Rio Grande Wild Turkeys Research Articles

Wild Turkey (Meleagris gallopavo) association to roads: implications for distance sampling

Road-based distance sampling is a common technique used to estimate the density of many wildlife species but potential biases exist unless the target popula- tion is randomly distributed around roads. Our objective was to determine if and when Rio Grande wild turkeys (Meleagris gallopavo intermedia; RGWT) were randomly distributed around roads to identify time periods in which road-based surveys would be most appropriate. We used triangulated locations obtained from radiotelemetry of RGWTs in the Edwards Plateau (2001-2003), Rolling Plains (2000-2006), and South Texas (2003-2006) ecoregions. Using a geographic information system, we conducted a use and availability analysis by sex, season, and time of day for each ecoregion to determine RGWT use of areas near roads (<200 m). We found the most appropriate time to conduct road-based distance sampling was from 1 December to 15 March during morning or afternoon. Our results suggested road-based surveys conducted during these periods should yield generally unbiased results in the Rolling Plains and Edwards Plateau ecoregions. We recommend researchers and managers investigate animal distributions around roads before implementing road-based monitoring programs for other wildlife species.

Impact of Reproductive Effort on Survival of Rio Grande Wild TurkeyMeleagris Gallop IntermediaHens in Texas

The southeastern portion of the Edwards Plateau of Texas, historically a stronghold of Rio Grande wild turkeysMeleagris gallopavo intermedia, has seen the numbers of turkeys declining since the 1970s. Because hen survival is a key parameter affecting turkey population dynamics, we monitored radio‐tagged Rio Grande wild turkey hens on the Edwards Plateau during 2001–2007 to compare survival during the breeding season in areas where turkey abundance has declined vs areas with stable populations. Breeding season survival was best predicted by a model that allowed variation during different periods of the reproductive season (initial nesting during 25 March – 21 April, renesting during 22 April – 12 June and post‐nesting during 13 June – 2 July) and differences between stable and declining regions. Model‐averaged estimates of breeding season survival were higher in the stable region (0.88; 95% CI: 0.78–0.94) than in the declining region (0.67; 95% CI: 0.55–0.78). Data collected on nests and hens during the intensive monitoring part of the study conducted during 2005–2007 indicated that breeding season survival was negatively affected by the amount of reproductive effort each season, i.e. the number of days a hen spent incubating a nest. Breeding season (25 March – 2 July) survival (0.86) was higher for non‐nesting hens than for hens that nested (0.68; average of 15 days spent nesting). Our results suggest that differences in productivity between stable and declining Rio Grande wild turkey populations in the Edwards Plateau of Texas were associated with differences in breeding season survival due to variable reproductive effort, which, when combined with precipitation‐dependent boom‐bust dynamics common to galliforms in this region, could limit long‐term population productivity and maintenance.

Predation of Rio Grande Wild Turkey Nests on the Edwards Plateau, Texas

Abstract We followed the fate of nests of Rio Grande Wild Turkeys (Meleagris gallopavo intermedia) on the Edwards Plateau of Texas during 2006 and 2007 using motion-activated digital cameras on a subset of nests to evaluate the frequency of nest predation and to identify nest predators. Predation was the primary cause of loss for nests with cameras, accounting for 57 and 65% in 2006 and 2007, respectively. Predation for nests without cameras also was high (69 and 65% for 2006 and 2007, respectively) suggesting the cameras did not increase the probability of nest failure. We documented partial-and multiple-predator events that could result in misidentification of nest predators. Our results provide insight into nest predator communities and confirm that multiple predator events occur with regularity in the wild.

Abnormal Eggs of Rio Grande Wild Turkeys on the Edwards Plateau, Texas

Abstract We studied the reproductive ecology of Rio Grande Wild Turkeys (Meleagris gallopavo intermedia) in the Edwards Plateau region, Texas during 2005 and 2006. Runt eggs from a single adult female were observed through three nesting events over 2 years. Mean mass and volume for the runt eggs were 44% of normal Wild Turkey eggs. Production of runt eggs is common in domesticated gallinaceous birds, yet little information is available on runt egg production in wild gallinaceous birds. To our knowledge, our observations are the first which indicate runt egg production occurs in Wild Turkeys.

