Submitted to the Graduate Faculty of Texas Tech University in. Partial Fulfilhnent of the Requirements for the Degree of. MASTER OF SCIENCE. Approved.
MOVEMENTS, SURVIVAL. AND REPRODUCTION OF RIO GRANDE WILD TURKEYS IN THE TEXAS PANHANDLE by RICHARD S. PHILLIPS, B.A.
A THESIS IN WILDLIFE SCIENCE Submitted to the Graduate Faculty of Texas Tech University in Partial Fulfilhnent of the Requirements for the Degree of MASTER OF SCIENCE
Approved
Chairperson of the Committee
Accepted
Dean of the Graduate School May, 2004
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
In 1983, Dr. Warren B. Ballard published a note on long distance dispersal by wolves (Canis
lupus).
Though I
would not read it until 1990, he was serving as a mentor and advisor long before he knew who I was.
I had known he
was a superb scientist; until I got to Tech, I did not know he was also a great man.
I would not meet Dr. Mark C.
Wallace until my arrival at Tech, but his passion for his students and his love of science quickly became obvious and important to my development as a scientist and aspiring educator.
Both Dr. Ballard and Dr. Wallace are excellent
mentors in their own right, but recognize attributes of one another that are extraordinary and feed off of that. Teamwork always has costs for the individual.
These two
put my development as a professional above those costs and made sincere sacrifices.
For that I am extremely grateful.
Michael S. Miller was irreplaceable and I cannot imagine what my first year, or subsequent years for that matter, would have been like without him.
Dr. Brad C. Dabbert
served as an excellent addition to my committee and his knowledge of upland birds is something to which I aspire.
11
One of the most important things I have learned is to surround yourself with intelligent, hard-working people and try to keep up. regard.
This project has had no shortage in this
Derrick Holdstock, Brian Spears, and John Brunjes
consistently raised the bar and were always available for discussions ranging from current literature to coccidiosis. Dr.
Jeffery Bowman was instrumental in helping frame my
ideas on dispersal and methods which would work for wild turkeys.
I learned much from all of them.
The same holds
true for those students and teachers throughout the department.
It is truly a scholarly community from which I
benefited greatly.
I am the better for each and every one
of you. Those who served on the site affectionately known as "The Fork" with its regimented shower schedule and "if its pee let it be" mentality must be mentioned.
I cannot
commend them enough for their hard work and dedication to a summer job that illuminated the myths of the 4 0-hour week and the notion that people are paid what they are worth: James B. Bullock, Richard Hanson, Brandon Mills, Simon Pederson, Danielle King, Nathan Sears, Brian Bedford, and Byron Buckley.
I look forward to seeing the things you
will accomplish. Ill
This project was generously supported both financially and logistically by Texas Parks and Wildlife Department, Kansas Parks and Wildlife Department (Federal Aid Grant WR-54), the National Wild Turkey Federation and the Texas State Chapter of the National Wild Turkey Federation.
I
would also like to thank private landowners in Donley and Collingsworth counties, particularly those that allowed access to their land.
It was truly a privilege to be
allowed to conduct research in such beautiful country among solid folks.
Specific thanks must go out to Mr. Jay
O'Brien, who provided living quarters, and to Dick Ford, the Lewises, the McCleskys, Jason Sargeant, and Ralph Graves.
Thank you.
Lastly, and most importantly, I would like to thank my family for all their love and support even though they still are not real sure what I actually do: mom, dad, Cassie and Taylor.
They are truly inspirational and have
served as my compass in more ways than they can possibly know.
I am genuinely blessed.
IV
TABLE OF CONTENTS
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
11
ABSTRACT
vii
LIST OF TABLES
ix
LIST OF FIGURES
xii
CHAPTERS 1.
INTRODUCTION
1
2.
STUDY AREA
5
3.
METHODS
7
3.1 Capture
7
3.2 Monitoring
3
3.3 Movement Terminology
9
4.
3.4 Movement Analyses
10
3.5 Survival Analyses
11
3.6 Nesting Analyses
12
3.7 Statistical Analyses
13
RESULTS
16
4.1 Movement Analyses
17
4.1.1 Home Range
17
4.1.2 Straight-line Distances
19
4.2 Survival Analyses
V
21
5.
4.3 Nesting Analyses
23
DISCUSSION
48
6. MANAGEMENT IMPLICATIONS
5(5
LITERATURE CITED
53
APPENDIX
68
VI
ABSTRACT
Dispersal may play a key role in the persistence of some populations and is typically associated with juvenile females in the majority of bird species.
To ascertain
dispersal prevalence and potential costs, Rio Grande wild turkeys {Meleagris
gallopava
intermedia)
(n = 554) were
captured and outfitted with backpack-style transmitters at 3 study sites in the Texas Panhandle.
Overall, yearling
females had larger home ranges (24.12 ± 27.50 km^) than did any other age class (F = 10,83, df = 3, P < 0.001).
The
majority of (85.5%) all monitored turkeys exhibited winter range fidelity.
Birds exhibiting winter range fidelity
were classified as residents while those that did not were classified as dispersers.
Adult females exhibited the
highest fidelity (96.7%) while yearling females exhibited the lowest (62.5%).
While winter was the season of least
movement for residents and dispersers, dispersers moved the greatest distances during the spring season (F = 5.52, df = 3, P = 0.002).
Birds moving > 7 km rarely (4 out of 88)
returned to their original winter roost.
Based upon this
distribution, birds with limited data to determine winter range were classified as resident or dispersers. vii
Forty-one
of 117 yearling females were categorized as dispersers.
No
differences in annual survival (z 1.7486, P ^ 0.059) were detected between yearling dispersers (0.5235-0.6644) and yearling residents (0.4695-0.5722) for any year.
Further,
no differences (F = 0.58, P = 0.7931) were detected between residents and dispersers for proportions attempting nests or proportion of successful nests.
Because of yearling
dispersal, management practices treating winter roosts as closed populations may be inappropriate in portions of Rio Grande wild turkey range, thus changing the scale at which management is effective.
Further, immigration of yearling
females may play an important role in the maintenance of some winter roosts.
Vlll
LIST OF TABLES
4.1
4.2
4.3
4.4
4.5
4.6
4.7
Number of Rio Grande wild turkeys by age, sex and year radiotransmittered at 3 study sites in the Texas Panhandle, 2000-2002.
25
Number of locations per age and sex classification used for fixed kernel home range analysis of Rio Grande wild turkeys in the Texas Panhandle, 2000-2002.
26
Ninety-five percent contour fixed kernel core area estimate averages (km^) for Rio Grande wild turkeys in the Texas Panhandle, 2000-2002.
27
Numbers and percentages of Rio Grande wild turkeys at 3 study sites surviving ^ 1 year (known) that returned to their winter range (residents) versus birds that localized in a new winter range (dispersers) by age and sex classification during a study in the Texas Panhandle from 2000-2002.
28
Kruskal-Wallis results for consecutive seasonal distances traveled within years among study sites during a study of the Rio Grande wild turkey at 3 sites in the Texas Panhandle.
29
Mean consecutive distances traveled during seasons and annual displacement distances for known residents and dispersers in Rio Grande turkey populations studied in the Texas Panhandle, 2000 - 2002.
30
Numbers and percentages of Rio Grande wild turkeys with unknown fates categorized as resident or dispersers based upon annual displacement distances (6.63 straight-line km from their original winter roost) by age and sex classification during a study in the Texas Panhandle from 2000-2002.
31
IX
4.8
Annual survival rates generated in Micromort by site, age and year for female Rio Grande wild turkey in the Texas Panhandle, 2000-2002.
32
Variation in annual survival rates among years for adult and yearling Rio Grande wild turkeys in the Texas Panhandle, 2000-2002.
33
4.10 Differences among study sites within years for adult female Rio Grande wild turkeys in the Texas Panhandle, 2000-2002 using Micromort (Heisey and Fuller, 1985).
34
4.11 Annual survival rates for female resident and dispersing Rio Grande wild turkeys within years in the Texas Panhandle, 2000-2002.
35
4.12 Annual survival rates for resident adult and resident yearling Rio Grande wild turkeys in the Texas Panhandle, 2000-2002.
36
4.13 Annual survival rates by year for yearling resident and yearling dispersing Rio Grande wild turkey females during a study at 3 sites in the Texas Panhandle, 2000-2002,
37
4.14 Annual survival rates by site for yearling resident and yearling dispersing Rio Grande wild turkey females during a study at 3 sites in the Texas Panhandle, 2000-2002.
38
4.15 Nun±>er of adult female nesting attempts and successes by study site and year for Rio Grande wild turkeys in the Texas Panhandle, 2000-2002.
39
4.16 Number of yearling female nesting attempts and successes by study site and year for Rio Grande Wild Turkeys in the Texas Panhandle, 2000-2002.
40
4.17 Nesting attempts by yearling female Rio Grande wild turkeys classified as residents or dispersers in the Texas Panhandle during 20002002.
41
4.9
4.18 ANOVA results for percentages of successful Rio Grande wild turkey nests by movement class, year, and study site in the Texas Panhandle, 2000-2002. Model: F = 0.58, df = 1 3 , P > 0.7931. A.l
A.2
A. 3
A.4
A.5
42
Seventy-five percent contour fixed kernel core area estimate averages (km^) for Rio Grande Wild Turkeys in the Texas Panhandle, 2000-2002.
69
Fifty percent contour fixed kernel core area estimate averages (km^) for Rio Grande Wild Turkeys in the Texas Panhandle, 2000-2002.
70
Raw data for determining known residents and known dispersers based upon distance between W200X and W200X+1 by study site for Rio Grande wild turkeys surviving long enough or with enough locations to generate MCPs on two winter ranges.
71
Summary of average annual displacement distances (km) between roost locations for Rio Grande wild turkeys in the Texas Panhandle, 2000-2002.
77
Summary of average seasonal consecutive distances (km) between roost locations for Rio Grande Wild Turkeys in the Texas Panhandle, 2000-2002.
