Distribution and habitat preference of roe deer (Capreolus capreolus L.) in Düzce Province of Turkey

Yıl 2017, Cilt: 67 Sayı: 1, 22 - 28, 01.01.2017

Akif Keten

https://doi.org/10.17099/jffiu.89577

Öz

Distribution and habitat preference of roe deer (Capreolus capreolus L.) in Düzce Province of Turkey

Abstract: The roe deer is an important game animal in Turkey. The aim of the current study was to determine the likely distribution area and habitat preferences of roe deer (Capreolus capreolus (L., 1758)) in Duzce Province. The species was observed by wildlife camera traps and direct or indirect observation methods in different habitats in a total of 75 sampling sites during the period between 2013 and 2015. Roe deer avoid human contact. The species are found mostly (79%) in fir and beech forests, preferably those with a closed canopy cover but without dense understory. The numbers of individual of male are higher than the female. They are most often (74%) observed during feeding, with activity peaking at dawn and dusk. The roe deer has a wide distribution range in Turkey and has great potential as a game animal. However, its prevalence is not sufficient in all regions. 

Keywords: Wildlife camera trap, stand, humans

Karaca (Capreolus capreolus L.)’nın Düzce’de yayılışı ve habitat tercihi

Özet: Karaca önemli av hayvanlarımızdan birisidir. Bu çalışma ile Düzce ilinde Karaca (Capreolus capreolus L.)’nın muhtemel yayılış alanlarını ve habitat tercihlerini belirlenmesi amaçlanmıştır. Bunun için tür 2013 ve 2015 yıllarında farklı habitatlarda fotokapan ve doğrudan ve dolaylı gözlenmiştir. Tür insan etkisinden mümkün olduğunca kaçınmaktadır. Çoğunlukla göknar ve kayın ormanlarını ve tercihen kapalı alanları kullanmaktadır. Ancak çok sık alt tabakayı tercih etmemektedir. Erkek birey dişilere göre daha fazla tespit edilmiştir. Alanda daha çok beslenme aktivitesi gösteren tür sabah ve akşam saatlerinde aktiftir. Ülkemiz av hayvanları arasında potansiyeli yüksek olan türün Düzce ilinde geniş yayılışı bulunmakta ancak görünme sıklığı her alanda yeterli seviyede bulunmamaktadır. 

Anahtar kelimeler: Fotokapan, meşcere, insan

Received (Geliş): 02.03.2016 - Revised (Düzeltme): 05.04.2016 -   Accepted (Kabul): 18.04.2016

Cite (Atıf): Keten, A., 2017. Distribution and habitat preference of roe deer (Capreolus capreolus L.) in Düzce province of Turkey. Journal of the Faculty of Forestry Istanbul University 67(1): 22-28. DOI: 10.17099/jffiu.89577

Karaca (Capreolus capreolus L.)’nın Düzce’de yayılışı ve habitat tercihi

Öz

Distribution and habitat preference of roe deer (Capreolus capreolus L.) in Düzce Province of Turkey

Abstract: The roe deer is an important game animal in Turkey. The aim of the current study was to determine the likely distribution area and habitat preferences of roe deer (Capreolus capreolus (L., 1758)) in Duzce Province. The species was observed by wildlife camera traps and direct or indirect observation methods in different habitats in a total of 75 sampling sites during the period between 2013 and 2015. Roe deer avoid human contact. The species are found mostly (79%) in fir and beech forests, preferably those with a closed canopy cover but without dense understory. The numbers of individual of male are higher than the female. They are most often (74%) observed during feeding, with activity peaking at dawn and dusk. The roe deer has a wide distribution range in Turkey and has great potential as a game animal. However, its prevalence is not sufficient in all regions.

Keywords: Wildlife camera trap, stand, humans

Karaca (Capreolus capreolus L.)’nın Düzce’de yayılışı ve habitat tercihi

Özet: Karaca önemli av hayvanlarımızdan birisidir. Bu çalışma ile Düzce ilinde Karaca (Capreolus capreolus L.)’nın muhtemel yayılış alanlarını ve habitat tercihlerini belirlenmesi amaçlanmıştır. Bunun için tür 2013 ve 2015 yıllarında farklı habitatlarda fotokapan ve doğrudan ve dolaylı gözlenmiştir. Tür insan etkisinden mümkün olduğunca kaçınmaktadır. Çoğunlukla göknar ve kayın ormanlarını ve tercihen kapalı alanları kullanmaktadır. Ancak çok sık alt tabakayı tercih etmemektedir. Erkek birey dişilere göre daha fazla tespit edilmiştir. Alanda daha çok beslenme aktivitesi gösteren tür sabah ve akşam saatlerinde aktiftir. Ülkemiz av hayvanları arasında potansiyeli yüksek olan türün Düzce ilinde geniş yayılışı bulunmakta ancak görünme sıklığı her alanda yeterli seviyede bulunmamaktadır.

