Wild Turkey SP317

8/14/2019 Wild Turkey SP317

1/26

SP

H ABITAT A PPRAISALG UIDE FOR

R IO G RANDE

W ILD T URKEYW ILD T URKEY


2/26

Habitat Appraisal Guide for Rio Grande Wild Turkey

James C. Cathey, Ph.D., CWB, Texas Cooperative Extension, Department of Wildlife and Fisheries Sciences, Texas A&M University, College Station, TX 77843-2258 USA

Shawn Locke, Ph.D., Texas Cooperative Extension, Department of Wildlife and Fisheries Sciences,Texas A&M University, College Station, TX 77843-2258 USA

Dean Ransom, Jr., Ph.D., Texas Agricultural Experiment Station,Texas A&M University, College Station, TX 77843-2258 USA

Stephen J. DeMaso, Ph.D., Caesar Kleberg Wildlife Research Institute,Texas A&M UniversityKingsville, TX 78363 USA

T. Wayne Schwertner, Ph.D., CWB, Texas Parks and Wildlife Department,Austin, TX 78744 USA

Bret Collier, Ph.D., Department of Wildlife and Fisheries Sciences, Texas A&M University,College Station, TX 77843-2258 USA

AcknowledgementsThis work stems from a collaborative effort between Texas A&M UniversityDepartment of Wildlife and Fisheries Sciences, Texas Cooperative Extension, the Caesar Kleberg WildlifeResearch Institute, and the Texas Parks and Wildlife Department. Funding was provided by

Texas Parks and Wildlife Departments Small Game and Habitat Assessment Program. We thankthe Institute of Renewable Natural Resources at Texas A&M University for their support.Additionally, we appreciate the efforts of Terry Blankenship, Mike Krueger, Ralph Suarez andRay Aguirre for providing an editorial review of this manuscript. Photos were provided by MattButler, Jim Cathey, Lang Alford, Justin Dreibelbis, Shawn Locke and Robert Sanders.

1


3/26

2

NOTES


4/26

Figure 1. Distribution of the 3 subspecies of wildturkey found in Texas. Distribution is based on TexasParks and Wildlife Department data.

Figure 2. Because of differences inclimate, soil types, and communi-ties of plants and animals, 10 naturalregions are commonly recognizedin Texas: 1) Piney Woods, 2) Gulf Coastal Prairies and Marshes, 3)Oak Woods and Prairies, 4) Black-land Prairie, 5) Coastal Sand Plain,6) South Texas Brush Country, 7)Edwards Plateau/Llano Uplift, 8)

Trans-Pecos, 9) Rolling Plains, and10) High Plains.

3

IntroductionWildlife management is an integral part of

farm and ranch operations throughout muchof Texas. Although there is a long tradition of managing solely for livestock, active manage-

ment focused on enhancing habitat for wildlifepopulations is gaining momentum. Interest inhabitat management for wild turkeys ( Melea-gris gallopavo ) has grown over the last fteenyears as landowners, hunters, and wildlifeviewers recognize their actions can impactnatural resources. Wild turkey hunting gener-ates millions of dollars annually through directand indirect economic bene ts (Baumann etal. 1990) and therefore represents a valuableresource to landowners.

Five subspecies of wild turkey exist inNorth America, with three subspecies resid-ing in Texas. Of the three Texas subspecies,the Rio Grande wild turkey ( M. g. intermedia )is the most abundant and occupies the wid-est range (Figure 1). Rio Grande wild turkeys

inhabit several ecological regions (Figure2), each with different dominant vegetationcommunities. Despite the wide range of RioGrande wild turkeys, their basic habitat re-quirements (i.e., food, cover and water) show

little variation.


5/26

Although the Rio Grande wild turkeyis the most numerous subspecies in Texas,information regarding ecology and manage-ment lags behind other subspecies (Peterson1998). Since the 1970s, the Texas Parks and

Wildlife Department has documented declinesin Rio Grande wild turkey numbers withinsome areas of its distribution. The causes of these declines are unknown but might be as-sociated with reproductive stages, such as nestsuccess or poult survival (Collier et al. 2007),changes in land use and fragmentation of largeland holdings into smaller parcels (Wilkins etal. 2003), or an increase in brush height anddensity (Wilbanks 2003). Vegetative cover isconsidered an important factor in reproductiveactivities because nesting success is knownto be in uenced by vegetation (Hohenseeand Wallace 2001, Huffman et al. 2006), andground-level vegetative cover can in uencepre ight poult survival (Spears et al. 2007).

Recently, the Texas Parks and WildlifeDepartment developed a Managed LandsGame Bird Program to provide incentives tolandowners for managing wildlife habitat ontheir property. In order to provide an incen-tive, an initial evaluation of the habitat needsto be conducted to identify the habitat factorsthat are limiting the wildlife species beingmanaged. Therefore, a Rio Grande wild tur-key habitat appraisal guide provides landown-ers and managers a standardized, systematicmethod to evaluate current habitat conditions,identify limiting factors, and potentially im-prove habitat through appropriate manage-ment practices throughout the Rio Grandewild turkeys range in Texas.

