Acta Herpetologica 15(2): 105-110, 2020

ISSN 1827-9635 (print) © Firenze University Press 
ISSN 1827-9643 (online) www.fupress.com/ah

DOI: 10.13128/a_h-8370

Food composition of a breeding population of the endemic 
Anatolia newt, Neurergus strauchii (Steindachner, 1887) (Caudata: 
Salamandridae), from Bingöl, Eastern Turkey

Kerim Çiçek1,*, Mustafa Koyun2, Ahmet Mermer1, Cemal Varol Tok3 
1 Zoology Section, Department of Biology, Faculty of Science, Ege University, 35100, Izmir, Turkey 
2 Department of Biology, Faculty of Arts and Sciences, Bingöl University, 12000, Bingöl, Turkey
3 Department of Biology, Faculty of Arts and Sciences, Çanakkale Onsekiz Mart University, 17100, Çanakkale, Turkey
*Corresponding author. E-mail: kerim.cicek@ege.edu.tr

Submitted on: 2020, 19th March; revised on: 2020, 25th August; accepted on: 2020, 17th September
Editor: Aaron M. Bauer

Abstract. The study presents data on the food composition of a breeding population of the Anatolia newt Neurergus 
strauchii (Steindachner, 1887), from Bingöl, Turkey. A total of 953 prey items were determined in the food contents 
of 46 individuals (18 males and 28 females) examined in the study. Insecta (63%) and Malacostraca (35%) constitute 
97% of the food composition by number. While the most frequently encountered prey groups in the diet are Diptera 
(87%), Amphipoda (85%), Neurergus eggs (74%), and Coleoptera (37%), the comparison of food composition by vol-
ume is Amphipoda (40%), Neurergus eggs (41%), and Diptera (10%) respectively. No significant difference in food 
niche was observed between the sexes. The species generally fed on aquatic, poor-flying or slow-moving invertebrates.

Keywords. Ecology, diet, trophic niche, dipterans, amphipods, oophagy.

INTRODUCTION

Understanding the feeding relationships in amphib-
ian communities is of fundamental interest to herpe-
tologists and ecologists due to their key role in aquatic 
ecosystems (Hirai and Matsui, 1999). Quantitative infor-
mation about the role of amphibians in ecosystems is 
extremely important, particularly in their capacity as con-
sumers in both aquatic and terrestrial habitats (Whiles et 
al., 2006). Furthermore, determining their feeding rela-
tionships in this trophic network is an essential step to 
understand the life cycle of the species and population 
fluctuations, as well as to develop successful conservation 
strategies (e.g., Duellman and Trueb, 1986; Cogălniceanu 
et al., 2001; Solé and Rödder, 2010).

The Middle Eastern newt genus Neurergus comprises 
five stream-dwelling species [Neurergus strauchii (Stein-

dachner 1887), N. barani Öz 1994, N. crocatus Cope 
1862, N. kaiseri Schmidt 1952, and N. microspilotus (Nes-
terov 1916)] distributed in Anatolia, Iran, and Iraq (Levi-
ton et al., 1992; Papenfuss et al., 2009; Sparreboom, 2014; 
Rancilhac et al., 2019). The Anatolia Newt, N. strauchii, 
is endemic to eastern Turkey (Schmidtler and Schmidtler, 
1970; Öz, 1994; Tok et al., 2016; Yıldız et al., 2018). Due 
to its narrow area of occupancy, which is less than 2000 
km2, its fragmented distribution, and habitat destruction, 
the species is listed as vulnerable in the IUCN Red List of 
Threatened Species (Papenfuss et al., 2009). 

While N. strauchii inhabits small, cool mountain 
streams at altitudes between 950 and 1900 m above sea 
level, it overwinters on land not far from streams under 
stones and in burrows (Schmidtler and Schmidtler, 1970; 
Başoğlu et al., 1994; Bogaerts et al., 2012). Being semi-
aquatic salamanders adapted to a high-elevation climate, 



106 Kerim Çiçek et alii

adult Anatolia newt emerge from hibernation in early 
spring and thereafter migrate into streams that form dur-
ing or after snowmelt where they will mate and breed 
(Bogaerts et al., 2010; Schneider and Schneider, 2010). 

The species is widely studied with respect to dis-
tribution (e.g., Schmidtler and Schmidtler, 1970, 1975; 
Yıldız et al., 2018) and taxonomy (e.g., Steinfartz et al., 
2002; Pasmans et al., 2006; Özdemir et al., 2009; Olgun 
et al., 2016; Rancilhac et al., 2019). Unfortunately, there 
are still limited data on its ecology (e.g. Schneider and 
Schneider, 2010; Bogaerts et al., 2006, 2010, 2012). 
Whilst limited information is available regarding the 
food habits of Neurerus species in captive (Bogaerts et 
al., 2012) and natural populations (Farasat and Shar-
ifi, 2014), there are no data on the food habits of N. 
strauchii in nature. Therefore, the present study aimed 
to determine the food habits of a breeding population of 
the Anatolia newt from Bingöl, Turkey. 

