Browsing by Subject "Birds -- Migration"
Now showing 1 - 3 of 3
Results Per Page
Sort Options
Item Fall and winter movements and habitat use of lesser prairie chickens(Texas Tech University, 1978-12) Taylor, Maple AndrewLesser prairie chickens (Tympanuchus pallidicinctus) accepted man-made sites for lekking in west Texas. More gobbling males used leks situated on natural sites, herbicide treatment plots, oil pads, and reverted cropland than leks situated near livestock watering tanks and on cultivated cropland. Lek construction could benefit the species in extensive blocks of homogeneous vegetation where a paucity of suitable lek sites is a limiting factor; lek construction also could attract birds away from frequently disturbed sites. Display grounds should be established at least 1.2 km from other suitable active leks or use may be minimal. Based on 860 radio-fixes of 19 lesser prairie chickens, minimum home ranges were between 160-786 ha (November), 94-1,946 ha (December), 85-331 ha (January), and 6 2 ha (February). Mean day-to-day movements reflected a similar trend, i.e., increasing November through December and decreasing January through February. In December, a juvenile male began long-distance, uni-directional movements away from the lek where banded. He traversed 12.8 km in less than 5 days, with a maximum movement of 2.9 km/day. Birds preferred shinnery oak (Quercus havardii)-little bluestem (Schizachyrium scoparium) and shinnery oak-sand sagebrush (Artemisia filifolia) vegetation types over shinnery oak and mesquite (Prosopis glandulosa)-blue grama (Bouteloua gracilis) types from November to February. Use of a sunflower field was heavy during December and January. Movement data suggested a minimum management unit of approximately 32 km^. Habitat requirements include a minimum of 40 percent of the area in plants providing at least 10 percent canopy coverage during winter.Item Spring and Summer movements and Habitat use by Lesser Prairie chicken Females in Yoakum County, Texas(Texas Tech University, 1979-05) Sell, Darwin LeeNot Available.Item Survival, movement, and habitat selection of male Rio Grande wild turkeys in the Texas Panhandle and southwestern Kansas(Texas Tech University, 2003-08) Holdstock, Derrick P.Wildlife managers depend on accurate information regarding wild turkey survival patterns and survival rates to properly manage turkey populations. Male Rio Grande wild turkeys (Meleagris gallopavo intermedia) have not previously been studied in the Texas Panhandle and southwestern Kansas. Furthermore, the effect of movements on turkey survival has not been studied. From January 2000 through August 2002, we studied survival and movement of 107 juvenile male and 115 adult male radio-marked Rio Grande wild turkeys on 4 study sites in the Texas Panhandle and southwestern Kansas. We hypothesized that male Rio Grande wild turkey survival differed among study sites, seasons, and age classes and that survival rates were inversely correlated with movement rates. Based on previous studies, we predicted that males would experience lowest survival during spring and that there would be no difference in survival between age classes. We also predicted that higher movement rates would lead to lower survival rates. Hunting accounted for ordy 18.5% of all mortalities and was censored in order to investigate natural mortality patterns. Juvenile males had higher annual survival rates than adults (0.597 versus 0.364). Juvenile male survival did not differ among seasons. Adult male turkey survival was higher during summer (0.915) than during spring (0.725), autumn (0.671), and winter (0.851). During seasons that involved long-distance, range shifting movements, males had lower survival rates than during seasons when within range movements were common. Turkeys that shifted ranges had lower survival rates than turkeys that remained within 1 core-use area. Also, survival rates increased as time since range shift increased. Most mortality was attributed to predation by coyotes {Canis latrans). However, evidence of mortality due to disease, emaciation, and other forms of predation, such as bobcats {Lynx rufus), were likely masked by coyote sign associated with scavenging. Managers should be aware of the presence of natural mortality factors that are evident in lightly-hunted populations. Managers interested in increasing the survival of male Rio Grande wild turkeys should concentrate on efforts that will provide needed resources in close proximity to roosts. Habitat use has not been described for male Rio Grande wild turkeys in the northern extent of their natural range. We described the characteristics of roost trees and compared the characteristics of diurnal habitat used for different behaviors (displaying, loafing, and feeding) by male Rio Grande wild turkeys in the Texas Panhandle and southwestern Kansas. Most turkeys roosted in eastern cottonwoods (Populus deltoides), but black locusts (Robinia pseudoacacia) and net leaf hackberries {Celtis reticulata), were also frequently used. Mean roost tree dbh, height, and height of lowest branch was 49.9 cm, 13.6 m, and 3.4 m, respectively. Important characteristics of displaying habitat included low visual obstruction and low shrub density. Loafing habitat was characterized by greater canopy cover and densities of trees and large shrubs than random sites. Spring feeding habitat had lower visual obstruction than summer feeding habitat, with spring feeding areas similar to displaying areas and summer feeding areas similar to loafing areas. This suggested that turkeys seemed to feed opportunistically in areas chosen for other purposes. Habitat management for male Rio Grande wild turkeys should focus on protecting remaining riparian roost areas and encouraging cottonwood regeneration. Openings for displaying and brushy areas for loafing should be created or maintained in close proximity to traditional roosts.