Search

Hunting causes direct mortality and potentially disrupts normal activities of game and non‐game species. As spatial (i.e., selection of hunting areas) and temporal (i.e., only diurnally present) patterns of hunters can become predictable, hunted species may respond accordingly. Risk becomes more dynamic and complex for species that are hunted concurrent with their breeding cycle, and growing literature has noted that wild turkey (Meleagris gallopavo spp.) behaviors can be altered by hunting activity. We allocated global positioning system (GPS) units to 1,500 wild turkey hunters and affixed GPS transmitters to 175 wild turkeys during 2014–2018 on the Webb Wildlife Management Area Complex in South Carolina, USA. We evaluated whether wild turkeys shifted resource selection as a function of hunter resource selection during the progression of hunting seasons. Male wild turkeys avoided areas where stationary hunting bouts occurred during the early hunting season (and selected for these areas before hunting began), whereas females were more likely to select those areas avoided by males by the end of the hunting season. For every 15% increase in predicted probability of an area being hunted, male wild turkeys were 4.16 times less likely to select that area, whereas female wild turkeys were 1.08 times more likely to select that area relative to pre‐season periods when hunters were not on the landscape. Hunting activity induced immediate responses by male wild turkeys as they sought refuge away from hunted areas. Coupled with recent research suggesting hunters are more influential than natural predators in reducing the frequency of male vocalizations and eliciting fleeing and avoidance behavior, our results indicate hunting activity could affect distribution and courtship behaviors of male wild turkeys during their breeding season. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Estimating survival and cause‐specific mortality of male eastern wild turkeys (Meleagris gallopavo silvestris) is important for understanding population dynamics and implementing appropriate harvest management. To better understand age‐specific estimates of annual survival and harvest rates, we captured and marked male wild turkeys with leg bands (n = 311) or bands and transmitters (n = 549) in Georgia, Louisiana, North Carolina, and South Carolina, USA, during 2014–2022. We fitted time to event models to data from radio‐marked birds to estimate cause‐specific mortality and annual survival. We used band recovery models incorporating both band recovery and telemetry data to further investigate harvest rates and survival. Annual survival from known‐fate models in hunted populations was 0.54 (95% CI = 0.49–0.59) for adults and 0.86 (95% CI = 0.81–0.92) for juveniles. Cause‐specific mortality analysis produced an annual harvest estimate of 0.29 (95% CI = 0.24–0.33) for adults and 0.02 (95% CI = 0.01–0.03) for juveniles, whereas predation was 0.15 (95% CI = 0.10–0.20) and 0.12 (95% CI = 0.08–0.17), respectively. Annual survival for adult males in a non‐hunted population was 0.83 (95% CI = 0.72–0.97). Survival rate was negatively correlated with harvest rate, indicating harvest was an additive mortality source. Annual survival from band recovery models was 0.40 (95% CI = 0.37–0.44) for adults and 0.88 (95% CI = 0.81– 0.93) for juveniles, whereas annual harvest estimates were 0.24 (95% CI = 0.23–0.25) for adults and 0.04 (95% CI = 0.03–0.05) for juveniles. Both models suggested no differences in annual survival across years or among study areas, which included privately owned and public properties. Harvest was an additive mortality source for male wild turkeys, suggesting that managers interested in increasing annual survival of adult males could consider ways of reducing harvest rates. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Eastern wild turkeys (Meleagris gallopavo silvestris) use a polygynous‐promiscuous mating system, wherein males compete for mating opportunities and communicate with females via courtship behaviors. One courtship behavior is vocalization (gobbling), which attracts females and signals dominance to other males. However, temporal variation in gobbling activity may be influenced by external stimuli, environmental variation, and hunter activity. Gobbling activity is a key determinant of hunter satisfaction, and gobbling chronology is often used by state agencies to inform regulatory processes. To identify factors influencing gobbling activity, we evaluated daily gobbling chronology on 3 sites in South Carolina, USA (Webb Wildlife Management Area [WMA] Complex, Savannah River Site, Crackerneck WMA) with different levels of hunter activity. We used autonomous recording units (ARUs; n = 45) across 8,280 days to collect 53,937 hours of ambient sound recordings and identified 68,426 gobbles. Gobbling activity varied daily and site interacting with minutes since sunrise best predicted daily gobbling activity. We noted distinct differences in predicted numbers of gobbles between hunted sites and an unhunted site, suggesting that hunting may be an important determinant of gobbling activity. Across our study sites, we observed that ≥72% of gobbling activity occurred between 30 minutes before and 60 minutes after sunrise. We found no clear evidence of well‐defined unimodal or bimodal peaks in daily or weekly gobbling activity. Across sites, <44% of gobbling activity occurred during legal hunting seasons in South Carolina, with between 30% and 48% of gobbling activity occurring after legal hunting seasons. Because hunter satisfaction is primarily influenced by gobbling activity, wildlife managers in South Carolina may consider adjusting dates of turkey hunting seasons to correspond hunting with periods when most gobbling occurs. © 2018 The Wildlife Society. Our results indicated that eastern wild turkey gobbling activity was best predicted by time since sunrise while varying according to hunting regimes. Additionally, most gobbling occurred outside of the current public land hunting season framework in South Carolina. We suggest that accurate assessments of gobbling chronology, combined with reproductive phenology, harvest rates of males, and measurements of hunter satisfaction be considered by agencies when establishing season frameworks and bag limits. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Supplemental feeding of wild ungulates has long been and remains a common practice across Europe and North America. Yet by drawing animals together, supplemental feeding can have unintended, negative effects on individual species and broader ecological processes. These include increased risk of disease transmission, intraspecific and interspecific competition, and predation, which are of management concern for white‐tailed deer (Odocoileus virginianus) in the southeastern United States given the arrival of nonnative wild pigs (Sus scrofa) and coyotes (Canis latrans). We conducted a field experiment between March and July of 2021 to assess the effects of supplemental feeding on spatiotemporal activity patterns of deer and wild pigs at wildlife feeders, and space use of coyotes in the Piedmont region of South Carolina, USA. We observed support for our hypothesis that interspecific competition through increased visitation by larger groups of competitor species reduces use of foraging sites by other subordinate ungulates, where feeders highly visited by wild pigs were rarely visited by deer. While adult deer and wild pigs generally did not shift their temporal activity patterns at feeders, juvenile temporal activity shifted to more frequent visits of feeders during the night, supporting our hypothesis that supplemental feed could increase risk to predator exposure, as coyotes tend to be active during crepuscular hours. Our findings suggest that supplemental feed put out to encourage deer activity could actually deter deer if wild pigs occupy that area, and has potential negative demographic effects if juveniles are at increased risk of predation. Collectively, based on our data, we do not recommend supplemental feeding in the southeastern United States where white‐tailed deer, coyotes, and wild pigs co‐occur. More broadly, given how widespread the legal use of supplemental feed remains across the United States, we encourage landowners and policymakers to consider the full suite of potential direct and indirect, short‐term and long‐term negative impacts supplemental feeding can have on both target and nontarget wildlife populations. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]