Abstract
The Eurasian beaver is an ecosystem engineer species capable of altering the riparian vegetation and the hydrology of freshwater habitats. The study of its distribution process is therefore important for both nature conservation and conflict management. Thanks to protection efforts and natural expansion, the beaver has already inhabited most of its former range, starting from the brink of extinction. The changes in the Eurasian distribution and population size have been continuously documented in the scientific literature. In these studies, however, Hungary, as a country with an important position along the beavers’ colonisation routes provided by the Danube drainage basin, has hitherto been underrepresented due to a severe lack of data. In this paper, we summarise all the available information about the thirty-year history, colonisation process, current distribution, as well as the management of the Hungarian population. Based on the newest available data, the beaver is present along all of the large rivers and along most permanent watercourses in the country. Despite the continuing growth trend of the population, a beaver management strategy has not yet been developed. Its establishment could be significantly supported by further monitoring surveys and scientific studies focusing on the region- and site-specific ecological effects of the species.
Similar content being viewed by others
Avoid common mistakes on your manuscript.
Introduction
Reintroduction is an important tool used worldwide to protect species that are endangered or even extinct in some countries or regions (Fischer and Lindenmayer 2000; Seddon et al. 2007; Bajomi et al. 2010). One of the most famous and perhaps the most effective example of bringing back species to their former native range is the series of conservation programmes aimed at protecting the ecosystem engineer Eurasian beaver (Castor fiber) and strengthening its population across Europe (Halley et al. 2012). The Eurasian beaver was once widespread in Europe and Asia, but due to overhunting their number decreased drastically and the species disappeared from most Eurasian countries, with approximately 1 200 specimens remaining in 8 distinct populations at the beginning of the twentieth century (Nolet and Rosell 1998). Although there had been minor earlier initiatives, the first large-scale reintroduction programme started in Sweden in the 1920s (Nolet and Rosell 1998). After the expansion of protection efforts across the continent, the beavers’ world population reached 1 million in 2011 (Müller-Schwarze 2011; Halley et al. 2012). In 2020, the European population was estimated at 1.2 million specimens (Wróbel 2020). The current size of the population in the whole territory of Eurasia is approximately 1.48–1.5 million individuals (Halley et al. 2021).
It is hugely important to examine the distribution, population size, and activity of the Eurasian beaver because this ecosystem engineer species can exert a major impact on the environment through dam building, burrowing and the cutting of woody species (Hägglund and Sjöberg 1999; Rosell et al. 2005; Vorel et al. 2015; Puttock et al. 2018; Brazier et al. 2021). This landscape alteration can have significant and sometimes unexpected conservation biological consequences (Lüscher et al. 2007; Law et al. 2016; Juhász et al. 2020) but can also lead to human-wildlife conflicts (Valachovič 2014; Vorel et al. 2016).
Hungary is along the colonisation routes of the increasing beaver populations provided by the Danube water catchment area. However, the evaluation of the beavers’ status in this country has long suffered from a severe lack of data in scientific publications summarising the available knowledge about the species. Here, we have synthetised all the available data about the distribution process of the Eurasian beaver and its thirty-year history in Hungary, as well as the management of the species in the country.
Study area and methods
Study area
Hungary is located in the Carpathian Basin, Central Europe, and its territory is 93 023 km2. The majority of the landlocked country has an elevation of less than 200 m. Areas reaching a height of at least 300 m above sea level cover 5% of the country. The highest point in the country is 1 014 m, while the lowest spot is 77.6 m above sea level. The climate of Hungary is continental, with cold winters and warm or hot summers (Kocsis 2018).
Due to its geographical position and climatic characteristics, Hungary has many types of surface waters ranging from large rivers to small streams, and from large steppe lakes to small saline lakes. Around 1 700 km2 of Hungary is covered by open water surfaces, which is approximately 2% of the total land area (Riesz 2015). The whole area of Hungary is part of the Danube drainage basin. The Great Hungarian Plain is one of the largest alluvial plains in Europe, covering an area of approximately 100 000 km2 and belonging now to three different countries (Hungary, Romania, and Serbia). Extensive wetlands occupied more than 20% of the plain until the middle of the nineteenth century (Borics et al. 2016), when a comprehensive alteration of rivers, lakes and marshes began. The huge wetlands were drained, and the water level of the large lakes, i.e. Lake Balaton and Lake Fertő, was stabilised. The large rivers, the Danube and Tisza, and each of their tributaries were regulated and an extensive network of embankments and canals was established to satisfy the demands of safety, agriculture, industry and trade (Borics et al. 2016). Lowland streams were also straightened, deepened, and widened to facilitate land drainage and to prevent local floods.
Methods
A literature review was conducted aiming to synthetise all the available knowledge about the history of the Hungarian beaver population. We used English- and Hungarian-language publications and monitoring reports to explore the regional extinction and recolonisation process of the species, as well as its dispersion to neighbouring countries.
