Analysis of Mammal Remains from Owl Pellets Asio Otus , in A Suburban Area in Beytepe, Ankara

Year 2012, Volume: 40 Issue: 3, 233 - 237, 01.08.2012

Şafak Bulut Burak Akbaba Zafer Ayaş

Abstract

138 owl pellets of long-eared owl, Asio otus were analyzed in the suburban area in Beytepe, Ankara. The re- sults showed the preferred diet of long-eared owl in summer time and evaluated owl prefence for small mam- mals in suburban areas. Mammals constituted all preys of the owl. The Günther’s vole, Microtus guentheri, was the main food of the long-eared owl, Microtus guentheri constituted 43.7% of the prey items, Microtus sp., can not identified, 17.4%, Apodemus flavicollis 11.3%, Mus macedonicus 10.8%, Microtus levis 7.5%, Rattus norvegi- cus 4.2%, Crocidura suavolens 2.8%, Nannospalax nehringi 1.4%, Cricetulus migratorius 0.9%. Pellets’ content indicated that the long-eared owl consumes 1 to 5 preys per pellet which depends on the size of prey species. Average prey per pellet was found to be 1.72. A total of 9 species contributed to diet, 213 prey individuals with a total amount of 8383.5 g in biomass were found.

Keywords

Long-eared owl, pellets, rodents, small mammals, biomass, Turkey

Ankara, Beytepe’de Suburban Bir Bölgede Baykuş Peletlerinden Asio Otus Memeli Kalıntılarının Analizi

Abstract

B eytepe, Ankara’da suburban bir bölgede kulaklı orman baykuşu Asio otus’a ait 138 pelet analiz edildi. Sonuçlar, yaz aylarında kulaklı orman baykuşunun beslenme tercihinin ve hangi küçük memelileri tercih ettiğini değerlendirmemizi sağladı. Memeli kalıntıları baykuşun tüm avlarında bulundu. Günther tarlafaresi, Microtus guentheri, kulaklı orman baykuşunun ana besinidir, Microtus guentheri avların %43,7’sini, tanımlanamayan Microtus sp. türü %17,4’ünü, Apodemus flavicollis %11,3’ünü, Mus macedonicus %10,8’ini, Microtus levis %7,5’ini, Rattus norvegicus %4,2’sini, Crocidura suavolens %2,8’ini, Nannospalax nehringi %1,4’ünü, Cricetulus migratorius %0,9’unu içermektedir. Pelet içerikleri kulaklı orman baykuşunun avın büyüklüğüne göre her pelette 1 ile 5 arası ava rastlanmıştır. Her peletin ortalama avı 1,72 bulunmuştur. Toplamda 9 tür baykuşun besinine katılmıştır, 213 avlanmış örnek toplamda biyomas olarak 8383,5 g bulunmuştur

Keywords

Kulaklı orman baykuşu, pelet, rodent, küçük memeli, biyomas, Türkiye

References

• 1. H. Mikkola, Owls of Europe. T, AD. Poyser, London (1983) 1.
• 2. K.H. Voous and A. Camoron, Owl of the Northern Hemishphere. Collins, London, (1988).
• 3. ZX. Zheng, YH. Xian and GX. Guan, Fauna Sinica: Aves vol. 6: Columbiformes, Psittaciformes, Cuculiformes and Strigiformes. Science Press, Beijing, China, (1991).
• 4. İ. Kiziroğlu, Türkiye Kuşları, The Birds of Turkey, OGM Yay., Gazi, Ankara, (1989), 314.
• 5. CD. Marti, A review of prey selection by the Longeared owl, Condor 78 (1976) 331.
• 6. HM. Steiner and G. Vauk, Saugetiere aus dem Beyşehir-gebiet (vil. Konya, kleinasien). Zoologischer Anzeiger, 176 (1966) 97.
• 7. L . Turan, Winter Diet of Long-Eared Owl Population in Ankara, Beytepe, Hacettepe J. Biol. &Chem., 34 (2005) 69.
• 8. S. Seçkin and Y. Coşkun, Mammalian Remains in the Pellets of Long-eared Owls (Asio otus) in Diyarbakır Province, Turk. J. Zool., 30 (2006) 271.
• 9. M. Çolak, Kilis ve Şanlıurfa illerinden toplanan peletlerle, peçeli baykuş, Tyto alba (Scopoli, 1769) ve kukumav, Athene noctua (Scopoli, 1769)’nın besin analizi, Yüksek Lisans Tezi, N.Ü. Biyoloji Böl., Zooloji ABD., Niğde, 2007.
• 10. N. Yiğit, E. Çolak, M. Sözen and A. Karataş, Rodents of Türkiye: Türkiye Kemiricileri, Editor: Demirsoy, A., Meteksan Yayınevi, Ankara, (2006).
• 11. J. Raczynskiand and AL. Ruprecht, The effect of digestion on the osteological composition of owl pellets, Acta Ornithologica, 14 (1974) 25.
• 12. N. Yiğit and E. Çolak, On the distribution and taxonomic status of Microtus guentheri (Danford and Alston, 1880) and Microtus lydius Blackler, 1916 (Mammalia: Rodentia) in Turkey, Turk. J. Zool., 26 (2002) 197.
• 13. P. Orsini, F. Bonhomme, J. Britton-Davidian, H. Croset, S. Gerassimov and L. Thaler, Le complexe d’espéces du genre Mus en Europe Centrale et Orientale, Z. Säugetierkunde, 48 (1983) 86.
• 14. JC. Auffray, E. Tchernov, F. Bonhomme, G. Heth, S. Simson, and E. Nevo, Presence and ecological distribution of Mus “spretoides” and Mus musculus domesticus in Israel, Circum-Mediterranean vicariance in the genus Mus, Mammalian Biology, 55 (1990) 1.
• 15. T. Cucchi, JD. Vigne and JC. Auffray, First occurrence of the house mouse (Mus musculus domesticus Schwarz & Schwarz, 1943) in the Western Mediterranean: a zooarchaeological revision of subfossil occurrences, Biol. J. Linn. Soc., 84 (2005) 429.
• 16. B. Gözcelioğlu, R. Çolak, E. Çolak and N. Yiğit, A study on Mus domesticus Rutty, 1772 and Mus macedonicus Petrov and Ruz’c, 1983 (Mammalia: Rodentia) distributed along the line of Ankara, Bolu and Zonguldak, Turk. J. Zool., 29 (2005) 133.
• 17. DL. Harrison and JJ. Bates, The mammals of Arabia. Second ed. Harrison Zoological Museum, Kent, United Kingdom, (1991).