Estimating eastern wild turkey productivity using trail camera images

Hannah E. Butkiewicz; Jennifer L. Stenglein; Jason D. Riddle; Shelby A. Truckenbrod; Christopher D. Pollentier

doi:10.1071/WR24169

RESEARCH ARTICLE (Open Access)

Estimating eastern wild turkey productivity using trail camera images

Hannah E. Butkiewicz ^A ^B , Jennifer L. Stenglein ^C , Jason D. Riddle ^A , Shelby A. Truckenbrod ^A ^D and Christopher D. Pollentier

^C ^*

+ Author Affiliations

- Author Affiliations

^A College of Natural Resources, University of Wisconsin—Stevens Point, Stevens Point, WI 54481, USA.

^B Present address: The Nature Conservancy, 25 West Main Street, Madison, WI 53703, USA.

^C Office of Applied Science, Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources, Madison, WI 53716, USA.

^D Present address: Organismic and Evolutionary Biology Graduate Program, University of Massachusetts, Amherst, MA 01003, USA.

^* Correspondence to: christopher.pollentier@wisconsin.gov

Handling Editor: Shannon Dundas

Wildlife Research 52, WR24169 https://doi.org/10.1071/WR24169

Submitted: 4 October 2024 Accepted: 6 June 2025 Published: 21 July 2025

© 2025 The Author(s) (or their employer(s)). Published by CSIRO Publishing. This is an open access article distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License (CC BY-NC-ND)

Abstract

Context

Trail cameras provide researchers and managers with the ability to study and monitor animals remotely at large temporal and spatial scales and often with less effort than traditional surveys. Trail cameras have been used to identify eastern wild turkey (Meleagris gallopavo silvestris) roost sites and to investigate nest predators and parasitism, although no studies to date have attempted to estimate productivity at larger spatial scales using trail cameras alone.

Aims

We studied how a statewide network of >2000 trail cameras operated by community scientists could be used to estimate wild turkey productivity metrics in Wisconsin, USA, and explored the patterns in these metrics throughout the summer brood-rearing season and across Turkey Management Zones (TMZs).

Methods

Trail cameras from the Snapshot Wisconsin project generated 38,671 turkey triggers (bursts of three photos) in June–August 2016–2020. We classified each trigger into counts of hens (breeding-age females) and poults, and generated three productivity metrics: percentage of successful hens, poult-to-total-hen ratio and poult-to-successful-hen ratio. For each metric we modeled the effects of temporal and spatial covariates and included site and year random effects.

Key results

We found positive relationships between time (June–August) and percentage of successful hens and poult-to-total-hen ratio likely due to renesting hens becoming successful, and increased detection of wild turkey poults as they grow, and a negative relationship with poult-to-successful-hen ratio likely due to renest attempts resulting in fewer poults due to smaller clutch sizes and mortality of poults during the brood-rearing phase. We also found weak non-linear relationships between each productivity metric and different land cover proportions within 308-hectare buffers of camera sites. The percentage of successful hens was largest at sites with high proportions of coniferous forest, poult-to-total-hen ratio was highest and less variable at sites with higher grassland proportion, and poult-to-successful-hen ratio was greatest at sites with high proportion of oak forest. Productivity metrics varied across TMZs with generally higher values in northern and eastern versus southern and western TMZs. For an average year and across TMZs from our modeled results, we estimated 36.0% of hens were successful, a poult-to-total-hen ratio of 1.08, and poult-to-successful-hen ratio value of 2.59. These estimates were for the last time period in the model (i.e. the month of August or the last week in August) and represent our best understanding of Wisconsin wild turkey recruitment for poults that have survived summer and are recruited into the wild turkey population headed into autumn.

Conclusions

Our research demonstrated that trail cameras can be used to remotely index wild turkey productivity at spatial and temporal scales that would not otherwise be possible with traditional field methods. Our recruitment estimates were low compared to other wild turkey surveys in Wisconsin and surrounding states which could be due to lower detection rates of poults compared to hens on trail cameras.

Implications

We believe that the use of trail cameras warrants further investigation in conjunction with efforts to account for and model detection probability for hens and poults, separately, if trail camera-derived productivity metrics are to be considered for monitoring wild turkey populations.

