Survival and Reproduction of Wild Turkey Hens in Central Ontario

9 Pages·2003·6.1 MB·English

by  Linh P Nguyen

Wilson Bull., 115(2), 2003, pp. 131-139
SURVIVAL AND REPRODUCTION OF WILD TURKEY HENS IN
CENTRAL ONTARIO
LINE R NGUYEN,'-^ JOSEF HAMR,^^ AND GLENN H. PARKER'
—
ABSTRACT. Recent success ofEastern Wild Turkey {Meleagrisgallopavo silvestris) reintroductionsacross
southern Ontario has prompted wildlife managers to investigate the potential ofextending the northern limit of
this subspecies’ range. We monitored the survival and reproduction ofintroduced Wild Turkeys on the Precam-
brian Shield in central Ontario during 1999-2001. Mean annual survival of 39 radio-tagged hens was 0.288 ±
0.057 SE. Summer and winter survival rates differed between the first and second years of the study. Spring
and fall survival rates did not differ significantly between years. Reproductive parameters that characterized the
population included a nesting rate of0.588, mean clutch size of 10.0 eggs/nest, nest success of0.500, hatching
rate of 0.81, hen natality rate of 1.18 females hatched/female, poult survival of 0.54, and fall recruitment of
0.63 juvenile females/breeding hen. Success ofthe pilot Wild Turkey introduction in central Ontario was com-
promised by high predation, low numbers of introduced birds, and a prolonged period of deep snow during
2000-2001. Received 14 November 2002, accepted 10 March 2003.
The Eastern Wild Turkey {Meleagris gal- (4) number of other prey species is low, (5)
lopavo silvestris) was native to southwestern current Wild Turkey populations are low, or
Ontario (Wintemberg 1919), but disappeared (6) nesting cover is poor (Miller and Leopold
by 1907 due to unregulated hunting and hab- 1992).
itat loss (Alison 1976). Reintroduction from Wild Turkey populations are dynamic,
various state Dept, of Natural Resources was which limits our understanding of the demo-
initiated in 1984 (Weaver 1989), resulting in graphic parameters responsible for successful
about 30,000 birds in the southern part of the introduction into suboptimal habitats (Little
province by 2000 (Bellamy 2001). The suc- and Varland 1981, Clark 1985, Miller et al.
cess of recent reintroduction efforts in south- 1985, Weaver 1989). One potential factor re-
ern Ontario, potentially favorable habitat al- sponsible for changes in abundance at north-
terations in central Ontario during the past ern latitudes is winter mortality, where surviv-
century, and recent moderate winters prompt- al varies from 40% during severe conditions
ed wildlife managers to consider pilot Wild in forested landscapes to 93% during mild
Turkey introductions into presumably margin- conditions in mixed agricultural and forested
al northern habitats. Although the promiscu- environments (Austin and DeGraff 1975,
ous breeding and high reproductive rate of Wunz and Hayden 1975, Porter et al. 1980,
Wild Turkeys (i.e., early breeders with large Vander Haegen et al. 1988, Roberts et al.
clutches) promote the species’ likelihood to be 1995). However, severe winters are sporadic,
successfully translocated (Griffith et al. 1989), and associated mortality typically is a minor
small populations at the fringe of their geo- limitation on Wild Turkey abundance (Roberts
graphic range incur a greaterrisk ofextinction et al. 1995). Nest success and poult survival
if either (1) predation rates are high, (2) Wild are other factors limiting annual population
Turkeys are exposed to severe weather for change through reproduction (Vangilder et al.
prolonged periods of time, (3) food shortages 1987, Roberts et al. 1995). Nest success typ-
force Wild Turkeys into unfavorable ranges. ically varies between 31 and 62% (Porter et
al. 1983, Vangilder et al. 1987, Vander Hae-
' Dept, of Biology, Laurentian Univ., Sudbury, ON gen et al. 1988, Roberts et al. 1995), and poult
P3E 2C6, Canada. mortality within 2 weeks after hatching often
2Northern Environmental Heritage Inst., Cambrian varies between 60 and 92% (Little and Var-
CollegeofAppliedArtsandTechnology, Sudbury,ON land 1981, Speake et al. 1985, Vangilder et al.
P3A 3V8, Canada.
1987, Vander Haegen et al. 1988).