Habitat Requirements

Usable Space and InterspersionTwo of the most important factors in Rio

Grande wild turkey habitat are usable spaceand interspersion of habitat types. Usablespace (Guthery 1997) refers to the amount of

area a population requires to ful ll biological,behavioral, and physiological requirements.Therefore, population size would logicallyincrease as the amount of usable space in-creases, and as usable space decreases, so

should population size. Wild turkeys typicallyrequire large areas of usable space to supportviable, sustaining populations (Bidwell 2007).

An animals range is de ned as the areait uses while engaged in normal activitiesof gathering food, breeding, and caring foroffspring (Burt 1943). Total range is dif cultto determine for the life of most animals dueto dif culties following individuals through-out their entire lifespan; thus, often seasonalor annual range sizes are reported. Researchconducted in the Rolling Plains and EdwardsPlateau ecoregions found Rio Grande wildturkey annual range sizes to vary between2,4005,900 acres and 3,8006,600 acres,respectively (Phillips 2004, Schapp 2005).Similar annual range sizes (4,670 acres) in theeastern subspecies have also been reported(Thogmartin 2001). Seasonal range shiftsoccur due to changes in resources (e.g., foodsources) and habitat requirements (e.g., nest-ing, brooding). Rio Grande wild turkeys arehighly mobile, and annual movements canvary between 626 miles (Thomas et al. 1966,Phillips 2004, Schapp 2005). Rio Grande wildturkeys do not migrate, but they do exhibitpronounced seasonal shifts and may havedistinct summer and winter ranges.

Based on the above information, RioGrande wild turkey ranges often exceed thesize of a single property being evaluated.Small acreages (e.g.,


6/26

age landowners may bene t from workingcooperatively with neighbors to collectivelyprovide essential components of Rio Grandewild turkey habitat. The Texas Organizationof Wildlife Management Associations (http://

www.towma.org/) provides education, coordi-nation, and pursuit of issues among landown-ers interested in creating and running localwildlife management associations. DeMasoet al. (2007) provide strategies for forming aquail management cooperative that could beused for forming wild turkey cooperatives.

Rio Grande wild turkeys require two basichabitat types: wooded areas and open areas.The amount of interspersion (i.e., close mix-ing of habitat types) of these two types maydetermine habitat quality and are essential inattracting and maintaining wild turkey popula-tions (Figure 3; NRCS 1999).

Figure 3. Rio Grande wild turkeys require intersper-sion of wooded and open areas. Notice across thislandscape how wooded and open areas are intermixed.

and within ecoregions, habitat will alwaysconsist of the same two components. This isparticularly important with the proliferation of small land ownerships (


7/26

Table 1. Roost tree species commonly used by RioGrande wild turkeys. Table was adapted from Bea-som and Wilson (1992) and used data from Walker(1941), Glazener (1967), Haucke (1975).

Species Location a

American elm EP, BPBald cypress EPBlack willow STBC, EP, RP,Blackjack oak EP, BPCedar elm STBC, EP, BPEastern cottonwood BP, STBC, EP, RP, HPEmory oak TPHoney mesquite STBCJuniper EP, TPLive oak STBC, EPNetleaf hackberry STBC, EP

Pecan EP, RP, BPPlains cottonwood HPPost oak EP, BPSugar hackberry STBC, EP, BPSycamore STBC, EP, RP, HP, BPTexas oak EPTexas walnut EP, TPWestern soapberry STBC, EP, TP, RP, HP

a Blackland Prairies (BP), Edwards Plateau (EP),High Plains (HP), South Texas Brush Country(STBC), Trans Pecos (TP).

6

site, as well as the understory vegetation, maybe important. Roost sites should be a mini-mum of 1015 acres, and at least 1015% of the roost site should be wooded (Swearingin2007). Basal area within the stand should bebetween 75 and 120 square feet/acre (Crock-ett 1969, Scott and Boeker 1975), and standswith more canopy cover (5070%) are pre-ferred (Swearingin 2007). Some evidencesuggests turkeys prefer an open understorybeneath roost sites (Figure 4), which mayexplain accounts of turkeys preferring to roostover water. Short vegetation was typical of areas where turkeys ascended and descendedfrom roost sites in south Texas (Haucke 1975).

Some gobblers will use winter roost sitesthroughout the year, while others will disperseto other areas. Females begin ground roost-

ing once incubation is initiated and will useroosts close to brood-rearing areas after poultsare capable of ying. Additionally, man-madestructures (e.g., utility lines and towers, wind-mills) can serve as roosting sites where few orno trees are present (Haucke 1975); in addi-tion, arti cial roosts speci cally designed forturkeys may also be provided (Figure 5).

Destruction or disturbance of winter roostsites can have detrimental effects on RioGrande wild turkey populations. Destructioncan be caused by conversion of wooded areasto increase agricultural production, by urbansprawl, or by inundation of water for reservoirconstruction. Loss of roosting habitat increas-es susceptibility to predators and initiates asearch for alternative roost sites. Furthermore,because Rio Grande wild turkey often prefer

(A)

(B) (C)

Figure 4. Roost sites are a critical habitat compo-nent for wild turkeys. (A) Rio Grande wild turkeysprefer large roost trees and will roost together in large ocks during the winter. (B) A biologist measures thediameter at breast height (DBH) of trees to determinethe basal area. (C) Openness of the understory maybe important in roost site selection by Rio Grande

wild turkeys.


