camera trapping carnivores in turkey

Tamer ALBAYRAK 1*, Giorgos GIANNATOS 2, Bekir KABASAKAL 3

1 Department of Biology, Faculty of Science and Art, Mehmet Akif Ersoy University,

Ortulu Yerleskesi, 15030, Burdur, Turkey

*e-mail: [email protected] (corresponding author)2 University of Athens, Department of Zoology, Marine Biology, Greece

3 Department of Biology, Graduate School of Natural and Applied Sciences, Mehmet Akif Ersoy

University, Ortulu Yerleskesi, 15030, Burdur, Turkey

CARNIVORE AND UNGULATE POPULATIONS

IN THE BEYDAGLARI MOUNTAINS (ANTALYA, TURKEY):

BORDER REGION BETWEEN ASIA AND EUROPE

POLISH JOURNAL OF ECOLOGY

(Pol. J. Ecol.)

60 2 419–428 2012

Regural research paper

ABSTRACT: Turkey is being a bridge be-tween Europe and Asia and it provides the natu-ral pathway for the spread of species between these continents. The Beydağları Mountains and its surroundings (Antalya) host many Asian, European and Mediterranean faunal and floral elements and the location, which is considered as one of the most important faunal areas in Turkey especially for larger mammals. The study is the first systematic survey of the carnivores in the region which is based on photo trapping. The cameras were set at 45 locations for 2055 trap days between 2005–2009 over the area 294 km2 at the altitude 1200–2000 m a.s.l. Most of the species and their individual abundance were recorded in maquis habitat type followed by red pine forest, mixed (red pine and maquis), and cedar forest respectively. The wild animals that were captured included five mammalian carni-vore species (red fox Vulpes vulpes, badger Meles meles, stone marten Martes foina, gray wolf Ca-nis lupus and caracal Caracal caracal) and also wild boar Sus scrofa, fallow deer Dama dama and hare Lepus europaeus. Photo trapping ac-tivity was mostly recorded between 21:00 and 03:00 hours. Wild terrestrial carnivores occur at low densities in the study area (1.73 for caracal and 0.9 for wolf ind.100 km-2) while the most widespread larger mammal was the wild boar (188 ind.100 km-2). The small fallow deer popu-lation was mainly confined in a large (4.2 km2) fenced enclosure and its size was accessed by

direct drive count. The results support the hy-pothesis that Beydağları Mountains having the Asian, European and Mediterranean mammals makes the Anatolian Peninsula being a bridge between Europe and Asia. Caracal density was lower than the Datça population in the southern part of Anatolia. This may be consequence of higher human activities in the Beydağları Mts. Human activities in the Beydağları Mts. should be reduced for sensitive animals to human ac-tivities like caracal and wolf and the illegal hunt-ing should be strictly prohibited in the area for viability of the large mammals of Beydağları Mts.

KEY WORDS: Anatolia, Beydağları Moun-tains, camera trapping, Canis lupus, Caracal cara-cal, Lynx lynx, carnivores, Dama dama, popula-tion density, Antalya

1. INTRODUCTION

Turkey is being a bridge between Europe and Asia and it provides natural pathway for the spread of species between Asia and Eu-rope. It has three phytogeographical regions (Mediterranean, Irano-Turanian, Euro-Sibe-rian) and many different micro- and macro-habitats due to the variable topography and climatic conditions (Davis 1971, Davis et al. 1988, Demirsoy 1999, Çıplak 2003). The Beydağları Mountains and its surround-

Tamer Albayrak et al.

ings located in the western part of Taurus Mountains in the Anatolian Peninsula repre-sent an important biodiversity hot spot due to rich mixture of the European, Asian and Mediterranean floral and faunal taxa (Mé-dai l and Quezél 1999, Myers et al. 2000, Çıplak 2003). The location is considered as one of the most important faunal areas in Turkey especially for larger mammals, and it represents an important biodiversity hot spot in this part of the Mediterranean Ba-sin (De Marinis and Masset i 2009). In this reason, the region contains three Nature Protected Areas (NPA: Çığ l ıkara , Dibek, and Alacadağ), three Wild Life Develop-ment Areas (WLDA: Sarıkaya, Düzlerçamı, and Sivridağ) and two National Parks (NP: Termessos and Beydağları Mountains). Eur-asian lynx Lynx lynx, caracal Caracal caracal, Striped hyaena Hyaena hyaena and even the Anatolian leopard Panthera pardus tulliana have been reported to occur in the region, but these reports were not supported by field data (Ulr ich and Rif fe l 1993, Masset i 2000, Can 2001, Kasparek et al. 2004, De Marinis and Masset i 2009). Accord-ing to Deniz and Sümbül (2004) among 689 species of flora of Çığlıkara NPA, 195 (28%) are Mediterranean elements, 87 (13%) are Irano-Turanian elements, 18 (3%) are Euro-Siberian elements and 389 (56%) are multi-regional, also the number of endemic species in the area is 141 (20%). Moreover area has two endemic vertebrate species: Taurus ground squirrel, Spermophilus tau-rensis (Gündüz et al. 2007) and Anatoli-an mountain steppe viper Vipera anatolica (Ni lson and Andrén 2001). In this con-text Beydağları Mts. and its surroundings, besides it demonstrates the faunal and floral characteristics of Asia and Europe, consti-tutes a unique region due to the speciation events caused by different types of habitats and geographic structure.

