e-obs Stories & Publications

@article{wightman_investigating_2025,

title = {Investigating diel patterns of predation events in wild turkeys using tri‐axial accelerometer data},

author = {Patrick H. Wightman and Nick A. Gulotta and Bradley S. Cohen and Bret A. Collier and Michael J. Chamberlain},

url = {https://wildlife.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/wsb.1631},

doi = {10.1002/wsb.1631},

issn = {2328-5540, 2328-5540},

year  = {2025},

date = {2025-12-01},

urldate = {2025-12-17},

journal = {Wildlife Society Bulletin},

volume = {49},

number = {S1},

pages = {e1631},

abstract = {Abstract 

 Numerous studies have evaluated the species responsible for predation events on birds and their nests, but little research has assessed the location and timing of mortality events. Describing the location and timing of mortality events in birds facilitates improved inference and supports a more rigorous understanding of predator‐prey dynamics. To better understand predation on eastern wild turkeys ( 

 Meleagris gallopavo silvestris; 

 hereafter, wild turkeys), we used a combination of GPS spatial data and tri‐axial accelerometer data to investigate the timing and location of predation events. We monitored 477 female and 215 male wild turkeys during 2022\textendash2024. We identified 154 predation events on 126 females and 28 males. We found that for females, 43% of mortalities occurred at night while ground roosting, 32% of mortalities occurred during the day, and 24% occurred at night while tree roosting. Furthermore, we observed that 96% and 81% of predation events during nesting and brooding, respectively, occurred at night for females. Predation events during nesting and brooding peaked and remained consistent throughout the night but decreased during the day. For males, we found that 57% of mortalities occurred during the day whereas 43% occurred at night while roosting. There was no discernible pattern in predation while males were roosting throughout the annual cycle, but predation events on the ground increased in March, peaked in April, and declined in May. Our results indicate that predation risk profiles are sex specific and vary based on phenological cycle. The effect of predation on ground‐nesting females is well‐documented, with management strategies historically focused on increasing vegetation cover, which is assumed to reduce predation. However, predation on males and females while tree roosting presents a challenging topic, as research and management intervention options remain limited.},

keywords = {accelerometer, bird, diel cycle, Meleagris gallopavo silvestris, mortality, predation, Wild Turkey},

pubstate = {published},

tppubtype = {article}

}

@article{ulrey_use_2025,

title = {Use of LiDAR to examine habitat selection by incubating female wild turkeys in South Carolina},

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

url = {https://wildlife.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/wsb.1628},

doi = {10.1002/wsb.1628},

issn = {2328-5540, 2328-5540},

year  = {2025},

date = {2025-12-01},

urldate = {2025-12-17},

journal = {Wildlife Society Bulletin},

volume = {49},

number = {S1},

pages = {e1628},

abstract = {Abstract 

 Avian reproductive activities are energetically demanding, leading to periods of heightened risk and reduced energy acquisition. Behavioral decisions by females in response to their physiological requirements are particularly important during nesting, as the availability and distribution of resources around nest sites can affect fitness of incubating females. We evaluated how spatially explicit LiDAR‐derived estimates of forest structure and topographical features influenced habitat selection by female eastern wild turkeys ( 

 Meleagris gallopavo silvestris 

 ) during the incubation period. We analyzed spatial data from 83 nesting attempts at the Savannah River Site in South Carolina, USA, during 2021\textendash2022. Female wild turkeys selected for incubation recess locations in pine ( 

 Pinus 

 spp.) forests with an average basal area of textasciitilde14 m 

 2 

 /ha and density of 335 trees/ha. Selection probability was positively associated with south‐ and west‐facing aspects. Our findings highlight the importance of mature pine forests with understories that enhance foraging opportunities as key factors influencing incubation behaviors in female eastern wild turkeys.},

keywords = {behavior, bird, incubation, LiDAR, Meleagris gallopavo silvestris, recess movement, resource selection function, Wild Turkey},

pubstate = {published},

tppubtype = {article}

}

@article{collier_notorious_2025,

title = {The Notorious P\.{I}\.{G}.: wild pigs are not primary predators of wild turkey nests},

author = {Bret A. Collier and Michael J. Chamberlain},

url = {https://wildlife.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/wsb.1618},

doi = {10.1002/wsb.1618},

issn = {2328-5540, 2328-5540},

year  = {2025},

date = {2025-12-01},

urldate = {2025-12-17},

journal = {Wildlife Society Bulletin},

volume = {49},

number = {S1},

pages = {e1618},

abstract = {Abstract 

 Eastern wild turkeys ( 

 Meleagris gallopavo silvestris 

 ) are one of the most socially and economically important big game species in North America. Given ongoing declines in eastern wild turkey population trajectories, considerable attention has been given to identifying causes of nest loss, including efforts focused on potential impacts of wild pigs ( 

 Sus scrofa 

 ) on wild turkey demography. Herein, we used the most spatially and temporally comprehensive dataset available on the nesting ecology of wild turkeys to demonstrate that wild pigs are not primary nest predators of wild turkeys. We found that aggregate nest loss from all species known to scavenge and remove eggs from nests, which includes snakes, raccoons ( 

 Procyon lotor 

 ), wild pigs, and other species, failed to exceed 12% of total nesting attempts. Our findings contradict contentions in the published literature suggesting that wild pigs are important nest predators. We offer that differences in our findings using actual wild turkey nests relative to works using artificial nests or camera surveys support our contention that wild pigs are not primary predators of wild turkey nests and likely have limited impact on wild turkey reproductive output. Furthermore, we contend that studies attempting to infer predation rates or predator species responsible for actual nest loss using artificial nests are biased and inaccurate.},

keywords = {eastern wild turkey, Meleagris gallopavo silvestris, nest, predation, wild pigs, Wild Turkey},

pubstate = {published},

tppubtype = {article}

}