Do movement behaviors identify reproductive habitat sampling for wild turkeys?

• Published in: Ecology and evolution Vol. 6; no. 19; pp. 7103 - 7112
• Main Authors: Conley, Mason D., Yeldell, Nathan A., Chamberlain, Michael. J., Collier, Bret A.
• Format: Journal Article
• Language: English
• Published: England John Wiley & Sons, Inc 01-10-2016; John Wiley and Sons Inc; Wiley
• Subjects: Animal behavior; Demography; Females; Fitness; Galliformes; Global positioning systems; GPS; Habitat selection; Habitats; Incubation; Life history; movements; nest site selection; Nesting; Original Research; Predation; Sampling; Stochasticity; Turkeys; Louisiana; United States > US; Texas; movements; nest site selection; Habitat selection; incubation; turkeys
• ISSN: 2045-7758; 2045-7758
• DOI: 10.1002/ece3.2401

Selection of habitats has regularly been suggested to influence species demography at both local and broad scales. The expectation is that selection behaviors have positive benefits via greater fitness or increased survival. The current paradigm of habitat selection theory suggests a hierarchical process, where an individual first selects where they choose to live (e.g., range) and then searches and selects locations within this range meeting life history needs. Using high‐frequency GPS data collected from reproductively active Rio Grande (n = 21) and Eastern (n = 23) wild turkeys, we evaluated a long‐standing theory for ground‐nesting galliformes, in that movements during the prenesting period are behaviorally focused on sampling available habitats to optimize the selection of nesting sites. Contrary to expectations, we found no evidence that reproductively active females engage in habitat sampling activities. Although most nest sites (>80% for both subspecies) fell within the prenesting range, the average minimum daily distance from nest sites for Rio Grande and Eastern wild turkey females was large [1636.04 m (SE = 1523.96) and 1937.42 m (SE = 1267.84), respectively] whereas the average absolute minimum distance from the nest site for both Rio Grande and Eastern wild turkey females was 166.46 m (SE = 299.34) and 235.01 m (SE = 337.90), respectively, and showed no clear temporal reduction as laying approached. Overall, predicted probability that any female movements before laying were initiated intersected with her nesting range (area used during incubation) was <0.25, indicating little evidence of habitat sampling. Our results suggest that the long‐standing assumption of hierarchical habitat selection by wild turkeys to identify nest sites may be incorrect. As such, habitat selection may not be the proximate driver of nest success and hence population‐level fitness. Rather, based on our results, we suggest that wild turkeys and other ground‐nesting species may be fairly plastic with regard to the selection of reproductive habitats, which is appropriate given the stochasticity of the environments they inhabit.
Using high‐frequency GPS data from wild turkeys, we show that the long‐standing assumption of hierarchical habitat selection to identify nest sites may be incorrect. As such, habitat selection may not be the proximate driver of nest success and hence population‐level fitness. We conclude based on our results that ground nesting species may be fairly plastic with regard to the selection of reproductive habitats, which is appropriate given the stochasticity of the environments they inhabit.