^Watersheds Ecosystem Graduate Program, Trent
Univ., Peterborough, ON K9J 7B8, Canada. There exists little, if any, survival and re-
Corresponding author; e-mail: production information on female Wild Tur-
[email protected] keys inhabiting the Precambrian Shield, north
131
132 THE WILSON BULLETIN • Vol. 115, No. 2, June 2003
of the species’ historic range in central On- 1999 to 20 March 2001) from Environment
tario. It may be inappropriate to apply man- Canada, Sudbury. January was the coldest
agement strategies from published accounts of month of the year (mean temperature was
more southern Wild Turkey populations due -12.2°C), whereas July was the warmest
to their annual fluctuations. Our objectives month (mean temperature was 18.9° C). Mean
were to estimate survival and reproduction annual rainfall was 73.9 cm from 21 March
rates of newly introduced Eastern Wild Tur- 1999 to 20 March 2000 and 51.1 cm from 21
key hens in central Ontario, and to determine March 2000 to 20 March 2001. Snowfall was
the relative importance of demographic pa- 216.0 cm from November 1999 to March
rameters to annual population change. We hy- 2000 and 328.3 cm from November 2000 to
pothesized that (1) predator-induced mortality March 2001, with snow depths exceeding 25
was greatest during nesting and brood rearing, cm for 38 days from November 1999 to
and that (2) winter mortality in mixed agri- March 2000 and 1 1 1 days from November
cultural and forested landscapes was not a 2000 to March 2001.
—
limiting factor to annual population growth. Wild Turkey capture We captured 36
.
METHODS Eastern Wild Turkeys (10 males and 26 fe-
— males), in southern Ontario and upper New
Study area. We conducted this study near York State, which were introduced during
Noelville, located 60 km southeast ofSudbury February and March 1999. Thirteen more
(46° 10' N, 80° 25' W), Ontario, Canada. The hens from New York State were released in
169-km2 study area, delineated from move- March 2000. All birds were captured with
ments of female radio-tagged Wild Turkeys,
rocket nets (Hawkins et al. 1968), sexed, aged
was located in the Great Lakes-St. Lawrence (Pelham and Dickson 1992), marked with pa-
Ecotonal Eorest Region (Rowe 1972), and tagial wing tags, and transported to the study
characterized by flat to rolling topography area. We radio-tagged females with a back-
(mean elevation of 210 m), interrupted by pack style 32.5-g mortality-mode VHF radio
rock outcrops and narrow valleys. The land-
transmitter (Holohil Systems Ltd., Carp, On-
aspcappreoxciomnattaeilnys a2m0o%saicocnoiffehraobuistatf,orceosmtps,ris3i7n%g tario). Transmitters represented about 1% of
turkey body mass and were attached with 3.2-
gdarenacdsisrdouaconkudsoumftoecraredsotopssw,,i1na6pn%adrtasg1r5oif%cuBlriteugsrwiadoleonldtai,nadlC,oas1rbe2ya%,s pmemctesdhobcakttceorryd l(iNfeorwmaasn e1t50al.we19e9k7s).. TWhee eexx--
cluded from analyses birds that died within 14
Martland, Mason, and Scollard townships.
days of release to reduce bias associated with
Beef farming is the dominant industry, with
most fields cultivated for corn silage or pas- capture-related stress and transmitter harness
complications (Nenno and Healy 1979).
ture grasses. —
Fire, logging, and smelter emissions from Survival. We monitored instrumented fe-
Sudbury’s mining operations destroyed or re- male Wild Turkeys 5 days/week between 1
duced much of the original climax vegetation, May and 31 August and 2-3 days/week be-
ewahsitcehrniwnhciltuedeadndbarlesdampifnier {(APbiineuss shtarloshaumse,a)P,. tMwaerecnh 11S99e9ptteomb2e0rMaanrdc3h02A0p0r1i.lWanedofbrtoamin2e1d
resiuosa), red oak {Qiiercus rubra), white telemetry locations by triangulation from >3
spruce {Picea glauca), red and sugar maple locations (Heezen and Tester 1967) taken <15
{Acer rid?rum, A. sacchariim), and eastern min apart, with a 2-element H antenna and
hemlock {Tsuga canadensis', Rowe 1972). The portable receiver-scanner (Model STR-1000,
resulting forests are dominated by white birch Lotek Engineering Inc., Newmarket, Ontario).
{Benda papyrifera) and trembling aspen {Po- We calculated seasonal survival rates for four
pulus tremuloides), with raspberry {Rubus time intervals: calendar spring, summer, fall,
spp.), bracken fern {Pteridium aquilinuni), and winter. We recovered transmitters on mor-
blueberry {Vacciniiun spp.), beaked hazel tality mode within 1-2 days to determine
{Cory!us cornuta), and aster {Asterspp.) in the cause of mortality by examining the carcass
understory. and area surrounding the recovery site. When
We obtained meteorological data (21 March date of death was unknown, we assumed
Nguyen et al. • WILD TURKEY SURVIVAL AND REPRODUCTION 133
death to have occurred midway between the some eggs, we considered this estimate as the
previous and current monitoring dates. minimum clutch size (Thogmartin and John-
We used the staggered entry design of the son 1999). We determined the type of nest
Kaplan-Meier method to determine survival predation from predator tracks and eggshell
rates (5) and distributions (Pollock et al. breakage patterns (Cooper and Ginnett 2()()0).
