Free Standard AU & NZ Shipping For All Book Orders Over $80!
Register      Login
Wildlife Research Wildlife Research Society
Ecology, management and conservation in natural and modified habitats
RESEARCH ARTICLE

Adaptive protocols identify sources of post-capture mortality in radio-marked wild turkeys

Matthew Gonnerman https://orcid.org/0000-0002-0791-9218 A * , Stephanie A. Shea B , Kelsey Sullivan C , Pauline Kamath B and Erik Blomberg A
+ Author Affiliations
- Author Affiliations

A University of Maine, Department of Wildlife Fisheries and Conservation Biology, 5755 Nutting Hall, Orono, ME 04469, USA.

B University of Maine, School of Food and Agriculture, 5735 Hitchner Hall, Orono, ME 04469, USA.

C Maine Department of Inland Fisheries and Wildlife, 650 State Street, Bangor, ME 04401, USA.

* Correspondence to: mgonnerm@gmail.com

Handling Editor: Cristián F. Estades

Wildlife Research 51, WR22168 https://doi.org/10.1071/WR22168
Submitted: 5 October 2022  Accepted: 19 July 2023  Published: 3 August 2023

© 2024 The Author(s) (or their employer(s)). Published by CSIRO Publishing

Abstract

Context

Stress or injury resulting from capture and marking of animals is a potential cause of mortality following release. Multiple methods have been developed to identify sources of post-capture mortality, but these are most often applied following completion of field work to identify an appropriate censor window for other analyses.

Aims

Following unacceptable levels of post-capture mortality (13 of 53) in radio-marked individuals in the first year of a larger wild turkey research project in Maine, USA, we assessed post-capture survival as data became available to inform proactive changes to capture protocols, with the goals of improving animal welfare and data quality.

Methods

We evaluated potential sources of post-capture mortality related to the capture and marking process, individual characteristics of the turkey, and local weather conditions. We then used results from the preliminary analysis to inform adaptive changes to capture protocols in subsequent years and confirmed the effectiveness of these changes through a final analysis.

Key results

We found that greater handling time was positively correlated with increased post-capture survival, possibly in response to releasing turkeys in larger groups to facilitate regrouping. We also found that transmitter style impacted post-capture survival, such that female turkeys fitted with backpack-style transmitters experienced a survival rate of 0.787 (0.677–0.861 95% CI), compared with 0.903 (0.538–0.976 95% CI) for those fitted with a necklace transmitter, although adjustments to the fit of backpack transmitters appeared to help mitigate such issues.

Conclusions

Following informed adjustments to our capture protocols, we observed a dramatic increase in post-capture survival such that no mortalities were experienced in the first 30 days post capture in the final year of our study (n = 65). Although our estimated censor window was similar to other studies (~10 days), differences in effects of external stressors further the need for adaptive capture protocols because local stressors and risks may vary according to climate and ecosystem characteristics such as predator communities and habitat type.

Implications

We recommend that when possible, investigators continuously assess their protocols throughout the capture process and adapt accordingly to limit negative repercussions of capture and handling to wildlife.

Keywords: adaptive protocol, censor window, ethical obligations, post-capture mortality, post-capture survival, stress, survival analysis, wild turkeys.

References

Amstrup SC, McDonald TL, Manly BFJ (2010) ‘Handbook of capture–recapture analysis.’ (Princeton University Press)

Arnemo JM, Ahlqvist P, Andersen R, Berntsen F, Ericsson G, Odden J, Brunberg S, Segerström P, Swenson JE (2006) Risk of capture-related mortality in large free-ranging mammals: experiences from Scandinavia. Wildlife Biology 12, 109-113.
| Crossref | Google Scholar |

Barron DG, Brawn JD, Weatherhead PJ (2010) Meta-analysis of transmitter effects on avian behaviour and ecology. Methods in Ecology and Evolution 1, 180-187.
| Crossref | Google Scholar |

Bergvall UA, Morellet N, Kjellander P, Rauset GR, Groeve JD, Borowik T, Brieger F, Gehr B, Heurich M, Hewison AJM, Kröschel M, Pellerin M, Saïd S, Soennichsen L, Sunde P, Cagnacci F (2021) Settle down! ranging behaviour responses of roe deer to different capture and release methods. Animals 11, 3299.
| Crossref | Google Scholar | PubMed |