8/26

slow growing, hardwood trees, restoration of suitable roosting habitat may take decades.The disturbance of existing habitat can beharmful. Disturbances such as increased hu-man encroachment, prolonged ranch activi-

ties, or hunting in roost sites can cause wildturkeys to abandon the roost site.

Nesting CoverRio Grande wild turkeys nest on the

ground within grass clumps, leaf litter, brushpiles, or understory vegetation (Cathey etal. 2007). A shallow depression is scratchedout of the leaf litter or ground cover for anest bowl. Although a wide variety of habitatmeasures have been evaluated, nest sites arebelieved to be selected for their concealingcover and their proximity to a permanentwater source (Beasom and Wilson 1992).Woody plants, herbaceous vegetation, brushpiles, vines or agricultural crops 18 inches inheight provide optimal lateral screening cover(Figure 6; Cook 1972, Ransom et al. 1987,

(A)

(B)

(C)

Figure 6. Rio Grande wild turkeys nest in understoryvegetation (A), brush piles (B), and clumps of grass(C). Notice the patchiness of cover (C) which is pref-erable to Rio Grande wild turkeys.

7

Figure 5. Arti cial roosting structures may be used byRio Grande wild turkeys where suf cient roost trees donot exist.


9/26

Huffman et al. 2006). In south Texas, Beasom(1973) found a positive relationship betweenturkey reproductive success and herbaceouscover. Density and structure of vegetation maymoderate nest predation (Schmutz et al. 1989,

Hohensee and Wallace 2001).Patches of nesting cover across a land-scape are preferable for wild turkeys (Thog-martin 1999). In the Edwards Plateau, wildturkeys have been known to nest in road right-of-ways (Cook 1972). This is likely a functionof right-of-ways being protected from poorgrazing management and thereby providingadequate nesting cover.

Rio Grande wild turkey nests are oftenclosely associated with available water. Cook(1972) found 102 of 121 nests in the EdwardsPlateau within a quarter of a mile of a watersource. Similar results were obtained in southTexas (Ransom et al. 1987), and several Texasresearchers have noted the importance of available water.

Brood HabitatBrood habitat consists of three main

elements: (1) insect production areas, (2)vegetation that facilitates foraging, and (3)vegetation that has suf cient cover for poultsbut provides an unobstructed view for hens(Porter 1992). During the rst few weeksof life, wild turkey poults are dependent onprotein obtained from invertebrates (Hurstand Poe 1985). Many herbivorous insects,such as grasshoppers, are associated with new,tender vegetative growth (Schwertner andSilvy 2005, Randel et al. 2006). Patchy winterburns can produce a mosaic of insect produc-

tion grounds while leaving areas for nesting orground-roosting.

Brood-rearing habitat is often a mix of her-baceous vegetation and forest (Figure 7; Por-ter 1992). Spears et al. (2007) found groundvegetation positively in uenced pre ightpoult survival. Shrubs 2.06.5 feet in heightprovided important cover for pre ight poults

(Spears et al. 2007), and areas with shrubs 6.5 feet were avoided. As poults begin to y, tree roosts become more important thanground cover to poult survival. Therefore, the

Figure 7. Brood habitat provides suf cient cover for

turkey poults while allowing the hen an unobstructedview. Hen with poults take cover (A). Poults concealthemselves in cover (B and C).

(A)

(B)

(C)

8


10/26

quantifying the proportions required of eachcomponent may be dif cult. A mosaic of habi-tat patchiness across a landscape is desirable.

Food Habits

The Rio Grande wild turkeys annual dietbased on percent volume consists of grasses(36%), invertebrates (29%), mast (19%), andforbs (16%; Litton 1977). Rio Grande wildturkeys are opportunistic foragers, and use of food items is based primarily on their seasonalavailability (Figure 8). Because Rio Grandewild turkeys have an extensive range withinTexas, the number of plant species they forageon is diverse (Tables 2 and 3). Wild turkeysfeed on a variety of mast (e.g., pecans, acorns,mesquite beans), fruits and tubers (e.g.,grapes, berries, wild onion), green foliage(e.g., grass and forbs), and seeds (e.g., grama,dropseed), dependent upon seasonal availabil-ity.

Invertebrates have long been noted as avaluable protein resource for turkey poults andcomprise the majority of their post-hatch dietduring the rst several weeks (Hurst 1992).Randel (2003) found that brood survival andinsect abundance were greater on areas withstable numbers of Rio Grande wild turkeysthan on areas with declining Rio Grande wildturkey numbers. Insect consumption by wildturkeys occurs year-round by all age groups,with peaks during the spring and summerwhen insect abundance is highest. Before andduring nesting, reproductively active hensincrease their insect and snail consumption foradditional protein and calcium sources (Patteeand Beasom 1981).

Supplemental feeding of Rio Grande wildturkeys can take a wide variety of forms (Fig-ure 9). However, it is important to recognizethat supplemental feeding is not and shouldnot substitute for habitat management prac-tices, regardless of property size. Speculationoccurs as to whether Rio Grande wild turkeysare food-limited, particularly in Texas, where

Figure 8. Seasonal use of food items by Rio Grandewild turkeys. Figure was recreated using data fromLitton (1977).

