Understanding Roosting Networks: The Ecological Role of Hub and Satellite Roosts in Eastern Wild Turkeys

Roosting behavior plays a vital role in the spatial ecology and survival strategies of the eastern wild turkey (Meleagris gallopavo silvestris). Recent advances in telemetry-based research, particularly from the Wild Turkey Lab led by Dr. Michael Chamberlain at the University of Georgia, have led to a clearer understanding of the distinctions between hub and satellite roosts and their broader ecological implications. These insights are particularly relevant for wildlife biologists, land managers, and conservationists seeking to protect or enhance wild turkey populations.

Structure and Function of Hub and Satellite Roosts

Hub roosts are repeatedly used night after night, not by a single bird, but by multiple individuals across time. These roosts function as central nodes in a network of roosting locations and are typically used more consistently than other sites. In contrast, satellite roosts are employed more sporadically, often by individual birds and for shorter periods. Research conducted by graduate student Nick Yeldell under the direction of Dr. Chamberlain has shown that toms use hub roosts approximately 15 percent of the time, while the remaining 85 percent of roosting occurs in satellite roosts (Yeldell et al., 2017).

These hub roosts are not spatially clustered within the turkey's home range. Rather, they are distributed across the landscape in a way that allows birds to access various areas efficiently. This pattern suggests that hub roosts serve as connection points between satellite roosts, forming a spatially organized roosting network that enhances resource access and movement flexibility throughout the range.

Seasonal Variation in Roosting Behavior

Roost selection varies considerably between spring and fall seasons. In spring, roost sites are often chosen based on proximity to breeding grounds and acoustic advantages that facilitate vocal signaling such as gobbling. Birds tend to select elevated or acoustically open areas that allow sound to carry without obstruction from dense vegetation (Gross et al., 2021). In fall, however, roost selection is more closely associated with foraging efficiency and flock cohesion. Seasonal variation in vegetation structure, predation risk, and social behavior all contribute to these patterns.

Roost Fidelity and Survival Outcomes

One of the most compelling findings from this research is the relationship between roost fidelity and both hunter harvest and natural predation. Toms that remain in close proximity to hub roosts after fly-down are significantly less likely to be harvested by hunters due to the remote and difficult-to-access nature of these areas (Chamberlain et al., 2020). However, this behavior increases the bird’s vulnerability to predation. Predators such as coyotes and bobcats are more capable of patterning birds that maintain high site fidelity, leading to a measurable increase in predation probability. This illustrates a classic ecological trade-off, where behaviors that decrease one mortality risk may increase another.

Developmental Roosting Requirements for Poults

The first two weeks of life represent a critical period for wild turkey poults. During this time, poults are flightless and must rely on their environment for both mobility and concealment. Suitable roosting structures include leaning saplings, shrubs, and low branches that allow poults to walk or climb off the ground during rest periods (Burk et al., 1990; Still & Baumann, 2020). Effective brood-rearing habitats must feature open ground-level understory for movement while maintaining sufficient shrubby or woody cover for hiding and thermoregulation. Habitat lacking this balance can result in high poult mortality and reduced recruitment.

Conservation Implications and Predictive Modeling

Dr. Chamberlain’s ongoing research program has identified hundreds of thousands of roost locations using GPS telemetry. These data are now being used to develop predictive habitat models that identify landscape features associated with roost selection, including canopy structure, elevation, slope, understory density, and acoustic openness (Gross et al., 2021). By modeling these features, researchers and land managers can more effectively identify and conserve areas of high roosting value.

These efforts are essential because wild turkeys demonstrate strong generational fidelity to specific roost locations. The idea that eastern wild turkeys will "roost anywhere" is a misconception. While easterns are more flexible in their roosting behavior than Rio Grande turkeys, which often use the same few roosts nightly, they still show a consistent tendency to return to traditional roosting areas across generations (Yeldell et al., 2017). Disruption or destruction of these roosts due to habitat fragmentation or development can lead to declines in local population stability.

Acoustic Considerations in Roost Selection

Sound projection is another key factor influencing roost selection. Toms frequently select roosts that allow gobbling to carry across open landscapes with minimal acoustic interference. Dense vegetation can muffle sound, making communication less effective during the breeding season. Roosts that maximize acoustic transmission are more likely to be used during courtship periods (Gross et al., 2021).

For this reason, human disturbance of roost sites, particularly through logging, land clearing, or frequent intrusion, can lead to site abandonment. Such changes not only reduce the quality of habitat for the birds but also lower the effectiveness of breeding behaviors. Conservation planning must therefore include efforts to identify and preserve these acoustically advantageous roosting areas.

The Importance of Institutional Knowledge

Understanding the roosting behavior of turkeys on a given property requires sustained observation and long-term familiarity. Hunters who only visit a property sporadically, such as on weekends during the hunting season, often lack the depth of knowledge needed to recognize patterns in roost selection and usage. Institutional knowledge developed through regular observation across multiple seasons is critical for interpreting the significance of specific roost sites and understanding how turkeys respond to environmental and anthropogenic pressures.

Conclusion

The roosting behavior of eastern wild turkeys is structured, repeatable, and ecologically significant. Hub and satellite roosts form an integrated network that supports survival, reproduction, and spatial organization. The loss of critical roosting habitat, particularly hub sites with high generational fidelity, poses a significant threat to population health. Ongoing research, especially through advanced telemetry and spatial modeling, is providing conservation practitioners with tools to identify and prioritize roost habitat for protection. Managing for both adult and poult roosting needs, accounting for sound propagation, and minimizing human disturbance will be key components of successful wild turkey conservation in the years to come.

References

Burk, J. D., Conley, M. D., & Peoples, L. T. (1990). Characteristics of Wild Turkey Nest and Brood Habitat in Central Mississippi. Proceedings of the Annual Conference of the Southeastern Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies, 44, 163–170.

Chamberlain, M. J., Yeldell, N. A., & Conner, L. M. (2020). Roost site selection and spatial ecology of male Eastern Wild Turkeys in a managed pine-dominated landscape.

Journal of Wildlife Management, 84(5), 1049–1061. https://doi.org/10.1002/jwmg.21858

Gross, J. T., Yeldell, N. A., & Chamberlain, M. J. (2021). Identifying characteristics of preferred roost sites in Eastern Wild Turkeys using fine-scale GPS telemetry. Ecology and Evolution, 11(17), 11854–11867. https://doi.org/10.1002/ece3.7919

Lashley, M. A., McCord, J. M., & Chamberlain, M. J. (2022). Landscape features influence predation risk of wild turkeys: integrating landscape structure into nest success models. Wildlife Biology, 2022(1), 1–9. https://doi.org/10.2981/wlb.00913

Still, H. C., & Baumann, C. D. (2020). Evaluating Brood Habitat Use and Survival of Wild Turkey Poults. Wildlife Society Bulletin, 44(3), 524–533.

https://doi.org/10.1002/wsb.1094

Yeldell, N. A., Chamberlain, M. J., & Conner, L. M. (2017). Roost site selection and fidelity of Eastern Wild Turkeys in the southeastern United States. Wildlife Biology, 2017(1), 1–9. https://doi.org/10.2981/wlb.00322