Invasive Species, Coypu (Myocastor coypus)

Öz

New species that are not included in the natural fauna of an ecosystem and come to a region from outside in different ways are called invasive species. Invasive species that settle in new areas, begin to be observed naturally in these areas, then proliferate and cause a decrease in biodiversity, adversely affect nature and human life. The damages of invasive species can be ecological and economic as well as affect human health. Viruses such as bird flu (H5N1), swine flu (H1N1) and covid 19 (SARS-CoV-2) that have emerged in many countries in recent years can be given as examples. The survival of a wide variety of species requires very different habitats and different climatic characteristics. Turkey hosts many convenient features for alien species as well as for the survival of native species. Therefore, alien species that enter our country in any way have a high chance of survival. As an example of an invasive mammal species, we can give the coypu (Myocastor coypus). In Turkey, some researchers suggest that the coypu eats the green parts of aquatic plants, rhizomes (bulbs), sometimes agricultural plants and fruits, sometimes invertebrates, and gnaws on reeds. It is also stated that it causes economic and ecological losses in agricultural areas and wetlands by consuming rice seedlings, reeds and aquaculture. However, it is also stated by some researchers in our country that although they are an invasive species, the coypu can easily breed, feed and reproduce in wetland areas and do not harm nature.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• invasive species
• Myocastor coypus
• nutria

İSTİLACI BİR TÜR, SU MAYMUNU (Myocastor coypus)

Öz

Bir ekosistemin doğal faunasında yer almayan, farklı yollarla bir bölgeye dışarıdan gelen yeni türlere istilacı tür denmektedir. Yeni alanlara yerleşen, bu alanlarda doğal olarak gözlenmeye başlayan, sonra çoğalan ve biyoçeşitlilikte azalmaya sebep olan istilacı türler doğayı ve insan yaşamını da olumsuz yönde etkilemektedir. İstilacı türlerin zararları ekolojik ve ekonomik olabildiği gibi insan sağlığı üzerine de etkili olabilir. Son yıllarda birçok ülkede ortaya çıkan kuş gribi (H5N1), domuz gribi (H1N1) ve Covid-19 (SARS-CoV-2) gibi virüsler buna örnek olarak verilebilir. Çok çeşitli türlerin yaşaması çok değişik yaşam ortamları ve değişik iklim özellikleri gerektirir. Türkiye, doğal türlerin yaşaması için olduğu kadar pek çok yabancı tür için de uygun özellikler barındırır. Bundan dolayı ülkemize herhangi bir biçimde giren yabancı türlerin yaşama şansı da yüksektir. İstilacı türlerden memeli türüne bir örnek olarak su maymununu (Myocastor coypus) verebiliriz. Türkiye’de bazı araştırmacılar tarafından su maymununun su bitkilerinin yeşil kısımlarını, rizomları (soğanları), bazen tarım bitkilerini ve meyveleri, bazen omurgasızları yedikleri ve sazlıkları kemirerek beslendikleri ileri sürülmektedir. Ayrıca pirinç fideleri, sazlar ve su ürünlerini tüketerek tarımsal alanlarda ve sulak alanlarda ekonomik ve ekolojik kayıplara yol açtığı da belirtilmektedir. Bununla birlikte yine ülkemizde, bazı araştırmacılar tarafından istilacı bir tür olmalarına rağmen su maymununun sulak alanlarda çok rahat bir şekilde üreyip, beslenip, çoğalabildikleri ve doğaya da zarar vermedikleri de ifade edilmektedir.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• istilacı tür
• coypu
• nutria
• Myocastor coypus

Kaynakça

1. Agsa L. (1975). “Coypu”. Av dergisi 8: 3-4.
2. Bertolino S. Perrone, A. and Gola, L. (2005). “Effectiveness of coypu control in small Italian wetland areas”. Wildlife Society Bulletin, 33(2), 714–720.
3. Bertolino S. (2009). “Species account of the 100 of the most invasive alien species in Europe: Myocastor coypus (Molina), coypu, nutria (Myocastoridae, Mammalia)”. In: DAISIE handbook of alien species in Europe. Invading nature– springer series in invasion ecology, v3. Dordrecht (Netherlands): Springer. p. 269–364.
4. Bertolino S. and Viterbi, R. (2009). “Long-term cost-effectiveness of coypu (Myocastor coypus) control in Pied mont (Italy)”. Biological Invasions, 12(8), 2549–2558.
5. Blair, R. M., and Langlinais M.J. (1960). “Nutria and swamp rabbits damage baldcypress plantings. Journal of Forestry”. 58: 388-389.
6. Boorman L. A. and Fuller, R. M. (1981). The Changing Status of Reedswamp in the Norfolk Broads. Journal of Applied Ecology, 18(1), 241–269.
7. CABI (2008). “Myocastor coypus (Molina, 1782)” [original text by Dr. Sandro Bertolino & IUCN/SSC]. In: Invasive Species Compendium. Wallingford, UK: CAB International. www.cabi.org/isc (22.11.2019)
8. CABI (2018). “Myocastor coypus (coypu)”. [Original text by Dr. Sandro Bertolino]. In: Invasive Species Compendium. Wallingford, UK: CAB International. www.cabi.org/isc