MATERIAL AND METHODS

In the study, the ingested food items of 46 aquatic adults 
(18 males and 28 females) collected between mid-May and 
early June 2014 from Soğukpınar Village in Genç – a district of 
Bingöl, Turkey (38°42’N, 40°27’E, 1,075 m a.s.l.) were examined. 
The newts were caught by hand and using fish nets in a small 
stream flowing into the Murat River between 07.00 and 13.00. 
Following capture, the sex of each individual was recorded and 
secondary sexual characters, snout-vent length (distance from 
the tip of the snout to the cloaca, SVL) and total length (from 
the cloaca to the tip of the tail, TL) were measured by using a 
caliper with a precision of 1 mm and recorded. Within an hour 
following capture, the stomach contents were extracted in field 
by flushing the stomach with pressurized water. The obtained 
food contents were preserved in a 70% ethanol solution for fur-
ther analysis (Solé and Rödder, 2010; Çiçek, 2011).

The food contents were identified to the least inclusive pos-
sible taxonomic level. Vegetal materials, sand and small pebbles 
were also encountered in the food contents of four individuals 
(frequency of occurrence, F% = 8.7%). However, we concluded 
that these materials had most likely been ingested accidentally 
during foraging and were not regarded as food. The following 
parameters of dietary items were recorded: frequency of occur-
rence (the frequency of newt stomachs containing a particular 
prey type, F%), numeric proportion (the number of a particular 
prey item type relative to all prey items, N%), and volumetric 
proportion (the volume of a particular prey item as a percent-
age of all prey items, V%). The prey volume was calculated 
using an ellipsoid formula (Dunham, 1983): V= 4/3π (L/2) 
(W/2)2, where V is the prey volume, L is the length of prey 
item, and W is the width of prey item. To determine the rela-
tive importance of each prey category in the diet of the species, 
the Index of Relative Importance (IRI, Pinkas et al., 1971) was 
calculated using the following formula: IRI = (N % + V %) F 
%, where N % is the numerical proportion of each prey item in 

the diet; V % is the volumetric proportion of each prey item in 
the diet; and F % is the relative frequency of occurrence of prey. 
The higher value indicates the greater importance of a particu-
lar prey item in the overall dietary composition.

Trophic niche overlap was calculated using Pianka’s index 
(O, 1973). This index ranges from 0 (no similarity) to 1 (identi-
cal). Food-niche breadth was determined using Shannon’s index 
(H, Shannon, 1948). All niche calculations were made using 
“EcoSimR vers. 1.0” package (Gotelli et al., 2014) in R vers. 
3.6.1 (R Core Team, 2019). The sexes were compared by t-test, 
and Mann-Whitney U tests were performed using the Deduc-
er statistical package (Fellows, 2012) in the same version of R. 
Mean values are provided with their standard deviations.

RESULTS

The average Neurergus strauchii body length (SVL) 
was 70.3 ± (SD) 2.84 mm (range = 63-75 mm) for males 
and 71.2 ± 3.01 mm (65-77 mm) for females. The aver-
age total length (TL) was determined as 146.8 ± 7.08 mm 
(134-159 mm) in males and 148.3 ± 5.77 mm (136-158 
mm) in females. No statistically significant difference was 
observed between the sexes in terms of their sizes (SVL, t 
= 0.983, P = 0.332; TL, t = 0.016, P = 0.987). 

In the food content of 46 individuals, a total of 953 
prey items, with body lengths ranging from 3 to 55 mm, 
were determined with a median number of 18 (range = 
1-50) dietary items per individual. The median number 
of prey items was 16 (1-50) for males and 17.5 (1-39) 
for females. While the number of prey items was slight-
ly greater in females, there was no significant difference 
between the sexes (Mann-Whitney U test, Z = -0.452, P 
≤ 0.652). 

Among the prey taxa shown in Table 1, the highest 
frequency of occurrence (F% > 30%) in the food compo-
sition was observed for Diptera (87%), Amphipoda (85%), 
Neurergus eggs (74%), and Coleoptera (37%). Diptera 
(46%) and Amphipoda (34%) were the most abundant 
prey groups (N% > 20%). The greatest prey volumes (V% 
= 20%) were accounted for by Amphipoda (40%) and Neu-
rergus eggs (41%). More active prey items such as adult 
Diptera, Coleoptera, Hemiptera, Lepidoptera, and Orthop-
tera were less frequently encountered in the food contents. 
Larval prey accounted for 36% of dietary items in number, 
93% in frequency, and 10% in volume in the total food 
content. Vegetal fragments (e.g., leaves, roots, and seeds) 
and inorganic material were observed in 4.4% of the newts 
and were considered to have been ingested accidentally 
during foraging. In addition, the presence of shed-skin 
remains was detected in the diet of two individuals (F% = 
4.4%). Amphipoda (IRI = 6827), Diptera (5386), Neurergus 
eggs (3739) and Coleoptera (318) were the most important 
prey categories in Anatolia newts (Table 1). 



107Food composition of a breeding population the endemic Anatolia newt

Ta
bl

e 
1.

