RIO GRANDE TURKEY DIETS IN BRUSHLANDS OF NORTH-CENTRAL TEXAS ALAN KENT MONTEI, B.S. A THESIS IN RANGE SCIENGE

RIO GRANDE TURKEY DIETS IN BRUSLANDS OF NORT-CENTRAL TEXAS ALAN KENT MONTEI, B.S. A TESIS IN RANGE SCIENGE Submitted t the Graduate Faculty f Texas Tech University in Partial Fulfillment f the Requirerents fr the Degree f MASTER OF SCIENCE May. 1973

\973 f9 ^ ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS My gratitude t Dr. Dee Quintn and Dr, Jerran Flinders fr their expenditure f time and guidance, I express my appreciatin fr helpful cmments by Dr, Eric Blen, Dr. Bill Dahl, and Dr, Rbert Packard, I am indebted t Mr. Rn rejsi fr his assistance in the field wrk. Mrs. Gretchen Sctt, lab technician, identified the material in the turkey drppings. Mrs, Virginia Riggs identified the field cllected insects. Dr. Chester Rwell prvided invaluable assistance in plant identificatin. Sincere appreciatin ges t the Crked River Ranch (Mr. Rb Brwn) and the endrick Ranch (Frt Wrth Natinal Bank and endrick estate).fr prviding the research area. 11

TABLE OF CONTENTS Page LIST OF TABLES v LIST OF FIGURES vl "I. INTRODUCTION 1 II. REVIEW OF PREVIOUS RESEARC 2 III. STUDY AREA 7 IV. METODS 12 V. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION l6 Crp Cnt^nts. l6 Old vs Fresh Drppings 20 Turkey Diets frm Fecal Analysis 21 Different Seasns 21 Cmparisns f en and Tm Diets 22 Vegetatin f the Different abitats. 26 Berry axiá Mast Prductin 28 Insect Ppulatins 30 Dlet-Distributin Cmparisns 30 Turkey Ppulatins.. 38 Numbers 38 Mvements 39 Brds ko Rsts... ^l ill

X TABLB OF CONTENTS Page VI. SUMMJIRY AND CONCLUSION 43 LITERATURE CITED 48 APPENDIX 51 iv

Table LIST OF TABLES Page 1. Crp cntents f Ri Grande turkey taken dur- Ing 1971 fall and 1972 spring and fall hunts In nrth-central Texas 17 2, Cmparisn f macr- uid micrscpic analysis f crp material frm Ri Grande turkey 18 3^ Cmparisn f macr- and micrscpic analysis f crp and fecal material frm Ri Grande turkey 18 fy, Imprtant species in nrth-central Texas turkey diets during different times f the year 23 4. Imprtant species in nrth-central Texas turkey diets frm untreated and treated brush cntrl areas 24 6, Nrth-central Texas turkey diets frm July 19, 1972 thrugh Nvember 10, 1972 25 7. Cver ând frequency f vegetatin n the six brush cntrl sites in nrth-central Texas... 27 8^ Distributin (relative frequency) f imprtant txirkey fds n tw brush cntrl sites in nrth-central Texas 37 9, Average turkey flck sizes during different tlmes f the year in nrth-central Texas 38

LIST OF FIGURES Flgure Page l^ Lcatln f study area in Texas 8 2. Nrth-central Texas turkey diets and plant availability n the untreated area 31 J. Nrth-central Texas turkey diets and plant availability n the treated area. 32 4^ St Twrastabundant plant species f grass, frb, and brush in nrth-central Texas turkey diets n the untreated area cmpared t their dlstributin 34 Tw mst abundant plant species f grass, frb, and brush in nrth-central Texas turkey dlets n the treated area cmpared t their dlstrlbutin.. 35 VI

^ CAPTER I INTRODUCTION The Ri Grande turkey (Meleagris gallpav intermedia Sennett) is fund in mst parts f Texas and is the principal transplanting stck fr ther states, mainly Oklahma and Kansas, in the grassland area. Turkey ppulatins at ne time were declining, but recent management practices and renewed interest in this large gallinaceus bird have allwed ppulatin levels in many areas t increase. In Texas, turkey are secrid nly t white-tailed deer in retuming the landwner an incme frm wildlife. The imprtance f this game bird in Texas is substantial, and ther states are capitalizing n its ptential by increasing their turkey ppulatins t huntable size. In Texas, brush cntrl is practiced t a large degree. The effects f these brush cntrl measures n turkey ranges is nt clearly dcumented. If the turkey is t hld and increase its status as a game bird mre quantitative data is needed n its daily and seasnal requirements^ The purpse f this study was t prvide data n the fd habits f the Ri Grande turkey in nrth-central Texas in assciatin with brush cntrl practices^

CAPTER II REVIEW OF PREVIOUS RESEARC The fd habits f the Ri Grande turkey are nt well dcumented and the imprtance f fd items can nt be evaluated until mre data are btained (Krschgen I967). Present diet infrmatin n this subspecies f turkey is frm studies cnducted n the King Ranch in suth Texas (Beck and Beck 1955)1 the Edwards Plateau in west-central Texas (Littn 1972), and frm field ntes f Texas Parks and Wildlife persnnel. Fd habits frm ther areas f this subspecies' range are nt available (Krschgen 1967). The inadequacy f published data n fd habits is apparent when field bservatins shw pecans t be an imprtant mast fd in turkey diets while leading summaries f fd habits (Krschgen 1967» and Martin, Zim, and Nelsn 1951) d nt list pecans as a principal fd item^ There are n quantitative diet data available frm pecan prducing areas f Texas. Mst bird fd habit studies used crp and gizzard cntents r fecal analysis fr diet determinatins. The use f crp cntents is the mst cmmn, Martin (I963) stated that material in crps was easier t identify smd

s,ri",-a mre preferrable than that in gizzards and drppings. wever, t btain crps and gizzards the animals must be sacriflced, thus fr wild turkey these can usually nly be btalned during the hunting seasn^ If drppings are used they can be cllected amd sampled at all times during the year withut having t reduce the ppulatin. Fecal analysis has been used t determine dietary habits f several gallinaceus birds. Dalke (1935) used the technique t study fd habits f ring-necked pheasant (Phasianus clchius), and several thers used it with bbwhite quail (Clinus virginianus) (Wilsn and Vaughn 193^ and Jensen and Krschgen 1947). Swansn (1940) used the same methd with sharptailed gruse (Pediedetes phasianellus) and reprted a gd applicatin t gallinaceus birds. Kzicky (1942); Glver and Bailey (1949)l and Dalke, Clark, and Krschgen (1942) all used fecal amalysis inwild turkey studies, Dalke et al. (1942) stated that percent frequency f cciirrence f items in the diet reveals trends f fd cmsumptin but that relative amunts f fleshy fruits are nt adequately represented by fecal analysis. Swansn (1940) pinted ut that drppings are nt representative f the relative vlumes f fd cnstituents in the diet since harder fd items are given mre weight. Glver and Bailey (1949) added that the mre palatable and easily assimilated items ften ccurred in small amunts in the drppings

