Regular issues
Monographs
Special Issues



Southeastern Naturalist
    SENA Home
    Range and Scope
    Board of Editors
    Staff
    Editorial Workflow
    Publication Charges
    Subscriptions

Other EH Journals
    Northeastern Naturalist
    Caribbean Naturalist
    Urban Naturalist
    Eastern Paleontologist
    Eastern Biologist
    Journal of the North Atlantic

EH Natural History Home

Summer Meleagris gallopavo silvestris Use of a Landscape Dominated by Agriculture and Pinus spp. Plantations
John J. Morgan, Sara H. Schweitzer, and John P. Carroll

Southeastern Naturalist, Volume 5, Number 4 (2006): 637–648

Full-text pdf (Accessible only to subscribers.To subscribe click here.)

 

Site by Bennett Web & Design Co.
2006 SOUTHEASTERN NATURALIST 5(4):637–648 Summer Meleagris gallopavo silvestris Use of a Landscape Dominated by Agriculture and Pinus spp. Plantations John J. Morgan1,*, Sara H. Schweitzer2, and John P. Carroll2 Abstract - Meleagris gallopavo silvestris (Eastern Wild Turkey) habitat was altered in the Southeast by the introduction of Pinus spp. plantations to agricultural areas through the Conservation Reserve Program. However, the preponderance of M. gallopavo silvestris research has focused on extensive Pinus spp. plantations that lack the cover-type diversity that typifies the Southeast. From May–July 1998 and 1999, we monitored 36 radio-tagged M. gallopavo silvestris in Burke County, GA to investigate habitat use in landscapes intensively managed for agriculture and silviculture. We used compositional analysis to identify habitats selected by male and female M. gallopavo silvestris during summers. Proportions of habitat types within the home range were different from habitats at radio-locations of males and females. Hardwood stands and fields were the most-selected habitat types by M. gallopavo silvestris in the summer. However, within home ranges, males and females also selected closed-canopy Pinus spp. habitats. Hens with broods did not preferentially select planted Pinus spp. habitats, but their use of Pinus spp. stands was greater than use of agricultural fields. The replacement of agricultural fields by closed-canopy Pinus spp. plantations may have improved habitat quality for M. gallopavo silvestris in some areas of the Southeast by diversifying the landscape. Our results suggest that closed-canopy planted Pinus spp. cover types are not detrimental to M. gallopavo silvestris when well distributed with fields and mature hardwood drains. Introduction Periodically since the 1930s, the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) has introduced conservation programs to reduce agricultural soil erosion. The Conservation Reserve Program (CRP), a provision within the Food Security Act of 1985, was adopted to control soil erosion and curb agricultural commodity surpluses. The CRP subsidized landowners over a 10- or 15-year period in exchange for establishment of permanent vegetation on marginal croplands. In the Southeast, more than 800,000 ha were planted in Pinus spp. (pine), which comprised the majority of CRP contracts (Farm Service Agency 1997). Once these Pinus spp. plantations reached canopy closure, their value to some wildlife decreased (Allen 1993, Felix et al. 1986). Many wildlife biologists thought that CRP practices and public funds should benefit wildlife, not create Pinus spp. plantations (Allen et al. 1996). The 1996 Farm Bill introduced the Environmental Benefits Index (EBI) and listed wildlife as a co-equal to soil and water quality. Applications were ranked by EBI score, 1One Sportsman’s Lane, Frankfort, KY 40601. 2Warnell School of Forestry and Natural Resources, University of Georgia, Athens, GA 30602. *Corresponding author - john.morgan@ky.gov. 638 Southeastern Naturalist Vol. 5, No. 4 so CRP funds maximized public gains with respect to wildlife habitat, soil erosion, and water quality. The score improved if established Pinus spp. plantations were thinned. Meleagris gallopavo silvestris Vieillot (Eastern Wild Turkey) use of pine-dominated habitats across the Southeast has been well documented. The study area of Exum et al. (1987) in Alabama was 80% Pinus spp. and supported a M. gallopavo silvestris population that was hunted each spring. In other studies, hens tended to prefer Pinus spp. plantations in the spring and summer (Burk et al. 1990, Palmer et al. 1993), and males used planted Pinus spp. in the summer (Exum et al. 