Find research datasets worth reusing
Search datasets from major research repositories and use ShareScore to quickly assess how well each record supports discovery, access, and reuse.
41
datasets available to search
ShareScore release 0.9.0
Dataset results
41 results for “wild turkey.”
Figure 7 in Mitochondrial DNA control region variability of wild boar Sus scrofa with various external phenotypes in Turkey
Figure 7. Median-joining network of 68 haplotypes from 485 wild boars from different regions of the world. Circle sizes are proportional to haplotype frequencies and numbers refer to haplotype codes in Table 2. Numbers on the branches indicate the number of nucleotide substitutions, if more than one. Major haplogroups are delimited by dashed lines. A, Asian; NE, Near Eastern; E1, European E1; E2, European E2. Haplotypes exclusive to Turkey are labeled in green.
Figure 3 in Mitochondrial DNA control region variability of wild boar Sus scrofa with various external phenotypes in Turkey
Figure 3. Maximum likelihood phylogenetic tree of haplotypes of the Turkish wild boars (Sus scrofa) obtained in the present study, based on the partial D-loop sequences of mtDNA. Numbers above or below branches indicate bootstrap values. TR numbers refer to current haplotype numbers in Table 1 and H numbers refer to the published haplotype labels downloaded from GenBank (Table 2). E1: European 1 haplogroup/clade in Figure 5, NE: Near East haplogroup/ clade in Figure 5.
Figure 2 in Mitochondrial DNA control region variability of wild boar Sus scrofa with various external phenotypes in Turkey
Figure 2. Various phenotypes of obtained Turkish wild boar individuals from different localities studied presently.
Figure 6 in Mitochondrial DNA control region variability of wild boar Sus scrofa with various external phenotypes in Turkey
Figure 6. Bayesian inference tree based on 68 partial D-loop haplotypes of 485 wild boars (both obtained in this study and downloaded from GenBank). Posterior probabilities are indicated at nodes. Haplogroups: A, Asian; NE, Near Eastern; E1, European E1; E2, European E2. Outgroup taxa are Sus barbatus and Phacochoerus aethiopicus.
Figure 1 in Mitochondrial DNA control region variability of wild boar Sus scrofa with various external phenotypes in Turkey
Figure 1. Location map of the 70 samples examined in this study: black dots indicate local samples of one or more individuals and numbers refer to locality names in Table 1. TT (Turkish Thrace, 1–4), SWA (Southwestern Anatolia, 5–11), CA (Central Anatolia, 12–26), NEA (Northeastern Anatolia, 27–30), and SEA (Southeastern Anatolia, 31–34).
Figure 5 in Mitochondrial DNA control region variability of wild boar Sus scrofa with various external phenotypes in Turkey
Figure 5. Maximum likelihood tree based on 68 haplotypes from 485 wild boar D-loop region sequences (both obtained in this study and downloaded from GenBank). Numbers above or below branches indicate bootstrap support values. Haplogroups: A, Asian; NE, Near Eastern; E1, European E1; E2, European E2. Outgroup taxa are Sus barbatus and Phacochoerus aethiopicus.
Figure 4 in Mitochondrial DNA control region variability of wild boar Sus scrofa with various external phenotypes in Turkey
Figure 4. Bayesian phylogenetic tree constructed from haplotypes of the wild boar (Sus scrofa) samples collected in this study, based on the partial D-loop sequences of mtDNA. Posterior probabilities are indicated at nodes. TR numbers refer to current haplotype numbers in Table 1 and H numbers refer to the published haplotype labels downloaded from GenBank (Table 2). E1: European 1 haplogroup/clade in Figure 5, NE: Near East haplogroup/clade in Figure 5.
The role of human hunters and natural predators in shaping the selection of behavioral types in male wild turkeys
Open the record for dataset details and reuse information.
