Abstract
Leks are characterized as clusters of displaying males that females visit primarily for the purpose of mating, and represent complex mating systems observed across various species, including birds, mammals, and insects. Male wild turkeys (Meleagris gallopavo) use reproductive strategies that involve visual and acoustic displays to compete for mates. However, there is ambiguity as to whether the mating system of eastern wild turkeys (M. g. silvestris) is a form of lekking. Our objective was to evaluate the potential that eastern wild turkeys use a form of a lek mating system via a movement based recursive analysis to identify if areas were revisited by males during the breeding season, and whether selection of revisited areas was related to resources or female distribution. Using GPS locations collected from 151 male and 261 female wild turkeys from 2014 to 2023 across the southeastern United States, we identified 6,565 locations that occurred within revisited areas during the breeding season and examined resource selection by males at those revisited areas. We found that average size of revisited areas was 49.89 ha and comprised approximately 8.12% of male breeding season home ranges. Male wild turkeys traveled greater distances from their winter home ranges to revisited areas, than did females from their winter home ranges to pre-laying ranges. Male wild turkeys selected revisited areas that were closer to hardwood forests and open areas. Additionally, we found that selection of revisited areas was positively associated with an increase in the relative probability of female presence and visibility of males. We encourage research to further elucidate the dynamics of wild turkey mating behaviors relative to potential forms of lekking that wild turkeys may use throughout their geographic range.
Data availability
The datasets generated during and/or analyzed during the current study are available from the corresponding author on reasonable request.
References
Wiley, R. H. Evolution of social organization and life-history patterns among grouse. Q. R. Biol. 49, 201–227 (1974).
Wittenberger, J. F. The evolution of mating systems in grouse. Condor 80, 126–137 (1978).
Höglund, J., and R. V. Alatalo. 1995. Leks. Princeton University Press, Princeton, New Jersey, USA.
Crawford, J. A. et al. Ecology and management of sage-grouse and sage-grouse habitat. J. Range Manag. 57, 2–19 (2004).
Larsson, L. C., Pruett, C. L., Wolfe, D. H. & Patten, M. A. Fine-scale selection of habitat by the lesser prairie-chicken. Southwestern Naturalist 58, 135–149 (2013).
Emlen, S. & Oring, L. Ecology, sexual selection, and the evolution of mating systems. Science 197, 215–223 (1977).
Wegge, P., Rolstad, J. & Storaunet, K. O. On the spatial relationship of males on “exploded” leks: the case of Capercaillie grouse Tetrao urogallus examined by GPS satellite telemetry. Ornis Fennica 90, 222–235 (2013).
Cornec, C., Hingrat, Y., Aubin, T. & Rybak, F. Booming far: the long-range vocal strategy of a lekking bird. Royal Society Open Science 4, 170594 (2017).
DuVal, E. H. & Kempenaers, B. Sexual selection in a lekking bird: the relative opportunity for selection by female choice and male competition. Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences 275, 1995–2003 (2008).
Bradbury, J. W. The evolution of leks. In Natural selection and social behavior: recent research and theory (eds Alexander, R. D. & Tinkle, D. W.) 138–169 (Chiron Press, 1981).
Nooker, J. K. & Sandercock, B. K. Phenotypic correlates and survival consequences of male mating success in lek-mating greater prairie-chickens (Tympanuchus cupido). Behav. Ecol. Sociobiol. 62, 1377–1388 (2008).
Widemo, F. The social implications of traditional use of lek sites in the ruff Philomachus pugnax. Behav. Ecol. 8, 211–217 (1997).
Alonso, J. C., Magaña, M. & Álvarez-Martínez, J. M. Male display areas in exploded leks: the importance of food resources for male mating success. Behav. Ecol. 23, 1296–1307 (2012).
Alonso, J. C., Álvarez-Martínez, J. M. & Palacín, C. Leks in ground-displaying birds: hotspots or safe places?. Behav. Ecol. 23, 491–501 (2012).
Ucero, A., Alonso, J. C., Palacín, C., Abril-Colón, I. & Álvarez-Martínez, J. M. Display site selection in a ground dwelling bird: the importance of viewshed. Behav. Ecol. 34, 223–235 (2022).
Andersson, M. B. Sexual selection (Princeton University Press, 1994).