1987, Wigley et al. 1985). However, we were uncertain how M. gallopavo silvestris use habitats within landscapes fragmented by Pinus spp. plantations and agricultural fields that, in many cases, resulted from the CRP. We investigated habitat use and home ranges of M. gallopavo silvestris within a fragmented landscape dominated by agricultural areas and Pinus spp. plantations. We categorized Pinus spp. plantations as open- (herbaceous understories) or closed-canopy (barren understories) to determine if stand structure influenced M. gallopavo silvestris habitat use. We investigated M. gallopavo silvestris habitat use within our study area and within home ranges. Study Area Our study originated at Di-Lane Plantation Wildlife Management Area (WMA), Upper Coastal Plain physiographic region, 1.6 km south of Waynesboro, GA. Di-Lane Plantation WMA is a 3278-ha area managed by the Georgia Department of Natural Resources (GADNR) for wildlife since 1992. Previous owners farmed the land for row crops through 1991, and in 1988, they enrolled 286 ha in CRP by planting Pinus taeda (L.) (loblolly pine) as the cover crop (CP3) at 1793 seedlings/ha. Management of the WMA by GADNR focused on Colinus virginianus L. (Northern Bobwhite) and included prescribed burning of fields and upland hardwoods (generally late winter by aerial or hand ignition), seasonal disking, and supplemental food plantings (annual grains, Trifolium spp. [clover], and cool-season grass plots). Non-CRP Pinus spp. stands were row-thinned by 50% in 1996 followed by annual disking of thinned rows to promote annual weeds and bare ground for C. virginianus. In spring 1997, a 15-ha CRP stand was rowthinned (33%), and a 17-ha CRP stand was strip-thinned (40%) and row-thinned (33%) for research purposes. Open-canopy planted Pinus spp. (young stands < 8 years old and thinned stands 12–15 years old) were typified by understories of assorted annual weeds including agricultural pests like Senna obtusifolia Irwin and Barneby (coffeeweed) and Sorghum halepense Moench (Johnson grass), whereas closed-canopy Pinus spp. (8– 20 years old) were comprised of needle-laden ground cover nearly devoid of herbaceous plants (S.H. Schweitzer, unpubl. data). Most CRP Pinus spp. plantations were adjacent to mature hardwood stands and in some instances bordered row crops or fields as well. 2006 J.J. Morgan, S.H. Schweitzer, and J.P. Carroll 639 Movements of radio-marked M. gallopavo silvestris increased our study area to lands adjacent to Di-Lane Plantation WMA. The result was an overall study-area size of 13,315 ha. Therefore, the WMA comprised 25% of the overall study area. Although the WMA was managed extensively for wildlife, it did mirror adjacent lands in many respects. Two large Zenaida macroura L. (Mourning Dove) fields and smaller food plots corresponded to agricultural areas, and Pinus spp. and hardwood stands were similar in composition and structure to those of adjacent lands. Carya illinoinensis (Wangenh.) K. Koch (pecan) orchards were also present on the WMA similar to adjacent properties. In contrast to surrounding properties, old-field complexes were more extensive and managed intensively, and open-canopy planted Pinus spp. were more prevalent. We delineated the study area into 7 habitat types (Table 1). Agricultural areas were planted in Gossypium spp. (cotton), Glycine max (L.) Merr. (soybeans), Arachis spp. (peanuts), or Zea mays L. (corn); however, Gossypium spp. was the primary row crop. Pinus spp. plantations were planted in P. taeda, generally 􀂕 1793 trees/ha, and C. illinoinensis orchards were treated as agricultural areas because of their intensive management. Dominant hardwood species included Quercus nigra L. (water oak), Quercus laurifolia Michx. (laurel oak), Quercus alba L. (white oak), Quercus phellos L. (willow oak), Carya alba Nutt. ex Ell. (mockernut hickory), Carya glabra Sweet (pignut hickory), Acer rubrum L. (red maple), Nyssa sylvatica Marsh. (blackgum), and Liriodendron tulipifera L. (yellow poplar). Mature Pinus spp. stands (> 20 years old) included either P. taeda or Table 1. Habitat types delineated within the study area for analysis of habitat selection by radiomarked Meleagris gallopavo silvestris, Burke County, GA, 1998 and 1999. Habitat type % of areaA CompositionB Hardwood 37 Stand composed of 50% hardwoods > 15 years old, little herbaceous understory Agriculture 22 Cultivated fields, soil-disturbed areasC, Carya