This paper also documents the distribution of the species three decades after its return using a database about all known beaver occurrence data reported between 2014 and 2020 in Hungary. For this, we used raw data from all of the available regional population surveys (Arlett 2016; Czabán 2013a, b, c, d, 2017, 2021; Czabán and Arlett 2015; Juhász 2018; Czabán and Juhász unpublished data), individual observations requested from conservationist experts, as well as photo-documented observations sent by local people. All ten of the Hungarian National Park Directorates and six Water Management Authority Directorates shared information with us. Because of the temporal frame of the collected data, we do not intend to provide a statistical analysis on the beavers’ population size in this paper.
After describing the distribution of the Hungarian beaver population, we discuss the possible limitations of population growth (including territorial behaviour, natural predators, and hunting). Then, we dedicate a chapter to highlighting the ecological effects and human-wildlife conflicts related to the species, and the importance of these factors in the future development of an adequate beaver management strategy.
Results and discussion
Regional extinction and recolonisation
The beaver had been completely eradicated from the Danube watershed by the end of the nineteenth century (Schwab and Lutschinger 2001). The last known specimen shot in the territory of modern Hungary was taken in 1854 (Wachsmann 1905). A few beaver specimens were registered later in other parts of the Carpathian Basin until 1884 (Anonymous 1881; Chernel 1887; Brehm 1902).
The recolonisation process of the beaver in the country can be reconstructed based on earlier publications (Fig. 1). 40 beavers were released along the Danube east of Vienna in Austria between 1976 and 1982 (Sieber 1999). From there, beavers also dispersed to the Czech Republic, to Slovakia, and later to Hungary (Schwab and Lutschinger 2001). The exact date of the Hungarian reappearance (Szigetköz region) is debatable due to inconsistencies in the literature. According to publications by WWF Hungary, 1985–1986 is mentioned as the year of the first observation (Bozsér 2001; Bajomi 2011), which is based on the personal communication of a zoologist who recognised signs of gnawing. In the next 5 years, there was no beaver presence confirmed by foresters or rangers constantly monitoring the region. The local ranger in the Szigetköz region made his first observation in autumn 1991 (Dobos 1992; Dobos and Koltai 1999). After that, beavers started to spread everywhere in this area and in NW Hungary. Here we have taken the year 1991 as the date of their return.
During the reintroduction programme led by WWF Hungary, 234 individuals were released between 1996 and 2008 (Bajomi 2011). The release sites were located along the Danube drainage basin (Gemenc region and Béda-Karapancsa), the Drava floodplain, as well as in the Hanság region and the Tisza drainage basin (Fig. 1). Before the Hungarian action performed along the Drava in 2007, reintroductions were conducted along the upper part of the same river in Croatia between 1996 and 1998 (Grubesić et al. 2012), and spontaneous immigration was recorded from there in SW Hungary (in the Mura region). The first beavers turned up in that region in 1998 (Lelkes 2005, 2011). Spontaneous migration from Romania was not recorded, although beavers were reintroduced along the Romanian part of the Maros (Mures), the Olt and the Ialomita rivers between 1998 and 2003 (Mayer 2019). In the case of certain other rivers colonised in the course of migration within Hungary, the first known occurrence data were reported: Ipoly river 2004 (Juhász et al. 2019), Zagyva river 2006 (Tallósi 2007), Körös river 2007 (Juhász 2018). The beaver spread mainly along large rivers, without significant physical barriers across Hungary, towards smaller watercourses and other freshwater habitats.
It should be noted that before the long-term Hungarian reintroduction programme, a few North American beaver individuals were released at Lake Tisza at the end of the 1980s. After the error was detected, the last specimens were trapped in 2000 and no further individuals were subsequently recorded there (Bajomi 2011). A North American beaver carcass was also found in another part of the country (in the Pinka stream), near the western border in 1990. This specimen had probably migrated from Austria (Anonymous 1990), where North American beavers had escaped from Herberstein Zoo in Steiermark at the beginning of 1980s (Komposch 2014).
The presence of the North American beaver was not proven in Hungary in our study period. There was no large-scale, national investigation aimed at confirming or refuting the presence of the non-native species. However, analysis of 23 skulls and 35 tissue samples has not shown its occurrence, and all of the skull and tissue samples originated from the Eurasian beaver (Czabán 2017, 2019, 2020, 2021; Czabán and Gruber 2018). We also received no notification about the recent presence of the invasive species from any other sources. Nonetheless, its sporadic occurrence cannot be excluded because of the relatively low amount of data. For the purpose of studying this issue, greater investigation would be needed in the future.
Distribution three decades after the species' return
From the beginning of the recolonisation process, only a few areas were monitored regularly in the country, namely the Hanság area (Czabán 2003, 2004, 2005, 2006, 2009, 2010, 2011, 2012, 2013a, 2017, 2021; Czabán and Sztaskó 2002), Szigetköz area (Bozsér 2003; Varjú 2006, 2008; Czabán 2013b, 2017, 2021), Rába river (Czabán 2013d, 2017, 2021), Répce river (Czabán 2011, 2012, 2013c, 2017, 2021), Gemenc (Bajai Ifjúsági Természetvédelmi Egyesület 2011), Mura river (Lelkes 2005, 2011; Lanszki and Horváth 2006) and Közép-Tisza regions (Tallósi 2007, 2009, 2013). However, it has already been presented that beavers were living along all the rivers and in every region of Hungary (Czabán and Gruber 2018; Juhász et al. 2019). Based on the assessment made using the newest data, the beaver is certainly present along most permanent watercourses. It has populated the vast majority of suitable habitats in three decades (Fig. 2). In some areas, the species has also appeared in watercourses where the water depth is only 30–50 cm; at these sites beaver dams are common. They have also settled in streams and canals with only a temporary water supply.
