NOTE TO USERS This reproduction is the best copy available. U M I Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. HOM E RANGE, MOVEMENTS, AN D H A BI TA T USE OF THE E A STE RN W I L D TURKEY IN C OM M E R C I A L L Y M A N A G E D PINE FORES TS OF S O U T H E A S T L O U I S I A N A By Ed wa rd Ph illips L a mb e r t A Thesis S u b m i t t e d to the F a c u l t y of S o u t h e a s t e r n L o u i s i a n a U n i v e r s i t y In Partial F u l f i l l m e n t of the Re qu i r e m e n t s for the Deg re e of M a st er of Science in the D e p a r t m e n t of Bi olo gic al Sc iences S o u t h e a s t e r n L o u i s i a n a U n i v e r s i t y May 1986 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. UM I Number: E P 2 6 62 2 INFO RM ATIO N TO USERS The quality of this reproduction is dependent upon the quality of the copy submitted. Broken or indistinct print, colored or poor quality illustrations and photographs, print bleed-through, substandard margins, and improper alignment can adversely affect reproduction. In the unlikely event that the author did not send a complete manuscript and there are missing pages, these will be noted. Also, if unauthorized copyright material had to be removed, a note will indicate the deletion. UMI Microform E P 2 6 6 2 2 Copyright 2009 by ProQuest LLC All rights reserved. This microform edition is protected against unauthorized copying under Title 17, United States Code. ProQuest LLC 789 East Eisenhower Parkway P.O. Box 1346 Ann Arbor, Ml 48106-1346 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. HOME RANGE, MOVEMENTS, AND HA B I T A T USE OF THE E A S T E R N WI L D TURKEY IN C O M M E R C I A L L Y M A N A G E D PINE FORESTS OF SO U T H E A S T L O U I S I A N A By E d w a r d Phillips La m b e rt Approved: Dr. W i n s t o n P. Smith Asst. P r o f e s s o r of Biolo gy (Major Professor) A n d r e w V. Fried ri ch s P r o f e s s o r of Biolo gy (retired) (Committee Member) Sol, PI'7 Mr. Dan D e nn et t La. D. W. & F. (retired) (Committee Member) Dr. W i l l i a m N. Nor to n Assoc. P r o f e s s o r of B i ol og y (Coord, of Gr ad u a t e Studies) Dr. Ga r y — Head, i^ep Biologiba- Chi lders irtment of L Sciences Dr. P a t r i c k D. Settoon P r o f e s s o r of C h e mi st ry Dean of Scien ce and T e c h n o l o g y M a y 1986 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. iii A C K NO W L E D G M E N T S The a u t h or w i s h e s to express his a p p r e c i a t i o n to the L o u i s i a n a C h a p t e r of the National W i l d T u rk ey Federation, S o u t h e a s t e r n L o u i s i a n a University, and C r o w n Z e l l e r b a c h for grants to fund this project. The L o u i s i a n a D e p a r t m e n t of W i l d l i f e and F i s h e r i e s p r o v i d e d i n val ua ble a s s i st an ce during this project. Special a p p r e c i a t i o n is e x p r e s s e d to Dr. W i n s t o n P. Smith, m a j o r professor, for his su p p o r t and as si s t a n c e th ro ug h o u t this study. Also, g r at it ude is e x t e n d e d to Mr. Dan De nn et t and Mr. A. V. Friedrichs, co m m i t t e e m e m b e r s for pro v i d i n g helpful su gge st ion s re garding the wr i t i n g of this thesis. A p p r e c i a t i o n is e x te nd ed to Mr. W e s t Hagg, Mr. R o b e r t Helm, Mr. R o b e r t Love, Mr. Lane Miller, Mr. Da vi d Moreland, Mr. Ge or g e Ricks, Ms. E m l y n Smith, and Mr. Roy T e i t e l b a u m for a s s i s t a n c e in tr apping turkeys. Special thanks go to Mr. E r n e s t Dillon, Mr. C ha rl es Frazier, and Mr. She l b y M i l l e r for p e r m i t t i n g tr apping on their land. Special g r a t i t u d e goes to I n te rn ati on al P a p e r Co., Inc., C r o w n Zellerbach, and the ma n y pr iv a t e landowners for p r o v i d i n g u n l i m i t e d access t h r o u g h o u t the study area. A p p r e c i a t i o n is e x t e n d e d to Mr. C ha rl es Bergen, Mr. James Blades, Mr. M a u r i c e Bridges, Mr. W a y n e Smith, and Mr. Eddie C. W e l c h for a s s i s t a n c e in d e t e r m i n i n g the l a n d ow ne rs hi ps Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. iv an d/ o r age and species c om p os iti on of the ha bi tat types on the study area. A p p r e c