 Th
e 

fo
od

 c
om

po
si

tio
n 

of
 4

6 
(1

8 
m

al
es

 a
nd

 2
8 

fe
m

al
es

) 
N

. s
tr

au
ch

ii 
in

di
vi

du
al

s 
fr

om
 E

as
te

rn
 A

na
to

lia
, T

ur
ke

y.
 F

: F
re

qu
en

cy
 o

f 
oc

cu
rr

en
ce

, N
: N

um
er

ic
 p

ro
po

rt
io

n,
 V

: V
ol

u-
m

et
ri

c 
pr

op
or

tio
n,

 I
R

I: 
In

de
x 

of
 R

el
at

iv
e 

Im
po

rt
an

ce
.

Pr
ey

 T
ax

a
F 

(%
)

N
 (

%
)

V
 (

%
)

IR
I

Fe
m

al
es

M
al

es
O

ve
ra

ll
Fe

m
al

es
M

al
es

O
ve

ra
ll

Fe
m

al
es

M
al

es
O

ve
ra

ll

M
O

LL
U

SC
A

: G
A

ST
R

O
PO

D
A

8 
(2

8.
6%

)
1 

(5
.6

%
)

9 
(1

9.
6%

)
10

 (
1.

7%
)

1 
(0

.3
%

)
11

 (
1.

2%
)

62
 (

0.
9%

)
4 

(0
.1

%
)

67
 (

0.
6%

)
29

.9
Ly

m
na

ei
da

e
6 

(2
1.

4%
)

-
6 

(1
3.

0%
)

7 
(1

.2
%

)
-

7 
(0

.7
%

)
48

 (
0.

7%
)

-
48

 (
0.

4%
)

14
.8

Pl
an

or
bi

da
e

2 
(7

.1
%

)
1 

(5
.6

%
)

3 
(6

.5
%

)
3 

(0
.5

%
)

1 
(0

.3
%

)
4 

(0
.4

%
)

15
 (

0.
2%

)
4 

(0
.1

%
)

19
 (

0.
2%

)
3.

8
A

N
N

EL
ID

A
: C

LI
T

EL
LA

TA
3 

(1
0.

7%
)

-
3 

(6
.5

%
)

3 
(0

.5
%

)
-

3 
(0

.3
%

)
12

4 
(1

.7
%

)
-

12
4 

(1
.1

%
)

8.
9

Lu
m

br
ic

id
ae

3 
(1

0.
7%

)
-

3 
(6

.5
%

)
3 

(0
.5

%
)

-
3 

(0
.3

%
)

12
4 

(1
.7

%
)

-
12

4 
(1

.1
%

)
8.

9
A

R
T

H
R

O
PO

D
A

28
 (

10
0%

)
18

 (
10

0%
)

46
 (

10
0%

)
56

7 
(9

7.
8%

)
37

2 
(9

9.
7%

)
93

9 
(9

8.
5%

)
70

69
 (

97
.4

%
)

45
43

 (
99

.9
%

)
11

61
2 

(9
8.

4%
)

55
80

1.
7

C
hi

lo
po

da
-

1 
(5

.6
%

)
1 

(2
.2

%
)

-
1 

(0
.3

%
)

1 
(0

.1
%

)
-

4 
(0

.1
%

)
4 

(<
0.

1%
)

0.
3

M
A

LA
C

O
ST

R
A

C
A

: I
SO

PO
D

A
2 

(7
.1

%
)

2 
(1

1.
1%

)
4 

(8
.7

%
)

2 
(0

.3
%

)
5 

(1
.3

%
)

7 
(0

.7
%

)
45

 (
0.

6%
)

48
 (

1.
0%

)
92

 (
0.

8%
)

13
.2

O
ni

sc
id

ae
2 

(7
.1

%
)

2 
(1

1.
1%

)
4 

(8
.7

%
)

2 
(0

.3
%

)
5 

(1
.3

%
)

7 
(0

.7
%

)
45

 (
0.

6%
)

48
 (

1.
0%

)
92

 (
0.

8%
)

13
.2

M
A

LA
C

O
ST

R
A

C
A

: A
M

PH
IP

O
D

A
26

 (
92

.9
%

)
13

 (
72

.2
%

)
39

 (
84

.8
%

)
16

3 
(2

8.
1%

)
-

32
8 

(3
4.

4%
)

25
30

 (
34

.9
%

)
-

47
63

 (
40

.4
%

)
68

27
.3

G
am

m
ar

id
ae

26
 (

92
.9

%
)

13
 (

72
.2

%
)

39
 (

84
.8

%
)

16
3 

(2
8.

1%
)

16
5 

(4
4.

2%
)

32
8 

(3
4.

4%
)

25
30

 (
34

.9
%

)
22

33
 (

49
.1

%
)

47
63

 (
40

.4
%

)
68

27
.3

IN
SE

C
TA

26
 (

92
.9

%
)

18
 (

10
0%

)
44

 (
95

.7
%

)
40

2 
(6

9.
3%

)
20

1 
(5

3.
9%

)
60

3 
(6

3.
3%

)
44

94
 (

61
.9

%
)

71
0.

8 
(1

5.
6%

)1
87

2.
8 

(1
5.

