Master of Science, APPROVED:

Transcription

1 Overwinter surviva of wid turkeysforestsbv on centra Virginia s industria John Thomas Morgan thevirginia Thesis submitted to Facuty of Poiytechnic nstitute and State University in partia fuifiiment of the requirements for the degree of [ Fisheries and Widife Science Master of Science, in APPROVED: A Michae R. Vaughan, Chairm Peter. Bro ean F. Stau r V! May, 1989 Backsburg, Virginia

2 1 1 Overwinter surviva of wid turkeys on centra Virginia s industria forests by John Thomas Morgan Michae R. Vaughan, Chairman Fisheries and Widife Science 1 (ABSTRACT) Overwinter surviva of wiid turkeys oh industria forests managed for short-rotation pines (treatment) and typica Piedmont forests and farmand (contro), was investigated in Virginia s centra Piedmont during in eary fa with apha-choraose aced bait. Ninety-six percent ofthe turkeys (N =106) were captured Sixty-three percent of the captured turkeys recovered and were reeased with transmitters; 15% were reeased without transmitters; and 21% died from capture reated causes. Overwinter surviva for a turkeys was <2% regardess of area or year. Daiy surviva was ower on the contro areas (P < 0.01), however, due to the sma (13) and scattered sampe of turkeys captured over the 3 years on contro areas, these data were omitted from further Thirty-sevenpercent anayses. Daiy surviva on treatment areas over the 3 years was 97.6%. of radio-equipped turkeys on tre ment areas died within 2 weeks of reease suggesting that factors reated to the trapping process intuenced surviva. Possibiities considered were residua effects from apha-choraose, capture myopathy, and/or a negative effect from the transmitter and/or harness. Four weeks after reease daiy surviva rates improved signiicanty (P < 0.01) indicating the infuence from trapping had subsided. Whie hardwoods composed 38% of the primary treatment area, 65% ofturkeys died in hardwood stands; predation accounted for 81% ofthe turkey mortaity (N =42). Fied evidence and necropsy resuts pus scent station data indicated that gray foxes (Urocyon cinereoargenteus) were the main turkey predators. Fox scats contained no detectabe turkey remains but indicated that eastern cottontais (Si/viagus toridanus) were a primary prey 1 1

3 Management practices on industria forests such as, cearcutting, sash piing, and dense young pine stands may be beneicia to rabbits and other sma mammas that attract predators which aso prey on turkeys t is suggested that predator densities be monitored and furbearer trapping aowed on industria forests to reduce predation pressure on turkeys.

4 Acknowedgements throughout this project, never knowing when d be home or what d bring home; for her Acknowedgements iv

5 support when things were going we and when they didn t; and for her ove and understanding throughout our time here at Virginia Tech and our future adventures. Acknowedgements V

6 Tabe of Contents Genera ntroduction... 1 Literature Cited... 2 Chapter 1: Overwinter surviva of wid turkeys on centra Virginia s industria forests... 4Study Area... 6Genera description... Methods 6Gunstock... tract 6, 7Study period... 7Trapping and handing... 7 Teemetry data coection... 8 Surviva, mortaity factors, and habitat use on Gunstock... Popuation estimation... 10Statistica anaysis Resuts Trapping and handing Assessment of human and predator impact... 9 Tabe o Contents vi

7 Overa surviva and mortaity factors... 12Habitat use, surviva, and mortaity factors on Gunstock Assessment of human and predator impact Popuation estimation Discussion Trapping and handing Overa surviva and mortaity factors Habitat use, surviva, and mortaity factors on Gunstock Assessment of human and predator impact Popuation estimation Concusion Literature Cited... 45Chapter 51Study 2: Fa trapping wid turkeys with 2 different dosages of apha-choraose... Area..., Methods T Resuts... 54Discussion...,... 56Literature Cited i Chapter 3: Effect of radio transmitters on wid turkey roosting behavior... Area... 61Study 62Methods... Resuts Discussion... 65Literature Cited... 67Genera Concusion Tabe of Contents vii

8 Management impications Additiona research needs Literature cited Appendices Appendix Figure 1. Buckingham County, Virginia Appendix Figure 2. Five study areas in Buckingham County, Virginia Appendix Figure 3. Vi/estvaco s Gunstock Tract, Buckingham County, Virginia Appendix Tabe 1. Wid turkey trapping, tagging, and reease data Appendix Tabe 2. Wid turkey mortaity data Appendix Tabe 3. Detais of turkey mortaity for 20 birds dying on the Gunstock Tract Vita Tabe of Contents viii

9 i i List of Tabes Tabe 1. Mean weight and standard error (kg), and number of wid turkeys captured, Buckingham County, Virginia Tabe 2. Resuts of wid turkey trapping, Buckingham County, Virginia, Tabe 3. Mean recovery time and standard error (hrs.), and number of turkeys captured with apha-choraose, Buckingham County, Virginia, Tabe 4. Mortaity factors (%) of radio-equipped wid turkeys, Buckingham County, Virginia, abe 5. Daiy surviva (95% C..) of wid turkeys during the interva 1 Septmeber- 31 May, Buckingham County, Virginia, Tabe 6. Daiy surviva (95% C..) weeky after reease of radio-equipped turkeys on treatment areas, Buckingham County, Virginia, Tabe 7. Cumuative daiy surviva (95% C..) weeky after reease of radio equipped turkeys on treatment areas, Buckingham County, Virginia, Tabe 8. Daiy surviva (95% C..) of a wid turkeys on treatment areas, and ony those surviving past 4 weeks, Buckingham County, Virginia, Tabe 9. Wid turkey daiy surviva (95% C..) by age and sex, for 3 years pooed, on treatment areas, Buckingham County, Virginia, Tabe 10. Weight (kg) and daiy surviva (95% C..) ofjuvenie wid turkeys from treatment areas, Buckingham County, Virginia, Tabe 11. Tabe 12. Tabe 13. Tabe 14. Use vs. avaiabiity of turkey ocations on the entire Gunstock tract, Buckingham County, Virginia, Use vs. avaiabiity of turkey ocations within 2 composite home ranges on the Gunstock tract, Buckingham County, Virginia, Use (ive ocations of individua turkeys) and mortaity (carcass ocations) data for 20 turkeys dying in 6 habitats on the Gunstock tract, Buckingham County, Virginia, Percent occurance and voume of food items found in gray fox and bobcat winter scats from the Gunstock tract, Buckingham County, Virginia, List of Tabes ix