9. Carter, J. and Leonard, B. P. (2002). “A review of the literature on the worldwide distribution., spread of, and efforts to eradicate the coypu (Myocastor coypus)” Wildlife Society Bulletin. 30(1): 162-175.
10. Coblentz, B.E., (1990). “Exotic organisms: a dilemma for conservation biology”. Conserv. Biol 4:261–265.
11. Corbet, G.B. (1978). “The Mammals of the Palaearctic Region: A Taxonomic Review”. Br. Mus. Nat. Hist.London, Publ. No 788, 314 Pp.
12. Cotton, K. E. (1963). “The coypu”. The Rivers Boards Association Year Book, 11:31-39.
13. Duff A. and Lawson, A. (2004). “Mammals of the World: A checklist”. New Haven, Connecticut: Yale University Press, 312 pp.
14. DKMPGM (2014). “Biyolojik Çeşitliliği İzleme ve Değerlendirme Raporu 2013-2014” http://www.nuhungemisi.gov.tr/Content/Documents/biyolojik-ce%C5%9Fitliligi-izleme-degerlendirmeraporu- 2013-2014.pdf (14.06.2020).
15. Ehrlich, S. Jedynak. K. (1962). “Nutria influence on a bog lake in northern Pomorze, Poland”. Hydrogiologia, 19:273- 297.
16. 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.
17. Ellis, E. A. (1965). “The Broads”. Collins, London, 401 pp.
18. Gosling, L. M. (1974). “The coypu in East Anglia. Transactions of the Norfolk and Norwich”. Naturalists’ Society, 23:49-59.12
19. Gözcelioğlu, B. (2009). “Yabancı Türler ve Biyolojik İstila (Karadakiler)” Bilim ve Teknik, Haziran 2009 http://www.biyolojiegitim.yyu.edu.tr/biyoloji/Yabanciturlerbiyistilakaradadoga09.pdf (25.05.2020)
20. 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.
21. Hailman J.P. (1961). “Sterotyped Feeding Behavior of a North Carolina Nutria” Journal of Mammalogy 42(2):269.
22. Harris, V. T. and Webert F. (1962). “Nutria feeding activity and its effect on marsh vegetation in southwestern Louisiana”. United States Fish and Wildlife Service, Special Scientific Report, 64: 1-53.
23. Hillbricht, A., and Ryszkowski L. (1961). “Investigations of the utilization and destruction of its habitat by a population of coypu, Myocastor coypu Molina, bred in semi-captivity”. Ekologia Polska, seria A, 9:506-524.
24. IUCN (2020). “The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species”. Version 2020-2. www.iucnredlist.org (12.07.2020).
25. İliker A. Pamukoğlu N. (2008). “Güney Amerika’dan Gelen Konuk”. Bilim ve Teknik Dergisi 486:68-69.
26. İliker A. Pamukoğlu N. ve Türkoğlu, M. (2008). “Türkiye’deki Myocastor coypus (Molina, 1782)’un Bazı Biyolojik ve Ekolojik Özellikleri”. Tabiat ve İnsan.42:17-21.
27. Jarnevich C. Young N. Sheffels T. Carter J. Sytsma M. Talbert C. (2017). “Evaluating simplistic methods to understand current distributions and forecast distribution changes under climate change scenarios: an example with coypu (Myocastor coypus)”. NeoBiota. 32:107–125.
28. Kuhn, L. W., and Peloquin E. P. (1974). “Oregon’s nutria problem”. Vertebrate Pest Conference, 6:101-105.
29. Kumerloeve H. (1975). “Die Säugetiere (Mammalia) Der Türkei”. Veröff. Zool. Staatssammlung. München. 18: 69-158.
30. LeBlanc D.J. (1994). “Nutria”. Pages B71-B80 in R.M. Timm, editor. Prevention and control of wildlife damage. University of Nebraska, Cooperative Extension, Lincoln, NE, USA.
31. Litjens, B. E. J. (1980). “De beverrat, Myocastor coypus (Molina), in Nederland”. I. Het verloop van de populatie gedurende de periode 1963-1979. [The coypu, Myocastor coypus (Molina) in the Netherlands. I. Population development during the period 1963-1979.] Lutra, 23:43-53.
32. Lowe S.J. Browne M, Boudjelas S. De Pooter M. (2000). “100 of the world’s worst invasive alien species: a selection from the global invasive species database”. Auckland (NZ): Invasive Species Specialist Group (ISSG).