Bradbury, J. W. & Vehrencamp, S. L. Principles of animal communication 2nd edn. (Oxford University Press, 2011).
Aspbury, A. S. & Gibson, R. M. Long-range visibility of greater sage grouse leks: a GIS-based analysis. Anim. Behav. 67, 1127–1132 (2004).
Marten, K. & Marler, P. Sound transmission and its significance for animal vocalization. Behav. Ecol. Sociobiol. 2, 271–290 (1977).
Delgado, M. M. & Penteriani, V. Vocal behaviour and neighbour spatial arrangement during vocal displays in eagle owls (Bubo bubo). J. Zool. 271, 3–10 (2006).
Boyko, A. R., Gibson, R. M. & Lucas, J. R. How predation risk affects the temporal dynamics of avian leks: greater sage grouse versus golden eagles. Am. Nat. 163, 154–165 (2004).
Krams, I. Perch selection by singing chaffinches: a better view of surroundings and the risk of predation. Behav. Ecol. 12, 295–300 (2001).
Gibson, R. M., Aspbury, A. S. & McDaniel, L. L. Active formation of mixed-species grouse leks: a role for predation in lek evolution?. Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences 269, 2503–2507 (2002).
Miller, D. A., Hurst, G. A. & Leopold, B. D. Chronology of wild turkey nesting, gobbling, and hunting in Mississippi. J. Wildl. Manag. 61, 840–845 (1997).
Krakauer, A. H. Sexual selection and the genetic mating system of wild turkeys. The Condor 110, 1–12 (2008).
Bevill, W. V. Jr. Some factors influencing gobbling activity among turkeys. Proceedings of the Southeastern Association of Game and Fish Commissioners 27, 62–73 (1973).
Healy, W. M. Behavior. In The wild turkey: biology and management (ed. Dickson, J. G.) 46–65 (Stackpole Books, 1992).
Buchholz, R. Female choice, parasite load and male ornamentation in wild turkeys. Anim. Behav. 50, 929–943 (1995).
Miller, D. A., Hurst, G. A. & Leopold, B. D. Factors affecting gobbling activity of wild turkeys in central Mississippi. Proceedings of the Southeastern Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies 51, 353–361 (1997).
Healy, W. M., and S. M. Powell. 1999. Wild turkey harvest management: biology, strategies, and techniques. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Biological Technical Publication BTP-R5001–1999. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Washington, D. C., USA.
Weir, L. K., Grant, J. W. A. & Hutchings, J. A. The influence of operational sex ratio on the intensity of competition for mates. Am. Nat. 177, 167–176 (2011).
Watts, C. H. & Stokes, A. W. The social order of turkeys. Sci. Am. 224, 112–119 (1971).
Eaton, S. W., Evans, J. W., Glidden, J. W. & Penrod, B. D. Annual range of wild turkeys in southwestern New York. New York Fish and Game Journal 23, 20–33 (1976).
Williams, L. E. & Austin, D. H. Studies of the wild turkey in Florida (University of Florida Press, 1988).
Watts, C. H. Rio Grande turkeys in the mating season. Proceedings of the North American Wildlife and Natural Resources Conference 23, 205–210 (1968).
Avise, J. C. Three fundamental contributions of molecular genetics to avian ecology and evolution. Ibis 138, 16–25 (1996).
Watts, C. H. The social organization of wild turkeys on the Welder Wildlife Refuge (Thesis, Utah State University, Logan, USA, 1969).
Wakefield, C. T. et al. Hunting and nesting phenology influence gobbling of wild turkeys. J. Wildl. Manag. 84, 448–457 (2020).
Imm, D. W. & McLeod, K. W. Plant communities. In Ecology and management of a forested landscape: fifty years of natural resource stewardship on the Savannah River Site (eds Kilgo, J. C. & Blake, J. I.) 106–161 (Island Press, 2005).
White, D. L. 2005. Land-use history. Page 2–12 in J. C. Kilgo and J. I. Blake, editors. Ecology and management of a forested landscape: fifty years of natural resource stewardship on the Savannah River Site. Island Press, Washington, D. C., USA.
Wightman, P. H. et al. Gobbling chronology of eastern wild turkeys in South Carolina. J. Wildl. Manag. 83, 325–333 (2019).