Influence of weather on gobbling activity of male wild turkeys
<p>Gobbling activity of Eastern wild turkeys (<em>Meleagris gallopavo silvestris</em>; hereafter, turkeys) has been widely studied, focusing on drivers of daily variation. Weather variables are widely believed to influence gobbling activity, but results across studies are contradictory and often equivocal, leading to uncertainty in the relative contribution of weather variables to daily fluctuations in gobbling activity. Previous works relied on road-based auditory surveys to collect gobbling data which limits data consistency, duration, and quantity due to logistical difficulties associated with human observers and restricted sampling frames. Development of new methods using autonomous recording units (ARUs) allows researchers to collect continuous data in more locations for longer periods of time, providing the opportunity to delve into factors influencing daily gobbling activity. We used ARUs from 1 March to 31 May to detail gobbling activity across multiple study sites in the southeastern United States during 2014 – 2018. We used state-space modeling to investigate the effects of weather variables on daily gobbling activity. Our findings suggest rainfall, greater wind speeds, and greater temperatures negatively affected gobbling activity, whereas increasing barometric pressure positively affected gobbling activity. Therefore, when using daily gobbling activity to make inferences relative to gobbling chronology, reproductive phenology, and hunting season frameworks stakeholders should recognize and consider the potential influences of extended periods of inclement weather. </p>
Early nest initiation and vegetation density enhance nest survival in Wild Turkeys
<p>The theory of adaptive habitat selection suggests resource selection by animals should reflect underlying quality, such that individual selection confers an adaptive advantage via increased fitness. Using resource selection functions and nest survival models, we demonstrated that visual obstruction at the nest site was adaptively significant but timing of nest initiation had the greatest effect on nest survival for eastern wild turkeys (Meleagris gallopavo silvestris). Predation risk is a selective pressure, and if individuals can perceive predation risk, they may respond by altering selection of nest site characteristics based on prior experience. We evaluated patterns in nest site selection of 387 wild turkeys and consequences of selection on reproductive success across the southeastern United States from 2014-2019. We monitored 549 nest sites and found that nest initiation date had the strongest effect on daily nest survival rates, wherein adult females at our earliest nest initiation date were ~ 4 times more likely to successfully nest than females at our latest nest initiation dates. Selection of nest sites with greater visual obstruction also increased daily nest survival rates as females were 1.17 (1.100 – 1.234; 95% CI) and 1.37 (1.258 – 1.486; 95% CI) times more likely to select sites for every 10 cm increase in visual obstruction and maximum vegetation height, respectively. Collectively, our results indicate that nest initiation date is likely the critical parameter driving wild turkey nest success, whereas vegetative conditions play a lesser role influencing nest success. Females nesting earlier may be in better body condition and show increased nest attentiveness, which may mediate nest success more than vegetation conditions around nest sites. Our work indicates that increasing the reproductive success of wild turkeys may hinge on females being able to nest as early as possible within the reproductive season.</p>
Factors influencing survival of female eastern wild turkeys in northeastern South Dakota
<p>Population growth can be sensitive to changes in survival rates for many avian species. Understanding sources of mortality, and how to mitigate negative effects on survival, can give managers insight into factors contributing to population change. Harvest trends of eastern wild turkeys (<em>Meleagris gallopavo silvestris</em>) in northeastern South Dakota suggest a decline in abundance. We investigated factors influencing survival of wild turkeys to identify potential factors contributing to the decline. We monitored 122 female wild turkeys using VHF radio transmitters from February 2017 to April 2019. Annual survival was 0.52 (95% CI = 0.33–0.64) for juvenile and 0.49 (95% CI = 0.23–0.63) for adult females, respectively. Daily survival probability was significantly lower during the spring (log‐odds ratio [LOR] = −0.9; 95% CI = −1.5–−0.2) and while a juvenile female was incubating (LOR = −0.67; 95% CI = −1.23–−0.09) but not while an adult female was incubating (LOR = −0.35; 95% CI = −0.92–0.24). Mammalian predation was the leading cause of mortality, and female wild turkeys were most vulnerable to predation during the spring while engaging in nesting and rearing of young broods. Wild turkeys were at risk for additional sources of mortality while incubating nests that were not contributors to mortality during other periods of the year, as deaths caused by haying equipment—the second greatest cause of mortality—only occurred while a female was incubating. Reducing female mortality due to haying, by delaying cutting, installing flushing bars on haying equipment, or increasing availability of suitable nesting cover types to reduce the probability of nesting in hayfields, could improve female survival. Annual survival during our study was about 16–29% lower than survival estimates from northeastern South Dakota during the 1990s, suggesting that reduced female survival could be contributing to the apparent decline in wild turkey abundance.</p>
Fig. 1 in Chewing lice (Phthiraptera) species of wild birds in northwestern Turkey with a new host record
Fig. 1. Degeerialla nisus from the common buzzard (Bute buteo). (A), Male, (B) male genitalia.