10 Tabe 15. Tabe 16. Tabe 17. Tabe 18. Disposition of turkeys attracted to bait treated with 2 different dosages of apha choraose (grams/0.25 iter cracked corn), Buckingham County, Virginia, Mean (SE) time (hrs) unti recovery or death of wid turkeys captured with bait treated with 2 different dosages of apha-choraose (grams/0.25 iter corn), Buckingham County, Virginia, Fight behavior upon reease of radio-equipped and non-equipped wid turkeys, Buckingham County, Virginia, Length of time after reease before radio-equipped turkeys roosted in trees, Buckingham County, Virginia List of Tabes X

11 List of ustrations Figure 1. Daiy surviva of wid turkeys weeky after reease on treatment areas, Buckingham County. Virginia Figure 2. Cumuative daiy surviva of wd turkeys weeky after reease on treatment areas, Buckingham County, Virginia, Figure 3. ndividua ocations and 2 composite home ranges of radio-equipped turkeys on the Gunstock tract. Buckingham County, Virginia, Figure Figure 4. Average weeky road use/study area during 1987 hunting season, Buckingham County, Virginia p 5. Scent stations visited (%) by predators on primary treatment and 2 contro areas, Buckingham County, Virginia, List of ustrations xi

12 ( Genera ntroduction During the 1950 s s commercia timberand in Piedmont forests of the southeastern U.S. increased 5.9% due to cropand retirement and reforestation (Frampton 1981). Over this period, oak-hickory, oak-pine, and oboy pine (Pinus taeda) increased 19, 43, and 40% respectivey, whie shorteaf pine (Pinus echinata), with ow economic vaue, decreased by 46%, and owand hardwoods, which were sti being ceared for agricuture, decreased by 39% (Johnson et a. 1974, Frampton 1981). vuch ofthe increase in oboy pine occurred on forest industry ands when farmand and hardwood forests were converted to pine pantations. This trend toward short-rotation pines on industria forests continued into the 1970 s as economic conditions were favorabe for conversion of hardwoods to pines (Johnson et a. 1974). ( Whie research on the effects of short-rotation pines on wid anima popuations has been i imited, avaiabe information suggests that pine pantations after canopy cosure, particuary without thinning or burning, are not suitabe for most widife species (Johnson et a. 1974). ( Atkeson and Johnson (1979) found that sma mammas in the Georgia Piedmont used cearcuts and young oboy stands but use diminished ater canopy cosure. Simiar resuts were reported by Chiders (1982) regarding songbird popuations in the Virginia Piedmont. ( ( ( Genera ntroduction 1 ( i

13 The symposium on Habitat requirements and habitat management for the wid turkey in the southeast (Bromey and Carton 1981) recognized the ack of knowedge concerning wid turkey (Me/eagris ga/apavo) use of pine pantations and emphasized that more research was needed. Around this time researchers began investigating the reationship between wid turkeys and industria forests (Kennamer et a.1980, Hobrook and Vaughan 1985, Hobrook et a. 1985, Exum et a. 1987, Hobrook et a. 1987). These studies have shown that turkeys use pine pantations, athough not necessariy in proportion to avaiabiity (Kennamer et a.1980, Exum et a. 1987). There is however a question of how we turkeys survive in industria forests (Hobrook and Vaughan 1985). Turkey surviva can be affected by weather, hunter harvest, poaching, cripping oss, disease, and predation, and changes to the forest may make turkeys more susceptibe to these rnortaity factors. The primary objective of this study was to compare overwinter surviva rates of turkeys on unconverted Virginia Pedmont habitat and Pedmont industria forests. Aso, mortaity factors and the importance of roads and eave strips to surviva were to be determined. These objectives are discussed in chapter 1. During the study it became apparent that there were aspects ofthe trapping and tagging techniques which deserved coser examination, thus 2 secondary objectives were added. Wid turkey response to 2 different dosages of apha-choraose and the effect of radio transmitters on turkey fying and roosting behavior were examined during the ast 2 years of the study. These objectives are discussed in chapters 2 and 3 respectivey. Literature Cited Atkeson, T. D., and A. S. Johnson Succession of sma mammas on pine pantations in the Georgia Pedmont. Am. Midi. Nat. 101: Genera ntroduction 2

14 Bromey, P. T., and R. L. Carton, eds Habitat requirements and habitat management for the wid turkey in the southeast. Va. Wid Turkey Fed., Richmond. 180pp. Chiders, E. L The effects of estabishment and deveopment of oboy pine (Pinus taeda) pantations on song bird communities in the centra Piedmont of Virginia. M. S. Thesis, VP and SU, Backsburg. Va. 116pp. Exum, J. H., J. A. McGincy. D. W. Speake, J. L. Buckner, and F. M. Staney Ecoogy of the eastern wid turkey in an intensivey managed pine forest on southern Aabama. Ta Timbers research Station, Taahassee. 70pp. Frampton, J. E Some aspects of forest management on habitas ofthe wid turkey in the Piedmont region. Pages in P. T. Bromey and R. L. Carton, eds. Proc. symp. habitat management for the wid turkey in the southeast. Richmond. 180pp. 49: Va. Wid Turkey Fed., Hobrook, H. T., and M. R. Vaughan infuence of roads on turkey mortaity. J. Wid.Manage., forests.proc., and P. T. Bromey Wid turkey management on domesticated pine Nat. Wid. Turkey Symp. 5: ,, and Wid turkey habitat preferences and recruitment in intensivey managed pine forests. J. Wid. Manage. 51: Johnson, pantations.pages A. S., J. L. Landers, and T. D. Atkeson Widife in young pine in H. L. Wiiston and W. E. Bamer, eds. Proc. symp. on management ofyoung pines. 349pp.Kennamer, widturkeys J. E., J. R. Gwatney, and K. R. Sims Habitat preferences of eastern on an area intensivey managed for pine in Aabama. Proc. Nati. Wid Turkey Symp. 4: , - Genera ntroduction 3 V