Agarita Hackberry Rescue grassBladderpod Honey mesquite Sand dropseedBristlegrass Insects Silverleaf nightshadeBroomweed Juniper SkunkbushBumelia Little barley Squirreltail grassCatnip noseburn Littleleaf sumac TasajilloCroton Lotebush Texas cup grassEphedra Milk vetch Tobosa grassEvening primrose Panic grass WalnutFilaree Pecan White tridensGaura Pigeonberry Wild mercuryGrama grasses Plantago Wild onionGround-cherry Prickly pear

Beggar-tick Ground-cherry PolytaeniaBristle grass Groundsel Prickly pearBuffel grass Hackberry SidaCondalia Honey mesquite Signal grassCoreopsis Insects Smallflower corydalisCrabgrass Lantana Stiffstem flaxCroton Lime prickly ash Texas grassDropseed Milk pea Texas virgin's bowerEuphorb Oak acorns Wild tobaccoFalse dandelion Palafoxia Windmill grassFlat sedge Panic grass Yellow wood sorrelGranjeno Paspalum

Grape Pinnate tansy mustard

Table 2. Important food items use by Rio Grandeturkeys in the Rolling Plains and Edwards Plateauecoregions of Texas.

Table 3. Important food items use by Rio Grandeturkeys in the South Texas Brush Country.

9

mixture of woodland and herbaceous vegeta-tion within close proximity to each other iscritical for brood-rearing habitat (see abovediscussion on usable space). A signi cantamount of overlap among roosting, nest-ing, and brood habitat may occur; therefore,


11/26

(A)

and non-target animals (Thompson and Henke2000, N. Wilkins, Texas Cooperative Exten-sion, USA, unpublished data).

Predation and disease transmission areprevalent concerns with food plots (Hurst

1992). Food plots designed for turkeys orother species can be valuable during certaintimes of the year. However, food plots shouldbe of suf cient size ( 23 acres) to reduceaccumulation of feces and related parasitesand diseases (Stoddard 1963). Both feeder andfood plot locations should be moved frequent-ly to reduce dependence and opportunity of disease transmission.

Water RequirementsThe importance of surface water (Figure 10)

long growing seasons combined with moder-ate winters and active supplemental feedingfor deer is conducted. Alternatively, supple-

mental feeding has been thought to increasereproductive success (Pattee and Beasom1979). Nevertheless, feeders that concentrateturkeys increase the opportunity of diseaseand parasite transmission and make themmore vulnerable to predation (Guthery 2004).Mycotoxins (e.g., A atoxins) present in feedand feeders can be detrimental to both target

Figure 10. Surface water is important for Rio Grandewild turkeys and may come in the form of rivers (A),stock tanks (B), guzzlers, windmills, springs or seeps.

(A)

(B)

Figure 9. Supplemental feeding can occur from foodplots (A) or feeders (B).

(B)

10


12/26

to Rio Grande wild turkeys has already beenstated and many suggest that turkeys requirewater on a daily basis (Bidwell 2007). Thedistribution of Rio Grande wild turkeys, inmany historical accounts, was associated with

streams and river bottoms (Glazener 1967).Water development as a result of livestockproduction had a dramatic effect on RioGrande wild turkey distribution (Ramsey1958). Stock tanks and other water develop-ments expanded the effective range of RioGrande wild turkeys, no longer restrictingthem to the streams and bottomlands and al-lowing them to exploit additional resources(Glazener 1967). Lack of suitable surface wa-ter can negatively affect breeding, particularlyduring periods of drought (Sanders 1939).

The Texas Parks and Wildlife Departmentrecommends providing a permanent watersource every square mile where none cur-rently exist. Water sources can be in the formof ponds, guzzlers, windmills, springs or seeps.Harvesting rainwater (Cathey et al. 2006) canbe an ef cient method for providing water in re-mote areas. It also may be necessary to excludelivestock from some of the watering areas toprevent destruction and contamination.

Water in the form of precipitation is direct-ly and indirectly important to Rio Grande wildturkeys. Precipitation directly affects ponds,catchments, and other water sources, makingsurface water available to wild turkeys. Thetiming and amount of precipitation can have asigni cant impact on vegetative cover, nest-ing success, survival and poult production(Hohensee and Wallace 2001, Schwertner etal. 2005). Spring rainfall provides moisture

required for vegetation growth and cover thataffects nesting success. For example, Schwert-ner et al. (2005) found a positive relationshipbetween Rio Grande wild turkey poult pro-duction and precipitation in Texas.

Habitat Management Tools

Livestock GrazingLivestock production and management

of Rio Grande wild turkeys can be compat-

ible, given moderate to low stocking rates andgrazing intensity. Concerns often associatedwith the interaction of livestock and wildturkeys include: nest trampling, alterationof nesting areas resulting in reduced nestingcover or increasing nest predation, reductionin food availability, and altering wild turkeymovement patterns (Beasom and Wilson1992). Koerth et al. (1983) and Bareiss et al.(1986) both found nest trampling by livestockwas low under continuous and short durationgrazing systems and suggested that tramplinglosses may only be a concern at high stockingrates ( 1 ac/animal unit). Rio Grande wild tur-key nest survival was higher under rotationalgrazing systems in comparison to continuousgrazing (Baker 1979), and Merrill (1975)found no nests or broods located in heavilygrazed areas, with the majority of nests foundin complete rest areas or light, continuousgrazing pastures. Similarly, Ransom et al.(1987) found all nesting sites located in de-ferred grazing areas. Heavy grazing intensitycan potentially reduce food availability andin turn require wild turkeys to increase move-ments and ranges to ful ll daily requirements.If turkeys are a management goal, grazingmanagement may need to be adjusted to meetturkey habitat requirements, especially fornesting and poult-rearing habitat.

