IHHIWNWWW!W“Hill”WWW 109. 915 THS LI BRAR Y Michigan State University lll mm m lljlljlllll Lu: ll "3! ll] lllflllllll l 312 THEsfi This is to certify that the thesis entitled . Spring-Summer Ecology and Movement of the Wild ' l Turkey in Northwestern Michigan. presented by ‘ John F. Grettenberger has been accepted towards fulfillment of the requirements for Mast er 0 f_Sc_ienne__. degree in éeofl/pm Major professor Date 8—3-79 0-7 639 OVERDUE FINES ARE 25¢ PER DAY PER ITEM Return to book drop tor-ave this checkout from your record. ’4" 0 5199 ' - $535 7 ‘1' . l,‘ .e' ' MAY 8:0 ‘99? . IV ‘ A. "V Vex-110W r‘ . il l, 5 13 5 7 é R JUL “1 31599 SPRING-SUMMER ECOLOGY AND MOVEMENT OF THE WILD TURKEY IN NORTHWESTERN MICHIGAN By John F. Grettenberger A THESIS Submitted to Michigan State University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of MASTER OF SCIENCE Department of Fisheries and Wildlife 1979 ABSTRACT SPRING-SUMMER ECOLOGY AND MOVEMENT OF THE WILD TURKEY IN NORTHWESTERN MICHIGAN By John F. Grettenberger Forty-six eastern wild turkeys (Meleagris gallopavo silvestris) of both sexes were captured in Nexford and Lake Counties, Michigan and patagially tagged. Ten hens were also instrumented with radios and tracked from mid-April to the end of August l978. Usable data were gathered for 8 instrumented hens. The_mjnimum spring home range of hens averaged lZZ_ha and their mean dispersal distance from capture location to nest was l.0 km. Average dispersal distance for 5 wing-tagged gobblers was 3.2 km. Initiation of incubation occurred between May ll and May 21 for 75% (6/8) of first nestings. Only 2 (22%) nests hatched and no poults survived beyond 15 days. Three hens were killed while incubating and 3 after nesting. Foxes and avian predators appeared to have been responsible. Mixed hardwood forests were preferred spring habitat. Nest locations included pine plantations, mixed hardwoods and swamp edges. Grass fields were the most utilized vegetation type in summer. The average minimum summer home range was 132 ha. The average range of broods during the first 2 weeks was l4.2 ha. ACKNOWLEDGMENTS I would like to express my gratitude to George Irvine of the United States Forest Service, Robert Huff of the Michigan Department of Natural Resources, and Daniel Dunckee of the Neboshone Hunting Club for assistance and advice during the course of this study. I also wish to acknowledge financial assistance from the United States Forest Service and the Michigan Department of Natural Resources. Deep appreciation is expressed to my major professor, Dr. George Petrides, for his guidance, encouragement and editorial assistance. I would also like to thank Dr. Leslie Gysel and Dr. Donald Beaver for their kind advice. Appreciation is extended to Mr. Leon Bigelow, Mr. Carl T. Johnson and other landowners who granted permission to work on their land. Lastly, I would like to extend my deepest gratitude to my parents, who provided me with lodging and encouragement during the study. 11' TABLE OF CONTENTS Eagg_ LIST OF TABLES .................................................... v LIST OF FIGURES .... ............................................... vi INTRODUCTION ...................................................... 1 STUDY AREA ........................................................ 2 METHODS ........................................................... 5 RESULTS AND DISCUSSION ............................................ 7 Trapping ...................................................... 7 Winter Mortality ............................................. 9 Spring Break-up .. ............................................ 9 Spring Movements of Gobblers ................................. 13 Spring Movements of Hens ..................................... l3 Nesting Habitat .............................................. l7 Nesting Chronology ........................................... 35 Nest and Hen Predation ....................................... 38 Poult Survival ............................................... 4l Spring Habitat ............................................... 42 Movements of Hens with Broods ................................ 45 Brood Habitat ................................................ 47 Summer Movements of Broodless Hens ........................... 50 Summer Habitat of Broodless Hens ............................. 50 Population Dynamics .......................................... 5l iii TABLE OF CONTENTS (Cont'd) Egg§_ MANAGEMENT RECOMMENDATIONS ........................................ 53 SUMMARY ........................................................... 56 LITERATURE CITED .................................................. 59 iv Table LIST OF TABLES Page Percentages of habitat types on study areas in Wexford 4 Co., northwestern Michigan, 1978. Summary of turkeys trapped during January-March 1978, 8 Manistee National Forest, Michigan. Home ranges and dispersal distances from trap sites of 14 wild turkey hens on the Manistee National Forest, northwestern Michigan, 1978. Nesting dates of wild turkeys on the Manistee National 37 Forest in northwestern Michigan, 1978. Weights of hens captured in early March l978 on the 39 Manistee National Forest in northwestern Michigan. Occurrence of turkey radio locations from mid-April 43 through June 1978 on the Benson Corners study area in northwestern Michigan. Occurrence Of turkey radio locations from mid-April 44 through June 1978 on the POplar Creek study area in northwestern Michigan. Mortality and reproduction in the wild turkey 52 population on the 1800 ha Poplar Creek study area, Manistee National Forest, Michigan, 1978. Figure sooouoxmpww _.a._a_.l._a_a_a U'l-fiWN—‘O LIST OF FIGURES Locations of gobbler sightings, nests and trapping sites on the Poplar Creek study area on the Manistee National Forest in northwestern Michigan, 1978. Spring Spring Spring Spring Spring Spring Spring Spring home range home range home range home range and summer home range and summer home range of hen NO. l. of hen No. 2. of hen No. 4. of hen No. 7. home range of hen No. 9. of hen No. 5. home range of hen NO. 10. of hen No. 12. Nest location of hen No. 4. Nest location of hen NO. 7. Nest location of hen No. 2. Nest location of hen No. 12. Brood habitat of hen No. 12. Brood habitat of hen No. 9. vi Page 12 T9 21 23 25 27 29 31 33 34 34 36 36 48 INTRODUCTION Eastern wild turkeys were introduced into northern portions of Lower Michigan in the mid to late 1950's from game farm stock (Ignatoski 1973). The successful establishment of a significant