33. Lodge D.M. (1993). “Biological invasions: lessons for ecology”. Trends Ecol. Evol. 8:133– 137.
34. Milliyet Gazatesi (Haziran 29, 2020). “Esrarengiz fareler bölgeyi istila etti.” https://www.milliyet.com.tr/galeri/esrarengiz-fareler-bolgeyi-istila-etti-6246891 (29.06.2020)
35. Mitchell-Jones A. Bogdanowicz, W. Krystufek, B., Reijnders, P., Spitzenberger, F., Stubbe, C., Thissen, J., Vohralík, V., Zima, J. (1999). “The Atlas of European Mammals”. London, UK: Academic Press.
36. Mursaloğlu B. (1973). “New Records for Turkish Rodents (Mammalia)”. Commun. Fac. Sci. Univ. Ankara, Ser. C 17: 213-219.
37. NBDC (2017, May 17). “Coypu Species Alert”. Kilkenny, Ireland: Heritage Council. https://www.biodiversityireland.ie/coypu-species-alert/
38. Özdemir, G., Ceylan, B. (2007). “Biyolojik İstila ve Karadeniz’deki İstilacı Türler”. SÜMAE YUNUS Araştırma Bülteni, 7:3 Eylül 2007.13
39. Özkan B. and Kurtonur C. (1994). “First Record of Myocastor coypus (Molina, 1782) (Rodentia, Mammalia) From the European Part of Turkey”. Proc. 12th Natl. Biol. Cong. Edirne, Zoology Section, 7: 273-276.
40. Özkan B. (1999). “Invasive Coypus, Myocastor coypus (Molina, 1782)”. In the Europen Part of Turkey. Israel Journal of Zool., 45:289-291.
41. Özkan B. (2019). “Mammals of Gala Lake National Park”. Journal of the Institute of Science and Technology , 9 (2) , 699-707 . DOI: 10.21597/jist.447440.
42. Pamukoğlu N. İliker A. Demirbaş Y. (2013). “Distribution of Coypu, Myocastor coypus (Mammalia: Rodentia) in Turkey”. 87th Annual Meeting of the German Society of Mammalogy, September 8-12, 2013, Mammalian Biology - Zeitschrift für Säugetierkunde, Volume 78, Supplement, Praha-Czech Republic. p: 18-19.
43. Pepper M.A. Herrmann V. Hines J.E. Nichols J.D. Kendrot S.R. (2017). “Evaluation of nutria (Myocastor coypus) detection methods in Maryland, USA.” Biol Invasions. 19:831–841.
44. Sato, M., Kawaguchi, Y., Nakajima, J., Mukai, T., Shimatani , Y., Onikura, N. (2010). “Review of the research on introduced freshwater fishes: new perspectives, the need for research, and management implications”. Landscape Ecol Eng 6:99–108 DOI 10.1007/s11355-009-0086-3.
45. Scaravelli D. (2002). “Problema Myocastor: considerazioni dell’esperienza ravennate”. In: Petrini R, editor. Lagestione delle specie alloctone in Italia: il caso dela nutria e del gambero rosso della Louisiana. Firenze: Proceedings of a National Congress; p. 25–28.
46. Schitoskey, F.J.R. Evans J. and Lavoie G. K. (1972). “Status and control of nutria in California”. Vertebrate Pest Conference, 5:15-17.
47. Shaffer, G. P., Sasser, C. E., Gosselink, J. G., and Rejmanek, M. (1992). “Vegetation Dynamics in the Emerging Atchafalaya Delta, Louisiana, USA”. Journal of Ecology, 80(4), 677–687.
48. Taylor J.N., Courtenay W.R. Jr, McCann J.A. (1984). “Known impacts of exotic fishes in the continental United States”. In: Courtenay WR Jr, Stauffer JR Jr (eds) Distribution, biology, and management of exotic fishes. Johns Hopkins University Press, Baltimore, pp 322–373.
49. Townsend, C.R. (2003). “Individual, population, community, and ecosystem consequences of a fish invader in New Zealand streams”. Conserv Biol 17:38–47.
50. 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.
51. 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.
52. Wentz, W. A. (1971). “The impact of nutria (Myocastor coypus) on marsh vegetation in the Willamette Valley,Oregon.” M.S. thesis, Oregon State University, Corvallis, 41 pp.
53. Wilson E. Don, Reeder, M.D. (2005). “Mammal Species of the World: A Taxonomic and Geographic”. 2nd Ed. Smiths. Inst. Press. Washington, D.C. 1207.
54. Woods, C.A. Contreras, L. Willner-Chapman, G. Whidden, H.P. (1992). “Myocastor coypus”. Mammalian Species 398: 1-8.