Prescribed Fire

Prescribed re is a valuable tool for man-aging Rio Grande wild turkey habitat (Figure11; Schwertner and Silvy 2005). Timing of burns is important to reduce impacts to poultsand nests. Summer and winter res are valu-able tools to manage encroaching brushes,particularly cedar, juniper, and south Texasbrush species. Fall and winter burns can

11


13/26

Figure 12. Moderate brush control conducted insmall, patchy patterns can stimulate forb and forage

production while leaving unmanipulated areas meet-ing other turkey habitat requirements.

(A)

(B)

(Figure 12; Quinton et al. 1980). Undoubtedly,brush control can in uence Rio Grande wildturkey habitat. Large, cleared areas do notprovide quality habitat, nor do dense, brushyareas (Lyons and Ginnett 2007). Quinton etal. (1980) found that brush control can bene tcattle operations and maintain turkey popula-tions, provided roost trees and mast trees are

not disturbed. Moderate brush control con-ducted in small, patchy patterns can stimulateforb and forage production while leaving ar-eas meeting other turkey habitat requirementsunmanipulated.

12

stimulate forb production, green forage, andinvertebrate communities. Additionally, rescan remove understory brush within roostingareas and create openings for brood-rearinghabitat. Patchy burns of different degrees of intensity and frequency can create the mosaicof habitat requirements previously mentioned.Before using re, be sure to obtain assistance

from knowledgeable personnel (Texas Parksand Wildlife Department, Texas CooperativeExtension).

Brush ControlBrush control has been a highly used man-

agement tool in Texas, primarily for increas-ing forage production concerning livestock

Figure 11. Prescribed re is a valuable tool for man-aging Rio Grande wild turkey habitat. Photo A shows

a prescribed

re conducted in the Edwards Plateauand photo B shows the same burn site a few monthslater.

(A)

(B)


14/26

Appraising Turkey Habitat

The habitat appraisal process aids land-owners, land managers, and biologists inevaluating the current condition of Rio

Grande wild turkey habitat. It can help iden-tify limiting factors such as lack of availablesurface water that may negatively impact wildturkey populations and prohibit populationsfrom reaching their potential. Once limitingfactors are identi ed, management sugges-tions can be incorporated into a managementplan to enhance overall habitat suitability andeffectively address limiting factors.

Prior to beginning the habitat appraisal(Appendix A and B), it would be advanta-

geous to acquire an aerial photograph of theproperty. This will help to evaluate spatialaspects of the appraisal, such as the intersper-sion of habitat components or the size andpatchiness of nesting areas. Interspersioncould potentially be evaluated by drawingstraight lines across the photo and countingthe number of times the vegetation changes(Figure 13). A lower number of changes inhabitat types indicates a lack of interspersion,whereas several changes indicates good inter-

Figure 13. An aerial photograph can be usefulin evaluating spatial aspects of Rio Grande wildturkey habitat. Interspersion could potentiallybe evaluated by drawing straight lines acrossthe photo and counting the number of times thevegetation changes.

spersion. A eld evaluation of habitat char-acteristics is necessary. Tree heights, percentcanopy cover, and number of food items mayrequire eld inspection by a wildlife biologistor measurement to determine if appropriate

conditions exist. This habitat appraisal doesnot take into account rainfall, which is a veryimportant factor for Rio Grande wild turkeysand habitat. Therefore, it may be necessary toenvision areas as they might look under vari-ous weather conditions (e.g., drought) whenthe habitat appraisal is being conducted.

How to Use the Habitat Appraisal KeyThe dichotomous key (Appendix A) is

made up of eight major sections (AH) and27 sets of statements. Begin with section A,question one, and read both statements (aand b) completely. Determine which state-ment best describes the condition associatedwith the property being evaluated. Based onyour response, the right-hand column of thekey (Go to) leads you either to the next setof statements based on the number providedor leads you to the management action tablebased on the roman numeral. For example,the rst set of statements inquires about thesize of the property. If the property is 1,000acres then you would proceed to statement2. However, if your property is


15/26

assistance in developing a wildlife manage-ment plan for your property, contact TheTexas Parks and Wildlife Department or TexasCooperative Extension.

Limiting FactorsUndoubtedly, many properties will havelimiting factors. Although each factor shouldbe addressed, which categories should takepriority? The dichotomous key was builtin a hierarchical manner beginning with themost important factor (i.e., habitat size andinterspersion). However, our order of im-portance can be debatable, particularly incertain circumstances. For example, nestingor brood-rearing habitat may take precedenceover roosting habitat in some of the ecologicalregions (i.e., Edwards Plateau) where roostsites are abundantly available. This guideis meant to serve as a source for identifyingpotential limiting factors for Rio Grande wildturkeys across their range in Texas and canassist landowners and managers in addressingfactors that may limit Rio Grande wild turkeypotential. The following pages (Appendix A& B) provide land managers with a habitatappraisal key and associated managementsuggestions table for evaluating Rio Grandewild turkey habitat in Texas.