illinoinensis orchards, no or little herbaceous understory other than crop Closed-canopy planted Pinus spp. 16 Planted Pinus spp. stands at canopy closure, 8–20 years old, needle-laden ground cover Field 13 Fallow areas, mowed areas, 1–4 year-old clearcuts, prominent herbaceous understory Old clearcut 6 Dense stand of mixed, natural regeneration 5–15 years old, stem densities significantly higher than plantations Mature Pinus spp. 3 Stand composed of > 50% Pinus spp. > 20 years old, little herbaceous understory Open-canopy planted Pinus spp. 2 Thinned, planted Pinus spp. stands, < 5 year-old planted Pinus spp., prominent herbaceous understory AExcludes residential areas, paved roads, and open water deemed unsuitable for birds (1% of area). BStands were 􀂕 0.8 ha in size. CIncludes clearcuts < 1 year-old that contain little vegetative ground cover and exposed soil. 640 Southeastern Naturalist Vol. 5, No. 4 Pinus echinata P. Mill. (shortleaf pine). They were characterized by little herbaceous ground cover and generally juxtaposed near field areas. Methods We captured M. gallopavo silvestris with a rocket net in baited fields (Wunz 1987) during January–March, 1998 and 1999. Each bird was fitted with a uniquely-numbered leg band and a 110-g backpack-style radio transmitter with a motion sensor (Telonics, Inc., Mesa, AZ). We sexed, weighed, and aged each turkey before it was released from the trap site (Williams and Austin 1988). During each spring and summer, 3-element Yagi antennas and R4000 receivers (Advanced Telemetry Systems, Anoka, MN) were used by 2 observers to record 􀂕 2 bearings from permanent telemetry stations (n = 336) to each radio-marked M. gallopavo silvestris (Cochran and Lord 1963). Greater than 90% of bearing sets were collected sequentially in 􀂔 5 min in 1998; in 1999, bearings were recorded simultaneously from stations that yielded the best angle of intersection (a 90 degree angle being ideal). Bearing sets were mapped in the field on 1:79-m scale aerial photos to ensure bearings crossed and the estimated location was plausible (e.g., not in a pond or house). Additionally, bearing sets were not recorded when bearings traversed multiple habitat types. We avoided these circumstances by moving to transitions of habitat types to ensure that the signal traversed vegetation of the same type. Therefore, habitat-use error associated with the use of yagi antennas was minimized, because we were able to identify the habitat block an individual was located. Each M. gallopavo silvestris was located once in each of 3 time periods (0600–1100 hr, 1101–1500 hr, and 1501–1800 hr) for a total of 􀂕 3 locations/week. At least 6 locations/week were recorded for brooding hens for 2 weeks post-hatch. Bearing-error tests (White and Garrot 1990) were conducted by hiding transmitters in known locations. We digitized the study area in UTM coordinates on Digital Orthophoto maps at a scale of 􀂔 1:3000 m with ArcView software (Environmental Systems Research Institute, Redlands, CA). Seven habitat types were delineated by habitat blocks 􀂕 0.8 ha in size. Permanent telemetry stations, visual observations, and offset locations (birds within 100 m of observer) were recorded with a GeoExplorer II hand-held global positioning system (GPS) unit (Trimble Navigation Ltd., Sunnyvale, CA) in universal transverse mercator (UTM) coordinates. Meleagris gallopavo silvestris locations were determined using Location of a Signal (LOAS) software (Ecological Software Solutions, Sacramento, CA), and the program’s best biangulation estimator. Minimum convex polygon home ranges were constructed for each M. gallopavo silvestris (mean = 33.5, SE = 1.4 locations) for summer ranges and 􀂕 12 locations for brooding ranges using ArcView software (Hooge and Eichenlaub 1997). We established the summer season’s starting date by identifying the date on which 90% of radio-marked hens began incubation. Summer home ranges for females 2006 J.J. Morgan, S.H. Schweitzer, and J.P. Carroll 641 only included post-incubation locations. The brooding period was a subset of the summer season that included the first 2 weeks after hatching, because the period is the most critical for recruitment (Vangilder 1992). Only hens successfully hatching a nest were analyzed for the brooding period. Summary statistics included mean, standard error of the mean (SE), and sample size (N). We used compositional analysis to identify habitat preferences