i a t i o n goes to Mr. Terry Beav er s and Mr. Roy T e i t e l b a u m for sharing their c om pu te r knowledge. Special thanks are ex te nd ed to my wi f e Becky and to my par en ts and o th e r family memb er s for support and assistance. R eproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. T A B L E O F C O N T E N T S A C K N O W L E D G M E N T S .................................................. iii LIS T OF T A B L E S .................................................. vii LI S T OF F I G U R E S ................................................... xi A B S T R A C T ......................................................... xii I N T R O DU CT IO N ................................................... 1 STUDY A R E A ............................................. 8 Soils and T o p o g r a p h y ....................................... 11 C l i m a t e ..................................................... 11 O w n e r s h i p and Land U s e ..................................... 12 Access, Hunting, and Tra pping ........................ 14 Ha b i t a t D e s c r i p t i o n .................................... 15 MAT ER IA L S A N D M E T H O D S ............................ 18 R e c o r d i ng D a t a .............................................. 20 Data A n a l y s i s .............................................. 22 Ha b i t a t U s e ............................................ 22 Home R a n g e ............................................ 23 M o v e m e n t s .............................................. 23 RE SU LT S A ND D I S C U S S I O N ....................................... 25 H a b i t a t U s e ................................................. 25 R o os ti n g H ab i t a t .................................. 43 C o m pa r i s o n of Ag e and Sex G r o u p s ................. 44 H a b it at A ss o c i a t i o n s ............................. 45 Ro a dw ay U s e ............................................ 53 R eproduced with permission o f the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. vi PAGE Home R a n g e ................................................... 54 Seasonal Home R a n g e s ................................ 54 C o m pa r i s o n s of Home Ranges among Sex and Age G r o u p s ....................................... 57 M o v e m e n t s ................................................... 57 A v e r a g e D i s t a n c e Tr av e l e d in 24 H o u r s ............. 59 G r e a t e s t D i s t a n c e T r a v e l e d in 24 Hours . . . . 59 SUMMA RY AND C O N C L U S I O N S ..........................................63 L I T E R A T U R E CI TED .............................................. 67 A P P E N D I X A ..................................................... 72 A P P E N D I X B ........................................................ 74 V I T A ............................................................ 7 5 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. vii LI ST OF TABLES T A B L E P A G E 1. Su mm ar y of c a pt ur e dates, ob se r v a t i o n periods, and survival of r a d i o - m ar ke d turkeys, n o r t h e a s t St. Helena P a r i s h and n o r t h w e s t T a n g i p a h o a Parish, Louisiana, and so u t h e a s t A m i te County, Mi ss issippi, J a n u a r y 1983 - Ma y 1984 ......................................... 26 2. Ha bi ta t types and their re lative p r o p o r t i on s on the study area, no r th ea st St. Hele na Par is h and n o r t h w e s t T a n g i p a h o a Parish, Louisiana, and so u t he as t A m it e County, Mississippi, Ja nu a r y 1983 - May 1 9 8 4 ................. 27 3. Overall h a b i t a t use for all r a d i o - m a r k e d turkeys, n o r t h e a s t St. Hele na P a r i s h and n o r t h w e s t T a n g i p a h o a Parish, Louisiana, and so u t h e a s t A m i t e County, Mi ss issippi, J a nu ar y 1983 - May 1984 ........................................ 28 4. Ha bi ta t p r e f e r e n c e and 95% family co nf i d e n c e intervals for r a d i o -m ar ke d sub ad ul t mal es dur in g spring 1983, n o r th ea st St. Helena Pa r i s h and n o r t h w e s t T a n g i p a h o a Parish, Louisiana, and sou the as t A mi te County, M i s s i s s i p p i ................................................. 