1989). We selected this method because newly We assumed that the number of hatched eggs
instrumented Wild Turkeys were introduced was equal to the initial brood size, and we
into our study area during four separate re- defined hatching rate as the proportion ofeggs
leases, and it allowed for birds to be censored that hatched in each clutch. Hen success was
due to emigration or radio loss. We readmitted the probability that a nesting hen hatched one
female Wild Turkeys that survived the year or more egg, regardless ofthe number ofnest-
into the following year’s data set (Roberts et ing attempts (Vangilder 1992). We calculated
al. 1995). We also estimated crude annual and age specific female natality rates {mj as:
seasonal survival rates, with predation as the =
[(A7rJ(cJ(/i5j(/7rJ]/2,
only source of mortality, using the Kaplan-
Meier approach by censoring all deaths not where nr^ = nesting rate of age x, = clutch
resulting from this agent (Kurzejeski et al. size, ns^ = nesting success, and hr^ = hatch-
1987). Mortality rates are not independent, ing rate (Porter et al. 1983). We based clutch
and other mortality agents can influence this size and hatching rate during the first year of
estimate (Heisey and Fuller 1985). Calcula- our study on one case due to difficulties in
tion of survival standard errors followed the locating nests. We used flush counts to esti-
method of Cox and Oakes (in Pollock et al. mate poult survival {pj, measured as the
1989). We used the log-rank test to determine number of poults alive on 1 October, relative
annual differences in survival distribution. We to the number hatched by all successful fe-
used the Z-test statistic to examine differences males. Despite the potential for brood adop-
in annual and seasonal survival rates. tion by co-occurring adult females, we as-
—
Reproduction. We determined nest loca- sumed poults shared the same fate as maternal
tions by close range radio telemetry and tri- females that died before a flush count was
angulation. We flagged vegetation about 15 m conducted. We based first year poult survival
around each nest site to prevent intrusions and on the number of poults alive in early fall rel-
nest abandonment by females. When teleme- ative to the number observed 14-28 days after
try indicated nest abandonment due to fledg- hatching. We estimated recruitment of young
ing, depredation, or other disturbances, we lo- females {R) into the fall population as the
cated the nest at the center ofthe flagged area. number of female poults/successful maternal
We excluded birds from the data set if re- female surviving to early fall (Porter et al.
search activities disrupted nesting (i.e., ifhens 1983):
did not return to their nests), except for infor- R = (m,)(/7j.
mation obtained prior to the disruption, such
as nest site characteristics and clutch size. We We used the log-likelihood ratio (Sokal and
defined nesting rate as the proportion ofradio- Rohlf 1995), median test (Sokal and Rohlf
tagged females that nested by 1 May, and re- 1995), and Mann Whitney f/-test to examine
nesting rate as the proportion of females that differences in reproductive parameters based
renested after an unsuccessful first attempt. on age and study year. The small 1999 sample
The first date ofincubation (five or more days size precluded comparison of clutch size be-
of localized movements or inactivity) was tween study years. We conducted statistical
used to determine nest initiation date and analyses with SPSS software (SPSS Institute,
hatching date by subtracting 10 days for egg Inc. 1998).
laying and adding 28 days for incubation
RESULTS
(Healy 1992).
—
We defined nests as successful if one or Female survival rates. Twenty-five of 26
more eggs hatched. We estimated clutch size and 12 of 13 radio-tagged Wild Turkey hens
by examination of eggshells and unhatched survived the 14-day adjustment periods during
eggs. Because nest predators may remove 1999-2000 and 2000-2001, respectively. We
''
134 THE WILSON BULLETIN • Vol. 115, No. 2, June 2003
g
censored 15 hens due to signal loss because NII 'o m x X X
O X
of transmitter failure or bird emigration from — 0—0 d (N
the study area. Mean annual survival proba- -I N : rn
bility was 0.529 during 1999-2000 and 0.067 O D3 =5
during 2000-2001, for a mean of0.288 during -co CTMt X— C^ 0—0
ttsrhuierbvutitvwiaoolnsyrea(atxer^ss=((ZT6a=.b7l84e,.21d2)f,. PA=n<n1,u0a.l0=0s0u10r).v0idv0ia9fl)fedarinesdd- C1C(DU §(?(oUU doa XO 0(ON^ 0O—0 OO—n
significantly between years. Spring and fall c Xz) d d d d
rs=eusrpv1ei.cv0t3ai,lvePrlayt)=e.s 0wF.ee3rm0ealasenidmisZluarrv=ibve0a.lt6w6er,eatnPesy=edaur0rs.i5n(1g,Z ^<u Vf^.li N m0O0n N0rO4- oOO March).