Although the caracal is probably endan-gered in Turkey, very little information is presently available about its status and dis-tribution. The species has been considered ‘quite uncommon’ since the 19th century, while only a few animals have been detected or captured in 3–4 locations all over the coun-try during the 20th century (Kumerloeve 1986, S erez 1990, Masset i 2000, Ozkurt

et al. 2003). Although the results for caracal status in the area was published by Gianna-tos et al. 2006, no details on other wildlife presence was given. The species has also been detected recently in a systematic photo trap-ping survey in Datça peninsula (I lemin and Gurkan 2010).

Although fallow deer has become extinct in most of its former range, now it is spread all over the word in semi-domesticated form. The only geographical range where the fal-low deer has persisted in native form is the coastal wooded plains of southern Anatolia (Masset i 2002). There is the historical evi-dence confirming the capture of the common fallow deer in the 15th century in Anatolia to taking it to Western Europe for use in palaces and game parks (Masset i 1996). In recent times, the fallow deer Dama dama dama has survived mainly in small enclosures in Tur-key (Masset i 1999). The last enclosed popu-lation with animals originating directly from individuals captured in the wild is located in the study area (Düzlerçamı WLDA) which was established in the second half of the nine-teen-sixties (Heidemann 1976, Masset i 2007, Masset i et al. 2008, Arslangundog-du et al. 2010).

Most species-specific conservation efforts require estimates of population size to estab-lish priorities and monitoring management activities. Yet obtaining reliable estimates of animal populations is often difficult, espe-cially when time and funding limitations of research projects are considered (Carbone et al. 2002). Monitoring the large mammals living in forest habitats, especially cryptic ones, are generally very difficult. Recently improved camera trap systems have become the preferred method to overcome this prob-lem (Maf fe i et al. 2005, Kel ly and Holub 2008, Can and Togan 2009, Negrões et al. 2010).

We present here the initial results of the first systematic survey of carnivores in the key biodiversity area Beydağları Mountains including Güllük Dağı and Çığlıkara NPAs in Southwestern Turkey which is the border zone between Europe and Asia having spe-cies characteristic for both continents, The research are focusing on the large mammals especially carnivores and ungulates and their conservation recommendations.

420

Large Mammals of Beydağları Mts., Antalya

2. STUDY AREA

The study area included Termessos NP (67 km2), Lütfi Büyük Yıldırım Research Forest (BUK; 25 km2), Düzlerçamı Reserve (50 km2) and Çığlıkara NPA (156 km2) which are locat-ed in the Beydağları Mts. The area is located in the Southern part of the Mediterranean region of Turkey and border region between Asia and Europe (36°00–37°20N; 29°20–30°40E; Fig. 1). Climate is typical for Mediterranean highlands i.e., hot dry summers followed by mild and rainy winters. Snow occurs regularly at elevations over 1800 m a.s.l. and lasts for three months. The topography is generally mountainous with natural vegetation typical of West Taurus Mountains. In Beydağları Mts, maquis and red pine Pinus brutia forests are at lower altitudes up to 1200 m while black pine Pinus nigra and cedar Cedrus libani for-ests appear at higher altitudes up to 2000 m. In Termessos NP and its environs, the vegeta-

tion cover is mainly composed of Mediter-ranean maquis, bushes, and red pine forests. The study area was broadly divided into three major habitat types: red pine forest, Mediter-ranean maquis, and mixed Mediterranean maquis – red pine forest. In Çığlıkara NPA, the dominant vegetation type is cedar forest, followed by Crimean juniper Juniperus excelsa forest and few locations which include mixed forest vegetation. Some parts of this area also include shrubs, rocky areas and low-height steppe vegetation.

The study area also includes the fallow deer enclosure (4.2 km2), which was estab-lished by the Turkish Ministry of Environ-ment and Forestry in 2004 within the red pine forest and maquis habitat. Two sides of this enclosure are fenced while the other two sides are naturally blocked by a very steep 100 m deep gorge. The fallow deer population outside the enclosure is estimated to be very small and probably not viable.

Fig. 1. Location of the study site (Anatolian Peninsula left up). Star: location of study area – Beydağlari Mts.; grey areas: the buffer zones of camera trap survey points for wolf (6182 m radius); dots: camera trap locations.

