Wendy C. Vreeland | USGS Science

USGS2016

Retention of riveted aluminum leg bands by wild turkeys

In order for mark–recapture models to provide unbiased estimates of population parameters, it is critical that uniquely identifying tags or marks are not lost. We double-banded male and female wild turkeys with aluminum rivet bands and estimated the probability that a bird would be recovered with both bands <1–225 wk since banding (mean = 51.2 wk, SD = 44.0). We found that 100% of females ( n = 37) were recovered with both bands. For males, we recovered 6 of 188 turkeys missing a rivet band for a retention probability of 0.984 (95% CI = 0.96–0.99). If male turkeys are double-banded with rivet bands the probability of recovering a turkey without any marks is <0.001. We failed to detect a change in band retention over time or differences between adults and juveniles. Given the low cost and high retention rates of rivet aluminum bands, we believe they are an effective marking technique for wild turkeys and, for most studies, will minimize any concern about the assumption that marks are not lost.

Journal of Fish and Wildlife Management↗

USGS2011

Variation in spring harvest rates of male wild turkeys in New York, Ohio, and Pennsylvania

Spring harvest rates of male wild turkeys ( Meleagris gallapavo ) influence the number and proportion of adult males in the population and turkey population models have treated harvest as additive to other sources of mortality. Therefore, hunting regulations and their effect on spring harvest rates have direct implications for hunter satisfaction. We used tag recovery models to estimate survival rates, investigate spatial, temporal, and demographic variability in harvest rates, and assess how harvest rates may be related to management strategies and landscape characteristics. We banded 3,266 male wild turkeys throughout New York, Ohio, and Pennsylvania during 2006–2009. We found little evidence that harvest rates varied by year or management zone. The proportion of the landscape that was forested within 6.5 km of the capture location was negatively related to harvest rates; however, even though the proportion forested ranged from 0.008 to 0.96 across our study area, this corresponded to differences in harvest rates of only 2–5%. Annual survival was approximately twice as high for juveniles as adults . In turn, spring harvest rates for adult turkeys were greater for adults than juveniles . We estimated the population of male turkeys in New York and Pennsylvania ranged from 104,000 to 132,000 in all years and ranged from 63,000 to 75,000 in Ohio. Because of greater harvest rates for adult males, the proportion of adult males in the population was less than in the harvest and ranged from 0.40 to 0.81 among all states and years. The high harvest rates observed for adults may be offset by greater recruitment of juveniles into the adult age class the following year such that these states can sustain high harvest rates yet still maintain a relative high proportion of adult males in the harvest and population.

New York, Ohio, Pennsylvania↗