Keywords: citizen science, community science, Eastern wild turkey, Meleagris gallopavo silvestris, mixed-effect modeling, poults, productivity, recruitment, remote camera, reproduction, Snapshot Wisconsin, trail camera, Wisconsin.

References

Adey EA, Baici JE, Bowman J (2024) Seasonal roost selection of wild turkeys at their northern range edge. Wildlife Biology 2024, e01133.
| Crossref | Google Scholar |

Anderson RG, Pelren E, Redding T (2011) A guide for field-aging wild turkey poults during summer brood production surveys. In ‘Proceedings of the Tenth National Wild Turkey Symposium: Managing Wild Turkeys in the Face of Uncertainty’, 11–13 January 2011, Shepherdstown, WV, USA. (Ed. GW Norman) pp. 93–99. (National Wild Turkey Federation: Edgefield, SC, USA)

Attig JW, Bricknell M, Carson EC, Clayton L, Johnson MD, Mickelson DM, Syverson KM (2011) Glaciation of Wisconsin. (Wisconsin Geological and Natural History Survey: Madison, WI, USA) Available at https://wgnhs.wisc.edu/catalog/publication/000185/resource/es0362011 [Verified 17 July 2025]

Backs SE (2020) Wild turkey summer brood production indices – 2020. Wildlife Management and Research Notes number 2067. (Indiana Department of Natural Resources: Indianapolis, IN, USA) Available at https://www.in.gov/dnr/fish-and-wildlife/files/wmr/fw-MR_2067_Wild_Turkey_Brood_Production_2020.pdf [Verified 17 July 2025]

Backs SE, McCallen EB (2023) Wild turkey summer brood production indices – 2022. Wildlife Management and Research Notes number 2078. (Indiana Department of Natural Resources: Indianapolis, IN, USA) Available at https://www.in.gov/dnr/fish-and-wildlife/files/wmr/fw-MR_2078_Wild_Turkey_Brood_Survey_2022.pdf [Verified 17 July 2025]

Bates D, Mächler M, Bolker B, Walker S (2015) Fitting linear mixed-effects models using lme4. Journal of Statistical Software 67(1), 1-48.
| Crossref | Google Scholar |

Brautigam KJ, Osborne DC, White D, Jr (2016) Photographic evidence and chronology of nest parasitism by a wild turkey (Meleagris gallopavo). The Wilson Journal of Ornithology 128, 204-207.
| Crossref | Google Scholar |

Burnham KP, Anderson DR (2002) ‘Model selection and multimodel inference: a practical information–theoretic approach’, 2nd edn. (Springer-Verlag: New York, NY, USA)

Burton AC, Neilson E, Moreira D, Ladle A, Steenweg R, Fisher JT, Bayne E, Boutin S (2015) Wildlife camera trapping: a review and recommendations for linking surveys to ecological processes. Journal of Applied Ecology 52, 675-685.
| Crossref | Google Scholar |

Butkiewicz H (2022) Evaluation of eastern wild turkey (Meleagris gallopavo silvestris) productivity and recruitment utilizing Snapshot Wisconsin trail camera images. MSc(Natural Resources) thesis, University of Wisconsin—Stevens Point, Stevens Point, WI, USA.

Byrne ME, Chamberlain MJ, Collier BA (2016) Potential density dependence in wild turkey productivity in the southeastern United States. In ‘Proceedings of the Eleventh National Wild Turkey Symposium’, 5–7 January 2016, Tucson, AZ, USA. (Ed. D Miller) pp. 329–351. (National Wild Turkey Federation: Edgefield, SC, USA)

Casalena MJ, Schiavone MV, Bowling AC, Gregg ID, Brown J (2016) Understanding the new normal: wild turkeys in a changing northeastern landscape. In ‘Proceedings of the Eleventh National Wild Turkey Symposium’, 5–7 January 2016, Tucson, AZ, USA. (Ed. D Miller) pp. 45–57. (National Wild Turkey Federation: Edgefield, SC, USA)

