Home Range Dynamics of Wild Turkeys in Southeastern Minnesota Author(s): William F. Porter Source: The Journal of Wildlife Management , Jul., 1977 , Vol. 41, No. 3 (Jul., 1977), pp. 434-437 Published by: Wiley on behalf of the Wildlife Society Stable URL: https://www.jstor.org/stable/3800512 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 128.227.1.21 on Tue, 04 Feb 2025 19:22:19 UTC All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms HOME RANGE DYNAMICS OF WILD TURKEYS IN SOUTHEASTERN MINNESOTA' WILLIAM F. PORTER, Department of Ecology and Behavioral Biology, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis 55455 Abstract: Thirty-two turkeys (Meleagris gallopavo) were radio-marked and tracked over a 10 mont period. Late fall movements were erratic, covering an average of 288 ha in December. Winter movemen were confined to less than 25 ha for most birds. Movement to spring breeding areas was greatest for juv nile females and least for adult males. During summer males moved extensively, their June home range averaging 524 ha. Home ranges of females with broods increased throughout the summer and averag 176 ha in August. Winter and summer movements contrasted sharply with those observed in othe regions. J. WILDL. MANAGE. 41(3):434-437 Wild turkeys (both silvestris and mer- riami subspecies) were transplanted into southeastern Minnesota during the mid 1960's from wild populations in Arkansas, Nebraska and South Dakota. The trans- plants resulted in the establishment of a population presently estimated at 700 to 1,000 birds. This is the northernmost popu- lation of wild turkeys in the Mississippi Valley and the first success of many trans- plant attempts. Consequently, it is valuable to examine this population as it is influ- enced by the environmental factors of the region. Reported here are the results of a study examining the home range dynamics of wild turkeys in southeastern Minnesota. I wish to thank D. B. Siniff and J. R. Tester for their support of this project. I am also very grateful for the assistance of the Minnesota Department of Natural Re- sources particularly H. Shepperd, N. Gulden and G. Meyer. B. Neil provided invaluable field assistance. STUDY AREA The study area included the 10,000 hect- are (ha) Whitewater Wildlife Management Area and an adjoining 7,300 ha. Topography was rolling upland that was deeply and ex- tensively dissected by stream valleys. Vege- tation within the Whitewater WMA was dominated by oak-hickory (Quercus- Carya) forests, both active and abandoned cropland, and conifer plantations. Areas ad- joining the Whitewater WMA were moder- ately to intensively farmed for production of corn, alfalfa and livestock. METHODS Wild turkeys were captured during the late fall and winter months using cannon- nets. Thirty-two birds were captured, sexed, aged and fitted with radio transmitters. Age classes were distinguished as juvenile (from the beginning of a bird's first winter to the beginning of its second) and adult (after the beginning of its second winter). Radio transmitters (90 gr) were harnessed to the birds' backs with neck and wing loops made of wire sheathed in plastic tubing. Each transmitter operated on an individual fre- quency near 164 mhz and provided 5 to 10 months of service. All of the locations of the turkeys were obtained from observation positions 800 to 3,200 m from the estimated location of the bird. The system allowed lo- cation of turkeys to within 60 m of their ac- tual position 97 percent of the time. Home range areas were delineated for each bird 1 Research supported by the National Institutes of Health Training Grant 5 TOI1 GM01779, The Minnesota Department of Natural Resources and the Minnesota State Archery Association. 434 J. Wildl. Manage. 