Figure 3 in Current status, distribution, and conservation of brown bear (Ursidae) and wild canids (gray wolf, golden jackal, and red fox; Canidae) in Turkey
Figure 3. The distribution map of golden jackal.
Figure 2 in Current status, distribution, and conservation of brown bear (Ursidae) and wild canids (gray wolf, golden jackal, and red fox; Canidae) in Turkey
Figure 2. The distribution map of gray wolf.
Figure 1 in Current status, distribution, and conservation of brown bear (Ursidae) and wild canids (gray wolf, golden jackal, and red fox; Canidae) in Turkey
Figure 1. The distribution map of brown bear.
Data from: Intraspecific variation and symmetry of the inner-ear labyrinth in a population of wild turkeys: implications for paleontological reconstructions
The cochlea and semicircular canals of the inner ear are vital neurosensory devices. There are associations between the anatomy of these sensorineural structures, their function, and the function of related biological systems, e.g., hearing ability, gaze stabilization, locomotor agility, and posture. The endosseous labyrinth is frequently used as a proxy to infer the performance of the hearing and vestibular systems, locomotor abilities, and ecology of extinct species. Such fossil inferences are often based on single specimens or even a single ear, representing an entire species. To address whether a single ear is representative of a population, we used geometric morphometrics to quantitatively assess the variation in shape and symmetry in a sample of endosseous labyrinths of wild turkeys Meleagris gallopavo of southern Ohio. We predicted that ears would be symmetrical both within individuals and across the sample; that labyrinth shape and size would covary; that labyrinth shape would vary with the size of the brain, measured as width of the endocranium at the cerebellum; and that labyrinths would be morphologically integrated. To test these predictions, we microCT-scanned the heads of 26 cadaveric turkeys, digitally segmented their endosseous labyrinths in Avizo, and assigned 15 manual landmarks and 20 sliding semilandmarks to each digital model. Following Procrustes alignment, we conducted an analysis of bilateral symmetry, a Procrustes regression analysis for allometry and other covariates including side and replicate, and analyses of global integration and modularity. Based on Procrustes distances, no individual's left and right ears were clearly different from each other. When comparing the ears of different specimens, statistically clear differences in shape were found in only 66 of more than 1300 contrasts. Moreover, effects of both directional and fluctuating asymmetry were very small—generally, two orders of magnitude smaller than the variance explained by individual variation. Statistical tests disagreed on whether these asymmetric effects crossed the threshold of significance, possibly due to non-isotropic variation among landmarks. Regardless, labyrinths appeared to primarily vary in shape symmetrically. Neither labyrinth size nor endocranial width was correlated with labyrinth shape, contrary to our expectations. Finally, labyrinths were found to be moderately integrated in a global sense, but four weakly separated modules—the three semicircular canals and cochlea—were recovered using a maximum-likelihood analysis. The results show that both fluctuating and directional asymmetry play a larger role in shape variation than expected—but nonetheless, endosseous labyrinths are symmetrical within individuals and at the level of the population, and their shape varies symmetrically. Thus, inferences about populations, and very possibly species, may be confidently made when only a single specimen, or even a single ear, is available for study.