Rio Grande Wild Turkey Habitat Selection in the Southern Great Plains

ABSTRACT We recorded telemetry locations from 1,129 radiotagged turkeys (Meleagris gallopavo intermedia) on 4 study areas in the Texas Panhandle and southwestern Kansas, USA, from 2000 to 2004. Analyses of telemetry locations indicated both sexes selected riparian vegetative zones. Females did not select grazed or nongrazed pastures for daily movements. However, females did select nongrazed pastures for nest sites on 2 study areas and males selected for grazed pastures at one study area during the breeding season. We compared nest sites (n = 351) to random sites using logistic regression, which indicated height of visual obstruction, percent canopy cover, and percent bare ground provided the highest predictive power (P ≤ 0.003) for characteristics describing nest‐site selection. Nest‐site vegetative characteristics between vegetative zones differed primarily in composition: upland zone nest sites had more (P ≤ 0.001) shrubs and riparian zone nest sites had more (P ≤ 0.001) grass. There were no differences in measured nest site vegetative characteristics between pasture types, but there were differences between available nesting cover in grazed and nongrazed pastures. Random plots in grazed pastures had less grass cover (P ≤ 0.001) and more bare ground (P = 0.002). Because of cattle impacts on average grass height and availability, grazing would likely have the highest impact on nesting in riparian zones due to turkey use of grass as nesting cover. An appropriate grazing plan to promote Rio Grande turkey nesting habitat would include grazing upland zones in the spring, when it likely has little impact on nesting‐site selection, and grazing riparian zones following breeding season completion. Grazing at light to moderate intensities with periods of rest did not affect male turkey pasture use and may have continued to maintain open areas used by male turkeys for displaying purposes.

Invertebrate Abundance at Rio Grande Wild Turkey Brood Locations

ABSTRACT Abundance of Rio Grande wild turkeys (Meleagris gallopavo intermedia) has declined in the southeastern Edwards Plateau (EP) of Texas, USA, whereas abundance has remained stable in the northwestern EP. Invertebrates are a critical protein source for poults &lt; 6 weeks posthatch. We collected invertebrates at brood and paired locations in both the stable and declining regions. Our objective was to determine if differences in invertebrate abundance existed in regions typified by declining versus stable Rio Grande wild turkey abundance. We found no difference in invertebrate abundance between brood or paired locations within regions, but invertebrate abundance, whether measured as dry mass or frequency, was greater in the stable region. Decreased invertebrate abundance may have contributed to the decline in Rio Grande wild turkey abundance in the southeastern Edwards Plateau.

Variation in Brood Sex Ratios of Texas Rio Grande Wild Turkeys

Abstract: We evaluated brood sex ratio (BSR) variation in Rio Grande wild turkeys (RGWT; Meleagris gallopavo intermedia) in the Edwards Plateau and South Texas Plains of Texas, USA, during 2005‐2006. Offspring sex was determined from DNA extracted from tissue biopsies of embryos from unhatched eggs or vascular tissue from eggshells of hatched and depredated eggs. Sex ratio across all eggs was 56.3% male (135/240; X21 = 3.75, P = 0.053). We found that mean population growth rate based on a population simulation with BSR at unity averaged 1.02 (range = 0.924‐1.058), whereas it declined to 0.978 (range = 0.816‐1.037) using BSR estimates from our study. Although our statistical analyses did not detect BSRs different from unity in BSR, our simulation modeling demonstrated that BSR variation caused biologically significant differences in mean population growth rates. Even though the biological mechanism controlling primary sex ratio remains unknown, our estimates of BSR should allow managers to more reliably predict population dynamics insuring viable RGWT populations across Texas.

Road‐Based Surveys for Estimating Wild Turkey Density in the Texas Rolling Plains

