Ecological Observations on Myocastor coypus Molina, 1782 (Coypu) Habitat Distribution in Türkiye

Öz

The global distribution of coypu (Myocastor coypus) varies from high to low habitat suitability. Many studies reveal the habitat preference of coypu. Studies show how the physical and biological characteristics of different habitats are also effective in habitat selection. Myocastor coypus, which is important for Turkey’s biodiversity, is an exotic and invasive species for the country’s fauna and is distributed in a limited area. Populations of coypu, Myocastor coypus in Turkey are usually found near permanent water, especially reeds and swamps. They are also found in rivers, streams, lakes, ponds and brackish marshes in coastal areas. They prefer habitats close to water, animals can also be seen at certain distances from the river. The aim of this research is based on ecological observations on the habitats of coypu (Myocastor coypus) distributed in Turkey, in the wetlands in and around Iğdır and Edirne provinces. In this study, it was determined that Myocastor coypus populations are distributed in aquatic and near aquatic terrestrial areas as habitats.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Coypu
• nutria
• Myocastor coypus
• habitat

TÜRKİYE’DE YAYILIŞ GÖSTEREN SU MAYMUNU (Myocastor coypus) HABİTATLARI ÜZERİNE EKOLOJİK GÖZLEMLER

Öz

u maymununun (Myocastor coypus) küresel ölçekteki yayılış habitat uygunluğu yüksek ve düşük seviyede olmak üzere farklılık göstermektedir. Birçok araştırma, su maymununun habitat tercihini ortaya koymaktadır. Araştırmalar, farklı habitatların fiziksel ve biyolojik özelliklerinin habitat seçiminde de nasıl etkili olduğunu göstermektedir. Türkiye’nin biyolojik çeşitliliği için önemli olan Myocastor coypus, ülkenin faunası için egzotik ve istilacı bir tür olup sınırlı bir alanda yayılış göstermektedir. Türkiye’de su maymunu popülasyonları genellikle kalıcı su, özellikle sazlık ve bataklık yakınında bulunur. Kıyı bölgelerinde nehirler, akarsular, göller, göletler ve acı bataklıklarda da bulunurlar. Suya yakın habitatları tercih ederler, hayvanlar nehirden belli uzaklıklarda da görülebilir. Bu araştırmanın amacı, Türkiye’de yayılış gösteren su maymunu habitatları üzerine yapılan Iğdır ve Edirne ili, ilçeleri ve civarındaki sulak alanlardaki ekolojik gözlemlere dayanmaktadır. Bu çalışmada, Myocastor coypus popülasyonlarının habitat olarak sucul ve suya yakın karasal alanlarda da yayılış gösterdiği tespit edilmiştir.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Su maymunu
• Myocastor coypu
• Habitat
• Ekolojik Gözlemler

Kaynakça

1. Abbas, A. (1991). ‘‘Feeding strategy of coypus (Myocastor coypus) in central western France’’. J Zool 224(3):385–401.
2. Agsa, L. (1975). ‘‘Coypu’’. Av Dergisi 8: 3-4
3. Anonim 1. https://sehirsorgula.com/igdir-ilceleri/ (Erişim Tarihi: 02.06.2023)
4. Anonim 2. https://www.lafsozluk.com/2009/02/uzunkopru-nerededir-nereye-baglidir.html (Erişim Tarihi:02.06.2023).
5. Anonim 3. Milliyet Gazatesi (Haziran 29, 2020). “Esrarengiz fareler bölgeyi istila etti.” https://www.milliyet. com.tr/galeri/esrarengiz-fareler-bolgeyi-istila-etti-6246891 (Erişim Tarihi: 06.06.2023).
6. Bertolino, S. and Viterbi, R. (2009). ‘‘Long-term cost-effectiveness of coypu (Myocastor coypus) control in Piedmont (Italy)’’. Biological Invasions, 12(8), 2549–2558.
7. Blair, R. M., and Langlinais, M.J. (1960). “Nutria and swamp rabbits damage baldcypress plantings”. Journal of Forestry. 58: 388-389.
8. Buckley, Y.M. (2008). ‘‘The role of research for integrated management of invasive species, invaded landscapes and communities’’. J Appl Ecol, 45(2):397–402.

