The Tawny Owl (Strix aluco L., 1758) Population in Belgrad Forest, IstanbulTurkey
Bu çalışma Belgrad Ormanında yaşayan Alaca Baykuş (Strix aluco L. 1758)ların yayılış alanları, habitat tercihleri ve populasyon yoğunluğunun tespit edilmesi amacıyla yapılmıştır. Çalışma alanında 2x2 kmlik 18 örnek alan belirlenmiştir. Belgrad Ormanında 34 çift olmak üzere, 14 yalnız erkek,yalnız dişi ve 5 genç birey toplam olarak 93 alaca baykuşun yaşadığı tespit edilmiştir. Alaca baykuşların, Belgrat ormanındaki gölet ve dere kenarlarındaki yaşlı meşcerelerde etrafında yoğunlaştıkları saptanmıştır. Ayrıca besinlerinin büyük çoğunluğunu (%93) kemirgenler (Rodentia), küçük bir kısmını ise kuşlar, kurbağalar ve böcekler (%7) teşkil etmektedir. 6
Istanbul-Belgrad Ormanı ndaki Alaca Baykuş (Strix aluco L. 1758) Populasyonu
In Belgrad Forest near Istanbul-Turkey we surveyed the Tawny Owl s distribution, population density and habitat preferences. The study area was divided into 18 sample areas, which are 2x2 km.located a total of 93 tawny owls (Strix aluco L. 1758): 34 pairs, 14 single males, 6 single females andjuveniles. Tawny Owls preferred deciduous old forest stands near streams and dams in Belgrad Forest. Also, their diet consisted mainly of Rodentia (93%) and a small percentage of birds, amphibianinsects (7%). We 5 and
___
- Anonymous, 2004. Strix aluco. 2006. IUCN Red List of Threatened Species. IUCN 2006. www. iucnredlist.org. Retrieved on 11 May 2006. Database entry includes justification. Arslangundogdu, Z., 2005. Researches on ornithofauna in Belgrad Forest in Istanbul. PhD Thesis Istanbul University, Istanbul, xiii + 234 pp. (In Turkish). Arslangundogdu, Z., 2010. Bird Species and Their Abundance in Istanbul-Belgrad Forest. Journal of the Faculty, Istanbul University, 60 (1): 13-26. Arslangundogdu, Z. and E. Akkuzu, 2000. Wildlife in our forests and important wildlife animal areas at inside forest. I. International Congress of Faculty of Forestry Student Statement, 4-5 May 2000, 37-46. (In Turkish). Avotins, A., 2004. Tawny Owls territory occupancy in Eastern Latvia. In: Anselin, A. (ed.) Bird Numbers 1995, Proceedings of the International Conference and 13th Meeting of the European Bird Census Council, Pärnu, Estonia. Bird Census News 13 (2000): 167- 173. Baleiauskiene, L., A. Jovaidas, V. Narudevieius, A. Petradka and S. Skuja, 2006. Diet of tawny owl (Strix aluco) and long-eared owl (Asio otus) in Lithuania as found from pellet. Acta Zoologica Lituanica, 16 (1): 37-45. Brown, R., J. Ferguson, M. Lawrence and D. Lees, 1987. Tracks and Signs of the Birds of Britain and Europe (Helm Identification Guides). Christopher Helm. p.86. Cramp, S., 1985. Handbook of the Birds of Europe, the Middle East, and North Africa. The Birds of the Western Palearctic, Vol IV. Oxford : Oxford University Press. Cramp, S., 1998. The Complete Birds of the Western Palearctic. Software Optimedia, Oxford CD- ROM, Oxford University Press, Oxford. Galeotti, P., F. Morimando and C. Violani, 1991. Feeding ecology of the tawny owls (Strix aluco) in urban habitats (northern Italy), Bollettino di Zoologia. 58: 143 - 150 (1991). Jædrzejewski, W. and B. Jædrzejewska, 1993. Predation on rodents in Biaùowieýa primeval forest, Poland. Ecography 16: 47-64. Jensen, R. A., P. Sunde and G. Nachman, 2012. Predicting the distribution of Tawny Owl (Strix aluco) at the scale of individual territories in Denmark. Journal of Ornithology 153:677 689. Kantarci, M. D., 1980. Mapping researches on soil and habitat types of Belgrad Forest. İ.Ü. Orman Fakültesi Yayınları, İ.Ü. Yayın No: 2036, O.F. Yayın No: 275, İstanbul. (In Turkish). Karaoz, M. O., 1988. Comparison of the certain edaphic and biomass characteristics of some coniferous and deciduous forest ecosystems in Belgrad Forest near Istanbul. Review of the Faculty of Forestry, University of Istanbul Series A. 38 (1): 157 -190. Lengagne, T. and P. J. B. Slater, 2002. The effects of rain on acoustic communication: tawny owls have good reason for calling less in wet weather. Proceedings of the Royal Society of London. Series B: Biological Sciences. 269, 2121-2125. Ozyuvaci, N., S. Ozhan, F. Gokbulak, Y. Serengil, and N. Balci, 2004. Effect of selective cutting on streamflow in an oak-beech forest ecosystem. Water Resources Management. 18: 249-262. Petty, S. J., 1989. Productivity and density of tawny owls Strix aluco in relation to the structure of a spruce forest in Britain. Annales Zoologici Fennici 26:227-233. Petty, S. J., 1999. Diet of tawny owls (Strix aluco) in relation to field vole (Microtus agrestis) abundance in a conifer forest in northern England. Journal of Zoology. 248, 451-465. Redpath, S. M., 1994. Censusing Tawny Owls Strix aluco by the use of imitation calls. Bird Study 41: 192-198. Redpath, S. M., 1995. Habitat fragmentation and the individual: tawny owls Strix aluco in woodland patches. Ecology, 64, 652-661. Romanowskil, J. and M. Zmihorski, 2009. Seasonal and habitat variation in the diet of the tawny owl (Strix aluco) in Central Poland during unusually warm years. Biologia 64 (2): 365- 369. Snow, D. and C. M. Perrins, 1998. The Birds of the Western Palearctic concise edition (two volumes). Oxford: Oxford University Press. pp.907910. Southern, H. N. and V. P. W. Lowe., 1968. The Pattern of Distribution of Prey and Predation in Tawny Owl Territories. Journal of Animal Ecology. 37:75 97. Sunde, P. and M. S. Bolstad, 2004. A telemetry study of the social organization of a tawny owl (Strix aluco) population. Journal of Zoology 261 (1): 6576. Voous, K. H., 1988. Owls of the Northern Hemisphere. Collins, London, 456 pp. Wiacek, J., M. Polak and G. Grzywaczewski, 2010. The Role of Forest Age, Habitat Quality, Food Resources and Weather Conditions for Tawny Owl Strix aluco Populations. Polish Journal of Environmental Studies. Vol. 19, No. 5: 1039- 1043. Yaltirik, F., 1966. A Study on the Floristic Analysis of Vegetation of the Belgrad Forest and Composition of the Main Stand Types. O.G.M. Yayınlarından, Sıra No: 436, Seri No: 6, İstanbul. (In Turkish). Zuberogoitia, I. and L. F. Campos, 1998. Censusing Owls in Large Areas: A Comparision Between Methods. Ardeola, 45 (1): 47-53