421


3. MATERIALS AND METHODS

3.1. Camera trapping

We used a baited line-triggered cam-era trap system. The triggering device was a pressure plate connected to a simple auto-matic camera through an electric wire buried in the ground. Bait consisted of pieces of fat cow meat attached 1.8–2 m above the trig-gering mechanism. In the field, cameras were placed in highly suitable areas that presented the highest probability of being used by resi-dent animals on trails and trail intersections and near water sources, as the region is quite dry during the summer season (Giannatos et al. 2006). A 100 and 200 ASA film, with 36 exposures, was used for each camera. After the film was developed, the photographs were examined for images of animals. Species were identified in comparison with handbooks on European and Turkey mammals (Mac-Donald and Barrett 1993, Demirsoy 1998). The time-date recording functions of the cameras allowed the distinction of indi-viduals at the same station. If a camera had taken more pictures at same time, these pho-tographs were assumed to be of the same ani-mal. Although some recognition of individual animals was possible by specific morphology like body shape, we could not recognize most of the individuals. Therefore only maximum number of individuals in a picture for each capture site was preferred. Total number of

individuals was calculated by using all maxi-mum numbers in each locality.

To compute a relative abundance index (RAI) for each species (Table 1), the detec-tions were summed up for all camera photo traps over all days, multiplied by 100 and di-vided by the total number of camera trap days (Giannatos et al. 2006). Due to the use of meat bait and the type of camera trigger, the analysis was considered only for carnivores and wild boars Sus scrofa.

We set a total of 45 camera-trapping sta-tions for 2055 camera-days in Beydağları Mts and its surroundings. Each camera was placed for at least 28 days required for the de-tection of carnivore species at low densities (Z ie l inski et al. 1995).

• In Termessos NP and its surround-ings (altitude 1665 m a.s.l.) cameras were set at 28 stations for a total of 1024 camera-days. Thirteen stations were located in red pine forest, ten were located in maquis and the other 5 were located in mixed, maquis and red pine forest.

• In Çığlıkara NPA, (altitude 2465 m a.s.l.) cameras were set at 15 stations in cedar forest and 2 were set in juniper forest for total of 1031 camera-days.

In addition to camera traps, we used pho-tographs taken from Çığlıkara NPA by Halil Sarıbaşak with his personal camera for Eur-asian lynx presence.

Table 1. Camera-trapping data for the area of Beydağları Mountains and surrounding protected areas in Southwestern Turkey. Ns = number of positive (detections were summed up for all camera photo traps over all days, multiplied by 100 and divided by the total number of camera trap days), TI – Total individual, Nd/100 d-c – number of detections per 100 camera-days, RBz – radius of buffer zone, TABz – total area of buffer zone, DBz – density of individuals 100 km-2 in buffer zone. Values for Termessos NP and Çığlıkara NPA (see Fig. 1) are given separately. a – young individuals.

Beydağları Mountains DBz

Species Ns TINd/100

d-cRAI RBz (m)

TABz (km2)

DBzTermes-sos NP

Çığlıkara NPA

Caracal 2 3 0.29 0.58 1500 159.9 1.73 –

Wolf 3 6 0.12 0.29 6180 765.5 – 0.9

Red fox 5 6 0.35 1.4 950 88.4 6.8 8.66 3.7

Badger 2 2 0.09 0.19 1104 108.6 2.8 –

Stone Marten

1 1 0.05 0.05 452 26.2 – 6.4

Wild boar

17 26 + 16a 0.92 +.

0.43a

12.0 + 5.7a 325 13.8

188 + 116a

213 + 101 a

115 + 115 a

Dog 6 13 0.63 3.8

422


3.2. Fallow deer drive count

A total of 126 people were recruited for follow deer drive count in the enclosure (40 National Park officials and 86 university stu-dents) during 2006. The counts were per-formed as follows: twenty-five people (ob-servers) were placed in the central firebreak track of the enclosure which divides the re-serve nearly in two equal parts. Each observ-er had a clear sight of the next observer, and both recorded all wildlife which flashed in the track on their right side. Others (beaters) walked in the forest keeping and kept sight-ing distance between each other at all times. Their function was to make quite lots of noise to flash all deer out to the waiting observers. First observer counted one part of the enclo-sure and second observer counted the other part. The observers could see each other during the drive count. Both observers and beaters used specific protocol formats to re-cord individually recognized animals, sight-ing time, and direction of movement of fal-low deer to prevent double counts. Animals crossing from one section of the enclosure to the other were subtracted from the second count.

3.3. Density estimations and statistical analysis

Mean distance between the cameras was 1.0 km (range 0.3–2.6 km). For the estimating the density of species, we use a specific radius of buffer zones (RBz) around the camera trap locations (Fig. 1). The RBz was calculated (Table 1) using the published home ranges of each animal as following:

• Caracal caracal Schreber, 1776: home range equals 7 km2 (Avenant and Nel 1998) was calculated assuming 1.5 km radius reported for caracal in South Africa.

• Canis lupus L., 1758; home range: equals 120 km2 (B oitani 1982) was calculated assuming 6.18 km radius reported for wolf in Italy.

• Vulpes vulpes L., 1758: home range equals 2.8 km2 (Caval l ini and L avor i 1994) was calculated assum-ing 950 m radius reported for red fox in Mediterranean coastal ecotone.

