success have been identified. During a study on reproductive ecology of Gould’s Wild Turkeys ( Meleagris gallopavo mexicana ) in Arizona, we observed nesting perseverance of a female Gould’s Wild Turkey under multiple, repeated predation threats (known nest predators within 2 m of nest site). The female had 7 uniquely identifiable interactions on incubation days 10, 13, 14, 16, 17, 21, and 25 with black bears ( Ursus americanus ), gray foxes ( Urocyon cinereoargenteus ), and white-nosed coatis ( Nasua narica ), as well as 10 interactions with an Arizona gray squirrel ( Sciurus arizonensis ). However, the female continued to incubate and successfully hatched the full clutch on 6 August 2017. Our observations suggest that close proximity of known nest predators may not always lead to nest loss, and that individual female responses may vary extensively and contribute to nest success. Key words: Arizona, disturbance, Gould’s Wild Turkey, Meleagris gallopavo mexicana , nesting ecology, predation. Perseverancia en la anidaci ́ on de una hembra del pavo Meleagris gallopavo mexicana bajo m ́ ultiples amenazas de depredaci ́ on RESUMEN (Spanish)—La p ́ erdida del nido por depredaci ́ on o por la muerte de hembras anidando es un factor primario que limita el crecimiento poblacional del pavo. Por ello, se han hecho investigaciones significativas enfocadas en identificar las caracter ́ ısticas de los sitios de anidaci ́ on que influencian su ́ exito. Aunque las evaluaciones de los factores que determinan el ́ exito del nido y depredaci ́ on son comunes, no sabemos de eventos de perseverancia que conduzca el ́ exito del nido. Durante un estudio sobre la ecolog ́ ıa reproductiva de la subespecie de pavo Meleagris gallopavo mexicana en Arizona, observamos la perseverancia en el nido de una hembra bajo m ́ ultiples y repetidas amenazas de depredaci ́ on (presencia de depredadores de nido conocidos a , 2 m del sitio de anidaci ́ on). Le hembra tuvo siete interacciones identificables, independientes entre s ́ ı, en los d ́ ıas de incubaci ́ on 10, 13, 14, 16, 17, 21 y 25, y 25 con osos negros ( Ursus americanus ), zorras grises ( Urocyon cinereoargenteus ), coat ́ ıes ( Nasua narica ), as ́ ı como 10 interacciones con la ardilla Sciurus arizonensis . Sin embargo, la hembra continu ́ o incubando y llev ́ o su nidada a eclosi ́ on exitosa el 6 de agosto de 2017. Nuestras observaciones sugieren que la proximidad cercana de depredadores de nido conocidos podr ́ ıa no 1 School of Renewable Natural Resources, Louisiana State University Agricultural Center, Baton Rouge, LA, USA 2 Arizona Game and Fish Department, Tucson, AZ, USA 3 Warnell School of Forestry and Natural Resources, University of Georgia, Athens, GA, USA * Corresponding author: bret@lsu.edu Downloaded From: https://bioone.org/journals/The-Wilson-Journal-of-Ornithology on 1/24/2019 Terms of Use: https://bioone.org/terms-of-use Access provided by Louisiana State University necesariamente llevar a la p ́ erdida del nido, y que las respuestas individuales de las hembras podr ́ ıan tener una gran variaci ́ on y contribuir al ́ exito del nido. Palabras clave: Arizona, depredaci ́ on, ecolog ́ ıa de la anidaci ́ on, perturbaci ́ on. Predation represents the primary cause of nest loss for most avian species (Ricklefs 1969). For ground nesting species like the Wild Turkey ( Meleagris gallopavo ), predation is the leading cause of nest failure across the species range (Ransom et al. 1987, Lehman et al. 2008). However, for the Gould’s Wild Turkey ( M. g. mexicana ), little published information exists on nest predation compared to other subspecies (Miller and Leopold 1992, Dreibelbis et al. 2008). Because natality is the most sensitive driver of Wild Turkey population dynamics (Pollentier et al. 2014), vulnerability of Wild Turkeys to predation during the reproductive season is critical to management. Most research on the reproductive ecology of the Wild Turkey has focused on identifying vegetative conditions or anthropogenic factors assumed to impact success/failure of the nest (Chamberlain and Leopold 2000, Conley et al. 2015), yet little evidence of perseverance of nesting Wild Turkeys and the potential impacts on nest success is available. Perseverance is defined as the continued effort to do or achieve something despite difficulties, failure, or opposi- tion, and therefore we report on observations of nesting perseverance in a female Gould’s Wild Turkey under multiple direct predation threats. Methods Study area Our research was conducted in the Coronado National Forest in southeastern Arizona within the northwest section of the Sierra Madre Occidental. Our study sites were within