15 i Chapter 1: Overwinter surviva of wid turkeys on centra Virginia s industria forests Eastern wid turkey (Me/eagris ga/apavo) habitat contains arge tracts of undisturbed hardwoods, scattered pines, open understories, and sma cearings (\/osby and Handey 1943, Schorger 1966, Shaffer and Gwynn 1967, Hobrook 1973). But, in the Piedmont and Coasta Pain of the southeastern U.S., much ofthe habitat suitabe for wid turkeys is being converted by forest industry to short-rotation pine stands. n Virginia s Piedmont aone, and owned or eased by forest industry increased by 37% between 1965 and 1986 (Sheffied 1976, 1977, Brown 1985, 1986) and and area panted in oboy pine increased 159% (Southeast Forest Exp. Station, unpub. data). n industria forests, hardwoods and natura pines generay are restricted to narrow strips aong creek drainages and steep sopes. These hardwood "eave strips" have been eft uncut purposey due to topography, for watershed protection, or for widife benefits. The greatest benetit to turkeys in industria forests comes from these resdua hardwood stands and cearcuts and young pines, but benetit decreases as cover density 1981).Eary in pine stands increases and food sources are out-competed (Feix 1981, Victor research indicated that short rotation pine management was detrimenta to turkeys (vosby 1975, varkey 1967, Schaffer and Gwynn 1967). However, recent studies suggest thatchapter 1: Overwinter surviva of wid turkeys on centra Virginia s industria forests 4

16 1 1 * wid turkeys can adapt to areas of margina habitat (Litte 1980, Cark 1985, Wunz 1985), incuding southern industria forests (Gehrken 1975, Kennamer et a. 1980a, Exum et a. 1987, Hobrook et a. 1987). V/hether viabe popuations can be maintained there is ess certain. Two studies conducted in Piedmont industria forests reported high mortaity rates for pouts and adut turkeys. n the Aabama Piedmont pout osses averaged 87.3% due primariy to mammaian and avan predation during the first few weeks after hatching (Exum et a. 1987). Exum et a. (1987) aso reported that predation was responsibe for 85% of mortaity on adut turkeys, primariy by gray foxes, (Urocyon cinereoargenteus), bobcats (Lynx rufus), and dogs (Canis famiiarus). n the Virginia Piedmont annua surviva for adut and juvenie wid turkeys was ony 15% (Hobrook and Vaughan 1985). occurred during the fa hunting season. Ninety-one percent of the fa-winter mortaity Hobrook and Vaughan (1985) suspected cripping oss as the major mortaity factor because turkeys died significanty coser to roads during the hunting season than outside the hunting season. However, since mortaity detecting transmitters were not used, cause of death was difficut to determine and predation may have been a mortaity factor invoved. Atkeson and Johnson (1979) demonstrated that industria forests often support high densities of sma mammas, thus predators aso may be present in arge numbers (Baker and Brooks 1981, Kenward et a. 1981). This study was designed as a foow-up to Hobrook s earier (1984) research. Using the same areas and procedures, the objective in this study was to determine overwinter surviva rates of wid turkeys on industria forests in Virginia s centra Piedmont and to compare these rates to surviva of turkeys on near-by areas not yet converted to short-rotation pines. Aso,using mortaity sensing transmitters, the causes of mortaity both areas were to be determined, forestssuch as we as an assessment of how management practices on industria as, roads, cearcuts, and imited and fragmented hardwood areas, may infuence turkey j surviva and factors of mortaity. Chapter 1: Overwinter surviva of wid turkeys on centra Virginia s industria forests 5

17 T Study Area Genera descripton The study was conducted on 5 tracts of and in Buckingham County, Virginia (Appendix Figs. 1 and 2). Two tracts, Horsepen Lake Widife Management Area (1184 ha) managed by the Virginia Department of Game and nand Fisheries (VDGF) and a private tract of and eased by the Tayor Hunt Cub (1200 ha), were typica Piedmont habitat, containing mixed hardwoods (oaks [Quercus spp.], hickories [Carya spp.], mapes [Acer spp.] and others), Virginia pine (Pinus virginianus), od fieds, and agricutura areas. These tracts, designated contro areas, contained 8.3 and 6.3 km of gated and ungated roads/1000 ha respectivey. Three tracts, Gunstock (3003 ha), Fisher (1886 ha), and Edridge (1090 ha), were owned and operated by Westvaco for short rotation pine production. These were designated treatment areas. from1-28 Fifty-four percent of the and was in pantations of oboy pine, ranging in age hardwoods(45%, years and compartment size from hectares. The remainder was mixed hardwoodswere species simiar to above) and od fieds (< 1%). Fifty-three percent of the in "eave strips", primariy aong creek drainages. The remaining hardwoods were in arge bocks which had not been cut. Treatment areas contained 4.4 and 15.4 km of gated and ungated roads/1000 ha respectivey. Gunstock tract Over two-thirds of the study effort (birds trapped) took pace on Westvaco s 3238 ha Gunstock tract (incuding 235 ha of privatey owned and; Appendix Fig. 3). The tract was subdivided into six different habitats earier identified as important to wid turkeys (Feix 1981, Chapter 1: Overwinter surviva of wid turkeys on centra Virginia's industria forests 6

18 Victor tieds(<1%).and 1981). These were hardwood bocks (22%), hardwood eave strips (16%), oboy pine stands 0-3 yrs(12%), 4-15 yrs (37%), and > 16 years (13%). 4.6 km of gated and 15.9 km of ungated roads/1000 ha. Gunstock had Methods Study period The study period extended from September 1985 through May A study year ran from 1 September - 31 May and was broken down into 4 periods: prehunting season (September-October), fa hunting season (November-December), winter (January-March), and spring hunting season (Apri-May). Trapping and handing Wid turkeys were trapped during prehunting and winter seasons each year with apha-choraose aced bait (Wiiams 1966, Wiiams et a. 1973) or a rocket net (Austin 1965, Baiey et a. 1980). Age and weight were determined for a captured turkeys. Sex was determined for a aduts, and juvenies past their post-juvena mot. Recovery time was noted for a drugged birds. Apparenty heathy turkeys were tagged with a VDGF auminum eg ( band (Nationa Band Co., size 24) and a pastic pataga wing tag (Afex catte ear tags). Most ( turkeys weighing > 2.0 kg aso were equipped with motion-sensitive radio transmitters ( attached with a cabe harness ooped around each wing (Advanced Teemetry System [ATS], ( Bethe, MN) which at maximum was 3.7% of a bird s body weight. During the tirst year the ( Chapter 1: Overwinter surviva of wid turkeys on centra Virginia's industria forests 7