Abstract: Line‐transect‐based distance sampling has been used to estimate density of several wild bird species including wild turkeys (Meleagris gallopavo). We used inflatable turkey decoys during autumn (Aug‐Nov) and winter (Dec‐Mar) 2003‐2005 at study sites in the Texas Rolling Plains, USA, to simulate Rio Grande wild turkey (M. g. intermedia) flocks. We evaluated detectability of flocks using logistic regression models. Our modeling effort suggested that distance to a flock and flock size played important roles in flock detectability. We also conducted surveys from roads for wild turkeys during November 2004‐January 2006. The detection probability of decoy flocks was similar to wild turkey flocks during winter (decoy flock, 69.3 ± 6.2% [x̄ ± 95% CI]; wild turkey flock, 62.2 ± 18.3%) and autumn (decoy flock, 44.1 ± 5.1%; wild turkey flock, 44.7 ± 25.6%), which suggested that using decoys was appropriate for evaluating detectability of wild turkey flocks from roads. We conducted computer simulations to evaluate the performance of line‐transect‐based distance sampling and examined the power to detect trends in population change. Simulations suggested that population density may be underestimated by 12% during inter and 29% during autumn. Such bias occurred because of incomplete detectability of flocks near roads. Winter surveys tended to have less bias, lower relative variability, and greater power than did autumn surveys. During winter surveys, power was sufficient (≥0.80) to detect a 10‐25% change in population density in 8‐12 years using ≥100 16‐km transects or ≥80 32‐km transects. We concluded line‐transect‐based distance sampling from roads is an efficient, effective, and inexpensive technique for monitoring Rio Grande wild turkey populations across large scales.

Aerial Surveys for Estimating Wild Turkey Abundance in the Texas Rolling Plains

Abstract:Aerial surveys have been used to estimate abundance of several wild bird species including wild turkeys (Meleagris gallopavo). We used inflatable turkey decoys at 3 study sites in the Texas Rolling Plains to simulate Rio Grande wild turkey (M. g. intermedia) flocks. We evaluated detectability of flocks and errors in counting flock size during fixed‐wing (Cessna 172) aerial surveys using logistic and linear regression models. Flock detectability was primarily influenced by flock size and vegetative cover, and errors in counting flock size were primarily influenced by size of flocks. We conducted computer simulations to evaluate the accuracy and precision of fixed‐wing aerial surveys and examined power to detect trends in population change. Our simulations suggested abundance estimates from fixed‐wing aerial surveys may be underestimated by 10‐15% (2.0‐4.8% CV). Power analyses suggested that fixed‐wing aerial surveys can provide sufficient power (&gt;0.80) to detect a population change of 10‐25% over a 4‐5‐year period. We concluded fixed‐wing aerial surveys are feasible on ecoregion scales.

Wild turkey (Meleagris gallopavo) detectability from helicopters and ramifications for estimating abundance

Aerial surveys have been used to estimate abundance for several wild bird species but its application for wild turkey (Meleagris gallopavo) populations has been limited. We surveyed Rio Grande wild turkey (M. gallopavo intermedia) populations during March 2006 using an R44 helicopter. We used flocks with radio-tagged birds to estimate flock detectability. We also used simulations to evaluate accuracy and precision and examine power to detect trends in population change. We observed that wild turkey flock detectability was 94.7% (74.0–99.9%; 95% CI). Our simulations suggested helicopter surveys would underestimate abundance by about 5.6% (4.6% CV). Surveying 980 to 1,960 km2 (requiring 27 to 55 h of flight time) can provide sufficient power (≥0.80) to detect a 10 to 25% change in abundance over a 4- to 5-year period.

Habitat Use and Survival of Preflight Wild Turkey Broods

Abstract: Wild turkey (Meleagris gallopavo) broods spend the first several days of life on the ground until poult flight capabilities are attained. This is a critical period of wild turkey life history, with poult survival ranging from 12% to 52%. We measured vegetation in plots used by Rio Grande wild turkey (M. g. intermedia) preflight broods at 4 sites in southwest Kansas and the Texas Panhandle, USA, to determine microhabitat selection for ground roosting and to determine if microhabitat was related to poult survival. Hens selected ground‐roost locations with more visual obstruction from multiple observation heights than random sites. Plots surrounding ground roosts had 1) greater visual obstruction; 2) increased tree decay; 3) higher percent grass, shrub, litter, and forb cover; and 4) lower percent bare ground cover than random sites. Grass, shrubs, and downed trees appeared to provide desired cover for ground‐roosting broods. Poult survival increased with age of poult, size of brood, and density of shrubs 1–2 m tall. Plots used by broods &lt;10 days old with above average survival contained more visual obstruction and shrubs than plots used by broods 10–16 days old with above average survival, signifying a shift in habitat use by successful broods as poults attain flight abilities. Density of shrubs 1–2 m tall in brood‐use areas appears to be important for poult survival to 16 days of age on southern Great Plains rangeland habitats. Ground‐level vegetative cover appears to be a significant factor in preflight poult survival. Provisions of ground‐level vegetative cover should be considered during wild turkey brooding periods where increased poult survival is desired.