population was rather surprising, since wild turkeys were native only in southern portions of the state. Despite great public interest in the wild turkey, little manage- ment directed toward this species has been undertaken in Michigan. The present study was undertaken in order to determine 1) spring dispersal patterns of turkeys from wintering areas, 2) the areas of their spring and summer ranges, and 3) the habitats used by hens, especially during nesting and brood-rearing. This information should be useful in developing and implementing agency management practices to improve turkey habitat in coordination with other resource management programs. It should also assist in minimizing possible adverse impacts of forest clearcutting, site preparation and conver- sion Of mixed hardwoods (Acer sp. and Fagus grandifolia) and oak (Quercus sp.) to pine (Pinus sp.) and aspen (Pogulus sp.) stands. STUDY AREAS Two areas were selected for study: 1) the Poplar Creek site of 1800 ha, and 2) the Benson Corners tract of 2300 ha. Poplar Creek is about 7 km and Benson Corners about 2 km southwest of Cadillac, Michigan. Both are in Wexford County, in the northeastern part of the Manistee National Forest. The Poplar Creek study area was hilly, ranging in elevation from 980 m to 1200 m and dissected by several creeks flowing through ravines. Upland sOil types were primarily acidic, well-drained sands Of the Montcalm-Graycalm and Kalkaska series. The Tawas-Roscommon series, a poorly-drained organic soil, was prevalent in the creek valleys (Cleland pers. comm.). Forest covered 73% Of the study area, 6% was active farmland, 15% was grassy fields and the remaining 6% had been clearcut (see beyond). The six basic vegetation types present were 1) mixed hardwoods, dominated by sugar maple (Acer saccharum) and beech with scattered black Cherry (Prunus serotina) and red oak (Quercus borealis), 2) aspen-hardwoods, characterized by quaking (Populus tremuloides) and large-toothed (E, grandidentata) aspens mixed with varying amounts of sugar maple and black cherry, 3) conifer plantations of different ages, the majority being red pine with some stands of jack pine (P, banksiana), 4) active farmland in pastures or hayfields, 5) grassy fields, which included abandoned farmland and forest Openings, and 2 3 6) clearcut forest with slash present (Table l). The Benson Corners study area's terrain was more gently rolling, ranging in elevation from 1150 to 1220 m. The acid sands of the Montcalm-Graycalm series were the primary soil type, interspersed with lesser amounts of the Dighton series, a poorly-drained sand on top of clay. Fifty percent of the land was forested, while 33% consisted of grassy fields, 11% was active farmland and the remaining 6% was low- land brush (see beyond). The 8 general vegetation types were 1) mixed hardwoods, characterized by beech, sugar maple, and American hemlock (Tsuga canadensis), 2) swamp conifer, a mixture of northern white cedar (Thuja occidentalis), black spruce (Picea mariana), American hemlock and tamarack (Larix laricina), 3) lowland hardwoods, composed of red maple (Acer rubrum), large-toothed aspen and yellow birch (Betula alleghanensis), 4) miscellaneous stands, involving such species as white birch (B, papyrifera), quaking aspen, and a mixture of aspen, red pine and white pine (Pinus strobus), 5) conifer plantations of red pine and white spruce (Picea glauca), 6) grassy fields, which were primarily abandoned agricultural fields, 7) active farmland, which was primarily hayfields and pastures with some corn, and 8) lowland brush, which was either speckled alder (Alnus rugosa) mixed with willow (Salix sp.) or leatherleaf (Chamaedaphne calyculata) bog (Table l). Table l. Percentages of habitat types on study areas in Wexford Co., northwestern Michigan, 1978. Habitat type Poplar Creek Benson Corners Mixed Hardwoodsa Conifer Plantation Aspen-Hardwoods Miscellaneous Swamp Conifersa Lowland Hardwoodsa Lowland Brusha Grassy Fields Active Farmland Clearcut with Slasha 27 32 TB aU.S. Forest Service timber type. METHODS Wild turkeys were captured by rocket-netting during January, February, and March 1978 at sites prebaited with shelled corn. The sexes and ages of all birds were determined (Lewis 1967) and hens captured during March were weighed. All birds were tagged with bicolored wing tags on both wings as described by Knowlton et a1. (1964). First year birds are here referred to as juveniles. Adults are older individuals. Five hens on each study area also were fitted with radio- transmitters tuned in the 216.0-216.3 MHz range by Wildlife Materials, Rt. 3, Carbondale, Ill. Silastic tubing covered with nylon braiding was loOped under a bird's wings and tied to the transmitter on the turkey's back. Conventional square knots failed to hold and all the birds lost their transmitters, a problem also encountered by Schumacher et a1. (1978). To solve this problem, the turkeys were retrapped and the Silastic tubing stripped of nylon braiding where the knot was to be tied, and the knot wrapped with friction tape. NO transmitters were lost subsequent to using this method. Because Of a malfunction in the receiver, systematic tracking of the instrumented hens could not begin until the third week in April. Each hen was located 5 or more times weekly thereafter until the first week in September, when the study was terminated. 6 The instrumented turkeys were located by triangulation, using a 3-e1ement hand-held yagi antenna. Transmitters had a range of about 3 km when the turkeys were in trees, but most birds were found on the ground at distances of 800 m or less. Locations also were determined from the air, but it was soon obvious that aircraft were not necessary. Nests were found by marking the evident directions of radio bearings during the season when the hen was likely to be on the nest. Searches for the nest were undertaken when radio signals indicated that a hen had left the nest (Williams et a1. 1971). Because of the possibility that a hen would desert its nest if flushed, every pre- caution was taken to avoid this danger, even if it meant that a nest was not located. Spring habitat data were analyzed using techniques described by Neu et a1. (1974) and Petrides (1975). The study areas were mapped by vegetation type, using 1974 U.S. Forest Service aerial photos and cover type maps. Total areas were determined using a compensating polar planimeter. Home ranges were calculated using the modified minimum home range method. Maximum range length was determined by measuring the distance between the two most distant points plotted. Only points separated by less than 1/4 of the range were connected in circumscribing the home range. This meets the conditions established by Harvey and Barbour (1965) (see Fig. 1). When a point was farther than 1/4 of the range length from other points, it was connected only to the nearest point (see Fig. 4). Carcasses of dead turkeys were autopsied at the Michigan Department of Natural Resources Wildlife Pathology Laboratory. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION Trapping Forty-six turkeys were trapped at 7 sites (Table 2) but only the birds trapped at sites P, W, and B on the Poplar Creek area and at site C on the Benson Corners area yielded useful data. At sites N, D, and U, only inconsequential sightings occurred early in the spring. Even though the flock at site B was trapped twice, these birds did not exhibit any hesitation in coming to the bait on the second trapping attempt, possibly because hunger overcame any natural wariness. All birds present on the second trapping attempt were captured. Trapping at other sites was not always so successful. At site C, where birds were regularly fed and consequently in better physical condition, only a few of the turkeys would feed at the bait site at any one time and trapping results were poor. Several gobblers would wait until the majority of the flock had begun to feed before they would venture from the woodlot to the more-open bait site. Poor results at other locations occurred because hooks between rockets and the net broke or rockets failed to fire. .= mawm use goopm m~\mm\~ e _ mm omm 3ppm zomh .o «ppm use goopm m~\m~\~ e mm uwm 3ppm zomh .z m¢_m use xoopu w~\¢_\m N m om umm 3F_m zmmh .umucmsacumcw up can .op .m .m .m .moz new: .9 mgvm can xoopd mm\op\m _ m e ep omm gopm z_Nh .umucm53camcv m use .5 .e .N .P .moz new: .m «own use xoopu mm\p_\m N v m om umm gypm zpmp .3 warm use xucpd mm\mmxm m _ om umm 3p_a z—NH .a mo_m new goopd w~\N—\P m o_ omm zppm z_mp mpcmssou mono upzu< m—P:m>:a u_=u< m_wcm>=o cowumooF muvm m—mz «page; .cmmvsowz .ymmcod .mcowumz mmHmPcoz .mmmp nocmzuacmacmw mcwczu cognac“ mxmxczu co xcm553m .N m_nmh Winter Mortality Of the 22 wing-tagged turkeys on the POplar Creek area, 5 were known to have died prior to spring dispersal. Two of these were instrumented. Three untagged birds were also known to have died. Of the 8 mortalities, 5 were due to starvation. Two were killed by predators, one indicated by tracks to be a fox (Vulpes fulva) and the other evidently by the goshawk (Accipiter gentiles) which was seen on the kill. The eighth bird died of unknown causes. Two transmitters were recovered from starved and predator-killed birds and put on other hens. Two of the instrumented hens in the Benson Corners area perished prior to dispersal. One was believed to have died of injuries which occurred during trapping. The cause of death of the other hen could not be ascertained. Spring Break-up Flock break-up occurred primarily in late March and early April and was characterized by increased flock movements prior to dispersal. Break-up patterns Observed were similar to those described elsewhere. Groups in Minnesota were observed to disintegrate rapidly during the first week in April (Porter 1977). A flock in New York divided into nesting groups on March 29 (Eaton et al. 1976). In Missouri, Ellis and Lewis (1967) Observed break-up to occur in early April. On the Poplar Creek area, flock W consisted of 3 adult gobblers and l juvenile (first-year) male (Table 2). The first to leave its lO wintering area, this flock moved about 1 km southwest (Fig. l) where they were Observed March 20 near the farm where the 9 hens and 5 juvenile gobblers of flock 8 had wintered. In late March there was over 30 cm of snow in the woods, although bare spots were present around trees and southern-facing hillsides. TWO adult gobblers from flock W remained with flock B and the other 2 gobblers moved on. One was later seen .5 km north with hens from flock P and the other was Observed 1.2 km west of the farm with an unmarked hen (Fig. 1). After April 7, the hens Of flock B gradually left to look for nest sites. Although copulation was not Observed, mating presumably occurred prior to flock break-up since no hens were observed with gobblers afterwards. Of the 5 instrumented hens, one did not return to the flock after trapping on March 11, another stayed with the flock until April 23, and 2 others left around April 27. The final radio-tagged hen remained with the flock until May 20, when she was observed with a gobbler from flock W and an unidentified hen. Instrumented hens on the Benson Corners area were last seen at the bait site on April 6. No telemetry data were available, but reports from local residents indicate that the flock of 35 had fragmented into several smaller groups. When located during the third week in April, one hen was alone, another was with a gobbler and several hens, and a third hen was Observed with 3 hens. None of the hens was subsequently seen with other turkeys prior to nesting. ll o:mEm>oe xoo_w co cowuumc_o IIIIv smog m:_u;m_m cmFDnow + .1— db Ex m. m_mom Emmcpm.,z\\ muwm onwaamch 0 .02 no: new ummz o ncmmmn .cmm_;u_z .ummcou Focowumz mmumvcmz .wmcm xenon xmmcu copaom on» co mmpwm mcpgamcu new .mumm: .mmcwpcmwm cmpnaom co meowamoog .— .mpd 12 "l/l“, 13 Spring Movements of Gobblers Movements of gobblers were similar to those reported elsewhere. In New York, the average distance from banding to the place of recovery was 2.7 km for juveniles and 2.8 km for adult gobblers (Eaton et a1. 1976). The average distance of spring dispersal in Missouri for gobblers was 2.1 km (Ellis and Lewis 1967). The average dispersal distances in Alabama ranged from 1.9 to 3.2 km (Barwick and Speake 1973). In the present study, the average dispersal distance from trap site to spring hunting-kill location (3 gobblers) or most-distant visual recovery point (2 gobblers) was 3.2 km. Gobbler movements, especially during April and May, appeared to be a result primarily of searching for mates. When males were seen, they were most Often with hens. Spring Movements of Hens Spring movements of hens involved an initial dispersal to the nesting area, followed by a decreased range of movement during laying and incubation. If a nest were destroyed, hens usually moved else- where. Hens successful in hatching young remained near the nest Sites (see beyond). Mean hen-dispersal distance was considerably smaller than those reported elsewhere in northern states. In Michigan, the average distance from trap site to nest was 1.20 i 1.02 km (mean 1 standard error, sample size = 5) for adults and .67 i .21 (N=3) for juveniles (Table 3). In Minnesota, Porter (1977) reported a mean distance from the center of activity in March to the center of activity in May l4 Acm552mv mm— o.F Ao=_camv AN, cam: on mesa-h_ P_La< o.o app N. cmnsmugmmup xpza Accessmv mm on mesa-e_ .Ptaa a.c Aacatamv “on 0. pp mczauem ~wcg< m.