e-obs Stories & Publications

@article{goodman_space_2026,

title = {Space Use and Movements During Egg Laying Associated With Nest Fate and Female Survival in Eastern Wild Turkeys},

author = {Paige E. Goodman and Nicholas W. Bakner and Nickolas A. Gulotta and Erin E. Ulrey and Bret A. Collier and Michael J. Chamberlain},

url = {https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1002/ece3.73026},

doi = {10.1002/ece3.73026},

issn = {2045-7758},

year  = {2026},

date = {2026-01-01},

urldate = {2026-02-17},

journal = {Ecology and Evolution},

volume = {16},

number = {2},

pages = {e73026},

abstract = {Reproduction is a fundamental aspect of a species' life history that is energetically costly, yet critical for population sustainability and genetic diversity. Wild turkeys exhibit high rates of nest loss and female mortality during reproduction, prompting females to make decisions related to spatial and movement decisions during nesting. Using GPS data from eastern wild turkeys (Meleagris gallopavo silvestris ), we assessed female movements and space use during laying and evaluated potential impacts of those metrics on nest success and female survival during incubation. We used a Bayesian logistic regression to estimate nest success and female survival based on space use, daily movements, and range overlap with conspecifics during the laying period. We found that with each increase of 700 m in average daily distance traveled during laying, there was a 1.73% decrease in the probability of nest success. We also found that having a greater number of conspecific females with overlapping core areas had a positive influence on nest fate. Specifically, an increase of 1 overlapping female (one standard deviation) was associated with a 4.76% increase in the probability of nest success. Conversely, we found weak support that female survival was positively related to increasing average daily distances traveled. Our findings suggest that female wild turkeys perceive reproductive advantages to sharing space with conspecifics during the laying period. Conversely, our findings suggest that movements of female wild turkeys within their reproductive period may only weakly influence metrics of reproductive success during both laying and incubation.},

note = {_eprint: https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1002/ece3.73026},

keywords = {accelerometer, egg laying, ground, Meleagris gallopavo, mortality, nesting, reproduction, social, Space use, survival, terrestrial, Wild Turkey},

pubstate = {published},

tppubtype = {article}

}

@article{ulrey_exploring_2026,

title = {Exploring spatial relationships of male wild Turkeys during the breeding season},

author = {Erin E. Ulrey and Nicholas W. Bakner and John C. Kilgo and Bret A. Collier and Michael J. Chamberlain},

url = {https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-025-34883-7},

doi = {10.1038/s41598-025-34883-7},

issn = {2045-2322},

year  = {2026},

date = {2026-01-01},

urldate = {2026-02-17},

journal = {Scientific Reports},

volume = {16},

number = {1},

pages = {4637},

publisher = {Nature Publishing Group},

abstract = {Leks are characterized as clusters of displaying males that females visit primarily for the purpose of mating, and represent complex mating systems observed across various species, including birds, mammals, and insects. Male wild turkeys (Meleagris gallopavo) use reproductive strategies that involve visual and acoustic displays to compete for mates. However, there is ambiguity as to whether the mating system of eastern wild turkeys (M. g. silvestris) is a form of lekking. Our objective was to evaluate the potential that eastern wild turkeys use a form of a lek mating system via a movement based recursive analysis to identify if areas were revisited by males during the breeding season, and whether selection of revisited areas was related to resources or female distribution. Using GPS locations collected from 151 male and 261 female wild turkeys from 2014 to 2023 across the southeastern United States, we identified 6,565 locations that occurred within revisited areas during the breeding season and examined resource selection by males at those revisited areas. We found that average size of revisited areas was 49.89 ha and comprised approximately 8.12% of male breeding season home ranges. Male wild turkeys traveled greater distances from their winter home ranges to revisited areas, than did females from their winter home ranges to pre-laying ranges. Male wild turkeys selected revisited areas that were closer to hardwood forests and open areas. Additionally, we found that selection of revisited areas was positively associated with an increase in the relative probability of female presence and visibility of males. We encourage research to further elucidate the dynamics of wild turkey mating behaviors relative to potential forms of lekking that wild turkeys may use throughout their geographic range.},

keywords = {accelerometer, Behavioural ecology, Ecology, gps, ground, mortality, social, terrestrial, turkey},

pubstate = {published},

tppubtype = {article}

}

@article{koch_risk_2026,

title = {Risk Factors and Coinfection Dynamics of Pathogens in Wild Turkeys (Meleagris gallopavo) From Pennsylvania, USA},

author = {Ryan W. Koch and Axel O. G. Hoarau and Tryssa Ruyter and Caitlin Duffy and Lucie Pascarosa and Kerry A. Campbell and Casey L. Maynard and Andrew Cushman and Heather Flick and Anthony Musselman and Julianna Patsko and Rachel Bealer and Graham Rhone and Mary Jo Casalena and Andrew Di Salvo and Ken Duren and Jay T. Armstrong and Frances E. Buderman and R. Scott Larsen and Caroline Sobotyk and Erica A. Miller and Kevin D. Niedringhaus and Brock Geary and Eman Anis and Roderick B. Gagne},

url = {https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1002/ece3.73079},

doi = {10.1002/ece3.73079},

issn = {2045-7758},

year  = {2026},

date = {2026-01-01},

urldate = {2026-02-17},

journal = {Ecology and Evolution},

volume = {16},

number = {2},

pages = {e73079},

abstract = {Interactions between co-occurring pathogens can have complex and significant impacts on host survival, fitness, and population dynamics. While common in wildlife, coinfections are often overlooked, and research may create biased management perspectives when individual pathogens are assessed in isolation. Recent work has found that wild turkeys (Meleagris gallopavo) are affected by various pathogens, but it is unknown how infections and coinfections are spatially structured or interact with each other. Here, we determined the associations and risk factors of infection by lymphoproliferative disease virus (LPDV), reticuloendotheliosis virus (REV), three avian Mycoplasma species, and internal parasites in Pennsylvania wild turkeys. Our results indicate varying prevalences: LPDV (70%), REV (1%), Mycoplasma gallisepticum (0%), Mycoplasma meleagridis (4%), Mycoplasma synoviae (2%), and internal parasites (63%). The prevalence of LPDV was greater in adults than juveniles but did not vary with year, sex, study area, or landscape type. Parasite species richness was greater in juveniles than adults, greater in males than females, varied by year and study area, but did not vary with landscape type. Coinfections with LPDV and parasites were more common (41%) than infections with only LPDV (26%) or only parasites (22%). All other coinfection prevalences involving viruses, Mycoplasma species, and parasites were low (0%\textendash3%). Finally, infection with LPDV did not differ with overall parasite species richness but was negatively associated with infection with parasitic nematodes. These results reveal high rates of coinfections with LPDV and parasites in turkeys but suggest that parasite infections are independent of LPDV infections. Ongoing work is currently investigating the sublethal effects of these coinfections on wild turkey populations.},

note = {_eprint: https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1002/ece3.73079},

keywords = {disease, disease surveillance, Ecology, ground, ground dwelling, human conflict, infectious diseases, LPDV, Mycoplasma, nest success, Nesting Disease, parasite, social, telemetry, terrestrial, turkey, Turkey Movement, turky, Wild Turkey, wildlife, Wildlife Management},

pubstate = {published},

tppubtype = {article}

}