EVALUATION OF RECLAIMED SURFACE MINES AS WILD TURKEY BROOD RANGE
Abstract A surface mine classification system was developed based on subjective evaluation of vegetation types. Five vegetation classifications and a control site (unmined) were tested with two broods (one early and one later) of imprinted wild turkey poults (Meleagris gallopavo silvestris). Feeding...
Saved in:
| Main Authors: | , |
|---|---|
| Format: | Article |
| Language: | English |
| Published: |
Wiley
1980-01-01
|
| Series: | Wildlife Society Bulletin |
| Online Access: | https://doi.org/10.1002/j.2328-5540.1980.tb00132.x |
| Tags: |
Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
|
| _version_ | 1849696673073201152 |
|---|---|
| author | Roger J. Anderson David E. Samuel |
| author_facet | Roger J. Anderson David E. Samuel |
| author_sort | Roger J. Anderson |
| collection | DOAJ |
| description | Abstract A surface mine classification system was developed based on subjective evaluation of vegetation types. Five vegetation classifications and a control site (unmined) were tested with two broods (one early and one later) of imprinted wild turkey poults (Meleagris gallopavo silvestris). Feeding behavior and distress reaction observations indicated classes 2 (sapling with grass legume understory) and 5 (primarily volunteer under and overstory) provided the best combination of invertebrate availability and cover density for wild turkey broods when compared to unmined control sites. Classes 1 (grassland), 3 (grassland with pole stage overstory) and 4 (plantation) appeared to be marginal habitat. There was, however, increased feeding observed on class 1 mines during the late brood period. Numbers of invertebrates consumed were directly related to availability. Invertebrate availability was highest on class 2 (P <.05), sites. Class 5 ranked second, but showed no significant difference in invertebrate productivity (P <.05) when compared to unmined control sites. The remaining classes 1, 3 and 4 showed significantly less invertebrate productivity (P >.05) than classes 2, 5 and the unmined control site. Classes 2, 5 and the control provided a denser vegetation mat, hence, better escape cover than classes 1, 3 and 4. Management recommendations are presented. |
| format | Article |
| id | doaj-art-9323a0c1aebc4723a937463f6442e1cb |
| institution | DOAJ |
| issn | 2328-5540 |
| language | English |
| publishDate | 1980-01-01 |
| publisher | Wiley |
| record_format | Article |
| series | Wildlife Society Bulletin |
| spelling | doaj-art-9323a0c1aebc4723a937463f6442e1cb2025-08-20T03:19:23ZengWileyWildlife Society Bulletin2328-55401980-01-011980S118620210.1002/j.2328-5540.1980.tb00132.xEVALUATION OF RECLAIMED SURFACE MINES AS WILD TURKEY BROOD RANGERoger J. Anderson0David E. Samuel1West Virginia Department of Natural ResourcesElkinsWV26241Division of ForestryWest Virginia UniversityMorgantownWV26506Abstract A surface mine classification system was developed based on subjective evaluation of vegetation types. Five vegetation classifications and a control site (unmined) were tested with two broods (one early and one later) of imprinted wild turkey poults (Meleagris gallopavo silvestris). Feeding behavior and distress reaction observations indicated classes 2 (sapling with grass legume understory) and 5 (primarily volunteer under and overstory) provided the best combination of invertebrate availability and cover density for wild turkey broods when compared to unmined control sites. Classes 1 (grassland), 3 (grassland with pole stage overstory) and 4 (plantation) appeared to be marginal habitat. There was, however, increased feeding observed on class 1 mines during the late brood period. Numbers of invertebrates consumed were directly related to availability. Invertebrate availability was highest on class 2 (P <.05), sites. Class 5 ranked second, but showed no significant difference in invertebrate productivity (P <.05) when compared to unmined control sites. The remaining classes 1, 3 and 4 showed significantly less invertebrate productivity (P >.05) than classes 2, 5 and the unmined control site. Classes 2, 5 and the control provided a denser vegetation mat, hence, better escape cover than classes 1, 3 and 4. Management recommendations are presented.https://doi.org/10.1002/j.2328-5540.1980.tb00132.x |
| spellingShingle | Roger J. Anderson David E. Samuel EVALUATION OF RECLAIMED SURFACE MINES AS WILD TURKEY BROOD RANGE Wildlife Society Bulletin |
| title | EVALUATION OF RECLAIMED SURFACE MINES AS WILD TURKEY BROOD RANGE |
| title_full | EVALUATION OF RECLAIMED SURFACE MINES AS WILD TURKEY BROOD RANGE |
| title_fullStr | EVALUATION OF RECLAIMED SURFACE MINES AS WILD TURKEY BROOD RANGE |
| title_full_unstemmed | EVALUATION OF RECLAIMED SURFACE MINES AS WILD TURKEY BROOD RANGE |
| title_short | EVALUATION OF RECLAIMED SURFACE MINES AS WILD TURKEY BROOD RANGE |
| title_sort | evaluation of reclaimed surface mines as wild turkey brood range |
| url | https://doi.org/10.1002/j.2328-5540.1980.tb00132.x |
| work_keys_str_mv | AT rogerjanderson evaluationofreclaimedsurfaceminesaswildturkeybroodrange AT davidesamuel evaluationofreclaimedsurfaceminesaswildturkeybroodrange |