• Meles meles L., 1758: home range equals 3.8 km2 (Remonti et al. 2006) was calculated assuming 1104 m ra-dius for badger reported from Italy.

• Martes foina Erxleben, 1777: home range equals 0.58 km2 (Santos and Santos-Reis 2010), was calculated assuming 452 m for stone marten from the Mediterranean ecosystem, Portugal.

• Sus scrofa L., 1758: home range equals 0.33 km2 (Russo et al. 1997) was cal-culated assuming 325 m radius for wild boar from the Mediterranean area.

• The total area of the buffer zones (TABz) of each species was calcu-lated using Geographic Information System (GIS, Geomedia Professional 6.0; Table 1).

• Density of individuals per 100 km-2 (DBz) was calculated as 100 × Total individuals (TI) / TABz. (Table 1). Differences between photo trapping dates and hours of two areas were de-termined by paired t-tests.

4. RESULTS

We detected mainly five carnivore species – red fox, badger, gray wolf, stone marten and caracal and one ungulate species – wild boar. The population density of all of them was low except wild boars (Table 1). Other species like fallow deer, domestic dog, and hare Lepus eu-ropaeus were also photo trapped but these re-sults were excluded from the analysis because of the specialized trap design.

Most of the species and their respective in-dividuals’ abundance were recorded in maquis habitat type (28 adult and 4 young animals from 6 species at 10 camera trap locations and 379 trap days). In red pine forest habitat type 20 adult, and 5 young individuals from 6 spe-cies at 11 camera trap locations and 471 trap days were photo trapped, while in mixed red pine and maquis habitat type - 8 adult animals from 4 species at 5 camera trap locations and 174 trap days were recorded. In cedar forest habitat, 14 adults from 5 species at 8 camera trap locations and 907 trap days were recorded.

The photos were taken at 16.4 ± 10.1 (1–41) days after activation of the cameras

423


and 16 of 30 photos were taken between 21:00 and 03:00 h. Photos were recorded signifi-cantly later in Çığlıkara NPA than Termes-sos NP (t-tests = 3.62, P <0.01). We did not find significant difference on photo trapping activity time in the both localities (P> 0.05). The cameras were more active until the 15th day then the activity dropped and reached no more photos on 30th day in Termessos NP but only two domestic dog pictures and one wild boar picture were taken on the 40th and 41th days respectively. We did not receive any car-nivore species pictures after the 30th day.

The species specific results are following:Caracal: in our previous work (Gianna-

tos et al. 2006) and this study, we detected only caracal as felid species in Beydağları Mts Region. Three different individuals were recognized at two different locations covered maquis habitat, in the Northwestern part of Termessos NP. The caracal density was found as 1.73 caracals 100 km-2 and only one caracal recaptured in the study (Table 1). The caracal photos were taken at 4.3 ± 2.5 (2–7) days after activation of the cameras.

Grey wolf: we took the wolves pic-tures only in the Çığlıkara NPA within the Beydağları Mts. Six wolf pictures were taken at three different locations in cedar forest. Four individuals were taken at one photo trap location and one individual was photo trapped at two different locations. The mini-mum density of wolf as 0.9 ind. 100 km-2

us-

ing 6.18 km radius of the buffer zone was cal-culated in Beydağları Mts (Albayrak 2011, Table 1). The photos of wolves were taken after 23.4 ± 2.9 (19–26) days after activation of the cameras.

Eurasian lynx: though we did not receive any Eurasian lynx photos, Forestry Depart-ment worker took two pictures of two Eur-asian lynx photos by his personal cameras in Çığlıkara NPA. We did not found other signs of lynx presence in Beydağları Mts.

Red fox: We received total 6 red fox pic-tures in three habitat types at 5 camera sta-tions: 3 individuals in maquis, 2 of them in mix (maquis and red pine), and 1 individual in cedar habitats respectively. The pictures were taken after mean 9.6 ± 7.35 (1–16) days after activation of the cameras. We calculat-ed density of red fox as 6.8 red fox 100 km-2 in Beydağları Mts (8.66 red fox 100 km-2 in

Termessos NP and 3.7 red fox 100 km-2 in Çığlıkara NPA; Table 1).

Badger: two badgers were photo trapped in Termessos NP. One badger photo was taken in maquis habitat type in 15th day and second one was taken in red pine forest in 11th. We calculated the density of badger as mean 28 badger 100 km-2 in Termessos NP (Table 1).

Stone marten: only one stone marten photo was taken 5th day in cedar forest in Çığlıkara NPA. We calculated the density of stone marten as mean 6.4 ind. 100 km-2 in Çığlıkara NPA (Table 1).