by M. gallopavo silvestris within the study area and within their home ranges (Aesbischer et al. 1993). Sample sizes were maximized for analyses by pooling data across age classes and years (White and Garrot 1990). Following Aebischer et al. (1993), proportions of habitat types within the study area were compared to those within the minimum convex polygon, and the proportion of radio locations in the habitat types were compared to the proportions of habitat types within the minimum convex polygon. A multivariate analysis of variance (MANOVA) was conducted to detect selection of habitat types by M. gallopavo silvestris. Expected values were created by randomization (Edgington 1980) for comparison with observed data. Nine hundred ninety-nine iterations were run to generate a P-value (Carroll et al. 1995). If selection of habitat types was detected, then paired t-tests were conducted to identify differences in use of each habitat type relative to other habitat types. We used MANOVA to detect differences in habitat use between sexes. Home-range sizes were compared by unequal variance t-tests using MS Excel software (Microsoft Corporation, Redmond, WA). Significance level for all statistical analyses was 􀁟 􀀩 0.05. Results We collected 1715 locations (651 in 1998 and 1064 in 1999) from 28 male and 35 female M. gallopavo silvestris (Morgan 2000); however, 14 males and 22 females comprised the analysis because of mortality or dropped/failed transmitters. Absolute mean bearing error was 8.7 ± 1.0 degrees (n = 158) in 1998 and 9.8 ± 0.7 degrees (n = 149) in 1999. Mean bearing length was 439.2 ± 7.7 m (n = 3741). Seventeen percent of locations were visual observations or offset locations. Tracking began in both years in late March and ended 15 August 1998 and 31 July 1999. The onset of the summer season was 11 May 1998 and 10 May 1999. Summer home-range size for males (n = 14) averaged 320.6 ± 43.6 ha, whereas that of females (n = 22) was 450.2 ± 62.4 ha. While brooding young, home-range size of females averaged 101.6 ± 17.5 ha. Proportions of habitat types available in the study area were different from the proportions of habitat types within home ranges of males and females during the summer (Table 2). Furthermore, the proportions of habitat types within the home range were different than the proportions of radio-locations within the habitat types for males and females (Table 2). Home ranges of brooding females contained habitat types in different proportions than those in the study area (L = 0.267, 4 df, P = 0.021), and proportions of radio-locations in habitat types were different than the proportion of habitat types in the home range 642 Southeastern Naturalist Vol. 5, No. 4 (L = 0.112, 4 df, P = 0.013). Summer habitat use by males and females was not different within the study area (L = 0.772, 6 df, P = 0.280) or within the home range (L = 0.717, 6 df, P = 0.730). During the summer, male M. gallopavo silvestris selected hardwood habitats at the landscape (study area) and local (home range) scales. Comparisons from the landscape to the local scale showed fields, closed-canopy planted Pinus spp., and agriculture habitat types increasing in importance, whereas the mature Pinus spp. habitat type declined in importance. The least preferred habitat at both scales were old clearcuts and open-canopy planted Pinus spp. stands (Table 2). Females selected hardwood habitat types at both scales during the summer as well. From the landscape to the local scale, field habitats decreased in Table 3. Mean log-ratio difference matrix for all habitat pairings of proportions in minimum convex polygons versus proportion of locations in each habitat for Meleagris gallopavo silvestris hens (n = 10) during the brood period in Burke County, GA, 1999. Habitat type Mature Planted Hardwood Agriculture Field Pinus spp. Pinus spp.B Habitat typeA (Mean, SE) (Mean, SE) (Mean, SE) (Mean, SE) (Mean, SE) Hardwood – -5.22, 1.10 -0.98, 1.10 -0.64, 0.78 -3.74, 1.25 Agriculture +5.22, 1.10 – +5.84, 1.30 +3.58, 2.05 +2.70, 1.66 Field +0.98, 1.10 -5.84, 1.30 – +1.15, 1.49 -3.13, 1.29 Mature Pinus spp. +0.64, 0.78 -3.58, 2.05 -1.15, 1.49 – -2.94, 2.08 Planted Pinus spp. +3.74, 1.25 -2.70, 1.66 +3.13, 1.29 +2.94, 2.08 – RankC 1 5 3 2 4 AA negative log-ratio difference value indicates that the relative use of the row habitat was more than the column habitat. A positive value indicates the opposite. BOpen- and closed-planted pine