Fire & Turkey Habitat Study

[Guest realtrhunter]

The following are my notes for a presentation that I did for a research project for a class this semester. The research dealt with the effects of fire on turkey habitat and the way they use the habitat after the fire. If anyone would like a copy of the power poinfeel free to message me with an email and I can send it to you. There are also 2 charts that explain the amount of use of pine forests in relation to years after a prescribed burn, I can also send those in an email. Hope y'all find this intresting and helpfull.

Abstract

Prescribed Fire use for Eastern Wild Turkey Management In the Southeastern U.S.

This seminar is aimed at providing information on how prescribed burning affects habitat used by Eastern wild turkeys (Meleagris gallopavo) in the Southeastern United States? Using a case study from Mississippi I will discuss the trade offs associated with the use of prescribed fire to improve habitat for wild turkeys and their selection of post fire habitats for nesting and survival. Also discussed will be the effects of prescribed fire on vegetation and invertebrates that relate to turkey nutritional needs.

History

SE Pine Region from Eastern Texas around Appalachian uplands to Virginia

Dominant vegetation (Slide)

Pine tolerant on & dependent on fire to suppress hardwood encroachment

Many grasses and forbs species depend on frequent fire regime.

Cattlemen, farmers, hunters used fire till suppression of fire in 1930s

High incidence of lighting strikes & aboriginal ignitions caused under story fires in most pine forests every 1-15 yrs during pre-European settlement.

Longleaf pine dominated Coastal Plain forests until early 1900’s

Alteration of fire regime favored dominance by loblolly and slash pine.

Removal of fire from ecological system has created an Oak/Hickory dominated forest system with dense under stories.

Fire Effects

Vegetation

Fire frequency in SE Pine Region maintains the pine forest by removing

competing hardwoods.

Frequent under story fires create varying densities of pines along with well

developed ground cover.

Habitat patchiness is increased, providing diverse conditions of vegetation to select food & cover from.

Fires remove mast producing shrubs & trees while encouraging an under story of

grasses, forbs & fire resistant shrubs to prosper.

Plant development & succession is reversed, temporarily, often increasing or improving the biomass of forage plants

Production of seeds by grasses, legumes & spurges enhanced by annual or biennial fires, with greater success in annually burned areas.

Mast production is enhanced by a 5yr or longer burning cycle.

Production of berries drupes & pomes peaks about 2-4 yrs after burning.

In a study in loblolly pine forest in the Coastal Plain of South Carolina, annual & biennial summer fires reduced the number of blueberry plants after 30yrs of burning where winter burning did not.

To optimize fruit production in open slash pines in Georgia Johnson & Lunders recommends a 3-4 yr fire interval.

Typically increases are seen in the crude protein & phosphorus content of grasses, forbs & browse in the 1st year following a fire, and sometimes for the 2nd yr. Also seen is that plants are more easily digestible.

Increase in nutritive quality are greatest at the begging of the growing season & rapidly decline, with the protein and phosphorus levels becoming similar in burned and unburned areas by winter.

Invertebrates

40 species of arthropods attracted to fires

attracted to heat, smoke & increased levels of Carbon-dioxide

Burned trees used for breeding and larvae consumption

In the Sandhills of the Florida Panhandle, in Long leaf pine stands with a dense Southern Red Oak (Quercus falcate) & Sand Live Oak (Quercus geminata) under story burning was conducted during the growing season.

Arthropod density increased significantly, especially the populations of grasshoppers, which constituted more than 90% of the arthropod biomass.

After burning in Loblolly-Shortleaf Pine stands in East-Central Mississippi, invertebrate’s availability to turkeys was increased for an average of 3 yrs.

Turkeys

Burning only temporarily displaces wild turkeys.

Folk & Bales team observed a sub-adult male turkey entering a 90 ha. Study area located in Union Camp Corporation’s Palmetto Bluff tract in the Lower Costal Plain of South Carolina. The turkey was located immediately after the fire had burned through by an interior observer. The turkey was not seen leaving the burn compartment during the fire.

Turkeys observed numerous times returning or entering burn sights within hours or days.

May leave the area if proper food & cover are no longer available.

Brood Survivability

Nests & young are vulnerable to spring fires due to their inability to flee

the burn area quickly and nests being located on the ground.

Long-term effects of fire on the populations are partially dependent on renesting of hens that have lost nests due to fire.

Turkeys have been found to rarely renest if their nest is lost after incubation has been occurring for 2-3 weeks.

Case Study

Study area was 14410 ha of the Tallahala Wildlife Management Area on the Strong River District, Bienville National Forest & associated private lands in South Central Mississippi.

95% forested with 30% bottomland hardwoods, 37% pine, 17% mixed

pine-hardwoods, & 11% in regeneration areas

Pine were more that 50 yrs old

Hardwoods were older than 70 yrs.

Non-forested areas where made up of

4% old fields

1% Agricultural

<1% residential areas

Hardwoods are located in 4 broad alluvial creek drainages

During Feb. & Mar. the pine forests where prescribed burned

Of the 26 compartments, averaging 416 ha each, 1-3 where burned yearly

Burning ranged from 3-10 yrs in frequency.

Monitoring

Turkeys were equipped with backpack transmitters

Study period was split into spring (Feb 1 – May 31) & summer (Jun 1 – Sept 30)

Males (gobblers) were located twice daily every other day from

Jan – Sep.

Females (hens) located daily Mar 1 – Jun 30

Study covered flock break-up, seeking nesting ranges, incubation of nests & some brood rearing. With concentration on habitat use of hens from flock break-up to incubation of nests.

Use of Pine Forests

Gobblers

avoided pine forests during the spring, but selected pine forests during the summer.