Wild boar: we recorded wild boar in all habitat types in Termessos NP and Çığlıkara NPA. In maquis - 9 adults and 4 young at 7 different times, in red pine forest - 7 adults and 5 young, at 7 different times , in mixed red pine and maquis -3 adults at 2 different times, in cedar forests - 7 adults and 7 young wild boars’ picture were taken respectively at 7 different times. We calculated the den-sity of wild boar as 213 adults and 101 young wild boars 100 km-2 in Termessos NP and 115 adults and 115 young individuals 100 km-2 in Çığlıkara NPA using 325 m radius home range of the buffer zone (Table 1). Wild boar picture were taken after 19.8 ± 10.8 (4–41) days after the cameras were set up.

Fallow deer and domestic dog: we re-ceived three different fallow deer pictures accidentally in their fenced enclosure. In this enclosure, we count 17 male and 14 female using drive count technique in 2006. Domes-tic dogs were photo trapped inside the fenced deer breeding area. Thirteen domestic dogs were also photo trapped in all three habitat types in Termessos NP.

5. DISCUSSION

Most photos were taken during the night (21:00–03:00 hours) at mean 16.4 ± 10.1 (1–41) days after camera trap activation. The photo trap system has used a specific date period for each species because the system built up attraction of animals to hanged bait. The day of the last pictures of species can be assumed that camera trap system was effi-ciently used until the last picture was taken; the animals may be still there but the bait is no longer attractive for the species. The bait-ed camera trap system should be used until

424


7 days for caracal, 15 days for badger, 16 days red fox, 5 days for stone marten, 26 days for wolf and 41 days for wild boar respectively. This implies that this camera trap system can be used in similar areas efficiently up to 26 days for carnivores.

Photo trapping events were recorded sig-nificantly later in Çığlıkara NPA than in Ter-messos NP. The reason may be the climatic conditions of the study areas. Çığlıkara NPA is higher (max. 1900 m a.s.l.) and colder than Termessos NP (max. 1050 m a.s.l.).

Our results indicated that the study area contains the Asian, European and Mediterra-nean mammals such as caracal, wolf and lynx but we did not find any sign of leopard pres-ence in Beydağları Mountains like Termessos NP (Giannatos et al. 2006). All interview records show that the leopard was unknown for all local people, hunters and national park personnel during the study, and all agreed that the big cat became extinct a long time ago.

We did not receive any picture of Eur-asian lynx in Çığlıkara NPA, but its photos were taken by forestry department worker, Mr. Halil Sarıbaşak, by his personal cam-era in 2005. Probably few number of sur-viving lynx is still living only in Çığlıkara NPA within Beydağları Mountains. We put the camera trap system at the same location where Mr. Sarıbaşak had taken the lynx pic-tures but it was stolen and taken away dur-ing the study. This species was also photo trapped in Ankara (Central Anatolia) and in Artvin (North-East Anatolia; Ambarl i et al 2010).

The caracal population is most probably isolated since it is surrounded by high moun-tains, large urban area and intensively used landscape in Termessos NP (Giannatos et al. 2006). İ lemin and Gürkan (2010) reported caracal presence to be more abun-dant in Datça Peninsula than in Termessos NP (RAI index for Datça Peninsula is 10.09 and 0.58 for Termessos NP). This abundance differentiation might be related to the habitat structure of the localities. During the study while one caracal tried to pass the highway, a car crash it and it was died. At least two cara-cals have been run over in the past 10 years in the same area and by the same reason. The local people also dislike the species because they think it predates on small stock animals.

Therefore they persecute caracals, despite their legal protection status.

Wild boar was the most abundant species in Beydağları Mountains. In Termessos NP the density of wild boars was higher than Çığlıkara NPA. The species is considered as a pest and causes extensive damage to the nearby agricul-tural fields especially around Termessos NP. The reason of higher wild boar density in Ter-messos NP may be loss of big carnivores, like wolf and leopard. Wolf was only reported in Çığlıkara NPA and surrounding (Albayrak 2011) and the last leopard individual in Turkey was killed in 17 January 1974 (Tan 2006). Al-though the wild boar population density (2.13 adults and 1.01 young wild boars km-2) was the highest one in the study area, it is still lower than the highest reported wild boar density in Switzerland (10.6 ind. km-2; Hebeisen et al. 2008). Also the density of wild boar popula-tion (RAI index = 173.2) in Datça Peninsula where wolf or leopard does not occur was higher than study populations (İ lemin and Gürkan 2010). Wolf presence was detected only in Çığlıkara NPA. Wolves can keep wild boar population in balance due to predation but in this area illegal wolf hunting was report-ed by locals. The wolf population in Çığlıkara NPA is probably isolated due to anthropogenic and landscape barriers (Albayrak 2011). The calculated wolf density (0.9 ind. 100 km-2) in the study area is lower than the European den-sity (1–3 ind. 100 km-2, according to B oitani 2000) and lower than the Western Europe populations (Poland population, 2.0–2.6 ind. 100 km-2 and Belarus population, 0.9–1.5, ac-cording to Okarma et al. 1998). Higher wolf density in Mediterranean region was reported in Italy (4.7 ind. 100 km-2) and this popula-tion has wider distribution range with rich prey community, low mortality rate and con-nected to other wolf populations (Apol lonio et al. 2004). The isolated wolf population in Çığlıkara NPA might cause local extinction due to hunting.

