Survival and cause-specific mortality of the female eastern wild turkey at its northern range edge
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Context In an era of rapid environmental change, many species are shifting their distributions. As temperate-zone species’ expand their ranges north, different and potentially severe limiting factors may begin to affect their ability to survive and reproduce. The wild turkey (Meleagris gallopavo) is one example of a species undergoing rapid northern expansion. Aims An improved understanding of wild turkey demography at the species’ northern range periphery would facilitate effective management of this important game species. Therefore, we undertook a study to evaluate survival, causes of mortality, and behavioural strategies that may govern survival of female wild turkeys. Methods We captured 53 female wild turkeys, and used backpack transmitters to monitor their individual fates during 2012–13. Key results The annual survival estimate was 0.37 (95% CI: 0.25–0.55), with the lowest seasonal survival in the winter. The most frequent cause of mortality was mammalian predation, predominately by coyotes (Canis latrans). Age, proximity to supplemental food, and habitat use did not affect risk of mortality. Conclusions Northern wild turkeys in our study exhibited lower survival and suffered higher predation than did populations in the species’ historic range. Despite our findings, the wild turkey has expanded its range northwards and continues to exist in these peripheral areas. This may be due to high productivity or a source–sink dynamic, whereby high mortality is offset by immigration from the south. Implications The low survival and high predation of wild turkeys in the north must be considered when developing management strategies, particularly if interest exists in translocating turkeys farther north. Further research is needed to better understand whether northern turkey populations persist as sinks.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".