No information was gained about beaver occupied habitats in the three largest natural lakes in Hungary (Lakes Balaton, Fertő, and Velence), while the largest artificial lake, Lake Tisza, was colonised by beavers. The largest natural lakes are located far from the reintroduction sites, and they have only a few connections with other freshwater habitats.
The size of the Hungarian beaver population was estimated at 500 individuals in 2007 (Czabán 2016), 718–905 in 2011 (Bajomi 2011), 2 500–3 000 in 2015 (Czabán 2016), at least 4 000 in 2016–2017 (Čanády et al. 2016; Czabán and Gruber 2018) and at least 10–11 000 in 2020 (Czabán and Juhász 2020). It should be noted that Halley et al. (2021) presented the Hungarian beaver population as 14 600–18 300 individuals, which is the consequence of an ambiguity in the abstract of a scientific publication. In fact, in the cited paper (Čanády et al. 2016), these data were presented as a calculation for potential carrying capacity. All of the above mentioned population estimations were created based on expert opinion. Because of the difficulities in making a systematic population survey at country level, expert estimations and personal communications are frequently used in the assessment of the beavers’ population size (see also Halley et al. 2021). The establishment of a more intense and synchronized Hungarian beaver monitoring programme is a key issue in providing more reliable estimations with strong statistical background in the future.
Dispersion to the neighbouring countries
Several data confirm not just the beavers’ spontaneous dispersal within the country but also the fact that they have migrated from Hungary to neighbouring countries. Individuals have spread into Austria (Styria and Burgenland) along the small brooks of the Rába drainage basin and from the Hanság area (Komposch 2014; Trixner and Parz-Gollner 2017). While dispersing southward along the Danube, beavers reached Croatia (Grubesić et al. 2012) and also Serbia (Vojvodina, Bačka region) in 1999 (Ćirović et al. 2009). Rivers flowing into the Danube in SW Slovakia served as colonisation routes for the beavers, and some individuals migrated along the Hernád river northward to SE Slovakia, where the first signs were recognised in 2016 (Čanády et al. 2016). Beaver specimens were reported in some rivers of Western Romania (Barcău, Crișul Alb, Crișul Nigru, Crișul Repede, Iza, Mara, Someș, Vișeu), which indicates migration along the Tisza water catchment area toward the east from Hungary and Ukraine (Juhász 2018; Mayer 2019). The presence of beaver sites was verified on the border section of several rivers, so the presumed migration is supported by the data presented in this paper.
Legal status of the beaver
In Hungary, the beaver became protected at the national level in 1988 (Government decree No. 7/1988 (X.1.)), before its reappearance. This national protection was discontinued at the beginning of 2023, and the beaver was reclassified into the category of “species with conservation significance” (Environment Ministry Decree 13/2001 (V.9.)). This category comprises species that are not protected by national Hungarian regulations, but are protected at the European Union level by the EU Habitat Directive as species with “community interest”. In this directive, the Eurasian beaver is listed in Annexes II and IV. The monetary value assigned to the species in the Hungarian decree is HUF 50 000.
Limitations of population growth
The rising Hungarian beaver population is also evident in the increasing number of beavers that have been reported as roadkill or detected far away from the water, and through signs of territorial fights (Juhász et al. 2019). An increase in the frequency of fatal territorial fights is common in other parts of Europe, as well (Campbell-Palmer et al. 2015).
Besides the territorial behaviour of the beavers, predation pressure and hunting can also be limitations of the species’ population growth, which are of varying importance in European countries (Yanuta et al. 2022). The main natural predator of the beaver is the wolf (Canis lupus) (Shelton and Peterson 1983; Andersone 1999; Nitsche 2016; Gable et al. 2020). However, in the study period, only a few wolf territories with 40–60 individuals existed in the middle altitude mountain region of Northern Hungary, in the territories of the Aggtelek and Bükk National Park Directorates (Internet_3), while some occasional observations have been reported from other parts of the country. While the distribution of beavers and wolves already overlaps, there is as yet no evidence of beaver consumption by wolves in Hungary (Lanszki et al. 2012). A smaller Canis species, the golden jackal (Canis aureus), is quickly spreading across Hungary and its population size was estimated at 17 456 specimens in 2023 (Csányi et al. 2023). However, the species is usually not considered a potential predator of the beaver. Studies of jackal diet composition have not yet demonstrated beaver consumption (Lanszki and Heltai 2002, 2010; Lanszki et al. 2006; Lanszki pers. comm.).
In Hungary, the beaver do not belong to the game species, and lethal control of the species is possible only with the permission of the regional nature conservation agency. The first permit was issued in 2016 for the reduction of 250 individuals, although only 12 individuals were shot within the frames of this permit (Czabán and Gruber 2018). Since 2016 there has been a slow increase in the utilisation rate of permits. The low numbers of specimens shot can be explained by, among other factors, the difficulty of beaver hunting, the lack of its financial benefits, and the administrative complications of beaver control (Juhász et al. 2019). Before 2022, lethal control could only be carried out for non-economic, public utility reasons like flood protection, but since summer 2022, it is now permitted also to protect economic interests (Decree 20/2022 (VII.29.) of the Ministry of Agriculture).
