11957

Afyon Kocatepe Üniversitesi Yaban Hayatı Kurtarma Rehabilitasyon Eğitim Uygulama ve Araştırma Merkezindeki (AKUREM) Yabani Öksüz Yavrular Üzerine Bir Retrospektif Araştırma

Bu araştırma Türkiye'deki öksüz yaban hayvanları üzerine yapılan ilk çalışmadır. Bu çalışmanın amacı, Afyon Kocatepe Üniversitesi Yaban Hayatı Kurtarma Rehabilitasyon Eğitim Uygulama ve Araştırma Merkezi’ne getirilen yaban hayatı öksüz yavrularının geliş nedenlerini, sağlık durumlarını ve akibetlerini değerlendirmektir. Merkeze, 2017, 2018 ve 2019 yıllarında getirilen 118 öksüz yavruya ait veriler değerlendirilmiştir. Onikisi kuş ve dördü memeli olmak üzere toplamda onaltı farklı tür kayıt altına alınmıştır. Öksüz yavruların çoğunluğu kuşlardan (%89), azınlığı ise memelilerden (%11) oluşmuştur. Öksüz yavrular üreme sezonunda, yoğun olarak da Temmuz ayında (%45.8) merkeze kabul edilmiştir. Öksüz kuşların büyük kısmı (%94.3) kentsel alanlardan, öksüz memeliler ise daha çok (%84.6) kırsal alanlardan getirilmiştir. Rehabilitasyon merkezine kabul edilen öksüz yavruların çoğunluğu (%81.4) zarar görmemiş ve sağlıklıydı. Rehabilitasyon merkezindeki ölüm oranı (%47.5), yaban hayatına başarıyla salınanlardan (%40.7), esaret altında tutulanlardan (%5.9) ve ötenazi yapılanlardan (%5.9) daha yüksek bulunmuştur. Sağlıklı yavru oranı yüksek olmasına rağmen ölüm oranının yüksek olması rehabilitasyon sürecinin güçlüğünü ve uzmanlık gerektirdiğini göstermektedir. Sonuç olarak, insanlar tarafından bulunan her yabani yavru öksüz değildir. Sağlıklı yavruların yaşam alanlarında kontrollü bir şekilde bırakılması hayatta kalma şanslarını artırabilir. Bu konuda, hem rehabilitasyon merkezlerinde hem de toplumda eğitim ve bilinçlendirme faaliyetlerinin artırılmasının yaban hayatındaki öksüz yavru sorununu azaltacağı kanaatine varılmıştır.

Anahtar Kelimeler:

biyoçeşitlilik, koruma, kurtarma, yaban hayatı, Afyonkarahisar, Turkiye

A Retrospective Study on Wild Orphan Animals in Afyon Kocatepe University Wildlife Rescue Rehabilitation, Training, Practice and Research Center (AKUREM)

This research is the first study on wild orphan animals in Turkey. The aim of this study is to evaluate the reasons of the orphans’ arrival, their health status and fate in the Afyon Kocatepe University Wildlife Rescue Rehabilitation, Training, Practice and Research Center. Data on 118 orphans accepted the center in 2017, 2018 and 2019 were evaluated. A total of 16 different species, including 12 birds and 4 mammals, were recorded. Most of the orphans (89%) were birds and few mammals (11%). Most of the orphans (45.8%) were accepted to the center during the breeding seasons, especially in July. Most of the orphan birds were from the urban areas (94.3%) while most of the orphan mammals were from the rural areas (84.6%). The majority of orphans (81.4%) admitted to the rehabilitation center were uninjured and healthy. The mortality rate in the rehabilitation center (47.5%) was higher than those who were successfully released into wildlife (40.7%), those in captivity (5.9%) and euthanasia (5.9%). Despite the high rate of healthy offspring, the high mortality rate indicates that the rehabilitation process is difficult and requires expertise. As a result, not all wild offspring found by humans are orphans. Leaving healthy offspring in their habitat in a controlled manner can increase their chances of survival. It has been concluded that increasing education and awareness-raising activities both in rehabilitation centers and in the community will reduce the problem of orphans in wildlife.