Anahtar kelimeler: Fotokapan, meşcere, insan

Received (Geliş): 02.03.2016 - Revised (Düzeltme): 05.04.2016 -   Accepted (Kabul): 18.04.2016

Cite (Atıf): Keten, A., 2017. Distribution and habitat preference of roe deer (Capreolus capreolus L.) in Düzce province of Turkey. Journal of the Faculty of Forestry Istanbul University 67(1): 22-28. DOI: 10.17099/jffiu.89577

Kaynakça

• Anonymous, 2016. http://www.mgm.gov.tr/. Düzce climate data. [Accessed 17.02.2016]
• Arslangundogdu, Z., 2005. Investigations on Ornitofaunun of the Istanbul-Belgrad Forest. Doctoral thesis, Science and Technology Institute, Istanbul University. [in Turkish]
• Baskaya, S., 1998. Hunting and Wildlife Capacity of Turkey. Av Tutkusu Dergisi (Izmir)1(9): 12-13. [in Turkish]
• Baskaya, S., Bilgili, E., 2002. Important Bird and Mammal Hunting Animals in Gumushane and its Contribution to the Local Economy. Symposium of Gumushane and Development, Proceedings Book 23- 25 October 2002, Gümüşhane, 96-106. [in Turkish]
• Beskardes V., Arslangundogdu Z., Hizal E., 2013. Population and Future of Roe (Capreolus capreolus L.,1758) in Turkey. In: Naskali, E.G., Demir, E. (Eds.), Deer Book, Istanbul, pp. 321-334. [in Turkish]
• Beskardes, V., Keten, A., Arslangundogdu, Z., 2008. The importance of roe deer (Capreolus capreolus L., 1758) in wildlife for Turkey. Journal of the Faculty of Forestry Istanbul University 58(B2): 15-22.
• Bonnot, N., Morellet, N., Verheyden, H., Cargnelutti, B., Lourtet, B., Klein, F., Hewison, A. M., 2013. Habitat use under predation risk: hunting, roads and human dwellings influence the spatial behaviour of roe deer. European journal of wildlife research, 59(2): 185-193.
• Canakcioglu, H., Mol, T., 1996. Wild Animal Information. Istanbul University Faculty of Forestry Publication Number: 3948 / 440, ISBN 975-404-424- 4, Istanbul, 550 pp. [in Turkish]
• Danilkin, A., 1996. Behavioural Ecology of Siberian and European Roe Deer. Chapman and Hill, ISBN : 0-412-63880-0, London, UK, 276 pp.
• Demirsoy, A., 1995. Basic Principles of Life, Omniscient – Amniyota. Volume III / Part II, Meteksan A.Ş., Publcation no 94-06-4.0057, ISBN 975-7746-08-8 (2nd printing), Ankara, 941 pp. [in Turkish]
• Evcin, O., 2013. Roe (Capreolus capreolus) Distribution of Kastamonu and Determination of Living Areas. Masters thesis, Science and Technology Institute, Kastamonu University. [in Turkish]
• Hemami, M. R., Watkinson, A. R., Dolman, P. M., 2005. Population densities and habitat associations of introduced muntjac Muntiacus reevesi and native roe deer Capreolus capreolus in a lowland pine forest. Forest ecology and management, 215(1): 224-238.
• 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.
• Hus, S., 1974. Hunting Animals and Hunting. Istanbul University Faculty of Forestry Publication Number: 1971 / 202, Istanbul, 406 pp. [in Turkish]
• 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.
• Kuijper, D.P., Cromsigt, J.P.G.M., Churski, M., Adam, B., Jędrzejewska, B., Jędrzejewski, W., 2009. Do ungulates preferentially feed in forest gaps in European temperate forest? Forest Ecology and Management 258(7), 1528-1535.
• Kumbasli, M., 2006. The field assessment of deer density. Journal of the Faculty of Forestry Istanbul University 56(B2): 125-133
• 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.
• Latham, J., Staines, B.W., Gorman, M.L., 1996. The relative densities of red (Cervus elaphus) and roe (Capreolus capreolus) deer and their relationship in Scottish plantation forests. Journal of Zoology 240(2): 285-299.
• Li, X., Buzzard, P., Jiang, X., 2014. Habitat associations of four ungulates in mountain forests of southwest China, based on camera trapping and dung counts data. Population Ecology 56(1): 251-256.
• Mancinelli, S., Peters, W., Boitani, L., Hebblewhite, M., Cagnacci, F., 2015. Roe deer summer habitat selection at multiple spatio-temporal scales in an Alpine environment. Hystrix, the Italian Journal of Mammalogy 26(2): doi:10.4404/hystrix-26.2-11223
• R Development Core Team, 2015. R: A Language and Environment for Statistical Computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing Vienna, Austria.
• 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
• Saïd, S., Gaillard, J.M., Duncan, P., Guillon, N., Guillon, N., Servanty, S., Pellerin, M., Lefeuvre, K., Martin, C. Laere, G., 2005. Ecological correlates of home‐range size in spring–summer for female roe deer (Capreolus capreolus) in a deciduous woodland. Journal of Zoology 267(3): 301-308.
• Staines, B.W., Welch, D., 1984. Habitat selection and impact of red (Cervus elaphus L.) and roe (Capreolus capreolus L.) deer in a Sitka spruce plantation. Proceedings of the Royal Society of Edinburgh. Section B. Biological Sciences 82(4): 303-319.
• Tixier, H., Duncan, P., 1996. Are European roe deer browsers? A review of variations in the composition of their diets. Revue D'écologie 51(1): 3-17.