19 harness used was a rigid pastic coated cabe (ATS). However, this rigid harness resuted in bruising to the wings and may have restricted fight, so thinner more fexibe cabe covered with a nyon braided cord (Teonics inc., Mesa, AZ) was used the ast 2 years. Turkeys captured with apha-choraose were reeased within 200 m of the capture site eary in the morning on the first day after recovery (1-5 days). Netted birds were reeased where captured as soon as they were processed. n each case, behavior at reease was noted. Teemetry data coection Radio-marked turkeys were checked daiy for surviva (based on transmitter puse rate) using a hand-hed 2 eement H-antenna and a portabe receiver. Turkeys were ocated by trianguation (Cochran 1980) approximatey twice weeky to determine movements and habitat use. Radio ocations were used ony if azimuths were recorded within 20 minutes and were separated by at east 30. To cacuate teemetry error (Lee et a. 1985, Springer 1979, Mis and Knowton 1989), 8 transmitters were paced at known ocations by one person and ocated by another. The standard deviation of bearing error was 3.8 at a mean distance of 678 m (N =20 bearings). Turkey radio-ocations were coected from an average (SE) of 825 m (19). The error poygon associated with teemetry at this distance was 3.9 ha. Surviva, mortaity factors, and habitat use on Gunstock Radio-marked turkeys were approached when the puse rate indicated inactivity or when 2 consecutive ocations overapped. Estimates of overwinter and daiy surviva during the ä interva Fuer1984). 1 September- 31 May were cacuated using program MCROMORT (Heisey and Surviva was cacuated by sex and age cass for the 3 years pooed, individua years, Chapter 1: Overwinter surviva of wid turkeys on centra Virginia's industria forests 8

20 and periods within years. Cause of death was determined for a turkeys by fied sign, condition of the carcass, and aboratory necropsy resuts. The Gunstock tract was used to assess the impact of industria forest management on wid turkey surviva. Habitat use of turkeys whie aive was compared to habitat at ocations of carcasses. To cacuate use vs. avaiabiity of ive turkeys radio-ocations of brds were potted using program TELEM (Koen 1980) on a map of the study area digitized with respect to the 6 habitats discussed earier. A composite home range for a turkeys was cacuated by the convex poygon method using TEÄLEM. Habitat use vs. avaiabiity was then determined by considering the entire Gunstock tract as avaiabe habitat, and ony that portion ofthe tract contained within the composite home range as avaiabe habitat. Aso, distance to the nearest road, stream, and hardwood eave strip, and the width of the nearest eave strip was determined for each carcass ocation. Assessment of human and predator impact Traffic counters, scent station routes, ow ca surveys, and scat coections were used to assess the impact of humans, and mammaian and avian predators on wid turkey surviva. Traffic counters were paced on the 4 primary entrances to Gunstock, the ony entrance to a section of Gunstock eased to the Greese Creek Hunt Cub, and the 2 primary entrances to the Tayor Hunt Cub. Road use was checked weeky 2 weeks prior though 4 weeks after the 1987 fa turkey hunting season. Scent stations and ow ca routes were set up and run on Gunstock and the 2 contro sites(vdgf 1986a). Scent station routes consisted of a 1 m circe of sand with a sardine in the midde, paced on the side of the road every 0.3 km for 3.0 km, skipping 1.0 km and starting again. Routeswere Forty stations paced at Gunstock and 30 at each of the contro areas. Horsepenand run for 2 consecutive nights twice during the winter of 86/87 at Gunstock 3 times during the winter of 87/88 at Gunstock and Tayor. Scent station use for individua 9 Chapter 1: Overwinter surviva of wid turkeys on centra Virginia s industria forests ' ' i

21 areas was compared to expected vaues cacuated from scent station use on a areas combined. Ow ca surveys were conducted once each week during February and eary March at Gunstock and Horsepen n and Gunstock, Horsepen, and Tayor n These surveys foowed the same routes as the scent stations using every third station. At each station a tape recording of a great-horned ow (Bubo virginianus) was payed for 1 minute. After waiting 5 minutes for a response it was repeated. Gray fox and bobcat scats were coected on Gunstock throughout the winters of 1986/87 and 1987/88, and anayzed to determine predator food habits, using procedures simiar to that described by Korschgen (1980). Scats were anayzed macro and microscopicay after being air dried for approximatey 6 months. Prior to their identification, major food items such as hair, bone, feathers, and vegetation were separated. Leaves or seeds were identified by comparison to known sampes. Feathers were dentified by coor and banding patterns and comparison to known sampes. Mamma identification invoved examining guard hairs macroscopicay ooking at characteristics such as ength, texture, coor, and banding patterns. Then, under a microscope, the negative mpression ofthe cutice scae pattern from a guard hair was examined. This was obtained by pressing a hair between 2 microscope sides coated with cear nai poish. dentification was then made by comparison to impressions from known hairs (Spiers 1974). Popuation estimation Minimum estimates of the turkey popuation on Gunstock were made by keeping track of ndividua birds trapped and handed, turkeys coming to bait sites but not trapped, other 1 turkeys seen on the study area, and tracks in the snow.

22 Statistica anaysis Differences in weight and recovery times between sexes and age casses were tested for using Wicoxon rank sums anaysis. Habitat use vs. avaabiity was anayzed by Chi-square tests and Bonferroni confidence intervais (Neu et a. 1974). Surviva rates obtained from MCROVORT were compared using a Z statistic (Heisey and Fuer 1984). The distance carcasses were found from roads. streams, and eave strips were compared to random points using Wicoxon rank sums anaysis. Difference in road use throughout the period was tested using Kruska-Wais tests. Observed scent station use was compared to expected use by Chi-square goodness-of-fit tests. Resuts Trapping and handing Trapping effort (time spent searching for turkey sign, and bait sites/1000 ha) was constant regardess of season or site, but trapping success (percent of trap attempts successfu) varied seasonaiy and by area. turkeys and turkey sign. Both contro areas and the Gunstock tract were searched daiy for During the ast 2 years of the study, searches on the Fisher andedridge tracts reveaed itte use by turkeys trapping effort on these areas was imited., Even though there was ess evidence of turkey use on contro areas, potentia trapping sites ~ on Horsepen and Tayor were baited at a rate simiar to Gunstock (18, 19, and 18 bait sites/1000 ha respectivey). However, trapping success at Horsepen and Tayor was 0% (8Chapter 1: Overwinter surviva of wid turkeys on centra Virginia's industria forests 11