Ecological effects, conflicts, and management
Due to the dams built by beavers, the hydrology of small watercourses may change significantly. The beaver helps to retain water in the surrounding areas, which has various effects on a wide range of different taxa associated with wetlands (Rosell et al. 2005; Brazier et al. 2021). This activity can increase habitat heterogeneity also in Central Europe, and the novel ponds created by the ecosystem engineer species can sustain high species richness (Lüscher et al. 2007). Landscape alteration due to dam construction and the creation of valuable wetland habitats can be observed in many parts of Hungary, as well. However, to date, no monitoring results about the ecological effects of the building activity in the Carpathian Basin have yet been published.
The presence of beavers also causes a significant transformation in the species composition and structure of the vegetation along the waterbank, through influencing the competitive hierarchy of the woody species by selective foraging (Nolet et al. 1994; Haarberg and Rosell 2006; Vorel et al. 2015). Nowadays invasive woody species (Acer negundo, Amorpha fruticosa, Fraxinus pennsylvanica) are rapidly spreading in degraded European floodplain habitats (e.g. in the Hungarian part of the Danube catchment area). However, the returning beavers generally prefer native softwood species (Salix and Populus spp.), and by selectively removing these woody plants they may indirectly accelerate the process of biological invasion in this region (Juhász et al. 2020, 2022).
As a consequence of the species’ gnawing, impounding and foraging activity, the assessment of its re-emergence is controversial in the country (Juhász et al. 2017, 2019). It has a significant impact on the ecosystem services provided by the landscape, and thus on the lives of local people (Ulicsni et al. 2020). Conflicts are becoming more common across Europe in human-transformed environments (Campbell-Palmer et al. 2015). In the early phase of the species’ return, the conflicts were often managed by translocations of the nuisance beavers into formerly non-colonised areas (Halley and Rosell 2002). Such relocations, as conflict mitigation efforts, began in Hungary in 2014. Due to habitat saturation, relocation is rarely feasible nowadays, and the interventions tend to shift in the direction of lethal control.
The first beaver dam removal permits were issued in 2012 (Czabán and Gruber 2018), and since then, dam removal has become a common but debatable practice in many areas of the country. Beaver pond levellers capable of controlling beaver-made impounding have been constructed only three times so far (Czabán and Juhász unpublished data). The operation of these overflows failed because of technical problems and theft.
By the end of the nineteenth century the present water network has been developed aiming to serve flood protection purposes, but the human-modified, regulated, straitened, and deepened small streams are now vulnerable to climate change, dry periods and water abstractions. The increasing water temperature and the likelihood of water scarcity and droughts can seriously affect the ecological status of small streams (Hering et al. 2015). Due to global climate change, summer droughts in the Carpathian Basin are expected to worsen in the future. Beavers can counteract this effect, by being partners in the maintenance of higher water levels in streams and the creation or reconstruction of freshwater habitats (Law et al. 2019). In the framework of future beaver management, we should therefore strive to apply “good practices” that help preserve their beneficial effects on water retention where this is possible. The first example of such “good practices” in Hungary was a bank protection intervention which had a dual purpose: 1) eliminating the flood protection risk caused by beaver burrows and 2) protecting a valuable beaver-created wetland (Life LOGOS 4 WATERS 2023).
Conclusion
Human-altered landscapes in Hungary are still able to provide various, suitable habitats for beavers, but human-wildlife conflicts can emerge in this new environment. Despite the continuing population growth trend, there is no beaver management strategy in the country. Developing a well-thought-out strategy could foster communication and cooperation among different stakeholder groups, which can greatly facilitate the prevention and mitigation of human-wildlife and human-human conflicts. We believe that future management of the effects of a protected species with a significant impact on natural habitats should be designed in terms of nature conservation, climate protection, and validated flood protection arguments, based on scientific research data. The beavers could be integrated into restoration projects, which could reduce costs and efforts. However, interprofessional consultations and collaborations are essential to assess ecological effects, which can largely depend on the habitat features and on the biotic interactions.
Availability of data and materials
The data that support the findings of this study are available from the corresponding author upon reasonable request, but restrictions apply to the availability of these data. For data sharing, permission will be required from institutes that provided information and/or data for the creation of the distribution map.