s=um0m.0e6r3aannddwiZnte=r w3.e2r6e, gPrea=ter0.(0Z01=) 1d.u8r6,inPg •DcCU dm04 rdTNtoO d"Tj- 2t0o
1999-2000 (0.701 ± 0.121 SE and 0.900 ± CD/0. December
0.069 SE, respectively) than during 2000- W
Tt ro 00
2001 (0.381 ± 0.122 SE and 0.222 ± 0.196 "g ri i0n0 Titn rOon NO (21
ta(N d d d d
SE, respectively). winter
Annual survival rate, with predation as the •o5 NII (N and
only source of mortality, was significantly
greater (Z = 2.30, P — 0.021) during 1999-
December),
2000 (0.631 ± 0.093 SE) than during 2000- O
2001 (0.187 ± 0.169 SE; Table 2). Thirteen OON 0044 Oo NOOn 20
of 22 females were killed by mammalian d d d d to
predators, which included red fox (Vulpes vul-
o o o September
pes), coyote {Canis Icitrans), dog {Canis fcim- 8 S oO ro-
NO
iliaris), and fisher {Martes penmmti). Avian T ? 7? (22
pthrreedeathoernss,.aSsejausdogneald sfurrovmivdaelcarpatietsatdiuone,tokiplrlee-d irid-nn 0T—d4f Ooo— dooO fall
dation were similar between years (Z = 0.00-
September),
o1c.3c4u,rrPed=pr0i.m1a8r-i1l.y00)d.urPirnegdastourm-mreelrate{dn d=eat8h)s, ^ II O0d0 r—0do0 COC— 000d444 21
followed by spring (/? = 4) and winter (/? = to
4). Remaining deaths were attributed to June
poaching (/? = 1), starvation (/? = 1), hay II •:= m o o- (21
mowing (/? = 1), and unknown causes {n = summerperiod.
3). —
Reproductive effort. Median date for first c 04 m ONoNO June),the
nest initiation in 1999 (3 June) was not statis- 20during
tically different than that in 2000 ( 17 May; X“ J to
b(=1et0M.wea1ey1,ndtf1o9=9295 (J7PuneM=)a.0y.M7e3to)d.i1aT0nheJsduaenteed)atfaeonsrdvrae2rn0ie0es0dt II NII C (Ma2rc1hrodaiysfitkng
initiation during 2000 was 13 June (range: 22 spring
May to 28 June). Median first nest initiation 2 < I* turkeys
dM=aatye1,s, drPiadn=gneo:0t.18v8aM)raybyseitgtwoneife2in5caJnnutelnsytes)(xoa“fnd=adJ0uu.lv0te2n,(i1ld8ef 22 (SN -i1 I?3 Om04N —o OOonN Ooon 2Mtar0coh),ofemfale
hens (21 May, range: 7 May to 15 June). o §^ Marchnumber
Mean clutch size did not vary significantly ^ - (21
0ew.gi0gt5sh;,fTeaambnaldleee3)xa.cgleWued{eUfdo=utnhd6,esmPevfe=rno0cm.l7u7tc,clhupetoscwhoefrs<iz=4e ^3m dIS _SaI•I.' 03", <3 c§n 'cOcun-0£3-0 =u- >:B=> “AnnualMaximum
Nguyen et cil. • WILD TURKEY SURVIVAL AND REPRODUCTION 135
did o m o analysis because they apparently had been
o ON o
Ontario, Z-score rn “ “ d (n depredated. Raccoons (Procyon lotor) pre-
rates (N
sumably disturbed two of these clutches,
based on tracks found near the nest. One nest
Noelville, survival Risk 00 (N NO ON 00 was depredated by a red fox, indicated by
teeth marks on eggshells, one by a Common
in o Raven {Corvus corax; LPN pers. obs.), and
TurkeysSeasonal SE odin NodO Om(dNN ood O0odN0 dthirdeenotbydifufnekrnsoigwnnifipcraendtaltyor(sU. =Hat3,chPin=g 0r.a6t4e,s
power = 0.05) between adult (0.81 ± 0.05
0.021). m o o o
Wild = Pooled Cl 7ivnO ?Oi0Nn0 qo q7o (O8NN Iu SE)Neastnidnjguvreantieleoffeadmualltesfe(m0a.l8e0s±wa0s.10notSE)s.ig-
Eastern 2P.30, 95% (dooN^ d<N d00 oqo dion 0ni.f2i6c,anptolwyedrif=fe0r.e5nt9)(tGhan=th1a.t29o,fjdufve=nile bPird=s
(0.682 and 0.417, respectively). Nesting rates
(=Z \D NO oo in also were not significantly different (G =
radio-tagged S d 0di0n diNnO q— d 1.79, df = 1, P = 0.18, power = 0.05) be-
tween 1999 and 2000 (0.438 and 0.722, re-
of 2000-2001 spectively). No differences in nest success
- -
Risk - NO in were evident between age classes or years (all
source, G values < 0.01, df = I, P = 1.00). Natality
during o rate in 1999 was 1.0 female hatched/female in
OOn On o (N
SE —I — o the breeding population, whereas 1.3 females
mortalitythan d d d d d hatched/female in 2000. Adult hen natality
was 1.3 females hatched/female in the breed-
only1999-2000 2000-2001 Cl OiNn 8o (0NN0O q8 qoo minaglepofpourljautvieonni,leahnedns0..4Poufletmasluersvivhaaltcohfeda/dfuel-t
tahse 95% dooo diinn11 (d(NN qoo11 dooo bFailrldsrewcarsui0t.m6e8n,t awnads00..1673fjourvejnuivleenilfeemahleness./
during breeding hen.