30 5. Ha bi t a t p r e f e r e n c e and 95% family co nf i d e n c e i nt ervals for r a d i o - ma r k ed s ub ad ul t ma les dur ing fall 1983, n o r t he as t St. Hel en a Par is h and n o r t h w e s t T an gi p a h o a Parish, Louisiana, and s o u t he as t A m i t e County, M i s s i s s i p p i .............. 31 6. H a b i t a t p r e f e r e n c e and 95% family c o n f i d e n c e intervals for r a d i o - m a r k e d s ub ad ul t m al es du ri n g w i n t e r 1984, n o r t h e a s t St. Hel en a Par i s h and n o r t h w e s t T a n g i p a h o a Parish, Louisiana, and so ut h e as t A m i t e County, M i s s i s s i p p i ......................................... - 32 7. Ha bi ta t p r e f e r e n c e and 95% fam il y co nf i d e n c e intervals for r a d i o - m a r k e d s u b a d u l t ma le s dur i n g spring 1984, no r t h e a s t St. Hel en a Pari sh and n o r t h w e s t T a n g i p a h o a Parish, Louisiana, and s o u t h e a s t A m it e County, M i s s i s s i p p i ................................................. 33 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. TABLE viii PAGE 8. H a b i t a t p r e f e r e n c e and 95% family co nf i d e n c e in tervals for ra di o- ma rk e d adult m a le s during sum me r 1983, n o r t h e a s t St. Helena Pa r i s h and n o r t h w e s t T a n g i p a h o a Parish, Louisiana, and s o u t he as t A mi te County, M i s s is si pp i ................. 34 9. H a b i t a t p r e f e r e n c e and 95% family co nf i d e n c e intervals for r a d i o - m a r k e d adult m a le s during fall 1983, n o r t h e a s t St. Hel en a P a r i s h and n o r t h w e s t T a n g i p a h o a Parish, Louisiana, and so u t h e a s t A mi te County, M i s s i s s i p pi ................. 35 10. H a b i t a t p r e f e r e n c e and 95% family co nf i d e n c e intervals for ra di o- ma rk e d adult m a l e s dur in g w i n t e r 1984, n o r t h e a s t St. Hele na P a r i s h and n o r t h w e s t T a n g i p a h o a Parish, Louisiana, and so u t h e a s t A m i t e County, M i s s i s s i p p i ................. 36 11. H a bi ta t p r e f e r e n c e and 95% family c o n f i d e n c e intervals for ra di o- ma rk e d adult m a l e s duri ng spring 1984, n o r t h e a s t St. Hele na P a r i s h and n o r t h we st T a n g i p a h o a Parish, Louisiana, and so ut h ea st A m i t e County, M i s s i s s i p p i ................. 37 12. Ha bit at p r e f e r e n c e and 95% family c o n f i d e n c e intervals for ra di o- ma rk ed sub ad ul t females during fall 1983, nor th ea st St. Helen a Pari sh and n o r t h w e s t Ta ng i p a h o a Parish, Louisiana, and so ut he as t A mi te County, Mi ss i s s i p p i ............ 39 13. H ab it at p r e fe r e n c e and 95% family co nf i d e n c e intervals for r a d i o - m a r k e d s u b a du lt females duri ng w i n t e r 1984, n o r t h e a s t St. Hele na Pari sh and n o r t h w e s t T a n g i p a h o a Parish, Louisiana, and s o u th eas t A m i t e County, M i s s i s s i p p i .............. 40 14. Ha b i t a t p r e f e r e n c e and 95% family co nf i d e n c e intervals for r a d i o - ma r k e d su ba d u lt females during sprin g 1984, no r t h ea st St. Hel en a Pa ri sh and n o r t h w e s t T a n g i p a h o a Parish, Louisiana, and so ut he as t Am ite County, M i s s i s s i p p i ................................................. 41 15. Co mp a r i s o n of 50% and 100% me a n seasonal home range es ti mat es for all ra d i o - m a r k e d turkeys, n o r t h e a s t St. Hel en a P a r is h and no r t h w e s t T a n g i p a h o a Parish, Louisiana, and s o u t h e a s t Ami te County, Mis sissippi, Ja nu ar y 1983 - May 1 9 8 4 ........................................................ 46 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. i x T A B L E P A G E 16. P r o p o r t i o n of h a b i t a t use w i t h i n 50% home- range es t i m a t es for individual ra di o- m ar ke d s ub ad ul t males, spring 1983, no r t h e a s t St. Helen a P ar i s h and nor th we st Ta ng ip ah oa Parish, Louisiana, and so u t h e a s t Am ite County, M i s s i s s i p p i .................................... 