References
Andersone Ž (1999) Beaver: A New Prey of Wolves in Latvia? In: Busher PE, Dzięciołowski RM (eds) Beaver Protection, Management, and Utilization in Europe and North America. Springer, Boston, MA, pp 103–108. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4615-4781-5_13
Anonymus (1881) Kimutatás gróf Schönborn Buchheim Ervin munkácsi és szentmiklósi uradalmaiban elejtett vadakról. Vadász-Lap 2:468
Anonymus (1990) Hód Szentpéterfán. Nimród 110:10
Arlett P (2016) Az eurázsiai hód előfordulása Borsod megye egyes területein. BSc Dissertation, Kaposvár University
Bajai Ifjúsági Természetvédelmi Egyesület (2011) Az eurázsiai hód (Castor fiber) Alsó-Duna völgyi állományának monitorozása 2011 február – április. WWF Hungary, Budapest
Bajomi B, Pullin A, Stewart G, Takács-Sánta A (2010) Bias and dispersal in the animal reintroduction literature. Oryx 44(3):358–365. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0030605310000281
Bajomi B (2011) Reintroduction of the Eurasian beaver (Castor fiber) in Hungary. Danube Parks Network of Protected Areas, Directorate of Duna-Dráva National Park, Budapest
Borics G, Ács É, Boda P, Boros E, Erős T, Grigorszky I, Kiss KT, Sz L, Reskóné NM, Somogyi B, Vörös L (2016) Water bodies in Hungary – an overview of their management and present state. Hung J Hydrol 96(3):57–67
Bozsér O (2001) Hódok az Óvilágban. WWF füzetek 19, Budapest
Bozsér O (2003) Szigetközi hódelőfordulások 2003 nyarán. WWF Hungary, Budapest
Brazier RE, Puttock A, Graham HA, Auster RE, Davies KH, Brown CM (2021) Beaver: Nature’s ecosystem engineers. Wires Water 8(1):e1494. https://doi.org/10.1002/wat2.1494
Brehm A (1902) Az állatok világa. Emlősök-második kötet. Magyar kiadás. Budapest
Campbell-Palmer R, Schwab G, Girling S, Lisle S, Gow D (2015) Managing wild Eurasian beavers: A review of European management practices with consideration for Scottish application. Scottish Natural Heritage Commissioned Report No. 812
Čanády A, Krišovský P, Bajomi B, Huber A, Czabán D, Olekšák M (2016) Is new spread of the European beaver in Pannonian basin an evidence of the species recovery? Eur J Ecol 2:44–63. https://doi.org/10.1515/eje-2016-0015
Chernel I (1887) Adataink a bölény, a kőszáli kecske és a hód egykori elterjedéséről hazánkban. Vadász-Lap 35:459–461
Ćirović D, Pavlovic I, Ivetić V, Milenković M, Radović I, Savic B (2009) Reintroduction of the european beaver (Castor fiber l.) into Serbia and return of its parasite: The case of Stichorchis subtriquetrus. Arch of Biol Sci Belgrade 61:141–145. https://doi.org/10.2298/ABS0901141C
Csányi S, Márton M, Sz Bőty, Schally G (2023) Hungarian Game Management Database 2022/2023 hunting year. MATE VTI, Gödöllő (ISSN 1417-4308)
Czabán D (2003) Jelentés a Hanságba visszatelepített hódok helyzetéről 2002/2003-ban. WWF Hungary, Budapest
Czabán D (2004) A Hanságba visszatelepített hódok 2004 tavaszán végzett megfigyelésének eredményei. WWF Hungary, Budapest
Czabán D (2005) A Hanságba visszatelepített hódok 2005 tavaszán végzett megfigyelésének eredményei. WWF Hungary, Budapest
Czabán D (2006) A Hanságba visszatelepített hódok 2006 tavaszán végzett megfigyelésének eredményei. WWF Hungary, Budapest
Czabán D (2009) Jelentés a Hanságban élő hódok monitorozásának eredményéről. WWF Hungary, Budapest
Czabán D (2010) Monitoring jelentés a Hanságban élő hódokról. WWF Hungary, Budapest
Czabán D (2011) Monitoring jelentés a Hanságban élő hódokról. WWF Hungary, Budapest
Czabán D (2012) Jelentés a Hanságban élő hódállomány felméréséről. WWF Hungary, Budapest
Czabán D (2013a) HUFH30005 Hanság kiemelt jelentőségű természetmegőrzési terület fenntartási és fejlesztési tervének elkészítése – hód és vidra állomány felmérés. Fertő-Hanság National Park Directorate, Sarród
Czabán D (2013b) HUFH30004 Szigetköz kiemelt jelentőségű természetmegőrzési terület fenntartási és fejlesztési tervének elkészítése – hód állomány felmérés. Fertő-Hanság National Park Directorate, Sarród
Czabán D (2013c) HUFH20010 Répce-mente kiemelt jelentőségű természetmegőrzési terület fenntartási és fejlesztési tervének elkészítése - hód és vidra állomány felmérés. Fertő-Hanság National Park Directorate, Sarród
Czabán D (2013d) HUFH20011 Rába kiemelt jelentőségű természetmegőrzési terület fenntartási és fejlesztési tervének elkészítése - hód és vidra állomány felmérés. Fertő-Hanság National Park Directorate, Sarród
Czabán D (2016) Hódok a Szigetközben. In: Korda M (ed) Az erdőgazdálkodás hatása az erdők biológiai sokféleségére. Duna-Ipoly National Park Directorate, Budapest, pp 403–418
Czabán D (2017) A hód állományának vizsgálata az FHNP működési területén (2017). Fertő-Hanság National Park Directorate, Sarród