Chamberlain MJ, Cohen BS, Bakner NW, Collier BA (2020) Behavior and movement of wild turkey broods. Journal of Wildlife Management 84, 1139-1152.
| Crossref | Google Scholar |

Chamberlain MJ, Hatfield M, Collier BA (2022) Status and distribution of wild turkeys in the United States in 2019. Wildlife Society Bulletin 46, e1287.
| Crossref | Google Scholar |

Coffey J (2021) Wild turkeys. In ‘Trends in Iowa wildlife populations and harvest 2020–2021’. (Ed. P Fritzell) pp. 32–49. (Iowa Department of Natural Resources: Boone, IA, USA)

Dhuey B (2012) Wild turkey landowner brood survey 2011. Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources, Madison, WI, USA.

Dhuey B, Witecha M, Gerrits A (2020) Ten-week brood observations, 2019. Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources, Madison, WI, USA.

Dreibelbis JZ, Melton KB, Aguirre R, Collier BA, Hardin J, Silvy NJ, Peterson MJ (2008) Predation of Rio Grande wild turkey nests on the Edwards Plateau, Texas. The Wilson Journal of Ornithology 120, 906-910.
| Crossref | Google Scholar |

Ericksen RE, Hughes TW, Brown TA, Akridge MD, Scott KB, Penner CS (2016) Status and distribution of wild turkey in the United States: 2014 status. In ‘Proceedings of the Eleventh National Wild Turkey Symposium’, 5–7 January 2016, Tucson, AZ, USA. (Ed. D Miller) pp. 7–18. (National Wild Turkey Federation: Edgefield, SC, USA)

Fox J, Weisberg S (2018) Visualizing fit and lack of fit in complex regression models with predictor effect plots and partial residuals. Journal of Statistical Software 87(9), 1-27.
| Crossref | Google Scholar |

Fox J, Weisberg S (2019) ‘An R companion to applied regression’, 3rd edn. (Sage Publications: Thousand Oaks, CA, USA)

Healy WM, Powell SM (1999) Wild turkey harvest management: biology, strategies, and techniques. US Fish and Wildlife Biological Technical Publication BTP-R5001-1999, US Fish and Wildlife Service, Washington, DC, USA.

Isabelle JL, Butler AB, Ruth C, Lowery DK (2018) Considerations for timing of spring wild turkey hunting seasons in the southeastern United States. Journal of the Southeastern Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies 5, 106-113.
| Google Scholar |

Johnson E, Danks Z (2022) 2022 Kentucky wild turkey brood survey report. (Kentucky Department of Fish and Wildlife Resources: Frankfort, KY, USA) Available at https://fw.ky.gov/Hunt/Documents/ky_brood_2020_report.pdf [Verified 12 September 2023]

Keck R, Langston J (1992) Recreational use. In ‘The wild turkey: biology and management’. (Ed. JG Dickson) pp. 388–407. (Stackpole Books: Harrisburg, PA, USA)

McRoberts JT, Wallace MC, Eaton SW (2020) Wild turkeys (Meleagris gallopavo) (version 1.0). In ‘Birds of the world’. (Ed. AF Poole) (Cornell Lab of Ornithology: Ithaca, NY, USA) 10.2173/bow.wiltur.01

Meduna L (2021) 2020 Nebraska turkey brood survey report. (Nebraska Game and Parks Commission: Lincoln, NB, USA) Available at https://outdoornebraska.gov/wp-content/uploads/2023/03/2020-Nebraska-Turkey-Survey-Report.pdf [Verified 17 July 2025]

Melville HIAS, Conway WC, Morrison ML, Comer CE, Hardin JB (2014) Artificial nests identify possible nest predators of eastern wild turkeys. Southeastern Naturalist 13, 80-91.
| Crossref | Google Scholar |

National Wild Turkey Federation Technical Committee (2018) A standardized protocol for conducting wild turkey brood surveys. National Wild Turkey Federation, Edgefield, SC, USA.