~ cu m mcmccoo comcmm Langmuamm-P s_=q Ataaszmv mo_ om acza-mp .Eta< N.o Am=_2amv .e. m _N acaq-n_ _.La< m.o N_P A mm mesa-~. __La< s.o me e a acsq-m_ .Pta< s._ .m N em mesa-~_ _Fca< m.o em _ xaatu La_aoa vowcmm mc_xunch AExv mocmumvu Anny mucus Logan: mmcm xnzum —mmcmam_o mac: coauwsmcmch .mmmp .cmm_sowz :cmgmmz:ucoc .ummcod pmcopumz mmumwcmz ago :0 new; amxcau u_w3 co mmuwm qmcu soc» mmocmam_c Pmmcmamwu wen mmmcmc wee: .m mpnmh 15 of 5.6 km for adult hens and 8.6 km for juvenile hens. In New York, the mean distance from trap site to nest was 5.5 km for adult and 16.1 km for juvenile hens (Eaton et a1. 1976). In Missouri, the dispersal distance for hens was 3.0 km (Ellis and Lewis 1967). Hens of the Rio Grande turkey (M, g, intermedia) dispersed an average distance Of 17.4 km (Thomas et al. 1973). The only dispersal distances which were similar to those in Michigan was the 1.3 km dispersal distance reported in Alabama (Hillestad 1973) and the 1.9 km dispersal distance for the Florida wild turkey (M, g, osceola) in that state (Williams et a1. 1974). The ideal composition, size and juxtaposition of habitat types in the vicinity of the trapping locations was the probable reason for the smaller dispersal distance in Michigan. This reasoning also was followed by Williams et a1. (1974) for Florida wild turkeys. Porter (1977) believed, too, that the nature of habitat dispersion influenced wild turkey movements in Minnesota. In addition to the ideal spring and summer habitat near the trapping sites in Michigan, more distant surrounding habitat appeared to be less favorable. The POplar Creek area was bordered on three sides by unbroken forest with few water sources. Several hens made short evidently-exploratory movements around the borders of the study area but soon returned to its center. The Benson Corners area was either bordered by unsuitable aspen and swamp conifer tracts or by high human populations. The greater dispersal distances of juvenile hens in their first Spring which have been reported by some authors (Ellis and Lewis 1967, Eaton et a1. 1976, Porter 1977) was not Observed in this study. 16 They suggested young hens move further than adults because the latter are dominant in a traditional nesting area and force the new indivi- duals to travel elsewhere. Yet, Williams et a1. (1969) and Hillestad (1973) found in southern states that nests of juvenile hens and adult hens Often were clustered. It does not seem that intraspecific competition necessarily is the cause of differential dispersal between age Classes. A more plausible explanation might be that adult hens, through experience, would know the location of a favorable nesting habitat, while juvenile hens would have to wander randomly to locate one. If so, when good nesting habitat is widespread, as it appeared to be in the present study, juveniles would stay closer to the wintering area than when such habitat is scattered and more difficult to locate. This idea is supported by the Observation that adult dispersal movements were more direct and faster than those of juveniles. Except for hen NO. 4, hens whose nests were destroyed moved considerable distances, sometimes into areas not known to have been visited previously. Hillestad (1970) reported movements in Alabama up to 1.6 km in the days following the loss of a nest. In the present study, hen No. 10 moved farthest after the destruction of her nest, traveling 2.7 km south into an area in which she had not been located previously (Fig. 8). She was never subsequently located in her former range. Hen No. 5, following the loss of her nest immediately moved about 0.5 km into the northern part of her range (Fig. 7) and was not located again in the vicinity of her nest. Hen No. 7 remained in the general area Of her nest for 4 days following its destruction and then drifted about 1 km south to the l7 limit of her familiar range (Fig. 5). Hen No. 4's behavior was unusual in that she renested 400 m from her destroyed nest (Fig. 4). Spring home ranges of hens were smaller (Table 3, Figs. 2-9) than those described previously. Porter (1978) reported spring home ranges of hens in Minnesota to average 218 ha, as compared to 127 i 102 ha in Michigan. These differences could be due to variations in habitat carrying capacity, but also could be affected by receiver malfunctions which prevented much of the initial dispersal movement from being included in home range calculations. Differences between birds also could be influenced by the reduction in tracking period caused by the shorter life spans of several hens. Nesting Habitat Nest sites varied from mature forests to Old fields. Three nests were situated in a 40 ha stand of pole-sized jack pine which had been thinned, leaving considerable slash on the ground. The nests Of 2 hens were similarly located under small jack pines next to some slash (Fig. 10). The other nest was in the same jack pine stand near the edge of a clearcut. Ground vegetation was absent around the initial nests of these hens, the eggs being laid directly on the fallen pine needles. Two other nests were located in stands Of red pine 3-5 m tall. One was under the branches Of a red pine in a 60 ha stand with little understory present. The other nest was in a 15 ha stand under a small pine in a blackberry (Eybg§_sp.) thicket (Fig. 11). Another nest was in a clump of aspen at the base of a pole-sized specimen (Fig. 12). Fig. 2. 18 Spring home range of Hen No. 1. Legend Mixed Hardwoods Aspen-Hardwoods Pole-size Conifer Sapling-size Conifer Grassy Fields Agricultural Clearcut Range Boundaries Stream Nest Trapping Site Scale .5 km 19 1 As a A! C. . c. 6.. 6. .9. . .9. av. . .6. u. hf.) .Lr ab Fig. 3. 20 Spring home range of Hen No. 2. we Mixed Hardwoods Aspen-Hardwoods Pole-size Conifer Sapling-size Conifer Grassy Fields Agricultural Clearcut Range Boundaries Stream Nest Scale .5 km 21 IQI .4 AV Q "Q1Av .6. .0. A... .x. “.3 .. AER ... WC“ a hat. Fig. 4. 22 Spring home range of Hen NO. 4. 129st Mixed Hardwoods Aspen-Hardwoods Pole-size Conifer Sapling-size Conifer Grassy Fields Agricultural Clearcut Range Boundaries Stream Nest Trapping Site Scale 5 km 23 .4 . 