predation
o
greater0.18-1.00). S d0—0 d0O0N din oq driin- DISCUSSION
with Our mean annual survival rate of hens was
(5), was P= less than in populations introduced to Indiana
o r- (Miller et al. 1985), Iowa (Little and Varland
rates rate Risk^ 1981), and Ohio (Clark 1985). Differentmeth-
0.000-1.34, odologies used to calculate survival rates and
survival survival SE oo^ OE' 0—0 ooo OoNNO standard errors may, in part, explain our low
d d d d d survival rates. Disadvantages of their method
=
to calculate mortality rates by dividing num-
seasonal Annual (yeZars 1999-2000 Cl —00 ooq mOOdNN ooq ooq btheer onfumrabdeiro-taalgivgeedahtentshedebaedgipnenrinmgonotfhtbhye
and 2001. ON 11 On11 oo11 in11 month are that survival is biased if censored
annual March between 95% d d00 d<iNn q dNO Q^.-^<D othbastersvuartviiovnasl airseaesxsculmueddedcofnrsotmanatnatlhyrsoius,ghaonudt
20 oo oo each month (Kurzejeski et al. 1987). The Kap-
Crude to significantly S (NdnO (OdNN d q Odn aldavna-Mnetiaegrespr(oPcoelldoucrke edtoeals. n1o9t89h)a.vAentnhueasle sduirs--
2. 1999 vival during 1999-2000 was similar to those
TABLE March differ Period^ Annua ocCC33 0'D0cC0.00£<S30u Fall cou Cai £3£ Nroifee(wsKtuYarobzlreijksehs(ekRdiobpeoertptuslala.etti1oal9n.8s71i)9n95na)on.rdtShuseroruvntiMhvciaelsnstdoruuar--l
21 not 0<0U ing 2000-2001 was the least reported for this
136 THE WILSON BULLETIN • Vol 115, No. 2, June 2003
TABLE 3. Reproductive parameters of Eastern Wild Turkey hens in Noeville, Ontario, 1999-2000.
Nesting Clutch Nest Hatching Natality Poult Recruitment
rate(n) size(«) success(/?) rate rate“ survival^ rate'-'
Year
1999 0.438 (7) 9.0 (1) 0.571 (4) 0.89 1.00 0.68 0.68
2000 0.722 (13) 10.1 (8) 0.461 (6) 0.79 1.33 0.39 0.52
Age
Adult 0.682 (15) 10.0 (7) 0.467 (7) 0.81 1.29 0.68 0.88
Juvenile 0.417 (5) 10.0 (2) 0.250 (3) 0.80 0.42 0.17 0.07
Total 0.588 (20) 10.0 (9) 0.500 (10) 0.81 1.18 0.54 0.63
^Numberoffemaleshatched/femaleinthebreedingpopulation.
^Proportionofpoultssurvivingthroughsummer.
Numberofyoungfemalesrecruitedintothefallpopulationpersuccessfulnestinghen.
subspecies, which was attributed to high sum- 30 year normal, whereas low mortality oc-
mer and winter mortality (Table 1). We realize curred the following year when mean precip-
that small sample size may limit our conclu- itation was below normal (Nguyen 2001). Dry
sions to this study because findings may not weather may affect spring phenology by re-
accurately reflect actual population parame- ducing vertical nest cover to increase predator
ters. search efficiency (Bowman and Harris 1980,
We did not evaluate if hen survival was a Rolley et al. 1998).
function of nesting-related activities, but in- Fluctuations in winter survival between
cidental observations suggest this possibility. 1999-2000 (0.900) and 2000-2001 (0.222)
High hen mortality during this period may be likely were due to variation in winter severity
attributed to several factors, but are not lim- (Austin and DeGraff 1975, Wunz and Hayden
ited to (I) an increase in predator populations 1975, Porter et al. 1980, Vander Haegen et al.
