Bolu-Yedigöller Yaban Hayatı Geliştirme Sahası’nda saf meşe meşceresinde fotokapanla tespit edilen memeli türler

Abstract

Son yıllarda meşe ormanlarının öneminin artması bu habitatların daha fazla araştırılma gereksinimini ortaya çıkarmıştır. Bu çalışma Bolu-Yedigöller Yaban Hayatı Geliştirme Sahası’ndaki bir saf meşe meşceresindeki memeli türlerin belirlenmesi amacıyla yapılmıştır. Yaklaşık bir yıl boyunca (Eylül 2013-Temmuz 2014) sabit noktalardan fotokapanlarla gözlemler yapılmıştır. Tespit edilen 10 memeli türe ait 1415 görüntüde 2231 yaban hayvanı bireyi sayılmıştır. Yaban domuzu, karaca ve kızıl tilki alandaki en baskın türlerdir. Meşcerede yaban hayvanları mevsimsel farklılık göstermemektedir. Daha çok beslenme davranışı görülmüştür. Türler genel olarak gececildir. Yaban hayatı bakımından zengin olan meşe meşcerelerinde sürdürülebilir yönetimin devam ettirilmesi önerilmektedir.

Keywords

• Yaban hayatı, saf meşe, fotokapan, memeli türler

Mammals determined by wildlife camera trap in pure oak stand in Bolu-Yedigöller Wildlife Reserve

Abstract

In recent years, increasing importance of the oak forests has revealed the requirement for further investigation of these habitats. The current study was conducted to determine the species of mammals in a pure oak stand in Bolu-Yedigöller Wildlife Reserve. The observations were made by wildlife camera traps from fixed-points for about a year, from September 2013 to July 2014. A total of 10 species of mammals was identified, and 2231 individuals were counted from 1415 wild animal images. Wild boar, roe deer and red fox are the most dominant species in the area. Wild animals do not show seasonal variations in the stands. Feeding behavior was observed more than the other activities. The species is nocturnal in general. We suggest continuing the sustainable management in oak stands that are rich in terms of wildlife

Keywords

• Wildlife,pure oak,camera trap,mammals

References

1. Aigner, P.A., Block, W.M., Morrison, M.L., 1998. Effect of firewood harvesting on birds in a California oak-pine woodland. The Journal of wildlife management 62 (2): 485-496.
2. Aulagnier, S., Mitchell-Jnes, A.J., Moutou, F., Zima, J, Haffner, P., 2009. Mammals of Europe, North Africa and the Middle East. ISBN-10:1408113996, A&C Black Publishers Ltd., 272 s.
3. Beşkardeş, V., 2012. Yedigöller ve Yeşilöz Yaban Hayatı Geliştirme Sahaları avifaunası üzerine araştırmalar. Turkish Journal of Forestry Türkiye Ormancılık Dergisi 13(1): 28-34.
4. Beşkardeş, V., 2009. Yedigöller Yaban Hayatı Koruma ve Geliştirme Sahasında Yaban Hayatı Yönetimi. İ.Ü. Fen Bilimleri Enstitüsü, Doktora Tezi, İstanbul, 162 s.
5. Can, Ö. E., Togan, İ., 2009. Camera trapping of large mammals in Yenice Forest, Turkey: local information versus camera traps. Oryx 43(3): 427-430.
6. Dickson, J.G., 2004. Wildlife and upland oak forests. Gen. Tech. Rep. SRS-73. Asheville, NC: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Southern Research Station. pp. 106-115.
7. Dueser, R.D., Shugart Jr, H.H., 1978. Microhabitats in a forest-floor small mammal fauna. Ecology 59(1): 89-98.
8. George, S.L., Crooks, K.R., 2006. Recreation and large mammal activity in an urban nature reserve. Biological Conservation 133(1): 107-117.