23 i trap attempts (TA)) and 10% (20 TA) respectivey, whie trapping success at Gunstock was 25% (40 TA), 33% (24 TA) during fa and 13% (16 TA) in the winter. During the 3 year study 106 wid turkeys were captured incuding 1 recapture (Appendix Tabe 1). One hundred and five were captured with apha-choraose, 93 were captured in treated areas, and a but 4 were captured during the fa trapping season. Femaes and juvenies accounted for 52 and 72% of the capture respectivey (Tabe 1). Weight averaged (SE) 3.5 kg (0.16) and was different for a combinations of age and sex (P < 0.05; Tabe 1). Seventy-eight percent ofthe 105 turkeys captured with apha~choraose apparenty recovered and were reeased (Tabe 2). Eighty percent (N=66) of reeased turkeys were equipped with a transmitter. Turkeys < 2.0 kg were deemed too sma to carry a transmitter. Six turkeys ost their transmitters at the time of reease. Thirteen percent died from a drug overdose, however, this varied by year (see chapter 2). Eight percent recovered from the effects of the drug but ost the use oftheir egs and coud not be reeased. These birds eventuay died from compications or were sacrificed. One bird died from a brain hemorrhage after hitting its head in the hoding box. Recovery time for a turkeys averaged (SE) 43 hrs (1.5), and did not differ by sex, or age cass (P > 0.05; Tabe 3). The behavior of turkeys at reease incuded running directy into the forest and not attempting to fy, ong 1 sustained fight, and unsuccessfu attempts to fy. The absence of fu fight at reease is not unusua (E. W. Kurzejeski, Mo. Dept. Cons., pers. commun. ) but raised suspicions that the transmitter and/or harness, or some aspect of handing, negativey affected some birds (see chapter 3). Overa surviva and mortaity factors Surviva data was obtained from 65 of 66 different turkeys reeased with transmitters during the 3 years of the study (Appendix Tabe 2). Overa, 80% of the turkeys died from predation, Chapter 1: Overwinter surviva of wid turkeys on centra Virginia s industria forests 12 T

24 Tabe 1. Mean weight' and standard error (kg), and number of wid turkeys captured, Buckingham County, Virginia, Mae Femae Undetermined Tota Adut 7.1i _; i0.30 N Juvenie 3.5 jü $ i i0.11 N 25 21" Tota 4.6iO i iO iO 'Different for a combinations of age and sex (P < 0.05, Wicoxon rank sum) *ncudes 1 recapture Actua tota juvenie femae and 1 juvenie mae weight not avaiabe. _ Chapter 1: Ovenavinter surviva of wid turkeys on centra Virginia's industria forests 13 i

25 Tabe 2. Resuts of wid turkey trapping, Buckingham County, Virginia, _ Number of turkeys (%) Died from drug overdose 13 (12) Died from eg dysfunction compications 9 (8) Misceaneous handing death 1 (1) Reeased without transmitter 16 (15) Reeased with transmitter 67 (63)* Tota *ncudes 1 recapture and 1 turkey captured with a rocket net 106* Chapter 1: Overwinter surviva of wid turkeys on centra Virginia's industria forests 14

26 Tabe 3. Mean recovery time and standard error (hrs.), and number of wid turkeys captured with apha-choraose, Buckingham County, Virginia, Mae Femae Undetermined Tota Adut N Juvenie N 22 19* 23 64* Tota * 23 89* 'Not different for any combination of age and sex (P > 0.05, Wicoxon rank sum) *ncudes 1 recapture =Actua tota 92-1 juvenie femae and 2 juvenie maes recovery time not avaiabe Chapter 1: Overwinter surviva of wid turkeys on centra Virginia s industria forests 15

27 6% were harvested egay, 5% were poached, 5% apparenty dropped their transmitters, 2% were aive at the end of the study, and contact was ost with 3% (Tabe 4). Because overwinter surviva (1 September - 31 May) was < 2% for a radio-equipped turkeys regardess of site or year, daiy surviva estimates were used to make comparison? (Tabe 5). No turkeys were trapped on contro areas in 86/87, and ony 2 were trapped in 87/88 despite extensive trapping efforts. Ony the 11 turkeys trapped on Horsepen in 1985 yieded a surviva estimate which coun compared to the treatment areas, and in that year surviva was significanty greater on the treatment areas (P < 0.01). Because of the ow number of turkeys captured on contro areas and the extremey ow surviva when compared with treatment, further surviva anaysis wi consider ony the 52 radio-equipped turkeys reeased on treatment areas. One-third of radio-equipped birds on treatment areas died from predation within 2 weeks of reease during the ast 2 years of the study (see chapter 3). Daiy surviva cacuated for each week after reease, and cumuativey by week (Tabes 6 and 7, Figs. 1 and 2) began to improve 4 weeks after the reease date. Surviva during the first 4 weeks was ess (P < 0.01) than surviva 5+ weeks after reease. Surviva during 87/88 was ess (P < 0.01) than 85/86, but among years surviva after week 5 was simiar. Surviva was owest during the prehunting period and improved throughout the study year (Tabe 8). However, when ony those turkeys surviving past 4 weeks were considered, surviva during the prehunting period was higher (P < 0.01) and surviva was in genera more uniform throughout the periods. Adut surviva was higher than juvenie surviva (P < 0.01) and femae surviva was higher than mae surviva (P < 0.01; Tabe 9). However, the atter was due to extremey poor daiy surviva (94%) ofjuvenie maes (Tabe 9). Ony 2 of 13 radio-equipped juvenie maes but 6 of 12 juvenie femaes survived the first month after reease. Juvenies captured in ate October were heavier (P < 0.05) than those captured earier in the trapping period and surviva ofjuvenies captured in ate October was higher (P < 0.01), approaching that of aduts (Tabe 10). Chapter 1: Overwinter surviva of wid turkeys on centra Virginia s industria forests 16

28 Tabe 4. Mortaity (actors (%) of radio-equipped turkeys, Buckingham County, Virginia, Treatment Contro Tota Areas Areas Predaton 42 (81) 10 (77) 52 (80) Harvest 2 (4) 2 (15) 4 (6) Poached 3 (8) 0 3 (5) Lost contact 2 (4) 0 2 (3) Dropped transmitter 2 (4) 1 (8) 3 (5) Aive 1 (2) 0 1 (2) Tota Chapter 1: Overwinter surviva of wid turkeys on centra Virginia's industria forests 17