the sky islands connecting the Sierra Madre Occidental to the Rocky Mountains and included the Pinale ̃ no, Chiricahua, Huachuca, and Patagonia mountains located in Graham, Cochise, and Santa Cruz counties. Semidesert grasslands consisting of catclaw acacia ( Acacia greggii ), Parry’s agave ( Agave parryi ), and soaptree yucca ( Yucca elata ) were found at 1,100–1,700 m elevation. Madrean evergreen woodland consisting of Emory oak ( Quercus emoryi ), Arizona white oak ( Q. arizo- nica ), and alligator juniper ( Juniperus deppeana ) occurred at 1,200–2,300 m elevation. Petran montane conifer forest consisting of Ponderosa pine ( Pinus ponderosa ), Douglas fir ( Pseudotsuga menziesii ), and New Mexico locust ( Robinia neomexicana ) occurred at 2,000–3,050 m eleva- tion. Petran subalpine conifer forest consisting of Engelmann spruce ( Picea engelmannii ) and Doug- las fir occurred at 2,450–3,800 m elevation. Riparian corridors were also found along steep slopes and ravines, often consisting of Arizona sycamore ( Platanus wrightii ) and Fremont cotton- wood ( Populus fremontii ). Field methods We captured turkeys with walk-in traps baited with cracked corn and peanuts during winter (Jan– Mar) 2017. We determined sex and age of captured individuals based on presence of barring on the 9th and 10th primaries (Pelham and Dickson 1992). All individuals were given an alphanumeric color- coded patagial tag and radio-tagged with a backpack-style GPS-VHF transmitter (Biotrack Ltd. (Wareham, Dorset, UK; Guthrie et al. 2011. We programmed transmitters to take one location nightly (23:58:58) and hourly locations between 0500 and 2000 h MST until the battery died or the unit was recovered. We immediately released turkeys at the capture location following process- ing. Our capture and handling protocols were approved by the Louisiana State University Agricultural Center Animal Care and Use Com- mittee (Permit A2015-07). We monitored all individuals 2 times weekly during the reproduc- tive season using handheld Yagi antennas and R4000 receivers (Advanced Telemetry Systems, Inc., Isanti, MN). We downloaded GPS informa- tion from fixed wing aircraft via a VHF/UHF handheld command unit receiver (Biotrack Ltd., Wareham, Dorset, UK). We derived first date of laying and nest location for nesting females from VHF tracking and spatiotemporal GPS locational data (Collier and Chamberlain 2011, Conley et al. 2015) and located each nest via VHF homing on foot from a distance of 20 m. We placed 2 digital cameras 5 and 10 m from the nest site; for this study we define an interaction as a known nest or turkey predator within , 2 m. 1042 The Wilson Journal of Ornithology Vol. 130, No. 4, December 2018 Downloaded From: https://bioone.org/journals/The-Wilson-Journal-of-Ornithology on 1/24/2019 Terms of Use: https://bioone.org/terms-of-use Access provided by Louisiana State University Figure 1. Identified potential interactions with Gould’s Wild Turkey female Blue 27 on her nesting site by known adult or nest predator species, which included (a, e–g) black bear ( Ursus americanus ), (b and d) gray fox ( Urocyon cinereoargenteus ), and (c) white-nosed coati ( Nasua narica ). 1043 Short Communications Downloaded From: https://bioone.org/journals/The-Wilson-Journal-of-Ornithology on 1/24/2019 Terms of Use: https://bioone.org/terms-of-use Access provided by Louisiana State University Figure 2. (a–g) Identified repeated interactions with Gould’s Wild Turkey female Blue 27 on her nesting site by a gray fox ( Urocyon cinereoargenteus ). 1044 The Wilson Journal of Ornithology Vol. 130, No. 4, December 2018 Downloaded From: https://bioone.org/journals/The-Wilson-Journal-of-Ornithology on 1/24/2019 Terms of Use: https://bioone.org/terms-of-use Access provided by Louisiana State University Results We captured and marked 48 Gould’s Wild Turkeys between January and March 2017. A female (hereafter Blue 27) captured on 22 February 2017 subsequently made 2 nesting attempts, the second of which is the subject of this text. The first nest was initiated on 18 May 2017, and Blue 27 began incubation on 31 May 2017 with nest failure on 3 June 2017. The second nesting attempt began on 28 June 2017, with incubation beginning on 9 July 2017, and the entire clutch hatched on 6 August 2017. We placed 2 digital cameras on the nest on the ninth day of incubation; based on photographs (Fig. 1), little vegetative screening cover was present, and the nest was for all purposes exposed. Blue 27 showed significant nesting persever- ance under repeated potential predation threats while conducting her second nesting attempt. We noted at least 7 uniquely identifiable interactions during