Bernardo CSS, Cresswell B, Lloyd H, Azeredo R, Simpson J (2011) Selection of radio transmitter and attachment method for post-release monitoring of captive-bred reintroduced Red-billed Curassow Crax blumenbachii, Brazil. European Journal of Wildlife Research 57, 689-694.
| Crossref | Google Scholar |

Blomberg EJ, Gibson D, Atamian MT, Sedinger JS (2014) Individual and environmental effects on egg allocations of female Greater Sage-Grouse. The Auk 131, 507-523.
| Crossref | Google Scholar |

Blomberg EJ, Davis SB, Mangelinckx J, Sullivan K (2018) Detecting capture-related mortality in radio-marked birds following release. Avian Conservation and Ecology 13, 5.
| Crossref | Google Scholar |

Breed D, Meyer LCR, Steyl JCA, Goddard A, Burroughs R, Kohn TA (2019) Conserving wildlife in a changing world: understanding capture myopathy – a malignant outcome of stress during capture and translocation. Conservation Physiology 7, coz027.
| Crossref | Google Scholar |

Brogi R, Brivio F, Bertolucci C, Benazzi M, Luccarini S, Cappai N, Bottero E, Pedrazzoli C, Columbano N, Apollonio M, Grignolio S (2019) Capture effects in wild boar: a multifaceted behavioural investigation. Wildlife Biology 2019, 1-10.
| Crossref | Google Scholar |

Brunjes JH, Ballard WB, Wallace MC, Phillips RS, Holdstock DP, Spears BL, Butler MJ, Miller MS, McIntyre NE, DeMaso SJ, Applegate R, Gipson PS (2007) Patterns of capture-related mortality in Rio Grande wild turkeys. In ‘Proceedings of the 9th National Wild Turkey Symposium’. pp. 75–81. (National Wild Turkey Federation)

Burnham K, Anderson D (2002) ‘Model selection and multimodel inference: a practical information-theoretic approach.’ (Springer) Available at https://explore.openaire.eu/search/publication?articleId=od________65::248559a6b0354993d8ccc49689e83038 [accessed 4 October 2021]

Byrne ME, Chamberlain MJ, Kimmel FG (2011) Seasonal space use and habitat selection of female wild turkeys in a Louisiana bottomland forest. In ‘Proceedings of the Southeastern Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies’. Vol. 65, pp. 8–14. (Southeastern Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies)

Byrne AW, O’Keeffe J, Fogarty U, Rooney P, Martin SW (2015) Monitoring trap-related injury status during large-scale wildlife management programmes: an adaptive management approach. European Journal of Wildlife Research 61, 445-455.
| Crossref | Google Scholar |

Casas F, Benítez-López A, García JT, Martín CA, Viñuela J, Mougeot F (2015) Assessing the short-term effects of capture, handling and tagging of sandgrouse. Ibis 157, 115-124.
| Crossref | Google Scholar |

Cassey P, Blackburn TM (2006) Reproducibility and repeatability in ecology. BioScience 56, 958-959.
| Crossref | Google Scholar |

Chamberlain S (2023) rnoaa: “NOAA” weather data from R. Available at https://docs.ropensci.org/rnoaa/ (docs), https://github.com/ropensci/rnoaa (devel)

Dechen Quinn AC, Williams DM, Porter WF, Fitzgerald SD, Hynes K (2014) Effects of capture-related injury on postcapture movement of white-tailed deer. Journal of Wildlife Diseases 50, 250-258.
| Crossref | Google Scholar | PubMed |

Dickson JG (1992) ‘The wild turkey: biology and management.’ (Stackpole Books)

Diefenbach DR, Casalena MJ, Schiavone MV, Reynolds M, Eriksen R, Vreeland WC, Swift B, Boyd RC (2012) Variation in spring harvest rates of male wild turkeys in New York, Ohio, and Pennsylvania. The Journal of Wildlife Management 76, 514-522.
| Crossref | Google Scholar |

Doherty PF, White GC, Burnham KP (2012) Comparison of model building and selection strategies. Journal of Ornithology 152, 317-323.
| Crossref | Google Scholar |