4 causing an under-rating f their value. Schrger (196O) used pecans t shw the affectiveness f the turkey gizzard in masticating fd items. Turkey were able t cmpletely crush these within 1 hur. Althugh Jensen and Krschgen (1947) reprted that fecal analysis gave results cmparable t stmach analysis data, the abve disadvantages must be cnsidered when cnducting fecal analysis. The advantages f saving the animal and the availability f large samples cllected in all seasns makes the fecal analysis technique a valuable tl fr applicatin with gallinaceus birds. Turkey drppings have anther advantage in that it is pssible t separate them as t sex and age. The gbbler's drppings are lng with a curlicue n the end where the hen's drppings are lped, spiral, r bulbus. The diameter f drppings can be used t distinguish between adult (10 t 15 mm) r juvenile (< 10 mm) male birds (Bailey 1956). The micrscpic technique was used t identify fd items in fecal drppings. Baumgartner and Martin (1939) intrduced the methd t identify plants in squirrel diets thrugh the distinctive structural characteristics f epidermal cells. Dusi (1949) gave details and statistical analysis f the methd and shwed that "hmgeneity existed in a fecal pellet s that nly a small prtin need be

sampled**. ansen and Flinders (I969) utlined the exact prcedures fr use f the technique. 5 Cmpetitin between wildlife and dmestic livestck may be a factr limiting turkey ppulatin levels. Freeranging hgs can reduce mast supplies (Newman 1945) making this fd unavailable t turkeys during the winter mnths. Feral hgs alng the Clear Frk f the Brazs River in Texas cmpeted with turkeys fr pecans (Jacksn 1945). Walker (1951) stated that cattle cmpetitin is nt serius anc^ may be beneficial t turkey habitat. Krschgen (I967) reprted that ther species f wildlife, especially deer and rdents, als rely*upn the primary turkey fds in sme areas. Glazener (I967), hwever, stated "there are n reprts available that specifically evaluate pssible cmpetitin between wild turkeys and ther wildlife species in Texas". Brush cntrl treatments can greatly affect turkey ppulatins. Glazener (1958) reprted that clearing slidblcks can reduce r eliminate turkey ppulatins by remving cver and rsting habitat, while Lehmann (1960) stated that brush cntrl treatments can actually increase the ppulatins if prperly applied. Large acreages f brush are cntrlled annually in Texas. Mesquite (Prspis spp.) ccurs n mre than 5^ millin acres in Texas where majr cntrl measures are needed n ver 54 millin acres fr imprved frage prductin (Smith and Rechenthin 1964).

Thmas, Bx, and Schuster (I968) pinted ut that thusands f acres have repeated brush cntrl treatments several times and that brush is still increasing. Brush cntrl practices will cntinue t be a majr management tl fr brush prblems n Texas ranches.

CAPTER III STUDY AREA This study was cnducted in the vicinity f the Clear Frk f the Brazs River in askell, Thrckmrtn, and Shackelfrd cunties in nrth-central Texas. The study area was the Crked River Ranch perated by Mr. Rb Brwn and the endrick Ranch perated by the endrick estate (Figure 1). The 28,031 acre River Ranch is situated where the abve three cunties jin. The principle research area n the River Ranch cnsisted f the suthem pastures having river flw. These pastures ttal 4,931 acres with abut 5 miles f shreline. The tpgraphy f the ranch varies frm level ridgetp n the west, t rugged slpes and riverbttm n the nrtheast, east, and suth. The river winds thrugh the Thrckmrtn and Shackeldrd cunty areas frm suth t nrtheast. Tpgraphic maps shw ranch elevatins varying as much as 500 ft. Annual precipitatin is between 20 and 30 inches (51 t 76 cm) (Krschgen I967) with 27 inches (69 cm) being average.

8 A B C i askell Cunty Thrckmrtn Cunty Shackelfrd Cunty Study Area FIGURE 1 - Lcatin f study area in Texas.

Mr. Brwn leases hunting rights n the land and plans t manage the ranch with equal interest in wildlife and 9 livestck prductin. The area cntained gd ppulatins f white-tailed deer (Odcileus virginianus) and Ri Grande turkey with many feral hgs (Sus scrfa) als present. Bbwhite quail, cytes (Canis latrans), bbcats (Lynx rufus), and smaller mammals were ni^unerus within the study area. Vegetatin in the study area has many kinds f grasses and frbs making up the mderstry and several shrub species cmprising the shrub layer. Pecan (Carya illininensis), sapberry (Sapindus sapnaria) trees and tasajill (Opimtia leptcaulis) are plentiful alng the river where walnut trees (Juglans spp.) are als present. Mesquite (Prspis glandulsa) is present thrughut the ranch with upland sites ajid ridge-tps supprting the greatest densities. Texas winter grass (Stipa leuctricha), sideats grara (Butelua curtipendula), purple threeawn (Aristida purpurea), sand drpseed (Sprbulus cryptandrus), and tridens (Tridens muticus) are sme f the mre abundant grasses n the River Ranch. Abundant frbs n the area includes rck daisy (Melampdium leucanthum), firewheel (Gaillardia pulchella), silverleaf nightshade (Slanum elaegniflium), and Arkansas dsedaisy (Aphanstephus

10 skirrhbasis). Appendix C lists all plant species fund n the study area. The River Ranch has had very little brush cntrl management in recent years. Trees arund the headquarters buildings were individually remved during the winter f I97I-I972 t allw better bservatin f the winter calving area. The endrick Ranch, immediately t the suth f the River Rsmch, was studied t determine the effects f brush cntrl n turkey ppulatins and diets. The river flws frm suth t nrth almst equally splitting the 14,000 acres f the ranch. There is abut six miles f shreline n the endrick Ranch. The tpgraphy f the ranch is similar t that f the River Ranch. Pecan, irnwd (Bumelia lanuginsa), and sapberry cmprise the dminant verstry alng the riverbttm. Mesquite ccurs thrughut the upland sites. Texas winter grass, purple threeawn, sand drpseed, buffal grass (Buchle dactylides), and curly mesquite (ilaria belangeri) are majr grasses fund n the area. Abundant frbs includes prickly pear (Opuntia spp.), rck daisy, Luisiana sagewrt (Artemisia ludviciana), ragweed (Ambrsia spp.), and annual brmweed (Xanthcephalum dracunculides). Brush was cntrlled alng the river and n upland sites n the endrick Ranch. Large trees were saved where

11 mesquite and sme undergrwth were remved alng several areas f the riverbttm. Upland sites west f the river received extensive brush cntrl t remve all shrub species. Thse t the east were sprayed nce in the last 10 years t remve mesquite.

