Estimating Fish Communities Structure and Diversity from Predeltaic Danube Area
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Sandu (Calin) P. G. et. al./Scientific Papers: Animal Science and Biotechnologies, 2013, 46 (2) Estimating Fish Communities Structure and Diversity from Predeltaic Danube Area Petronela Georgiana (Călin) Sandu*, Lucian Oprea "Dunarea de Jos" University of Galati, Romania Department of Aquaculture, Environmental Science and Cadastre Abstract The paper is presenting some aspects regarding the structure of fish communities from 22 Km of predeltaic sector of Danube River, between the mouth of Siret River (km 155) and Prut River (Mm 72.5). The aim of the study is to assess the ecological status of the area, using some analytical and synthetic ecological indices, but also diversity and equitability indices. From April to December 2012, in four fishing areas (km 150-151, Mm 77-78, Mm 76-77, Mm 74-74.5), 7121 fish of 31 species, from 7 famillies and 6 orders, were collected. The best represented family is Cyprinidae with 17 species. The numerical abundance ranged between 1fish/species (zingel, Danube streber and Black Sea trout-rare species) and 2035 fish/specie (pontic shad - abundant specie). The pontic shad (43.98%), common bream (12.09%) and Prussian carp (10.66%) are eudominant species, having the biggest potential in fish productivity. Keywords: abundance, Danube, diversity, ecological significance fish communities the fish communities at the same time as the continuous degradation of the habitats led to the 1. Introduction decline and even to the extinction of some fish species [4]. Many human uses of Danube River (i.e. Therefore, in order to take some efficient transportation, wastes, pollution) are potentially in conservation measures, a good knowledge of the conflict with the aquatic living resources. In species ecobiology and of their interaction with addition, human activities not only have an impact their living environment is necessary [5]. In this on fish communities, but in the same way also work there are presented some aspects regarding rebound in human communities associated with the structure and the ecological assessment of the the exploitation of these resources [1, 2].The fish communities from predeltaic Danube. The structure and the diversity of fish communities is aim of the researches is to highlight the structural an important feature in the system dynamics changes from the level of the ichthyofauna, by because changes in diversity reflect changes in the using some analytical and synthetic ecological ecosystem processes, such as productivity, energy indices. pathways and material flow, disturbance regimes, abiotic stress and biological interactions [3]. A good management of the interactive 2. Materials and methods components of the fishery should always lead to a durable exploitation, in terms of biodiversity Fishing area conservation and protection. In the last years, The study area is represented by a region in the however, unfortunately, the over-exploitation of predeltaic Danube, located between the Siret River Mouth (km 155) and the Prut River Mouth (Mm * Corresponding author: Georgiana (Călin) Sandu, 72.5). This region has approximately 22 km, Email: [email protected] representing the length of the Danube sector in Galati County. Monthly, systematic measurements 227 Sandu (Calin) P. G. et. al./Scientific Papers: Animal Science and Biotechnologies, 2013, 46 (2) have been made in 4 fishing areas: Galati area (km methods, on areas, with filtering gear: gill net and 150-151), Condrea area (Mm 77-78), Muresanu trammel net type. The constructive characteristics area (Mm 76-77) and Plopi area (Mm 74-74.5) of these varied, depending on the targeted species (Figure 1). to be caught: gill nets (Lp 100-150 m; Hp 2.5-3.5; a 30-60 mm), trammel nets (Lp 150-200 m; Hp Fishing effort, fishing gears and methods 2.5-4.0; a 40-80 mm). The used method for The structure of a fishing unit (FU) is the obtaining the capture data is the simple following: the fishing boat, the gear and 2 randomized samples. The caught specimens have fishermen. On the average, in an area more FU been identified and divided on species; biometric operate, making 2-3 operations/fishing day [6]. and gravimetric measurements have been made. The fishing has been made through active The identification of the fish species was made by analyzing the specialized literature [7-10]. Figure 1. Map of fishing area (satellite image) Fishermen teams, from ”Dunărea de Jos” Xij Xik B University of Galati, Department of Aquaculture, Xij Xij Environmental Science and Cadastre and from the Institute of Research and Development for where: Xij, Xik – the number of individuals from Aquatic Ecology, Fishery and Aquaculture Galaţi, a species in each sample; have been making scientific fishing, according to Shannon-Wiener (H’) index: the conditions of the authorization issued by National Agency for Fishing and Aquaculture. S H , piln pi i1 The calculation of the ecological indices and statistical approaches pi – the abundance ratio of breed i; ln – common The structural changes at the level of logarithm. ichtiocenoses are characterized by using some Simpson (D) index is among the first diversity analytical ecological indices (abundance, indices (Simpson 1949) [14]. dominance, constancy) and synthetic ones (the index of ecological significance), but also S 2 diversity and equitability indices [3]. D 1 pi The statistical methods of the data have been i1 made with the computer (MSOffice Excell) and with the software BioDiversity Pro. The Simpson (1-D) diversity index is used for the Formulas correct estimation of a finite population: The Bray-Curtis (B) dissimilarity index, takes n (n 1) values between 0-1 [12, 13]. 