Dougill SJ, Johnson L, Banko PC, Goltz DM, Wiley MR, Semones JD (2000) Consequences of antenna design in telemetry studies of small passerines. (Consecuencias en el Diseño de una Antena en un Estudio de Radiotelemetria para Paserinos). Journal of Field Ornithology 71, 385-388.
| Crossref | Google Scholar |

Ellis RJ (1961) Trapping and marking Rio Grande wild turkeys. In ‘Proceedings of the Oklahoma Academy of Science’. pp. 202–212. (Oklahoma State University)

Ellison AM (2010) Repeatability and transparency in ecological research. Ecology 91, 2536-2539.
| Crossref | Google Scholar | PubMed |

Eriksen B, Cardoza J, Pack J, Kilpatrick H (1993) ‘Procedures and guidelines for rocket-netting wild turkeys.’ (National Wildlife Turkey Federation Technical Bulletin)

Gannon WL, Sikes RS, The Animal Care and Use Committee of the American Society of Mammalogists (2007) Guidelines of the American Society of mammalogists for the use of wild mammals in research. Journal of Mammalogy 88, 809-823.
| Crossref | Google Scholar |

Gross JT, Little AR, Collier BA, Chamberlain MJ (2015) Space use, daily movements, and roosting behavior of male Wild Turkeys during spring in Louisiana and Texas. Journal of the Southeastern Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies 2, 229-234.
| Google Scholar |

Guthery FS, Lusk JJ (2004) Radiotelemetry studies: are we radio-handicapping northern bobwhites? Wildlife Society Bulletin 32, 194-201.
| Crossref | Google Scholar |

Haddaway NR, Verhoeven JTA (2015) Poor methodological detail precludes experimental repeatability and hampers synthesis in ecology. Ecology and Evolution 5, 4451-4454.
| Crossref | Google Scholar | PubMed |

Hooten MB, Johnson DS, McClintock BT, Morales JM (2017) ‘Animal movement: statistical models for telemetry data.’ (CRC Press: Boca Raton)

Johnson FA, Williams BK (2015) A decision-analytic approach to adaptive resource management. In ‘Adaptive management of social-ecological systems’. (Eds CR Allen, AS Garmestani) pp. 61–84. (Springer Netherlands: Dordrecht). 10.1007/978-94-017-9682-8_5. [accessed 3 February 2022]

Jung TS, Konkolics SM, Kukka PM, Majchrzak YN, Menzies AK, Oakley MP, Peers MJL, Studd EK (2019) Short-term effect of helicopter-based capture on movements of a social ungulate. The Journal of Wildlife Management 83, 830-837.
| Crossref | Google Scholar |

Kane DF, Kimmel RO, Faber WE (2007) Winter survival of wild turkey females in Central Minnesota. Journal of Wildlife Management 71, 1800-1807.
| Crossref | Google Scholar |

Kneebone J, Benoît HP, Bernal D, Golet W (2021) Application of a parametric survival model to understand capture-related mortality and predation of yellowfin tuna (Thunnus albacares) released in a recreational fishery. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 78, 386-399.
| Crossref | Google Scholar |

Laake JL (2013) RMark: an R interface for analysis of capture–recapture data with MARK. AFSC Processed Rep 2013-01. Alaska Fisheries Science Center, NOAA, National Marine Fisheries Service, Seattle, WA. p. 25.

Little AR, Benson JF, Chamberlain MJ, Conner LM, Warren RJ (2016) Survival and cause-specific mortality of female eastern wild turkeys in two frequently-burned longleaf pine savannas. Wildlife Biology 22, 238-245.
| Crossref | Google Scholar |

Lupes SC, Davis MW, Olla BL, Schreck CB (2006) Capture-related stressors impair immune system function in sablefish. Transactions of the American Fisheries Society 135, 129-138.
| Crossref | Google Scholar |

MacDonald AM, Jardine CM, Campbell GD, Nemeth NM (2016) Mortality and disease in wild Turkeys (Meleagris gallopavo silvestris) in Ontario, Canada, from 1992 to 2014: a retrospective review. Avian Diseases 60, 644-648.
| Crossref | Google Scholar | PubMed |

Manly BFJ, McDonald LL, McDonald TL (1999) The robustness of mark–recapture methods: a case study for the northern spotted owl. Journal of Agricultural, Biological, and Environmental Statistics 4, 78-101.
| Crossref | Google Scholar |