78
XI
LIST OF FIGURES
3.1
Examples of consecutive distances calculated between subsequent locations to estimate magnitude of seasonal movements and displacement distances of Rio Grande wild turkeys, from first to last locations to determine unknown residents and dispersers in the Texas Panhandle, 2000-2002, 14
3.2
4.1
4.2
4.3
4.4
An example of methods used to determine resident or dispersal status of Rio Grande wild turkeys during a study at 3 sites in the Texas Panhandle, 2000-2002.
15
An example of a fixed kernel home range estimator for an adult female Rio Grande wild turkey exemplifying the bimodal nature of turkey core use areas in the Texas Panhandle 2000-2002. Black bar represents 2 kilometers.
43
Average consecutive seasonal distances (km) moved by age and sex class, illustrating winter as the season of least movement by Rio Grande wild turkeys at three sites in the Texas Panhandle, 2000-2002.
44
Histogram of displacement distances (km) traveled by known residents and known dispersers during a study of Rio Grande wild turkeys in the Texas Panhandle, 2000-2002.
45
Seasonal survival rates and standard deviations from a study of adult (A) and yearling female (• - residents and • - dispersers) Rio Grande wild turkeys in the Texas Panhandle, 2000-2002.
46
Xll
4.5
Survival rates and standard deviations by year (top graph) and site (bottom graph) of yearling females classified as residents or dispersers during a study of Rio Grande wild turkeys in the Texas Panhandle, 2000-2002.
Xlll
47
CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION
An understanding of animal movement patterns and survival rates is essential for effective wildlife management (Zeng and Brown 1987, Nichols and Pollock 1990, Hestbeck et al. 1991, Stenseth and Lidicker, Jr. 1992). Movements can affect mortality and survival rates (Waser 1987, Thompson and Frizell 1989, Stenseth and Lidicker, Jr. 1992, Schwartz and Franzmann 1992, Small et al. 1993). Juveniles of most species move greater distances (Waser 1985, Hill and Ridley 1987, Lidicker and Stenseth 1992, Gliwicz 1992) and have lower survival rates (McShea and Madison 1992, Small et al. 1993, Smith and Anderson 1998, Gaillard et al. 1998) than adults.
Differences also exist
between sexes within the juvenile cohort (Sinclair 1983, Shields 1987, Chepko-Sade et al. 1987, Brandt 1992, Lidicker and Stenseth 1992, Gliwicz 1992).
Despite
evidence of increased movement and decreased survival of juvenile cohorts across taxa, no studies have specifically addressed juvenile movement and survival of Rio Grande wild turkeys (Meleagris
gallopavo
intermedia). 1
Three general types of movements are often addressed in wildlife studies: (1) localized movements, (2) migration, and (3) dispersal (White and Garrott 1990, Kernohan et al. 2001).
Localized movements refer to
movements within home ranges or core use areas (Laundre et al. 1987, Gese et al. 1990).
Migration is defined as a
two-way movement from one established range to another with subsequent return and is often associated with seasons (Arguedas and Parker 2000).
Dispersal is defined as a one-
way movement from an established area to another area without return
and with no predetermined direction
(Schroeder and Boag 1988, Schwartz and Franzmann 1992). In the majority of bird species, females disperse more frequently than males (Greenwood 1980). turkeys, Meleagris
gallopavo,
Studies on wild
have generally focused on
home range sizes (Brown 1980) and documented longer movements and larger ranges of yearling females than adult fem.ales (Schmutz and Braun 1989, Hoffman 1991, Badyaev et al. 1996).
Home range data explicitly ignore movement
outside of
normal activities, yet several studies on the
Rio Grande subspecies have documented longer straight-line distances traveled from winter to summer ranges by juvenile 2
females than adults (Schmutz and Braun 1989, Stevens 1989, Miller et al. 1995).
Classifying these movements as
migration or dispersal is contingent upon defining home range fidelity. Few studies have rigorously addressed turkey winter range fidelity-
However, Everett et al. (1979) and Badyaev
and Faust (1996) both addressed fidelity of nesting range. Early studies documented high winter roost fidelity (Thomas et al. 1966, Smith 1975) with migratory movements from winter to summer ranges (Thomas et al. 1973).
While
normally no intermingling was noted between wintering areas, yearling females may play a key role in movement among winter roost sites and population expansion (Thomas et al. 1966, Logan 1970, Brown 1980, Healy 1992). Given the patchy distribution of Rio Grande wild turkeys over significant portions of their range, an understanding of these types of movements could influence the scale, both temporal and spatial, at which management occurs.
The
presence or absence of dispersers in Rio Grande wild turkey populations may (1) reveal disjunct populations of turkeys connected by long-distance movements by relatively few individuals, (2) provide information on the expansion of 3
populations through winter roost colonization, (3) explain some of the variation associated with survival and nesting rates in the yearling cohort of Rio Grande wild turkeys, and (4) mandate turkey management at scales larger than the winter roost. The purpose of our study was to (1) assess age and sex-specific movement patterns for Rio Grande wild turkey and (2) determine the influence of these movement patterns on survival and reproduction.
I predicted yearling females
would have larger home ranges, move greater straight-line distances and constitute the majority of dispersers. Further, I predicted yearling females that disperse will experience decreased survival and decreased reproductive success.
To test these predictions, I evaluated (1) home
range sizes, (2) straight-line distances from winter roost to subsequent roosts, (3) proportion of birds exhibiting winter site fidelity, (4) proportion of dispersers, (4) female survival rates related to age and movement classification, and (5) determined nesting rate and success among age and movement classifications.
CHAPTER 2 STUDY AREA
I collected data at three study sites along major riparian corridors in the Texas Panhandle near the western edge of Rio Grande wild turkey distribution (Beasom and Wilson 1992). All three study sites were located in the Rolling Plains of Texas and were characterized by narrow wooded riparian corridors surrounded by mixed grass prairie.
Predominant land use was cattle production with
varied amounts of both irrigated and non-irrigated agriculture.
Riparian species along main waterways and
tributaries consisted primarily of hackberry (Celtis black locust (i?ojbinia pseudo-acacia) {Gleditsia
triacanthos),
drummondi)
and cottonwoods [Populus
Russian olive [Eleagnus [Prosopis
glandulosa)
, honey locust
western soapberry
angustifolia)
spp.),
deltoids)
{Sapindus .
Both
and honey mesquite
trees were also common. Spears et al.
(2002) provide detailed descriptions of vegetation types at each study site. Two sites were centered on Texas Parks and Wildlife Department (TPWD) Wildlife Management Areas, while the 5
third site was located on private lands.
Gene Howe
Wildlife Management Area (GHWMA) along the Canadian River near Canadian, Texas served as the northernmost site (N 35° 57' 00", W 100° 17' 45"), while Matador Wildlife Management Area (MWMA), the southern-most site, was located north of Paducah, Texas along the Pease River (N 34° 07' 30", W 100° 02' 45") . The third site was located on private lands along the Salt Fork of the Red River (Salt Fork) between Clarendon and Hedley, Texas (N 35° 02' 00", W 100° 37' 30") . Wild turkey populations at both the Gene Howe and Salt Fork study areas were thought to be stable to increasing, while the population at Matador was thought to be stable to decreasing (Ballard et al. 2001).
CHAPTER 3 METHODS
3.1 Capture I captured Rio Grande wild turkeys using drop nets, rocket nets and walk-in funnel traps baited with milo or corn (Glazner et al. 1964, Bailey et al. 1980, Davis 1994) during the winters of 2000-2002.
I determined sex and age
(adult vs. yearling) of all captured birds using methods described by Leopold (1943), Knoder (1959) and William, Jr. (1961),
I attached 95 g backpack-style radio transmitters
with 8-hour mortality switches (Model # A1155 Advanced Telemetry Systems, Isanti, MN) to birds using 6-mm nylon over-braid rubber harness cord.
Each year, between January
and March, I captured Rio Grande wild turkeys at each of the 3 study sites to maintain approximately 15 yearling females, 10 yearling males, 35 adult females and 15 adult males for a total of 75 telemetered birds per site. I reclassified yearlings as adults during January of their second winter.
3.2 Monitoring Each year, I located marked birds ^ 2 times per week between capture date and August and once weekly from August to December.
I stratified all locations among 3 diurnal
sampling periods (i.e., based upon general activity patterns; AM, Midday and PM) and a roost period (dusk to dawn) , To ensure equal representation, I rotated sequential locations through each period for each bird (Harris et al. 1990) .
I used vehicle-mounted 4-element null-peak Yagi
antenna systems to triangulate turkey locations. To estimate system biases for vehicle-mounted null peak systems, I triangulated test transmitters in known locations to determine standard deviations (7.5°to 10.6°) associated with bearing estimates.
These estimates I used
to generate error ellipses around locations in the program LOAS® (Ecological Software Solutions 2002).
I used the
maximum likelihood estimator (MLE) to estimate locations based on ^ 2 bearings collected within 30 min of each other for all diurnal locations. If MLE failed to yield an estimate, I used the LOAS® best biangulation estimator.
I
also recorded all visual observations and, using handheld 3-element Yagi antennas, employed homing techniques (White 8
and Garrott 1990) to locate nest locations and for direct observation of randomly selected birds. All visual locations were estimated using handheld GPS receivers. Locations with > 1 km error ellipses were not used in analyses. I estimated location error annually at all three study sites using stationary test transmitters placed in known wild turkey habitat. I estimated location error from differences between true and estimated locations of test transmitters (White and Garrott 1990). I computed error polygons (MCP home ranges) for locations of individual test transmitters and examined area and diameter of error polygons.
3,3. Movement Terminology I defined movements after White and Garrott (1990). Fidelity refers to an animal's tendency to remain within or revisit areas previously occupied.
Home range is an area
traversed in the normal range of activities of an individual animal over a specified period of time (Burt 1943, Powell 2000).
Migration refers to a movement
initiated in the spring or nesting period followed by a 9
localized period of residency with a subsequent return to the previous winters range.
Dispersal refers to a 1-way
movement without subsequent return.