CAPTER IV METODS This study started in Octber 1971 and cntinued thrugh December 1972. Fecal drppings were cllected primarily frm turkey rst sites. Rst trees were recrded by species, height, and diameter-breast-height (dbh). Lcatins f all turkeys bserved in the field were mapped and recrded. After turkeys left the rst and vacated an area a search was made fr fresh drppings. After the turkeys left their rst fresh (thse still mist thrughut) and ld (thse that were dry) drppings were cllected and separated. Bth grups were analyzed separately with the results later cmbined. Fresh drppings were placed at tw lcatins n the study area fr determinatin f deteriratin rates fr the drppings. One was xmder the canpy f a mesquite tree, the ther was n bare grmd with n csmpy cver. Diets were cmpared by using Kulczynski's mathematical expressin f similarity (Osting 195^) SI = 2?-T: (100) a b 12

13 where w equals the least amunt f an item shared in bth diets and a + b equals the ttal f the item shared in bth diets. Turkey crps were cllected during hunting seasns (fall 1971, spring and fall 1972) prviding mre infrmatin n the diets and allwing cmparisns between the macrscpic (lw pwer identificatin f all crp cntents) and micrscpic methds f diet determinatin. All fd items in the crps were identified and measxured by sand displacement vluraes and ven dry weights. The micrscpic analysis technique (Baumgartner and Martin 1939) was used t identify crp cntents and fecal material. Slides were prepared fllwing the methd f ansen and Flinders (1969). Three slides were made frm each fecal sample and 10 fields were bserved (100 pwer magnificatin) n each slide. All items in each field were identified. This gave a ttal f 30 bservatins per sample. Over 250 plant species frm the study area were clleted and identified (Crrell and Jhnstn 1970) t facilitate identificatin f fd items in ttirkey diets. Reference slides f all plant parts (leaves, stems, flwers, and seeds) were made fr verificatin f the micrscpic examinatin f fecal material. Data fr abve-grund prductin f vegetatin were needed fr cmparisns with the amunts and species f

14 vegetatin ingested by turkeys. Plts and line transects were established fr six different habitat sites. An untreated riverbttm, an untreated upland site, and a 1972 dzed upland site were n the River Ranch. A 1964 dzed riverbttm, a 1964 sprayed upland, and a 1957 sprayedchained and re-sprayed in 1972 upland site were n the endrick Ranch. The established plts were sampled in the spring, s\mmer, and fall. The River Ranch was cnsidered the imtreated area and the endrick Ranch was the treated area. Tw 600 ft lines, 100 t 600 yards apart, were randmly lcated in each site with a 50 yard buffer zne frm any imtreated area. Fur intensive (15 X 8 m) sampling units were lcated 35 ^ apart alng each line. Each sampling unit was marked ff in fur 2 X 15 m belts. Cver and cver height were estimated alng the 600 ft lines. Grass, frbs, prickly pear (Opuntia macrrhiza and 0. phaeacantha), and shrubs were estimated separately. Shrub and tree frequencies were recrded frm the fur 2 X 15 m belts within each sampling unit. This made a ttal f 32 belts per treatment fr shrub frequencies, Grass and frb frequencies were recrded in 30 X 30 cm quadrats placed 3 t a line in each sampling unit. Each line was 15 m lng and separated 2 m frm adjacent lines. This established 5 lines in each sampling unit and 15

15 quadrats. This gave a ttal f 120 quadrats per treatment. Prickly pear was cmbined with frbs in the results. A slight adjustment t this design was necessary fr the tw riverbttm treatments. The first 600 ft line was placed parallel t the river alng the shreline. The secnd line was lcated 35 m frm the first and ran parallel t it. Sampling imits were chsen the same as in the ther treatments. Mast and fruit prductin, where applicable, were recrded t prvide data n their availability as turkey fds. This recrding nly indicated when fruit first appeared, when it was n lnger available, and fruit abundance. Pecan trees were sampled mre intensively by placing mast catchers (Gre and Yung 1971) under randmly selected trees.

CAPTER V RESULTS AND DISCUSSION Crp Cntents All infrmatin was btained frm the crps f tms (Table 1). Cmplete digestive tracts were btained frm six, fur, and tw tvirkey taken during the 1971 fall, 1972 spring, smd 1972 fall hunts respectively. Scientific names fr all plants listed in tables and figures are in Appendix A. Cmparing the macrscpic with the micrscpic analysis f the same crps shwed that each methd identified the same three mst imprtant plant species during the same sampling perids (Table 2). Micrscpic analysis was als perfrmed n digestive tract fecal material f specimens frm sampled crps (Table 3). Althugh Table 2 des nt allw a direct cmparisn because f the different units f measxirement, the mre imprtant species in crps were the same fr bth methds. The three mst abundant plants in the micrscpic analysis f crp material when cmpared t the three mst abundant fd items frm the fecal analysis (Table 3) gave a similarity 16

17 TABLE 1 - crp cntents f Ri Grande turkey taken during SFECIES nrth-centrai Texas. Fall. 1971 (<,^^j\ic. ^^ <) f fwt f f VOL Irnwd berries Crn (grain) Pecan (mast) Green material Tridens seeds Bristle grass seeds Insects ded windmill grass seeds Texas cupgrass seeds alls panicum grass seeds ackberry seeds Western ragweed seeds Spring. 1972 (sample f 4) Srghum (grain) Texas cupgrass seeds Plecat bush berries Tall drpseed seeds Prickly pear timas Trisetum grass seeds Bristle grass seeds alls panicum grass seeds Green sprangletp seeds Fall. 1972 (sample f 2) Prickly pear tunas Insects (grasshppers and spiders) Tridens séeds Pecan (mast) Srghum (grain) Green material Tall drpseed seeds Irnwd berries ded windmill grass seeds Bristle grass seeds Westem ragweed seeds Texas cupgrass seeds T - Trace amunts present. 55.7 22.9 16.0 2,5 1.6 :l T T T T T 96.4 1.5 1.1.4.3.2 T T T 69.7 18.8 5.9 2.4 2.3 1.9 6 T T T T T 49.8. 18.3 17.5 6,2 ^.3 1.3 1.7 T T T T T 86.3 4.5 4.5 1.4 2.2.3 T T T 61.5 24.3 î:l 1.3 2.0.9 T T T T T

TABLE 2 - Cmparisn f macr- and micrscpic analysis f crp material frm Ri Grande turkey. SPEC ES MACRO- MICRO- «-.n,^r,, ^ f Vl f> f Rel Freq Fall, 1971 ^ ^ Irnwd berries Cm (grain) Pecan (mast) Sprins. 1972 Srghum (grain) Plecat bush berries Texas cupgrass seeds Fall, 1972 Prickly pear txmas Insects Tridens seeds 49.8 18.3 17.5 86.3 4.5 4.5 61.5 24.3 8.3 ' 37.1 10.0 25.7 41.7 20.8 16.7 31.3 25.0 18.8 18 TABLE 3 - Cmparisn f macr- and micrscpic analysis f crp and fecal material frm Ri Grande turkey. SPECIES CROP FECAL Fall, 1971 f f Rel Freq % f Rel Freq Irnwd berries 37.1 39.2 Pecan (mast) 25.7 14.6 Cm (grain) 10.0 0.0 Tridens seeds 0.0 27.7 Spring. 1972 Srghum (grain) 41.7 18.4 Plecat bush berries 20.8 9.2 Texas cupgrass seeds l6.7 l6.1 Insects 0.0 48.3 Fall. 1972 Prickly pear tunas 31*3 ^8.8 Insects 25.0 22.0 Tridens seeds 18.8 19.5