Data from: Factors Influencing Productivity of Eastern Wild Turkeys in Northeastern South Dakota
<p>Population growth is highly sensitive to changes in reproductive rates for many avian species. Understanding how reproductive rates are related to environmental conditions can give managers insight into factors contributing to population change. Harvest trends of eastern wild turkey (<i>Meleagris gallopavo silvestris</i>) in northeastern South Dakota suggest an apparent decline in abundance in recent years. We therefore investigate factors influencing reproductive success of this important game bird to identify potential factors contributing to this decline. We monitored nesting rate, nest survival, re-nesting rate, clutch size, hatchability, and poult survival of 116 eastern wild turkey hens using VHF radio-transmitters during the springs and summers of 2017 and 2018. Heavier hens were more likely to attempt to nest than lighter hens, and adult hens were more likely to re-nest than yearling hens. Nest survival probability was lowest in agricultural fields relative to all other cover types and positively related to horizontal visual obstruction and distance to the nearest road. Daily nest survival probability demonstrated an interaction between temperature and precipitation, such that nest survival probability was lower on warm, wet days, but lowest on dry days. Egg predation was the leading cause of nest failure, followed by haying of the nest bowl and death of the incubating hen. Poults reared by adult hens had a greater probability of survival than poults reared by yearling hens. Our estimate of survival probability of poults raised by yearling hens was low relative to other studies, which may be contributing to the apparent regional population decline. However, there is little managers can do to influence poult survival in yearling hens. Alternatively, we found nest survival probability was lowest for nests initiated in agricultural fields. Wildlife-friendly harvesting practices in the region such as delayed harvesting or installation of flushing bars could help increase productivity of eastern wild turkey in northeastern South Dakota.</p>
Wild Plants Used as Vegetables by Transhumant People Around the Georgia–Turkey Border in the Western Lesser Caucasus
<p> Recent ethnobotanical studies in the Caucasus, mainly in Georgia, reveal the</p> <p>significant ethnobotanical knowledge of local people related to wild edible plants.</p> <p>However, few studies have been conducted in the Lesser Caucasus, West Georgia,</p> <p>and the Turkish Caucasus. is study aims to represent and evaluate the cultural</p> <p>importance of wild vegetable plants and their patterns of use along the</p> <p>Georgia–Turkey border. During the transhumance period in the summers of 2017</p> <p>and 2018, 104 participants (65 in Turkey and 39 in Georgia) were interviewed</p> <p>using a semistructured questionnaire. e Cultural Importance Index and</p> <p>Relative Frequency of Citation were used to compare the relative importance of</p> <p>species in each region. e use of 83 wild plant species from 23 plant families as</p> <p>vegetables was documented, with 45 species recorded in Georgia and 72 species in</p> <p>Turkey. One-third of the recorded wild plant species and 52 use instances out of</p> <p>122 species-use combinations were shared on both sides of the border. Women</p> <p>and men had mentioned almost the same number of species, and there was a</p> <p>nonsignificant correlation between plant knowledge and age. Although there</p> <p>were no significant differences in the plant parts used, the way people used plants</p> <p>as vegetables varied significantly across the border. Considering the floral</p> <p>similarity across the border, the number of species used in common and shared</p> <p>vegetable plant knowledge was quite low. ere is not a significant difference</p> <p>between the two countries in terms of the most frequently cited and culturally</p> <p>important species (Rumex, Urtica, and Polygonum spp.). However, the</p> <p>recognition of some of the most important shared species (Heracleum,</p> <p>Chaerophyllum, Arctium, and Campanula spp.) diverged significantly in different</p> <p>administrative regions.</p>
Data from: Gobbling across landscapes: Eastern wild turkey distribution and occupancy-habitat associations