Gobblers used 0-4 yr old burns proportionate to availability during the spring in hardwoods

During the summer pine forests burned 1-2 yrs prior were preferred and forests burned the previous spring or winter were avoided

During all seasons males avoided pine forests that had not been burned for 5 or more years

Table 1

Hen’s use of burn areas during pre-incubation

Pines that were prescribed burned the previous winter/spring were selected 2 of 3 yrs and used in proportion to availability in 1 year.

Table 2

Forests that were burned 1-2 yrs prior were selected 1yr & avoided in 2 of 3 yrs

The ratio of use of different aged burns to their availability averaged:

1.7 for pine forests prescribe burned the previous winter

1.0 for pine forests prescribe burned 1 yr prior

Below 1.0 for forests prescribe burned 3+ yrs

Pine forest use during pre-incubation was dependent on location next to bottomland hardwood forests.

Stands that were not prescribe burned more than 3 yrs & used by hens were 48% more likely to be adjacent to bottomland hardwoods than recently prescribed burned pine forests.

Home Range Characteristics & Nesting Success

35 nesting hens were located more than 30 times during pre-incubation to determine if proportion of different forest types with in pre-incubation home ranges was related to nesting success.

Hen with ranges composed of less than 18% of bottomland hardwoods were successful & hens with ranges composed of more than 65% bottomland hardwoods were unsuccessful.

Successful hens had greater proportion of their pre-incubation home range in mixed forests.

Overstory & Groundstory Vegetation Analysis

Height of overstory trees, canopy closure & basal area did not differ significantly between used & not used areas.

Overall, basal area from used areas had more hardwoods than non-used areas. However, 3 hens had similar or greater pine basal area on used areas.

% groundcover was similar on used & non-used areas.

Groundstory vegetation in used areas was more likely to be grass & forbs & less likely woody & vine vegetation

Groundstory vegetation was significantly lower, in height, (avg. 28 cm) than non-used areas (avg. 58 cm)

Conclusion

Changes in vegetation after prescribed burning are short lived if rotation are longer than 4 years.

Burns in pine forests restricts usable areas by both gobblers and hens, possibly resulting in success in reproduction by limiting habitat that is available to hens during the pre-incubation period and nesting areas that are high in predators.

The needs of both gobblers and hens should be taken into consideration when planning burn areas.

Burn area distribution on the landscape and the frequency of burns should also be considered.

Prescribed burns for land management for wild turkeys that take place in spring should be conducted after the nesting season is complete to help with brood success.

References

Evan, William G. 1971. The attraction of insects to forest fires. In: Proceedings, Tall Timbers conference on ecological animal control by habitat management; 1971 February 25-27; Tallahassee, FL. Number 3. Tallahassee, FL: Tall Timbers Research Station: 115-127.

Eyre, F.H. 1980. Forest cover types of the United States and Canada. Washington, DC: Society of American Foresters. 148 p.

Folk III, Robert H., Charles W. Bales. "An Evaluation of Wildlife Mortality Resulting from Aerial Ignition Prescribed Burning." Proc. Annu. Conf. SEAFWA (1982).

Hurst, George A. 1971. The effects of controlled burning on arthopod density and biomass in relation to bobwhite quail brood habitat on a right-of-way. In: Proceedings, Tall Timbers conference on ecological animal control by habitat management; 1970 February 26-28; Tallahassee, FL. Number 2. Tallahassee, FL: Tall Timbers Research Station: 173-183.

Hurst, George A. 1978. Effects of controlled burning on wild turkey poult food habits. Proceedings, Annual Conference of the Southeastern Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies. 32: 30-37.

Johnson, A. Sydney; Landers, J. Larry. 1978. Fruit production in slash pine plantations in Georgia. Journal of Wildlife Management. 42(3): 606-613.

Myers, R.L. 1990. Scrub and high pine. In: Myers, R.L.; Ewel, J.J., eds. Ecosystes of Florida. Orlando, FL: University of Central Florida Press: 150-153.

Palmer, William E., K. David Godwin, George A. Hurst, Darren A. Miller . "Effects of Prescribed Burning on Wild Turkeys." North American Wildland and Natural Resource Conference 61(1996): 228-234.

Provencher, L.; Galley, K.E.M.; Herring, B.J.; Sheehan, J.; Gobis, N.M.; Gordon, D.R.; Tanner, G.W.; Hardesty, J.L; Rodgers, H.L.; McAdoo, J.P.; Northrup, M.N.; McAdoo, S.J.; Brennan, L.A. 1998. Post-treatment analysis of restoration effects on soils, plants, arthropods, and birds in sandhill systems at Elgin Air Force Base, Florida. Annual report to Natural Resources Division, Eglin Air Force Base, Niceville, FL. Gainsville, FL: Public Lands Program, The natural Conservancy. 247 p.

Robbins, Louise E.; Myers, Ronald L. 1982. Seasonal effects of prescribed buring in Florida: a review. Misc. Pub. No. 8. Tallahassee, FL: Tall Timbers Research, Inc. 96 p.

Smith, Jane Kapler, ed. 2000. “Wildland fire in ecosystems: effects of fire on fauna.” Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-42-vol. 1. Ogden, UT: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station. 83 p.

Waldrop, Thomas A.; Van Lear, David H.; Lloyd, F. Thomas; Harms, William R. 1987. Long-term studies of prescribed burning in loblolly forests of the southeastern coastal plain. Gen Tech. rep. SE-45. Asheville, NC: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Southeastern Forest Experiment Station. 23 p.

Wright, Henery A.; Bailey, Arthur W. 1982. Fire ecology, United States and southern Canada. New York, NY: John Wiley and Sons. 501 p.