Guthrie, J. D. et al. Evaluation of a global positioning system backpack transmitter for wild turkey research. J. Wildl. Manag. 75, 539–547 (2011).
Cohen, B. S., Prebyl, T. J., Collier, B. A. & Chamberlain, M. J. Home range estimator method and GPS sampling schedule affect habitat selection inferences for wild turkeys. Wildl. Soc. Bull. 42, 150–159 (2018).
Lott, H. et al. Male mating season rang expansion results from an increase in scale of daily movements for a polygynous-promiscuous bird. Ecol. Evol. 14, e11302 (2024).
Collier, B. A., Wightman, P. H., Cantrell, J. R. & Ruth, C. R. Hunting activity and male wild turkey movements in South Carolina. Journal of the Southeastern Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies 4, 85–93 (2017).
Wightman, P. H. et al. Impact of supplemental feeding for Northern Bobwhite on movement ecology of Eastern wild turkeys in South Carolina. Journal of Southeastern Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies 5, 114–124 (2018).
Wightman, P. H., Henrichs, D. W., Collier, B. A. & Chamberlain, M. J. Comparisons of methods for automated identification of wild turkey gobbles. Wildl. Soc. Bull. 46, e1246 (2022).
Berger-Tal, O. & Bar-David, S. Recursive movement patterns: review and synthesis across species. Ecosphere 6, 1–12 (2015).
Bracis, C., Bildstein, K. L. & Mueller, T. Revisitation analysis uncovers spatio-temporal patterns in animal movement data. Ecography 41, 1801–1811 (2018).
Youngmann, J. L., Hinton, J. W., Bakner, N. W., Chamberlain, M. J. & D’Angelo, G. J. Recursive use of home ranges and seasonal shifts in foraging behavior by a generalist carnivore. Ecol. Evol. 12, e9540 (2022).
Yeldell, N. A., Cohen, B. S., Prebyl, T. J., Collier, B. A. & Chamberlain, M. J. Prescribed fire influences habitat selection of female eastern wild turkeys. J. Wildl. Manag. 81, 1287–1297 (2017).
Conner, L. M., Smith, M. D. & Burger, L. W. A comparison of distance-based and classification-base analyses of habitat use. Ecology 84, 526–531 (2003).
Manly, B. F. J., McDonald, L. L., Thomas, D. L., McDonald, T. L. & Erickson, W. P. Resource selection by animals: statistical design and analysis for field studies 2nd edn. (Kluwer Academic Publishers, 2002).
Law, M. & Collins, A. Getting to know ArcGIS Pro 2nd edn. (Esri Press, 2019).
Godwin, K. D., Hurst, G. A. & Kelly, R. L. Movements of wild turkey gobblers in central Mississippi. Proceedings of the Southeastern Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies 44, 260–267 (1994).
Chamberlain, M. J., Wightman, P. H., Cohen, B. S. & Collier, B. A. Gobbling activity of eastern wild turkeys relative to male movements and female nesting phenology in South Carolina. Wildl. Soc. Bull. 42, 632–642 (2018).
Kranstauber, B., Kays, R., Lapoint, S. D., Wikelski, M. & Safi, K. A dynamic Brownian bridge movement model to estimate utilization distributions for heterogeneous animal movement: the dynamic Brownian bridge movement model. J. Anim. Ecol. 81, 738–746 (2012).
Byrne, M. E., McCoy, J. C., Hinton, J. W., Chamberlain, M. J. & Collier, B. A. Using dynamic Brownian bridge movement modeling to measure temporal patterns of habitat selection. J. Anim. Ecol. 83, 1234–1243 (2014).
Badyaev, A. V., Etges, W. J. & Martin, T. E. Ecological and behavioral correlates of variation in seasonal home ranges of wild turkeys. Journal Wildlife Management 60, 154–164 (1996).
Miller, D. A., Hurst, G. A. & Leopold, B. D. Habitat use of eastern wild turkeys in central Mississippi. J. Wildl. Manag. 63, 210–222 (1999).
Chamberlain, M. J. & Leopold, B. Habitat sampling and selection by female wild turkeys during preincubation. Wilson and Bulletin 112, 326–331 (2000).
Benson, J. F. Improving rigour and efficiency of use-availability habitat selection analyses with systematic estimation of availability. Methods in Ecology Evolution 4, 244–251 (2013).