41(3):1977 This content downloaded from 128.227.1.21 on Tue, 04 Feb 2025 19:22:19 UTC All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms HOME RANGE OF MINNESOTA TURKEYS Porter 435 Table 1. Summary of monthly home ranges (ha) of wild turkeys in southeastern Minnesota, 1974-1975. Male Female Adult Juvenile Adult Juvenile T (N) Range (N) Range x (N) Range (N) Range November 100.2 (3) 80.1-123.0 December 288.0 (3) 246.4-334.3 January 22.5 (5) 12.9- 39.1 30.3 (2) 19.3-41.1 5.7 (3) 4.0- 8.1 5.2 (2) 3.7- 6.6 February 15.3 (4) 11.8- 21.8 6.1 (3) 4.9- 8.0 6.2 (3) 3.8- 7.8 7.2 (2) 6.9- 7.5 March 19.4 (5) 8.6- 44.7 11.5 (3) 4.9-21.8 8.9 (4) 3.2- 16.9 5.0 (4) 2.7- 6.9 April 358.7 (3) 259.1-466.8 221.4 (4) 212.7-230.3 176.2 (1) May 287.4 (2) 299.9-344.9 259.5 (1) 71.6 (4) 44.8-113.2 33.9 (1) June 514.7 (2) 485.2-544.1 535.2 (1) 72.7 (2) 61.8- 83.0 67.6 (2) 46.8- 62.7 July 141.5 (2) 141.3-141.7 88.5 (1) 68.1 (1) 46.5 (2) 87.6-105.2 August 189.9 (2) 177.1-202.7 176.2 (2) 142.0-210.4 using the Modified Minimum Area met (Harvey Barbour 1965). RESULTS Data in Table 1 showed that movement patterns of wild turkeys fluctuated substan- tially during the period November 1, 1974, through August 1975. Home ranges of adult males increased from 100 to 288 ha during November and December. During January home ranges of males decreased sharply so that in February and March they included less than 10 percent of the December area. The winter home ranges of other sex-age classes were generally smaller than those of the adult males, averaging less than 10 ha during February and March. The movement of all classes of turkeys in- creased markedly in the spring, home ranges increasing more than tenfold in April. Much of the April movement was attributed to dis- persal from wintering to breeding areas. Dispersal distances were variable within sex-age classes. Adult males moved the Table 2. Distances moved, as measured from the geometric center of activity of March to that of May for each bird. Distance (km) Sex (Age) N Mean Range M (A) 2 1.3 M(J) 1 3.8 F (A) 4 5.6 1.3-10.4 F (J) 2 8.6 1.9-15.3 shortest distances and longest (Table 2). Dur May movement was more localized. Changes in home range continued during the summer. For males the June home range was 525 ha, nearly double that of May. However, during July and August these same males covered less than 200 ha. In con- trast, the movements of females (all of which had broods throughout the summer) increased continually through the summer from an average of 50 ha in June to more than 170 ha in August. DISCUSSION The primary factor influencing move- ments during the late fall and winter ap- peared to be snow. Radio-marked males moved out of relatively stable November home ranges during snowstorms. As snow- storms increased in frequency in December, movements became erratic. However, as snow accumulated movement became more restricted. Increasing snow depths during January correlated with decreasing home range sizes for all classes. When home ranges were the smallest (February and much of March) snow depths exceeded 32 cm. Visual observations indicated turkeys had difficulty moving when snow exceeded 25 cm. Still, there was little change in the general pattern of habitat use. Hardwood habitats showed almost no mast production J. Wildl. Manage. 41(3):1977 This content downloaded from 128.227.1.21 on Tue, 04 Feb 2025 19:22:19 UTC All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms 436 HOME RANGE OF MINNESOTA TURKEYS - Porter and were used primarily for loafing and roosting. Fields of standing corn constituted the primary feeding habitat, December through March. Winter home ranges for radio-marked turkeys in Alabama averaged 270 ha (Bar- wick and Speake 1973), more than 3 times the size observed in Minnesota (Janu- ary 1-March 15). In Michigan home ranges were 276 ha for flocks of adult males and 196 ha for flocks of mixed sex (Lewis 1963). These were at least 100 ha larger than the home ranges of comparable wintering flocks in Minnesota. This supports the contentions of Wunz and Hayden (1973), and Austin and DeGraff (1975) that snow has an im- portant influence on movement of wild tur- keys in northern regions. During spring the primary factors influ- encing wild turkey movement patterns ap- peared to be reproductive behavior and weather. Gobbling activity increased during late March and when snow finally dimin- ished during the first week of April, winter- ing flocks disintegrated rapidly. Females moved continually away from wintering areas to the area where each eventually nested. Movements of females became more restricted with the initiation of incubation in May. Males moved more, but with less predictability, than females. They traversed back and forth across large areas and, unlike the females, often included their wintering area in spring home ranges. These patterns of movement from winter- ing to spring breeding areas