habitat types were combined for the analysis because of small sample size. CRanks determined by comparing the relative use of each habitat against all other habitats. Smallest ranking indicates the most used habitat relative to abundance. Table 2. Compositional analysis of Meleagris gallopavo silvestris habitat selection (1 = most relative use) within the study area and home range, Burke County, GA, 1998 and 1999. Males (n = 14) Females (n = 22) Habitat type Study area Home range Study area Home rangeA Agriculture 5 4 5 5 Closed-canopy planted Pinus spp. 4 3 4 2 Field 3 2 2 4 Hardwood 1 1 1 1 Mature pine 2 5 3 3 Old clearcut 6 6 6 5 Open-canopy planted Pinus spp. 7 7 7 5 Wilk’s Lambda 0.067 0.024 0.103 0.036 P-valueA 0.006 < 0.001 < 0.001 < 0.001 AAgriculture, old clearcut, and open-canopy planted Pinus spp. all tied for the least relative use in the females' home ranges. BIf P 􀂔 0.05, then habitat use was not random. 2006 J.J. Morgan, S.H. Schweitzer, and J.P. Carroll 643 importance and closed-canopy planted Pinus spp. increased in importance (Table 2). Least important habitat types to females at both scales were agriculture, old clearcut, and open-canopy planted Pinus spp. Females with poults used hardwoods most frequently and agricultural areas least frequently at the local scale (Table 3). Discussion Meleagris gallopavo silvestris use of Pinus spp. plantations in the Southeast has been widely studied and results vary. The preponderance of research has focused on pine-dominated areas. Habitat use changed by season, sex, and plantation age and stem density. Spring and summer use varied the most among studies making comparisons difficult. For example, young plantations (< 4 years old) were not preferred habitat in any season, but were used occasionally in proportion to availability in Arkansas (Wigley et al. 1985). Conversely, Bidwell et al. (1989) found M. gallopavo silvestris use of plantations limited to the young age class (1–4 years old) in Oklahoma, because vegetation composition was similar to small openings. Middle-aged (4–14 years old) stands generally were used by males in the summer (Exum et al. 1987, Wigley et al. 1985), whereas older stands (> 14 years) were selected by hens in the spring (Exum et al. 1987). In the summer, males and females used and selected closed-canopy planted Pinus spp. habitats in our study, despite having well-distributed field and hardwood habitats. The differences between studies may be based on cover and food requirements. Pinus spp. habitats at canopy closure provide overhead cover and open understories that may afford M. gallopavo silvestris protection from weather and predators. Juxtaposition may also be a factor (Phalen et al. 1986). Closed- and open-canopy Pinus spp. are often bordered by firebreaks, so M. gallopavo silvestris have the benefit of cover and feeding areas in close proximity. Many Pinus spp. plantations on our study area were adjacent to fields and hardwoods offering travel ways to feeding and roosting sites. Finally, the landscape context of our study was unique compared to previous research. In pine-dominated study areas, M. gallopavo silvestris have little opportunity to utilize a variety of habitats (i.e., Pinus spp. plantations and non-pine habitats). M. gallopavo silvestris summer home ranges in our study area were generally smaller than those reported by other studies (Badyaev et al. 1996a, Bidwell et al. 1989, Everett et al. 1980, Hurst et al. 1991, Smith et al. 1988). Home-range size may be related to habitat quality (Exum et al. 1987, Porter 1977). Historic definitions summarized by Porter (1992) commonly identified ideal habitat as woodland areas consisting of 5 to10% grassy openings. Our study area was interspersed with fields totaling 13% of the available habitat. Badyaev et al. (1996b) suggested that home ranges of females during spring were large because of extensive movements in search of nesting sites. Hillestad and Speake (1970) identified the availability of pastures as a factor affecting small range size in brooding hens. Home-range sizes of brooding 644 Southeastern Naturalist Vol. 5, No. 4 hens in our study were similar to those of other studies (Burk et al. 1990, Phalen et al. 1986). An abundance of nesting and brooding habitat on our study area may have resulted in small female home ranges. Furthermore, home-range sizes are smaller when a diversity of forest habitats and openings are available