The red fox density detected (6.8 ind. 100 km-2) was the highest recorded carnivore density in study area and it is far higher than the densities reported from the UK (4.0–5.5 adults km-2, Iossa et al. 2009) and Poland (1.3–2.0 ind. km-2, Goszczynski et al. 2008).

Although Beydağları Mountains and its surroundings host endangered species like

425


caracal and fallow deer, the region rapidly loses its natural habitats due to urbanization, agriculture and forestry activities. The pres-ence of savage domestic dog population in the Termessos NP could have negative impact on wildlife, especially on young fallow deer. The fenced fallow deer enclosure is strictly pro-tected by Forestry Department, but dogs were photo trapped inside the enclosure. In this enclosure, 17 male and 14 female fallow deer were counted. These results are in agreement with those of Masset i (2007) and Masset i et al. (2008), who concluded that these 30 or so animals represent the entire surviving na-tive fallow deer population of Turkey.

Large mammals are fundamental ele-ments of many ecosystems and play critical ecological roles (Olf f and Ritchie 1998, Terborgh et al. 2001, Morr ison et al. 2007, O wen-Smith and Mil l s 2008). Large car-nivores like wolf control and shape the num-ber and distribution of their prey such as wild boar. Large herbivores like fallow deer can change species composition and also struc-ture of surrounding vegetation. Therefore presence of large mammals in Beydağları Mountains is very important for ecosystem stability. Our results demonstrate that the wild boar and red fox which are not affected by human activities occur in high densities but the animals that are sensitive to human activities like caracal and wolf occur in lower densities. Human activities in the Beydağları Mts. should be reduced for the viability of large mammals of this area. The results sup-port the hypothesis that Beydağları Moun-tains having the Asian, European and Medi-terranean mammals makes the Anatolian Peninsula being a bridge between Europe and Asia. It provides the natural pathway for the spread of species between Asia and Europe. Also the study area, Beydağları Mountains, was indicated as an important biodiversity hot spot by our results.

The long-term viability of wildlife in Beydağları Mountains region, especially wolf, Eurasian lynx, caracal, and fallow deer, should be evaluated as part of a large-scale conserva-tion project with involvement and participa-tion of local people. Illegal hunting should be strictly prohibited in the area for effective conservation of them. The cooperation of the Wildlife Department of Ministry of Environ-

ment and Forestry and the state development agencies is necessary to continue and expand the monitoring of wild populations. Final-ly, the results of this study could be used to draw-up strict protection areas and to facili-tate successful wildlife management.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS: We would like to thank to the Ministry of Environment and For-estry and the Turkish Association for the Conser-vation of Nature and Natural Resources (TTKD) for their support to the project. Thanks to T. Sahin and volunteers for the field work. This study was partly supported by the EU, Turkish-Greek Civic Dialogue Micro-Project Programme.

6. REFERENCES

Albayrak T. 2011 – Anthropogenic barriers to Grey wolf (Canis lupus) distribution in Beydağlari Mountains area (Mammalia: Car-nivora) – Zool. Middle East, 52: 11–16.

Ambarl i H. , Mengul luoglu D. , Bi lg in C. 2010 – First Camera Trap Pictures of Eurasian Lynx from Turkey – CAT news, 52: 32.

Apol lonio M. , Matt iol i L . , S candura M. , Mauri L . , Gazzola A. , Avanzinel l i E . 2004 – Wolves in the Casentinesi Forests: In-sights for Wolf Conservation in Italy from a Protected Area with a Rich Wild Prey Com-munity – Biol. Conserv. 120: 249–260.

Ars landündoğdu Z.M. , Kasparek H. , Sanbaşak M.S. , Kasar Yöntem O. , Şashin M.T. 2010 – Development of the population of the European Fallow Deer, Dama dama (Linneaus 1758) in Turkey – Zool. Middle East, 49: 3–12.

Avenant N. , Nel J. 1998 – Home-range use, activity, and density of caracal in relation to prey density – Afr. J. Ecol. 36: 347–359.

B oitani L . 1982 – Wolf management in inten-sively used areas of Italy (In: Wolves of the world: Perspectives of behaviour, ecology, and conser-vation, Eds: E. Harrington, P.C. Paquet) – Noyes Publications, New Jersey, USA, pp. 158– 172.

B oitani L . 2000 – Action plan for the conserva-tion of wolves in Europe (Canis lupus) – Na-ture and environment, No:113. Council of Eu-rope, Strasbourg, France, 84 pp.

Can O.E. 2001 – A legend is alive – Atlas, 98: 16–17 (in Turkish).

Can O. , Togan I . 2009 – Camera trapping of large mammals in Yenice Forest, Turkey: local information versus camera traps – Oryx, 43: 427–430.

