Semester

Summer

Date of Graduation

2012

Document Type

Thesis

Degree Type

MS

College

Davis College of Agriculture, Natural Resources and Design

Department

Wildlife and Fisheries Resources

Committee Chair

James T. Anderson.

Abstract

Eastern wild turkeys (Meleagris gallopavo silvestris) have been the focus of widespread research throughout their range, but research on male wild turkey home range size and habitat resource selection is limited in West Virginia. To address this lack of knowledge, I proposed the quantification of home range within a region (second-order) and core home range within a periphery (third-order) resource selection. Home ranges estimates and regional vector sampling grids were modeled against anthropomorphic land use and landscape cover features, land fragmentation, slope, and aspect raster data within the Geospatial Modeling Environment (GME) to derive proportional resource use and availability data.;West Virginia Division of Natural Resources personnel monitored 55 radio-equipped male wild turkeys from September 2004 through August 2007 in West Virginia. I found that statewide adult (x¯ = 1,409.9 ha, SE = 180.3) and juvenile (x¯ = 1,394.3 ha, SE = 146.6) annual statewide 95% UD home ranges were similar (P = 0.78). I also found that statewide adult (x¯ = 310.3 ha, SE = 38.7) and juvenile (x¯ = 320.6 ha, SE = 190.3) annual 50% UD home ranges were also similar (P = 0.56). My home range results fell within those reported by other male eastern wild turkey studies, but particularly those located in heavily forested areas.;Annual statewide adult second-order land use and land cover resource selection was primarily for forest (P = 0.001) while juvenile selection was for forest roads (P = 0.001). My analysis also indicated annual statewide adult third-order land use and land cover resource selection was for forest (P = 0.001) while juvenile selection was for crop (P = 0.001). My analysis indicated that annual statewide adult second-order aspect resource selection was not significant (P = 0.20) while juvenile was for westerly slopes ( P = 0.001). Furthermore, my analysis showed that both annual statewide adult (P = 0.53) and juvenile (P = 0.12) third order slope resource selection was not significant. I found that seasonal adult statewide third-order aspect resource selection was: spring -- west (P = 0.28), fall -- west (P = 0.79), winter -- east (P = 0.40), spring-summer -- west (P = 0.53), and fall-winter -- east (P = 0.60). While seasonal DISA juvenile third-order aspect resource selection was: spring -- east (P = 0.006), and spring-summer -- east (P = 0.24).;Within the DISA annual adult second-order land use and land cover resource selection was primarily for crop (P = 0.02) while juvenile was for pasture-field (P = 0.001). However, my analysis indicated that annual DISA adult third-order land use and land cover resource selection was insignificant (P = 0.18); juvenile selection was for crop (P = 0.001). I found that both annual DISA adult ( P = 0.02) and juvenile (P = 0.001) second-order land fragmentation resource selection was for edge. Similarly, I found that annual DISA adult third-order land fragmentation select was also for edge (P = 0.02) while juvenile selection was for perforations (P = 0.001). My results indicated that annual DISA adult second-order slope resource selection was not significant (P = 0.26) while juvenile selection was for > 6--24% gradients ( P = 0.003). Similarly, I found that annual DISA adult third-order slope resource selection to be not significant (P = 0.09) while juvenile selection was still for > 6--24% gradients (P = 0.002). I found that annual DISA adult second-order aspect resource selection was for easterly facing slopes (P = 0.04) while juveniles aspect selection was not significant (P = 0.09). However, I found that annual DISA adult third-order selection of aspect resources was marginally significant for westerly facing slopes (P = 0.05); juveniles showed a marginal selection of easterly facing slopes ( P =0.05). Despite the amount of contiguous forest in West Virginia, male wild turkeys are selecting more edge habitats than are proportionally available. Land managers should concentrate on providing such multilayer habitats through planting, cutting, mowing, or even passive management to provide diverse food sources, escape cover, travel corridors, and mating display areas for male wild turkey in West Virginia. (Abstract shortened by UMI.).

Download

Share

COinS