Calkins, Gary

Comer, Christopher E.

Conway, Warren C.

Hardin, Jason

Isabelle, Jason

SFA ScholarWorks

Stephen F. Austin State UniversitySFA ScholarWorksFaculty Publications Forestry2010Restoring Wild Turkey to East Texas: Past andPresentWarren C. ConwayArthur Temple College of Forestry and Agriculture, Stephen F. Austin State Universtiy, Nacogdoches, Texas 75962,wconway@sfasu.eduChristopher E. ComerArthur Temple College of Forestry and Agriculture, Stephen F. Austin State University, Nacogdoches, Texas 75962,comerce@sfasu.eduGary CalkinsJason HardinJason IsabelleFollow this and additional works at: http://scholarworks.sfasu.edu/forestryPart of the Forest Sciences CommonsTell us how this article helped you.This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Forestry at SFA ScholarWorks. It has been accepted for inclusion in Faculty Publicationsby an authorized administrator of SFA ScholarWorks. For more information, please contact cdsscholarworks@sfasu.edu.Recommended CitationConway, Warren C.; Comer, Christopher E.; Calkins, Gary; Hardin, Jason; and Isabelle, Jason, "Restoring Wild Turkey to East Texas:Past and Present" (2010). Faculty Publications. Paper 376.http://scholarworks.sfasu.edu/forestry/376article by Jason L.lsabelle, Warren C. Conway and Christopher E. Comer, Stephen F. Austin State University, ArthurTemple College of Forestryand Agriculture, Nacogdoches, Texas; Gary E. Calkins, Texas Parks and Wildlife Department, Jasper, Texas; Jason B. Hardin, Texas Parks and WildlifeDepartment, Palestine, Texas.T he restoration of wildturkeys throughout muchof the United States is oneof wildlife management's greatestsuccess stories. The national wildturkey population has grown froman estimated 300,000 birds in the1950s to nearly 5.5 million at theturn of the twenty-first century.In East Texas, wild turkeyrestoration efforts began as earlyas the 1920s. They continuedthrough the early 1970s andinvolved the translocation ofRio Grande wild turkeys andpen-reared eastern turkeys.Despite more than 50 yearsof translocations, these earlyefforts were unsuccessful. Sincethe Rio Grande turkey thrivesunder different environmentalconditions than the easternsubspecies, these birds did notadapt well to the East TexasPineywoods. Moreover, pen-reared turkeys lack the instinctand experience necessary tosurvive and reproduce in the wild.The next phase of the restorationattempt involved wild-trappedeastern turkeys captured in otherstates and translocated to EastTexas. Since the late 1970s, thisambitious effort by the TexasParks and Wildlife Department(TPWD) and the National WildTurkey Federation (NWTF)moved more than 7,000 wild-trapped eastern turkeys to EastTexas.30 I Texas Wildlife I September 2010Most of these translocationsinvolved the same "block-stocking" approach usedsuccessfully in turkey restorationefforts throughout the country.Using this approach, TPvVDbiologists released approximately15 to 20 turkeys (three males/l2females or five males/ 15 females)at more than 300 sites throughoutthe region in hopes that, overtime, these small populationswould meld into a largerpopulation. Despite the largenumber of turkeys translocated toEast Texas, substantial populationgrowth and expansion has notbeen observed universally withinthe region.Considering that more than 7,000wild-trapped eastern turkeyshave been translocated to EastTexas with only limited success incertain portions of the region, theunanswered question remains: is itpossible for the East Texas turkeypopulation to be successfullyrestored? The answer may liein a new approach to turkeyrestoration within the region:"super-stocking."This approach involves thetranslocation of 70 to 80 turkeys(approximately 20 males/50females) per site as opposed tothe 15 to 20 turkeys per site inblock-stocking. The concept ofsuper-stocking is fairly intuitive:if you translocate more birdsto one location, there shouldbe enough turkeys survivingand reproducing during thefirst few years after release for apopulation to become established.Rather than assuming that small,widely dispersed block-stockedgroups will eventually coalesceand meld into a large population,super-stocked turkeys are releasedtogether in core-areas and areassumed to eventually disperseinto and colonize vacant habitat.Would super-stocking work in thePineywoods of East Texas? Couldthis technique be the answer topast turkey restoration difficulties?In 2007, researchers at Stephen F.Austin State University (SFASU)and TPVVD initiated a researchproject to find the answers tothese questions.Through cooperative effortsbetween