19 index f 68 ^. Table 3 shws that fecal analysis revealed tw fd items nt fund in the crps and ne item was nt included that appeared in the crps. Althugh the similarity index was nt high, indicatins are that the fecal analysis f drppings did accunt fr the mre imprtant fd items in the turkey's diet. Green material was nt well represented by the micrscpic analysis. Green material was identified during fecal analysis but may nt have been weighted t the prper level. Crn accunted fr the majrity f fd items in turkey crps during the fall 1971 seasn but did nt appear in the micrscpic analysis f the fecal material. This can prbably be explained by sprtsmen placing crn in the area nly tw days befre the turkey were cllected. Turkey may have just started feeding n the crn. Differences shuld be expected between fecal and crp analyses since fd may take between 2 1/2 hurs and 4 1/4 hurs t pass thrugh the turkey's alimentary canal (illerman, Kratzer, and Wilsn 1953). They als reprt that fd may stay in the crp frm 2 minutes t ver 12 hurs. Anther reasn fr expecting differences between the tw techniques is that turkeys' feeding mvements are nmadic. Turkeys may stay in ne area fr a lng perid then mve 1/2 mile r mre befre intensive feeding will resume.

During this mve, "turkeys cntinuusly peck at items that attract them alng the way" (Msby and andley 1943). 20 Old vs Fresh Drppings Similarity indices f ld and fresh drppings ranged frm 40.9 t 88.9 with an average f 65.5 fr 11 samples. Fresh drppings had a ttal f 131 fd items identified. Old drppings had 126 fd items identified. Althugh indices fr ld and fresh drppings shwed large variatin, the number f fd items identified fr each gruping was almst equal. On several ccassins ld drppings cntained a greater variety f fd items than did fresh drppings. This wuld indicate that the indices were nly relating variatins f daily feeding habits. The fresh fecal material, placed at tw lcatins, had brken dwn within tw weeks and wuld have been difficult t lcate if the plts had nt been marked. At this time, these samples definitely wuld nt have been cllected fr micrscpic analysis. Frm this bservatin ld drppings were prbably never mre than five days ld and mst were prbably fresher. Plant deteriratin within the ld drppings did nt appear t be a prblem. Old and fresh drppings were cmbined fr diet analysis fr these reasns.

21 Turkey Diets frm Fecal Analysis Different Seasns A ttal f 123 samples f fecal material with an average f near 25 drppings per sample was cllected during the study. Mst f the samples were cllected frm May thrugh December f 1972. Nvember thrugh December samples fr 1971 indicated that irnwd berries, pecans, tridens seeds, insects, and bristle grass (Panicum ramisetum) seeds each had relative frequencies greater than five percent in turkey diets (40, 18, 13, 12, and 8 respectively). Mst f the drppings were gruped int either spring, summer, r fall diets. Thse cllected during the perid April 22 t July 12 were cnsidered the spring diet. Samples cllected during July 13 t Octber 8 cnstituted the summer diet, thse cllected during Octber 9 t December 31 established the fall diet. Spring diets came exclusively frm fecal material cllected frm the untreated area. Summer and fall diets were btained frm equal prtins f drppings cllected frm bth treated and untreated areas. Spring diets were cmprised f 37 f> (relative frequency) grasses, 4 f frbs, 13 f> brush, and 47 f insects. Summer diets cntained I6 f grasses, 30 f frbs, 23 % brush, and 31 f insects. Diets in the fall were cmpsed

22 f 23 f grasses, 28 % frbs, 36 f brush, and I3 f insects. Table 4 separates the basic categries int species and shws their imprtance fr each seasn. Summer turkey diets n the untreated area were cmprised f 21 f grasses, 24 f frbs, 35 % brush, and 20 f> insects. During the same perid, diets n the treated area cntained 11 f grasses, 35 % frbs, 11 % shrubs, and 43 f insects. Fall turkey diets n the untreated area included 18 f grasses, 27 % frbs, 39 % shrubs, and 17 % insects. Diets f 28 f grasses, 29 f frbs, 33 f shrubs, and 10 f insects were recrded n the treated area. These basic categries, separated int species and shwing their imprtance fr each seasn n each treatment area, are given in Table 5«A ttal f 39 different fd items was identified during micrscpic analysis f turkey fecal material. Appendix B lists all fd items identified. Cmparisns f en and Tm Diets Frm July 19, 1972 thrugh Nvember 10, 1972, diets f hens and tms were cmpared. Samples frm bth treated and untreated areas were included fr the cmparisns. Examinatins were made n eight samples f hen and seven samples f tm fecal material (Table 6).

23 p c h 0) (^ < d t^ C S»0 09 «D -d >> U -P OQ Ctf X E?< U <D c O I U CP^ U i^í^ Î << P^ O K ^ l <D cx: u É CD w ^ cí C5 ^í Sfe Oí PL, 0) w: ^ CM 0\ I I C^ CN 00 0\0\ I ^ C^ Cy\C>-\0 >0 CVÍ r^\ CJ 09 CQ TJ d Q> O (D <D CO ra <-N ra c: r ra* ra w cd cdtí (d ^ ^ <D t I I v^ I tli O > >> ra TJ ^ ra (d ra ^ ra (d ra 'd S)» O J ra cj w +i ra +» (d» P^C ÍJ ^ O' (D ra t^o f^ > P C >^'0 ra ^ (d ^ w ra «5 W'd e*'d (d X Uf^ cd ís C X U d) O u î^ Cí< Clj PQE-'COE^OC/JCOE-í'p * CN I f I I I ^ CM 0\\0 C^VO \0 I C^CM CVÍ vn\ CVi 03 O > a Q) (d ra ^ u íd w "d C ;5 w tiû w > ^4 C >j(d (d t^ O «P ft(d ^ >> ta ^^ e (d ^ > -d 'rat-ir-i ^^ O í^m^f^ I I I I I m >> u I c w w 'd (d WaJ Oi w > c 'd 03: w CVÍ VO C^ I I \ cvz cys\\c ^O C^CJN c^c^ I I I I I v\vrv w (^ W ^4,Û {^ w ^ íí Ti O cd > C O ^ O M PL. W d ra d C (d w > (d w (d w cd e ^. J r-» D<(d W W cd (d (d E :3 W «cd (d e I :3 C+» (d» 00 00 I w d w >> :3 cd 00 c^ r^ v O w C V\ u (d >> 13 U < > cd O u (d 'd (d jc: XI O w O ra w x:

