Samandağ Kumsalı Yeşil Deniz Kaplumbağası (Chelonia mydas) Yuvalarında Memeli Predasyonunun Zamansal ve Mekansal Değişiminin İncelenmesi

Yıl 2018, Cilt: 4 Sayı: 1, 79 - 88, 20.06.2018

Bektaş Sönmez

https://doi.org/10.24180/ijaws.400827

Öz

Yuva predasyonu, birçok nesli tükenmekte olan kuş ve
sürüngen türünün korunması için önemli bir pratik zorluktur ve yavru başarısını
azaltma ve tehdit altındaki popülasyonların iyileşmesini yavaşlatma potansiyeline
sahiptir. Yuva predasyonunun zamansal ve mekansal değişiminin tahmin edilmesi
predasyon yönetimini optimize etme potansiyeline sahiptir. Bu çalışmada,
Samandağ kumsalında yeşil deniz kaplumbağası (Chelonia mydas) yuvalarında memeli predasyonunun zamansal ve
mekansal değişimleri araştırıldı. 2012 ve 2017 yılları arasında 733'ü metal
ızgaralı kafes ile korunan, 231'i ise metal ızgara ile korumaya alınmamış
kontrol yuvaları olan toplam 964 yuva araştırıldı. En etkili yuva predatörü Çakal
olarak tespit edildi. Yuvaların metal ızgaralı kafes ile korunması yavru
başarısını etkin bir şekilde arttırdı. Predasyona uğrayan yuva sayısı yıllara
göre pozitif bir eğilim gösterdi, ancak bu eğilim istatistiksel olarak anlamlı
değildi. Predasyon olasılığı kuluçka döneminin sonuna doğru arttı ve deniz ve
bitki örtüsüne olan mesafeye göre mekansal değişimde farklılık ortaya çıkmadı.
Ayrıca, kumsalın sonuna doğru predasyon olasılığı arttı. Yuva yoğunluğu ve yuva
derinliklerine bağlı predasyon olma ihtimalinin ileride araştırılması
önemlidir. Ayrıca Samandağ sahilinde baskın yırtıcı olan Çakalların populasyon
ekolojisi ve statüsünün araştırılması da her iki tür için de önemlidir.

Anahtar Kelimeler

Chelonia mydas, Samandağ, Predasyon, Canis aureus, Yeşil deniz kaplumbağası, Samandağ

Investigation of Temporal and Spatial Variation of Mammalian Predation in Green Sea Turtle (Chelonia mydas) Nests on Samandağ Beach, Eastern Mediterranean Turkey

Öz

Nest predation is an important practical challenge for
the protection of many endangered species of birds and reptiles, and has the
potential to reduce hatching success and slow the recovery of the threatened
populations. Estimating the temporal and spatial variation of the nest
predation has the potential to optimize predation management. In this study,
the temporal and spatial variation of mammalian predation was investigated in the
green sea turtle (Chelonia mydas)
nests on Samandağ beach, Eastern Mediterranean, Turkey. A total of 964 nests
were examined between 2012 and 2017, which 733 of them were protected with
screened metal grid and 231 of them unscreened control nests. The most
effective nest predator was identified as the Jackal (Canis aureus). The protection of the nests with the screened metal
grid has effectively increased the hatching success. The number of predated
nests showed a positive trend over the years, but this trend was not
statistically significant. The likelihood of predation increased towards the
end of the incubation period, and did not change in the spatial variation
according to the distance to the sea and vegetation. Also, the likelihood of
the predation increased towards the end of the beach. Investigation of the
likelihood of predation by nest density and nest depth in future studies is
important. Also, the investigation of population ecology and status of the
Jackals, which is predominant predators on the Samandag beach, is important for
the both species.

