Journals / Turkish Journal of Zoology / 2020 / Cilt: 44 - Sayı: 2

Camera trapping of medium and large-sized mammals in western Black Sea deciduous forests in Turkey

Pages
181–188
Publication Date
2020-03-01
DOI
—
🏛️Bibliographic metadata and full text access for this article are provided via DergiPark.
DergiPark Record ↗
✨

AI Summary & Key Takeaways

AI Insight
⚡ TL;DR(Too Long; Didn't Read)

Overall trap success for all species detected was 30.78% recorded number/100 camera trapping days .

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:Camera trapping is one of the most effective methods for mammal inventories in most habitats and conditions.
📊
Key Findings & Data:The study area was about 3500 km2 , and the study was carried out between May 2014 and May 2015.
💡
Conclusion & Impact:Overall trap success for all species detected was 30.78% recorded number/100 camera trapping days .
🔬Design:Survey & Empirical Study
📍Scope:2014 Verileri
⚙️Variables:Detection rate · trapping success · conservation

Abstract

Camera trapping is one of the most effective methods for mammal inventories in most habitats and conditions. This study is based on the mammal records of a camera trap study in Northwest Anatolia. The study area was about 3500 km2 , and the study was carried out between May 2014 and May 2015. A total of 62 sites were surveyed, resulting in 3653 records of 16 mammal species Sciurus anomalus, Erinaceus concolor, Felis silvestris, Canis lupus, Canis aureus, Vulpes vulpes, Ursus arctos, Meles meles, Martes foina, Martes martes, Mustela nivalis, Lutra lutra, Sus scrofa, Capreolus capreolus, Lepus europaeus, Cervus elaphus in 11,868 camera trapping days. The highest detection rate among the species was that of Sus scrofa 36.57% , followed by Martes spp. 20.35% and Canis aureus 19.44% . Overall trap success for all species detected was 30.78% recorded number/100 camera trapping days . It was detected that mammal species diversity was higher in natural forested lands than in human-affected areas. Species diversity in the study area was recorded to be significantly higher than the results of other studies from different parts of Turkey. We present here a detailed inventory, distribution data, and contemporary diversity data for the study area, and comparative data for further studies.

🔖

Cite This Article

ÇOĞAL, M., SÖZEN, M. (2020). Camera trapping of medium and large-sized mammals in western Black Sea deciduous forests in Turkey. Turkish Journal of Zoology, Cilt: 44 - Sayı: 2, 181–188. https://ajindex.com/articles/176383

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (7)

  1. Akbaba B, Ayaş Z (2012). Camera trap study on inventory and daily activity patterns of large mammals in a mixed forest in north-western Turkey. Mammalia 76: 43-48. doi: 10.1515/ mamm.2011.102 Albayrak T, Giannatos G, Kabasakal B (2012). Carnivore and ungulate populations in the Beydağları Mountains (Antalya, Turkey): border region between Asia and Europe. Polish Journal of Ecology 60 (2): 419-428.
  2. Ambarlı H, Mengüllüoğlu D, Bilgin C (2010). First camera trap pictures of Eurasian lynx from Turkey. Cat News 52: 32. Burton AC, Fisher JT, Adriaens P, Treweek J, Paetkau D et al. (2018) Density and distribution of a brown bear (Ursus arctos) population within the Caucasus biodiversity hotspot. Journal of Mammalogy 99 (5): 1249-1260. doi: 10.1093/jmammal/gyy081 Buzbaş EÖ (2002). Activity, abundance and diet of the gray wolf (Canis lupus) in eastern Thrace, Turkey. MSc, Boğaziçi University, İstanbul,
  3. Turkey. Can ÖE (2001). The status of gray wolf (Canis lupus L. 1758) brown bear (Ursus arctos L. 1758) and Eurasian lynx (Lynx lynx 1758) in Turkey and recommendation for effective conservation programs. MSc, Middle East Technical University, Ankara,
  4. Turkey. Can EÖ (2008). Camera trapping large mammals in Yenice Forest habitats: a feasibility study for camera trapping large mammals in Yenice Forest, Turkey. PhD, Middle East Technical University, Ankara,
  5. Turkey. Can EÖ, Togan I (2004). Status and management of brown bears in Turkey. Ursus 15 (1): 48-53. doi: 10.2192/1537-6176(2004)0152.0.CO;2 Çoğal M, Sözen M (2017). The status and distribution of Gazella gazella (Artiodactyla: Mammalia), and other mammals of Hatay Province in southern Turkey. Israel Journal of Ecology and Evolution 63 (2): 44-49. doi: https://doi.org/10.1163/22244662- 06301003 Cutler TL, Swann DE (1999). Using remote photography in wildlife ecology: a review. Wildlife Society Bulletin 27 (3): 571-581.
  6. Demirsoy A (2006). Türkiye Kemiricileri. 1st ed. Ankara, Turkey: Meteksan Publications (in Turkish). Doğramacı S (1989). The mammalian fauna of Turkey. Ondokuz Mayıs Üniversitesi Fen Dergisi 1 (3): 107-136. doi: 10.24180/ ijaws.320870 Ertürk A (2010). GIS Based Canis lupus L. 1758 (Carnivora: Canidae) (gray wolf) habitat suitability analysis and modelling species distribution in Bartın Province. MSc, Hacettepe University, Ankara,
  7. Turkey. Gupta S, Sanyal A, Saha GK, Ghosh AK (2014). Diurnal activity pattern of golden jackal (Canis aureus Linn.) in an urban landscape of Kolkata, India. Proceedings of the Z