(Weaver 1989), (2) exposure to abnormal 1988). High survival during 1999-2000, char-
weather conditions for prolonged periods of acterized by favorable snow conditions and
time (Vangilder et al. 1987, Roberts et al. abundant food supply, was consistent with
1995), (3) poor nesting cover (Bowman and rates observed during mild winters in Mas-
Harris 1980, Clark 1985), (4) a behavioral re- sachusetts (0.930; Vander Haegen et al. 1988),
sponse of hens to low body mass by foraging Minnesota (0.850; Porter et al. 1983), and
more frequently (Porter et al. 1983, Thogmar- New York (0.873; Roberts et al. 1995). Severe
tin and Johnson 1999), and (5) low availabil- winter conditions have been associated with
ity of other prey species (Miller and Leopold reduced survival of turkey populations at
1992). Predation accounted for 58% of hen northern latitudes: 0.450 in Minnesota (Porter
turkey mortality, with losses during summer et al. 1983), 0.370 in New York (Austin and
being the greatest (Table 2). Our data indicat- DeGraff 1975), and 0.600 in Pennsylvania
ed differences between years for annual pred- (Wunz and Hayden 1975). We found no dif-
ator-related mortality rates, but we could not ferences in predator-related winter mortality
link this observation to high predator popu- between 1999-2000 and 2000-2001, proba-
lations or low prey abundance. Roberts et al. bly due to our small sample of hens at risk
(1995) hypothesized that warm, wet weather during 2000-2001. Predation and starvation
during spring and summer may facilitate nest probably were the major sources of winter
location by predators by enhancing olfactory mortality during this period; however, we did
cues. Although we observed greater hen mor- not have information to test these hypotheses.
tality after prolonged periods of rain during Although we detected no statistical differ-
the 2000 breeding period, we found no evi- ence in median nest initiation date between
dence to suggest that hen mortality was relat- 1999 (3 June) and 2000 (17 May), this differ-
ed to rainfall = -0.20, P = 0.47, power ence of two weeks may be biologically sig-
= 0.004). High mortality occuned during nificant. Introduced hens surviving their first
1999 when mean precipitation was above the year may be familiar with local habitats, and
Nguyen et cil. • WILD TURKEY SURVIVAL. AND REPRODUCTION 137
thus reduce the time needed to locate suitable been the major mortality factors in our study,
nest sites, as compared to inexperienced, new- they were not limiting factors. Many of the
ly introduced birds. Alternatively, capture-re- reproductive parameters we measured were
lated stress may reduce energy reserves of comparable to those reported in southern On-
newly introduced birds. The nutritional con- tario (Weaver 1989), Minnesota (Porter et al.
dition of hens may, in part, explain delays in 1983), and Ohio (Clark 1985), where turkey
nest initiation, foregoing of nesting, and populations have flourished. Currently, the
clutch size (Thogmartin and Johnson 1999). population in our study area is estimated at
Porter et al. (1983) suggested that a threshold 30-35 turkeys (K. Bellamy pers. comm.).
body mass may exist; consequently, hens may This small population indicates that Wild Tur-
delay nesting until nutrient reserves can be re- keys can survive and reproduce north of the
plenished. species’ historic range in Ontario.
Nest success in our study was greater than Populations introduced in similar areas may
those reported in Arkansas (Thogmartin and not experience a rapid population growth as
Johnson 1999), Missouri (Vangilder et al. counterpart populations in southern Ontario
1987) and New York (Roberts et al. 1995), but (Weaver 1989, Bellamy 2001). In these areas,
less than that reported in Minnesota (Porter et management for this species may require rig-
al. 1983). Mean nest success was similar to orous winter habitat improvement, such as
those reported in Virginia and West Virginia planting shrubs that bear fruit late into the
(Norman et al. 2001) and Massachusetts (Van- winter, to increase food availability above the
der Haegen et al. 1988). Clutch size of 10.0 snow. Since severe winters tend to occur ap-
eggs found in our study was identical to those proximately every fifth year in our region
reported in northern Missouri (Vangilder et al. (Nguyen 2001), supplemental feeding may be
1987), greater than the 8.8 eggs found in Ar- necessary to maintain turkey numbers. How-
kansas (Thogmartin and Johnson 1999), but ever, this management strategy should be con-
less than the 11.6 eggs reported in Iowa (Little sidered as a last resort because supplemental
and Varland 1981), 12.1 eggs in Massachu- feeding can cause birds to aggregate, making
setts (Vander Haegen et al. 1988), 11.8 eggs them more susceptible to predation.