Residents were birds
that exhibited winter range fidelity. Dispersers were birds that did not exhibit winter range fidelity for consecutive years.
3.4 Movement Analyses I calculated fixed kernel home ranges for all turkeys with ^ 30 locations (Seaman et al. 1999).
I estimated
utilization distributions at 95% contours using the animal movement program extension (Hooge et al. 1999) for Arcview® with least squares cross-validation (Worton 1989, Seaman and Powell 1996). To determine winter range fidelity and consequently resident or disperser status, I used both autumn and winter locations to calculate 100% minimum convex polygons (MCPioc) using the animal movement program extension (Hooge et al, 1999) for Arcview®.
Any degree of overlap between winter
MCPioo home range in yearx and range in yearx + i was considered winter home range fidelity (Figure 3.1), I usee the distance between perimeters of MCPioo home ranges for 10
consecutive winters to determine whether individuals exhibited permanent winter range shifts.
Those birds
exhibiting permanent winter range shifts were categorized dispersers, while those that did not were classified as residents.
Further, turkeys that did not survive the
entire year (or long enough to calculate seasonal home range) were classified as residents or dispersers based upon movement criteria established from those with known fates.
I calculated straight-line distances between
individual turkey roost locations to assess movements. Twc types of straight-line distance were calculated: consecutive and displacement (Figure 3.2). Average consecutive distances among roosts by season were used to estimate season of greatest movement.
Displacement
distances represented maximum distance from the first to the last known roost location for each individual turkey within one year and were used to assess range shifts.
3.5 Survival Analyses Radio-telemetered turkeys were relocated ^ 1 time/week to assess survival.
I calculated annual and seasonal
survival rates using the computer software package 11
Micromort (Heisey and Fuller 1985).
Pair-wise comparisons
using z-tests (Heisey and Fuller 1985) between female survival rates were conducted among years, sites, age class (adult versus yearling), and resident versus dispersing yearling female turkeys.
3.6 Nesting Analyses I used locations during the nesting season to determine when hens were nesting.
Hens with ^ 3
consecutive overlapping locations during the nesting season were assumed to be nesting.
I confirmed nesting attempts
by visual observation of incubating hens or evidence of eggs upon investigation of mortalities.
A nest was
considered successful if ^ 1 egg in a clutch hatched (Badyaev 1995).
Dispersers' nests were those attempted
during the year of actual dispersal.
Once localized on a
new range (i.e., winter rangex+i) , I categorized dispersers as emigrants (adults that dispersed as yearlings) and compared them with 2"^^ year residents (adults that did not disperse as yearlings) to determine possible long-term costs or benefits of dispersal.
12
3.7 Statistical Analyses All statistical analyses were conducted using the computer program SAS® (SAS Institute 1999),
I used both
Lavene's and Shapiro-Wilkes tests to assess the appropriateness of specific tests. conducted using PROC ANOVA,
Parametric tests were
Kruskal-Wallis nonparametric
tests were performed using PROC NONPAR procedure (Conover 1999, SAS Institute 1999).
Friedman's test was conducted
by ranking variables by group (PROC RANK) and then performing analysis of variance (PROC ANOVA) on the ranked values (Conover 1999, SAS Institute 1999).
F-values
produced by SAS approximate those values produced by Friedman's test (SAS Institute 1999).
Chi-square tests
were used to assess proportional differences between groups for nesters and dispersers (Zar 1999), while Z-tests were used to compare survival rates between groups (Heisey and Fuller 1985). for all tests.
Significance was assessed at the 0.05 level In cases where main effects justified
further analysis, mean or median separation was conducted using Tukey's test at the a= 0.05 level.
13
Af Disperser
Resident
Figure 3.1: Examples of methods used to determine resident or dispersal status of Rio Grande wild turkeys with ^ 3 for two consecutive winter periods during a study at 3 sites ir the Texas Panhandle, 2000-2002.
14
Displacement Consecutive
Figure 3.2: Examples of consecutive distances calculated between subsequent locations to estimate magnitude of seasonal movements and displacement distances, from first to last locations, used to determine unknown residents and dispersers.
15
CHAPTER 4 RESULTS
I captured 554 Rio Grande wild turkeys at three study sites during winters 2000-2002 (Table 4.1). Of these, 34 died within 2 weeks of capture and were censored from analyses over concerns of capture-related mortalityFurther, 14 yearling females were censored and excluded from all analyses due to lost signals or transmitter failure.
I obtained a total of 20,969 locations. Location
error varied among sites but was ^ 216,160m^ and ^ 1,211m for all sites.
Number of locations per home range estimate
(Table 4.2) averaged 57 (range = 30-99). I computed 306 kernel estimates of home range size (Figure 4,1, Table 4.3) . I identified winter, spring, summer (breeding) and autumn periods based on hen behavior observed across study sites.
November 16 to March 15 represented the winter
roost period, with most hens localized in large numbers at traditional winter roosts.
Spring season was based on
winter flock breakup and the beginning of nesting was from March IS^*" (mean earliest nest initiation date [range = 16
March 9 to 20]) to April 15^^. The summer season ranged from 16 April to 15 of August when most hens were in various stages of nesting and brood rearing.
The autumn
season, 16 August to 15 November, was characterized by turkey movements back to winter roost sites.
4.1 Movement Analyses 4.1.1 Home Range Home range sizes (95% Fixed kernel. Table 4,3) did not differ among years (X^ = 5,8937, df = 2, P = 0.0525), Media.i annual turkey home ranges also did not differ among sites (X^ = 4.0985, df = 2, P = 0.1288) when pooled over years. However, annual turkey home range sizes varied by sex [X^ = 20.3580, df = 1, P < 0.0001) and age (X^ = 3.8996, df = 1, P = 0.0483) classes among study sites. Adult female home range sizes did not differ among study sites (F = 0.30, df = 2, P = 0.7384), while adult male home ranges were larger at Salt Fork than those at GHWMA or MWMA (F = 3.27,
df=2,
P = 0.0447). Yearling male home ranges at MWMA were greater than those at GHWMA or Salt Fork sites (F = 4.37, df=2, = 0.0184). Yearling females had larger annual home ranges (F = 10.83, df = 1, P < 0.0001) and showed more variation 17
P
(SE - 3.47 km^) across all study sites than any other age class. However, yearling female home ranges did not differ from each other among study sites (X^ > 1.28, df = 2, P < 0.2849). Winter home range overlap was compared for turkeys (n = 181) with sufficient locations (n ^ 3 per winter) to generate MCPioo home ranges in yearx and yearx+i, Rio Grande wild turkeys had high (85,6%) annual winter home range fidelity (overlap of MCPioo% for individual turkeys) (Table 4.4).
Adult females had the highest winter fidelity
(96.7%), whereas yearling females had the lowest (62.5%). I calculated MCPioo home ranges for (N = 181) Rio Grande turkeys with ^2 winter home ranges. I then measured distance between peripheries of MCPioo home ranges in consecutive years. No wild turkey that moved > 3.1km between MCPioo home range peripheries in consecutive years returned to a previously used winter home range (Appendix D) . Wild turkeys with identified winter home ranges that overlapped or with peripheries that were ^ 3.1km apart were classified as known residents (Figure 3.2). Wild turkeys with winter home range peripheries > 3,1km apart were classified as dispersers.
Median distance between MCPioo 18
winter home range peripheries in consecutive years was greater for dispersers (X^ = 110.1120, df = 1, P < 0.0001) than for residents. Percentage of known dispersers ranged from 5.7% at GHWMA to 18.9% at Salt Fork but did not differ (X^ = 4.4 6, •^•^ = 2, P = 0.1075) among sites. A greater proportion of yearling females (n = 18, 37.5%) dispersed and established new winter home ranges (X^ = 29.74, df = 3, P < 0.0001) than did yearling males (n = 4, 11.8%), adult males (n = 2, 5.4%) or females (n = 2, 3.2%) among all sites (Table 4.3).
4.1.2 Straight-line Distances Consecutive seasonal distances (ndistances = 686) were calculated for known fate birds and were smaller (F = 4.17, df = 2, P = 0.0159) in 2000 than during 2001 and 2002. Within years, consecutive seasonal distances also differed (F > 4.32, df = 2, P ^ 0.0132) among study sites (Table 4.5).
Consecutive seasonal distances traveled at the Salt
Fork were larger than at least one other site for all years.
However, among all sites, turkeys generally moved
less (F = 19.65, df = 3, P < 0.0001) during winter than in other seasons (Figure 4.2). Known residents had smaller (F 19
^ 11.90, df = 2, P < 0-0001) consecutive movement distances than dispersers in each season (Table 4.6). Known residents moved similar distances (F = 18,54, df = 2, P ^ 0.0001) during the summer, autumn and spring seasons. However, known dispersers moved greater (F = 5.52, df = 3, P = 0.0020) distances during the spring season than during summer, indicating that spring season was the period of greatest disperser movement. Annual displacement (n = 2 94) distances moved between first and last roost locations for turkeys with known fates (Figure 1.5) did not differ among years (F = 0.90, df = 2, P = 0.4081) or sites (F = 1,65, df = 2, P = 0.1944). However, displacement distances were greater (F = 38.10, df = 2, P < 0.0001) for known dispersers (N = 25, x" = 12.03 ± 4.20 km) than for known residents (N = 257, x" = 2.03 ± 2.30 km; Table 4.6). I classified turkeys that did not survive long enough in yearx+i to yield sufficient relocations to identify a home range as residents if annual displacement distance was ^ 6.63 km (the mean distance plus 2 standard deviations), which represented > 95% of all displacement distances moved by all known residents (Figure 4.3).
20
I used this method to classify (resident vs. disperser) turkeys (n = 241) whose range use was undetermined in yearx+i (Table 4,7). Among calculated dispersers, annual displacement distances were not different (F = 1.57, df = 3, P = 0.2138) among age and sex classifications. Dispersers were not equally distributed across all age and sex classes (X^ = 20.8961, df = 3, P = 0.0001) . Yearling females dispersed with greater frequency than any other age and sex (X^
b m u 9> > u.