Oakley N, Glick C (2022) 2022 Missouri wild turkey brood survey results. (Missouri Department of Conservation: Jefferson City, MO, USA) Available at https://archive.org/details/2022WildTurkeyBroodSrvy [Verified 17 July 2025]

O’Brien TG, Kinnaird MF (2008) A picture is worth a thousand words: the application of camera trapping to the study of birds. Bird Conservation International 18, S144-S162.
| Crossref | Google Scholar |

O’Connell AF, Nichols JD, Ullas Karanth K (2011) ‘Camera traps in animal ecology: methods and analyses.’ (Springer: New York, NY, USA)

Paisley RN, Wright RG, Kubisiak JF, Rolley RE (1998) Reproductive ecology of eastern wild turkeys in southwestern Wisconsin. Journal of Wildlife Management 62, 911-916.
| Crossref | Google Scholar |

Parent CJ, Stevens BS, Bowling AC, Porter WF (2016) Wild turkey harvest trends across the Midwest in the 21st Century. In ‘Proceedings of the Eleventh National Wild Turkey Symposium’, 5–7 January 2016, Tucson, AZ, USA. (Ed. D Miller) pp. 211–223. (National Wild Turkey Federation: Edgefield, SC, USA)

Pharris LD, Goetz RC (1980) An evaluation of artificial wild turkey nests monitored by automatic cameras. In ‘Proceedings of the Fourth National Wild Turkey Symposium’, 2–5 March 1980, Little Rock, AR, USA. (Ed. JM Sweeney) pp. 108–116. (National Wild Turkey Federation: Edgefiled, SC, USA)

Pollentier CD (2012) Influence of landscape features on wild turkey population dynamics in Wisconsin. MSc(Forest and Wildlife Ecology) thesis, University of Wisconsin, Madison, WI, USA.

Pollentier CD, Hull SD, Lutz RS (2014a) Eastern wild turkey demography: sensitivity of vital rates between landscapes. Journal of Wildlife Management 78, 1372-1382.
| Crossref | Google Scholar |

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

Pollentier CD, Hardy MA, Lutz RS, Hull SD, Zuckerberg B (2021) Gobbling across landscapes: eastern wild turkey distribution and occupancy-habitat associations. Ecology and Evolution 11, 18248-18270.
| Crossref | Google Scholar | PubMed |

Pollentier CD, Rees Lohr J, Dhuey B (2022) Upland game bird brood observation survey, 2022. Wisconsin Wildlife Surveys. (Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources: Madison, WI, USA) Available at https://dnr.wisconsin.gov/topic/WildlifeHabitat/reports.html [Verified 13 March 2023]

Pollentier CD, Rees Lohr J, Finger T (2023) Upland game bird brood observation survey, 2023. Wisconsin Wildlife Surveys. (Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources: Madison, WI, USA) Available at https://dnr.wisconsin.gov/topic/WildlifeHabitat/reports.html [Verified 8 November 2023]

Porter WF (1980) An evaluation of wild turkey brood habitat in southeastern Minnesota. In ‘Proceedings of the Fourth National Wild Turkey Symposium’, 2–5 March 1980, Little Rock, AR, USA. (Ed. JM Sweeney) pp. 203–212. (National Wild Turkey Federation: Edgefield, SC, USA)

Porter WF, Nelson GC, Mattson K (1983) Effects of winter conditions on reproduction in a northern wild turkey population. Journal of Wildlife Management 47, 281-290.
| Crossref | Google Scholar |

Rees Lohr J (2018) Ten-week brood observations, 2018. (Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources: Madison, WI, USA) Available at https://p.widencdn.net/osiekv/tenwkbrood2 [Verified 17 July 2025]

Riddle JD, Mordecai RS, Pollock KH, Simons TR (2010) Effects of prior detections on estimates of detection probability, abundance, and occupancy. Auk 127, 94-99.
| Crossref | Google Scholar |

Roberts SD, Porter WF (1996) Importance of demographic parameters to annual changes in wild turkey abundance. In ‘Proceedings of the Seventh National Wild Turkey Symposium’, 24–26 May 1995, Rapid City, SD, USA. (Ed. JG Dickson) pp. 15–20. (National Wild Turkey Federation: Edgefield, SC, USA)

Roberts SD, Coffey JM, Porter WF (1995) Survival and reproduction of female wild turkeys in New York. Journal of Wildlife Management 59, 437-447.
| Crossref | Google Scholar |