Anahtar Kelimeler

Chelonia mydas, Samandağ, Predation, Canis aureus, Green sea turtle, Samandağ

Kaynakça

• Addison DS and Henricy S., 1994. A comparison of galvanized wire mesh cages vs. flat chain-link screen in preventing Procyon lotor depredation of Caretta caretta nests. NOAA Technical Memorandum, 351, 74.
• Akademi ÇDT., 2006. Mersin ili Alata, Kazanlı ve Anamur kumsalı deniz kaplumbağası (Caretta caretta, Chelonia mydas) ve yumuşak kabuklu nil kaplumbağası (Trionyx triunguis) populasyonlarının araştırılması, izlenmesi ve korunması faaliyeti hizmet alım işi, Mersin İl Çevre ve Orman Müdürlüğü pp.113. Akçınar SC., Güçlü Ö., Taskavak E and Türkozan O., 2006. Golden jackal predation on marine turtles in Goksu Delta, Turkey. Twenty Sixth Annual Symposium on Sea Turtle Biology and Conservation (Frick M., Panagopoulou A., Rees AF and Williams K, compilers), p.120.
• Aureggi M., Gerosa G and Yerli SV., 2000. Five years of research at Akyatan Beach (Turkey): one of the main nesting site for green turtle, Chelonia mydas, in the Mediterranean. The Journal of Integrative Biogeography, 21(1): 555-560.
• Başkale E and Kaska Y., 2005. Sea turtles nest consevation techniques on Southwestern Beaches in Turkey. Israel Journal of Zoology, 51: 13-26.
• Brown LJ and Macdonald DW., 1995. Predation on green turtle Chelonia mydas nests by wild canids at Akyatan beach, Turkey. Biological Conservation, 71: 55-60.
• Burke VJ., Rathbun SL., Bodie JR. and Gibbons JW., 1998. Effect of density on predation rate for turtle nests in a complex landscape. Oikos, 83: 3-11.
• Canbolat AF., 2004. A review of sea turtle nesting activity along the Mediterranean coast of Turkey. Biological Conservation, 116: 81-91. Casale P., 2015. Caretta caretta (Mediterranean subpopulation). The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species 2015.
• Crouse DT., Crowder LB and Caswell H., 1987. A stagebased population model for loggerhead sea turtles and implications for conservation. Ecology, 68: 1412–1423.
• Crowder LB., Crouse DT., Heppell SS and Martin TH., 1994. Predicting the impact of turtle excluder devices on loggerhead sea turtle populations. Ecological Applications, 4: 437-445.
• Dutton DL., Dutton PH., Chaloupka M and Boulon RH., 2005. Increase of a Caribbean leatherback turtle Dermochelys coriacea nesting population linked to long-term nest protection. Biological Conservation, 126: 186-194.
• Engeman RM., Martin R.E., Constantin B., Noel R and Woolard J., 2003. Monitoring predators to optimize their management for marine turtle nest protection. Biological Conservation, 113: 171–178. Fowler LE., 1979. Hatching success and nest predation in the green sea turtle, Chelonia mydas, at Tortuguero, Costa Rica. Ecology, 60: 946-955.
• Gardner W., Mulvey EP and Shaw EC., 1995. Regression analyses of counts and rates: Poisson, overdispersed Poisson, and negative binomial models. Psychological Bulletin, 118(3): 392-404.
• Hamed KH and Rao AR., 1998. A modified Mann-Kendall trend test for autocorrelated data. Journal of Hydrology, 204: 182-196.
• Heppell SS., Limpus, CJ., Crouse DT., Frazer NB and Crowder LB., 1996. Population model analysis for the loggerhead sea turtle, Caretta caretta, in Queensland. Wildlife Research, 23: 143-159.
• Hilton-Taylor C., 2000. 2000 IUCN Red list of threatened species. IUCN, Gland.
• Hipel KW and McLeod AI., 1994. Time series modeling of water resources and environmental systems. Elsevier, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
• Hopkins SR and Murphy TM., 1980. Reproductive ecology of Caretta caretta in South Carolina. South Carolina Wildlife and Marine Resources Department, South Carolina, USA.
• Hopkins SR and Murphy TM., 1983. Management of loggerhead turtle nesting beaches in South Carolina. Study Completion Report E-1. No.v l-a2. Division of Wildlife and Freshwater Fisheries, USA.
• Irwin WP., Amy JH and Lohmann KJ., 2004. Magnetic field distortions produced by protective cages around sea turtle nests: unintended consequences for orientation and navigation? Biological Conservation, 118: 117–120.
• Jordan ER., 1994. Effects of a nest screening program on raccoon predation of sea turtle eggs at Canaveral national seashore. Proceedings of the 14th Annual Symposium on Sea Turtle Biology and Conservation (Eds., KA Bjorndal, AB Bolten, DA. Johnson and PJ Eliazar), pp. 66–67. NOAA Technical Memorandum NMFSSEFC- 351, Miami, USA.