-5 1-t
M
25
II
a CU rt,
6 ^
O =tfc GHWMA^
•"• F-values approximate X^ values in SAS. ^GHWMA = Gene Howe Wildlife Management Area; MWMA = Matador Wildlife Management Area; Salt Fork = Salt Fork of the Red River. ^Sites with different superscripts are significantly different (Turkey's test, a = 0.05).
29
Table 4.6: Mean consecutive distances traveled during seasons and annual displacement distances for known residents and dispersers in Rio Grande turkey populations studied in the Texas Panhandle, 2000 - 2002. Category Spring^ Summer'" Fallr Winterr Resident
^ 244'
1,398'
1,318'
751'
12,03C
Disperser
3,597^
1,820^
1,554'
1,042'
2,012 •'.•9-
^Spring period: Mar 15-Apr 14; Summer period: Apr Autumn period: Aug 15-Nov 14; Winter period: Nov 14. ^Periods with different letters are statistically at the a = 0.05 using Tukeys test. ^Periods with different letters are statistically at the a = 0.05 using Tukeys test. ^Annual distances were significantly different (a Tukeys test) between resident and dispersers.
30
15-Aug 14; 14-Mar different different = 0.05,
Table 4.7: Numbers and percentages of Rio Grande wild turkeys with unknown fates categorized as resident or dispersers based upon annual displacement distances (6.63 straight-line km from their original winter roost) by age and sex classification during a study in the Texas Panhandle from 2000-2002. Sex Total #s Age Resident (%)^ Dispersers (%)'
Adult
Female
78 (92.9)
6 (7.1)
84
Yearling
Female
46 (66.7)
23 (33.3)
69
Adult
Male
47 (85.5)
8 (14.5)
55
Yearling
Male
30 (90.9)
3 (9.1)
33
Adult
ALL
125 (89.9)
14 (10.1)
139
Yearling
ALL
76 (74.5)
26 (25.5)
102
ALL
Female
124 (81.0)
29 (19.0)
153
ALL
Male
77 (87.5)
11 (12.5)
88
201 (83.4)
40 (16.6)
241
Totals 'Total percentage upon displacement ^Total percentage upon displacement
of a cohort classified as residents based distances. of a cohort classified as dispersers based distances.
31
Table 4. 8: Annua 1 s u r v i v a l r a t es generated in Micromort by s i t e , a(gfe and ye ar for female Rio Grande wi Id turkey from 2000-20C12 in the Texas Panhandlie, 2000-2002 Age C l a s s
Year
Site'
# of t u r k e ;ys
Adult
2000
GHWMA
Adult
2000
Adult
Variance
34
Survival rate 0.642
0.0063
Radio days 9,571
MWMA
34
0.405
0.0097
8,654
2000
SaltFork
40
0.532
0.0067
9,075
Adult
2001
GHWMA
41
0.487
0.0061
8,440
Adult
2001
MWMA
39
0.489
0.0061
7,880
Adult
2001
SaltFork
36
0.449
0.0066
9,925
Adult
2002
GHWMA
23
0.521
0.0099
5,404
Adult
2002
MWMA
23
0.650
0.0066
4,332
Adult
2002
SaltFork
35
0.643
0.0049
8,324
Yearling
2000
GHWMA
19
0.461
0.0129
4,482
Yearling
2000
MWMA
22
0.510
0.0120
4,646
Yearling
2000
SaltFork
13
0.581
0.0200
3,003
Yearling
2001
GHWMA
12
0.488
0.0245
2,383
Yearling
2001
MWMA
11
0.404
0.0233
1,895
Yearling
2001
SaltFork
10
0.215
0.0214
1,684
Yearling
2002
GHWMA
16
0.565
0.0154
3,713
Yearling
2002
MWMA
19
0.472
0.0129
4,291
Yearling
2002
SaltFork
21
0.422
0.0114
4,728
^GHWMA = Gene Howe Wildlife Management Area; MWMA = Matador Wildlife Management Area; Salt Fork = Salt Fork of the Red River.
32
Table 4.9: Annual survival rate variation among years for adult and yearling Rio Grande wild turkeys in the Texas Panhandle, 2000-2002 using Micromort (Heisey and Fuller, 1985) . 2000 vs. 2001 2000 vs. 2002 2001 vs. 2002 AgS
^test
Class
Po.05
Ztest
Po.05
^test
Po.05
____^
Adult
2.4161
0.016
2.1338
0.028
0.7568
Yearling
1.0856
0.203
0.8225
0.325
0.3850
33
0.92' 0.629
Table 4.10: Differences among study sites within years for adult female Rio Grande wild turkeys in the Texas Panhandle, 2000-2002 using Micromort (Heisey and Fuller, 1985) . GHWMA^ vs. MWMA^ GHWMA^ vs. Salt MWMA^ vs. Salt' Fork^ Fork^ Year
Ztest
Po.OS
Ztest
Po.OS
Ztest
Po.35
2000
1.8876
0.045
0.9693
0.251
0.9909
0.243'
2001
0.0172
0.980
0.3335
0.681
0.3496
0.664
2002
1.0036
0.238
0.9967
0.238
0.0720
0.930
^GHWMA = Gene Howe Wildlife Management Area; MWMA = Matador Wildlife Management Area; Salt Fork = Salt Fork of the Red River.
34
Table 4.11: Annual survival rates for all female residents and all female dispersers within years for Rio Grande wild turkeys in the Texas Panhandle, 2000-2002, Resident s
Disperser
Statistics
Site
Survival r a t e (s)
2000
0.5T22
0.0485
109
26,394
0.6604
0.1230
15
2001
0.4877
0.0518
94
24,294
0.5235
0.1350
2002
0.4695
0.0554
84
19,550
0.6209
0.0991
SD
n
No. Radio Days
Survival r a t e (s)
35
SD
n
No. Radio Days
2te9t
Po.05
3,994
0.0589
0.47C
13
3,163
0.3020
0.70S
24
6,408
0.5242
0.522
Table 4.12: Annual survival rates for resident adults and resident yearlings within years for Rio Grande wild turkeys in the Texas Panhandle, 2000-2002. Adult Site
Survival rate (s)
2000
Yearling
SD
n
No. Radio Days
0.5925
0.0589
74
18,003
2001
0.4810
0.0565
79
2002
0.4912
0.0678
84
Survival rate (s)
Statistics n
0.5318
0.0846
36
8,421
0.0589
0.47c"
20,866
0.5235
0.1289
16
3,428
0.3020
0.709
13,490
0.4297
0.0957
25
6,060
0.5242
0.522
36
No. Radio Days
Zdc
Po.oi
SD
Table 4.13: Annual survival rates by year for yearling resident and yearling disperser Rio Grande wild turkey females during a study at 3 sites in the Texas Panhandle, 2000-2002. Residents Year
Survival rate
Dispersers
SD
n
NoT radio days
Survival rate
SD
Statistics n
NoT radio days
2-...t
Po os
2000
0.5318
0.0846
36
8,421
0.6608
0.1581
9
2,303
0.7196
3.38:;
2001
0.5325
0.1289
15
3,428
0.3496
0.1714
8
1,932
0.8111
3.33(
2002
0.4297
0.0957
26
6,060
0.6730
0.1010
22
5,828
1.7486
3.05^
Overall
0.4952
0.0571
77
17,909
0.6052
0.0789
39
10,063
1.1301
3.189
37
Table 4.14: Annual survival rates by site for yearling resident and yearling disperser Rio Grande wild turkey females during a study at 3 sites in the Texas Panhandle, 2000-2002. Resident s
SD
n
Statistics
Disperser No. Radio Days
Survival rate (s)
SD
n
Site'
Survival rate (s)
No. Radio Days
GHWMA
0.5461
0.1000
25
6,136
0.7561
0.1494
8
MWMA
0.4929
0.0833
36
8,095
0.6787
0.1519
Salt
0.4318
0.1217
16
3,678
0.5449
0.4952
0.0571
77
17,909
0.6052
Zoic
Po.05
2,238
1.1679
0.1';6
10
2,556
1.C727
0.210
0.1051
21
5,591
0.7033
0.346
0.0789
39
10,063
1.1301
0.i£9
Fork Overall
^GHWMA = Gene Howe Wildlife Management Area; MWMA = Matador Wildlife Management Area; Salt Fork = Salt Fork of the Red River,
38
CU •p
P
•H CO
c
>
CU
3
73 3 P CO
CU CP (TJ
.
c
CN > i O XJ O CN CO 1 CU O CO O CO O CU CN
I
u u
on
(TJ
^
s CU 4-1 -H rH 73 iH •H S M O 73 (TJ -p to
D CU
CO
iH
73
C C (TJ
73
(TJ
x: c
§
s
CO (TJ P Oi
0-
CO CU (TJ p x p CU (TJ EH
e
s s
c:
tTJ CU CU > i-l -H < Oi
X
-H • p -P CO c: CU •H
c
-p 73 c CU CU cc;
CO
CU >, rH CU m J«i
a
CU CU tjl X (CJ p
M CU 3 4-1 H
c tTJ
73
s
e
P -H H) •o (TJ
-H -H
4H
73 r^ (0 ^ CO
III
o
^ s-i CU o
u ., o
c "^
CU
IT) 4-1 • •"S"
(U
M (TJ CU
" ^
s.
(0 CO
>i
o
iH
X!
