A Study of Some Biological, Anatomical and Related Environmental Features of Nutria /Myocastor Coypus/ From The Territory of Stara Zagora Region

Yıl 2017, Cilt: 2 Sayı: 1, 7 - 15, 13.09.2017

Radoslav Mihaylov Rosen Dimitrov , Rumen Binev Kamelia Stamatova-yovcheva

https://doi.org/10.24880/maeuvfd.290937

Öz

The
nutria (Myocastor coypus) belongs to the
class of Mammals, Rodents order, family Myocastoridae. It leads a semiaquatic lifestyle and can be seen around
rivers, lakes and marshes. Nutria is the biggest rodent in Bulgaria.
It
lives mainly along the rivers of southeastern Bulgaria. The animal’s body is
cylindrical in shape, with relatively large head and short ears. The peak of
the face is blunted with clearly visible teeth, colored in bright orange.
Nutrias are mostly herbivores. Their role is to spread diseases such as equine
encephalomyelitis, leptospirosis, hemorrhagic septicemia (Pasteurellosis), paratyphoid and salmonellosis. The aim of the
study is to examine the impact of nutria on the environment on the territory of
Stara Zagora region, and some of its biological and anatomical features. In
some territories of Stara Zagora were found traces of life activity of nutria,
as entrances of shelters, footprints of thoracic and pelvic limbs, and feces. Nutrias
have not permanent habitats. In the study we found no evidence of damage on the
environment. The study showed that the result of the vital activity of nutrias
is rather positive, concerning the cleaning of the water areas of vegetation. We
found that the thoracic and pelvic limbs have five fingers. The difference between the volume of the nutria brain
cavity and these of the jackal and fox is provoked by the differences in the
type of their food and lifestyle.

Anahtar Kelimeler

Nutria, Anatomy

Kaynakça

• 1. Aliev E. Numerical changes and the population structure of the coypu, Myocastor coypus (Molina, 1782), in different countries. Seaugetierkunkliche Mitteilungen. 1967; 15: 238- 242.
• 2. Carter J, Leonard P. A Review of the Literature on the Worldwide Distribution, Spread of, and Efforts to Eradicate the coypu (Myocastor coypus). Wildlife Society Bulletin. 2002; 30, (1): 162-175.
• 3. Bertolino S, Ingegno B. Modelling the distribution of an introduced species: The coypu (Myocastor coypus) (Mammalia, Rodentia) in Piedmont region, NW Italy- Italian Journal of Zoology. 2009; 76, (3): 340-346.
• 4. Invasive Species Specialist Group. 100 of the world’s worst invasive alien species. 2000; www.issg.org
• 5. Mann G. Los pequenos mamifers de Chile. 40, p. 342. Editorial de la Universidad de Concepcion, Chile; 1978.
• 6. Peshev Tc, Peshev D, Popov V. Mammalia, C. Fauna Bulgarica, 27. p. 632. Sofia: Academic Publishing „Marin Drinov; 2004. (In Bulgarian language, with English summary).
• 7. Popov V., Sedefchev A. 2003. The mammals in Bulgaria. Vitosha, Sofia. 290 p. (In Bulgarian).
• 8. Mihajlov H, Stoyanov S. 2001. Hunting birds and mammals in Bulgaria. Pensoft. p. 208. (In Bulgarian).
• 9. Gruychev G. New record of nutria (myocastor coypus, molina, 1782) downstream of the maritsa river in Bulgaria. Forestry ideas. 2012; 18, (1): 110–112.
• 10. Tzekova I. Investigation of the distribution and ecology of the nutria (Myocastor coypus) in Bulgaria. Bachelor degree, Faculty of Biology, Plovdiv University; 2016.
• 11. Hristov St. The beauty nutria, DUMA newspaper, 26/03/2011, No 70; 2011. http://www.duma.bg/node/12636
• 12. The Louisiana Department of Wildlife and Fisheries. Nutria Biology. Scientific classification; 2007. www.nutria.com/biology
• 13. Markov G. Mammals. p. 157. Sofia: Science and Art; 1988.
• 14. Hunter.bg. Nutria. 30.07.2009. http://www.hunter.bg/nutriia-66.html
• 15. Nestorova D. Nutrias, p. 150, 50th illustration. 2008. http://www.e-reading.club/bookreader.php/84073/Nesterova
• 16. Gosling L. The coypu in East Anglia. Transactions of the Norfolk and Norwich Naturalists’ Society. 1974; 23: 49-59.
• 17. Evans J. About nutria and their control. United States Bureau of Sport Fisheries and Wildlife 1970; 86: 1-65.
• 18. Atwood EL. Life history studies of nutria, or coypu, in coastal Louisiana. The Journal of Wildlife Management. 1950; 14: 249-265.
• 19. Kilner NW, Linscombe G, Pamsey PR. Nutria. In: Novak M, Baker JA, Obbard ME, Malloch B, editors. Wild furbearer management and conservation in North America Toronto, Canada. p. 326-343. Ontario: The Ontario Trappers Association, Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources; 1987.
• 20. Dwight J, LeBlanc. Nutria. Prevention and control of wildlife damage. Internet Center for Wildlife Damage Management. 1994; B71-B80.
• 21. El-Kouba N, Marques S, Pilati C, Hamann W. Presence of fasciola hepatica in feral nutria (Myocastor coypus) living in a public park in Brazil. Journal of Zoo and Wildlife Medicine. 2009; 40: 103-106.
• 22. Gosling L, Baker S. Planning and monitoring an attempt to eradicate coypus from Britain. Symposia of the Zoological Society of London. 1987; 58: 99-114.
• 23. Gosling L, Baker S. The eradication of muskrats and coypus from Britain. Biological Journal of the Linnean Society. 1989; 38: 39-51.
• 24. Shterev Sht. Nutria in the river Banska! Haskovska Maritsa. 16/01/2014. http://haskovo.marica.bg/
• 25. Vesti. BG. Family of nutrias cleaned a channel. 24th of February. 2015. http://www.vesti.bg/bulgaria/obshtestvo/semejstvo-nutrii-pochisti-napoitelen-kanal-6032185
• 26. Newspaper “Sega”. A nutria was hunted close to Stara Zagora. No 5059 (184), 12 /08/ 2014. http://www.segabg.com/article.php?id=712103
• 27. Mihaylov R, Dimitrov R, Raichev E, Kostov D, Stamatova-Yiovcheva K, Zlatanova D, Bivolarski B. Morphometrical features of the head skeleton in Brown Bear (Ursus arctos) in Bulgaria. Bulgarian Journal of Agricultural Science. 2013; 19, (2): 331­337.
• 28. Sol D, Bacher S, Reader S, Lefebvre L.. Brain size predicts the success of mammal species introduced into novel environments. The American Naturalist. 2008; 172, (Suppl. 1): 63­71.
• 29. Mihaylov R, Dimitrov R, Stamatova-Yovcheva K, Yovchev D, Radev V, Slavov T. Comparative Morphometric Analysis of the Skull of Some Canidae Species in Bulgaria. Journal of Agricultural science and Forest science. 2014; 13, (1–2): 12-21.
• 30. Raichev E. Food spectrum, morphological features and parasitological status of the fox (Vulpes vulpes), jackal (Canis aureus), wild cat (Felis silvestris) and marten (Martes foina). PhD Dissertation. Trakia University, Stara Zagora, Bulgaria; 2002