Evaluating camera survey methods for estimating wild turkey abundance

Accurately estimating population parameters rests on methodological approaches that provide unbiased, cost‐effective estimates; however, assessing accuracy of estimates can be vexing as true abundance is rarely known. As such, assessing estimator accuracy often relies on simulation or comparisons to alternative abundance estimation procedures to quantify estimate validity. We relocated 92 eastern wild turkeys ( Meleagris gallopavo silvestris ) to an area unoccupied by conspecifics to evaluate efficacy of abundance estimation using camera‐trap techniques. We used baited camera‐trap sites over a 30‐day survey period to estimate wild turkey abundance on the Gus Engeling Wildlife Management Area in east Texas, USA. We applied 8 common analytical methods (Schnabel, Huggins closed capture [Huggins], Huggins with random effects [HugginsRE], Jolly‐Seber, spatially explicit capture‐recapture [SECR], N‐mixture, occupancy‐abundance, and catch‐per‐unit‐effort) to our camera‐trap data and compared each estimated abundance to the known population size (N = 80). All approaches we evaluated exhibited bias either overestimating or underestimating wild turkey abundance. Our results indicate that caution should be used when considering camera‐trap based estimation procedures under constraints that would allow for generalized use across the range of wild turkeys.