^
_, fc
3 -H 2 PC
iH
4-1 O
i CN XI 1
3
•a
^ s
CO
"T
(0
c:
u
> o
>i
i-H
• 73 C (0 CU rH CU XI P (0 -H EH CO
o
= a. =»
1
^
(
>
o
40
m
CN O O CN CO
P C CU
r-t
g
o cn
O
o
CU M CN U 3
cn
EH
•H
C^J
.-I
TJ H
c
^^
[^
T
r-»
rH
\0
>
1 CU
EH
c
CO
CU
e
^^
4H
CO (0
CU 4-1
P
CU M
73 to P (0 2
(0 CU
CU iH (0
•H U3 CO H
s w O
(U
OS
U C 0.7931 Source Movement Site Year Site*Movement Year*Movement Site*Year
df 1 2 2 2 2 4
Sum of Squares 0.00038549 0.16723728 0.15577932 0.13503395 0.55243599 0.37731790
42
F value 0.00 0.46 0.43 0.37 1.51 0.52
Pr>F 0.9656 0.6625 0.6798 0.7127 0.3247 0.7315
Figure 4,1: Sample kernel from adult females exemplifying the bimodal nature of turkey movement patterns. Black bar represents 2 kilometers.
43
2500
Spring
Summer Autumn Season
Winter
Figure 4.2: Average consecutive seasonal distances (km) by age and sex class, illustrating winter as the season of least movement by Rio Grande Wild Turkeys during a study at three sites in the Texas Panhandle, 2000-2002,
44
m
o CM
c 3
O
CM
c
O
CM TJ O C O m CM
^" T—
to o
4-> O C O 0) CM 73 H » to 0} 0) H
o o
^
H 73 C c la
a>
2 x: o c
oo oo o
UJ
r^
y.
U
_(Zc2 T:
i«-
o
9
CO
to
c
C (0 j i to X I (0 73 0) 0) E-i H (U £ m 4->
S
4-1
n H
S
to
OJ
u
cr
CO
r ^o •o
to
• «
o
CO
o
CM
o
^~ V
spjiq | 0 «
45
c V.
C
i2 >, -— (U to M 0) p O 4J C (0 TJ +-I H to -H H S TI
a; c: c
4-> TJ
7 km radius) on different nights are independent of one another in the Texas Panhandle,
Efforts to manage
individual roosts at the landowner level may be most effective if focused on habitats, within 7 km. While useful for the management of individual roosts, 7 km is probably not an appropriate scale at which to manage turkeys regionally.
Traditional
management has focused on continuous distributions of animals, yet recent theories regarding spatially disjunct populations connected by movement (Gadgil 1971, Martin et al. 2000, Fryxell 2001) may affect traditional wildlife management (McCullough 1996). Managers should consider not only nesting and roost habitat around individual
56
roosts but should also assess and manage for movements among roosts. Insular management at the individual winter roost scale may be insufficient to maintain population numbers in a given area. Those birds that dispersed from their original winter roost routinely moved straight-line distances of ^ 10 km and were documented moving up to 19.8 km between winter roosts.
Dispersal based on island biogeography or
metapopulations often consider habitat between areas of original residency and new residency to be homogenous (Wiens 2001).
However, in our study, dispersal events
typically occurred before significant green-up of vegetation and consequently may rely heavily on cover provided by woody vegetation commonly associated with riparian areas.
In fact, numerous locations of
dispersing turkeys were within riparian areas suggesting such habitats may be important for movements between roosts.
Further, recent studies have suggested female
survival rates were correlated with amounts of woody vegetation (Hubbard et al. 1999, Hennen and Lutz 2001). Protection of these areas may be paramount in maintaining roost populations in marginal environments on the periphery of distributions in grassland environments.
57
LITERATURE CITED
Arguedas, N. and P. G. Parker. 2000. Seasonal migration and genetic population structure in house wrens. The Condor 102:517-528, Badyaev, A. V. 1995. Nesting habitat and nesting success of eastern wild turkey in the Arkansas Ozark Highlands. The Condor 97:221-232. Badyaev, A. V., W, J, Etges, and T. E, Martin, 1996. Ecological and behavioral correlates of variation in seasonal home range of wild turkeys. Journal of Wildlife Management 60:154-164. Bailey, R. W., D. Dennett, Jr., H. G, Gore, J. C. Pack, R. Simpson, and G. Wright. 1980. Basic considerations and general recommendations for trapping the wild turkey. Proceeding of the National Wild Turkey Symposium 4:10-23. Ballard,W.B., M.C.Wallace, J.H.Brunjes, T.Barnett, D.Holdstock, R.Phillips, B.Spears, M.S.Miller, B.Simpson, S.Sudkamp, R.D.Applegate, and P.Gipson. 2001. Changes in land use patterns and their effects on Rio Grande wild turkeys in the Rolling Plains of Texas (annual report - 2001). Annual 2001, Lubbock, TX, Texas Tech University, Beasom, S. L. and D, Wilson. 1992. Rio Grande Turkey, In J,G.Dickson, editor. The wild turkey: biology and management. Mechanicsburg, PA: Stackpole Book, 306330. Brandt, C. A. 1992. Social factors in immigration and emigration. In N,C.Stenseth and W.Z.Lidicker, Jr., editors. Animal dispersal: small mammals as a model London: Chapman & Hall, 96-141.
58
Brown, E. K. 1980. Home range and movements of wild turkeys — a review. In J.M.Sweeney, editor. National Wild Turkey Symposium 4:251-261. Buford, Daniel J. 1993. Reproductive ecology of Rio Grande wild turkey in south central Kansas. Thesis, Texas Tech University, 60. Burt, W. H. 1943. Territoriality and home range concepts as applied to mammals. Journal of Mammalogy 24:34 6352. Chepko-Sade, B. D. D., W. M. Shields, J. Berger, Z. T. Halpin, W. T, Jones, L. L, Rogers, J. P- Rood, and A. T. Smith. 1987. The effects of dispersal and social structure on effective population size. In B,D,D.Chepko-Sade and Z,T,Halpin, editors. Mammalian dispersal patterns: the effects of social structure on population genetics, Chicago, IL: University of Chicago, 287-319. Conover, W J. 1999. Practical Nonparametric Statistics, New York: John Wiley & Sons, Inc. Danchin, E. and E. Cam. 2002. Can non-breeding be a cost of breeding dispersal? Behavioral Ecology and Sociobiology 51:153-163. Davis, B. D. 1994. A funnel trap for Rio Grande wild turkey. Proceedings of the Annual Conference of the Southeast Association of Fish and Wildlife Agenices 48:109-116. Ecological Software Solutions, signal. [2.08].
2002, LOAS Location of a
Ellis, J. E. and J. B. Lewis. 1967. Mobility and annual range of wild turkeys in Missouri. Journal of Wildlife Management 31:568-581, 59
Fleming, W. J. and D. W. Speake. 1976. Losses of the eastern wild turkey from a stable Alabama population. Proceedings of the Southeast Association of Game and Fish Agencies 30:377-385. Forsman, E. D., R. G. Anthony, J. A. Reid, P. J. Loschl, S. G. Severn, M. Taylor, B, L. Biswell, A, Ellingson, E. C. Meslow, G. S, Miller, K. A, Swindle, J. A, Thrailkill, F. F. Wagner, and D. E, Seaman. 2002. Natal and breeding dispersal of northern spotted owls. Wildlife Monographs. Fryxell, J. M. 2001. Habitat suitability and source-sink dynamics of beavers. Journal of Animal Ecology 70:316. Gadgil, M. 1971, Dispersal: population consequences and evolution. Ecology 52:253-261. Gaillard, J. M,, R, Andersen, D, Delorme, and J. D, C, Linnell. 1998, Family effects on growth and survival of juvenile Roe deer. Ecology 79:2878-2889, Gese, E. M., D. E. Andersen, and 0. J, Rongstad. 1990, Determining home-range size of resident coyotes from point and sequential locations. Journal of Wildlife Management 54:501-506. Glazner, W. C , A. S. Jackson, and M. L, Cox, 1964. The Texas drop-net turkey trap. Journal of Wildlife Management 28:280-287, Gliwicz, J. 1992, Patterns of dispersal in non-cyclic populations of small rodents. In N,C.Stenseth and W.Z.Lidicker, Jr., editors. Animal dispersal: small mammals as a model. London: Chapman & Hall, 147-159, Greenwood, P. J. 1980. Mating systems, philopatry and dispersal in birds and mammals. Animal Behaviour 28:1162. 60
Harris, S., W. J, Cresswell, P. G. Forde, W. J. Trewhella, T. Woollard, and S. Wray. 1990, Home range analysis using radio-tracking data - a review of problems and techniques particularly as applied to the study of mamals. Mammal Review 20:97-123. Healy, W. M. 1992. Behavior. In J.G.Dickson, editor. The wild turkey: biology and management. Mechanicsburg, PA: Stackpole Book, 46-65. Heisey, D. M. and T. K. Fuller. 1985. Evaluation of survival and cause-specific mortality rates using telemetry data. Journal of Wildlife Management 49:668-674. Hennen, Randal S. 1999. Reproductive ecology of Rio Grande wild turkey hens in southcentral Kansas. Texas Tech University. Hennen, R. S. and S, Lutz. 2001. Rio Grande turkey female surival in southcentral Kansas. Proceedings of the National Wild Turkey Symposiumll7-222. Hestbeck, J. B., J. D, Nichols, and R. A, Malecki. 1991. Estimates of movement and site fidelity using markresight data of wintering Canada geese. Ecology 72:523-533. Hill, D. A. and M. W, Ridley- 1987. Sexual segregation in winter, spring dispersal and habitat use in the pheasant (Phasianus colchicus). Journal of Zoology 212:657-668. Hines, J. E. 1986, Survival and reproduction of dispersing blue grouse. The Condor 88:43-49. Hoffman, R. W. 1991. Spring movements, roosting activities and home-range characteristics of male Merriam's wild turkey. The Southwestern Naturalist 36:332-337. 61
Hohensee, S. D. and M. C. Wallace. 2001. Nesting and survival of Rio Grande turkeys in northcentral Texas. Proceedings of the Nationa Wild Turkey Symposium 8:85-91. Hooge,P.N., W.Eichenlaub, and E.Solomon. 1999. The animal movement program. [2.0 Beta]. Alaska Biological Science Center, USGA. Hubbard, M. W., D. L. Garner, and E. E. Klaas. 1999, Factors influencing wild turkey hen survival in southcentral Iowa. Journal of Wildlife Management 63:731-738. Ims, R, A. and D. 0. Hjermann. 2001. Condition-dependent dispersal. In J.Clobert, E.Danchin, A.A.Dhondt, and J.D.Nichols, editors. Dispersal. New York:Oxford University Press, 203-216. Keegan, T. W. and J. A. Crawford. 2001. Seasonal habitat use and home ranges of Rio Grande turkeys in Oregon, In W.F.Porter and K.K.Fleming, editors. National Wild Turkey Symposium 8:109-116. Kernohan, B. J., R. A. Gitzen, and J. J. Millspaugh. 2001. Analysis of animal space use and movements. In J.J.Millspaugh and J.M.Marzluff, editors. Radio tracking and animal populations. San Diego, CA: Academic Press, 125-166, Laundre, J. W., T. D. Reynolds, S. T, Knick, and I, J. Ball. 1987. Accuracy of daily point relocations in assessing real movement of radio-marked animals. Journal of Wildlife Management 51:937-940, Lidicker, W, Z. and N. C. Stenseth. 1992. To disperse or not to disperse: who does it and why? In N.C,Stenseth and W,Z,Lidicker, Jr., editors. Animal dispersal: small mammals as a model. London: Chapman & Hall, 21-36, 62
Logan,T.H. 1970. A study of Rio Grange wild turkey by radio telemetry. Project W-86-R. Oklahoma City, OK, Oklahoma Department of Wildlife Conservation, Oklahoma Federal Aid in Wildlife Restoration (P-R) Report. Martin, K., P. B. Stacey, and C. E. Braun, 2000. Recruitment, dispersal and demographic rescue in spatially-structured white-tailed ptarmigan populations. The Condor 102:503-516. McCullough, D. R, 1996. Spatially structured populations and harvest theory. Journal of Wildlife Management 60:1-9. McShea, W, J, and D. M. Madison. 1992. Alternative approaches to the study of small mammal dispersal: insights from radiotelemetry, In N,C,Stenseth and W.Z.Lidicker, Jr., editors. Animal dispersal: small mammals as a model. Chapman & Hall: London, 319-332 Miller, D. A., M, J, Chamberlain, B, D. Leopold, and G. A. Hurst. 2001. Lessons from Tallahala: What have we learned for turkey management into the 21st century? Proceedings of the National Wild Turkey Symposium 8:23-33. Miller, Michael S. 1993. Rio Grande wild turkey hen survival and habitat selection in south central Kansas, Texas Tech University, 70, Miller, M, S., D. J. Buford, and R. S. Lutz. 1995. Survival of female Rio Grande turkeys during the reproductive season. Journal of Wildlife Management 59:766-771. Murray, Jr. B. G, 1967. Dispersal in vertebrates. Ecology 48:975-978.