9. Carter, J. and Leonard, B. (2002). ‘‘A review of the literature on the worldwide distribution, spread of and efforts to eradicated the coypu (Myocastor coypus)’’. Wildlife Society Bulletin 30: 162-175.
10. Corbet, G.B. (1978). ‘‘The Mammals of the Palaearctic Region: A Taxonomic Review’’. Br. Mus. Nat. Hist. London, Publ. No 788, 314 pp.
11. Corriale, M.J., Arias S.M., BO, R.F., Porini G (2006). ‘‘Habitat-use patterns of the coypu (Myocastor coypus) in an urban wetland of its original distribution’’. Acta Theriol 51(3):295–302.
12. Cotton, K. E. (1963). “The coypu”. The Rivers Boards Association Year Book, 11:31-39.
13. Ellis, E. A. (1963). “Some effects of selective feeding by the coypu (Myocastor coypus) on the vegetation of Broadland”. Transactions of the Norfolk and Norwich Naturalists’ Society, 20: 32-35.
14. Ellis, E. A. (1965). “The Broads”. Collins, London, 401 pp.
15. Gosling, L. M. (1974). “The coypu in East Anglia. Transactions of the Norfolk and Norwich”. Naturalists’ Society, 23:49-59.
16. Guichón, M.L. Cassini, M.H. (2005). ‘‘Population parameters of indigenous populations of Myocastor coypus: the effect of hunting pressure’’. Acta Theriol. 50(1):125–132.
17. İliker, A. ve Pamukoğlu, N., (2008). ‘‘Myocastor coypus (Molina 1782) Türünün Bazı Ekolojik Özellikleri’’. Türkiye’nin Kıyı ve Deniz Alanları VII. Ulusal Kongresi Bildiriler Kitabı Cilt-I, S: 371-376. (Sözlü Sunum).
18. İliker, A., Pamukoğlu, N., Türkoğlu, M., (2008). ‘‘Türkiye’deki Myocastor coypus (Molina, 1782)’un bazı biyolojik ve ekolojik özellikleri’’. Tabiat ve İnsan, 42:17-21.
19. Kuhn, L. W., and Peloquin, E. P. (1974). “Oregon’s nutria problem”. Vertebrate Pest Conference, 6:101-105.
20. Kumerloeve, H., (1975). ‘‘Die Säugetiere (Mammalia) Der Türkei’’. Veröff. Zool. Staatssammlung. München. 18: 69-158.
21. Mann, G.F. (1978). ‘‘Los pequenos mamiferos de Chile’’. Editorial de la Universidad de Concepcion, Chile, 342 pp.
22. Meyer, A. (2006). ‘‘The impacts of nutria on vegetation and erosion in Oregon’’. University of Colorado. 47
23. Mursaloğlu, B. (1973). ‘‘New Records for Turkish Rodents (Mammalia)’’. Commun. Fac. Sci. Univ. Ankara, Ser. C 17: 213-219.
24. Nolfo-Clements, L.E. (2009). ‘‘Nutria Survivorship, Movement Patterns, and Home Ranges’’. Southeastern Naturalist. 8 (3): 399–410. doi:10.1656/058.008.0303
25. Nowak, R.M., Paradiso J.L. (1983). ‘‘Walker’s mammals of the world’’. Fourth edition. The Johns Hopkins University Pres, Baltimore, 2:569-1362.
26. Özkan, B. and Kurtonur C. (1994). ‘‘First Record of Myocastor coypus (Molina, 1972) (Rodentia, Mammalia) From the European Part of Turkey’’. Proc. 12th Natl. Biol. Cong. Edirne, Zoology Section, 7: 273-276.
27. Özkan, B. (1999). ‘‘Invasive Coypus, Myocastor coypus (Molina, 1782). In the Europen Part of Turkey’’. Israel Journal of Zool. 45:289-291.
28. Özkan, B. (2019). ‘‘Mammals of Gala Lake National Park’’. Journal of the Institute of Science and Technology, 9(2): 699-707.
29. Pamukoğlu, N, İliker A., Demirbaş Y. (2013). ‘‘Distribution of Coypu, Myocastor coypus (Mammalia: Rodentia) in Turkey’’. 87th Annual Meeting of the German Society of Mammalian Biology hosted by the Faculty of Forestry and Wood Sciences, Czech University of Life Sciences, Prague.
30. Pamukoğlu, N., İliker, A. and Demirbaş, Y. (2013). ‘‘Habitat characteristics of the species Myocastor coypus Molina 1782 in Turkey’’. Internatıonal Conference On Environmental Science And Technology. ICOEST’2013 – Cappadocia. ICOEST, 17-21 Haziran,2013,Nevşehir Ürgüp. (Poster)
31. Scaravelli, D. (2002). “Problema Myocastor: considerazioni dell’esperienza ravennate”. In: Petrini R, editor. La gestione delle specie alloctone in Italia: il caso dela nutria e del gambero rosso della Louisiana. Firenze: Proceedings of a National Congress; p. 25–28.
32. Schitoskey, F.J.R. Evans J. and Lavoie G. K. (1972). “Status and control of nutria in California”. Vertebrate Pest Conference, 5:15-17.
33. Usher, M.B., Kornberg, H., Horwood, J.W., Southwood R. and Moore P. D. (1986). ‘‘Invasibility and Wildlife Conservation: Invasive Species on Nature Reserves [and Discussion]’’. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London. Series B, Biological Sciences, 314(1167), 695–710.
34. Vaissi,, S.,Rezaei, S. (2023). ‘‘Climatic niche dynamics in the invasive nutria, Myocastor coypus: global assessment under climate change’’. Biol Invasions . https://doi.org/10.1007/s10530-023-03070-y
35. Waitkins, S.A., Wanyangu, S. and Palmer, M. (1985). ‘‘The Coypu as a Rodent Reservoir of Leptospira Infection in Great Britain’’. The Journal of Hygiene, 95(2), 409–417.
36. Willner, G.R., Chapman, J.A., Pursley, D. (1979). ‘‘Reproduction, physiological responses, food habits, and abundance of nutria on Maryland marshes’’. Wildl monogr 65:3–43.
37. Willner, G.R. (1982). ‘‘Nutria: Myocastor coypus’’. Pp. 1059-1076, in Wild Mammals of North America (J.A.Chapman and G.A. Feldhamer, Eds.). The Johns Hopkins University Press, Baltimore, 1147 Pp.
38. Wilson, E., Newson, R., Aliev, F. (1966). ‘‘Enemies and competitors of the nutria in USSR’’. J Mammal 47(2):353–355.
39. Woods, C.A. (1984). ‘‘Hystricognath rodents’’. Pp. 389-446, in Orders and families of recent mammals of the world (S. Anderson and J. K. Jones, Jr.,eds.). John Wiley and Sons, New York, 686 pp.
40. Woods, C.A., Contreras, L., Willner-Chapman, G., Whidden, H.P. (1992). ‘‘Myocastor coypus’’. Mammalian Species, 398: 1-8.