Carbone C. , Chr is t ie S . , C onfor t i K. , C oulson T. , Frankl in N. , Ginsberg J. ,

426


Gri f f iths M. , Holden J. , Kinnaird M. , L aid law R . 2002 – The use of photographic rates to estimate densities of cryptic mammals: response to Jennelle et al. – Anim. Conserv. 5: 121–123.

Caval l ini P. , Lovar i S . 1994 – Home range, habitat selection and activity of the red fox in a Mediterranean coastal ecotone – Acta Theriol. 39: 279–279.

Çıplak B. 2003 – Distribution of Tettigoniinae (Orthoptera, Tettigoniidae) Bush-Crickets in Turkey: The Importance of the Anatolian Tau-rus Mountains in Biodiversity and Implications for Conservation – Biodivers. Cons. 12: 47–64.

Davis P.H. 1971 – Distribution Patterns in Ana-tolia with Particular Reference to Endemism (In: Plant Life of South West Asia, Eds: P.H. Davis, P.C. Harper, I.C. Hedge) – Botanical Society of Edinburgh, Edinburgh, pp. 15–27.

Davis P.H. , Mil l R .R . , Tan K. 1988 – Flora of Turkey and the East Aegaen Islands, Vol. 10 – Edinburgh University Press, Edinburgh, 590 pp.

Deniz I .G. , Sümbül H. 2004 – Flora of the El-mali Cedar Research Forest (Antalya/Turkey) – Turk. J. Bot. 28: 529–555.

De Marinis A. , Masset i M. 2009 – Mam-malian fauna of the Temessos National Park, Turkey – ZooKeys, 31: 221–228.

Demirsoy A. 1998 – Fauna of Turkey - Mam-mals – Meteksan Publishing, Ankara, 308 pp. (in Turkish).

Demirsoy A. 1999 – General Zoogeography and Zoogeography of Turkey “Animal Geogra-phy”, 6. Press – Meteksan Publishing, Ankara, 1007 pp. (in Turkish).

Giannatos G. , Albayrak T. , Erdogan A. 2006 – Status of the caracal in protected ar-eas in south-western Turkey – CAT news, 45: 23–24.

Goszczynski J. , Mis iorowska M. , Juszko S . 2008 – Changes in the density and spatial distribution of red fox dens and cub numbers in central Poland following rabies vaccination – Acta Theriol. 53: 121–127.

Gündüz I . , Jaarola M. , Tez C. , Yeniyur t C. , Pol ly P.D. , S earle J.B. 2007 – Mul-tigenic and Morphometric Differentiation of Ground Squirrels (Spermophilus, Scuiridae, Ro-dentia) in Turkey, with a Description of a New Species – Mol. Phylogenet. Evol. 43: 916–935.

Hebeisen C. , Fatteber t J. , Baubet E. , F ischer C. 2008 – Estimating wild boar (Sus scrofa) abundance and density using capture-resights in Canton of Geneva, Switzerland – Eur. J. Wildlife Res. 54: 391–401.

Heidemann G. 1976 – Damwild, Cervus dama Linné, 1758, in Kleinasien. Bestand un

Schutz – Säugetierk. Mitt. 24: 124–132 (in German).

İ lemin Y. , Gurkan B. 2010 – Activity Patterns and Status Assessment of the Caracal in Datça and Bozburun Peninsulas, Southwestern Tur-key – Zool. Middle East. 50: 3–10.

Iossa G. , S oulsbur y C. , Baker P. , Edwards K. , Harr is S . 2009 – Behavioral changes as-sociated with a population density decline in the facultatively social red fox – Behav. Ecol. 20: 385–395.

Kasparek M. , Kasparek A. , Gözcel iog lu B. , Ç olak E. , Yigit N. 2004 – On the Sta-tus and Distribution of the Striped Hyaena, Hyaena Hyaena, in Turkey – Zool. Middle East, 33: 93–108.

Kel ly M. , Holub E. 2008 – Camera Trapping of Carnivores: Trap Success Among Camera Types and Across Species, and Habitat Se-lection by Species, on Salt Pond Mountain, Giles County, Virginia – Northeast Nat. 15: 249–262.

Kumerloeve H. 1986 – Short report on the Fe-lidae of Asia Minor: actually and earlier (In: Wild fauna in Turkey and the Balkan Coun-tries) – İstanbul, Turkey, pp. 36–47.

Macdonald D. , Barrett P. 1993 – Mammals of Britain & Europe. Collins Field Guide – Harper Collins Publishers, London, 312 pp.

Maf fe i L . , Noss A. , Cuél lar E . , Rumiz D. 2005 – Ocelot (Felis pardalis) population den-sities, activity, and ranging behaviour in the dry forests of eastern Bolivia: data from cam-era trapping – J. Trop. Ecol. 21: 349–353.

Masset i M. 1996 – The postglacial diffusion of the genus Dama Frisch, 1775, in the Mediter-ranean region – Suppl. Ricerche di Biologia della Selvaggina, 25: 7–29.