48 17. Pr op or t i o n of h a b i t a t use w i t h i n 50% home- range es ti ma te s for individual r a di o- ma rk ed adult males, sum me r 1983, n o r t h ea st St. Helena P a r i s h and n o r t h w e s t T a ng i p a h o a Parish, Louisiana, and so ut he as t Am ite County, M i s s i s s i p p i .................................... 49 18. Pr op o r t i o n of h ab i t a t use w i t h i n 50% home- range es ti ma te s for individual r a d i o - m a r k e d turkeys, fall 1983, no rt he as t St. Helena Pari sh and n o r t h w e s t T a n g i p a h o a Parish, Louisiana, and so ut hea st Am it e County, M i s s i s s i p p i ................................................. 50 19. P r o p o r t i o n of h ab i t a t use w i t h i n 50% home- range es t i ma te s for individual r a di o- ma rk ed males, winter, 1984, no r th ea st St. Hele na Pa r i s h and n o r t h w e s t T a n g i p a h o a Parish, Louisiana, and s ou th ea st A m i t e County, M i s s i s s i p p i ................................................. 51 20. Pr op o r t i o n of h a b i t a t use w i t h i n 50% home- range es t i ma t es for all individual r a d i o m a r k e d turkeys, spring 1984, no r t h e a s t St. Helena Pa ri s h and nor th we st Ta ng ip ah oa Parish, Louisiana, and so u t h ea st Amite County, M i s s i s s i p p i .................................... 52 21. Seasonal and overall m i n i m u m hom e- ra ng e e s t im at es for a dul t (A) and s u b a d u l t (S) r a d i o - m a r k ed m a l e s (M) and females (F), spring 1983 - sp r i ng 1984, n o r t h e a s t St. Helena P a r i s h and n o r t h w e s t Ta ng ip a h o a Parish, Louisiana, and so u t h e a s t A mi te County, M i s s i s s i p p i .................................... 55 22. A v e r a g e d i s ta n ce tra vel ed by r a di o- ma rk ed turkeys w i t h i n a 24-ho ur period, n o r t h e a s t St. He le n a P a ri sh and n o r t h w e s t T a n g i p a h o a Parish, Louisiana, and so u t h e a s t A m i t e County, M i s s i s s i p p i .................................... 60 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. X T A B L E 23. G r ea te st d i s t an c e tra veled by r a di o- ma rk ed turkeys w i t h i n a 24-ho ur period, n o r t h e a s t St. Hele na P a r i s h and n o r t h w e s t T a n g i p a h o a Parish, Louisiana, and so ut he as t Amite County, M i s s i s s i p p i ............................. P A G E 62 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. xi LIST OF FIGURES FIG URE 1. Loc at io n of study area w i t h i n n o r t h e a s t St. Helena P a r i s h and n o rt hw est T a ng ip a h o a Parish, Louisiana, and sou th ea st Am ite County, Mis sissippi, Januar y 1983 - May 1984. PAGE 9 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. xii A B S T R A C T One adult male, nine subadul t males, and five subadu lt females wer e captured, equ ip pe d wi t h radio transmitters, and m o n i t o r e d from M a r c h 1983 through Ma y 1984. Loca tio ns w er e record ed to de te rm in e movements, home range, and h ab it at use w i t h i n co mm er ci a ll y m a n a g e d pine forests in s o u t he as t Louisiana. The area was d i v id e d ino 13 hab it at types; locations of ra di o- ma rk ed turkeys w e r e record ed in on ly six h a bi ta t types. All r a d i o - ma r ke d turkeys p r e f e r r e d old pine (21 y e ar -o ld or olde r pine) thr ou gh ou t all seasons. Ha rd woo ds w er e used acc ording to ava ila b i li ty or pr ef er re d du rin g fall 1983 and w i n t e r 1984 . Young pine (6 to 10 y e a r- ol d pine) was not used or was av oi ded during all seasons. All birds p re fe r r e d old pine as roosti ng habitat. Thes e turkeys co nc e n t r a t e d their activi ti es w i t h i n a m e a n 50% home range of 28.8 ha. R a d i o - m a r k e d turkeys u t i l i z e d as m a n y as five h ab it at types w i t h i n this area of inte nsi ve utilization. Ol d pine was the ha bi tat type wh i ch e x h i b i t e d the hi g h e s t p r o p o r t i o n of use w i t h i n 50% home ranges. However, w i l d turkeys app ea re d to co nc ent rat e their ac t iv it ie s near dai ry pastures. Old pine was an ecot one in 53.7% of the locations invo lvi ng ecot one associations. The average