9. Harlow, R.F., Whelan, J.B., Crawford, H.S., Skeen, J.E., 1975. Deer foods during years of oak mast abundance and scarcity. The Journal of Wildlife Management 39(2): 330-336.
10. Hewison, A.M., Gaillard, J.M., 1996. Birth-sex ratios and local resource competition in roe deer, Capreolus capreolus. Behavioral Ecology 7(4): 461-464.
11. Kinnaird, M.F., O'brien, T.G., 2012. Effects of Private‐Land Use, Livestock Management, and Human Tolerance on Diversity, Distribution, and Abundance of Large African Mammals. Conservation Biology 26(6): 1026-1039.
12. Kirkpatrick, R.L., Pekins, P.J., 2002. Nutritional value of acorns for wildlife. Oak Forest Ecosystems. The Johns Hopkins University Press, Baltimore, 173-181.
13. Kruuk, L.E., Clutton-Brock, T.H., Albon, S.D., Pemberton, J.M., Guinness, F.E., 1999. Population density affects sex ratio variation in red deer. Nature 399(6735): 459-461.
14. Lanszki, J., Zalewski, A., Horváth, G., 2007. Comparison of red fox Vulpes vulpes and pine marten Martes martes food habits in a deciduous forest in Hungary. Wildlife Biology 13(3): 258-271.
15. Lamberti, P., Mauri, L., Merli, E., Dusi, S., Apollonio, M., 2006. Use of space and habitat selection by roe deer Capreolus capreolus in a Mediterranean coastal area: how does woods landscape affect home range?. Journal of Ethology 24(2): 181-188.
16. Makineci E, Yilmaz E, Özdemir E, Kumbasli M, Sevgi O, Keten A, Beskardes V, Zengin H, Yilmaz H, Çaliskan S., 2011. Kuzey Trakya koruya tahvil mese ekosistemlerinde saglik durumu, biyokütle, karbon depolama ve faunistik özelliklerin belirlenmesi TÜBITAK Projesi, TUBITAK-TOVAG 107O750, Turkiye.
17. Macdonald, D.W., ve Barrett, P., 1993. Mammals of Britain & Europe. HarperCollins.
18. McShea, W.J., Schwede, G., 1993. Variable acorn crops: responses of white-tailed deer and other mast consumers. Journal of Mammalogy 74(4): 999-1006.
19. Mellanby, K., 1968. The effects of some mammals and birds on regeneration of oak. Journal of applied Ecology 5(2): 359-366.
20. Mohr, D., Cohnstaedt, L.W., Topp, W., 2005. Wild boar and red deer affect soil nutrients and soil biota in steep oak stands of the Eifel. Soil Biology and Biochemistry 37(4): 693-700.
21. Morrison, M.L., Block, W.M., Verner, J., 1991. Wildlife-Habitat Relationships in California's Oak Woodlands: Where Do We Go from Here?. In: Standiford, Richard B., tech. coord. 1991. Proceedings of the symposium on oak woodlands and hardwood rangeland management; October 31 - November 2, 1990; Davis, California. Gen. Tech. Rep. PSW-GTR-126.
22. Berkeley, CA: Pacific Southwest Research Station, Forest Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture; p. 105-109.
23. R Development Core Team, 2015. R: A Language and Environment for Statistical Computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing Vienna, Austria.
24. Rowcliffe, J.M., Field, J., Turvey, S.T., Carbone, C., 2008. Estimating animal density using camera traps without the need for individual recognition. Journal of Applied Ecology, 45 (4): 1228-1236.
25. Roberts, N.J., 2011. Investigation into survey techniques of large mammals: surveyor competence and camera-trapping vs. transect-sampling. Bioscience Horizons 4(1): 40-49.
26. Rodewald, P.G., Smith, K.G., 1998. Short-term effects of understory and overstory management on breeding birds in Arkansas oak-hickory forests. The Journal of wildlife management 62(4): 1411-1417.
27. Schley, L., Roper, T.J., 2003. Diet of wild boar Sus scrofa in Western Europe, with particular reference to consumption of agricultural crops. Mammal review 33(1): 43-56.
28. Schroeder, R.L., Vangilder, L.D., 1997. Tests of wildlife habitat models to evaluate oak-mast production. Wildlife Society Bulletin 25(3): 639-646.
29. Sheremet’ev, I.S., Prokopenko, S.V., 2006. General analysis of forest vegetation in the south of the Far East with regard to the feeding of wild ruminants (Artiodactyla, Ruminantia). Russian Journal of Ecology 37(4): 217-224.
30. Silveira, L., Jacomo, A.T., Diniz-Filho, J.A.F., 2003. Camera trap, line transect census and track surveys: a comparative evaluation. Biological Conservation, 114(3): 351-355.
31. Twedt, D. J., Wilson, R.R., 2002. Development of oak plantations established for wildlife. Forest Ecology and Management 162(2): 287-298.
32. Yaltırık, F., 1984. Türkiye Meşeleri Teşhis Kılavuzu. Tarım, Orman ve Köyişleri Bakanlığı, Orman Genel Müdürlüğü Yayınları, Yenilik Basımevi, İstanbul, Pp:64.