Mayer M, Haugaard L, Sunde P (2021) Scared as a hare: effects of capture and experimental disturbance on survival and movement behavior of European hares. Wildlife Biology 2021, wlb.00840.
| Crossref | Google Scholar |

McFadden JE, Hiller TL, Tyre AJ (2011) Evaluating the efficacy of adaptive management approaches: is there a formula for success? Journal of Environmental Management 92, 1354-1359.
| Crossref | Google Scholar | PubMed |

Melville HIAS, Conway WC, Morrison ML, Comer CE, Hardin JB (2015) Prey selection by three mesopredators that are thought to prey on eastern wild Turkeys (Meleagris gallopavo sylvestris) in the Pineywoods of East Texas. Southeastern Naturalist 14, 447-472.
| Crossref | Google Scholar |

Mills LS (2012) ‘Conservation of wildlife populations: demography, genetics, and management.’ (John Wiley & Sons, Incorporated: Hoboken, United Kingdom) Available at http://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/umaine/detail.action?docID=1036970 [accessed 20 January 2022]

Moberg GP, Mench JA (2000) ‘The biology of animal stress: basic principles and implications for animal welfare.’ (CABI, Wallingford: United Kingdom) Available at http://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/umaine/detail.action?docID=292093 [accessed 31 January 2022]

Montané J, Marco I, Manteca X, López J, Lavín S (2002) Delayed acute capture myopathy in three roe deer. Journal of Veterinary Medicine Series A 49, 93-98.
| Crossref | Google Scholar | PubMed |

Moseby KE, Hill BM, Lavery TH (2014) Tailoring release protocols to individual species and sites: one size does not fit all. PLoS ONE 9, e99753.
| Crossref | Google Scholar | PubMed |

Murray DL (2006) On improving telemetry-based survival estimation. Journal of Wildlife Management 70, 1530-1543.
| Crossref | Google Scholar |

Murray DL, Fuller MR (2000) A critical review of the effects of marking on the biology of vertebrates. In ‘Research techniques in animal ecology: controversies and consequences’. (Eds L Boitani, TK Fuller) pp. 15–64. (Columbia University Press)

Murray DL, Patterson BR (2006) Wildlife survival estimation: recent advances and future directions. Journal of Wildlife Management 70, 1499-1503.
| Crossref | Google Scholar |

Nichols JD, Runge MC, Johnson FA, Williams BK (2007) Adaptive harvest management of North American waterfowl populations: a brief history and future prospects. Journal of Ornithology 148, 343-349.
| Crossref | Google Scholar |

Nicholson DS, Lochmiller RL, Stewart MD, Masters RE, Leslie DM, Jr. (2000) Risk factors associated with capture-related death in eastern wild turkey hens. Journal of Wildlife Diseases 36, 308-315.
| Crossref | Google Scholar | PubMed |

Niedzielski B, Bowman J (2015) Survival and cause-specific mortality of the female eastern wild turkey at its northern range edge. Wildlife Research 41, 545-551.
| Crossref | Google Scholar |

Norton AS, Storm DJ, Watt MA, Jacques CN, Martin K, Van Deelen TR (2016) Left truncation criteria for survival analysis of white-tailed deer. The Journal of Wildlife Management 80, 1323-1331.
| Crossref | Google Scholar |

Pollentier CD, Lutz RS, Hull SD (2014) Survival and productivity of eastern wild turkey females in contrasting landscapes in Wisconsin. The Journal of Wildlife Management 78, 985-996.
| Crossref | Google Scholar |

Ponjoan A, Bota G, De La Morena ELG, Morales MB, Wolff A, Marco I, Mañosa S (2008) Adverse effects of capture and handling little bustard. Journal of Wildlife Management 72, 315-319.
| Crossref | Google Scholar |

Powell RA, Proulx G (2003) Trapping and marking terrestrial mammals for research: integrating ethics, performance criteria, techniques, and common sense. ILAR Journal 44, 259-276.
| Crossref | Google Scholar | PubMed |

Prevett JP, MacInnes CD (1980) Family and other social groups in snow geese. Wildlife Monographs 71, 3-46.
| Google Scholar |

Putman RJ (1995) Ethical considerations and animal welfare in ecological field studies. Biodiversity & Conservation 4, 903-915.
| Crossref | Google Scholar |