Survival of Rio Grande Wild Turkeys on the Edwards Plateau of Texas

Abstract: The southeastern portion of the Edwards Plateau of Texas, historically a stronghold of Rio Grande wild turkeys (Meleagris gallopavo intermedia), has seen a decline in turkey numbers since the 1970s. Because adult and juvenile survival are key parameters affecting turkey population dynamics, we used radiotagged individuals to compare Rio Grande wild turkey survival in areas of suspected decline versus stable portions of the Edwards Plateau during 2001–2003. Reproductive period (breeding or nonbreeding) had an impact on survival, but differences in age, sex, or region did not influence survival. Model averaged estimates of monthly survival were 0.97 (SE = 0.005) for nonbreeding periods and 0.96 (SE = 0.007) for breeding periods. Our results indicate juvenile and adult survival in the declining areas was similar to survival in the stable areas of the Edwards Plateau. This suggests causes of the decline might be associated with differences during other life‐history stages, such as nest success or poult survival, although we cannot rule out the possibility juvenile or adult survival contributed to the decline in the past. This situation demonstrates why wildlife managers should be cognizant of the implications of initiating long‐term monitoring programs after changes in population status occur, rather than initiating them in expectation of such changes.

Male Rio Grande Turkey Survival and Movements in the Texas Panhandle and Southwestern Kansas

Wildlife managers depend on accurate information regarding wild turkey (Meleagris gallopavo) survival patterns to properly manage turkey populations. Survival patterns of male Rio Grande wild turkeys (M. g. intermedia) have not been studied intensively. Wildlife managers in the Texas Panhandle, USA, and southwestern Kansas, USA, suspected that turkey populations were declining. From January 2000 through August 2002, we studied survival and movement of 107 juvenile male and 115 adult male radiomarked Rio Grande wild turkeys on 4 study sites in the Texas Panhandle and southwestern Kansas. 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 greater male movement rates would lead to lower survival rates. Juvenile males had a higher annual survival rate (0.597 [95% CI hereafter: 0.478–0.716]) than adults (0.364 [0.257–0.472]). Juvenile male survival did not differ among seasons, with survival rates of 0.813 (0.736–0.891), 0.904 (0.837–0.972), and 0.917 (0.838–0.996) for spring, summer, and autumn, respectively. Adult male turkey survival was higher during summer (0.915 [0.859–0.972]) than during spring (0.725 [0.651–0.799]), autumn (0.671 [0.536–0.807]), and winter (0.792 [0.732–0.851]). Males had lower survival rates during seasons when long-distance movements were common. The annual survival rate for turkeys that moved to new core-use areas (0.383 [0.282–0.484]) was lower than that for turkeys that did not (0.535 [0.460–0.609]). Also, survival rates increased with time since relocation of core-use areas. Hunting accounted for 18.5% of all mortalities. However, most (80.7%) mortality was attributed to natural causes, mostly mammalian predation. We suspected most predation was the result of coyotes (Canis latrans) and bobcats (Lynx rufus). Managers in the northern portion of the natural range of Rio Grande wild turkeys 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.

Evaluation of Portable Infrared Cameras for Detecting Rio Grande Wild Turkeys

Observing nocturnal, cryptic, highly mobile, or elusive wildlife in the field is difficult. Precise abundance estimates are necessary to make management decisions. Numerous methods have been examined to estimate wild turkey abundance with limited success. The use of forward-looking infrared (FLIR) technology has increased and may improve the detection of wildlife. We sought to estimate Rio Grande wild turkey (Meleagris gallopavo intermedia) abundance using FLIR surveys and to assess the accuracy of these estimates by comparing them with independent estimates from ground surveys. We conducted 8 ground and aerial FLIR surveys of roost sites in 3 distinct ecological regions of Texas, USA. We were unable to aerially detect roosting turkeys using the portable FLIR camera because of altitudinal restrictions required for safe helicopter flight and lack of thermal contrast. Flight altitude was a principal obstacle because topography and aerial obstructions (i.e., utility poles, towers, and wires) often required higher-altitude flights than ideal for turkey observation. From an aerial perspective, wild turkey thermal signatures were camouflaged by their surroundings. The external temperatures of turkeys, tree branches, and other background objects (e.g., rocks, bare ground) were within 1.5°C of each other despite ambient temperatures or other weather variables (i.e., wind speed, humidity, and cloud cover). Therefore, there was not sufficient difference in radiant temperature of a turkey and its background to permit adequate detection from an aerial perspective.

