2004

Asiatic Herpetological Research

Vol.10, pp. 164-167

Analysis of the Stomach Contents of the Lycian Salamander
Mertensiella luschani (Steindachner, 1891)(Urodela: Salamandridae), Collected from Southwest Turkey
SERDAR DÜşEN, MEHMET ÖZ, AND M. R1ZVAN TUNÇAkdeniz University, Faculty of Arts and Sciences, Department of Biology,
07058, Antalya, Turkey
Abstract. - In this paper, the stomach contents of 116 specimens (39 males, 47 females, and 30 juveniles) from theSouthwest Turkey Mertensiella luschani populations are analyzed. A total of 342 prey items were identified and theirfrequency of occurence and percent of diet were tabulated. The majority of the diet consisted of Insecta (50.58%),
and within Insecta, Coleoptera (65.32%) was the major order represented. In addition to insects, M. luschani feeds on
Gastropoda (19.59%), Arachnida (16.08%), Myriapoda (8.57%), Clitelliata (3.50%) and Crustacea (1.75%).
Key words. - Mertensiella luschani, stomach contents, prey, southwest Turkey.

Introduction
Nine subspecies of the Lycian Salamander, Mertensiellaluschani, are distibuted along the coast of SouthwesternTurkey and on some islands (e.g., Kastellorizon, Meis,Kekova, and Karpathos) (Baran and Atatür, 1997; Ba ş oğ lu et al., 1994; Veith et al., 2001). These are M. l. luschani Steindachner, 1891, M. l. helverseni Pieper, 1963,M. l. atifi Ba şoğ lu, 1967, M. l. fazilae Ba şoğ lu and Atatür, 1974, M. l. finikensis Ba şoğlu and Atatür, 1975, M. l.
antalyana Ba ş o ğ lu and Baran, 1976, M. l. basoglui

Baran and Atatür, 1980, M. l. billae Franzen and Klewen, 1987, and M. l. flavimembris Mutz and Steinfartz,1995. Mertensiella luschani is not dependent on water,
it inhabits humid soils and crevices under the Pinus brutia forests, Mediterranean maquis, and open rocky
areas. Its vertical distribution ranges between 15-1300m.
Various studies have been done on M. luschani interms of its taxonomy (Franzen et all, 2001), ecology(Klewen, 1991; Steinfartz and Mutz, 1998), and reproductive biology (Özeti, 1973; Özeti, 1980). The aim ofTurkey

Figure 1. Collecting localities of Mertensiella luschani in Southwest Turkey. 1-Kocagöl, 2-Dodurga, 3- Letoon, 4-Nadarlar, 5-Finike, 6-Büyükçalt1cak, 7-Hurma, 8-Fersin© 2004 by Asiatic Herpetological ResearchVol.10, p. 165

Asiatic Herpetological Research

2004

Table 1. Composition of the stomach contents of Mertensiella luschani (39 males, 47 females, 30 juveniles) collected from the Southwest Turkey. N: The numbers of every prey found in all stomachs. n: The
number of stomachs every prey type was found in.
Taxon

N(%)

n(%)

67

19.59

36

31.03

123.50

97.75

61.75

65.17

Diplopoda

10.29

10.86

Julidae174.971412.07Chilopoda

82.34

65.17

30.88

32.58

Aranae3710.8227

23.27

Pseudoscorpionida185.261512.93

4

1.17

32.58

82.34

8

6.89

Isoptera

10.29

10.86

Heteroptera

41.17

54.31

Lygaidae

30.88

10.86

Homoptera

10.29

10.86

Coleoptera

113

33.04

51

43.96

Formicidae

319.06

1916.37

Diptera

30.88

32.58

Lepidoptera

51.46

54.31

GASTROPODA
Pulmonata
CLITELLIATA
Neogliochaeta(=Prospora)
Lumbricidae
CRUSTACEAE
IsopodaMYRIAPODA

Geophilidae
ARACHNIDA(=Chelonethi)
INSECTA
Collembola(=Podura)
Dermaptera
Forficulidae

Hymenoptera

2004

Asiatic Herpetological Research

Vol.10, p. 166

consisted of whole body, wings, thorax with abdomen,head, and mouth parts. Through this approach, identification to the lowest taxonomic categories was
attempted, samples were examined using a stereomicroscope with 10-25x magnification. Prey items were identified and grouped utilizing methods described
elsewhere (Demirsoy, 1998a,b; Grzimek, 1979a,b;Lodos, 1986; Riehm, 1984)

Results
We did not observe any significant differences in thestomach contents of seven subspecies males, females
and juveniles; they were thus evaluated together. Of the116 specimens (39 males, 47 females, and 30 juveniles),only two females had empty stomachs. Small unrecognizable insect remains (parts of heads and larvae, antennae, wings, etc.) of the stomach contents are notincluded to the numerical analysis. Other non-foodmaterials such as small pebbles, sand grains, plant particles, and pieces of feather, possibly ingested during prey
capture were not included either.
A total of 342 prey items were counted from theinvestigated stomach contents (Fig. 2); Insecta 173(50.58%), Gastropoda 67 (19.59%), Arachnida 55(16.08%), Myriapoda 29 (8.57%), Clitelliata 12 (3.50%)
and Crustacea 6 (1.75%). Table 1 presents the stomach
contents with respect to prey groups (their taxonomicgrouping, number of prey items, and percentages ofpreyers).
Insects were identified to the ordinal level. The total
number of prey and their percentages are as follow:
coleopters 113 (65.32%), hymenopterans 31 (17.92%),
dermapterans 8 (4.62%), heteropterans 7 (4.05%), lepidopterans 5 (2.89%), dipterans (1.73%), collembolan 4(2.31%), homopterans 1 (0.57%), and isopterans 1(0.57%) (Fig. 2). The same insect orders can be ranked
from the viewpoint of the number of prey eaten; theirpercentages are as follows: coleopterans 51 (43.96%),

Figure 2. Distribution of the insect groups in numericalpercentages.

the present preliminary investigation on seven M. luschani subspecies (except M. l. flavimembris and M. l.
helverseni) from eight localities in Southwest Turkey isan analysis of stomach contents.