R Core Team (2020) ‘R: a language and environment for statistical computing.’ (R Foundation for Statistical Computing: Vienna, Austria) Available at https://www.R-project.org/

Read JL, Kearney MR (2016) Too hot to handle? Balancing increased trapability with capture mortality in hot weather pitfall trapping. Austral Ecology 41, 918-926.
| Crossref | Google Scholar |

Sarno RJ, González BA, Bonacic C, Zapata B, O’Brien SJ, Johnson WE (2009) Molecular genetic evidence for social group disruption of wild vicuñas Vicugna vicugna captured for wool harvest in Chile. Small Ruminant Research 84, 28-34.
| Crossref | Google Scholar |

Schemnitz SD, Batcheller GR, Lovallo MJ, White HB, Fall MW (2009) ‘Capturing and handling wild animals.’ (USDA Wildlife Services - Staff Publications) Available at https://digitalcommons.unl.edu/icwdm_usdanwrc/1191

Sedinger JS, Lindberg MS, Rexstad EA, Chelgren ND, Ward DH (1997) Testing for handling bias in survival estimation for black brant. The Journal of Wildlife Management 61, 782-791.
| Crossref | Google Scholar |

Severson JP, Coates PS, Prochazka BG, Ricca MA, Casazza ML, Delehanty DJ (2019) Global positioning system tracking devices can decrease Greater Sage-Grouse survival. The Condor 121, duz032.
| Crossref | Google Scholar |

Shea SA (2021) Retroviral infection dynamics in Maine’s Wild Turkeys. The University of Maine. Available at https://digitalcommons.library.umaine.edu/etd/3517. [accessed 22 September 2022]

Shea SA, Gonnerman M, Blomberg E, Sullivan K, Milligan P, Kamath PL (2022) Pathogen survey and predictors of Lymphoproliferative disease virus infection in wild turkeys (Meleagris gallopavo). Journal of Wildlife Diseases 58, 537-549.
| Crossref | Google Scholar | PubMed |

Soulsbury CD, Gray HE, Smith LM, Braithwaite V, Cotter SC, Elwood RW, Wilkinson A, Collins LM (2020) The welfare and ethics of research involving wild animals: a primer. Methods in Ecology and Evolution 11, 1164-1181.
| Crossref | Google Scholar |

Spotswood EN, Goodman KR, Carlisle J, Cormier RL, Humple DL, Rousseau J, Guers SL, Barton GG (2012) How safe is mist netting? evaluating the risk of injury and mortality to birds. Methods in Ecology and Evolution 3, 29-38.
| Crossref | Google Scholar |

Thiemann R, Dalton MF, Rose H, Baughman B, Butler A, Adcock K, Nemeth N, Armour N (2022) An investigation of the cause of wild turkey mortality in Mississippi. Avian Diseases 66, 237-242.
| Crossref | Google Scholar | PubMed |

Underwood TJ, Bromaghin JF, Klosiewski SP (2004) Evidence of handling mortality of adult chum salmon caused by fish wheel capture in the Yukon River, Alaska. North American Journal of Fisheries Management 24, 237-243.
| Crossref | Google Scholar |

Wagler BL, Smiley RA, Courtemanch AB, Anderson G, Lutz D, McWhirter D, Brimeyer D, Hnilicka P, Massing CP, German DW, Stephenson TR, Monteith KL (2022) Effects of helicopter net-gunning on survival of bighorn sheep. The Journal of Wildlife Management 86, e22181.
| Crossref | Google Scholar |

Waudby HP, Petit S, Gill MJ, Waudby HP, Petit S, Gill MJ (2019) The scientific, financial and ethical implications of three common wildlife-trapping designs. Wildlife Research 46, 690-700.
| Crossref | Google Scholar |

Williams BK, Nichols JD, Conroy MJ (2002) ‘Analysis and management of animal populations: modeling, estimation, and decision making.’ (Academic Press) Available at https://go.exlibris.link/twTGRvst

Wright RG, Paisley RN, Kubisiak JF (1996) Survival of wild turkey hens in Southwestern Wisconsin. The Journal of Wildlife Management 60, 313-320.
| Crossref | Google Scholar |

Zenas S (2018) Factors influencing post-capture survival and survival of eastern Wild Turkeys in Alabama. Available at https://etd.auburn.edu//handle/10415/6229 [accessed 3 February 2022]