TPWD and privatelandowners, land cooperativeswere established in fourEast Texas counties whereeach cooperative memberreceived habitat managementrecommendations from TPvVDfor their respective property.These private landownercooperatives were developedwith the idea that large areas ofquality habitat would be createdand maintained for wild turkeyseventually translocated to theseareas.During the winters of 2007 and2008, after years of planning andland cooperative development,more than 300 wild turkeys fromSouth Carolina and Tennesseewere translocated to the fourcooperatives. Prior to their releaseat each cooperative, nearly halfwere fitted with radio-transmittersto allow SFASU researchersto monitor their survival andmovements.Using radio-telemetry,researchers tracked the turkeysfor two years after release inhopes of answering some basicquestions. "Vhat is the survivalof the translocated turkeys?How successful are translocatedfemale turkeys at making nests,laying and hatching eggs, andrearing poults (turkeys less thanone month old)? What types ofhabitat are important to turkeysin East Texas throughout springnesting and summer brood-rearing periods? And the bigquestion: does super-stockinghold promise as an effective wildturkey restoration approach inEast Texas?After two years of collectingand analyzing data, we are nowstarting to unravel the answers tothese questions."Vhen we step back and look atthe super-stocking research as awhole, the results are encouraging.Overall, the translocated turkeysfared well; survival rates weregenerally high and comparable toturkey survival in well-establishedpopulations throughout theeastern wild turkey's range. Mostfemale turkeys attempted to nestand a considerable proportionwas successful at hatching andrearing young.However, super stocking was notsuccessful at each cooperative.Although both male and femalesurvival was similar among sites,reproductive effort and successdiffered considerably, drivenlargely by habitat compositionand availability at eachcooperative.What was the habitat compositionand availability of the mostsuccessful cooperatives? How,Texas-Wildlife.organd in what ways, ctid turkeyssuccessfully use these habitats?The answer to these questionswill help us to better understandthe factors that affect wild turkeypopulations in East Texas.Our results suggest that EastTexas pine forests can providequality turkey habitat, if managedproperly. The adult turkeys weractio-tracked, as well as thefemale turkeys with broods,reactily used pine forests; but onlythose that had been thinned and/or prescribed burned. Moreover,most nests located during ourstudy were found in pine foreststhat had received one or both ofthese treatments.In contrast, pine forests thathad not been thinned and/orburned were generally avoided byadult turkeys, nesting hens, andfemale turkeys with broods. Thereason is simple: thinning andburning promote the growth ofgrasses and forbs (weeds) in theunderstory, which provide bothfood and cover for wild turkeys.Thinning allows sunlight to reachthe forest floor, thus stimulatingvegetative growth.Similar to the effects of thinning,fire promotes the growth ofvegetation in the understory, whileensuring that woody vegetationdoes not encroach into themidstory. Without these practices,pine forests are not attractive towild turkeys. Therefore, thinningand burning are two extremelyimportant tools that improve thesuitability of pine forests as wildturkey habitat.Landowners who want to improvetheir pine forests for wild turkeysshould thin mem to maintaina basal area of 55 to 85 squarefeet per acre. Following me initialthinning, these areas can oftenbe thinned every five years topromote continued growth ofunderstory vegetation.Texas-Wildlife.orgPine forests should also be burnedon a two- to three-year rotationto prevent woody vegetation suchas yaupon and sweet gum fromencroaching into the midstory.Although prescribed fire is themost cost-effective method ofcontrolling the encroachmentof woody vegetation, bothmechanical and chemical controlscan also achieve the same goal.These alternative methods areespecially useful in areas that arenot as conducive to the use ofprescribed burning, such as forestsadjacent to developed areas.Another cover type consistentlypreferred by wild turkeys inour study was open habitatdominated by native herbaceousvegetation. This habitat typecame in many forms, includingpipeline rights-of-way, naturalopenings, and fallow fields andconsisted of native vegetation thatwas not maintained intensivelyfor agricultural purposes. Haypastures dominated by