14


16/26

Literature Cited

Badyaev, A. V., and J. D. Faust. 1996. Nest site delity in female wild turkey: Potential causesand reproductive consequences. The Condor 98:589594.

Bailey, R. W. 1967. Behavior. Pages 93111 in O. H. Hewitt, editor. The wild turkey and its

management. The Wildlife Society, Washington, D. C., USA.Baker, B. W. 1978. Ecological factors affecting wild turkey nest predation on south Texas rangelands. Proceedings of the Annual Conference of the Southeastern Association of Fish andWildlife Agencies 32:126136.

Bareiss, L. J., P. Schulz, and F. S. Guthery. 1986. Effects of short-duration and continuousgrazing on bobwhite and wild turkey nesting. Journal of Range Management 39:259260.

Baumann, D. P., Jr., L. D. Vanglider, C. I. Taylor, R. Engle-Wilson, R. O. Kimmel, and G. A.Wunz. 1990. Expenditures for wild turkey hunting. Proceedings of the National WildTurkey Symposium 6:157166.

Baxter, W. L., and C. W. Wolfe. 1972. The interspersion index as a technique for evaluation of bobwhite quail habitat. Proceedings of the National Bobwhite Quail Symposium 1:158165.

Beasom, S. L. 1973. Ecological factors affecting wild turkey reproductive success in southTexas. Dissertation, Texas A&M University, College Station, Texas, USA.

Beasom. S. L., and D. Wilson. 1992. Rio Grande turkey. Pages 306330 in J. G. Dickson, editor.The wild turkey: biology and management. Stackpole Books, Harrisburg, Pennsylvania, USA.

Bidwell, T. G. 2007. Management of the wild turkey in Oklahoma. Available from http://www.okrangelandswest.okstate.edu/pdfFiles/OSUextPubs/F-8700.pdf. Accessed July 16, 2007.

Burt, W. H. 1943. Territoriality and home range concepts as applied to mammals. Journal of Mammology 24:346352.

Butler, M. J. 2006. Evaluation of survey techniques for Rio Grande wild turkey populations inthe southern Great Plains. Dissertation, Texas Tech University, Lubbock, USA.

Cathey, J. C., R. A. Persyn, D. O. Porter, and M. C. Dozier. 2006. Harvesting rainwater for wildlife. Texas A&M University System, Texas Cooperative Extension Publication B-6182 Pp. 1 16.

Cathey, J. C., K. Melton, J. Dreibelbis, B. Cavney, S. J. Demaso, T. W. Schwertner, and B.Collier. 2007. Rio Grande wild turkey in Texas: their biology and management (In press).

Chamberlain, M. J., B. D. Leopold, and L. W. Burger. 2000. Characteristics of roost sites of adultwild turkey females. Journal of Wildlife Management 64:10251032.

Collier, B. A., D. A. Jones, J. N. Schaap, C. J. Randel, III, B. J. Willsey, R. Aguirre, T. W.Schwertner, Nova J. Silvy, and M. J. Peterson. 2007. Survival of Rio Grande wild turkeys onthe Edwards Plateau of Texas. Journal of Wildlife Management 71:8286.

Cook, R. L. 1972. A study of nesting turkeys in the Edwards Plateau of Texas. Proceedings of the Annual Conference of the Southeastern Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies

26:236244.Cook, R. L. 1973. A census technique for the Rio Grande turkey. Pages 279283 in G. C.

Sanderson and H. C. Schultz, editors. Wild turkey management: current problems andprograms. Missouri Chapter of The Wildlife Society and University of Missouri Press,Columbia, Missouri, USA.

DeMaso, S. J., W. P. Kuvlesky, Jr., and J. B. Hardin. 2007. Strategies for forming a quailmanagement cooperative. Pages 363371 in L. A. Brennan, editor. Ecology and managementof Texas quails. Texas A&M University Press, College Station, Texas, USA.

15


17/26

Glazener, W. C. 1967. Management of the Rio Grande turkey. Pages 453492 in O. H. Hewitt,editor. The wild turkey and its management. The Wildlife Society, Washington, D. C., USA.

Glennon, M. J., and W. F. Porter. 1999. Using satellite imagery to assess landscape-scale habitatfor wild turkeys. Wildlife Society Bulletin 27:646653.

Guthery, F. S. 1997. A philosophy of habitat management for Northern bobwhites. Journal of

Wildlife Management 61:291301.Guthery, F. S., T. L. Hiller, W. H. Puckett, Jr., R. A. Baker, S. G. Smith, and A. R. Rybak. 2004.Effects of feeders on dispersion and mortality of bobwhites. Wildlife Society Bulletin32:12481254.

Haucke, H. H. 1975. Winter roost characteristics of the Rio Grande turkey in south Texas.Proceedings of the National Wild Turkey Symposium 3:164169.

Hohensee, S. D., and M. C. Wallace. 2001. Nesting and survival of Rio Grande turkeys innorthcentral Texas. Proceedings of the National Wild Turkey Symposium 8:8591.

Huffman, R. T., M. C. Wallace, W. B. Ballard, G. Hall, R. Houchin, R. Applegate, S. DeMaso,and P. S. Gipson. 2006. Nesting habitat of Rio Grande wild turkeys. Managing Wildlife inthe Southwest 2006:103111.

