2004

Asiatic Herpetological Research

Vol.10, pp. 215-216

The Feeding Biology of Rana macrocnemis Boulenger, 1885
(Anura: Ranidae), Collected in Uluda , Bursa, TurkeyİSMAIL H. U URTAş , HIKMET S. Y1LD1R1MHAN, AND MEHMET KALKAN
Uluda University Science-Art Faculty, Department of Biology Bursa-Turkey
Abstract. - In this study gut contents of 64 mature specimens (34 male, 30 female) from Rana macrocnemis population collected from Uludağ (Bursa) are analyzed. The results indicate that the majority (68.05%) of the food items iscomposed of insects.
Key words. - Rana macrocnemis, feeding, stomach content.

Introduction
Rana macrocnemis is a very common species in thenorthern and eastern Caucasus and has dispersed into
Western and Northern Anatolia in Turkey. Also known
as a “mountain frog”, its altitudinal distribution ranges
from 1,000 to 2,300 m. It generally lives in open areas
or in small brooks in or near the woods. It is also seen inareas with muddy bottoms or close to water. Many studies have been conducted to find out the feeding biologyof amphibia (Böhme 1975; Boulenger, 1897; Schreiber,1912; Beschkov, 1970; Lamb, 1984; Y1lmaz, 1984;
Sampetro, 1986; Gittins, 1987; Atatür, 1993; Uğurtas1995), but no detailed study exists on the feeding biology of Rana macrocnemis. The aim of this study is toestablish various animal groups that are taken as prey bythis species.

Materials and Methods
The specimens of Rana macrocnemis used in this study
were collected in three localities between June and July
1997 (Fig. 1). These localities are:Kirazlyayla (16 males, 30 females)
Hotels Area (10 males)Çobankaya (8 females)
The specimens were found between the hours 730
and 1930 hours in daylight, but were observed to appear
more often between 1030 and 1500 hours. We used
Parker (1982), Lodos (1983, 1986), and Çağlar andDemirsoy (1992, 1999) to identify prey items.

Results
We did not observe any significant discrepancies in thestomach contents of males and females. Thus, they wereevaluated together. Of the 64 specimens collected dur-© 2004 by Asiatic Herpetological Research

Figure 1. Localities where Rana macrocnemis specimens were collected.

ing the feeding period, two had empty stomachs.
Among stomach contents which were investigated, 626
prey items were counted. Of these prey items, 426(68.05%) belonged to Insecta, 36 (5.75%) to Arachnida, 44 (7.02%) to Gastropoda, 4 (0.63%) to Myriapoda, 112 (17.89%) to Isopoda and 2 (0.31%) toAcarina groups. Two (0.31%) juveniles of Rana macrocnemis were also found as stomach content.
The number of prey items found in stomachs andtheir taxonomy are listed below. It was found that themajority of food taken by Rana macrocnemis was composed of insects (68.05%). 144 (36.15%) wereColeoptera, 82 (19.24%) Plecoptera, 94 (22.06%)
Diptera, 40 (9.38%) Hymenoptera, 36 (8.45%) Odonata,6 (1.40%) Orthoptera, 6 (1.40%) Lepidoptera, 4 (0.93%)
Homoptera and four (0.93%) in Hemiptera (Fig. 2). As aresult of this study on the stomach contents, we con-Vol.10, p. 216

Asiatic Herpetological Research2004

Demirsoy, A. 1999. Ya am1n Temel Kurallar, Omurgaszlar -Böcekler D1ş1nda, Cilt II, K1s1m I, Meteksan
A. Ankara, S, 724-939.
Gittins, S. P. 1987. The Diet of the Common Toad (Bufobufo) Around A Pong in Mid-Wales. AmphibiaReptilia 8:13-17.
Lamp, T. 1984. The Influence of Sex and Breeding Condition on Microhabitat Selection and Diet in the Pig
Frog Rana gryllio. The American Midland Naturalist 111(2):311-318.
Figure 2. The precentages of insect groups taken asprey.

clude that Rana macrocnemis is an opportunitic feederthat utilizes any prey in its environment that it has theability to consume.

Acknowledgments
This work was supported by grants from Uludağ University Scientific Research Fund (2001/60)

Literature Cited
Atatür, M. K. 1993. A Preliminary Study on the Feeding
Biology of Rana ridibunda (Anura, Ranidae) population from Bey ş ehir Lake. Turkish Journal of Zoology 17(2):127-131.
Beschkov, V. 1970. Biologie und Verbreitung desGriechischen Froschers (Rana graeca BLGR.) (InBulgarian) Academie Bulgare des Sciences. Bulletin de L'institut de Zoologie et Musée. Tome 31:517.
Boulenger, G. A. 1897. The Tailless Batrachians ofEurope. Part. I. Addlard and Son. Hanover Square,London
Böhme, W. 1975. Zum Vorkommen von Pelobates syriacus Boettger, 1889 Griechland. Senck. Biol.
56:199-202.
Ça ğ lar, M. 1974. Omurgas1z Hayvanlar, AnatomiSistematik. II. K1s1m. Ü. Yay1n1lar, Fen Fak, Say1123, Fen Fakultesi Bas1mevi, İstanbul, S, 157-206.
Demirsoy, A. 1992. Yaamn Temel Kurallar1,Omurgas1zlar – Entomoloji. Cilt II, K1s1m II,Meteksan A. Ankara, S, 338-814.

Lodos, N. 1983. Türkiye Entomolojisi (Genel Uygulamal ve Faunistik), Cilt I Ege Üniversitesi Matbaas
Ziraat Fak. Yay1nlar1 282:134-336
Lodos, N. 1986. Türkiye Entomolojisi (Genel Uygulamal ve Faunistik),Cilt II Ege Üniversitesi Matbaas
Ziraat Fak. Yaynlar 429:57-498
Parker, P. S. 1982. Editor Synopsis and Classificationsof Living Organism. Vol. 1 and 2. McGraw-Hill
Book Company.
Sampedro, M. A., and L. Montanez. 1986. Food ofRana catesbeiana in Two Different Areas of Cuba.
P. 413-416. In Z. Rocek (ed.), Studies in Herpetology. Charles University, Prague.
Schreiber E. 1913. Herpetologia Europea. Gustav Fischer, Jena.
U ğ urtaş, . H., and M. Öz . 1995. Bursa ve Sakarya li
Pelobates
syriacus(Anura,Pelobatidae)
Populasyonlar1n1n Beslenme Biyolojisi Üzerine BirÖn Çal1ş ma. Turkish Journal of Zoology 19:273275.
Y1lmaz, İ. 1984. Trakya Kuyruksuz Kurbağalar1 ÜzerineMorfolojik ve Taksonomik Bir Ara ş t1rma. Do ş a Biyoloji, S. A2, 8(2): 244-264.