Dormann, C. F. et al. Collinearity: a review of methods to deal with it and a simulation study evaluating their performance. Ecography 36, 27–46 (2013).
Johnson, C. J., Nielsen, S. E., Merrill, E. H., McDonald, T. L. & Boyce, M. S. Resource selection functions based on use-availability data: theoretical motivation and evaluation methods. J. Wildl. Manag. 70, 347–357 (2006).
Muff, S., Signer, J. & Fieberg, J. Accounting for individual-specific variation in habitat selection studies: efficient estimation of mixed-effects models using Bayesian or frequentist computation. J. Anim. Ecol. 89, 80–96 (2020).
Bates, D., Mächler, M., Bolker, B. M. & Walker, S. C. Fitting linear mixed-effects models using lme4. J. Stat. Softw. 67, 1–48 (2014).
Gelman, A. Scaling regression inputs by dividing by two standard deviations. Stat. Med. 27, 2865–2873 (2008).
Akaike, H. Information theory and an extension of the maximum likelihood principle. Proceedings of the International Symposium on Information Theory 2, 267–281 (1973).
Burnham, K. P. & Anderson, D. R. Model Selection and multimodal inference: a practical information-theoretic approach 2nd edn. (Springer-Verlag, 2002).
Zipkin, E. F., Grant, E. H. C. & Fagan, W. F. Evaluating the predictive abilities of community occupancy models using AUC while accounting for imperfect detection. Ecol. Appl. 22, 1962–1972 (2012).
Silva, J. P., Moreira, F. & Palmeirim, J. M. Spatial and temporal dynamics of lekking behaviour revealed by high-resolution GPS tracking. Anim. Behav. 129, 197–204 (2017).
Ponjoan, A., Bota, G. & Mañosa, S. Ranging behaviour of little bustard males, Tetrax tetrax, in the lekking grounds. Behav. Proc. 91, 35–40 (2012).
Alonso, J. C., Morales, M. B. & Alonso, J. A. Partial migration, and lek and nesting area fidelity in female great bustards. Condor 102, 127–136 (2000).
Morales, M. B., Jiguet, F. & Arroyo, B. Exploded leks: what bustards can teach us. Ardeola 48, 85–98 (2001).
Castro-Astor, I. N., Alves, M. A. S. & Cavalcanti, R. B. Display behavior and spatial distribution of the red-headed manakin in the Atlantic forest of Brazil. Condor 106, 320–335 (2004).
Hingrat, Y., Saint Jalme, M., Chalah, T., Orhant, N. & Lacroix, F. Environmental and social constraints on breeding site selection. Does the exploded-lek and hotspot model apply to the Houbara bustard Chlamydotis undulata undulata?. J. Avian Biol. 39, 393–404 (2008).
Gross, J. T., Cohen, B. S., Collier, B. A. & Chamberlain, M. J. Influences of hunting on movements of male wild turkeys during the spring. National Wild Turkey Symposium 11, 175–185 (2015).
Roth, A. P. et al. Sex-specific resource use by wild turkeys in response to hunting activity. J. Wildl. Manag. 88, e22567 (2024).
Forsgren, E. & Magnhagen, C. Conflicting demands in sand gobies: predators influence reproductive behaviour. Behaviour 126, 125–135 (1993).
Candolin, U. Reproduction under predation risk and the trade-off between current and future reproduction in the threespine stickleback. Proc. R. Soc. Lond. B 265, 1171–1175 (1998).
Winder, V. L., Gregory, A. J., McNew, L. B. & Sandercock, B. K. Responses of male Greater Prairie-Chickens to wind energy development. Ornithological Applications 117, 284–296 (2015).
Lautenbach, J. M. et al. Lesser prairie-chicken avoidance of trees in a grassland landscape. Rangel. Ecol. Manage. 70, 78–86 (2017).
Brenner, S. J., Buffum, B., Tefft, B. C. & McWilliams, S. R. Landscape context matters when American woodcock select singing grounds: results form a reciprocal transplant experiment. Condor 121, 1–11 (2019).
Hurst, G. A. Foods and feeding. In The wild turkey: biology and management (ed. Dickson, J. G.) 66–83 (Stackpole Books, 1992).