9%
)

20
30

1.
5

O
R

T
H

O
PT

ER
A

1 
(3

.6
%

)
-

1 
(2

.2
%

)
1 

(0
.2

%
)

-
1 

(0
.1

%
)

6 
(0

.1
%

)
-

6 
(0

.1
%

)
0.

3
EP

H
EM

ER
O

PT
ER

A
4 

(1
4.

3%
)

1 
(5

.6
%

)
5 

(1
0.

9%
)

11
 (

1.
9%

)
4 

(1
.1

%
)

15
 (

1.
6%

)
24

 (
0.

3%
)

10
 (

0.
2%

)
34

 (
0.

3%
)

20
.2

H
EM

IP
T

ER
A

3 
(1

0.
7%

)
4 

(2
2.

2%
)

7 
(1

5.
2%

)
7 

(1
.2

%
)

6 
(1

.6
%

)
13

 (
1.

4%
)

21
 (

0.
3%

)
26

 (
0.

6%
)

47
 (

0.
4%

)
26

.8
N

ot
on

ec
tid

ae
3 

(1
0.

7%
)

4 
(2

2.
2%

)
7 

(1
5.

2%
)

7 
(1

.2
%

)
6 

(1
.6

%
)

13
 (

1.
4%

)
21

 (
0.

3%
)

26
 (

0.
6%

)
47

 (
0.

4%
)

26
.8

H
Y

M
EN

O
PT

ER
A

-
1 

(5
.6

%
)

1 
(2

.2
%

)
-

1 
(0

.3
%

)
1 

(0
.1

%
)

-
1 

(<
0.

1%
)

1 
(<

0.
1%

)
0.

2
Fo

rm
ic

id
ae

-
1 

(5
.6

%
)

1 
(2

.2
%

)
-

1 
(0

.3
%

)
1 

(0
.1

%
)

-
1 

(<
0.

1%
)

1 
(<

0.
1%

)
0.

2
C

O
LE

O
PT

ER
A

10
 (

35
.7

%
)

7 
(3

8.
9%

)
17

 (
37

.0
%

)
21

 (
3.

6%
)

15
 (

4.
0%

)
36

 (
3.

8%
)

16
7 

(2
.3

%
)

40
2 

(8
.8

%
)

56
9 

(4
.8

%
)

31
7.

9
C

ol
eo

pt
er

a 
su

cu
l

4 
(1

4.
3%

)
1 

(5
.6

%
)

5 
(1

0.
9%

)
14

 (
2.

4%
)

4 
(1

.1
%

)
18

 (
1.

9%
)

88
 (

1.
2%

)
20

 (
0.

4%
)

10
8 

(0
.9

%
)

30
.5

C
ol

eo
pt

er
a 

la
rv

a
6 

(2
1.

4%
)

5 
(2

7.
8%

)
11

 (
23

.9
%

)
7 

(1
.2

%
)

10
 (

2.
7%

)
17

 (
1.

8%
)

79
 (

1.
1%

)
36

4 
(8

.0
%

)
44

3 
(3

.8
%

)
13

2.
4

C
ar

ab
id

ae
-

1 
(5

.6
%

)
1 

(2
.2

%
)

-
1 

(0
.3

%
)

1 
(0

.1
%

)
-

18
 (

0.
4%

)
18

 (
0.

2%
)

0.
6

LE
PI

D
O

PT
ER

A
3 

(1
0.

7%
)

4 
(2

2.
2%

)
7 

(1
5.

2%
)

4 
(0

.7
%

)
4 

(1
.1

%
)

8 
(0

.8
%

)
11

 (
0.

1%
)

20
 (

0.
4%

)
31

 (
0.

3%
)

16
.8

Le
pi

do
pt

er
a 

in
de

t.
1 

(3
.6

%
)

2 
(1

1.
1%

)
3 

(6
.5

%
)

2 
(0

.3
%

)
2 

(0
.5

%
)

4 
(0

.4
%

)
1 

(<
0.

1%
)

5 
(0

.1
%

)
6 

(<
0.

1%
)

3.
1

Le
pd

op
te

ra
 la

rv
ae

 (
in

de
t.)

2 
(7

.1
%

)
2 

(1
1.

1%
)

4 
(8

.7
%

)
2 

(0
.3

%
)

2 
(0

.5
%

)
4 

(0
.4

%
)

10
 (

0.
1%

)
15

 (
0.

3%
)

25
 (

0.
2%

)
5.

5
D

IP
T

ER
A

 
24

 (
85

.7
%

)
16

 (
88

.9
%

)
40

 (
87

.0
%

)
29

8 
(5

1.
4%

)
14

3 
(3

8.
3%

)
44

1 
(4

6.
3%

)
93

3 
(1

2.
9%

)
25

1 
(5

.5
%

)
11

84
 (

10
.0

%
)

53
85

.9
D

ip
te

ra
 a

du
lt

2 
(7

.1
%

)
1 

(5
.6

%
)

3 
(6

.5
%

)
5 

(0
.9

%
)

2 
(0

.5
%

)
7 

(0
.7

%
)

37
 (

0.
5%

)
1 

(<
0.

1%
)

38
 (

0.
3%

)
6.