<p>Extensive restoration and translocation efforts beginning in the mid-20<sup>th</sup> century helped to reestablish eastern wild turkeys (<i>Meleagris gallopavo silvestris</i>) throughout their ancestral range. The adaptability of wild turkeys resulted in further population expansion in regions that were considered unfavorable during initial reintroductions across the northern United States. Identification and understanding of species distributions and contemporary habitat associations are important for guiding effective conservation and management strategies across different ecological landscapes. To investigate differences in wild turkey distribution across two contrasting regions, heavily forested northern Wisconsin, USA, and predominately agricultural southeast Wisconsin, we conducted 3,050 gobbling call-count surveys from March–May 2014–2018 and used multiseason correlated-replicate occupancy models to evaluate occupancy-habitat associations and distributions of wild turkeys in each study region. Detection probabilities varied widely and were influenced by sampling period, time of day, and wind speed. Spatial autocorrelation between successive stations was prevalent along survey routes but were stronger in our northern study area. In heavily forested northern Wisconsin, turkeys were more likely to occupy areas characterized by moderate availability of open land cover. Conversely, large agricultural fields decreased the likelihood of turkey occupancy in southeast Wisconsin, but occupancy probability increased as upland hardwood forest cover became more aggregated on the landscape. Turkeys in northern Wisconsin were more likely to occupy landscapes with less snow cover and a higher percentage of row crops planted in corn. However, we were unable to find supporting evidence in either study area that abandonment of turkeys from survey routes was associated with snow depth or with the percentage of agricultural cover. Spatially, model-predicted estimates of patch-specific occupancy indicated turkey distribution was nonuniform across northern and southeast Wisconsin. Our findings demonstrate that the environmental constraints of turkey occupancy varied across the latitudinal gradient of the state with open cover, snow, and row crops being influential in the north, and agricultural areas and hardwood forest cover important in the southeast. These forces contribute to non-stationarity in wild turkey-environmental relationships. Key habitat-occupancy associations identified in our results can be used to prioritize and strategically target management efforts and resources in areas that are more likely to harbor sustainable turkey populations.</p>
Seasonal roost selection of wild turkeys at their northern range edge
<p>Wild turkeys (<em>Meleagris gallopavo</em>) are diurnally active birds that spend the dark hours roosting in trees. We tested the hypothesis that multiple benefits exist for roost tree selection by wild turkeys, including thermoregulation, resource acquisition, and protection from predators. We compared 48 roost trees used by eastern wild turkeys (M. g. <em>silvestris</em>) in Ontario, Canada to 48 non-roost trees sampled contemporaneously during 2017-2019 to determine roost site selection between seasons. Mean (± SE) roost tree height (21.4 ± 0.8 m) was taller than non-roost trees (18.2 ± 0.8 m), and roost trees were also larger in diameter at breast height (58.1 ± 5.5 cm versus 38.7 ± 3.1 cm). Using ibuttons to collect microclimate temperatures at the tree, we found that mean temperature (± SE) of a deciduous roost (14.5 ± 0.1°C) was higher than temperature at either a coniferous roost (13.9 ± 0.1°C) or ambient temperature (13.2 ± 0.1°C) during the summer months. In winter however, we did not find any relationship between temperature and tree type. Roosts were closer to buildings (150.8 ± 26.0 m) in the winter compared to summer and year-round roosts, and winter roosts were also farther away from crops (395.2 ± 63.7 m) compared to roost sites used year-round. Summer roosts were closer to roads (143 ± 36.3 m) than the roosts in the winter and roosts used year-round. Our data suggest that thermoregulation is not the driving force behind roost selection; instead, predator avoidance appears to play the most important role, with some weaker evidence in support of proximity to resources.</p>
ScienceDex guides
Understand access before you commit
These curated guides explain access requirements, typical timelines, costs, and reuse considerations for widely used research datasets.
Allen Brain Atlas
Allen Brain Atlas is an Allen Institute collection of brain map atlases, datasets, APIs, and analysis tools covering mouse, human, and non-human primate brain resources.
Annotated Behaviour and Observability Dataset (ABODe)
ABODe is a University of Edinburgh DataShare dataset for behavior classification in group-housed mice using home-cage video, identities, bounding boxes, ground-plate positions, and annotator labels.
DANDI Archive for NWB datasets
DANDI is a BRAIN Initiative archive for publishing and sharing neurophysiology data, including electrophysiology, optophysiology, and behavioral data packaged as NWB and related standards.
International Brain Laboratory public data
The International Brain Laboratory public data releases expose standardized mouse decision-making experiments, including Neuropixels recordings, widefield calcium imaging, behavior, and session metadata accessed through the ONE API.
OpenNeuro
OpenNeuro is a free, open platform for sharing neuroimaging datasets, with public search, dataset pages, and download paths for web, S3, DataLad, and the OpenNeuro CLI.