63
Nichols, J. D. and K. H. Pollock. 1990. Estimation of recruitment from immigration versus in situ reproduction using Pollock's robust design. Ecology 71:21-26. Powell, R. A. 2000. Animal home ranges and territories and home range estimators. In L.Boitani and T.K.Fuller, editors. Research techniques in animal ecology: controversies and consequences. Columbia University Press: New York, 65-110. Ransom, D. Jr., 0, J, Rongstad, and D. H, Rusch. 1987. Nesting ecology of Rio Grande turkeys. Journal of Wildlife Management 51:435-439. Rhodes, 0. E., Jr., D. J. Buford, M. S, Miller, and R. S, Lutz. 1996. Genetic structure of reintroduced Rio Grande wild turkeys in Kansas. Journal of Wildlife Management 59:771-775. SAS Institute,I, 1999. SAS/STAT user's guide. [8,2 for Windows]. Gary, NC: SAS Institute, Schmutz, J. A. and C. E. Braun, 1989, Reproductive performance of Rio Grande wild turkeys. The Condor 91:675-680, Schroeder, M. A, and D, A. Boag. 1988, Dispersal in spruce grouse. Animal Behaviour 36:305-307. Schwartz, C. C, and A. W. Franzmann. 1992. Dispersal and survival of subadult black bears from the Kenai Peninsula, Alaska. Journal of Wildlife Management 56:426-431. Seaman, D. E., J. J, Millspaugh, B, J, Kernohan, G, C. Brundige, K. J. Raedeke, and R. A, Gitzen, 1999, Effects of sample size on kernel home range estimates. Journal of Wildlife Management 63:739747. 64
Seaman, D. E. and L. A. Powell. 1996. An evaluation of the accuracy of kernel density estimators for home range analysis. Ecology 77:2075-2085, Shields, W. M. 1987. Dispersal and mating systems: investigating their causal connections. In B.D.D.Chepko-Sade and Z.T.Halpin, editors. Mammalian dispersal patterns: the effects of social structure on population genetics. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press, 3-24. Sinclair, A. R, E, 1983, The function of distance movements in vertebrates. In I.R.Swingland and P.J.Greenwood, editors. The ecology of animal movements. New York: Oxford University Press, 240258. Small, R. J., J. C. Holzwart, and D. H. Rusch. 1993. Are ruffed grouse more vulnerable to mortality during dispersal? Ecology 74:2020-2026. Smith, B. L. and S. H. Anderson. 1998. Juvenile survival and population regulation of the Jackson elk herd. Journal of Wildlife Management 62:1036-1045, Smith, D, M. 1975. Behavioral factors influencing variability of roost counts for Rio Grande turkeys. In L.K,Halls, editor. National Wild Turkey Symposium 3:170-175. Smith-Blair, Amy Elizabeth. 1993. Rio Grande wild turkey hen habitat and edge use, survival and reproductive characteristics in the Texas rolling plains. Texas Tech University, 59. Stenseth, N, C. and W. Z, Lidicker, Jr. 1992. The study of dispersal: a conceptual guide. In N.C.Stenseth and W.Z.Lidicker, Jr., editors. Animal dispersal: small mammals as a model, London: Chapman & Hall, 520. 65
Stevens, Russell L. 1989. Spring dispersal and summer habitat selection of Rio Grande Turkeys (Meleagris gallopavo intermedia) in west-central Texas, Angelo State University, 41. 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 30:34-4 9, Thomas, J. W., R. G. Marburger, and C. Van Hoozer, 1973. Rio Grande turkey migrations as related to harvest regulation in Texas. In G.C.Sanderson and H.C.Schultz, editors. Wild turkey management: current problems and programs. Columbia, MO: University of Missouri, 301-308. Thompson, F. R. and E. K. Frizell. 1989, Habitat use, home range and survival of territorial male ruffed grouse. Journal of Wildlife Management 53:15-21, Turchin, P. 1998, Quantitative analysis of movement. Sunderland, Massachusetts: Sinauer Associates, Inc. Vangilder, L. D. 1992. Population Dynamics. In J.G.Dickson, editor. The wild turkey: biology and management. Mechanicsburg, PA: Stackpole Book, 144164. Waser, P- M. 1985, Does competition drive dispersal? Ecology 66:1170-1175. Waser, P- M. 1987, A model predicting dispersal distance distributions. In B,D.D,Chepko-Sade and Z.T.Halpin, editors. Mammalian dispersal patterns: the effects of social structure on population genetics, Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press, 251-256, Watts, C. R. and A. W. Stokes. 1971. The social order of turkeys. Scientific American 224:112-118, 66
White, G C and R. A. Garrott. 1990. Analysis of wildlife radio-tracking data. San Diego, CA: Academic Press. Wiens, J. A. 2001. The landscape context of dispersal. In J.Clobert, E.Danchin, A.A.Dhondt, and J.D.Nichols, editors. Dispersal. New York: Oxford University Press, 96-109. Worton, B. J. 1989. Kernel methods for estimating the utilization distribution in home-range studies. Ecology 70:164-168. Zar, J H. 1999. Biostatistical Analysis. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall. Zeng, Z. and J. H. Brown. 1987. A method for distinguishing dispersal from death in markrecapture studies. Journal of Mammalogy 68:656-665,
67
APPENDIX
68
Table A.l: Seventy-five percent contour fixed kernel core area estimate averages (km^) for Rio Grande Wild Turkeys in the Texas Panhandle, 2000-2002.^'^ Study Site'
Year
Adult Female
Adult male
Yearling Female
Yearling Male
7.98 ±4.61 3
GHWMA
2000
6.59 ± 7.92 6
GHWMA
2001
4.32 ± 4.22 25
1.99 ±0.40 4
5.44 ±4.37 5
1.97 ±1.70 11
GHWMA
2002
3.81 ±2.19 14
1.89 ±1.01 11
2.97 ± 2.35 8
2.89 ±1.06 5
MWMA
2000
4.82 ±1.61 17
3.04 ± 4.20 7
19.67 ±19.79 13
2.25 1
MWMA
2001
4.10 ±1.61 20
5.08 ± 5.96 6
5.36 ± 3.45 4
8.06 ± 8.99 10
MWMA
2002
3.27 ± 2.75 13
4.38 ± 9.08 17
4.27 ± 4.61 13
8.68 ± 9.92 18
Salt Fork
2000
1.46 1
Salt Fork
2001
3.45 ±1.67 17
3.02 ±1.20 8
11.31 ±9.72 4
3.72 ± 4.39 8
Salt Fork
2002
4.12 ±3.60 18
3.48 ± 2.45 11
10.44 ±10.26 13
1.19 ±0.53 5
4.13 ±4.00 131
3.40 ± 5.28 64
9.34 ±12.00 63
4.69 ± 6.56 47
Overall Mean
^Numbers represent means ± standard deviations. Second row number represents sample sizes, ^Units in km^. ^GHWMA = Gene Howe Wildlife Management Area; MWMA Matador Wildlife Management Area; Salt Fork = Salt Fork of the Red River.