for food and cover (Korschgen 1967, Speake et al. 1975), and our study area typified these conditions. Relative to all available habitat types, mature hardwood stands were the most frequently used habitat in the summer. Their importance to M. gallopavo silvestris has been documented repeatedly. Hardwoods are selected in fall and winter (Holbrook et al. 1987, Palmer et al.1993) providing forage and cover (Kennamer et al. 1980, Porter 1992). Strips of hardwoods furnish travel corridors between feeding areas and serve as roosting and loafing sites (Gehrken 1975, Holbrook et al. 1985). In spring and summer, hardwood stands were selected consistently and supplied M. gallopavo silvestris with hard and soft mast, forbs and grasses, and insects (Miller et al. 1999). Hardwood stands in our study area contained little midstory or shrubby vegetation, and our findings further support the value of similar hardwood stands to M. gallopavo silvestris populations. M. gallopavo silvestris generally avoided agricultural fields and old clearcuts as expected. Kurzjeski and Lewis (1990) documented low use of agricultural areas in Missouri during the spring and summer. Intensive agriculture for Gossypium spp. and other row crops included the application of herbicides and insecticides. Row crops were nearly weedless and likely supported few invertebrates making them unsuitable feeding areas for M. gallopavo silvestris. Old clearcuts were characterized by dense vegetation that would impede the movements of M. gallopavo silvestris and were too young to produce hard mast (Wunz and Pack 1992). Management objectives for M. gallopavo silvestris often focus on habitats promoting reproduction, and openings (i.e., fields and pastures) provide the highest quality brood-rearing habitat for M. gallopavo silvestris (Healy and Nenno 1983, Lewis 1964, Peoples et al. 1995, Speake et al. 1975). On our study area, we found that brooding hens showed the strongest selection for hardwoods. Phalen et al. (1986) reported that most broods moved to bottomland hardwoods in Mississippi, but field habitats were only available on the periphery of the pine-dominated study area. Conversely, hardwoods selected by brooding hens in our study were generally in uplands, but were adjacent to fields. Everett et al. (1985) reported that males and females in Alabama moved away from bottomland areas to open habitats that provided grasses for feeding and brood rearing in the summer, and our results support their conclusion. Brooding hens’ selection for fields and mature Pinus spp. further supported the value of upland areas in our study area. Use of upland planted Pinus spp. habitats by brooding hens was low, contrary to findings in pinedominated habitats in Mississippi (Burke et al. 1990). In coastal plain Pinus spp. forests of Georgia and Florida, hens selecting openings (e.g., fields) 2006 J.J. Morgan, S.H. Schweitzer, and J.P. Carroll 645 were more successful at raising poults (Peoples et al. 1995). Upland habitats in our study contained fields, but hens were most often located within hardwood habitats. Intuitively, the USDA’s recommendations for thinning Pinus spp. stands for CRP re-enrollment should promote use by hens in the summer. Thinning increases forage production and vertical structure in planted Pinus spp. stands (Conroy et al. 1982, Lewis 1999, Melchiors 1991) and should increase the value of the habitat for brood rearing. Our research does not support that premise, but our study area was characterized by only 2% of open-canopy planted Pinus spp. and had well-interspersed fields. We found selection of closed-canopy Pinus spp. stands by males and females in the summer when other habitat types (i.e., fields and hardwoods) were readily available. Brooding hens used planted Pinus spp. more than agricultural fields, although neither were highly selected. Our study area was characterized by Pinus spp. plantations in an agricultural context that was more representative of the landscape influenced by CRP Pinus spp. plantings than previous research. The area included interspersed fields and large hardwood drains adjacent to Pinus spp. plantations. Therefore, foraging and brood-rearing habitat may not have been limiting. Pinus spp. plantations may have afforded M. gallopavo silvestris loafing sites and served as travel corridors to feeding and roosting areas. Meleagris gallopavo silvestris are highly adaptable and mobile, and the replacement