The first density estimation of an isolated Eurasian lynx population in southwest Asia

Abstract

During November 2010–February 2011, we used camera traps to estimate the population density of Eurasian lynx Lynx lynx in Ciglikara Nature Reserve, Turkey, an isolated population in southwest Asia. Lynx density was calculated through spatial capture—recapture models. In a sampling eff ort of 1093 camera trap days, we identifi ed 15 independent individuals and estimated a density of 4.20 independent lynx per 100 km2, an unreported high density for this species. Camera trap results also indicated that the lynx is likely to be preying on brown hare Lepus europaeus, which accounted for 63% of the non‐target species pictured. As lagomorph populations tend to fl uctuate, the high lynx density recorded in Ciglikara may be temporary and may decline with prey fl uctuation. Therefore we recommend to survey other protected areas in southwestern Turkey where lynx is known or assumed to exist, and continuously monitor the lynx populations with reliable methods in order to understand the populations structure and dynamics, defi ne sensible measures and management plans to conserve this important species.

Foraging ecology of Eurasian lynx populations in southwest Asia: Conservation implications for a diet specialist

“…As reported by previous studies on Eurasian lynx populations in central and eastern Europe, the asymptotic intake level was reached quickly even at low roe deer densities and lynx consumed around 1,800 g (mean = 1,836 ± 94 g) of meat per day (Nilsen, Linnell, Odden, & Andersen, 2009;Okarma et al, 1997). Eurasian lynx populations in central and eastern Europe have larger home range sizes (Herfindal, Linnell, Odden, Birkeland Nilsen, & Andersen, 2005) than lynx populations in Turkey (Avgan et al, 2014;Mengüllüoğlu, D. unpublished data), consistent with the idea that there is a negative correlation between the size of a home range and the density of the major prey (Herfindal et al, 2005). Although the search time might increase at lower prey densities, this seemed to matter little as roe deer killing rates in different populations were similar (5-6 days per roe deer), resulting in little differences in food intake rates (Figure 4, (Okarma et al, 1997).…”

“…As shown by the similarity of the type II functional response curves of lynx in Turkey, Canada lynx, and Iberian lynx, we suggest that lynx in Turkey has specialized on a lagomorph diet. This foraging preference may be facilitated by adaptations to hunting brown hares, such as a smaller lynx body size of 9–16 kg in Turkey (Mengüllüoglu, D. unpublished data), and higher population densities at 4.2 individuals/100 km 2 (Avgan et al., ) than elsewhere in Europe where densities are more like 0.4 individuals/100 km 2 in Germany (Weingarth, Knauer, Scharf, Zimmermann, & Heurich, ) or 3.4 individuals/100 km 2 in Poland (Okarma et al., ). If this is the case, we would expect the present distribution of lynx in Turkey to show a considerable overlap with that of brown hare, and a little overlap between lynx and roe deer.…”

“…Human activities were not allowed in the park area; there is no free road access. The area is known to have a high density of lynx (Avgan, Zimmermann, Güntert, Arıkan, & Breitenmoser, ). Potential prey species in this study area were wild goat ( Capra aegagrus ), wild boar ( Sus scrofa ), and brown hare ( Lepus europaeus ).…”

“…Potential prey species in this study area were wild goat ( Capra aegagrus ), wild boar ( Sus scrofa ), and brown hare ( Lepus europaeus ). Gray wolf ( Canis lupus ) and red fox ( Vulpes vulpes ) were two intraguild carnivores in sympatry with lynx in this area (Avgan et al., ).…”

Where to spot: individual identification of leopard cats (Prionailurus bengalensis euptilurus) in South Korea

“…Abundance, or population size, is a primary parameter in wildlife conservation and management used to prioritize conservation actions and assess the conservation effectiveness (Seber 1973;McCarthy et al 2008;Jenks et al 2011;Jones 2011;Rovero et al 2014). Camera-trapping, in combination with the traditional capture-recapture or spatially explicit capture-recapture methods, has been widely applied to estimate the absolute abundance of individually identifiable species (Seber 1973;Nichols 1992;Karanth et al 2004;Royle and Young 2008;Russell et al 2012;Karki et al 2013;Avgan et al 2014;Qi et al 2015;Linden et al 2017). The camera-trapping is efficient for surveying wide-ranging, cryptic and elusive animals in inhospitable environment such as tropical rainforest (Tobler et al 2008, Rovero et al 2014).…”