Ryan, C. W., Pack, J. C., Igo, W. K., Rieffenberger, J. C. & Billings, A. B. Relationships of mast production to big-game harvests in West Virginia. Wildl. Soc. Bull. 32, 786–794 (2004).
Little, A. R., Chamberlain, M. J., Conner, L. M. & Warren, R. J. Habitat selection of wild turkeys in burned longleaf pine Savannas. J. Wildl. Manag. 80, 1280–1289 (2016).
Bakner, N. W. et al. Spatial roost networks and resource selection of female wild turkeys. Royal Society Open Science 11, 231938 (2024).
Watson, J. W., Duff, A. A. & Davies, R. W. Home range and resource selection by GPS monitored adult golden eagles in the Columbia Plateau Ecoregion: implications for wind power development. J. Wildl. Manag. 78, 1012–1021 (2014).
Domenech, R., Bedrosian, B. E., Crandall, R. H. & Slabe, V. A. Space use and habitat selection by adult migrant Golden Eagles wintering in the western United States. Journal of Raptor Research 49, 429–440 (2015).
Gerhardt, H. C., and R. S. Larry. 2009. Signal design rules in animal communication. Pages 791–798 in L. R. Squire, editor. Encyclopedia of Neuroscience. Academic Press.
Caves, E. M., Brandley, N. C. & Johnsen, S. Visual acuity and the evolution of signals. Trends Ecol. Evol. 33, 358–372 (2018).
Yang, W., Qiao, J., Combreau, O., Gao, X. & Zhong, W. Display-sites selection by houbara bustard (Chlamydotis [undulata] macqueenii) in Mori, Xinjiang, People’s Republic of China. Journal Arid Environment 51, 625–631 (2002).
Koshkin, M. A. et al. Effects of habitat and land use on breeding season density of male Asian Houbara Chlamydotis macqueenii. J. Ornithol. 157, 811–823 (2016).
Geary, M., Cooper, J. R. & Collar, N. J. Anthropogenic influences on habitat use by African houbaras Chlamydotis undulata on Lanzarote, Canary Islands. J. Nat. Conserv. 68, 126–231 (2022).
Théry, M. The evolution of leks through female choice: differential clustering and space utilization in 6 sympatric manakins. Behav. Ecol. Sociobiol. 30, 227–237 (1992).
Drummer, T. D., Corace, R. G. III. & Sjogren, S. J. Sharp-tailed grouse lek attendance and fidelity in upper Michigan. J. Wildl. Manag. 75, 311–318 (2011).
Wiley, R. H. Territoriality and non-random mating in sage grouse (Centrocercus urophasianus). Animal Behavior Monographs 6, 85–169 (1973).
Gibson, R. M. & Bradbury, J. W. Sexual selection in lekking sage grouse: phenotypic correlates of male mating success. Behav. Ecol. Sociobiol. 18, 117–123 (1985).
Payne, R. B. Sexual selection, lek, and arena behavior, and sexual size dimorphism in birds. Ornithol. Monogr. 33, 1–52 (1984).
Acknowledgements
We thank M. Bellamy, C. Parenti, C. Ruth Jr., H. Lott, A. P. Roth, A. K. Lohr, C. J. Wakefield, P. H. Wightman, S. D. Nelson, S. Watkins, P. Goodman, N. Gulotta, J. White, and J. W. Wood for their assistance with fieldwork.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Contributions
EEU: Conceptualization, Data curation, Formal analysis, Methodology, Writing- Original draft.NWB: Data curation, Formal analysis, Methodology, Writing-review and editing.JCK: Resources, Project administration, supervision, Writing-review and editing.BAC: Conceptualization, Project administration, Funding acquisition, Writing-review and editingMJC: Conceptualization, Project administration, Funding acquisition, Supervision, Writing-review and editing.
Corresponding author
Ethics declarations
Competing interests
The authors declare no competing interests.
Additional information
Publisher’s note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Supplementary Information
Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.
Rights and permissions
Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License, which permits any non-commercial use, sharing, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if you modified the licensed material. You do not have permission under this licence to share adapted material derived from this article or parts of it. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article’s Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article’s Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/.
About this article
Cite this article
Ulrey, E.E., Bakner, N.W., Kilgo, J.C. et al. Exploring spatial relationships of male wild Turkeys during the breeding season. Sci Rep (2026). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-025-34883-7
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-025-34883-7