of agricultural fields with planted Pinus spp. stands may have improved habitat quality when fields and mature hardwood drains are available. Further research on brood rearing in mixed agricultural and silvicultural landscapes, particularly focused on planted Pinus spp. management typical of CRP (e.g., thinning requirements), may further identify the effect of CRP Pinus spp. on M. gallopavo silvestris. Acknowledgments Funding for this research was provided by the National Wild Turkey Federation through funding from an anonymous donor to The National Fish and Wildlife Foundation. Additional support was provided by the Game Management Section of the Georgia Department of Natural Resources’ Wildlife Resources Division and by the University of Georgia’s Warnell School of Forestry and Natural Resources. Special thanks to F. Schroeder and K. Seginak for their tireless field work and C.G. White for statistical assistance. Literature Cited Aebischer, N.J., P.A. Robertson, and R.E. Kenward. 1993. Compositional analysis of habitat use from animal radio-tracking data. Ecology 74:1313–1325. Allen, A.W. 1993. Regional and state perspectives on Conservation Reserve Program (CRP) contributions to wildlife habitat. Federal Aid Report. US Fish and Wildlife Service. National Ecology Research Center, Fort Collins, CO. 646 Southeastern Naturalist Vol. 5, No. 4 Allen, A.W., Y.K. Bernal, and R.J. Moulton. 1996. Pine plantations and wildlife in the southeastern United States: An assessment of impacts and opportunities. US Department of the Interior, National Biological Service. Washington, DC. Badyaev, A.V., W.J. Etges, and T.E. Martin. 1996a. Ecological and behavioral correlates of variation in seasonal home ranges of wild turkeys. Journal of Wildlife Management 60:154–164. Badyaev, A.V., W.J. Etges, and T.E. Martin. 1996b. Habitat sampling and habitat selection by female wild turkeys: Ecological correlates and reproductive consequences. The Auk 113:636–646. Bidwell, T.G., S.D. Shalaway, O.E. Maughan, and L.G. Talent. 1989. Habitat use by female Eastern Wild Turkeys in southeastern Oklahoma. Journal of Wildlife Management 53:34–39. Burk, J.D., D.R. Smith, G.A. Hurst, B.D. Leopold, and M.A. Melchiors. 1990. Wild turkey use of loblolly pine plantations for nesting and brood rearing. Proceedings of the Annual Conference of Southeastern Fish and Wildlife Agencies 44:163–170. Carroll, J.P., R.D. Crawford, and J.W. Schulz. 1995. Gray Partridge winter home range and use of habitat in North Dakota. Journal of Wildlife Management 59:98–103. Cochran, W.W., and R.D. Lord. 1963. A radio-tracking system for wild animals. Journal of Wildlife Management 27:9–24. Conroy, M.J., R.G. Oderwald, and T.L. Sharik. 1982. Forage production and nutrient concentrations in thinned loblolly pine plantations. Journal of Wildlife Management 46:719–727. Edgington, E.S. 1980. Randomization Tests. Marcel Dekker, New York, NY. Everett, D.D., D.W. Speake, and W.K. Maddox. 1980. Natality and mortality of a north Alabama wild turkey population. Proceedings of the National Wild Turkey Symposium 4:117–126. Everett, Jr., D.D., D.W. Speake, and W.K. Maddox. 1985. Habitat use by wild turkeys in northwest Alabama. Proceedings of the Annual Conference of Southeastern Fish and Wildlife Agencies 39:479–488. Exum, J.H., J.A. McGlincy, D.W. Speake, J.L. Buckner, and F.M. Stanley. 1987. Ecology of the Eastern Wild Turkey in an intensively managed pine forest in southern Alabama. Tall Timbers Research Station Bulletin 23, Tallahassee, FL. Farm Service Agency. 1997. The Conservation Reserve Program Report PA-1603. US Department of Agriculture, Washington, DC. Felix III, A.C., T.L. Sharik, and B.S. McGinnes. 1986. Effects of pine conversion on food plants of Northern Bobwhite Quail, Eastern Wild Turkey, and white-tailed deer in the Virginian Piedmont. Southern Journal of Forestry 10:47–52. Gehrken, G.A. 1975. Travel corridor technique of wild turkey management. Proceedings of the National Wild Turkey Symposium 3:113–117. Healy, W.M., and E.S. Nenno. 1983. Minimum maintenance versus intensive management of clearings for wild turkeys. Wildlife Society Bulletin 11:113–120. Hillestad, H.O., and D.W. Speake. 1970. Activities of wild turkey hens and poults as influenced by habitat. Proceedings of the Annual Conference of Southeastern Fish and Wildlife Agencies 24:244–251. Holbrook, H.T., M.R. Vaughan, and P.T. Bromley. 