Hurst, G. A. 1992. Foods and Feeding. Pages 6683 in J. G. Dickson, editor. The wild turkey:biology and management. Stackpole Books, Harrisburg, Pennsylvania, USA.

Hurst, G. A., and W. E. Poe. 1985. Amino acid levels and patterns in wild turkey poults and theirfood items in Mississippi. Proceedings of the National Wild Turkey Symposium 5:133143.

Kilpatrick, H. J., T. P. Husband, and C. A. Pringle. 1988. Winter roost site characteristics of eastern wild turkeys. Journal of Wildlife Management 52:461463.

Koerth, B H., W. M. Webb, F. C. Bryant, and F. S. Guthrey. 1983. Cattle trampling of simulated ground nests under short duration and continuous grazing. Journal of RangeManagement 36:385386.

Litton, G. W. 1977. Food habits of the Rio Grande turkey in the Permian Basin of Texas. Austin:Texas Parks and Wildlife Department Technical Series No. 18.

Lyons, R. K., and T. F. Ginnett. Year. Integrating deer, quail and turkey habitat. TexasAgricultural Extension Service, Texas A&M University, College Station, Texas, USA.

Merrrill, L. B. 1975. Effects of grazing management practices on wild turkey habitat.Proceedings of the National Wild Turkey Symposium 3:108112.

Natural Resource Conservation Service (NRCS). 1999. Wild turkey ( Meleagris gallopavo ). Fishand Wildlife Habitat Management Lea et, Madison, Mississippi, USA.

Pattee, O. H., and S. L. Beasom. 1981. A partial nutritional analysis of wild turkey hen diets inspringtime. Proceedings of the Annual Conference, Southeastern Association of Fish andWildlife Agencies 35:225232.

Perlichek, K. B. 2005. Distribution, delineation, and characteristics of roosting habitat of wild

turkey in Trans-Pecos, Texas. Thesis, Sul Ross State University, Alpine, Texas, USA.Peterson, M. J. 1998. Book review: proceedings of the seventh National Wild Turkey

Symposium. Journal of Wildlife Management 62:816818.Phillips, R. S. 2004. Movements, survival, and reproduction of Rio Grande wild turkeys in the

Texas Panhandle. Thesis, Texas Tech University, Lubbock, USA.Porter, W. F. 1992. Habitat requirements. Pages 202213 in J. G. Dickson, editor. The wild

turkey: biology and management. Stackpole Books, Harrisburg, Pennsylvania, USA.

16


18/26

Quinton, D. A., A. K. Montei, and J. T. Flinders. 1980. Brush control and Rio Grande turkeys innorth-central Texas. Journal of Range Management 33:9599.

Ramsey, R. R. 1958. Turkeys for tomorrow. Texas Game and Fish 16:1617, 28.Randel, C. J., III. 2003. In uences of vegetation characteristics and invertebrate abundance on

Rio Grande wild turkey populations, Edwards Plateau, Texas. Thesis, Texas A&M

University, College Station, Texas, USA.Randel, C. J., R. B. Aguirre, M. J. Peterson, and N. J. Silvy. 2006. Comparison of twotechniques for assessing invertebrate availability for wild turkeys in Texas. WildlifeSociety Bulletin 34:853855.

Ransom, D., Jr., O. J. Rongstad, and D. H. Rusch. 1987. Nesting ecology of Rio Grande turkeys.Journal of Wildlife Management 51:435439.

Sanders, E. 1939. Wildlife survey, region #8. Texas Game, Fish, and Oyster Commission. Austin,Texas, USA.

Schapp, J. N. 2005. Ranges, movements and spatial distribution of radio-tagged Rio Grande wildturkeys in the Edwards Plateau of Texas. Thesis, Texas A&M University, College Station,Texas, USA.

Schmutz, J. A., C. E. Braun, and W. F. Andelt. 1989. Nest habitat use of Rio Grande wildturkeys. Wilson Bulletin 101:591598.

Schorger, A. W. 1966. The wild turkey: its history and domestication. University of OklahomaPress, Norman, Oklahoma, USA.

Schwertner, T. W., and N. J. Silvy. 2005. Prescribed burning for wild turkey management inTexas. Pages 152160 in C. G. Brown and D. Rollins, editors. Fire as a tool for managingwildlife habitat in Texas. Texas Cooperative Extension, Texas A&M System, San Angelo,Texas, USA.

Scott, V. E., and E. L. Boeker. 1975. Ecology of Merriams wild turkey on the Fort ApacheIndian Reservation. Proceedings of the National Wild Turkey Symposium 3:141158.

Spears, B. L., M. C. Wallace, W. B. Ballard, R. S. Phillips, D. P. Holdstock, J. H. Brunjes, R.Applegate, M. S. Miller, and P. S. Gipson. 2007. Habitat use and survival of pre ightwild turkeys. Journal of Wildlife Management 71:6981.

Swearingin, R. M. 2007. Winter roosting ecology of Rio Grande wild turkeys in the RollingPlains of Texas. Thesis, Texas Tech University, Lubbock, Texas, USA.

Thomas, J. W., and H. Green. 1957. Something to gobble about. Texas Game and Fish 15:911, 24.Thomas, J. W., C. V. Hoozer, and R. G. Marburger. 1966. Wintering concentrations and seasonal

shifts in range in the Rio Grande turkey. Journal of Wildlife Management 30:3449.Thompson, C., and S. E. Henke. 2000. Effect of climate and type of storage container on

a atoxin production in corn and its associated risks to wildlife species. Journal of Wildlife Diseases 36:172179.