9
C

hi
ro

ni
m

id
 L

ar
va

e 
(i

nd
et

.)
18

 (
64

.3
%

)
11

 (
61

.1
%

)
29

 (
63

.0
%

)
11

6 
(2

0.
0%

)
34

 (
9.

1%
)

15
0 

(1
5.

7%
)

39
0 

(5
.4

%
)

10
4 

(2
.3

%
)

49
5 

(4
.2

%
)

12
56

.4
C

ul
ic

id
ae

8 
(2

8.
6%

)
6 

(3
3.

3%
)

14
 (

30
.4

%
)

90
 (

15
.5

%
)

25
 (

6.
7%

)
11

5 
(1

2.
1%

)
34

7 
(4

.8
%

)
57

 (
1.

3%
)

40
4 

(3
.4

%
)

47
1.

5
C

ul
ic

id
 la

rv
ae

17
 (

60
.7

%
)

10
 (

55
.6

%
)

27
 (

58
.7

%
)

87
 (

15
.0

%
)

82
 (

22
.0

%
)

16
9 

(1
7.

7%
)

15
9 

(2
.2

%
)

89
 (

2.
0%

)
24

8 
(2

.1
%

)
11

64
.1

A
M

PH
IB

IA
: C

A
U

D
A

TA
18

 (
64

.3
%

)
16

 (
88

.9
%

)
34

 (
73

.9
%

)
60

 (
10

.3
%

)
28

 (
7.

5%
)

88
 (

9.
2%

)
33

32
 (

45
.9

%
)

15
48

 (
34

.0
%

)
48

80
 (

41
.3

%
)

37
38

.6
N

eu
re

rg
us

 e
gg

s
18

 (
64

.3
%

)
16

 (
88

.9
%

)
34

 (
73

.9
%

)
60

 (
10

.3
%

)
28

 (
7.

5%
)

88
 (

9.
2%

)
33

32
 (

45
.9

%
)

15
48

 (
34

.0
%

)
48

80
 (

41
.3

%
)

37
38

.6
To

ta
l n

um
be

r 
of

 p
re

y 
ite

m
s

28
18

46
58

0
37

3
95

3
72

55
45

48
11

80
3



108 Kerim Çiçek et alii

The food niche breadth (Shannon’s index) was low 
and quite similar between the sexes (1.62 for males and 
1.34 for females). The food spectrum of the newts yielded 
a moderate niche breadth based on the index value. Prey 
composition was quite similar between the sexes (Pianka’s 
niche overlap index, 0.68), indicating the use of similar 
microhabitats for foraging. Despite small differences in 
percentages, no statistically significant differences were 
found between the sexes with respect to food contents. 

DISCUSSION

Adult Neurergus newts mainly feed on aquatic prey 
items in their larval stages (e.g., Kutrup et al., 2005; 
David et al., 2009; Covaciu-Marcov et al., 2010; Kopecký 
et al., 2012; Farasat and Mozafar, 2014). The close relative 
of N. strauchii, N. microspilotus predominantly feeds on 
benthic macroinvertebrates, mainly Mycetophilidae, Bae-
tidae, Corbiculidae, Gammaridae, and Lumbricidae (Far-
asat and Mozafar, 2014). In this study, the most frequent 
prey items of Anatolia newts were dipterans, amphipods, 
coleopterans, and their own eggs, whereas the greatest 
prey volume was attributable to amphipods, N. strauchii 
eggs, and dipterans. The dietary components of Anato-
lia newts are similar to those of other species of newts 
(Farasat and Mozafar, 2014). The utilization of amphibian 
eggs as food is beneficial for several reasons, one of them 
being the low energy consumption needed for a large vol-
ume of food (Denoël and Demars, 2008). The sampling 
was done during the breeding period of the species and 
there were many egg clutches in the study area. Eggs 
were identified in the food contents of 34 individuals 
(74%). The consumption of amphibian eggs has also been 
recorded in other newt species (Covaciu-Marcov et al., 
2010; Kopecky et al., 2012; Farasat and Mozafar, 2014), 
though Farasat and Mozafar (2014) reported N. microspi-
lotus to consume its own eggs at a lower rate. Our obser-
vation in the field showed that the prey spectrum in the 
environment of the species was limited and that the easily 
obtained eggs could substitute for potential prey requir-
ing greater foraging effort. It has been shown that in cap-
tivity, N. strauchii will eat a wide variety of food items 
offered, even dead unnatural food items, such as slices of 
liver and octopus (Bogaerts et al., 2012). This means that 
they are certainly able to identify and eat non-moving 
foods like an egg in their natural habitats. Under poor 
environmental conditions, this could be an effective strat-
egy to avoid starvation. 

There were no sex-specific differences detected in the 
food composition of N. strauchii in Anatolia. This also 
coincides with many studies on the same issue report-

ing that there is no difference between the sexes (e.g., 
Covaciu-Marcov et al., 2010; Farasat and Mozafar, 2014). 
This indicates that both sexes use the same habitat for 
foraging. However, some species (e.g. Lissotriton vulgaris, 
Lissotriton montandoni, Triturus cristatus group) exhibit 
sex-specific differences in the feeding strategy and a cer-
tain level of trophic selectivity (Covaciu-Marcov et al., 
2002, 2010) depending on newt size variation (David et 
al., 2009; Covaciu-Marcov et al., 2010).