24 d (d u < ra d >> M u :3 w d E g M W P cd u i cd +» (^ ^^ f: O raæ w ;3 u. P. w 'd C (d cd u u-^ p^'d B C M (d I pq E-«Cí^ U t^f^ i^ ;?Í fu «w P C/3 ^ d^ cc: u WP^ 5 c/a ^ cf^ u Zfu M PÍ (^ c/3 a ^ E a: E E Oí E-i g E Ûí E E Dí E s C3 E OC íri m E D:: E s r> ra r cd U C5 f^ I I C^ I I I CVÍ c^ I I I I -=h I I '^ I I \0 C\i I I I ^ C^CVJ Csi I W W d d ra ra '-^ ra c ra m^ m ra (d (d 'd ci U U <D ^ W)tíD t) )P>-' r >> ra 'd U (d ^ w r 'd m (d ra ra (d I Pí ^^ ra W) (^?> C ^^'d ra^ 'd ra (d tio'd X ^^ < cd PP E C/3 E O C/2 t/2 ^ O CJv I I I I I C?s C^ I I I I I C?\ \0 V^ I I I CM O I I I I CM C^CVJ I I I I I W (d -d (d x: w w 'd t^ w (d Í p4(d >s ^ ^i >> u e 'O > *ri C/3 3: O (d w >> I O w d m 'd W) (d Mcd m > cd O O P^CD 15 w :3 u I i I I O I I O C^ C^ I I I XO I t ^- C^ ^ I CVÍ^ I I I C^ CTvxncvi C^ c^ CVl vo\0 I I I I I C^ w Pl d u M w U u x: m :3 ^ cd O P m cd +» m cd 6 ^ íj-'-ac CT* cd cd ra m cd S E-iC^ ^ w (d e :3 m m < (d (d e ^ I :3 cd 3: O m C C Í: cd U >> C U < > (d O (d d (d x: m P< m m E

TABLE 6 - N^th-central Texas turkey diets frm July 19, ^y(^ thruf::h Nvember 10, 1972. 25 SPECIES 1/ rpqj^3 ENS Grass ^ ^^^ ^^^"^ f^ Rel Freg Bristle grass seeds 4 6 Texas cupgrass seeds - 5 Tridens seeds 8 3 Sand drpseed seeds - 2 Frb Prickly pear tunas 32 Pigen-berry berries " l Wild mercury 2 Silver-leaf nightshade l 1 Giant ragweed seeds - 1 Brush Irnwd berries h 11 Tasajill tunas 1 5 Mesquite - 5 Plecat bush berries 6 2 Walnut (mast) 2 2 Insect 37 36 1/ Thse species which had a relative frequency greater than 1 f. Surprisingly, differences between the diets f the sexes were small. One might have expected the hens t cnsiime mre insects (prtein surce), but tms had a slightly higher frequency f insects in their diet (37 f fr tms versus 36 f fr hens). diets were abut equal fr bth sexes. Grass percentages in the Tms utilized mre prickly pear tunas while hens cnsumed mre irnwd berries and tasajill tunas. sex can best explain this difference. Mvement behavir f each Tms spend mre time in the upland sites during the summer, while hens

26 and brds keep clser t the river r ther water-ways. Mre prickly pear is fund n the upland sites, and irnwd and tasaji are mre abundant clser t water. Vegetatin f the Different abitats Vegetatinal sampling was dne during the spring, summer and fall, Majr differences were apparent between the six brush cntrl sites as well as between different sampling dates n the same site. The spring and summer sampling dates shwed the greatest variatin. The fall results crrespnded clsely with thse f the summer. Cver and frequency f shrubs, grasses, and frbs are siammarized in Table 7 fr the spring and summer sampling perids. The dminant species f shrub fr the different habitat types were as fllwsj abitat Type Species Freq % Untreated riverbttm Tasajill 75 Untreated upland Mesquite 4l Dzed riverbttm Irnwd 28 Sprayed upland Mesquite & ackberry 38 Spray-chain-spray upland Mesquite 3^ Dzed upland Mesquite 28

27 w ra u x: w (X4 ^ r e cpd X. U w (d í^ C^C^CVJ C^C^Ov O O V^CVJ c^ c^\ CVÍ O CTVCVI CJNOO V^ ^ ^ vr\c)- \0 ^ \0 CVJ ^ C^^ ^ CVJ CVJ <\l c C^ C^C^C^ CVJ C^r^cvi vc^ J:^ v\v\r^ C^ vo\o00\oc0vo u w C C -P cd > «>> r (d C X O r ^ cd tí 3 I ux: > I E O pc: s: C/2 Pí O w E^ C/î X CVÍ U O w ra (d $^.Û J ^ X C/3 cd P < 00 A -p u m I >4 cd 2 CJvC^-^vO^ U^COOOCO VAC^ \ CVJVO c^c^ V\C^\0 CNJ Ov CVI OJ CVJ CVÍ CJ\O C7vC0\O 00 r^va c^^ Cw C^v Cv. Ov W^ c^va cvi vr^ CJVOO O C^O C\I C^C^ Cyvjj- CívO Ov\0 00 C?v O O v>k C0^.:t CVI VOO c^ c^ CVJ CV2 cj c^ vnhi > P^ SJ ^ > -p U C u u t3 C t3q P. íj :3c/D :3 t U^ N P«I C/3C0Q I C/3 I :3 V\\0^ VVA CVI OJ:J- C^C-NC^ v Cív vnc^ CVJ OvC^C^ \0 VAC-CVJ C^ t-i r-i VTv^ C^O C^CVJ CVlvO CvJVO C^O C:\ C^v CO OvvO 00 CVJ C^CO CVJ c^ c^^ c^^ c^ C^CVJ ONCVI O CTVO O \ vc c*- V^ \ D-vcvj r«- O C^\0 C^O r^f-ir^ > P<^?J u +* u u B^ P. P 3C0 J I -P «í^ O N C C P^ t p t3q C/3 C/îQ d C (d > P^ d cd u C d +^ (d C t3 -:t \ C?v \ I O > 'd O Q CVJ c^ C3\ 8 e^ vr\ Ov I d g d >> (d P. \ \ racvj C^ \ d U 1 d C.. C (d''d (d C PJS cd :3 t P< 'd'd :3 I >>>>'d cd cd (^ (-4 CS) P P C/2 ÍO Q