29 \ 1. E ::5 eo cn?' ua co ca 8 F? $ Q 2 ä ä '54 a. > -- qc h2 qm? Q N6- < c *" Nu? C tnm _ cäößr ZZ 3 QÜ Qä S2; GV <D -* mt; C >, N r~ FQ = O m?? Q U O G c EE.:: z- n Q :2 ~ gi Q Q E > A ge Q >g co -< QM QM 2 Q; R co"z. cg? mq. E \".Q 6 LE gz 6 N Q m cz J Ö Q O cf _ c> v E 11 ä " = 6 6 E Y t- Tu 2 v N ' mv U $6 6 E ZGJ N N.-E Q > 9 O Q Et: U).s *:3 gs E ev ~ > m ci cz Q! { E E :: Qi-6 - vv mv caco - Q; - Q NQ,,6- com U- : an?"z cn", *37** gg E Q?. Q2 9% 62 Q N mt.4 - *? > "-5 G CU > 6 EU ö S-; cc Q QD 6 Q2 Q? L g ä. ua va D ; g ä; ö E. Q O E '> 2 t E 3 aa g. 2 - "" U) C Q *_ O E GJ Q 0 Q 62 - " Z >. Chapter 1: Overwinter surviva of wid turkeys on centra Virginia's industria forests 18

30 Tabe 8. Daiy surviva (95% C..) weeky after reease of radio-equipped turkeys on treatment areas, Buckingham County, Virginia, Week Radio days Deaths Surviva ( ) ( ) 0.964' ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) O.987" ( ) ( ) ( ) _ 0.992"'Signiticanty different (P < 0.10, Z statistic) Chapter 1: Overwinter surviva of wid turkeys on centra Virginia s industria forests 19

31 7 Tabe 7. Cumuative daiy surviva (95% C..) weeky after reease of radio equipped turkeys on treatment areas, Buckingham County, Virginia, Week Radio days Deaths Surviva ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) _' Chapter 1: Overwinter surviva of wid turkeys on centra Virginia s industria forests 20

32 Daiy Surviva QQQQO...,., E QQEOQOQEQO V v E Week Figure 1. Daiy surviva of wid turkeys weeky after reease on treatment areas, Buckingham County, Virginia, Chapter 1: Overwinter surviva of wid turkeys on centra Virginia's industria forests 21

33 1 Cumuative a' iy 90 viva QQQOO... QQQQQ E 7 B week Figure 2. Cumuative daiy surviva of wid turkeys weeky after reease on treatment areas, Buckingham Ccunty, Virginia, Chapter 1: Overwinter surviva of wid turkeys on centra Virginia's industria forests 22

34 Tabe 8. Daiy surviva (95% C..) of a wid turkeys on treatment areas and ony those surviving past 4 weeks, Buckingham County, Virginia, Period A birds Ony those which survived past 4 weeks Prehunting ( )' ( ) (27, 771)' (1, 465) Fa hunting ( ) ( ) (15, 680) (11, 622), Winter ( ) ( ) (6, 354) (4, 332) Spring hunting ( ) ( ) (0, 183) (0, 183) _ *Number of deaths and radio days respectivey Vaues within rows foowed by different etters are different (P < 0.01, Z statistic) Chapter 1: Overwinter surviva of wid turkeys on centra Virginia's industria forests 23 >

35 . Q E cz.: > >Ä E L L L ~ Q m 0 : G N c U -F5: Q3 mm < :r 0 mm -C - NM N,. mw <,. = 2 " Q'? Q2; 92 Q2; Y? mv m" ez: <- "' E.«LD cc Ln N ;-_; Q2 Q? Q2? < m G *" en d E. E aa E äsz B{N N V < E E S ä Q3 T6 QE = QS? =' dä 2 Q- <r co Ln gg Q '> Q? C'? Q? cn O g Ö E q; C >~.9 gv; n L. ua 9 *6 ä A äe >_ '?*' Q? - ' cn. E Nv " : LO / >~ 0 6, O?? cn ä G Ö G} 6 ä >..-: E- gef?.2 -en BS gg Z {DW Bw ggg) GJ 6 < Q6; Q3 93 Q Z 3 :: >~ N U >~ E 3 6O! äé en.: oo -o dj~ >,c gw {B. C -.92 : o *" ev c ~ X- ; _ E co E fg cf _ E ev o mc, E ev '*" - en LL U zen "' aw -9-LA c: SQ? Chapter 1: Overwinter surviva of wid turkeys on centra Virginia s industria forests 24 QS

36 Tabe 10. Weight (kg) and daiy surviva of juvenie wid turkeys from treatment areas, Buckingham County, Virginia, Reease date N' Weight Daiy surviva Y (SE) (95% C..) September Eary October 23, (0.11) ( ) Late October - Eary November 12, (0.28) ( ) *Deaths and radio days respectivey 'Signiticanty different (P < 0.05, Wicoxon rank sum) Significanty different (P < 0.01, Z statistic) _

37 Habitat use, sunriva, and mortaity factors on Gunstock During fa 1986 through winter 1988, 31 turkeys were captured and reeased with transmitters on the Gunstock Tract (Appendix Tabe 1). Based on 295 radio ocations or direct observation of these birds. 2 distinct groups were apparent (Fig. 3), thus 2 composite home ranges were cacuated (Koen 1980). Because habitat outside the Gunstock boundary was not under industria forest management, turkey ocations outside the tract were not considered in use vs. avaiabiity anaysis. Habitat use for ocations within Gunstock was different from avaiabiity (X2 = ) with the entire tract considered as avaiabe habitat. Use was > avaiabiity for the hardwood bocks and the oder oboy stands (16+ yrs.) and < avaiabiity for the hardwood eave strips and younger oboy stands (0-15 yrs.; Tabe 11). Habitat use aso was different from avaiabiity (X2 = 42.34) within the 2 composite home ranges. Use was > avaiabiity for the oder oboy stands (16+ yrs.) and < than avaiabiity for the mid-age pine stands (4-15 yrs.; Tabe 12). Contact was maintained with 27 of the 31 radio-marked turkeys reeased on Gunstock. Twenty died on the tract, 18 from predation (Appendix Tabes 2 and 3). Based on üed sign, condition of the carcass, and necropsy resuts it was determined that 8 of the 18 were kied by gray foxes, 2 by bobcats, 1 by a great-horned ow, and the cause of death for 7 coud not be determined. X-rays showed that none of the carcasses recovered were cripped by shot. Sixty-five percent of the 20 died in hardwood areas even though they used these areas ony 47% of the time (Tabe 13). The remaining 35% died in oboy stands which were used 53% of the time. Turkeys died an average (SE) of 177 m (29) from a road and 329 m (55) from a hardwood eave strip, neither of which was different from expected (P > 0.05; Appendix Tabe 3). Turkeys died an average (SE) of 127 m (30) from a stream, which was coserthan expected (P < 0.05). Chapter 1: Overwinter surviva of wid turkeys on centra Virginia s industria forests 26