• Kaska Y., 2000. Predation pattern of loggerhead and green turtle nests in the eastern Mediterranean and its possible effect on sex ratio. Israel Journal of Zoology 46: 343-349.
• Kurz DJ., Straley KM., DeGregorio BA., 2011. Out-foxing the red fox: how to best protect the nests of the endangered loggerhead marine turtle Caretta caretta from mammalian predation? Oryx, 2011: 1–6.
• Leighton PA., Horrocks JA and Kramer DL., 2009. How depth alters detection and capture of buried prey: exploitation of sea turtle eggs by mongooses. Behavioral Ecology, 20: 1299-1306.
• Leighton PA., Horrocks JA and Kramer DL., 2011. Predicting nest survival in sea turtles: when and where are eggs most vulnerable to predation? Animal Conservation, 14(2): 186-195.
• Longo GO., Pazeto FD., De Abreu JAG and Floeter SR., 2009. Flags reduce sea turtle nest predation by foxes in NE Brazil. Marine Turtle Newsletter, 125: 1-3.
• Mazaris AD., Broder B and Matsinos YG., 2006. An individual based model of a sea turtle population to analyze effects of age dependent mortality. Ecological Modelling, 198: 174-182.
• McMurtray JD., 1986. Reduction of raccoon predation on sea turtle nests at Canaveral National Seashore, Florida. CPSU Tech. Rep., No. 20. National Park Service, USA.
• Nellis DW and Small V., 1983. Mongoose predation on sea turtle eggs and nests. Biotropica, 15: 159-160. Özdemir A., Türkozan O., Ilgaz Ç and Martin R., 2004. Nest site factors and invertebrate infestation of loggerhead turtle nests. Israel Journal of Zoology, 50: 333-340.
• Ripple J., 1996. Sea Turtles. Colin Baxter Photography Ltd. Grantown-on-spey, Scotland.
• Schroeder BA., 1981. Predation and nest success in two species of marine turtles (Caretta caretta and Chelonia mydas) at Merritt Island, Florida. Florida Scientist, 44: 35.
• Sen PK., 1968. Estimates of regression coefficient based on Kendall's tau. Journal of the American Statistical Association, 63: 1379-1389. Sönmez B., Turan C and Yalçın Özdilek Ş., 2011. The effect of relocation on the morphology of Green Turtle, Chelonia mydas (Linnaeus, 1758), hatchlings on Samandağ beach, Turkey. Zoology in the Middle East, 52: 29-38.
• Sönmez B and Yalçın-Özdilek Ş., 2013. Conservation technique of green turtle (Chelonia mydas L. 1758) nest under the risk of tidal inundation with hatcheries, on Samandağ beach, Turkey. Russian Journal of Herpetology, 20: 19-26.
• Stancyk SE., Talbert OR and Dean JM., 1980. Nesting activity of the loggerhead turtle (Caretta caretta) in South Carolina. II. Protection of nests from raccoon predation by transplantation. Biological Conservation 18: 289-298.
• Stancyk SE., 1982. Non-human predators of sea turtles and their control. Biology and conservation of sea turtles: 139–152. (Ed.Bjorndal, K.A. Washington: Smithsonian Institution Press. Switzerland.
• Talbert OR., Stancyk SE., Dean JM and Will JM., 1980. Nesting activity of the loggerhead turtle (Caretta caretta) in South Carolina I: a rookery in transition. Copeia, 4: 709-719.
• Wetterer JK., Wood LD., Johnson C., Krahe H and Fitchett S., 2007. Predaceous ants, beach replenishment, and nest placement by sea turtles. Environmental Entomology, 36: 1084-1091.
• Windberg LA and Knowlton FF., 1988. Management implications of coyotes spacing patterns in southern Texas. Journal of Wildlife Management, 52: 632-640.
• Yalçın-Özdilek Ş., 2007. Status of sea turtles (Chelonia mydas and Caretta caretta) on Samandağ Beach, Turkey: Evaluation of five-year monitoring study. Annales Zoologici Fennici, 44(5): 333-347.
• Yerli SV., Canbolat AF., Brown LJ and Macdonald DW., 1997. Mesh grids protect loggerhead turtle Caretta caretta nests from red fox Vulpes vulpes predation. Biological Conservation, 82: 109-111.
• Yılmaz C., Türkozan O and Oruç A., 2009. Tuzla, Akyatan ve Yumurtalık milli parkları deniz kaplumbağası (Chelonia mydas ve Caretta caretta) ve Yumuşak Kabuklu Nil kaplumbağası (Trionyx triunguis) populasyonlarının araştırılması, izlenmesi ve korunması çalışması. Türkiye Doğal Hayatı Koruma Vakfı, İstanbul, Türkiye.
• Yılmaz C., Oruç A and Türkozan O., 2015. Marine turtles (Chelonia mydas and Caretta caretta) nesting along the eastern Mediterranean coast of Turkey: results from six years of surveying. Herpetological Journal, 25(4): 197-204.