Materials and Methods
Specimens for this study were collected from the eight
localities in Southwest Turkey during the known activity period of M. luschani (December-February, 1999). A
total 116 (39 males, 47 females, and 30 juveniles) M.
luschani specimens were collected by hand understones. Collection sites are shown in Figure 1.
Once collected, the salamanders were taken to thelaboratory to undergo stomach-flushing. A thin pipe
wash bottle is inserted in salamander’s esophagus andstomach. Gentle pressure on the wash bottle forces distilled water in to the stomach and forces the food outthrought mouth (modified from Gittins, 1987). The prey
items obtained from each specimen were labeled andstored in 10 cc. bottles containing 70% ethanol. Dried
pieces from both undigested and partially digested prey
were placed on microscope slides and held in place withcellophane tape (Düş en and Öz, 2001). These pieces

Prey Eater

Figure 3. Distribution of the insect groups regarding prey eaters.

OthersDipteraCollembola

Heteroptera

Lepidoptera

Dermaptera

Hymenoptera

Coleoptera

Relative Percentage

Vol.10, p. 167

Asiatic Herpetological Research

hymenopterans 19 (16.37%), dermapterans 8 (6.89%),
heteropterans 6 (5.17%), lepidopterans 5 (4.31%), collembolans 3 (2.58%), dipterans 3 (2.58%), homopterans
1 (0.86%), and isopterans 1 (%0.86) (Fig. 3).
When the prey groups are evaluated by their absolutevalues and relative percentages within the food,coleopterans 51 (43.96%), have the priority. Other consumed invertebrates as follows: Pulmonata 36(31.03%), Aranae 27 (23.27%), Pseudoscorpionida 15(12.93%), Diplopoda 15 (12.93), Clitelliata 9 (7.75%),
Chilopoda 9 (7.75%), and Isopoda 6 (5.17%).

Discussion
This study was conducted to learn more about the feeding preferences of M. luschani collected from southwest
Turkey. The results showed that M. luschani feeds
heavily on coleopters and gastropods.
The chance of a food item being taken depends on theabundance and ease of capture of the different food categories. Coleopters, although fairly fast moving areabundant in the foraging area. Gastropods and arachnids
although easier to catch are slightly less abundant.
The results suggest that M. luschani is an opportunist
predator on diverse forms. This situation is related to thetype of habitat they live in and abundance of prey species in the vicinity.

Literature Cited
Baran, I., and M. K. Atatür 1997. Turkish herpetofauna.
The Republic of Turkish, Ministry of Environment
Publications, Ankara. 214 pp.
Ba ş o ğ lu, M., N. Özeti, I. Ylmaz 1994. Türkiye
amfibileri, Ege Üniversitesi Basmevi,
İ Bornovazmir. 221 pp. (in Turkish)
Demirsoy, A. 1998a. Yaşam1n temel kurallar1 omurgaszlar=invertebrata -böcekler d1ş1nda- Meteksan A.
ş., Ankara. Cilt 2, K1s1m 1: 1210 pp. (in Turkish)
Demirsoy, A. 1998b. Ya ş am1n temel kurallar omurgaslar/böcekler, entomoloji. Meteksan A. ş., Ankara.
Cilt 2, K1s1m 2: 941 pp.
Dü ş en, S. and M. Öz. 2001. A research on the feeding
biology of Laudakia (=Agama) stellio (Linnaeus,1758) (Lacertilia: Agamidae) populations in theAntalya region. Turkish Journal of Zoology
25:177-181.
Gittins, S. P. 1987. The diet of the common toad (Bufobufo) around a pond in Mid-Wales. Amphibia-Reptilia 8:13-17.

2004

Grzimek, B. 1979a. Weichtiere und stachelhäuter.
Deutscher Taschenbuch Verlag, München. Band 3,613 pp.
Grzimek, B. 1979b. Insekten. Deutscher TaschenbuchVerlag, München. Band 2, 627 pp.
Klewen, R. 1991. Die land salamander Europas. Teil 1.
2nd Ed. Die Neue Breihm Bücherei. Wittenberg
Lutherstadt. 584 pp.
Lodos, N. 1986. Türkiye Entomolojisi. Ege ÜniversitesiZiraat Fakültesi Yay1nlar1 no: 429, İzmir. Cilt 2. 384
pp.
Özeti, N. 1973. A study on the reproductive biology ofthe salamander Mertensiella luschani atifi Ba ş o ğ lu,
1967 (Urodela, Amphibia). Scientific Report of theFaculty of Sciences of Ege University, İzmir 164: 117.
Özeti, N. 1980. Reproductive biology of Mertensiellaluschani antalyana. Herpetologica 35 (3): 193-197.
Reicholf-Riehm, H. 1984. Steinbach’s naturführer
insekten mit anhang spinnentiere. Mosaik Verlag.
287 pp.
Steinfartz, S. and T. Mutz 1998. Mertensiella luschani(Steindachner, 1891) lykischen salamander, kleinasiatischer salamander. In: K. Grossenbacher and B.
Thiesmeier (eds.), Handbuch der reptilien undamphibien Europas, Vol. 4/I.
Veith, M., I. Baran, O. Godmann, A. Kiefer, M. Öz, andM. R. Tunç. 2001. A revision of population designation and geographic distribution of the lycian salamander Mertensiella luschani (Steindachner, 1891).
Zoology in the Middle East 22:67-82.