38 ;: _ }, * Jzi.. / _ Ö,, \ 1,i, 'Väf/$-. "*v 7 *-1»{ \ 7; /7 U ' 7, 7 r' Si, T7 / > * ^\ : \,,'. 1.-, km,.9 s.,,,,..7 /,. - v Figure 3. ndividua ocations and 2 composite home ranges of radio-equipped turkeys on the Gunstock tract, Buckingham County, Virginia, Chapter 1: Overwinter surviva of wid turkeys on centra Virginia's industria iorests 27

39 Tabe 11. Use vs. avaiabiity of turkey ocations on the entire Gunstock tract, Buckingham County, Virginia, Habitat Habitat Location Bonferroni proportion proportion (N) 95% C HW Bocks (105) ( ) use > avaiabiity HW Leave strips (32) ( ) use < avaiabiity Fieds (3) ( ) use = avaabiity Loboy 0-3 yrs (17) ( ) use < avaiabiity Loboy 4-15 yrs (53) ( ) use < avaiabiity Loboy > 15 yrs (85) ( ) use > avaiabiity Chapter 1: Overwinter surviva of wid turkeys on centra Virginia's industria forests 28

40 Tabe 12. Use vs. avaiabiity of turkey ocations within 2 composite home ranges on the Gunstock tract, Buckingham County, Virginia, Habitat Habitat Location Bonferroni proportion proportion (N) 95% C HW Bocks (105) ( ) use = avaiabiity HW Leave strips (32) ( ) use = avaiabiity Fieds (3) ( ) use = avaabiity Loboy 0-3 yrs (17) ( ) use = avaiabiity Loboy 4-15 yrs (53) ( ) use < avaiabiity Loboy > 15 yrs (85) ( ) use > avaiabiity

41 Tabe 13. Use (ive ocations of individua turkeys) and mortaity (carcass ocations) data for 20 turkeys dying in 6 habitats on the Gunstock tract, Buckingham County, Virginia, Habitat Locations Mortaity N (%) N <%) HW Bocks (22, 29) 105 (36) 9 (45) HW Leave strips (16, 13) 32 (11) 4 (20) Fieds (<1, <1) 3 (1) 0 Loboy 0-3 yrs. (12, 7) 17 (6) 0 Loboy 4-15 yrs. (37, 32) 53 (18) 2 (10). Loboy > 16 yrs. (13, 18) 85 (29) 5 (25) Percent habitat for entire Gunstock and portion within 2 home ranges respectiveiy Chapter 1: Overwinter survva of wid turkeys on centra Virginia's industria forests 30

42 Assessment of human and predator impact Road use during fa hunting season on the 3 areas where traffic counters were paced foowed simiar patterns (Fig. 4). Road use was grouped as the 4 weeks prior to deer season, the 7 weeks of deer season. and the 4 weeks foowing the end of turkey and deer Seasons. Traffic on Gunstock during the first week of deer season was 7 times the preseason average of 2.7 vehices/km road/week (Fig. 4). Road use during the rest of the hunting season averaged 5.6 vehices/km road/week and dropped off to amost 0 after hunting season cosed. On Tayor Hunt Cub, traffic during the first week of deer season was amost 4 times the preseason average of 1.5 vehices/km road/week (Fig.4). But at Tayor, road use maintained this eve throughout hunting season, again dropping off to amost 0 after hunting season ended. Road use on Greese Creek Hunt Cub (a eased portion ofthe Gunstock tract with the ony access being through a ocked gate) averaged < 3 vehices/km road/week throughout the period foowing a simiar pattern to the other areas. Gray fox and dogs were the most common potentia turkey predators to visit scent stations (Fig. 5)..- -C C Gray foxes came to scent stations > expected at Tayor, < expected at Horsepen, and = expected at Gunstock (X =33.36, P < 0.05). Dogs came to scent stations > expected at Tayor and Horsepen and < expected at Gunstock (XZ=68.38, P < 0.05). ows were heard at any site throughout the census periods, however 1 and 1 turkey was kied by a great-horned ow in this vicinity. No great-horned was seen at Gunstock Percent occurrence of eastern cottontai in 45 gray fox and 13 bobcat Scats found during the containedfeathers, winter season was 56 and 50% respectivey (Tabe 14). Scats from both Species however these were a from passerines. The foot of an American woodcock (Scoiopax minor), the argest bird detected, was found in a fox scat. Chapter 1: Overwinter surviva of wid turkeys on centra Virginia s industria forests 31 CCCCCCC

43 20 Number of vebiees/km road ; _V Beer season GunS tock 1 V o en P S Greese Creek 1QTurkey season ;; T " "$ S: 5 MV;;... a * s T! [ /, V Both 7, V ßrääpjr ; dezßg5 7> 7 SEBSOHS O :* Ä :* :6 _ B9Oi21345 Week Figure 4. Average weeky road usestudy area during 1987 hunting season, Buckingham County, Virginia. Chapter 1: Overwinter surviva of wid turkeys on centra Virginia s industria forests 32

44 7 Dog / /. /// Ouq BU, ; Hacccun E! / ' / / / xy // / W 7:. BG ' <:$ 7_Aj " - - -_... _ 5 5 anre > _»House ca: ic Horsepe:1 : T&Y 1 Qua: Gm! Fw :"*-=.=.= mmm u ***9 75* -6.;-,:- t t7: t?7:7t5t$ ' - -. *: : : : : : : :!:$:' -... =..- <; : : : : : : : : : '_ O O s?', ÜCUUÜ m 1: g.buacat E Hause cat 2! Guns cock Figure 5. Scent stations visited (%) by predators on primary treatment and 2 contro areas, Buckin ham Coun,Vir inia, Chapter 1: Overwinter surviva of wid turkeys on centra Virginia s industria forests 33