1 D 1 i i N(N 1) 228 Sandu (Calin) P. G. et. al./Scientific Papers: Animal Science and Biotechnologies, 2013, 46 (2) ni–the number of individuals from breed i; 3. Results and discussion Ni–the total number of individuals from the analyzed sample. Between April-December 2012, there were caught The equitability refers to the example of 7121 fish, with a total biomass of 4910.34 kg, of individuals’ distribution between species [15]. The 31 species, from 7 families, respectively 6 orders. Shannon equitability index has been calculated The autochthon and allochthonous ichthyofauna in (relative diversity HR) but also the Simpson E1-D the predeltaic Danube is divided in two groups, equitability index. depending on salinity tolerance: euryhaline and stenohaline species (Table 1). The best H H 1 D H S E represented family is Cyprinidae, of the R H log S 1 D Smxa (1 D) max Cypriniformes order, with 17 species (Figure 2). Table 1. The qualitative structure of ichthyofauna and their salinity tolerance No. Latin name of species Common name Eurihaline Stenohaline 1 Aspius aspius (Linnaeus, 1758) Asp x 2 Blicca bjöerkna (Linnaeus, 1758) White bream x 3 Carassius gibelio (Bloch, 1782) Prussian carp x 4 Abramis sapa (Pallas, 1814) White-eye bream x 5 Ctenopharyngodon idella (Valenciennes,1844) Grass carp x 6 Cyprinus carpio (Linnaeus,1758) Carp x 7 Vimba vimba (Linnaeus,1758) Vimba x 8 Barbus barbus (Linnaeus,1758) Common barbel x 9 Hypophthalmichthys nobilis (Richardson,1845) Bighead carp x 10 Abramis brama (Linnaeus,1758) Common bream x 11 Pelecus cultratus (Linnaeus,1758) Ziege x 12 Hypophthalmichthys molitrix (Valenciennes,1844) Silver carp x 13 Chondrostoma nassus (Linnaeus,1758) Common nase x 14 Leuciscus idus (Linnaeus,1758) Ide x 15 Scardinius erythrophthalmus (Linnaeus,1758) Rudd x 16 Rutilus rutilus (Linnaeus,1758) Roach x 17 Alburnus alburnus (Linnaeus,1758) Bleak x 18 Acipenser ruthenus (Linnaeus,1758) Sterlet x 19 Huso huso (Linnaeus,1758) Beluga sturgeon x 20 Acipenser stellatus (Pallas,1771) Stellate sturgeon x 21 Acipenser gueldenstaedti (Brandt, 1833) Danube sturgeon x 22 Alosa immaculata (Bennett, 1835) Pontic shad x 23 Alosa tanaica (Grimm, 1901) Azov shad x 24 Zinger streber (Linnaeus, 1758) Danube streber x 25 Zingel zingel (Linnaeus, 1758) Zingel x 26 Sander lucioperca (Linnaeus, 1758) Pike-perch x 27 Gymnocephalus schraetzer (Linnaeus, 1758) Schraetzer x 28 Perca fluviatilis (Linnaeus, 1758) Perch x 29 Silurus glanis (Linnaeus, 1758) Wels catfish x 30 Esox lucius (Linnaeus,1758) Northern pike x 31 Salmo labrax (Pallas, 1814) Black Sea trout x 229 Sandu (Calin) P. G. et. al./Scientific Papers: Animal Science and Biotechnologies, 2013, 46 (2) Figure 2. The numerical structure of fish species Figure 3. The abundance of fish Figure 4. The abundance of fish biomass In table 2 there are presented the main analytic breeds are divided in the following categories: and synthetic ecological indices. constant, present in 50.1-75% of the months (asp, The numerical abundance of the species and the prussian carp, common carp, vimba, common biomass is given in Figures 3 and 4. It ranged barbel, bighead carp, common bream, silver carp, between 1 fish/species (zingel, Danube streber and pike-perch, wels catfish, white-eye bream, ide, Black Sea trout–species) and 2035 fish/specie sterlet, white bream, stellate sturgeon). The (pontic shad–abundant specie). The total values of accessory species (25.1-50%) are ziege, beluga, the biomass ranged between 0.01-1018.51 Northern pike, common nase, rudd and pontic kg/specie. shad. There are ten accidental species (1-25%), Concerning the dominance (D), the species are less common during the year: grass carp, Azov grouped on 5 classes, depending on the shad, roach, Danube sturgeon, perch, schraetzer, percentage. The pontic shad, common bream and bleak, zingel, Danube streber and Black Sea trout. Prussian carp are eudominant species (over 10% The values of the ecological significance index from the fish production), which influence (W) shows us that pontic shad (W5) is a decisively the fishing productivity. The common eudominant species, common bream (W4), and carp, common barbel, ziege, white-eye bream, asp, Prussian carp (W4) are dominant species; these vimba, wels catfish and pike-perch are two classes are characteristic species (over 5.1%).