4...... Ox . .49 \b‘ I». .4. .o...o. an. Fig. 5. 24 Spring home range of Hen No. 7. am Mixed Hardwoods Aspen-Hardwoods Pole-size Conifer Sapling-size Conifer Grassy Fields Agricultural Clearcut Range Boundaries Stream Nest Trapping Site Scale .5 km F---—4 25 ‘QQQ I‘LL Q. . - I 'l " n n' -. ’ o'..."." 1'... -. A" I“ 0.5"5:. . . nan-‘1. ‘ 9‘ 0. .I! 9‘. 26 Fig. 6. Spring and summer home range of Hen NO. 9. Legend .3‘5‘, Mixed Hardwoods : ‘1" "Q- ‘7 ' 13;"; f.- 1 ' "‘ Add Aspen-Hardwoods fififififij Pole-size Conifer +_4‘s Sapling-size Conifer Grassy Fields Agricultural Clearcut --—- Spring Range Boundaries --- Summer Range Boundaries «"‘x Stream 0 Nest o Trapping Site Scale 5 km 27 - u- . a... ..l|l .OMQQMQA A9 . a». .5... 4.6.5.. c.4466. . Fig. 7. 28 Spring home range of Hen No. 5. Lasers. Mixed Hardwoods Swamp Conifers Conifer Plantation Lowland Hardwoods Miscellaneous Lowland Brush Agricultural Grassy Fields Range Boundaries Stream Nest Scale .5 km 29 30 Fig. 8. Spring and summer home range of Hen No. 10. Legend "e‘O' Mixed Hardwoods §§Z§§ Swamp Conifers 5’3" Lowland Hardwoods Essen. Miscellaneous 3:43: Lowland Brush Agricultural Grassy Fields ""“ Spring Range Boundaries """ Summer Range Boundaries ' \ Stream ' Nest Scale .5 km 31 <<<<< Fig. 9. 32 Spring home range of Hen No. 12. 323392 Mixed Hardwoods Swamp Conifers Conifer Plantation Lowland Hardwoods Miscellaneous Lowland Brush Agricultural Grassy Fields Range Boundaries Stream Nest Trapping Site Scale .5 km l———-l 33 a a fr'? ‘IF I.’ fida" . ' --. 4 (VJ . W V w ¢oqo¢¢¢ ¢¢4oo.¢“ .o...¢4¢‘ .........¢§e ..........€r. ......¢.... es ......s....@ ............ i ...............#x ......s.........? .......s....s.. ............... o. . .oooe ...‘...a..‘¢... ooooooeeo e...¢..:....n «00000000000. .. o mooooo. 34 Nest location of hen No. 4. 10. Fig. ”Wham. Ev... e. .. .... . .14.}? , A . w .1.” .3, . £1 . . Nest location of hen No. 7. 11. Fig. 35 To avoid disturbing the birds, only approximate nest locations could be determined for 3 hens. One was on the edge of a speckled alder swamp near a field, another was under a bushy white pine between a bog and a field (Fig. 13) and the last one was in a stand of mature sugar maples. Morris (unpub. report, Michigan Dept. of Natural Resources) found 6 nests in north-central Michigan in oak slash, oak stands and along the edges of swamps. In New York, nests were situated in overgrown fields and second growth hardwoods (Austin et al. 1973, Proud 1969). In Virginia, Mosby and Handley (1943) reported that nests were most frequently sited in abandoned fields, in thickets or under slash left by pulpwood operations. In Alabama, Hillestad (1973) found the majority of nests in recently cut-over pine, while Speake et a1. (1975) discovered most nests in Old fields, cut-over openings and upland hardwoods. Water was available mostly less than 150 m away and always within 1 km of the nest. Bailey (1976) stated that nests in North Carolina usually occur within 1 km Of water. Six nests in north-central Michigan (Morris, unpub. report, Michigan Dept. of Natural Resources) were all within 100 m of water. Dalke et a1. (1946) reported that Of 25 nests located in Missouri, all were within .4 km of water. Nesting Chronology Incubation was begun between May 1 and June 1, with 6 of the 8 initial attempts occurring between May 11 and May 21 (Table 4). This peak was about a week later than that reported from western New York 36 r . L “ - "7 ‘ .3” -,:2S$F$P3;ff \‘ -‘ ‘3‘.";<~é‘lnr. ‘ h" 7 3T ' 55.3.‘nd 516 Fig. 12. A?” f .. M “-» :- ~ » ~~ , .' 4 ' ‘ggfil “" ,t.=~ '5 1 ‘ . .-\‘ .9 . i .W . . ..‘fm ,-_\‘ .' , - K‘. K ‘.‘ . ’0’ . \ K I a . v , . ; . -- arms-.15: Fig. 13. Nest location of hen No. 12. 37 em mess S mess 2 as :32 N. 0: N as 2 as 2.23% 2 oz mN mess MN .3: :see e —N mess m mess N. Am: mpwem>ss N Np mess eN as: mp as: upse< m oN mess mN mess F mess a me: P xez apse< e em a: on a: N. as 332 N P mess P mess __ xmz mFFem>ss _ emp__x em: umxoeummo emeuum: eowaensue_ mmmpu cmnEse eemmm mm< cmuu_smemep mmmmo empmswmmu .mnmp .eemweowz eemummzeueoe e_ mmmcoe peeo_umz mmumwemz me» eo mxmxesu ep_z mo mmume mewummz .e mpeee 38 (Glidden and Austin 1975) but one week earlier than in the eastern part of that state (Austin et a1. 1973). Differences in body weight at the end of the winter did not seem to affect nest-initiation dates. Weights of starved hens and of hens fed at 3 trapping sites were compared (Table 5). Turkeys trapped at site N had been feeding during the winter from a truckload of rye which a farmer had put out for them. The amount present was greatly in excess of their needs and grain still remained at the end of the winter. Turkeys captured at site C also were fed throughout the winter and consumed all of about 2 buckets Of waste grain per day. The turkeys at site 8 fed primarily in a barnyard among the cattle, eating whatever they could find in the manure and hay there. Four of the first 5 hens to initiate nests were from the Poplar Creek area, despite their poorer condition. Hayden and Nelson (1963, in Lewis 1967), after subjecting game farm turkeys to extreme starvation, also concluded that fertility, hatchability, egg weight and poult weight were not affected by hen pre-season weight losses of 20-30%. Winter condition, it seems, may affect egg production primarily by limiting the renesting potential (Porter 1978). Nest and Hen Predation Nesting success was lower than reported in most studies. Of the 8 original nests and 1 re-nest, only 2 (22%) hatched. Austin et a1. (1973) reported a success of 46% (6/13) in New York. Glidden and Austin (1975) determined successes of 20% (3/15) and 47% (16/34) for two consecutive years, also in New York. Hillestad (1973) found a 39 .N m.sae mama .mmpuesou mxms see ecoexmz .meowumooP msovem>e ee_ A_v Nee. Aeveefi A mes. aeo_sa>eaem m_ Amv me A meNm Amvemp A .NmN m mueaemse_ae-ssm o Amva_ A NeNm Ame ON A NmmN e mueaemse_ae e AAVNNP A opmm z Ess_s_s se um>cmum “pse< mpwem>ss amuwm _m>m_ me_ummw mmmuemocme mepeeech mpnmeoee Amy muemwmz emmz .AAmNPm m_e5mmv coecm eemeemum A emmsv emmweomz eemummzeueoe e_ pmmeoe pmeovumz mmumweez meg eo mmm— some: xpcmm e_ umcsueeo meme mo muemwmz .m mpnee 4O hatching success at 38% (3/8) in Alabama and Williams et a1. (1969) reported that 40% (8/20) nests hatched in Florida. Of 5 destroyed nests examined in Michigan, no traces of egg shells were present at 4. Foxes, which usually eat the eggs or carry them away (Rearden 1951) were presumed to be the predators. A possible cause Of the high rate of evident predation on nests was the lack of concealing vegetation early in the spring. Three nests were scarcely hidden and were destroyed with 2 of the hens killed. It may be significant that the 2 successful nests were among the last 3 laid, when vegetation was more dense. It has been suggested (Williams et a1. 