45 Tabe 14. Percent occurance and voume of food items found in gray fox and bobcat winter _ scats from the Gunstock tract, Buckingham County, Virginia, Gray fox Bobcat Food tem % Occurance % Voume % Occurance % Voume Cottontai Opposum Squirre White taied deer Voe Shrew 2 <1 7 2 Gray fox 2 <1 Bobcat Woodcock 2 <1 Passerine nsects 4 <1 Persimmon Corn Pokeberry 2 1 Eastern red cedar Grass Dirt Chapter 1: Overwinter surviva cr wid turkeys on centra virginia's industria forests 34

46 Popuation estimation Minimum fa and winter estimates ofthe turkey popuation on the 3238 ha Gunstock tract were 1.65 and 0.49/km2 respectivey. Discussion Trapping and handing Wid turkeys rarey are trapped in the fa (Sweeny 1980, Kennamer and Kennamer 1985) because natura foods are abundant then and juvenie turkeys often are not arge enough to be captured safey by apha-choraose or to carry radio transmitters. n this study fa trapping was necessary to meet project objectives. n addition, ora anesthetics were used to capture turkeys because most of the study site was not suitabe for trapping with projectie nets. Because of weight differences between aduts ( = 5.3 kg) and juvenies (i= 2.8 kg) and the inabiity to contro the amount of drugged bait eaten, birds took varying engths of time to become narcotized. The 12% overdose rate, 77% of which was juvenies, was simiar to the 9% mortaity for winter trapped turkeys reported by Wiiams et a. (1966). (See chapter 2 for treatment of drug overdose.) Trapping success (percent oftrap attempts successfu) varied between treatment and contro areas and between fa and winter trapping periods. Trapping success on treatment areas was 56% in eary fa (Sep.- Oct.) but ony 20% in ate fa when hard mast was most abundant. Trapping success in winter was ony 13%, and ikey was infuenced by a heavy mast crop in 86/87 (VDGF unpub. data), poor weather conditions (snow and rain) in 86/87 and Chapter 1: Overwinter surviva of wid turkeys on centra Virginia s industria forests 35

47 87/88, and a ow density ofturkeys throughout the study. Trapping success on the contro areas was ow in fa and winter (13 and 0% respectivey). Neither contro area was as arge as the Gunstock tract or as isoated as any treatment area, hence, the proximity of residentia areas to contro areas and the associated disturbance from humans and dogs may have kept turkeys from tinding and/or returning to bait sites. Dogs came through bait sites during 6 of 28 trapping attempts on contro areas and ony 2 of 40 on treatment areas. n this study trapping was conducted without regard to sex or age and the sex and age ratos of turkeys captured were 52% femaes and 72% juvenies. Sex and age ratios of fa harvested turkeys in Virginia averape 51% femaes and 61% juvenies (VDGF 1986b), simiar to statistics from other harvest studies (vosby 1967). However, harvest statistics may underestimate the proportion ofjuvenies in the popuation because of seective hunting for adut maes. n this study, trapping took pace prior to fa hunting season when juvenies were reativey abundant, possiby contributing to the higher percentage of juvenies. The eg dysfunction phenomenon observed in this study was simiar to that described by Spraker et a. (1987) and diagnosed as capture myopathy. The phenomenon had varying degrees of severity and occurred in both sexes but ony in juvenies. Spraker et a. (1987) reported musce esions in turkeys trapped in cover traps, cover traps with apha-choraose, and drop nets. Wiiams et a. (1966) reported eg paraysis in turkeys hed in burap sacks with their egs tied and advocated the use of hoding boxes. n this study turkeys captured with apha-choraose may have deveoped capture myopathy from sitting on their egs in hoding boxes for extended periods of unconsciousness (T. R. Spraker, Coorado State University [CSU], pers. commun.). Turkeys with severe cases coud not or woud not support their body weight, even though they had some strength in the upper portion of the eg. Their toes cured back simiar to a severey arthritic human hand, and there appeared to be imited grasping abiity. This may have been due to musces being damaged whie contracted (T. R. Spraker, CSU, pers. commun). n mid cases one egappeared much worse than the other and the bird coud move around. n one case a turkey that appeared norma standing in the hoding box had to be retrieved immediatey after reease when a probem with its egs was Chapter 1: Overwinter surviva of wid turkeys on centra Virginia s industria forests 36

48 observed. H. T. Hobrook (Ga. Dept. Nat. Res., pers. commun.) earier observed the same phenomenon in adut mae turkeys captured with apha-choraose and hed in boxes. Four of 9 turkeys with eg dysfunction were examined by the Coege of Veterinary Medicine at Virginia Tech. One was sacrificed immediatey to examine fresh tissues. The remaining 3 were hed for observation in an outdoor covered pen with food and water avaiabe ad ibitum. Athough capabe of moving to the food, they did not and were force fed commercia turkey food through a feeding tube. A 3 eventuay died, 2 within 10 days and 1 after 4 weeks. Gross examination reveaed hemorrhages of varying degrees in the upper eg which is characteristic of capture myopathy and is possiby a resut ofturkeys forcing the use of damaged musces (T. R. Spraker, CSU, pers. commun.). Radio equipped turkeys exhibited various behaviors at reease. At 1 extreme, turkeys (approx. 20%) ran into cover not attempting to fy. At the other extreme, turkeys (approx. 40%) took off into ong sustained fight (> 100 m) with no apparent probems. The remaining turkeys a attempted fight but stayed aoft ony for short distances (1-20 m). The atter appeared to have troube fying due to the transmitter package, athough it was not cear whether the probem stemmed from the harness around the wings, the added weight of the package, a behaviora response to the package, or something ese. n any case, it appeared that something associated with the transmitter, attachment, or some part of the trapping and handing process affected the fying abiity of some turkeys (see chapter 3). Overa surviva and mortaity factors Efforts to trap turkeys on contro areas met with itte success and ony 13 turkeys were radio-equipped on these areas. Surviva of the 13 turkeys was ess than (P < 0.01) surviva of the 52 radio-equipped birds on treatment areas, but surviva was ow throughout the study regardess of area. Low surviva on contro areas may have in part resuted from the timing of reease. Nenno and Heay (1979) reported that radio-equipped turkeys need time to become Chapter 1: Overvvinter surviva of wid turkeys on centra Virginia's industria forests 37