Czabán D (2019) 2019 elején végzett hód befogás a Zagyva jászberényi szakaszán a duzzasztó és a jászjákóhalmai híd között – zárójelentés. Felső-Tisza Water Management Directorate, Szolnok
Czabán D (2020) Hódcsapdázás a Zagyva Jászberény és Jásztelek közötti szakaszán és a Jászsági-főcsatornán 2019. december 02. és 2020. február 29. között – Zárójelentés. Felső-Tisza Water Management Directorate, Szolnok
Czabán D, Juhász E (2020) Az eurázsiai hód országos állománybecslésének eredményei 2020-ban. https://hodterkep.blog/2024/01/24/orszagos-allomanybecsles-eredmenyek-2020/
Czabán D (2021) A hód (Castor fiber) állományának vizsgálata az FHNP működési területén. Fertő-Hanság National Park Directorate, Sarród
Czabán D, Arlett P (2015) Hódállomány felmérés a Tiszán és a Borsodban. Monitorozási jelentés. WWF Hungary, Budapest
Czabán D, Gruber T (2018) Visszatértek a hódok – áldás vagy átok? Természetvédelmi Közlemények 24:67–74
Czabán D, Sztaskó E (2002) Jelentés a Hanságban végzett Eurázsiai hód (Castor fiber) megfigyelésekről. WWF Hungary, Budapest
Dobos P (1992) Kipusztultnak hitt állat a Szigetközben. Az Ásványi Hód Moson Megye 10:5
Dobos P, Koltai G (1999) Terjeszkedő Hódok a Szigetközben Természetbúvár 54:39
Fischer J, Lindenmayer DB (2000) An assessment of the published results of animal relocations. Biol Conserv 96:1–11. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0006-3207(00)00048-3
Gable TD, Johnson-Bice SM, Homkes AT, Windels SK, Bump JK (2020) Outsized effect of predation: Wolves alter wetland creation and recolonization by killing ecosystem engineers. Sci Adv. https://doi.org/10.1126/sciadv.abc5439
Grubesić M, Margaletić J, Bjedov L, Tomljanović K, Vucelja M (2012) “Beaver in Croatia” - 20 Years later. In: Bjedov L, Schwab G, Grubešic M (eds) Book of abstracts. 6th Beaver Symposium Zagreb. Faculty of Forestry, University of Zagreb, pp 9–9
Haarberg O, Rosell F (2006) Selective foraging on woody plant species by the Eurasian beaver (Castor fiber) in Telemark. Norway J Zool 270:201–208. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1469-7998.2006.00142.x
Hägglund Å, Sjöberg G (1999) Effects of beaver dams on the fish fauna of forest streams. For Ecol Manag 115(2):259–266. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0378-1127(98)00404-6
Halley DJ, Rosell F (2002) The beaver ‘s reconquest of Eurasia: Status, population development and management of a conservation success. Mamm Rev 32:153–178. https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1365-2907.2002.00106.x
Halley DJ, Saveljev A, Rosell F (2012) Population and distribution of Eurasian beaver (Castor fiber). Balt for 18:168–175
Halley DJ, Rosell F, Saveljev A (2021) Population and distribution of beavers Castor fiber and Castor canadensis in Eurasia. Mamm Rev 51:1–24. https://doi.org/10.1111/mam.12216
Hering D, Carvalho L, Argillierc C, Beklioglu M, Borja A, Cardoso AC, Duel H, Ferreira T, Globevnik L, Hanganu J, Hellsten S, Jeppesen E, Kodeš V, Solheim AL, Nõges T, Ormerod S, Panagopoulos Y, Schmutz S, Venohr M, Birka S (2015) Managing aquatic ecosystems and water resources under multiple stress — an introduction to the MARS project. Sci Total Environ 503(4):10–21. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2014.06.106
Juhász E, Babai D, Biró M, Molnár Z, Ulicsni V (2017) Az eurázsiai hód (Castor fiber) táplálkozási és fásszárú-használati szokásaival kapcsolatos helyi tudás két évtizeddel a visszatelepítések kezdete után a Kárpát-medencében. Természetvédelmi Közlemények 23:182–200. https://doi.org/10.20332/tvk-jnatconserv.2017.23.182
Juhász E (2018) Az eurázsiai hód (Castor fiber LINNAEUS, 1758) elterjedése és tevékenysége a Dél-Alföldön. Állattani Közlemények 103:15–32. https://doi.org/10.20331/AllKoz.2018.103.1-2.15
Juhász E, Biró M, Ulicsni V, Molnár Z (2019) Természetvédők és kutatók ismeretei az eurázsiai hód kapcsán a Kárpát-medencében I.: Elterjedés, életnyomok, az együttélés lehetőségei, az elhullás okai. Természetvédelmi Közlemények 25:59–79. https://doi.org/10.20332/tvk-jnatconserv.2019.25.59
Juhász E, Katona K, Molnár Z, Hahn I, Biró M (2020) A reintroduced ecosystem engineer species may exacerbate ongoing biological invasion: Selective foraging of the Eurasian beaver in floodplains. Glob Ecol Conserv. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gecco.2020.e01383
Juhász E, Bede-Fazekas Á, Katona K, Molnár Z, Biró M (2022) Foraging decisions with conservation consequences: Interaction between beavers and invasive tree species. Ecol Evol 12(5):e8899. https://doi.org/10.1002/ece3.8899
Kocsis K (ed) (2018) Magyarország Nemzeti Atlasza – Természeti környezet. Budapest, MTA CSFK Földrajztudományi Intézet