Masset i M. 1999 – The fallow deer, Dama dama L., 1758, in the Aegean region (In: Contribu-tions to the Zoogeography and Ecology of the Eastern Mediterranean Region, vol. 1. Supple-ment, Eds: S. Giokas, A. Legakis, R. Polymeni, S. Sfenthourakis, M. Thessalou-Legaki, A. Ze-netos) – Hellenic Zoological Society, Greece, pp. 17 – 30.

Masset i M. 2000 – Wild cats (Mammalia, Carnivora) of Anatolia. With some observa-tions on the former and present occurrence of leopards in south-eastern Turkey and on the Greek island of Samos in Biogeografia. vol. XXI – Biogeografia dell’ Anatolia, pp. 607–618.

Masset i M. 2002 – Island of deer (In: Natural history of the fallow deer of Rhodes and of the vertebrates of the Dodecanese (Greece), Ed: M. Masseti) – Environment Organization, Rhodes, pp. 165–168.

427


Masset i M. 2007 – Island of deer – Deer, 14: 36–40.

Masset i M. , Pecchiol i E . , Vernesi C. 2008 – Phylogeography of the last surviving; popu-lations of Rhodian and Anatolian fallow deer (Dama dama L., 1758) – Biol. J. Linn. Soc. 93: 835–844.

Médai l F. , Quezél P. 1999 – Biodiversity Hotspots in the Mediterranean Basin: Setting Global Conservation Priorities – Conserv. Biol. 13: 1510–1513.

Morr ison J. , S echrest W. , Dinerste in E. , Wi lcove D. , L amoreux J. 2007 – Persis-tence of large mammal faunas as indicators of global human impacts – J. Information, 6: 88.

Myers N. , Mittermeier R . , Mittermeier C. , Da Fonseca G. , Kent J. 2000 – Bio-diversity hotspots for conservation priorities – Nature, 403: 853–858.

Negrões N.P. , Sarmento J. , Cruz C. , Eira E . , Revi l la C. , Fonseca R . , S ol lmann N.M. , Tôrres M. , Fur tado M.M., Jáco-mo A.T.A. 2010 – Use of Camera-Trapping to Estimate Puma Density and Influencing Factors in Central Brazil – J. Wildl. Manag. 746: 1195–1203.

Ni lson G. , Andrén C. 2001 – The Meadow and Steppe Vipers of Europe and Asia-the Vi-pera (Acridophaga) Ursinii Complex – Acta Zool. Acad. Sci. H. 47: 87–267.

Okarma H. , Jędrzejewski W. , S chmidt K. , Sniezko, S . , Bunevich A.N. , Jędrzejewska B. 1998 – Home Ranges of Wolves in Bia Owie a Primeval Forest, Poland, Compared with Other Eurasian Populations – J. Mammal. 79: 842–852.

Olf f H. , Ritchie M. 1998 – Effects of herbi-vores on grassland plant diversity – Trends Ecol. Evol. 13: 261–265.

O wen-Smith N. , Mil l s M. 2008 – Predator-prey size relationships in an African large-mammal food web – J. Anim. Ecol. 77: 173–183.

Ozkurt S . , Yigit N. , C olak E. 2003 – The distributional Records of Turkish Carnivores “A Bibliographic Approach” – Methoden Feldökologischer Säugetierforschung, Band 2. Halle/Saale, pp. 105–120.

Remont i L , Ba lestr ier i A, Prgioni C. 2006 – Range of the Eurasian badger (Meles meles) in an agricultural area of northern Italy – Ethol. Ecol. Evol. 18: 61–67.

Russo L. , Massei G. , Genov P. 1997 – Dai-ly home range and activity of wild boar in a Mediterranean area free from hunting – Ethol. Ecol. Evol. 9: 287–294.

Santos M. , Santos-Reis M. 2010 – Stone marten (Martes foina) habitat in a Mediterra-nean ecosystem: effects of scale, sex, and in-terspecific interactions – Eur. J. Wildlife Res. 56: 275–286.

S erez M. 1990 – Evolution of lynx population in Turkey in Seminar on the situation, con-servation needs and reintroduction of lynx in Europe. Convention on the Conservation of European wildlife and natural habitats – Council of Europe, Strasbourg, France, pp. 26–29.

Tan G. 2006 – Anatolian leopard, the last evi-dence of leopard – Atlas, 165 pp. (in Turkish).

Terborgh J. , Lopez L . , Nunez P. , R ao M. , Shahabuddin G. , Or ihuela G. , Riveros M. , Ascanio R . , Adler G. , . L ambert T. 2001 – Ecological meltdown in predator-free forest fragments – Science, 294: 1923.

Ulr ich B. , Ri f fe l M. 1993 – New evidence for the occurrence of the Anatolian leopard Panthera pardus tulliana (Vallenciennes 1956) in Western Turkey – Zool. Middle East, 8: 5–14.

Z ie l inski W. , Kucera T. , Barrett R . 1995 – Current distribution of the fisher, Martes pennanti, in California – Calif. Fish. Game. 81: 104–112.

Received after revision December 2011

428

camera trapping carnivores in turkey

Documents