WILD TURKEY (MELEAGRIS GALLOPAVO) AS A HOST OF IXODID TICKS, LICE, AND LYME DISEASE SPIROCHETES (BORRELIA BURGDORFERI SENSU LATO) IN CALIFORNIA STATE PARKS

Rio Grande wild turkeys (Meleagris gallopavo intermedia) were evaluated as potential hosts of ixodid ticks, lice, and Lyme disease spirochetes (Borrelia burgdorferi sensu lato [s.l.]) in three state parks in Sonoma County, California, USA, during 2003 and 2004. In total, 113 birds were collected, 50 (44.2%) of which were found to be infested by 361 ixodid ticks representing three species: the western black-legged tick (Ixodes pacificus, n=248), the rabbit tick (Haemaphysalis leporispalustris, n=112), and one American dog tick (Dermacentor variabilis). Year-round the prevalence of all ticks combined was unrelated to the age or sex of turkeys, and the prevalence of infestation by I. pacificus (35.4%) was significantly higher than it was for either H. leporispalustris (14.2%) or D. variabilis (0.9%). The proportion of the two prevalent tick species differed significantly by life stage with 86.3% of the I. pacificus and 82.1% of the H. leporispalustris enumerated being nymphs and larvae, respectively. Three species of lice were collected, including the chicken body louse Menacanthus stramineus (12.5% of total), Chelopistes meleagridis (37.5% of total), and Oxylipeurus polytrapezius (50% of total). The records for all three ticks are the first ever from wild turkeys, and those for the lice are the first from this host in the far-western United States. Wild turkeys potentially were exposed to the feeding activities of I. pacificus nymphs infected with B. burgdorferi s.l. as 15% of host-seeking nymphs (n=200) collected in woodlands used by turkeys as roosting or foraging areas were infected mainly with B. burgdorferi sensu stricto (s.s.). However, only one (1%) of 90 turkey blood specimens tested by PCR contained B. burgdorferi s.s., and four in vitro, complement-protein assays demonstrated that domestic turkey serum is moderately bacteriolytic for this spirochete. Taken together, these findings indicate that wild turkeys are important avian hosts of I. pacificus nymphs, but they appear to be inconsequential hosts of B. burgdorferi s.l.

Comparison of Two Techniques for Assessing Invertebrate Availability for Wild Turkeys in Texas

Although the importance of invertebrates to young galliforms has been demonstrated by numerous researchers, few comparisons of techniques designed to assess invertebrate availability for these species have been published. Our objective was to compare suction sampling and sweep-netting as methods for evaluating invertebrates available for Rio Grande wild turkey (Meleagris gallopavo intermedia) poults on the Edwards Plateau of Texas, USA. We collected invertebrates via sweep-netting (n = 102) and suction sampling (n = 100) during summers 2002 and 2003 at brood locations. Suction sampling collected the same orders of invertebrates as sweep-netting, but invertebrate dry mass and frequency of occurrence were lower for nearly every order compared to sweep-netting. Suction sampling provided no additional information to that obtained by sweep-netting in the broken grasslands where our study was conducted. For this reason, we believe the additional cost and time required to implement this technique was not warranted for our study areas.

Poult Adoption and Nest Abandonment by a Female Rio Grande Wild Turkey in Texas

While evaluating reproductive parameters in Rio Grande Wild Turkeys (Meleagris gallopavo intermedia) in the Edwards Plateau region of Texas, we observed a case of poult adoption and abandonment of an active nest. In wild turkeys, adoption of poults has been described previously, but during our observation the hen also abandoned her nest at a late stage of incubation. Most research discussing adoption in gallinaceous birds has focused on brood abandonment after hatch. Although poult adoption in conjunction with nest abandonment is probably rare, our observations indicate that it can occur, at least in Rio Grande Wild Turkeys.