1969, Hillestad 1973) that an observer visiting a nest will increase the chance of predation. Five of the 7 nests destroyed were never so visited in this study, however, and the other 2 were destroyed after heavy rains would have washed away any human scent. The Observed predation rate Of 75% on hens was much higher than any described previously in similar radio telemetry studies. Predation rates of 36% (Austin et a1. 1973) and 8% (Glidden and Austin 1975) were reported in New York. Unsuccessful predation attempts on nesting hens were described by Hillestad (1973) and Williams et a1. (1969) in the south. Of the six hens killed during the present study, 3 were taken on their nests. Two appeared to have been killed by a fox, since no traces Of the eggs were found. The transmitters were found near the nest, heavily damaged. The carcasses were taken away by the predator. Another hen was apparently killed on her nest by an avian predator, since only the head was eaten and the carcass was not 41 removed. The 3 hens killed away from nests all succumbed within 3 weeks after nesting. One hen was killed, either by a fox or dog, when her brood was 2 weeks Old. The carcass was located 1 km from the known brood range, with only the rib cage remaining. Another hen appeared to have been killed on its roost, probably by an owl. The transmitter of the last hen was damaged when found, but what caused the loss of the bird could not be determined. The high kill rate may indicate that predation is a factor limiting turkey abundance in northwestern Michigan. Poult Survival Poult mortality in this study also was high. Seven poults were present at first when Hen NO. 12 was observed the day after hatching and all were still present when she was last seen June 24. It seems unlikely that any survived after she was killed on June 30. Hen No. 9's brood was difficult to observe because of the heavy vegetation which it frequented, but a minimum of 4 poults were counted one week after hatching. An additional week later, only 2 poults could be located. Heavy rain has often been cited as a cause of poult mortality (Mosby and Handley 1943, Holbrook and Lewis 1967). Low temperatures and heavy rains during the preceding week could have caused this mortality. The last two poults disappeared about 4 days later. Little can be concluded about poult survival in this study because of the small sample size. Two broods observed later in the 42 summer in the Poplar Creek area had 8 and 12 poults, respectively, indicating that poult survival is at least sometimes higher than that observed for the telemetered broods. Spring Habitat Mixed hardwoods were the most preferred habitat type during the spring on both study areas (Tables 6 and 7). In addition, most turkeys seen there were foraging. Food items available in the hard- woods and known to be utilized by turkeys in the spring included acorns, beechnuts, black cherries, and violet (_V_i_g_l__a_ sp.) and adder's tongue (Erythronium americanum) leaves and roots (Korschgen, 1967). Turkey hens also had a preference, although statistically not significant, for miscellaneous timber stands and lowland brush, which only occurred on the Benson Corners area. Use of lowland brush possibly was influenced by its proximity to feeding and nesting habitat. Conifer plantations tended to be avoided. Their use was primarily as nesting cover. Grassy fields and farmland were not highly used on either study area. This may have been related to the large size of the fields, particularly on the Benson Corners area. Aspen-hardwoods on the Poplar Creek area and swamp conifers on the Benson Corners area were used about in prOportion to their availability. Previous studies have emphasized the importance of fields during the Spring. Hillestad (1973) stated that fields and pastures were 43 .mmoemememee mueu_eep oo.— m>oae mms~m> meme: .AmNva mmepceme eo emmmme .Avma—v .Pm um smz Eocuo .mmuomexm eeeu mms mmmp x—ueeuwmpemwme .emuomexm emeu mms emmemem zpueeo_wwemwmm oo._ we, co.— oo.o a o oo. NWT. eo. meoozeemz seepzos 25 £8. v J v 8. S. N :. 235: 9:2 F 3.0 seN. v .e v NP. 8. AN mm. 33.: safe 25 2. v Fe v 8. 8. m B. 5:35: ates p mm.o N_. v .e v mo. __. o_ m_. memepeou eEezm . a: 2. v .e v 8. 8. 2 8. fies 2323 p —m.— NN. v .e v No. m.. _N mo. msomem__momwz p :N as... v .e v N. mm. 8 2. 8822...: ease o. oAuemruAmmmou moeme Away meme 0 mmexu Neu_nez eA .e\_sv upweoo »_Psmw aomv mexu umu_nme meowumoo_ A _ev mewumc A av moemeesuoo ems meo_usuop ovum; to mmcm moememmmee co eopueoeoee eo oPeme we cmeEsz xesum mo Fm>cmue_ moeme_meoo eowueoeoee eowueoeoee .emmwem_z eemummzeaeoe ew emem acsum memecoo eomemm meu eo mmmp mess emsoeep Pweaoee mmsAm> meme; .Ammmpv mmeAeume eo emmmme .Aeeepv .Aa Am smz eoeeu .emuumexm emea mms mmmp xpuemuwewemAmn .umuomexm emeu mms emmmmem xpuemupewemwm m oo.~ ANN co.— oo.o a o oo. o co. esoeemAu ee.e see. v ea v No. so. A_ m_. As_m_e Ammaee we.o s_m. v _e v N_. AN. Nm Nm. meoesasease emceeoe p ee.e AN. v .e v as. m_. em e_. meooseeae-ememe p NA._ AA. v .e v No. No. N_ so. seaAEeae m>esu< A mu._ mom. v .e v oe. mu. m__ NN. meoozeem: emx_z o oApemwoFeAmou mueme Aeev meme op mmexp Humvee: A Ae\vev -wAeoo AAAEeA nomv mama umuwnee meowummop A .ev .eaewpme Awev moemeesouo ems meowueooA opeme we mmem moememwmee Ac eo_ueoeoee eo oweme we emessz Assam Ac Ae>emue_ moemeweeou eowueoeoee eoAueoeoee .eempeoAz eemummzeueoe e? emem xesum xmmeu empeoe men eo wmm— mess emsoeeu Aweeeez meAues: mN m m m o m meAeem N- A A mmmmos ezoexe: A- A AAAAmueoz meAeemeA N- N eoAumemee m- N A N eOAAa>eAAm mm m MA A m A emAeA3 sAeam mAmqu ezoexes mmAAem>ss muAse< mmAAem>ss muAse< em>emmeo xmm mmAeEme mmAez .mAmA .eemAeoAz .pmmeoe AeeoAAez mmumAemz .mmem Aesum xmmeo eeAeoe me oomA mew eo eoAamAseoe Amxesu eAAz mew eA eoAaoseoeeme new AAAAmAeoz .m mAeeA MANAGEMENT RECOMMENDATIONS The turkey is one of the species involved in wildlife management plans of the United States Forest Service. Long-rotation timber units, such as that at Poplar Creek, are vegetated predominately (+ 70%) with tree species of considerable longevity. The oaks, hardwoods and red pine there are managed so as to meet the habitat requirements of white-tailed deer (Odocoileus virginianus), gray (Sciurus carolinensis) and fox (S, niger) squirrels, wild turkey and various songbirds without sacrificing timber production. Several improvements in turkey habitat detennined fron this study can be integrated into forest management objectives on areas similar to Poplar Creek, without sacrificing timber production goals. Fruit-producing trees such as oak, black cherry and beech should be favored for survival wherever possible, and a minimum of 30% should be mature specimens of these species. Trees growing at the edges of Openings and on hillsides appeared to be more productive of mast and therefore to be especially valuable. Pine stands should not comprise more than 25% Of the unit and should not be over about 15 ha in area. Pines Older than about 15 years have limited value as nesting and brood habitat and therefore, each forest unit should include stands Of diverse age classes. Seeding of grasses and forbs within a plantation would increase its desirability as nesting habitat. This also creates brood habitat 53 54 which persists until the canopy closes and ground cover is shaded out. Seven percent of the forest, the maximum amount recommended by the Forest Service, should be maintained in Openings. As indicated earlier, those 2-5 ha in area appear to be most favored by turkeys. They should be dispersed over the unit, preferably in locations where disturbance is minimal. Water sources should be within .5 km of brood habitat. Poverty oatgrass, sedge (nggx_sp.) and bracken fern are the dominant herbs in forest Openings on the Manistee National Forest. Poverty grass communities should be left in their present state but sedge and bracken fern in Openings near water should be replaced by disking and seeding a tall grass such as smooth brome. Openings should be maintained by periodic mowing, cutting or herbiciding to remove woody plants, sparing food producing shrubs and trees like black cherry, hawthorn (Cratageus sp.), and juneberry (Amelanchier sp.) where possible. Most land in the Benson Corners area is privately owned, thus limiting the potential for management. The present study on wild turkey movements in this habitat illustrated the bird's adaptability to more-open range. This may be significant because similar habitat present in Michigan is still unstocked. Potential habitat should contain 40% forests distributed over an area. Approximately 50% of the forest should be mixed hardwoods or oak to provide mast. Ideally, the remainder of the forested area should be valleys in swamp conifers and dense lowland hardwoods to provide cover and food during the winter. These lowland vegetation types are not vital, however, if agricultural practices such as 55 manure spreading, cattle farming, leaving standing corn or supple- mental feeding occur in winter. Machine-picked cornfields can also provide winter food, but heavy snows in northern Michigan can cut off this source of food, trapping flocks away from other food sources. To provide brood habitat, at least 40% of the non-forested area should be in Old fields and pastures, where disturbance is minimal and woody cover is nearby. Water should be available nearby. Some of the area can be in cultivated crops to provide waste grain in fall and winter. SUMMARY From mid-April to early September 1978, a study of the ecological relationships of wild turkeys was undertaken on the Manistee National Forest in Wexford County, Michigan. Objectives were to determine 1) spring dispersal patterns from wintering areas, 2) size of hens' spring and summer home ranges, and 3) habitat types preferred by hens, especially for nesting and brood rearing. Forty-six turkeys were captured at 7 sites. All were patagially tagged and 10 hens were radio-instrumented. Turkeys from 3 trapping sites on the Poplar Creek area and 1 site on the Benson Corners area yielded usable data. Spring dispersal and break-up occurred in late March and early April. From their trapping locations, the average dispersal distance for 5 gobblers was 3.2 km. For hens, the average distance between tagging locations and nest sites was .67 i .21 km for 5 adults and 1.2 s 1.0 km. for 3 juveniles. Minimum spring home range size averaged 127 s 102 ha. Most hens were solitary by late April. Nests were located variously in pole-sized jack pine stands, red pine plantations, aspen and mixed hardwood stands, and along edges Of lowland brush. Water was available within 1 km of all nests. Incubation began between May 1 and June 1. Six of 8 first-nests were between May 11 and May 21. The considerable differences in body 56 57 weights of hens at the end of the winter did not seem to affect nesting dates. Nesting success was only 22% (2 of 9 attempts, including 1 renest). Nest predators were significant, with foxes the primary cause of egg and hen predation. Three of the radio-tagged hens were killed on their nests and the remaining 3 after nesting. Unidentified raptors appeared also to be predators on 2 hens. The preferred spring habitat was mixed hardwoods. Hens also exhibited a lesser preference for miscellaneous timber stands and lowland brush. Other habitat types were not highly used. Early brood movements were limited. The average minimum range for 2 broods was only 14.2 ha during the first 2 weeks. The minimum home range Of 1 broodless hen after joining another hen and brood was 103 ha. The other remaining instrumented hen also ranged over an area of that size. Habitat used during the summer by broods and broodless hens was primarily grassy fields. Adjacent wooded areas were visited for loafing and resting. Management recommendations for areas similar to the Poplar Creek area include 1) maintaining 30% of the unit in mature mast-producing oak, black cherry and beech trees, 2) restricting pine plantings to stands of less than 15 ha on 25% of the unit, 3) keeping at least 7% of the unit in forest openings of 2-5 ha, 4) where water is not available creating 1 water source per kmz, preferably near Openings, 5) disking and seeding sedge and bracken-fern Openings with a tall grass such as smooth brome. 58 The minimum requirements for potential turkey range are that it 1) be 40% forested, with half in mixed hardwoods or oak and preferably the remainder in swamp conifer and lowland hardwoods, 2) display over- winter agricultural practices as manure spreading, cattle raising, corn left standing or supplemental feeding to provide winter food, 3) have 30-40% Of the non-forested area in Old fields, pastures, and hayfields for brood habitat. LITERATURE CITED Austin, 0. E., J. W. Glidden, and W. Corbett. 