in Minnesota (Porter et al. 1983), 12.0 eggs Wild Turkey introduction programs in sim-
in New York (Roberts et al. 1995), 12.0 eggs ilar areas (i.e., outside of their historic range)
in Ohio (Clark 1985), and 1 1.9 eggs in south- should take into consideration the habitat re-
ern Ontario (Weaver 1989). quirements of turkeys in the source popula-
Natality rate in this study was less than tion. For example, introducing birds to areas
those reported for adult and juvenile hens in with different habitat structures may preclude
Minnesota (Porter et al. 1983) and Massachu- those birds from recognizing the appropriate
setts (Vander Haegen et al. 1988). Lower na- habitat features (Healy 1992, Badyaev 1995),
tality rates for adult and juvenile hens were which may lead to reduced survival and/or re-
reported for a population in decline in Arkan- productive performance. In our study, we did
sas (Thogmartin and Johnson 1999). The re- not observe Wild Turkeys using manure piles
cruitment rate found in this study was similar for winter survival either because of unfamil-
to that reported in Massachusetts (Vander iarity with potential food resources associated
Haegen et al. 1988), but less than that reported with manure and/or instinctive wariness of
in Minnesota (Porter et al. 1983). Failure to Wild Turkeys to approach areas with cattle.
locate more than one nest in 1999 biased es- Introduction of birds to areas with different
timates ofproductivity, especially nesting rate habitat structure is not well studied, and de-
and poult survival. serves further attention.
Our study indicates that a number of selec-
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
tive pressures (e.g., predation and weather)
may have influenced Wild Turkey survival
and reproduction. We cannot, however, dis- Financial and logistic support was provided by the
West Arm-French RiverWild Turkey Chapter, Ontario
criminate among selection pressures without Federation ofAnglers and Hunters, Northern Environ-
manipulation experiments. Although we sug- mental Heritage Inst., Ontario Living Legacy Fund,
gested that predation and starvation may have andthe National WildTurkey Federation. Researchex-
138 THE WILSON BULLETIN • VoL 115, No. 2, June 2003
pertise, personnel, equipment, and technical support influences: predators. Pp. 119-128 in The Wild
were provided by the Northern Environmental Heri- Turkey: biology and management (J. G. Dickson,
tage Inst., Cambrian College of Applied Arts and Ed.). Stackpole, Harrisburg, Pennsylvania.
Technology; Dept, of Biology, Laurentian Univ.; and Nenno, E. S. andW. M. Healy. 1979. Effectsofradio
the Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources, Sudbury packages on behavior of Wild Turkey hens. J.
District. Field assistance was provided by D. Jenkins Wildl. Manage. 43:760-765.
and D. Pajunen. We thank J. Craig and other land- Nguyen, L. P. 2001. Feasibility oftransplanting East-
owners in Noelville for allowing fieldwork on their ern Wild Turkeys {Meleagris gallopavo gallopa-
properties. We also thank M. W. Hubbard, B. D. Le- vo) on the Precambrian Shield in central Ontario.
opold, J. Smallwood, and an anonymous reviewer for M.Sc. thesis, Laurentian Univ., Sudbury, Ontario,
their valuable comments. Canada.
Norman, G., J. Pack, andJ. Hurst. 1997. Transmitter
LITERATURE CITED
selection and attachment technique for Wild Tur-
Alison, R. M. 1976. The history of the Wild Turkey key research. Publication no. 4, National Wild
in Ontario. Can. Field-Nat. 90:481-485. Turkey Federation, Edgefield, South Carolina.
Austin, D. E. and L. W. DeGraff. 1975. Winter sur- Norman, G., J. Pack, C. I. Taylor, D. E. Steffen,
vival of Wild Turkeys in the southern Adiron- AND K. H. Pollock. 2001. Reproduction ofEast-
dacks. Proc. Natl. Wild Turkey Symp. 3:55-60. ern Wild Turkeys in Virginia and West Virginia.
Badyaev, a. V. 1995. Nesting habitatand nestingsuc- J. Wildl. Manage. 65:1-9.
cess of Eastern Wild Turkeys in the Arkansas Pelham, P. H. andJ. G. Dickson. 1992. Physicalchar-
Ozark Highlands. Condor 97:221-232. acteristics. Pp. 32-45 inTheWildTurkey: biology
Bellamy, K. 2001. Annual OntarioWildTurkeystatus and management (J. G. Dickson, Ed.). Stackpole,
report 1992-2001. Ontario Ministry of Natural Harrisburg, Pennsylvania.
Resources, Peterborough, Canada. Pollock, K. H., S. R. Winterstein,C. M. Bunck,and
Bowman, G. M. and L. D. Harris. 1980. Effect of P. D. Curtis. 1989. Survival analysis in telemetry
spatial heterogeneity on ground-nest predation. J. studies: the staggeredentry design. J. Wildl. Man-
Wildl. Manage. 44:806-813. age. 53:7-15.
Clark, L. G. 1985. Adjustment by transplanted Wild Porter, W. E, G. C. Nelson, and K. Mattson. 1983.