The relationship of Rio Grande wild turkey distributions to roads

Wildlife Society Bulletin 2005, 33(2):745–748 Peer refereed Distance sampling from roads is a common population estimation technique used for many wildlife species (Brennan and Block 1986, DeYoung and Priebe 1987, Borralho et al. 1996, Dahlheim et al. 2000). A critical assumption of the distance sampling technique is that the distribution of animals is not influenced by the transect, but this assumption may be violated if the transect is a road (Burnham et al. 1980, Buckland et al. 2001, Williams et al. 2001). Attraction of target animals to the transect will result in inflated population estimates, and withdrawal from the transect will bias the estimates low (Verner 1985,Thompson et al. 1998, Buckland et al. 2001). Many authors have suggested line transects should not be positioned along roadways unless individuals are randomly distributed across the landscape (Burnham et al. 1980, Buckland et al. 2001, Williams et al. 2001). Male Rio Grande wild turkeys (Meleagris gallopavo intermedia) likely use roads as display sites in south Texas; thus, population surveys using roads should be conducted outside of the breeding season to reduce the probability of wild turkeys being attracted to roads (DeYoung and Priebe 1987). Eastern wild turkeys (M. g. silvestris) in Virginia used areas >450 m from roads more than expected and areas <150 m from roads in proportion to availability (McDougal et al. 1990). In Arizona, male Merriam’s wild turkeys (M. g. merriami) used areas <200 m from roads less than expected (Rogers et al. 1999). However, none of those studies examined the relationship of roads to wild turkey distributions during specific seasons and time periods. Our objectives were to quantify the association of male and female Rio Grande wild turkeys to roads according to season and time of day, and examine the potential biases of using roads as transects for distance sampling. We conducted this research in order to help develop appropriate protocols for distance sampling of Rio Grande wild turkeys from roads.

Survival of Rio Grande Wild Turkey chicks

Knowledge of chick survival rates is required to develop species-specific habitat-survival relationships. We determined pre-flight daily survival of Rio Grande Wild Turkey (Meleagris gallopavo intermedia) chicks from hatching to time of tree roost at four sites in southwestern Kansas and the Texas Rolling Plains, May–August, 2000 and 2001. One-hundred twenty-three chicks from 39 broods were equipped with cyanoacrylate-attached transmitters. The first day of brood tree-roost ranged from 9–16 d after hatching. Chick survival to 16 d of age ranged from 0.11 to 0.67. One-hundred percent of mortalities in 2000 and 70% of mortalities in 2001 for chicks 0–16 d old occurred <10 d after hatching. Survival at two of four sites was higher for 10–16 d-old chicks than 0–9 d-old chicks. Combining different survival periods may cause biased results when examining habitat-survival relationships.

Comparison of Microhabitat Conditions at Nest Sites Between Eastern (Meleagris gallopavo silvestris) and Rio Grande Wild Turkeys (M. g. intermedia) in Northeastern South Dakota

Rio Grande wild turkeys (Meleagris gallopavo intermedia) were trapped in Oklahoma and released in northeastern South Dakota during the early 1970s. Based on wintering counts, this population peaked at over 1000 birds in the mid 1980s, but steadily declined to <200 in 1996. This decline prompted the introduction of eastern wild turkeys (M. g. silvestris), which were indigenous to southeastern South Dakota, as a replacement subspecies. We compared nest site characteristics of translocated eastern wild turkeys with those of established Rio Grande wild turkeys. Over a 2 y period we radio-marked 23 eastern females, and 21 Rio Grande females. Eastern females initiated 45 nests, whereas Rio Grande females initiated 41 nests. Vegetation type selection for nest sites (e.g., woodland, grassland and shrub) did not differ between Rio Grande and eastern wild turkeys (P = 0.96). However, turkey nest sites (subspecies pooled) differed from paired reference sites by having: (1) more nest sites directly under shrubs (P < 0.001) within woodlands and shrublands, (2) more trees within 1 m of the nest bowl (P = 0.001) in woodlands and (3) greater cover above the nest bowl (P = 0.007) within grasslands and shrublands. Frequency of vegetation types selected by female wild turkeys of both subspecies as nest sites differed (P = 0.001) from the frequency of vegetation types randomly sampled. Although shrub vegetation types were least available, females selected shrub vegetation types (primarily western snowberry [Symphoricarpos occidentalis]) for the majority (53%) of nest initiations. Other nests were divided between woodlands (27%) and grasslands (20%). Nest success was not correlated with vegetation type.