Komposch B (2014) Verbreitung und Bestand des Europaischen Bibers (Castor fiber Linnaeus, 1758) in der Steiermark (Österreich). Linz Biol Beitr 46:1277–1320
Lanszki J, Horvarth G (2006) Az eurázsiai hód (Castor fiber) újabb előfordulása Somogy megyében. Natura Somogyiensis 9:333–338
Lanszki J, Heltai M (2002) Feeding habits of golden jackal and red fox in south-western Hungary during winter and spring. Mamm Biol 67:129–136. https://doi.org/10.1078/1616-5047-00020
Lanszki J, Heltai M, Szabó L (2006) Feeding habits and trophic niche overlap between sympatric golden jackal (Canis aureus) and red fox (Vulpes vulpes) in the Pannonian Ecoregion (Hungary). Can J Zool 84:1647–1656. https://doi.org/10.1139/z06-147
Lanszki J, Heltai M (2010) Food preferences of golden jackals and sympatric red foxes in European temperate climate agricultural area (Hungary). Mammalia 74:267–273. https://doi.org/10.1515/mamm.2010.005
Lanszki J, Márkus M, Újváry D, Szabó Á, Szemethy L (2012) Diet of wolves Canis lupus returning to Hungary. Acta Theriol 57:189–193. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13364-011-0063-8
Law A, McLean F, Willby NJ (2016) Habitat engineering by beaver benefits aquatic biodiversity and ecosystem processes in agricultural streams. Freshw Biol 61(4):486–499. https://doi.org/10.1111/fwb.12721
Law A, Levanoni O, Foster G, Ecke F, Willby NJ (2019) Are beavers a solution to the freshwater biodiversity crisis? Divers Distrib 25:1763–1772. https://doi.org/10.1111/ddi.12978
Lelkes A (2005) Hód előfordulás Zala megyében 2005. WWF Hungary, Budapest
Lelkes A (2011) Hód előfordulás Zala megyében 2011. WWF Hungary, Budapest
Life LOGOS 4 WATERS (2023) Széleskörű szakmai összefogás a „Hódok által biztosított vízmegtartás és konfliktuskezelés a perőcsényi hordalékfogónál” című projekt megvalósítása érdekében. https://lifelogos4waters.bm.hu/hirek/szeleskoru-szakmai-osszefogas-a-hodok-altal-biztositott-vizmegtartas-es-konfliktuskezeles-a-perocsenyi-hordalekfogonal-cimu-projekt-megvalositasa-erdekeben/
Lüscher B, Dalbeck L, Ohlhoff D (2007) Beaver ponds as habitat of amphibian communities in a central European highland. Amphib-Reptil 28(4):493–501
Mayer V (2019) Best Practice Manual (BPM) Beaver Management Cluster 2 and 3. Cooperating towards Advanced Management Routines for land use impacts on the water regime in the Danube river basin. INTERREG Project
Müller-Schwarze D (2011) The beaver. Cornell University Press, Its Life and Impact. Second edition
Nitsche KA (2016) The wolf Canis lupus as natural predator of beavers Castor fiber and Castor canadensis. Russ J Theriol 15:62–67
Nolet BA, Hoekstra A, Ottenheim MM (1994) Selective foraging on woody species by the beaver Castor fiber, and its impact on a riparian willow forest. Biol Conserv 70:117–128. https://doi.org/10.1016/0006-3207(94)90279-8
Nolet BA, Rosell F (1998) Comeback of the beaver, Castor fiber: An overview of old and new conservation problems. Biol Conserv 83:165–173. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0006-3207(97)00066-9
Puttock A, Graham HA, Carless D, Brazier RE (2018) Sediment and nutrient storage in a beaver engineered wetland. Earth Surf Process Landf. https://doi.org/10.1002/esp.4398
Riesz L (2015) Magyarország Környezeti Állapota 2014. Herman Ottó Intézet, Budapest
Rosell F, Bozsér O, Collen P, Parker H (2005) Ecological impact of beavers Castor fiber and Castor canadensis and their ability to modify ecosystems. Mamm Rev 35:248–276. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2907.2005.00067.x
Schwab G, Lutschinger G (2001) The return of the beaver (Castor fiber) to the Danube watershed. In: Czech A, Schwab G (eds) he European Beaver in a new millennium. Proceedings of 2nd European Beaver Sym-posium, 27–30 Sept. 2000, Białowieża, Poland. Carpathian Heritage Society, Kraków, pp 47–50
Seddon PJ, Armstrong DP, Maloney RF (2007) Developing the science of reintroduction biology. Conserv Biol 21:303–312. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1523-1739.2006.00627.x
Shelton PC, Peterson RO (1983) Beaver, wolf and moose interactions in Isle Royale National Park, USA. Acta Zool Fenn 174:265–266
Sieber J (1999) The austrian beaver, Castor fiber, reintroduction program. In: Busher PE, Dzieciolowski RM (eds) Beaver protection, management, and utilization in Europe and North America. Kluwer Academic/Plenum, New York, pp 37–42
Tallósi B (2007) Hód-megfigyelések a Közép-Tisza-Jászság Természetvédelmi Tájegység területén 2006. február 10. és 2007. április 27. között. WWF Hungary, Budapest
Tallósi B (2009) Hód-megfigyelések a Közép-Tisza-Jászság Természetvédelmi Tájegység területén 2008/2009 telén. WWF Hungary, Budapest