overall home range for two mal es w h i c h s u r vi ve d the 14 -mo nth study was 1635.4 ha. A d u l t males had R eproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. xii i larger home ranges in summer 1983 than in any ot her seasons. The re was a d i f f e r e n c e in spring 1983 and spring 1984 home ranges for s u b a d ul t males. S u b a du lt females ex hi bi te d no dif f e r e n c e s in h o m e- r a n g e estimates b e t w e e n fall 1983 and sprin g 1984. S u ba du l t ma le and adult male home ranges did not differ during c om pa r a bl e seasons. There we re no di ff er enc es in home ranges of s u b a d ul t ma les and females duri ng fall 1983 and spring 1984. Three s u b a d u l t females and one su ba d u l t m a l e d i s pe rs ed from their fall 1983 ranges. A v er a g e di st a n ce tr aveled in 24 hours did not di f f er se asonally for adult males. The avera ge d i s t a n c e tr ave le d in 24 hours was ap pa re nt ly larger in spring 1983 for su ba du lt ma le s than in o t h e r seasons. A d u l t and su ba du lt m a l es did not dif fe r in average distance tr av el ed in 24 hours. The largest and sm al l e s t val ue s for gr ea t e s t d i s t a n ce tr ave le d in 24 hours w e r e e x h ib it ed by ad ul t males. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. I N T R O D U C T I O N The ea s t er n w i l d turkey (Me l e a g r i s gal lo pav o silvestris) is n a t i v e to the ea ste rn Uni te d States. Hi st orically, it o c c u r r e d from the A t l a n t i c C oa st as far w e s t as central N e b r a s k a and from the c oa st of the Gulf of M e x i c o as far n o r th as so uthern M a i n e (Williams 1981). The e a s t e r n w i l d turkey was pr ob a b l y a b u n d a n t in the p i n e - h a r d w o o d s and uplan ds of Lo u i s ia na as late as 1880 but was h i s t o r i c a l l y rare or absent in the pr a i r ie region, c y p r e s s - t u p e l o sw am p areas, and the coastal m a r s h e s (St. A m a n t 1959). The e a st er n w i l d turkey de cl in ed to pr ob abl y its lowest numbers in the late 1930's (Mosby 1975). The loss of natural ha b i t a t and u n r e s t r i c t e d y e a r - r o u n d h u nt in g we r e p r o b a b l y the prima ry factors that c o n t r i b u t e d to the decli ne in w i l d tur ke y p o p u l a t i o n s (Markley 1967) . In Louisiana, w i l d turkey numbe rs p l u n g e d from a p p r o x i m a t e l y 1,000,000 aro un d 1900 to only a bo ut 1,500 turkeys in the early 1940's (Davis 1975). Hollis (1950) re ported that during the 1940's only three areas of L o u i s i a n a re tained a p o p u l a t i o n numerous e n o u g h to be c o n s i d e r e d a po tential b r e e d i n g population: (1) Tensas and M a d i s o n Pa rishes in the Tensas R i v e r region; (2) Livingston, St. Helena, and St. T a mm an y Pa ri sh es east of R eproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 2 the M i s s i s s i p p i River; and (3) M o r e h o u s e Pa r i s h in the n o r t h e a s t sectio n along the Ou ac hi ta River. In an a t t em pt to repl eni sh w i l d turkeys in the state, the Lo u i s i a n a W i l d l i f e and Fish er ie s C o m m i s s i o n (presently the L o u is ia n a D e p a r t m e n t of Wi ld l i f e and Fisheries) re le as ed d o m e s t i c a t e d turkeys in the wild; however, these attempts w e r e un suc ces sfu l and soon ab an don ed (Davis 1 S 7 5 ) . Using w a l k - i n w i r e traps, att empts wer e then ma d e to capture wi l d turkeys for restoc kin g purposes. This uns ucc es sf ul trapping techn iqu e was a b a n d o n e d in the early 1560's (Davis 1575). In 1563, however, the newly de vis ed cann on net greatl y en h a n c e d the ab il it y of bi olo gi st s to captur e w i l d turkeys for res to ck in g pur pos es (Davis 1575). St ar t i n g in 1563, w i l d turkeys from Fl o r id a and Mis si ss ip pi (Lowery 1574) and nati ve w i l d turkeys from St. Helena Par is h and M o r e h o u s e P a r i s h (Dan Dennett, Turk ey Study Leader, L o u is ia na D e p a r t m e n t of W i l d l i f e and Fisheries, B at on Rouge, Louisiana, personal communication) we r e trapp ed and re lo ca t e d t h r ou gh o ut areas of L o u i si an a w h i c h