28 Berry and Mast Prductin Berries and mast f shrub species were recrded as t abundance and time f year that they were present. In the fall f 1971 when the study began, irnwd berries and pecan mast had already frmed and were very abundant. By December 12, 1971, irnwd berries were extremely hard t lcate. Pecan mast fell t the grxmd thrugh February 1972, but the supply became very limited. Irnwd berries during early fall were utilized mre thsm ther plants by the turkey. Prductin f these berries was high, and the turkeys shwed a preference fr this fd item. These berries were als bserved in scats f raccns (Prcyn ltr), cytes, and feral hgs indicating the imprtance f irnwd in wildlife fd habits during this perid. Pecans were als heavily used by the turkeys during this perid. By mid-december 1971 when irnwd berries were nt available, field bservatins indicated that pecans and grain srghiim (scattered by the sprtsmen) became the stable fd surces thrugh the winter. Dxiring 1972 irnwd plants frmed fruit in late June, and these did nt start t ripen until September, Irnwd berry prductin was very pr in 1972. Few plants prduced berries and by Octber n berries culd be fund. With this reductin in irnwd berries, pecan

mast became the dminant fd item in turkey diets fr this perid. But the 1972 pecan mast crp als failed. Pecan catchers placed under trees failed t estimate a mast prductin. Tward the end f the perid, with pecan supply becming limiting, mast became less imprtant in the diets. 29 Other shrub species utilized by the turkeys had fruit prductin as utlined in the fllwing: 1) Elbwbush (Frestiera pubescens) - berries first appeared during the first f May and lasted xmtil the end f July. Prductin f berries was heavy. 2) Sumac, plecat bush and little-leaf (Rhus armatica and R. micrphylla) - berries appeared during April and lasted until the latter part f July. Berry prductin was medium t heavy. 3) Tasajill - t\ma prductin in 1971 was gd with tunas available thrugh the winter. In 1972 tunas frmed in August and were still present in December. Prductin was medium. ^) Prickly pear - tuna prductin in 1971 was gd with tunas available thrugh December. In 1972 tunas began turning purple by mid-july and were still present in limited amunts by December. Prductin was heavy.

30 Insect Ppulatins Each habitat site was sampled (200 ft transect sweep with an insect net) t give an indicatin f insect ppulatins. The sprayed-chained-sprayed upland cntained the greatest number f insects with a ttal f 89. The untreated riverbttm, untreated upland, dzed riverbttm, dzed upland, and sprayed upland cntained 56, 55, 38, 27, and 22 insects respectively. Orthptera, emiptera, mptera, and Araneae accunted fr mst f the species cllected, Insect numbers remained high until the freezes in December. Diet-Distributin Cmparisns Relative frequencies f plants in the different habitats were multiplied by their cver percentages t give mre indrmatin abut plant availability and distributin than either cver r frequency data culd prvide alne. Fig\ires 2 and 3 shw the diets and availability f grasses, frbs, and brush fr the treated and untreated areas. Insects were the main fd surce in spring diets f turkeys (Fig\ire 2). Early frming grass seeds (bristle grass and Texas cupgrass, Erichla sericea) and plecat bush berries were als imprtant during this time. Distributins f bristle grass and Texas cupgrass were limited, thus indicating the turkeys preference fr these

31 4* r.c mjm cå U :i m ^ ^ C u 11 li n O Í^PQ l\\\^ M c >> (d \ \ \ ^- cd n d C >> O C > +» (d PC N ES r P< «>> c :3 «u X > Íl E ^ ^ V \ l\ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ O Pí c fx d C (d w >> +» r (d E-«(d cd (d Cd I (d j:: +^ u ^4 r \ j^maaci C cvi t3 C5

32 E3 \ ip jiumíipiufiiwi.mi irite-iliitféiliíifréiiilii ra +^ d C >> O C :s a* U «> mm4 *r\ cd «ra Pí «>> C :3 C3* u < X f > C >> (d (d > (d p C (d p< d c cd w >> u :3 w (d E c3 cd ^ U C cd -d I x: u cd U 2 c^ O M imaad

grass seeds at this time. grasses r brush in spring diets. Frbs were utilized less than 33 Insects remained the majr fd item thrughut the summer and early fall, althugh the amunt cnsumed was less than during the spring. Frbs became the leading fd item in the summer diets while grasses were utilized least. Ripening prickly pear tunas accunted fr frbs rating the highest in the summer diets. Brush species became mre imprtant late in the summer diets. This crrespnded t the develpment f the irnwd berries. Turkeys tumed mre t mast species fr their fall diets. Pecan mast was imprtant at this time even thugh mast prductin was pr. This indicated the imprtance f pecans in the turkeys* diet. Prickly pear tunas were still heavily utilized. Wild nin (Allium drummndii) was well distributed in the habitat at this time and turkeys tk advantage f this green vegetatin. Althugh grass availability cmpared with grass usage by tiirkeys was lw, tridens seeds were being heavily utilized. Insect use drpped belw all ther categries fr the first time during the year in turkey fall diets. The tw mst abundant plant species in each categry f grass, frb, and brush in the turkeys* diet fr bth the treated and untreated areas were cmpared with their relative frequency fr the respective habitats (Figures k & 5). Althugh frequency is a pr measurement

15 1 34 SPRING SUMMER Ea = Relative freq. in diets = Relative freq. in habitat FALL Trmu Para Aldr Opsp Cail Bula GRASS FORB BRUS FIGURE 4 - Tw mst aduna^inu abundant plant species f grass, frb, and brush in nrth-central Texas turkey diets n the untreated area cmpared t their distributin.

35 SUMMER Relative freq. in diets Relative freq. in habitat FALL Trmu Para GRASS Opsp Aldr FORB Cail Unsp BRUS FIGURE 5 - Tw mst abundant plant species f grass, frb, and brush in nrth-centrai Texas turkey diets n the treated area cmpared t their distributin.

36 fr shwing abundance r density, frequency des indicate the distributin f a plant in its habitat. Since turkeys* feeding habits are nmadic as previusly explained (pp. 19 & 20), frequency (distributin) des appear t be a useful measurement in turkey studies. Differences in turkey diets between the untreated and treated areas were nt as great as ne might expect. During the summer sampling perid, turkey diets frm bth areas had a similarity index f 60 ^. Frbs were used mre and shrubs were f less imprtance n the treated area than n the untreated area. With less brush species available n the treated area, turkeys raade mre use f prickly pear tunas. Fewer differences were visible in the diets frm the tw areas during the fall perids when a 73 ^ similarity index ccurred. At this time, brush species were utilized t a greater extent n bth areas. Grasses were mre imprtant in turkey diets n the treated area than n the untreated area. Althugh amimts f grasses, frbs, and brush in turkey diets varied between the tw areas, the tw mst abundant plant species in each categry frm each area were the same 83 f f the time (Figures 4 «& 5). Similar plant species n bth areas prvided fd fr turkeys.