Walker, E. A. 1941. The wild turkey and its management in the Edwards Plateau. Pages 2122 inTexas Game, Fish and Oyster Commission Quarterly Progress, OctoberDecember.

Wilkins, N, A. Hays, D. Kubenka, D. Steinbach, W. Grant, E. Gonzalez, M. Kjelland, andJ. Shackelford. 2003. Texas Rural Lands: Trends and Conservation Implications for the21st Century. Publication number B-6134. Texas Cooperative Extension, Texas A&MUniversity System, College Station, Texas. USA.

17


19/26

Glossary of Terms

Browse shrubby, woody, or many-branched plants bearing mast, fruit, or tunas.Cover any physical or biological features or arrangements of features that provide shelter from

weather or concealment from or for predators.

Diameter at breast height tree diameter, outside bark, at a point 4.5 feet above the ground asmeasured from the uphill side of the tree.Ecology the scienti c study of the distribution and abundance of organisms and the interactions

that determine distribution and abundance.Forb herbaceous and semi-herbaceous plants, both perennial and annual that are often

classi ed as weeds.Gobbler a mature adult male turkey.Grasses any of a large family (Gramineae) of monocotyledonous mostly herbaceous plants

with jointed stems, slender sheathing leaves, and owers borne in spikelets of bracts.Ground roost ground location of hen and poults prior to poults ability to y up to roost trees.Guzzler a rainwater catchment system designed to store and dispense water to wildlife.Hen a female bird.Herbaceous cover collection of forbs and grasses that provide shelter and concealment from the

weather or from predators.Interspersion to place habitat types in or among each other, or intermixing of units of different

habitat types.Mosaic an area where a range of contiguous habitats occur in transition with one another.Population a group of individuals of one species under investigation.Poult a young turkey


20/26

19

Appendix A. Dichotomous key for Rio Grande wild turkey habitat appraisal

A. Habitat Size and Interspersion Go to1 a Area of turkey management is 1,000 acres 2

b Area of turkey management is


21/26

20

13 a Area provides one 10 acre patch of nesting habitat for every 100 acres of property 14

b Area provides less than one 10 acre patch of nesting habitat for every100 acres of property Consider management suggestions VI

14 a Lateral cover within patches provides 12 feet of visual obstruction Area provides adequate nesting cover 15

b Lateral cover within patches provides


22/26

21

G. Water

24 a Permanent water sources are available approximately 1 per square mile Adequate surface water is available 25

bPermanent water sources do not occur within a square mile. Consider management suggestions XI

H. Grazing25 a Grazing of livestock does occur on the area 26

b Grazing of livestock does not occur on the area Considermanagement suggestions XII26 a Grazing plan allows for deferment of some areas 27

b Grazing is continuous Consider management suggestions XII

27 aGrazing in nesting areas is moderate to low from April to August Grazing plan is compatible with Rio Grande wild turkeymanagement

b Grazing in nesting areas is continuous Consider managementsuggestions XII

Appendix A. Cont.


23/26

22

RomanNumeral Management Suggestions

Returnto

I

Areas


24/26

23

VII

Brood areas should consist of open, grassy areas within proximity towoody cover. Herbaceous cover 12 feet in height and woody coverapproximately 24 feet in height provide good cover for poults. Small,patchy prescribed burns of varying intensity and frequency can achievethis habitat goal. Some locations may require deferment from livestock grazing to establish grasses and forbs of suitable height.

16, 17,18, 19

VIII

A diverse array of preferred food items (Table 2 and 3) should beavailable seasonally to Rio Grande wild turkeys. Prescribed burns canstimulate native vegetation, and the conversion of tame grasses to nativegrasses can be beneficial. Shallow disking (breaking soil 24 inches deep)in early spring will stimulate herbaceous plant growth. 20

IX

Feeders may be detrimental to Rio Grande wild turkeys by concentratingnumbers and may aid in the transmission of diseases and parasites.Predators also may focus on feeder areas as ambush sites. If feeders areused for turkeys or other species, their location should be movedfrequently. If this practice is to be implemented, feeders should be placedone per square mile. 21

X

Food plots (chufa, clovers, legumes, agricultural crops with small grainsor seeds) can be beneficial for Rio Grande wild turkeys during periods of stress (e.g, winter). However, food plots should be relatively large ( 23acres) and available year-round.

22, 23,24

XI

Water is critical for Rio Grande wild turkey habitat. Permanent surfacewater (e.g., ponds, guzzlers, windmills) should be provided every squaremile. Seeps or springs should be fenced from livestock to preventtrampling. 25

XIIGrazing of livestock under moderate stocking rates and duration canbenefit range conditions. Grazing should be restricted from nesting areasbetween April and August. 26, 27


25/26

24

NOTES


26/26

The information given herein is for educational purposes only. Reference to commercial products or trade names is made with theunderstanding that no discrimination is intended and no endorsement by Texas Cooperative Extension is implied.

Educational programs conducted by Texas Cooperative Extension serve people of all ages regardless of socioeconomic level, race, color, sex, religion, handicap or national origin.

Wild Turkey SP317

Documents

Transcript of Wild Turkey SP317