1985. Wild turkey management of domesticated pine forests. Proceedings of the National Wild Turkey Symposium 5:253–258. 2006 J.J. Morgan, S.H. Schweitzer, and J.P. Carroll 647 Holbrook, H.T., M.R. Vaughan, and P.T. Bromley. 1987. Wild turkey habitat preferences and recruitment in intensively managed piedmont forests. Journal of Wildlife Management 51:182–187. Hooge, P.N., and B Eichenlaub. 1997. Animal movement extension to Arcview version 1.1. Alaska Biological Center, USGS, Anchorage, AK. Hurst, G.A., D.R. Smith, J.D. Burk, and B.D. Leopold. 1991. Wild turkey gobbler habitat use and home range in loblolly pine plantations. Proceedings of the Annual Conference of Southeastern Fish and Wildlife Agencies 45:115–123. Kennamer, J.E., J.R. Gwaltney, and K.R. Sims. 1980. Food habits of the Eastern Wild Turkey on an area intensively managed for pine in Alabama. Proceedings of the National Wild Turkey Symposium 4:246–250. Korschgen, L.J. 1967. Feeding habits and food. Pp. 137–198, In O.H. Hewitt (Ed.). The Wild Turkey and its Management. Valley Offset, Inc., Deposit, NY. Kurzjeski, E.W., and J.B. Lewis. 1990. Home ranges, movements, and habitat use of wild turkey hens in northern Missouri. Proceedings of the National Wild Turkey Symposium 6:67–71. Lewis, J.C. 1964. Populations of wild turkeys in relation to fields. Proceedings of the Southeastern Association of Game and Fish Commissioners 18:49–56. Lewis, L.A. 1999. Response of herbaceous vegetation and Northern Bobwhite (Colinus virginianus) populations to thinned CRP pine plantations. M.Sc. Thesis. University of Georgia, Athens, GA. Melchiors, M.A. 1991. Wildlife management in southern pine regeneration systems. Pp. 391–420, In M. L. Durgon and P. M. Doughert (Eds.). Forest Regeneration Manual. Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordecht, Netherlands. Miller, D.A., G.A. Hurst, and B.D. Leopold. 1999. Habitat use of Eastern Wild Turkeys in central Mississippi. Journal of Wildlife Management 63:210–222. Morgan, J.J. 2000. Habitat use and nest-site selection of Eastern Wild Turkeys (Meleagris gallopavo silvestris) in a landscape dominated by agriculture and silviculture. M.Sc. Thesis. University of Georgia, Athens, GA. Palmer, W.E., G.A. Hurst, J.E. Stys, D.R. Smith, and J.D. Burk. 1993. Survival rates of wild turkey hens in loblolly pine plantations in Mississippi. Journal of Wildlife Management 57:783–789. Peoples, J.C., D.C. Sisson, and D.W. Speake. 1995. Wild turkey brood-habitat use and characteristics in coastal plain pine forests. Proceedings of the National Wild Turkey Symposium 7:89–96. Phalen, P.S., G.A. Hurst, and W.J. Hamrick. 1986. Brood-habitat use and preference by wild turkeys in central Mississippi. Proceedings of the Annual Conference of Southeastern Fish and Wildlife Agencies 40:397–404. Porter, W.F. 1977. Home-range dynamics of wild turkeys in southeastern Minnesota. Journal of Wildlife Management 41:434–437. Porter, W.F. 1992. Habitat requirements. Pp. 202–213, In J.G. Dickson (Ed.). The Wild Turkey: Biology and Management. Stackpole Books, Harrisburg, PA. Smith, W.P., E.P. Smith, and R.D. Teitelbaum. 1988. Seasonal movement and homerange differences among age and sex groups of Eastern Wild Turkey within southeastern Louisiana. Biotelemetry X: Proceedings of the International Symposium on Biotelemetry 10:151–158. Speake, D.W., T.E. Lynch, and W.J. Hamrick. 1975. Habitat use and seasonal movements of wild turkeys in the Southeast. Proceedings of the National Wild Turkey Symposium 3:122–130. 648 Southeastern Naturalist Vol. 5, No. 4 Vangilder, L.D. 1992. Population Dynamics. Pp. 144–164, In J.G. Dickson (Ed.) The Wild Turkey: Biology and Management. Stackpole Books, Harrisburg, PA. White, G.C., and R.A. Garrot. 1990. Analysis of Wildlife Radio-tracking Data. Academic Press, San Diego, CA. Wigley, T.B., J.M. Sweeney, M.E. Garner, and M.A. Melchiors. 1985. Forest habitat use by wild turkeys in the Ouachita Mountains. Proceedings of the National Wild Turkey Symposium 5:183–195. Williams, Jr., L.E., and D.H. Austin. 1988. Studies of the wild turkey in Florida. Florida Game and Freshwater Fish Commission, Tallahassee, FL. Technical Bulletin No. 10. Wunz, G.A. 1987. Rocket-net innovations for capturing wild turkeys. Turkitat 6(2):2–4. Wunz, G.A., and J.C. Pack. 1992. Eastern turkey in eastern oak-hickory and northern hardwood forests. Pp. 232–264, In J.G. Dickson (Ed.). The Wild Turkey: Biology and Management. Stackpole Books, Harrisburg, PA.