37 Tw f the six different habitat sampling sites did nt have turkey bservatins nr did they prduce any sign f turkey use. These tw sites were the dzed upland and sprayed-chained-resprayed upland. Althugh these sites lacked shrub species as a fd surce, grasses and frbs that ccurred in the turkeys' diet were present (Table 8). TABLE 8 - Distributin (relative frequency) f imprtant turkey fds n tw brush cntrl sites in nrth-central Texas. SPECIES D02ED UPLAND SPRAY--CAIN-SPRAY Grass Bristle grass Tridens Texas cupgrass Sprinfj.3 Summer l'k Fall.7 Sprin^ 1.6.7 Summer 7.0.8 Fall 1.1 Frb Silverleaf nightshade Prickly pear Wild nin 1.1 4.4 1.7 3.5 4*3 5.0 1.2 2.3.3 2.5 5.3 8.5 Indicatins are that brush cntrl practices d nt necessarily harm turkey fd surces as lng as irnwd (berry prducing species) and pecan (mast prducers) species are nt remved frm the habitat. On the tw study sites where attempts were made t remve all brush species (dzed upland and sprayed-chained-resprayed upland), several imprtant plants (Panicum spp., tridens, prickly pear, and wild nin) were present in greater

amunts than n sme ther study sites that turkeys utilized. The questin becmes ne f cver requirements needed befre turkeys will enter such an area fr fd. 38 Turkev Ppulatinng Numbers Frm Octber 23, 1971 thrugh December 31, 1972, turkeys were bserved 149 times invlving 1202 turkeys and 119 flcks (3 r mre turkeys). Average flck sizes fr different time perids are shwn in Table 9. TABLE 9 - Ayerage turkey flck sizes during different times f the year in nrth-central Texas. TIME PERIOD AVERAGE FLOCK SIZE Oct 23 t Jan 30 (1971-72) 12.5 7.0 Feb 1 t Feb 29 (1972) 21.8 6.3 Mar 1 t Mar 10 I9.3 4.6 Apr 1 t Apr 30 2.0 1,9 Jun 1 t Jun 30-2.8 Jul 1 t Jul 31 6.2 1/ 4.1 Aug 1 t Aug 31 7.3 1/ 4.1 Sep 1 t Oct 31 5.3 5'^ Nv 1 t Dec 31 22.3 9.1 1/ Includes brds. Males and females were seldm fund in the same flck. ens frmed much larger flcks than did tms. The river was the fcal pint fr the turkey until the spring breeding seasn at which time flcks dispersed.

ens mved away frm the river t nest. 39 Thse hens bserved during this time were near creeks flwing int the river. During the nesting seasn males rsted tgether in small flcks r as individuals. Dense vegetatin and flck dispersal made turkey sightings thrugh the late spring and early summer difficult. ens began retuming t the river by late July. ens and brds began frming flcks in December while tms cngregated in smaller grups. Mst turkey sightings were within 1/2 mile f the river with all but 4 sightings within 1 mile. ens (2 singles and 1 flck f 9) accunted fr three f these sightings. A single hen was bserved ver tw miles frm the river; this was the greatest distance f any sighting frm the river. After the additin f the endrick Ranch (treated area) t the study area in May 1972, a ttal f 38 different turkey sightings invlving 175 hens and 176 tms was recrded. During the sarae perid turkeys n the untreated area were bserved 54 different times giving a ttal f 59 hens and 183 tms. Mvements Turkey behavir patterns bserved n the untreated and treated areas were basically the same. After the nset f the breeding seasn, males ften rsted tgether

40 but n strng tendency t remain tgether during the day was apparent. After leaving the rst, males wuld individually water and prceed up nearby draws int the upland sites. One reasn fr this behavir culd have been t leave the humid area alng the riverbttm and mve t areas with less dense brush and mre wind mvement at grund level. During the fall and winter, hens and tms remained near the river in their daily mvements. This may have been a result f pecan mast being their majr fd item at this time. Turkeys remained alng the river taiking advantage f the better prtectin ffered by the riverbttm habitat during adverse winter weather. Brds During July and August, 53 hens and 6 brds (26 yung) were bserved. This indicated a nesting success f 11.3 f with an average f 4.3 yung/brd. Five brd sightings were n the treated area while nly ne brd was bserved n the untreated area. It was nt established whether turkey sightings and flck sizes were easier t recrd n the treated area because f less brush r if there actually was a preference fr this area by the hens. wever, this des indicate that hens can adapt t sme frms f brush cntrl that may actually enhance nesting.

Rsts 41 Density f trees ver 20 ft tall alng the river was determined fr five species f trees. abundant with 81 trees/mile f river. Pecan was the mst Sapberry fllwed with 49 trees/mile while hackberry (Celtis spp.), walnut, and elm (Ulmus americana) had densities f 24, 2, and 1 trees/mile f river, respectively. Alng the Clear Frk f the Brazs River, pecan is the favrite turkey rst tree, being utilized 93 f f the time. Sapberry, elm, and willw (Salix nigra) are als imprtant, being utilized 4 ^, 2 ^, and 2 ^ f the time respectively. Average height f rst trees is 48.1 ft with an average dbh f 2.24 ft. An average f 2,2 turkey utilized each rst tree. Sixty-three pecan, 3 sapberry, 1 elm, and 1 willw fr a ttal f 68 rst trees was bserved. Twelve rst trees extending ver water were recrded. Males seemed t prefer rsting in the upper prtins f the trees. This agreed with ffman's studies (1968) n the Merriam's turkey (M.. merriami Nelsn). Tms als appeared t prefer trees hanging ver the water. Average height f rst trees ver water was 38 ft with an average dbh f 1.53 ft, while that f the rst trees nt ver water was 55 í't with an average dbh f 2.7 ft. This indicates that tms prefer larger trees unless they extend ver water.

42 Turkeys seemed t remain in the rst lnger and retum earlier t the rst during the summer than in the fall and winter mnths. Turkeys left their rsts near sunrise during the fall and winter and ften did nt retum xmtil shrtly after sunset. During the summer males ften remained n their rsts an hur r mre after sunrise and usually retumed a little befre sunset. ffman (1968) fund that Merriam's turkeys cnsistently left their rsts befre sunrise regardless f weather cnditins. All rst trees were adjacent t water. One rst was 3/4 f a mile frm the river n Big Fish Creekj all remaining rst sites were within 30 yards f the river. Big Fish Creek cntained pls f water thrughut mst f the year and was the nly creek n the study area that supprted stands f pecan trees.

CAPTER VI SUMMARY AND CONCLUSION Brush cntrl areas (endrick Ranch) prduced 38 different turkey sightings invlving 175 hens and 176 tms. During the same perid turkeys n untreated areas (River Ranch) were bserved 54 different times giving a ttal f 59 hens and I83 tms. Five brd sightings were n brush cntrl areas while untreated areas had nly ne bserved brd. Brush cntrl need nt destry turkey habitat. Gd turkey ppulatins can be maintained n prperly managed brush cntrl areas. Fecal analysis f turkey drppings appears t give a gd indicatin t turkey diets. Crp cntents and fecal analyses during the different seasns gave similar results fr the main fd species but ften varied in fd amunts cnsumed. As lng as limitatins f the methd are realized, fecal analysis can be a useful management tl. Brush cntrl practices that d nt disturb rst trees, mast trees, r berry frming shrubs can actually increase the variety f fd items utilized by the turkey. Areas being cntrlled shuld be small s turkey 43

will enter the area t feed. This study indicates that prper brush cntrl culd be a gd management practice fr increasing turkey fd resurces. 44 Fllwing is a discussin n srae f the mre imprtant fd items in the turkeys* dietj 1) Pecan mast was the mst imprtant winter fd item when prductin was gd, Mast was available thrugh mst f the winter mnths in 1972. Brush cntrl measures shuld nt interfere with this tree species, nt nly because f its fd value but als because f their value as rst sites. 2) Irnwd berries prvided fd fr many frms f wildlife during the fall. Berries did nt last thrughut the winter but when available, they were highly preferred. This shrub shuld be prtected frm brush cntrl practices. 3) Tridens retained its seeds well int the winter mnths and was heavily utilized frm middle summer thrugh early winter. This was the mst imprtant grass species. 4) Bristle grass and Texas cupgrass were turkey favrites in the early grwing seasn but their seeds did nt last lng after fall arrived. Other panic grass seeds (Panicum spp.) were eaten by turkey. Since many f these grasses are gd fr

cattle, they culd be seeded in many areas fr the benefit f livestck and turkeys. 45 5) Sumac (plecat bush and little-leaf sumac) berries were gd fd surces during the spring and early summer. These shrubs shuld be prtected frm cntrl measures. 6) Prickly pear tunas were very valuable fr fd during the summer and fall. Althugh n ne will manage exclusively fr this species, allwing sme prickly pear t remain in the pastures wuld help turkey ppulatins. 7) Wild nin was ne f the few green frbs present during the winter mnths. At this time its green leaves became a valuable surce f prtein and vitamin A. Turkey tk advantage f this plant in the late fall and early winter. 8) Elbwbush and mesquite ccurred nly in small prprtins in the turkeys* diets but field bservatins f ther wildlife scat revealed that fruit and beans f these plants were being heavily utilized. Feral hgs and cytes in particular utilized these plants. Krschgen (19^7) pinted ut that mesquite seeds were a valuable turkey fd in the summer n the King Ranch in suth Texas. At nly ne time did mesquite seeds ccur in turkey diets in this study. Turkeys utilized

46 mesquite leaves during the summer and early fall. Mesquite beans may be a valuable emergency fd surce fr turkeys in nrth-central Texas. 9) Tasajill was anther plant that prvided a gd fd surce thrugh the winter. This plant ccurred in greatest abundance near the riverbttm. Brush cntrl n the endrick Ranch (treated area) had remved much f this shrub. Ranchers d nt like this plant, but leaving it in sme areas wuld prvide turkeys with additinal winter fd. 10) Pigen-berry (Rivina humilis) never ccurred in great amunts in turkey diets, but it was the secnd mst imprtant frb in their diet during the summer n the untreated area. Since its distributin was limited, they apparently preferred this frb t many thers. Krschgen (1967) pinted ut that pigen-berry had been listed in field ntes as a turkey fd but that n assessments had been made f their imprtance in the diet. Turkeys make use f fd items as they becme available. birds. In additin turkeys are ne f the mre hardy Gerstell (1942) fund that wild turkeys culd endure at least ne week f severe weather withut fd. "Turkeys survived at least 24 days withut fd r water with temperatures in the 34 t 50 F. range." T find

k7 a starving turkey in the wild wuld be a rare incident in Texas. Bailey and Rinell (1967) say it best when they state that "turkeys are pprtunists, eating whatever acceptable items are mst available at different seasns". This study nly gives mre weight t that statement.

LITERATURE CITED Bailey, R. W. 1956. Sex determinatin f adult wild turkeys by means f drpping cnfiguratin. J. Wildl. Mgmt. 20»220. Bailey, R. W., and K. T. Rinell. 1967. Events in the turkey year, pp. 73-92. In 0.. ewitt (ed.) The wild turkey and its manageraent. Wildl. Sc., Washingtn, D. C. 589 p. Baumgartner, L. L., and A. C. Martin. 1939. Plant histlgy as an aid in squirrel fd-habit studies. J. Wildl. Mgmt. 3»266-268. Beck, J. R., and D. 0. Beck. 1955. A methd fr nutritnal evaluatin f wildlife fds. J. Wildl. Mgmt. 19íl98-205. Crrell, D. S., and M. C. Jhnstn. 1970. Manual f the vascular plants f Texas. Texas Res. Fundatin. Renner, Texas. 1881 p. Dalke, P, D. 1935» Drpping analysis as an indicatin f pheasant fd habits. 21st Am. Game Cnf., Washingtn, D. C. p. 387-391. Dalke, P. D., W. K. Clark, and L. J. Krschgen. 1942. Fd habit trends f the wild turkey in Missuri as determined by drpping analysis. J. Wildl. Mgmt. 6:237-243. Dusi, J. L. 1949. Methds fr the determinatin f fd habits by plant micrtechniques and histlgy and their applicatin t cttntail rabbit fd habits. J. Wildl. Mgmt. 13*295-298. Gerstell, R. 1942. The place f winter feeding in practical wildlife management. Pennsylvania Game Cmm. Res. Bull. 3. 121 P. Glazener, W. C. 1958. Wildlife management as a part f range management in Texas, llth Ann. Meet. Am. Sc. Range Mgmt. 10 p. (mime). 48

Glazener, W. C. 1967. Management f the Ri Grande turkey, pp. 453-492. In 0.. ewitt (ed.) The wild turkey and its management. Wildl. Sc., Washingtn, D. C. 589 p. Glver, F. A., and R, W. Bailey. 1949. Wild turkey fds in West Virginia. J. Wildl. Mgmt, 13:255-265, Gre,. G., and E, L. Yung, 1971. Mast prductin. Texas P-R Prj. N. W-76-R14, 9 p, (raime). ansen, R. M., and J. T. Flinders. I969. Fd habits f Nrth American hares. Range Sci. Dep., Sci. Ser. N, 1, Clrad St. Univ., Ft. Cllins. 17 p. illerman, J. P., F.. Kratzer, and W. 0. Wilsn. 1953. Fd passage thrugh chickens and turkeys and sme regulatry factrs. J. Pultry Sci. 32:332-335. ffman, D. M. I968. Rsting sites and habits f Merriam's turkeys in Clrad. J. Wildl. Mgmt. 32:859-866. Jacksn, A. S. 1945. Brazs Clear Frk wildlife develpment. Texas P-R Prj. N. 15-D. 13 p. (mime). Jensen, G.., and L. J. Krschgen. 1947. Cntents f crps, gizzards, and drppings f Bbwhite Quail frce-fed knwn kinds and quantities f seeds. J. Wildl. Mgmt. 11:37-43. Krschgen, L. J. 1967. Feeding habits and fds, pp. 137-198. In 0.. ewitt (ed.) The wild turkey and its management. Wildl. Sc., Washingtn, D. C. 589 p. Kzicky, D. L. 1942. Pennsylvania wild turkey fd habits. Pennsylvania Game News 13»10-11, 28-29, 31. Lehmann, V. W. 196O. Prblems f maintaining game n range subject t brush cntrl. Prc. 5th Wrld Fr. Cng. 3îl807-l809. Littn, G. W. 1972. Turkey fd habits. Texas P-R Prj. N. W-94-R-7. I6 p. (mime). Martin, A. C,. S. Zim, and A. L. Nelsn. 1951. American wildlife and plants - a guide t wildlife fd habits. Dver Publ., New Yrk. 500 p. 49