Ruttinger JA, Colbert DS, Warren RJ, Conner LM, Chamberlain MJ (2014) Using thermal imaging cameras with radiotelemetry to locate roost sites of male wild turkeys. Wildlife Society Bulletin 38, 884-886.
| Crossref | Google Scholar |

Steenweg R, Hebblewhite M, Kays R, Ahunada J, Fisher JT, Burton C, Townsend SE, Carbone C, Rowcliffe JM, Whittington J, Brodie J, Royle JA, Switalski A, Clevenger AP, Heim N, Rich LN (2017) Scaling up camera traps: monitoring the planet’s biodiversity with networks of remote sensors. Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment 15, 26-34.
| Crossref | Google Scholar |

Steffen DE, Lafon NW, Norman GW (2002) Turkeys, acorns, and oaks. In ‘Oak forest ecosystems: ecology and management for wildlife’. (Eds WJ McShea, WM Healy) pp. 241–255. (Johns Hopkins University Press: Baltimore, MD, USA)

Stenglein JL, Donovan EB, Pollentier CD, Peltier TR, Lee SM, McDonnell AB, Kardash LH, MacFarland DM, Hull SD (2023) Comparison of in-person and remote camera lek surveys for prairie grouse (Tympanuchus spp.). Wildlife Society Bulletin 47(4), e1499.
| Crossref | Google Scholar |

Tapley JL, Hatfield MA, Abernethy RK, Kennamer JE (2005) Status and distribution of the wild turkey in 2004. In ‘Proceedings of the Ninth National Wild Turkey Symposium: Wild Turkey Management: Accomplishments, Strategies, and Opportunities’, 10–14 December 2000, Grand Rapids, MI, USA. (Eds CA Stewart, VR Frawley) pp. 21–31. (National Wild Turkey Federation: Edgefield, SC, USA)

Tapley JL, Abernethy RK, Hatfield M, Kennamer JE (2011) Status and distribution of the wild turkey in 2009. In ‘Proceedings of the Tenth National Wild Turkey Symposium: Managing Wild Turkeys in the Face of Uncertainty’, 11–13 January 2011, Shepherdstown, WV, USA. (Ed. GW Norman) pp. 19–30. (National Wild Turkey Federation: Edgefield, SC, USA)

Townsend PA, Clare JDJ, Liu N, Stenglein JL, Anhalt-Depies C, Van Deelen TR, Gilbert NA, Singh A, Martin KJ, Zuckerberg B (2021) Snapshot Wisconsin: networking community scientists and remote sensing to improve ecological monitoring and management. Ecological Applications 31, e02436.
| Crossref | Google Scholar | PubMed |

Tyl RM, Rota CT, Lehman CP (2020) Factors influencing productivity of eastern wild turkeys in northeastern South Dakota. Ecology and Evolution 10, 8838-8854.
| Crossref | Google Scholar | PubMed |

Vangilder LD, Kurzejeski EW (1995) Population ecology of the eastern wild turkey in northern Missouri. Wildlife Monographs 130, 1-50.
| Google Scholar |

Wakeling BF, Sandrini JM, Lerich SP, Cardinal C (2022) A review of harvest and population monitoring methods for western wild turkeys. Wildlife Society Bulletin 46, e1281.
| Crossref | Google Scholar |

Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources (2015) Ecology of wild turkeys in Wisconsin: a plan for their management, 2015–2025. PUB-WM-585 2015, Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources, Madison, WI, USA.

Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources (2016) Wiscland. Version 2.0. (Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources: Madison, WI, USA) Available at https://dnr.wisconsin.gov/maps/WISCLAND [Dataset]

Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources (2025) Snapshot Wisconsin: a volunteer-based project for wildlife monitoring. (Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources: Madison, WI, USA) Available at https://dnr.wisconsin.gov/topic/research/projects/snapshot [Verified 6 March 2025]

Wisconsin State Climatology Office (2023) Past Wisconsin climate. Available at https://www.aos.wisc.edu/~sco/clim-history/index.html [Verified 12 December 2023]