Tallósi B (2013) A betelepített hódpopulációra vonatokozó megfigyelési adatok és a faj természetvédelmi helyzete a Hortobágyi Nemzeti Park Igazgatóság Közép-Tisza-Jászság Természetvédelmi Tájegységének területén 2012 decembere és 2013 márciusa között. WWF Hungary, Budapest
Trixner C, Parz-Gollner R (2017) Endbericht. Biberverbreitung Burgenland (Okt. 2017), Fallstatistik (Nov. 2016-Okt.2017). Bibermanagement Burgenland, A4/NN-A-10032-9-2016
Ulicsni V, Babai D, Juhász E, Molnár Z, Biró M (2020) Local knowledge about a newly reintroduced, rapidly spreading species (Eurasian beaver) and perception of its impact on ecosystem services. PLoS ONE 15:e0233506. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0233506
Varjú J (2006) Szigetközi hódelőfordulások 2006 nyarán. WWF Hungary, Budapest
Varjú J (2008) Az eurázsiai hód monitorozása a Szigetközben. WWF Hungary, Budapest
Valachovič D (2014) Manual of beaver management within Danube River basin. Danube Parks
Vorel A, Válková L, Hamsiková L, Malon J, Korbelová J (2015) Beaver foraging behaviour: Seasonal foraging specialization by a choosy generalist herbivore. Behav Ecol Sociobiol 69:1221–1235. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00265-015-1936-7
Vorel A, Dostál T, Uhlíková J, Korbelová J, Koudelka P (2016) Handbook for Coexisting with beavers. Czech University of Life Sciences, Prague
Wachsmann F (1905) Az Utolsó Hód Magyarországon Állattani Közlemények 4:235–236
Wróbel M (2020) Population of Eurasian beaver (Castor fiber) in Europe. Glob Ecol Conserv 23:e01046. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gecco.2020.e01046
Yanuta G, Wróbel M, Klich D, Haidt A, Drobik-Czwarno W, Balcerak M, Mitrenkov A (2022) How should we manage a strong Eurasian Beaver population? A comparison of population trends in Poland and Belarus. J Environ Manage 318:115608. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2022.115608
Web references
Internet_1: https://www.naturalearthdata.com/downloads/. Accessed 28 June 2024
Internet_2: https://www.novenyzetiterkep.hu/node/410. Accessed 28 June 2024
Internet_3: https://termeszetvedelem.hu/_user/browser/File/Natura2000/HD_17_adatlap_es_terkep_fajok_2019/Canis_lupus_2019.pdf. Accessed 28 June 2024
Acknowledgements
We would like to express our thanks for professional guidance, scientific information and/or data sharing to the Hungarian National Park Directorates, namely to the Aggteleki, Balaton-felvidéki, Bükki, Duna-Dráva, Duna-Ipoly, Fertő-Hanság, Hortobágyi, Kiskunsági, Körös-Maros and Őrségi National Park Directorates, and to the Hungarian Water Management Authority Directorates, namely to the Dél-Dunántúli, Észak-Magyarországi, Közép-Dunántúli, Közép-Tisza-vidéki, Nyugat-Dunántúli, Tiszántúli Water Management Authorities. Here, we would like to mention those people who have conducted beaver population surveys in the last ten years in Hungary, their help and support is highly appreciated: Péter Arlett, Győző Buzetzky, András Lelkes, Ákos Monoki, Attila Mórocz, Tibor Orcsik, Márk Právics, Béla Tallósi, and Ákos Wilhelm. Special thanks to Marianna Biró for giving advice during the writing of this paper. We wish to express our gratitude also to Steve Kane for English revision. Furthermore, we are grateful to everybody who contributed to our work due to field assistance, giving advice or sending beaver occurrence data.
Funding
Open access funding provided by HUN-REN Centre for Ecological Research. Erika Juhász was supported by the ÚNKP-19-3 New National Excellence Program of the Ministry for Innovation and Technology. The research and Erika Juhász received further support through the National Laboratory for Health Security (RRF-2.3.1-21-2022-00006), HUN-REN Centre for Ecological Research, Budapest, Hungary.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Contributions
D.C. and E.J. contributed equally to this work. D.C. and E.J. worked together on all chapters of the manuscript. E.J. prepared the figures.
Corresponding author
Ethics declarations
Ethical approval
Not applicable. This research did not involve animals or human participants. No approval of research ethics committees was required to accomplish the goals of this study.
Conflict of interest
The authors declare no competing interests.
Additional information
Publisher's Note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Rights and permissions
Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/.
About this article
Cite this article
Czabán, D., Juhász, E. Rapid expansion of Eurasian beavers in Hungary: thirty-year history of the species’ return. Eur J Wildl Res 70, 71 (2024). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10344-024-01825-z
Received:
Revised:
Accepted:
Published:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10344-024-01825-z