1973. A radio-tracking technique for measuring the production of wild turkeys. Proc. Northeastern Wildl. Soc. 30:101-115. Bailey, R. W. 1976. The wild turkey's management and future in North Carolina. North Carolina Wildl. Resour. Comm. 17 pp. Bailey, R. W., and K. T. Rinell. 1976. Management of the eastern wild turkey in the northern hardwoods. Pages 261-302 jg_ 0. H. Hewitt, ed. The wild turkey and its management. The Wildlife Society, Washington, D.C. Bailey, R. W., and K. T. Rinell. 1968. History and management of the wild turkey in West Virginia. West Virginia Dept. of Nat. Resour., Div. Fish and Game Bull. 6. 59 pp. Barwick, L. H., and D. W. Speake. 1973. Seasonal movements and activities of wild turkey gobblers in Alabama. Pages 125-133 jg_G. C. Sanderson and H. C. Schultz, eds. Wild turkey management: Current problems and programs. Univ. of Missouri Press, Columbia. Blackburn, W. E., J. P. Kirk, and J. E. Kennamer. 1975. Availability and utilization of summer foods by eastern wild turkeys in Lee Co., Alabama. Pages 86-96 jg_L. K. Halls, ed. Proc. Natl. Wild Turkey Symp. 3. Texas Chapter of the Wildlife Society, Austin. Dalke, P. 0., A. S. Leopold,and D. L. Spencer. 1946. The ecology and management of the wild turkey in Missouri. Missouri Conserv. Comm., Tech. Bull. 1. 86 pp. Eaton, S. W., F. M. Evans, J. W. Glidden, and B. D. Penrod. 1976. Annual range of wild turkeys in southwestern New York. New York Fish Game J. 23(1):20-33. Glidden, J. W., and D. E. Austin. 1975. Natality and mortality of wild turkey poults in southwestern New York. Pages 48-54 ig_ L. K. Halls, ed. Proc. Natl. Wild Turkey Symp. 3. Texas Chapter Of the Wildlife Society, Austin. 59 6O Harvey, M. J., and R. W. Barbour. 1965. Home range of Microtus ochrogaster as determined by a modified minimum area metth. J. Mammal. 46(3):398-402. Hayden, A. H. 1961. The wild turkey in Cameron Co., Pennsylvania. M.S. thesis. Pennsylvania State Univ., University Park. Hayden, A. H., and G. A. Wunz. 1975. Wild turkey population charac- teristics in northern Pennsylvania. Pages 131-140 jg_L. K. Halls, ed. Proc. Natl. Wild Turkey Symp. 3. Texas Chapter Of the Wildlife Society, Austin. Hillestad, H. O. 1970. Movements, behavior, and nesting ecology of the wild turkey in east central Alabama. M.S. thesis. Auburn Univ., Auburn. 70 pp. Hillestad, H. 0. 1973. Movements, behavior, and nesting ecology Of the wild turkey in east central Alabama. Pages 109-123.3Q G. C. Sanderson and H. C. Schultz, eds. Wild turkey management: Current problems and programs. Univ. of Missouri Press, Columbia. Holbrook, H. L., and J. C. Lewis. 1967. Management of the eastern wild turkey in south Appalachia and the Cumberland Plateau. Pages 343-370 jg_0. H. Hewitt, ed. The wild turkey and its management. The Wildlife Society, Washington, D.C. 589 pp. Ignatoski, F. J. 1973. Status of wild turkeys in Michigan. Pages 49-53 ig_G. C. Sanderson and H. C. Schultz, eds. Wild turkey management: Current problems and programs. Univ. Of Missouri Press, Columbia. Knowlton, F. F., E. D. Michael, and W. C. Glazener. 1964. A marking technique for field recognition of individual turkeys and deer. J. Wildl. Manage. 28(1):167-170. Korschgen, L. J. 1967. Feeding habits and foods. Pages 137-198 jg_ O. H. Hewitt, ed. The wild turkey and its management. The Wildlife Society, Washington, D.C. 589 pp. Lewis, J. C. 1963. Wild turkeys in Allegan County, Michigan. M.S. thesis. Michigan State Univ., East Lansing. 35 pp. Lewis, J. C. 1967. Physical characteristics and physiology. Pages 45-72 in O. H. Hewitt, ed. The wild turkey and its management. The Wdelife Society, Washington, D.C. 589 pp. Mosby, H. S. 1967. Population dynamics. Pages 113-136 ig_0. H. Hewitt, ed. The wild turkey and its management. The Wildlife Society, Washington, D.C. 589 pp. 61 Mosby, H. S., and C. O. Handley. 1943. The wild turkey in Virginia. Its status, life history, and management. Comm. of Game and Inland Fisheries, Richmond. 281 pp. Neu, C. W., C. R. Byers, and J. M. Peek. 1974. A technique for anal sis of utilization-availability data. J. Wildl. Manage. 38(3 :541-545. Nixon, C. M. 1962. Wild turkey aging. Game Res. Ohio. 1:107-117. Petrides, G. A. 1975. Principal foods versus preferred foods and their relations to stocking rate and range condition. Biol. Conserv. 7:161-169. Porter, W. F. 1977. Home range dynamics of wild turkeys in south- eastern Minnesota. J. Wildl. Manage. 41(3):434-437. Porter, W. F. 1978. Ecology and behavior of the wild turkey (Meleagris gallopavo) in southeastern Minnesota. Ph.D. dissertation. Univ. of Minnesota, Minneapolis. 122 pp. Proud, J. C. 1969. Wild turkey studies in New York by radio- telemetry. New York Fish Game J. l6(l):46-83. Rearden, J. D. 1951. Identification of waterfowl nest predators. J. Wildl. Manage. 15(4):386-395. Schumacher, R. W., C. J. Perkins, A. D. Sullivan, and D. E. Wesley. 1978. Heat shrinkable tubing as a means of securing harness knots. J. Wildl. Manage. 42(3):685-686. Speake, D. W., T. E. Lynch, W. J. Fleming, G. A. Wright, and W. J. Hamrick. 1975. Habitat use and seasonal movements of wild turkeys in the southeast. Pages 122-130 jg_L. K. Halls, ed. Proc. Natl. Wild Turkey Symp. 3. Texas Chapter Of the Wildlife Society, Austin. Thomas, J. W., R. G. Marburger, and C. V. Van Hoozer. 1973. Rio Grande turkey migration as related to harvest regulations in Texas. Pages 301-308 jg_G. C. Sanderson and H. C. Schultz, eds. Wild turkey management: Current problems and programs. Univ. of Missouri Press, Columbia. Wanless, D. 0. 1976. A study of the eastern wild turkey (Meleagris gallopavo silvestris) in the Quehanna wild area. Ph.D. dissertation. Pennsylvania State Univ.,University Park. 120 pp. Williams, L. E., D. H. Austin, N. F. Eicholz, T. E. Peoples, and R. W. Phillips. 1969. A study of nesting turkeys in southern Florida. Proc. Southeastern Assoc. Game and Fish Commissioners. 22:16-30. 62 Williams, L. E., D. H. Austin, T. E. Peoples, and R. W. Phillips. 1971. Laying data and nesting behavior Of wild turkeys. Proc. Southeastern Assoc. Game and Fish Commissioners. 25:90-105. Williams, L. E., D. H. Austin, T. E. Peoples, and R. W. Phillips. 1973. Observations on movement, behavior, and development Of turkey broods. Pages 79-100 jg_G. C. Sanderson and H. C. Schultz, eds. Wild turkey management: Current problems and programs. Univ. of Missouri Press, Columbia. Williams, L. E., D. H. Austin, and T. E. Phillips. 1974. Movement of wild turkey hens in relation to their nests. Proc. South- eastern Assoc. Game and Fish Commissioners. 28:602-622. "I1.1111111111111111115