Data suggest that amphibians exhibit two modes for 
foraging: sit-and-wait foraging and active foraging. While 
actively foraging, amphibians wander around the envi-
ronment in search of prey, thus spending considerable 
energy in the search phase but little energy in the capture 
phase of foraging (Vitt and Caldwell, 2014). They mostly 
encounter and consume non-moving or slow-moving 
prey items (Pianka, 1966) and generally use their visual 
and olfactory senses while foraging (Vitt and Caldwell, 
2014). Their food niche breadth is rather narrower than 
that of sit-and-wait predators (Perry and Pianka, 1997). 
Having its diet based mainly on composed slow-moving 
aquatic invertebrates, the Anatolia newt could be consid-
ered an active forager. 

As stated in the study, the Anatolia newt’s food items 
comprise slow-moving aquatic invertebrates, particularly 
aquatic dipterans, amphipods, and coleopterans, as well as 
their own eggs. There is no significant difference in food 
composition between the sexes. The species is an active 
predator usually feeding on poor-flying or non-flying prey 
items. It has low food niche breadth, mostly limited to the 
classes Insecta and Malacostraca. The abundance of these 
prey taxa in habitats might potentially indicate streams 
habitable by the Anatolia newt within its range. The data 
on the biology and ecology of the Anatolia newt are still 
insufficient to identify the ecological pressures on popu-
lations. Unfortunately, further studies are necessary to 
determine its ecology, habitat, and distribution pattern.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

We thank Prof. Dr. Aaron Bauer (Villanova Univer-
sity, USA) and an anonymous referee for their valuable 
comments on earlier versions of the manuscript and for 
reviewing English style. The study protocol was approved 
under Decision No. 2015-03/01 by the Laboratory Ani-
mals Ethical Committee at Bingöl University, Turkey.

REFERENCES

Başoğlu, M., Özeti, N., Yılmaz, İ. (1994): Türkiye Amfi-
bileri (The Amphibians of Turkey). (Expanded 2nd 



109Food composition of a breeding population the endemic Anatolia newt

edition). Ege Univ. Faculty of Science Book Series No. 
151, Ege University Printing House, Izmir, Turkey. [in 
Turkish]

Bogaerts, S., Janssen, H., Macke, J., Schultschik, G., Ernst, 
K., Maillet, F., Bork, C., Pasmans, F., Wisniewski, P. 
(2012): Conservation biology, husbandry, and captive 
breeding of the endemic Anatolia newt, Neurergus 
strauchii Steindachner (1887) (Amphibia: Caudata: 
Salamandridae). Amphib Reptile Conserv. 6: 9-29.

Bogaerts, S., Pasmans, F., Woeltjes, T. (2006): Ecol-
ogy and conservation aspects of Neurergus strauchii 
(Amphibia: Salamandridae). In: Herpetologia Bon-
nensis II (Proceedings of the 13th Congress of the 
Societas Europaea Herpetologica), pp. 15-18. Vences, 
M., Köhler, J., Ziegler, T., Böhme, W., Eds., Bonn, 
Germany.

Bogaerts, S., Pasmans, F., Sparreboom M. Biricik M., 
2010. Observations on a breeding population of Neur-
ergus strauchii barani Öz, 1994 (Caudata: Salamandri-
dae). Salamandra 46: 55-58.

Cogălniceanu, D., Palmer, M., Ciubuc, C. (2001): Feed-
ing in anuran communities on islands in the Danube 
floodplain. Amphibia-Reptilia 22: 1-19.

Covaciu-Marcov, S.D., Cicort-Lucaciu, A. Ş., Sas, I., 
Cupşa, D., Kovacs, E. H., Ferenţi, S. (2010): Food 
composition of some low altitude Lissotriton montan-
doni (Amphibia, Caudata) populations from north-
western Romania. Arch. Biol. Sci. 62: 479-488.

Covaciu-Marcov, S.-D., Cupşa, D., Telcean, I.C., Cicort, 
A. (2002): Spectrul trofic al unei populaţii de Tritu-
rus cristatus (Amfibia, Urodela) din zona Şerghiş, jud. 
Bihor, România. Oltenia J. Stud. Nat. Sci. 18: 188-194. 

Çiçek, K. (2011): Food composition of Uludağ frog, Rana 
macrocnemis Boulenger, 1885 in Uludağ (Bursa, Tur-
key). Acta Herpetol. 6: 87-99.

David, A., Cicort-Lucaciu, A.S., Roxin, M., Pal, A., Nagy-
Zachari, A.S. (2009): Comparative trophic spectrum 
of two newt species, Triturus cristatus and Lissotriton 
vulgaris from Mehedinţi County, Romania. Biharean 
Biol. 3: 133-137.

Denoël, M., Demars, B. (2008): The benefits of heterospe-
cific oophagy in a top predator. Acta Oecol. 34: 74-79.

Duellman, W.E., Trueb, L. (1994): Biology of Amphibians. 
Johns Hopkins University Press, Baltimore, MD.