Keywords:

biodiversity, conservation, rescue, wildlife, Afyonkarahisar, Turkey,

PDF

___

Ceballos, G., García, A., Ehrlich, P.R. (2010). The sixth extinction crisis: loss of animal populations and species. Journal of Cosmology, 2010, Vol 8, 1821-1831.
Dubois, S., Fraser, D. (2003). Defining and measuring success in wildlife rehabilitation, Wildlife Rehabilitation, 21: 123-132.
Grogan, A., Kelly, A. (2013). A review of RSPCA research into wildlife rehabilitation, Veterinary Record, 1-4, DOI: 10.1136/vr.101139.
Kandir, E.H., Aslan A. (2017). An investigation on releasing treated wild animals into the nature in Turkey, Applied Ecology and Environmental Research, 15(4):1757-1763. DOI: 10.15666/aeer/1504_17571763.
Kelly, A., Bland, M. (2006). Admissions, diagnoses, and outcomes for eurasian sparrowhawks (Accipiter nisus) brought to a wildlife rehabilitation center in England. Journal of Raptor Research 40, 231-235.
Kelly, A., Halstead, C., Hunter, D., et al. (2011). Factors affecting the likelihood of release of injured and orphaned woodpigeons (Columba palumbus). Animal Welfare 20, 523-534.
Kirkwood, J.K. (2003). Introduction: wildlife casualties and the veterinary surgeon. In: BSAVA Manual of Wildlife Casualties. Eds E. Mullineaux, D. Best and J. E. Cooper. BSAVA Publications, Gloucester, MA, USA. pp 1-5.
Marchesini, R. (2016). Animals of the city. Angelaki: Journal of the Theoretical Humanities, 21, pp. 79-91.
McKinney, M.L. (2002). Urbanization, Biodiversity, and Conservation: The impacts of urbanization on native species are poorly studied, but educating a highly urbanized human population about these impacts can greatly improve species conservation in all ecosystems. BioScience. 52(10):883–890.
Miller, E. A. (2012). Minimum Standards for Wildlife Rehabilitation. 4th edn. National Wildlife Rehabilitators Association and International Wildlife Rehabilitation Council, St. Cloud, MN, USA.
Molina-Lo´pez RA, Mañosa S, Torres-Riera A, Pomarol M, Darwich L (2017). Morbidity, outcomes and cost-benefit analysis of wildlife rehabilitation in Catalonia (Spain), PLoS One, DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0181331.
Moore, A.T., Joosten, S. (1997). Principles of Wildlife Rehabilitation—The Essential Guide for Novice and Experienced Rehabilitators. St. Cloud, MN: National Wildlife Rehabilitators Association.
Mullineaux, E (2014). Veterinary treatment and rehabilitation of indigenous wildlife, Journal of Small Animal Practice, Vol 55:293-300.
Robertson C and Harris S (1995). The Behaviour After Release of Captive-reared Fox Cubs. Animal Welfare, 4(4): 295-306 (12).
Ruth, I (2012). Wildlife Care Basics for Veterinary Hospitals Before the Rehabilitator Arrives, https://www.hsvma.org/assets/pdfs/hsvma_wildlife_care_handbook.pdf.
Schenk AN, Souza MJ (2014). Major anthropogenic causes for and outcomes of wild animal presentation to a wildlife clinic in East Tennessee, USA, 2000–2011. PLoS One; 9(3):1-3, e93517, DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0093517
Smith S (2016). Principles of capture, handling and transportation. In: BSAVA Manual of Wildlife Casualties. 2rd ed, British Small Animal Veterinary Association, England: pp 17-26.
Soulsbury CD, White CLP (2015). Human–wildlife interactions in urban areas: a review of conflicts, benefits and opportunities, Wildlife Research, 42(7):541-553.
Taylor-Brown A, Booth R, Gillett A, Mealy E, Ogbourne SM, Polkinghorne A, Conroy GC (2019). The impact of human activities on Australian wildlife, Research Article, PLoS One, DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0206958.
Tseng FS (2002). Neonatal Wildlife Care, [accessed 05 January 2020] https://michvma.org/resources/Documents/MVC/2017%20Proceedings/tseng%2002.pdf
Williamson S and Lepczyk C (2017). Mortality and injury rates of wildlife reported by rehabilitators across Alabama, Auburn University Journal of Undergraduate Scholarship, 1-6.
Wimberger K and Downs CT (2010). Annual intake trends of a large urban animal rehabilitation centre in South Africa: a case study. Animal Welfare 19, 501-513.