69
Table A.2: Fifty percent contour fixed kernel core area estimate averages (km") for Rio Grande Wild Turkeys in the Texas Panhandle. 2000-2002.^'^ Study Site'
Year
GHWMA
2000
2.63 ±2.81 6
GHWMA
2001
1.71 ± 1.46 25
0.72 ±0.18 4
2.29 ±1.96 5
0.93 ± 0.89 11
GHWMA
2002
1.58 ±1.05 14
0.75 ± 0.33 11
1.31 ±0.87 8
1.15±.045 5
MWMA
2000
1.92 ±2.57 17
1.16±1.59 7
9.19 ±9.87 13
0.723 1
MWMA
2001
1.85 ±0.89 20
1.72 ±1.72 6
2.50 ±1.91 4
3.06 ± 3.25 10
MWMA
2002
1.35 ±1.09 13
1.65 ±3.35 17
2.08± 2.49 13
3.45 ±3.69 18
Salt Fork
2000
0.786 1
Salt Fork
2001
1.52 ±0.78 17
1.33 ±0.64 8
5.91 ± 4.95 4
1.42 ±1.94 8
Salt Fork
2002
1.79 ±1.47 18
1.47±1.11 11
487 ±4.20 13
0.61 ± 0.30 5
1.73 ±1.53 131
1.32 ±1.93 64
4.37 ± 5.78 63
1.86 ±2.46 48
Overall Mean
Adult Female
Adult male
Yearling Female
Yearling Male
3.43 ±2.64 3
•"•Numbers represent means ± standard deviations. Second row number represents sample sizes. ^Units in km^. ^GHWMA = Gene Howe Wildlife Management Area; MWMA = Matador Wildlife Management Area; Salt Fork = Salt Fork of the Red River.
70
Table A. 3: Raw data for determining known residents and known dispersers based upon distance between W200X and W200X+1 by study site for Rio Grande wild turkeys surviving long enough or with enough locations to generate MCPs on two winter ranges Turkey ID G-102
Sex
Study site Gene Hovje Gene 0 Howe Gene 0 Hov;e Gene 0 Howe Gene 0 Hov;e Gene 0 Hov;e Gene 0 Howe Gene 0 Howe 0 Gene Howe Gene 0 Hovfe Gene 0 Hovre Gene 0.3 Hovfe Gene 1 Hov;e Gene 0.3 Hovje Gene 0.4 Hovre Gene 0 Hovje Gene 0 Hov;e Gene 0 Hov;e Gene 0 Hov;e Gene 0 Howe Gene 0 Hov;e Gene 6.7 Howe Gene 0 Howe Gene 0.1 Hov/e Gene 0 Hovie 0 Matador
Distance (km) 4.5
W2001
W2002
A
B
Emigrant Yes
AF
A
A
no
Adult
AF
A
A
no
F
Adult
AF
A
A
no
G-114
F
Adult
AF
G-117
F
Adult
AF
G-139
F
Adult
AF
G-22
F
Adult
AF
A
A
G-28
F
Adult
AF
A
A
G-3
F
Adult
AF
A
A
G-31
F
Adult
AF
A
G-32
F
Adult
AF
A
AB
BC
C
no
G-36
F
Adult
AF
A
B
AB
AB
no
G-39
F
Adult
AF
A
B
B
no
G-40
F
Adult
AF
A
B
G-47
F
Adult
AF
A
A
G-58
F
Adult
AF
A
A
no
G-68
F
Adult
AF
A
A
no
G-69
F
Adult
AF
A
A
no
G-7
F
Adult
AF
A
A
G-71
F
Adult
AF
A
A
G-74
F
Adult
AF
A
A
G-76
F
Adult
AF
A
A
no
F
Adult
AF
A
B
no
G-78 G-94
F
Adult
AF
F
Adult
AF
A
A
no
M-104
AF
A
A
0
F
Adult
no
M-106
A
A
no
0
A
A
no
0
A
A
no
0
F
Capture age Juvenile
AgeSEX YF
G-104
F
Adult
G-105
F
G-107
M-107 M-115 M-116
F F F
Adult Adult Adult
AF
W2000
W2003
no
A
A
no
A
A
A
A
no
A
A
no no no
A
A
no
A
no
AF
71
no
A
no A
A
AF
no
A
B
A
yes
no
Matador Matador Matadijr Matador
Table A.3 Cont, Turkey ID M-141
Sex AgeSEX AF
W2000
F
Capture age Adult
M-17
F
Adult
AF
A
A
M-26
F
Adult
AF
A
A
M-30
F
Adult
AF
A
M-31
F
Adult
AF
A
M-32
F
Adult
AF
M-38
F
Adult
M-40
F
M-42
Study site
Distance (km) 0
W2002
W2003
A
A
Emigrant no
A
A
no
0
no
0
no
0
A
no
0
A
A
no
0
AF
A
A
no
0
Adult
AF
A
A
no
0
F
Adult
AF
A
A
no
0
M-46
F
Adult
AF
A
A
no
0
M-47
F
Adult
AF
A
A
no
0
M-49
F
Adult
AF
A
A
no
0
M-5
F
Adult
AF
A
A
no
0
M-50
F
Adult
AF
A
B
B
M-51
F
Adult
AF
A
A
A
M-53
F
Adult
AF
A
M-54
F
Adult
AF
M-57
F
Adult
M-59
F
M-7
W2001
Matador Matador Matador A
Matador Matador Matador A
Matador Matador Matador Matador Matador A
Matador Matador yes
9.3 Matador
no
0
A
no
0
A
A
no
0
AF
A
A
no
0
Adult
AF
A
A
no
0
F
Adult
AF
A
A
no
0
S-101
F
Adult
AF
A
A
no
0
S-102
F
Adult
AF
A
A
no
0
S-115
F
Adult
AF
A
A
A
no
0
S-144
F
Adult
AF
A
A
no
0
S-17
F
Adult
AF
A
A
A
no
0
S-19
F
Adult
AF
A
A
A
no
0
S-36
F
Adult
AF
A
A
A
no
0
S-38
F
Adult
AF
A
6
AB
no
3.1
S-4
F
Adult
AF
A
A
no
0
S-44
F
Adult
AF
A
A
no
0
S-47
F
Adult
AF
A
A
A
no
0
F
Adult
AF
A
A
no
0
S-49
F
Adult
AF
no
0
S-88
A
Matador Matador Matador A
A
Matador Matador
A
72
A
A
C
A
A
Matador Salt Fork Salt Fork Salt Fork Salt Fork Salt Fork Salt Fork Salt Fork Salt Fork Salt Fork Salt Fork Salt Fork Salt Fork Salt Fork
Table A.3 Cont. Turkey ID G-102
Sex
F
Capture age Juvenile
AgeSEX YF
G-108
F
Juvenile
G-121
F
G-163
W2000
W2003
Emigrant yes
Distance (km) 4.5
W2001
W2002
A
B
YF
A
B
A
Juvenile
YF
A
B
AB
no
0.5
F
Juvenile
YF
A
B
no
1.5
G-165
F
Juvenile
YF
A
B
no
2.1
G-166
F
Juvenile
YF
A
B
no
1.5
G-167
F
Juvenile
YF
A
B
no
1.5
G-168
F
Juvenile
YF
A
B
yes
7.8
G-20
F
Juvenile
YF
A
A
no
0
G-64
F
Juvenile
YF
A
B
no
2.7
G-72
F
Juvenile
YF
A
A
0
G-79
F
Juvenile
YF
A
B
2.5
M-10
F
Juvenile
YF
A
B
B
M-109
F
Juvenile
YF
A
A
M-13
F
Juvenile
YF
A
A
A
M-155
F
Juvenile
YF
A
A
no
0
M-158
F
Juvenile
YF
A
A
no
0
M-160
F
Juvenile
YF
A
B
yes
M-163
F
Juvenile
YF
A
A
no
M-166
F
Juvenile
YF
A
B
yes
6.4
M-167
F
Juvenile
YF
A
B
yes
5.4
M-168
F
Juvenile
YF
A
A
no
M-169
F
Juvenile
YF
A
A
0
M-170
F
Juvenile
YF
A
A
0
M-21
F
Juvenile
YF
A
A
0
M-27
F
Juvenile
YF
A
A
0
M-3
F
Juvenile
YF
A
A
no
0
M-41
F
Juvenile
YF
A
A
no
0
M-66
F
Juvenile
YF
A
B
no
0.3
M-70
F
Juvenile
YF
A
B
yes
13.8
A
B
yes
14.8
A
B
yes
16.5
A
yes
13
1.3
yes
Study site Gene Hov/e Gene Hov;e Gene Hov;e Gene Hov;e Gene Howe Gene Howe Gene Hov;e Gene Hovfe Gene Hov;e Gene Hov;e Gene Hov;e Gene Hov;e
9.2 Matador 0 Matador
A
0 Matador Matador Matador 5.5 Matador 0 Matador Matador Matador 0 Matador Matador Matador Matador Matador Matador Matador
M-72
F
Juvenile
YF
M-74
F
Juvenile
YF
S-109
F
Juvenile
YF
AB
Matad,)! Matador Matador
73
Matador Salt Fork
Table A.3 Cont. Turkey ID S-11
Sex F
Capture age Juvenile
AgeSEX YF
S-113
F
Juvenile
YF
S-139
F
Juvenile
S-140
F
S-141
Distance (km) 0.1
M2002
W2003
Emigrant no
B
B
yes
YF
A
A
no
Juvenile
YF
A
B
yes
15.4
F
Juvenile
YF
A
B
yes
14.1
S-142
F
Juvenile
YF
A
B
yes
13.8
S-154
F
Juvenile
YF
A
B
yes
11.1
S-157
F
Juvenile
YF
A
A
no
S-161
F
Juvenile
YF
A
B
yes
S-22
F
Juvenile
YF
A
S-26
F
Juvenile
YF
A
S-30
F
Juvenile
YF
A
B
AB
S-34
F
Juvenile
YF
A
A
A
S-8
F
Juvenile
YF
A
B
S-92
F
Juvenile
YF
G-131
M
Adult
AM
A
A
no
0
G-134
M
Adult
AM
A
A
no
0
G-144
M
Adult
AM
A
A
no
0
G-17
M
Adult
AM
A
A
no
0
G-18
M
Adult
AM
A
A
no
0
G-85
M
Adult
AM
A
A
A
no
0
M-102
M
Adult
AM
A
A
no
0
M-111
M
Adult
AM
A
A
no
0
A
A
no
0
W2000
W2001
A
B A
A A
A
AB
B
A
10.6 0
0 5.6
no
0
no
0
no
2
no
0
yes
7.6
yes
17.3
Matador Matador
M-130