Dunham, A.E. (1983): Realized niche overlap, resource 
abundance, and intensity of interspecific competi-
tion, In: Lizard ecology: Studies of a model organism, 
pp. 261-280. Huey, R.B., Pianka, E.R., Schoener, T.W., 
Eds., Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA.

Farasat, H., Sharifi, M. (2014): Food habit of the endan-
gered yellow-spotted newt  Neurergus microspilotus 
(Caudata, Salamandridae) in Kavat Stream, western 

Iran. Zool. Stud. 53: 61. 
Fellows, I. (2012): Deducer: A Data Analysis GUI for R. J. 

Stat. Softw. 49: 1-15.
Gotelli, N.J., Hart E.M., Ellison, A.M. (2014): EcoSimR 

0.1.0 http://ecosimr.org
Hirai, T., Matsui, M. (1999): Feeding habits of the pond 

frog, Rana nigromaculata, inhabiting rice fields in 
Kyoto, Japan. Copeia 1999: 940-947.

Kopecký, O., Vojar, J., Šusta, F., Rehák, I. (2012): Com-
position and scaling of male and female Alpine newt 
(Mesotriton alpestris) prey, with related site and sea-
sonal effects. Ann. Zool. Fenn. 49: 231-239.

Kutrup, B., Çakır, E., Yılmaz, N. (2005): Food of the 
banded newt, Triturus vittatus ophryticus (Berthold, 
1846), at different sites in Trabzon. Turk J Zool. 29: 
83-89.

Leviton, A.E., Anderson, S.C., Adler, K., Minton, S.A. 
(1992): Handbook to Middle East amphibians and 
reptiles. Society for the Study of Amphibians and 
Reptiles, St. Louis.

Olgun, K., Avcı, A., Bozkurt, E., Üzüm, N., Olgun, H., 
Ilgaz, Ç. (2016): A new subspecies of Anatolia Newt, 
Neurergus strauchii (Steindachner, 1887) (Urodela: 
Salamandridae), from Tunceli, Eastern Turkey. Russ. J. 
Herpetol. 23: 271-277.

Öz, M. (1994): A new form of Neurergus strauchii 
(Urodela, Salamandridae) from Turkey. Turk. J. Zool. 
18: 115-117.

Özdemir, N., Üzüm, N., Avci, A., Olgun, K. (2009): Phy-
logeny of Neurergus crocatus and Neurergus strauchii 
in Turkey based on morphological and molecular 
data. Herpetologica 65: 280-291.

Papenfuss, T., Sparreboom, M., Tok, C.V., Uğurtaş, İ.H., 
Sevinç, M., Kuzmin, S., Anderson, S.C., Eken, G., Kiliç, 
T., Gem, E. 2009. Neurergus strauchii. The IUCN Red 
List of Threatened Species 2009: e.T14735A4458797. 
https://dx.doi.org/10.2305/IUCN.UK.2009.RLTS.
T14735A4458797.en. Downloaded on 19 March 2020.

Pasmans, F., Bogaerts, S., Woeltjes, T., Carranza, S. (2006). 
Biogeography of Neurergus strauchii barani (Öz, 1994) 
and N. s. strauchii (Steindachner, 1887) (Amphibia: 
Salamandridae) assessed using morphological and 
molecular data. Amphibia-Reptilia 27: 281-288.

Perry, G., Pianka, E.R. (1997): Animal foraging: past, pre-
sent and future. Trends Ecol. Evol. 12: 360-364.

Pianka, E.R. (1966): Convexity, desert lizards, and spatial 
heterogeneity. Ecology 47: 1055-1059.

Pianka, E.R. (1973): The structure of lizard communities. 
Annu. Rev. Ecol. Evol. Syst. 4: 53-74.

Pinkas, L., Oliphant, M.S., Inverson, I.L.K. (1971): Food 
habits of albacore, bluefin tuna, and bonito in Califor-
nian waters. Fish. Bull. 152: 11-105. 



110 Kerim Çiçek et alii

R Core Team (2019): R: a language and environment 
for statistical computing. R Foundation for Statisti-
cal Computing, Vienna, Austria. Available at: http://
www.R-project.org/.

Rancilhac, L., Goudarzi, F., Gehara, M., Hemami, M.R., 
Elmer, K.R., Vences, M., Steinfarz, S. (2019): Phyloge-
ny and species delimitation of near Eastern Neurergus 
newts (Salamandridae) based on genome-wide RAD-
seq data analysis. Mol. Phylogenet. Evol. 133: 189-197.

Schmidtler, J.J., Schmidtler, J.F. (1970): Morphologie, 
Biologie und Verwandtschaftsbeziehungen von Neur-
ergus strauchii aus der Türkei (Amphibia: Salamandri-
dae). Senckenb Biol. 51: 41-53.

Schmidtler, J.J., Schmidtler, J.F. (1975): Untersuchungen 
an westpersischen Bergbachmolchen der Gattung 
Neurergus. Salamandra 11: 84-98.

Schneider, C., Schneider, W. (2010): Field notes on the 
ecology and distribution of Neurergus crocatus Cope, 
1862 and Neurergus strauchii strauchii (Steindachner, 
1887) in Turkey. Herpetozoa 23: 59-69.