Turkeys to an Ohio farmland area. Proc. Natl. Effects of winter conditions on reproduction in a
Wild Turkey Symp. 5:33-47. northern Wild Turkey population. J. Wildl. Man-
Cooper, S. M. and T. E Ginnett. 2000. Potential ef- age. 47:281-290.
fects ofsupplemental feeding ofdeeron nest dep- Porter, W. E, R. D. Tangen, G. C. Nelson, and G.
redation. Wildl. Soc. Bull. 28:660-666. C. Ha.milton. 1980. Effects ofcorn food plots on
Griffith, B., J. M. Scott, J. W. Carpenter, and C. Wild Turkeys in the upper Mississippi Valley. J.
Reed. 1989. Translocation as a species conserva- Wildl. Manage. 44:456-462.
tion tool: status and strategy. Science 245:477- Roberts, S. D.,J. M. Coffey, andW. F. Porter. 1995.
480. Survival and reproductionoffemaleWildTurkeys
Hawkins, R. E., L. D. Martoglio, and G. G. Mont- in New York. J. Wildl. Manage. 59:437-447.
gomery. 1968. Cannon-netting deer. J. Wildl. Rolley, R. E., j. F. Kubisiak, R. N. Paisley, and R.
Manage. 32:191-195. G. Wright. 1998. WildTurkeypopulationdynam-
Healy, W. M. 1992. Behavior. Pp. 46-65 in The Wild ics in southwestern Wisconsin. J. Wildl. Manage.
Turkey: biology and management (J. G. Dickson, 62:917-924.
Ed.). Stackpole, Harrisburg, Pennsylvania. Rowe, J. S. 1972. Forest regions of Canada. Publica-
Heezen, K. L. and j. R. Tester. 1967. Evaluation of tion no. 1300, Ontario Ministry of Environment.
radio-tracking by triangulation with special refer- Ottawa, Canada.
ence to deer movements. J. Wildl. Manage. 31: SoKAL, R. F. AND F. J. Rohlf. 1995. Biometry: the
124-141. principles and practice of statistics in biological
Heisey, D. M. and T. K. Fuller. 1985. Evaluation of research, 3rd ed. W. H. Freeman, New York.
survival and cause-specific mortality rates using Speake, D. W, R. Metzler, and J. McGlincy. 1985.
telemetry data. J. Wildl. Manage. 49:668-674. Mortality ofWild Turkey poults in northern Ala-
Kurzejeski, E. W., L. D. Vangilder, andJ. B. Lewis. bama. J. Wildl. Manage. 49:472-474.
1987. Survival ofWild Turkey hens in north Mis- SPSS Institute, Inc. 1998. SPSS for Windows, ver.
souri. J. Wildl. Manage. 51:188-193. 9.0. SPSS Institute, Inc., Chicago, Illinois.
Little, T. W. and K. L. Varland. 1981. Reproduction Thogmartin, W. E. and j. E. Johnson. 1999. Repro-
and dispersal of transplanted Wild Turkeys in duction in a declining population ofWildTurkeys
Iowa. J. Wildl. Manage. 45:419-427. in Arkansas. J. Wildl. Manage. 63:1281-1290.
Miller, B. K., P. D. Major, and S. E. B.-\cks. 1985. Vander Haegen, W. M., W. E. Dodge, and M. W.
Movements and productivity oftransplanted East- Sayre. 1988. Factors affecting productivity in a
ern Wild Turkeys in west-central Indiana farm- northern Wild Turkey population. J. Wildl. Man-
land. Proc. Natl. Wild Turkey Symp. 5:233-244. age. 52:127-133.
Miller, J. E. and B. D. Leopold. 1992. Population Vangilder, L. D. 1992. Population dynamics. Pp.
Nguyen et at. • WILD TURKEY SURVIVAL AND REPRODUCTION 139
144-164 in The Wild Turkey; biology and man- reintroduced in .southern Ontario. M.Sc. thesis,
agement (J. G. Dickson, Ed.). Stackpole, Harris- Univ. of Western Ontario, London, Canada.
burg, Pennsylvania. WiNTEMBERG, W. J. 1919. Prehistoric rangeofthe Wild
Vangilder, L. D., E. W. Kurzejeski, V. L. Kimmel- Turkey. Can. Field-Nat. 33:68-70.
Truitt, and J. B. Lewis. 1987. Reproductive pa- WuNZ, G. A. AND A. H. Hayden. 1975. Winter mor-
rameters of Wild Turkey hens in north Missouri. tality and supplemental feeding of turkeys in
J. Wildl. Manage. 51:535-540. Pennsylvania. Proc. Natl. Wild Turkey Symp. 3:
Weaver, J. E. 1989. On the ecology ofWild Turkeys 61-69.