M
Adult
AM
M-131
M
Adult
AM
A
A
no
0
A
no
0
Matad,)! Matador
M-139
M
Adult
AM
A
M-150
M
.Adult
AM
A
A
no
0
Adult
AM
A
A
no
0
Adult
AM
A
A
no
0
AM
A
B
yes
A
no
0
M-175 M-178 M-179
M M M
Adult
Matador Matador Matador Matador 5.1 Matador
M-180
M
Adult
AM
A
M-182
M
Adult
AM
A
A
no
0
AM
A
A
no
0
M-183
M
Adult
Study site Salt Fork Salt Fork Salt Fork Salt Fork Salt Fork Salt Fork Salt Fork Salt Fork Salt Fork Salt Fork Salt Fork Salt Fork Salt Fork Salt Fork Salt Fork Gene Howe Gene Howe Gene Howe Gene Hov;e Gene Hov;e Gene Hovie
74
Matador Matador Matador
Table A.3 Cont. Sex
Turkey ID M-184
M
Capture age Adult
AgeSEX AM
M-185
M
Adult
M-188
M
M-190
Distance (km)
A
W2003 A
Emigrant no
AM
A
A
no
Adult
AM
A
B
yes
M
Adult
AM
A
A
no
0
M-62
M
Adult
AM
A
B
no
0.3
M-63
M
Adult
AM
A
A
no
0
M-64
M
Adult
AM
A
A
no
0
M-65
M
Adult
AM
A
A
no
0
S-111
M
Adult
AM
no
0
S-118
M
Adult
AM
A
A
no
0
S-119
M
Adult
AM
A
A
no
0
S-128
M
Adult
AM
A
A
no
0
S-129
M
Adult
AM
A
A
no
0
S-130
M
Adult
AM
A
A
no
0
S-137
M
Adult
AM
A
A
no
0
S-147
M
Adult
AM
A
A
no
0
S-52
M
Adult
AM
no
0
S-59
M
Adult
AM
A
A
no
0
S-79
M
Adult
AM
A
A
no
0
G-115
M
Juvenile
YM
A
A
0
G-118
M
Juvenile
YM
A
A
0
G-122
M
Juvenile
YM
A
A
0
G-123
M
Juvenile
YM
A
B
0.3
G-124
M
Juvenile
YM
A
A
0
G-125
M
Juvenile
YM
A
A
G-126
M
Juvenile
YM
A
A
G-128
M
Juvenile
YM
A
A
G-171
M
Juvenile
YM
A
G-174
M
Juvenile
YM
A
M-112
M
Juvenile
YM
M-113
M
Juvenile
M-142
M M
YM YM YM
M-144
W2000
W2001
Study site
0 Matador
0 Matadiir
5.1 Matador Matador Matador Matador Matador
Juvenile Juvenile
A
A
A
A
A
no
0
no
0
no
0
A
no
0
B
no
1
no
0
A
A
B A
75
no yes no
Matador Salt Fork Salt Fork Salt Fork Salt Fork Salt Fork Salt Fork Salt Fork Salt Fork Salt Fork Salt Fork Salt Fork Gene Hov;e Gene Hov;e Gene Hov;e Gene Hov;e Gene Hovie Gene Hov;e Gene Hov;e Gene Howe Gene Hov/e Gene Hov;e Matador
0
Matador
4.9
Matador
0
Matador
Table A.3 Cont, Turkey
Sex
ID M-146 M-151 M-152
M M M
M-159
M
M-177
M
M-77
M
M-92
M
Capture age
AgeSEX
Juvenile
Juvenile
YM YM YM YM YM YM YM
Juvenile
Distance (km)
W2002
W2003
Emigrant
A A A A A
B B A A A
A A
A
A
yes yes no no no no no
5 .3 5 .1 0 0 0 0 0
YM
A
B
no
1.4
Juvenile
YM
A
B
no
1.8
Juvenile
YM
A
B
yes
4
Juvenile
YM
A
A
no
0
Juvenile
YM
A
A
no
0
Juvenile
YM
A
A
no
0
Juvenile
YM
A
A
no
0
Juvenile
YM
A
A
A
no
0
Juvenile
YM
A
A
A
no
0
Juvenile
YM
A
A
no
0
Juvenile
YM
A
A
no
0
Juvenile
YM
A
A
no
0
Juvenile
YM
A
A
no
0
Juvenile Juvenile Juvenile Juvenile Juvenile
W2000
A
W2001
M S-100
M S-103
M S-108
M S-13
A
M S-135
M S-138
M S-143
B
M S-23
M S-7
A
M S-85
M S-87
M S-93
M S-94
76
A
study site Matador Matador Matador Matador Matador Matador Matador Salt Fork Salt Fork Salt Fork Salt Fork Salt Fork Salt Fork Salt Fork Salt Fork Salt Fork Salt Fork Salt Fork Salt Fork Salt Fork
Table A.4: Summary of average annual displacement distances (km) between roosts for Rio Grande wild turkeys in the Texas Panhandle, 2000-2002. Annual Displacement Distance (km) Cohort^
Site^
N
Mean
SD
Median
AF
GHWMA
77
2.46
3.10
1.17
AF
MWMA
80
2.22
2.14
1.37
AF
Salt Fork
80
2.46
2.26
1.81
AM
GHWMA
29
2.91
7.00
0.40
AM
MWMA
42
2.33
3.86
0.72
AM
Salt Fork
47
2.67
2.88
1.96
YF
GHWMA
36
4.41
3.76
3.51
YF
MWMA
46
4.23
5.56
1.78
YF
Salt Fork
37
8.35
6.51
7.35
YM
GHWMA
18
1.26
1.22
0.57
YM
MWMA
29
3.13
3.72
0.97
YM
Salt Fork
26
2.85
2.68
1.61
^AF = Adult Females; AM = Adult Males; YF = Yearling Females; YM = Yearling Males. ^GHWMA = Gene Howe Wildlife Management Area; MWMA = Matador Wildlife Management Area; Salt Fork = Salt Fork of the Red River.
77
Table A. 5: Summary of average seasonal consecutive distances (km) between roost locations for Rio Grande Wild Turkeys in the Texas Panhandle, 2000-2002. Seasonal consecutive distances Cohort Site Season' N Mean SD Median AF GHWMA S 12 1.72 2.02 0.68 AF MWMA S 50 1.38 1.46 0.88 AF SALTFORK S 32 1.71 1.37 1.51 AF GHWMA A 16 0.80 0.57 0.74 AF MWMA A 23 1.18 1.71 0.32 AF SALTFORK A 19 1.89 2.59 0.64 AF GHWMA N 45 0.97 1.12 0.66 AF MWMA N 57 1.03 0.81 0.83 AF SALTFORK N 53 1.49 1.94 0.83 AF GHWMA W 29 0.47 0.41 0.41 AF MWMA W 69 0.60 0.93 0.17 AF SALTFORK W 23 0.93 1.01 0.83 AM GHWMA S 4 0.48 0.12 0.47 MWMA S 31 1.68 2.42 0.73 AM SALTFORK S 31 1.30 1.43 0.53 AM GHWMA A 11 1.00 0.66 0.88 AM MWMA A 12 1.18 1.18 0.58 AM _„ SALTFORK A 11 2.02 1.91 1.54 AM AM GHWMA N 16 0.73 0.69 0.46 AM MWMA N 33 0.83 0.59 0.80 SALTFORK N 26 1.32 1.01 1.00 AM W 4 3.33 6.28 0.28 AM GHWMA W 39 0.83 0.59 0.80 AM MWMA ^ SM-TFORK W 23 2.14 1.54 2.50 YF GHWMA S 11 1-60 -40 .03 YF MWMA S 35 1.52 .40 1. 2 YF SALTFORK S 17 4.10 3.78 4.88 YF GHWMA A 4 0.70 0.34 0.7 YF MWMA A 14 1.29 1.5 0.61 YF SALTFORK A 12 1-65 2.17 0.78 YF GHWMA N 17 5.79 1L60 0.47 YF MWMA N 33 0. 0.50 0.68
YF
SALTFORK
N
1
•
•
If^
YF YF YF YM YM YM YM
GHWMA MWMA SALTFORK GHWMA MWMA SALTFORK GHWMA
W W W S S S A
18 29 H J 0 4 5
0.89 0.2y 0.80 3.30 0.8 2. 5 0.18
Li u.oJ 0.71
0.63
0.92 2-/
^ ^^ ^^^
78
Table A.5 Cont. Seasonal consecutive distances Cohort Site Median Season' N SD Mean YM MWMA 1.43 A 9 1.14 1.70 YM SALTFORK 0.96 A 5 0.46 0.78 YM 0.33 GHWMA N 16 0.43 0.49 YM 0.53 MWMA N 26 0.78 0.78 YM 0.63 SALTFORK N 0.97 0.68 20 YM 0.07 GHWMA 0.22 W 0.17 12 0.03 YM 1.49 MWMA W 16 0.47 0.33 YM 3.50 SALTFORK 2.82 5 w "T5~ B=Breeding, A=Autumn, S=Sunimer and W=Winter.
79
PERMISSION TO COPY
In presenting this thesis in partial fulfilhnent of the requirements for a master's degree at Texas Tech University or Texas Tech University Health Sciences Center, I agree that the Library and my major department shall make it freely available for research purposes. Permission to copy this thesis for scholarly purposes may be granted by the Director of the Library or my major professor. It is understood that any copying or publication of this thesis for financial gain shall not be allowed without my further written permission and that any user may be liable for copyright infringement.
Agree (Permission is granted.)
Student Signature
Date
Disagree (Permission is not granted.)
Student Signature
Date