Shannon, C.E. (1948): A mathematical theory of commu-
nication. Bell Syst. Tech. J. 27: 379-423.

Solé, M., Rödder, D. (2010): Dietary assessments of adult 
amphibians. In Amphibian ecology and conservation: 
a handbook of techniques, pp.167-184. Dodd, C.K,.Jr., 
Ed., Oxford University Press, Oxford.

Sparreboom, M. (2014): Salamanders of the Old World. 
The Salamanders of Europe, Asia, and Northern Afri-

ca. KNNV Publishing and Naturalis Biodiversity Cen-
tre, The Netherlands.

Steinfartz, S., Hwang, U. W., Tautz, D., Öz, M., Veith, 
M. (2002): Molecular phylogeny of the salamandrid 
genus Neurergus: evidence for an intrageneric switch 
of reproductive biology. Amphibia-Reptilia 23: 419-
431.

Tok, C.V., Koyun, M., Çiçek, K. (2016): Predicting the 
current and future potential distributions of Anatolia 
Newt, Neurergus strauchii (Steindachner, 1887), with 
a new record from Elazığ (Eastern Anatolia, Turkey). 
Biharean Biol. 10: 104-108.

Vitt, L.J., Caldwell, J. P. (2014): Herpetology: An Intro-
ductory Biology of Amphibians and Reptiles (4th ed.). 
Academic Press, Elsevier, San Diego, CA.

Whiles, M. R., Lips, K. R., Pringle, C. M., Kilham, S. S., 
Bixby, R. J., Brenes, R., Connelly, S., Colon-Gaud, J.C., 
Hunte-Brown, M., Huryn, A.D., Montgomery, C., 
Peterson, S. (2006): The effects of amphibian popula-
tion declines on the structure and function of Neo-
tropical stream ecosystems. Front. Ecol. Environ. 4: 
27-34.

Yıldız, M. Z., Bozkurt, M. A., Akman, B., Özcan, A. F., 
Çiçek, K., Sami, E., Sarıkaya, B., Koyun, M., Yakalı 
Evsen, N., İğci, N. (2008): Some new records of Ana-
tolia Newt, Neurergus strauchii (Steindacher 1887) 
from Eastern Anatolia, Turkey. BioDiCon 11: 120-
124.


	Acta Herpetologica
	Vol. 15, n. 2 - December 2020
	Firenze University Press
	Estimating abundance and habitat suitability in a micro-endemic snake: the Walser viper
	Gentile Francesco Ficetola1,2,*, Mauro Fanelli3, Lorenzo Garizio3, Mattia Falaschi1, Simone Tenan4, Samuele Ghielmi5, Lorenzo Laddaga6, Michele Menegon7,8, Massimo Delfino3,9.
	Potential effects of climate change on the distribution of invasive bullfrogs Lithobates catesbeianus in China
	Li Qing Peng1, Min Tang1, Jia Hong Liao1, Hai Fen Qing1, Zhen Kun Zhao1, David A. Pike2, Wei Chen1,*
	A bibliometric-mapping approach to identifying patterns and trends in amphibian decline research
	Claudio Angelini1,*, Jon Bielby2, Corrado Costa3
	Food composition of a breeding population the endemic Anatolia newt, Neurergus strauchii (Steindachner, 1887) (Caudata: Salamandridae), from Bingöl, Eastern Turkey
	Kerim Çiçek1,*, Mustafa Koyun2, Ahmet Mermer1, Cemal Varol Tok3 
	Stomach histology of Crocodylus siamensis and Gavialis gangeticus reveals analogy of archosaur “gizzards”, with implication on crocodylian gastroliths function
	Ryuji Takasaki1,2,*, Yoshitsugu Kobayashi3
	Does chronic exposure to ammonium during the pre-metamorphic stages promote hindlimb abnormality in anuran metamorphs? A comparison between natural-habitat and agrosystem frogs
	Sonia Zambrano-Fernández1, Francisco Javier Zamora-Camacho2,3,*, Pedro Aragón2,4
	Confirming Lessona’s brown frogs distribution sketch: Rana temporaria is present on Turin Hills (Piedmont, NW Italy)
	Davide Marino1, Angelica Crottini2, Franco Andreone3,*
	Phylogenetic relationships of the Italian populations of Horseshoe Whip Snake Hemorrhois hippocrepis (Serpentes, Colubridae)
	Francesco Paolo Faraone1, Raffaella Melfi2, Matteo Riccardo Di Nicola3, Gabriele Giacalone4, Mario Lo Valvo5*
	First karyological analysis of the endemic Malagasy phantom gecko Matoatoa brevipes (Squamata: Gekkonidae)
	Marcello Mezzasalma1,2,*, Fabio M. Guarino3, Simon P. Loader1, Gaetano Odierna3, Jeffrey W. Streicher1, Natalie Cooper1
	Notes on sexual dimorphism, diet and reproduction of the false coral snake Oxyrhopus rhombifer Duméril, Bibron & Duméril, 1854 (Dipsadidae: Pseudoboini) from coastal plains of Subtropical Brazil
	Fernando M. Quintela1,*, Felipe Caseiro¹, Daniel Loebmann¹