co nt ain ed su itable w i l d turkey habitat. Currently, w i l d turkeys are tr ap pe d from e s t ab l i s h e d p o p u l at io ns thr ou gh ou t Lo ui si an a and re l o c a t e d to areas of the state w i t h low or no wi l d tur ke y p o p u l a t i o n s (Dan Dennett, pers. comm.). Ac c o r d i n g to Dan D en ne tt (pers. comm.), L o u i s i a n a has an e s t i m a t e d w i l d turkey p op ul a t i o n of 16,500 individuals and has e s t a b l i s h e d hu nt a b l e po p ul at io ns in 41 parishes. (See A p p e n d i x A for listing of par is he s and for pop ul at io n R eproduced with permission o f the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. estimates.) Ba il e y (1980) has e s t i m a t e d that Lo u i s i a n a can suppo rt 50,000 w i l d turkeys. A f t e r the initial decline in e a st er n w i l d turkey populations, nu me ro us studies wer e co nd uc te d to learn more abo ut the ecolog ic al needs of the e a s t e r n w i l d turkey. Today, impo rta nt ecological pa ra m e t e r s can be mo r e a c c u r a t e l y as se s s e d w i t h the aid of r a d i o- te le me tr y equipment. There are a p p a r e n t seasonal d i f fe re nc es in the home range and h a b i t a t use of easter n wi l d turkeys. Gobble rs (males) in Alabama, for example, shift ed from fields and pas tu re s in the fall to forested areas in the w i n t e r (Barwick and Spea ke 1573). Barwick and Spea ke (1973) su g g e s t e d that be c a u s e insects and grasses we r e less ab un da nt during the winter, it was ne c e s s a r y for turkeys to m o v e to fo rested areas conta in in g m a s t (e.g., acorns, b e e c h n u t s ) . In a L o u i s i a na study, Tay lo r (1968) found that w i l d turkeys e x h i b i t e d a shift from ha rd woo ds duri ng the fall and wint er to op enings during Ma y and June. Wild turkeys also respond to differe nc es in ha bi ta t quality. The annual and seasonal home ranges of turkeys i nt rod uc ed from the A l a b a m a Coastal P lai n into A l a b a m a mo n t a n e h ab ita t were larger than that re po r t e d for the Coastal Plain and similar to valu es re po rt ed for m on t a n e po p ul at io ns (Everett et al. 1979). E v e r e t t et al. (1979) in te rp re te d these di ff erences as a compensation, r ef le cti ng the p o o r e r h a bi ta t q u ali ty of the mountains. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 4 Age and sex di ff e re nc e s in ha b i t at use and home range have been re ported th ro u gh o ut m u c h of the Southeast. In the So uth Car ol in a P i e d m o n t region, F l emi ng and W e b b (1974) c o n c lu de d that h a b i t a t use by adult go bblers and su badult go bb le rs duri ng the b r ee di n g seas on w a s s i g n i f ic an tl y different. T he re w e r e no d i f f er en ce s h o we v e r in the size of m i n i m u m home ranges. In an easter n A l a b a m a study, Hille sta d (1973) found that nesti ng hens (females) had larger s p r i n g - s u m m e r ranges than n o n n e s t i n g s u b a d u l t hens. In Louisiana, Kimmel (1984) found that w i n t e r ranges of adult hens wer e larger than those of sub adu lt hens. Age and sex d if fe re nc es have also be e n rep or te d in disp ers al dist anc es from release sites. Fl e m i ng and Webb (1974) rep orted that adult gobblers d i s p e r s e d great er d is tan ces from release sites than subadul t gobblers. In the M is s i s s i p p i delta, Hopkin s et al. (1980) rep or te d that go bbl ers and hens cap tur ed as subadults sho we d no di ff er en ce s in avera ge dispersal di st anc e from release sites in the first ye ar of observation; however, the hens in cr e as e d their a v er ag e dispersal dis tan ce m u c h m o r e than the gobblers in the seco nd year of observation. Hopkins et al. (1980) b e l i e v e d that the incr ea se d m o v e m e n t of hens a f t e r they be ca me adults was an at t e m p t to find less po pu l o u s co nditions for reproduction. The p r o po r t i o n and d i s t r i b u t i o n of op en in gs and fields m ay have impo rta nt impacts on w i l d turkey populations. On four areas in A l a b a m a and one area in Kentucky, Speake et Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.