were similar to those observed elsewhere. Home range sizes and dispersal distances were similar to those in Alabama (Speake et al. 1975) and Mis- souri (Ellis and Lewis 1967), but less than those of Merriam turkeys in Montana (Jonas 1966) and Rio Grande turkeys in Texas (Thomas et al. 1966). In spite of this, the differences in the environments of Minne- sota and areas more central to the species range were not great enough to have a sig- nificant impact during spring. Gobbling activity ceased early in June. The primary factor influencing summer movement of males was probably the dis- persion of resources (food, water and cover). Home ranges occupied by males during the summer (June 1-August 31) covered almost 1,000 ha. This was far more extensive than the 133 ha ranges reported from Alabama (Barwick and Speake 1973), suggesting that habitat conditions may have been much less favorable in Minnesota than in Alabama. Monthly data suggest that hab- itat conditions were least favorable during June but improved in July and August. For females summer movements were me- diated by changes in distribution and abun- dance of resources, requirements of broods and the ability of broods to move. Through- out June females remained in hardwood habitats. Increasing use of hayfields and pastures was observed through July and Au- gust. Food habits of poults have been shown to change rapidly through the summer (see Hurst and Stringer 1975). These changes interacting with increasing brood mobility were reflected by continually increasing movement in Minnesota through the sum- mer. Movements and habitat use patterns females with broods during the sum showed more similarity between Minne and Alabama than was evident for males. However, summer ranges averaged 180 ha in Minnesota and 111 ha in Alabama (Speake et al. 1975). This again suggeste that resources were more widely disperse in Minnesota. This analysis shows that environmental differences do have a significant impact on wild turkey behavior. Further, both winter and summer are critical periods for manage- ment of turkeys in the upper Mississippi Valley. J. Wildl. Manage. 41(3):1977 This content downloaded from 128.227.1.21 on Tue, 04 Feb 2025 19:22:19 UTC All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms HOME RANGE OF MINNESOTA TURKEYS * Porter 437 LITERATURE CITED AUSTIN, D. E., AND L. W. DEGRAFF. 1975. Win- ter survival of wild turkeys in the southern Adirondack. Pages 55-60 in L. K. Halls, ed. Proceedings of the third national wild turkey symposium. The Texas Chapter of the Wild- life Society, Austin. BARWICK, L. H., AND D. W. SPEAKE. 1973. Sea- sonal movements and activities of wild turkey gobblers in Alabama. Pages 125-134 in G. C. Sanderson and H. C. Schultz, eds. Wild turkey management: current problems and programs. Univ. of Missouri Press, Columbia. ELLIS, J. E., AND J. B. LEWIS. 1967. Mobility and annual range of wild turkeys in Missouri. J. Wildl. Manage. 31(3):568-581. HARVEY, M. J., AND R. W. BARBOUR. 1965. Home range of Microtus ochrogaster as deter- mined by a modified minimum area method. J. Mammology 46(2):398-402. HURST, G. A., AND R. D. STRINGER. 1975. Food habits of wild turkey poults in Mississippi. Pages 76-85 in L. K. Halls, ed. Proceedings of the third national wild turkey symposium. The Texas Chapter of the Wildlife Society, Austin. JONAS, R. 1966. Merriam's turkey in southeast- ern Montana. Montana Fish and Game De- partment Tech. Bull. 3. 36pp. LEWIS, J. C. 1963. Observations on the winter range size of wild turkeys in Michigan. J. Wildl. Manage. 27:98-102. SPEAKE, D. W., T. E. LYNCH, W. J. FLEMING, C. A. WRIGHT, AND W. J. HAMRICK. 1975. Habi- tat use and seasonal movements of wild tur- keys in the southeast. Pages 122-130 in L. K. Halls, ed. Proceedings of the third national wild turkey symposium. The Texas Chapter of the Wildlife Society, Austin. THOMAS, J. W., C. V. HOOZER, AND R. C. MAR- BURGER. 1966. Wintering concentration and seasonal shifts in range in the Rio Grande wild turkey. J. Wildl. Manage. 30(1):34-49. WUNZ, G. A., AND A. H. HAYDEN. 1973. Turkey renaissance. Natural History 82(9):87-93. Received 21 July 1976. Accepted 12 April 1977. J. Wildl. Manage. 41(3):1977 This content downloaded from 128.227.1.21 on Tue, 04 Feb 2025 19:22:19 UTC All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms