Author:
Bakner Nicholas W.,Ulrey Erin E.,Collier Bret A.,Chamberlain Michael J.
Abstract
Abstract
Background
Central place foragers must acquire resources and return to a central location after foraging bouts. During the egg laying (hereafter laying) period, females are constrained to a nest location, thus they must familiarize themselves with resources available within their incubation ranges after nest site selection. Use of prospecting behaviors by individuals to obtain knowledge and identify profitable (e.g., resource rich) locations on the landscape can impact demographic outcomes. As such, prospecting has been used to evaluate nest site quality both before and during the reproductive period for a variety of species.
Methods
Using GPS data collected from female eastern wild turkeys (Meleagris gallopavo silvestris) across the southeastern United States, we evaluated if prospecting behaviors were occurring during laying and what landcover factors influenced prospecting. Specifically, we quantified areas prospected during the laying period using a cluster analysis and the return frequency (e.g., recess movements) to clustered laying patches (150-m diameter buffer around a clustered laying period location) during the incubation period.
Results
The average proportion of recess movements to prospected locations was 56.9%. Nest fate was positively influenced (μ of posterior distribution with 95% credible 0.19, 0.06–0.37, probability of direction = 99.8%) by the number of patches (90-m diameter buffer around a clustered laying period location) a female visited during incubation recesses. Females selected for areas closer to the nest site, secondary roads, hardwood forest, mixed pine-hardwood forest, water, and shrub/scrub, whereas they avoided pine forest and open-treeless areas.
Conclusions
Our findings suggest that having a diverse suite of clustered laying patches to support incubation recesses is impactful to nest fate. As such, local conditions within prospected locations during incubation may be key to successful reproductive output by wild turkeys. We suggest that prospecting could be important to other phenological periods. Furthermore, future research should evaluate how prospecting for brood-rearing locations may occur before or during the incubation period.
Funder
National Institute of Food and Agriculture
Louisiana Department of Wildlife and Fisheries
South Carolina Department of Natural Resources
Agricultural Center, Louisiana State University
Georgia Department Of Natural Resources
Warnell School of Forestry and Natural Resources, University of Georgia
Publisher
Springer Science and Business Media LLC
Subject
Ecology, Evolution, Behavior and Systematics
Reference91 articles.
1. Backs SE, Bledsoe LW. Invertebrate abundance and vegetative structure in forest openings. Natl Wild Turkey Sympos. 2011;10:51–63.
2. Bakner NW, Cohen BS, Collier BA, Chamberlain MJ. Recursive movements of eastern wild turkey broods in the southeastern United States. Wildl Soc Bull. 2022;46:e1274.
3. Bakner NW, Schofield LR, Cedotal C, Chamberlain MJ, Collier BA. Incubation recess behaviors influence nest survival of wild turkeys. Ecol Evol. 2019;9:14053–65.
4. Bates, D., M. Maechler, B. Bolker, and S. Walker. 2014. lme4: Linear mixed-effects models using eigen and S4. R package version 1.1–7. Available from: http://CRAN.R-project.org/package=lme4.
5. Beehler BM, Foster MS. Hotshots, hotspots, and female preference in the organization of lek mating systems. Am Nat. 1988;131:203–19.