incubation (days 10, 13, 14, 16, 17, 21, and 25; Table 1). Species interactions by known predators included black bear ( Ursus americanus ; Fig. 1a, and e–g), gray fox ( Urocyon cinereoar- genteus ; Fig. 1b and d), and white-nosed coati ( Nasua narica; Fig. 1c) and we noted 10 interactions with an Arizona gray squirrel ( Sciurus arizonensis ). It is unclear based simply on the photographs if the black bear or white-nosed coati were aware that Blue 27 was present, although the distance between the 2 would imply some level of knowledge. Conversely, the fox was clearly aware of Blue 27 on multiple days (Fig. 2a–g). Despite being repeatedly approached by the fox, even to the point of the fox attempting to remove eggs from under her (Fig. 1b), Blue 27 did not attempt to escape or adopt any defensive posture. Discussion Understanding the mechanisms driving vari- ability in reproductive success is central to understanding turkey population dynamics. Nest predation has been identified as the primary cause of nest failure for most birds (Ricklefs 1969), and avoidance of nest predation is thought to play an important role in the evolution of avian life history strategies (Martin 1993). Our observations of the female Gould’s Wild Turkey represents an interesting case of nesting perseverance under direct threat of predation. Fitness benefits of remaining at or defending a nest location as opposed to flight for Wild Turkeys are unknown. Previous work on turkeys has identified situations where nests were partially destroyed and females returned to incubate the remaining clutch (Drei- belbis et al. 2008). However, the occurrence noted in Dreibelbis et al. (2008) involved a snake that posed no predation risk to the female, and the female attempted to defend the nest (J. Dreibel- bis, Texas Parks and Wildlife Department, unpubl. data). Through evaluating photographs, we observed a suite of potential nest predators including black bear, gray fox, and white-nosed coati, some of whom interacted numerous times with Blue 27. Black bears are known to prey on artificial nests (Danielson et al. 1997, Tozer et al. 2009), and coatis are known nest predators of green sea turtles, consuming both juveniles and nests ( Chelonia mydas ; Fowler 1979), and are Table 1. Time-specific nest predator interactions for a nesting Gould’s Wild Turkey in Arizona during 2017. Note that in situations where multiple pictures of the same event were recorded, we provided the time range vs. each individual photograph time stamp. Date Time window Species Day of incubation 19 July 2017 09:58:19 10:04:50 Black bear 10 22 July 2017 03:14:09 03:14:12 Gray fox 13 23 July 2017 06:55:40 06:56:36 White-nosed coati 14 25 July 2017 23:31:17 23:31:21 Gray fox 16 26 July 2017 10:44:39 10:44:43 Black bear 17 30 July 2017 15:32:03 15:32:07 Black Bear 21 3 August 2017 07:22:58 07:23:00 Black Bear 25 3 August 2017 07:28:03 07:28:07 Black Bear 25 1045 Short Communications Downloaded From: https://bioone.org/journals/The-Wilson-Journal-of-Ornithology on 1/24/2019 Terms of Use: https://bioone.org/terms-of-use Access provided by Louisiana State University known to have a broad diet (Alves-Costa 2004). The existing literature, to our knowledge, contains no evidence that coatis depredate turkey nests. We also noted numerous interactions with an Arizona gray squirrel but did not include those images in light of the more significant nest predators we identified, but gray squirrels are known to depredate nests (Fies and Puckett 2000). We were surprised at the interactions between Blue 27 and the gray fox. The apparent lack of response to the multiple interactions at various distances (including physical contact) with the gray fox is to our knowledge unique. Foxes are often identified as nest predators of ground nesting birds (Hernandez et al. 1997, Dreibelbis et al. 2008), and red foxes are known to be one of the primary predators of nesting waterfowl (Sargeant et al. 1984). Although entirely specu- lative, we offer that, based on the photograph, the fox appears to be trying to get to the eggs rather than showing any interest in depredating the female. In their recent work on nest site perseverance in scaled quail ( Callipepla squamata ), Tanner et al. (2017) speculated on potential impacts of noise disturbance and loss of thermal cover. Our findings suggest that perhaps Gould’s Wild Turkeys, or Wild Turkeys in general, do not perceive the species we noted as predation threats, which, specific to the case of the gray fox, differs from our understanding of other subspecies (Miller and Leopold 1992). Thus, our results suggest that perhaps interactions between predators, Wild Turkeys, and vegetation may be more complex than originally believed and highly variable across landscapes and predator communities Acknowledgments Our research was funded and supported by the Louisiana State University Agricultural Center, the Arizona State Chapter of the National Wild Turkey Federation, and the Arizona Game and Fish Department. We gratefully acknowledge all the volunteers from the Arizona State Chapter of the National Wild Turkey Federation, Arizona Game & Fish Department, and others for assistance capturing, monitoring, and collecting field data on this project. Special thanks to A. Munig for help in securing funding and J. Heffelfinger for logistical support. This material is based on work supported by the National Institute of Food and Agriculture, US Department of Agriculture, McIntire Stennis project under No. 1005302. Literature Cited Alves-Costa CP, da Fonseca GAB, Christ ́ ofaro C. 2004. Variation in the diet of the brown-nosed coati ( Nasua nasua ) in southeastern Brazil. Journal of Mammalogy. 85:478–482. Chamberlain MJ, Leopold BD. 2000. Habitat sampling and selection by female Wild Turkeys during preincubation. Wilson Bulletin. 112:326–331. Collier BA, Chamberlain MJ. 2011. Redirecting research for Wild Turkeys using global positioning system trans- mitters. Proceedings of the National Wild Turkey Symposium. 10:81–92. Conley MD, Oetgen JG, Barrow J, Chamberlain MJ, Skow KL, Collier BA. 2015. Habitat selection, incubation, and incubation recess ranges of nesting female Rio Grande Wild Turkeys in Texas. Proceedings of the National Wild Turkey Symposium. 11:117–126. Danielson WR, DeGraaf RM, Fuller TK. 1997. Rural and suburban forest edges: effect on egg predators and nest predation rates. Landscape and Urban Planning. 38:25– 36. Dreibelbis JZ, Melton KB, Aguirre R, Collier BA, Schwertner TW, et al. 2008. Rio Grande Wild Turkey nest predation on the Edwards Plateau of Texas. Wilson Journal of Ornithology. 120:906–910. Fies ML, Puckett KM. 2000. Depredation patterns of Northern Bobwhite nest predators in Virginia. In: Brennan LA, Palmer WE, Burger LW, Jr Pruden TL, editors. Quail IV: Proceedings of the Fourth National Quail Symposium. Tallahassee (FL): Tall Timbers Research Station; p. 96–102. Fowler LE. 1979. Hatching success and nest predation in the green sea turtle, Chelonia Mydas , at Tortuguero, Costa Rica. Ecology. 60:946–955. Guthrie JD, Byrne M, Hardin JB, Kochanny CO, Skow KL, et al. 2011. Evaluation of a GPS backpack transmitter for Wild Turkey research. Journal of Wildlife Manage- ment. 75:539–547. Hernandez F, Rollins DR, Cantu R. 1997. Evaluating evidence to identify ground-nest predators in west Texas. Wildlife Society Bulletin. 25:826–831. Lehman CP, Rumble MA, Flake LD, Thompson DJ. 2008. Merriam’s turkey nest survival and factors affecting nest predation by mammals. Journal of Wildlife Management. 72:1765–1774. Martin TE. 1993. Nest predation among vegetation layers and habitat types: revisiting the dogmas. American Naturalist. 141:897–913. Miller JE, Leopold BD. 1992. In: Dickson JG, editor. The Wild Turkey: biology and management. Mechanics- burg (PA): Stackpole; p. 119–128. Pelham PH, Dickson JG. 1992. Physical characteristics. In: Dickson JG, editor. The Wild Turkey: biology and management. Harrisburg (PA): Stackpole Books; p. 32–45. Pollentier CD, Hull SD, Lutz RS. 2014. Eastern Wild Turkey demography: sensitivity of vital rates between landscapes. Journal of Wildlife Management. 78:1372– 1382. 1046 The Wilson Journal of Ornithology Vol. 130, No. 4, December 2018 Downloaded From: https://bioone.org/journals/The-Wilson-Journal-of-Ornithology on 1/24/2019 Terms of Use: https://bioone.org/terms-of-use Access provided by Louisiana State University Ransom D Jr, Rongstad OJ, Rusch DH. 1987. Nesting ecology of Rio Grande turkeys. Journal of Wildlife Management. 51:435–439. Ricklefs RE. 1969. An analysis of nesting mortality in birds. Smithsonian Contributions to Zoology. 9:1–48. Sargeant AB, Allen SH, Eberhardt RT. 1984. Red fox predation on breeding ducks in midcontinent North America. Wildlife Monographs. No. 89. Tanner EP, Elmore RD, Davis CA, Fuhlendorf SD. 2017. Evidence of nest tenacity in Scaled Quail ( Callipepla squamata ) following an anthropogenic disturbance. Wilson Journal of Ornithology. 129:354–369. Tozer DC, Nol E, Burke DM, Elliot KA, Falk KJ. 2009. Predation by bears on woodpecker nests: are nestling begging and habitat choice risky business? Auk. 126:300–309. 1047 Short Communications Downloaded From: https://bioone.org/journals/The-Wilson-Journal-of-Ornithology on 1/24/2019 Terms of Use: https://bioone.org/terms-of-use Access provided by Louisiana State University