tamegrasses (i.e. balliagrass andbermudagrass) 0 not provide thedegree of quality turkey habitatthat openings containing nativevegetation provide.A diverse plant communityresults in a diverse invertebratecommunity; therefore, properlymanaged open areas dominatedby native grasses and forb resultin an increased abundanceand ctiversity of invertebrates,valuable food for wild turkeypoults. While adult turkeysreadily used the open herbaceouscover in our study, these areaswere most important duringthe brood-rearing period. Sincebrood success ctirectly regulatesincreases (or decreases) in wildturkey populations, the creationand maintenance of high qualitybrood-rearing habitat is critical.Although thinned and prescribedburned pine forests can anddo provide brood habitat, ourresults suggest that open areascontaining native herbaceousvegetation provide superiorbrood habitat. The reason issimple: herbaceous openingscontaining native vegetation, ifmanaged properly, contain morefood (invertebrates) and providegreater protective cover for poultsthan even properly managedpine forests. As a result, poultsurvival in our study tended tobe greater on cooperatives thathad an abundance of herbaceousopenings.Howevel~ not all habitat openingsare created equally. For an openarea to serve as brood habitat,vegetation must be tall enough toprovide food and protective coverfor poults, while allowing for anunobstructed view by the broodhen; in this case, approximately12 to 20 inches tall. In adctition,openings created for broodhabitat should be a minimum offive acres in size.Landowners can create andmaintain open brood habitat forwild turkeys in a number of ways.Openings in the form of electricand ga rights-of-way can beplanted and maintained, althoughthese areas should not be reliedon entirely to provide openhabitat; the creation of additionalopenings will be beneficial to wildturkeys. In agricultural areas, landmanagers should utilize grazingsystems mat allow vegetation toreach the ideal height conduciveto brood use - approximately 12to 20 inches tall. Native grassesand forbs provide better wildturkey habitat than tame grasspastures. Open habitat can alsobe created in forested settingswhere this cover type is lacking.The e tablishment of nativegrasses and forbs in these areaswill create quality wild turkeyhabitat. Open areas shouldbe mowed, burned, or grazedannually but not until mid:July,after nesting and early broodrearing. These practices preventvegetation from becoming toothick and impecting the movementof poults, while maintainingadequate vegetative heightduring nesting and brood-rearingperiods. Open areas should bewell ctistributed throughout aproperty to reduce the distancethat turkeys (especially hens andpoults) need to travel to utilizemese areas. As a general rule forwild turkey management, 10 to25 percent of a property shouldconsist of properly managed andwell-ctistributed open herbaceoushabitat.Results from our super-stockingresearch are encouraging.Reproduction of turkeys in ourstudy was among the highestreported for wild turkeys inthe region; overall, the birdsfared well. The differences inreproduction among cooperativesprovided valuable informationregarcting turkey habitatpreference and utilization. Giventhe proper habitat, it appearsthat turkeys have the potential todo well in East Texas. Like manyof the issues affecting wildlife,the answers are habitat-driven:The future of wild turkeys inEast Texas depend on theestablishment and maintenanceof quality habitat.Currently, portions of EastTexas boast reasonable wildturkey numbers, although turkeypopulations are not uniformlydistributed across the landscape.The central Pineywoods region(Angelina, Jasper, and Tylercounties in general) and thenorthern portion of East Texas(Bowie, Cass, and Red Rivercounties in general) containfairly sizeable and stable turkeypopulations. Pockets scatteredthroughout the remainder of EastTexas may also hold small butsomewhat robust populations.Overall, however, me turkeypopulation in East Texas has notreached the desired populationlevel or ctistribution. Through thecollaboration of SFASU, TPWD,NWTF, and me positive attitudeand efforts of area landowners,the status of the wild turkey inEast Texas may change in yearsto come. ~Texas Wildlife I September 20 I0 I 3 I

Restoring Wild Turkey to East Texas: Past and Present

http://scholarworks.sfasu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1376&context=forestry

Restoring Wild Turkey to East Texas: Past and Present

Abstract

Similar works

Full text

Available Versions

SFA ScholarWorks