Sakarya Nehri’nin Kirmir Çayı’ndaki Balık Populasyonlarının Yoğunluğu ve Biyoması

Abstract

Bu çalışmada, İç Anadolu Bölgesi’ndeki Sakarya Nehri’nin Kirmir Çayı’nda balık türlerinin yoğunluk ve biyomas değerlerini tahmin etmek için üç avlı ayrılmaya dayalı metot kullanılmıştır. 1.5256 ha’lık alanda örnekleme yapılmış ve Şubat 2007-Kasım 2007 tarihleri arasında 4167 adet balık elektroşok metoduyla avlanmıştır. Elde edilen örneklemelerde 2 familyaya Cyprinidae ve Cobitidae ait 9 balık türü tatlısu kefali Leuciscus cephalus Linnaeus, 1758 , bıyıklı balık Barbus plebejus escherichi Heckel, 1843 , siraz balığı Capoeta tinca Heckel, 1843 , inci balığı Alburnoides bipunctatus Bloch, 1782 , saçaklı siraz Capoeta capoeta sieboldi Steindachner, 1864 , karaburun Chondrostoma regium Heckel, 1843 , anadolu inci balığı Alburnus orontis Sauvage, 1882 , taş ısıran balığı Cobitis taenia Linnaeus, 1758 ve çöpcü balığı Nemachelius angorae Steindachner, 1897 avlanmıştır. A. orontis toplam populasyon içerisinde 1199 birey ve % 28.77 ile en yoğun türdür ve bu türü sırasıyla C. tinca 1173 birey ve % 28.15 , B. p. escherichi 584 birey ve % 14.01 , L. cephalus 454 birey ve % 10.90 , A. bipunctatus 322 birey ve % 7.73 , C. regium 245 birey ve % 5.88 , N. angorae 107 birey ve % 2.57 C. c. sieboldi 65 birey ve % 1.56 and C. taenia 18 birey ve % 0.43 takip etmiştir. Yoğunluk ve biyomas değerleri sırasıyla Şubat 2007’de; 11456 adet ha-1 ve 346.78 kg ha-1, Mayıs 2007’de; 8982 adet ha-1 ve 279.82 kg ha-1, Ağustos 2007’de; 6320 adet ha-1 ve 251.52 kg ha-1 ve Kasım 2007’de; 2887 adet ha-1 ve 168.87 kg ha-1 olarak tahmin edilmiştir. En düşük yoğunluk ve biyomas değerleri Kasım 2007’de gözlenmiştir.

Keywords

• Yoğunluk
• Biyomas
• Elektrikle avcılık
• Kirmir çayı
• Ankara
• Türkiye

Density and Biomass of Fish Populations in Kirmir Stream of Sakarya River, Turkey

Abstract

In this study, Zippin’s triple-catch removal method was used to estimate density and biomass of fish species in Kirmir Stream of Sakarya River, Central Anatolia Turkey. A total area of 1.5256 ha was sampled and 4167 fishes were caught using electrofishing between February 2007 and November 2007. A total of 9 fish species representing 2 families Cyprinidae and Cobitidae were recorded. Fish species identified are as follows: Chub Leuciscus cephalus Linnaeus, 1758 , barbel Barbus plebelejus escherichi Heckel, 1843 , Capoeta tinca Heckel, 1843, spirlin Alburnoides bipunctatus Bloch, 1782 , Capoeta capoeta sieboldi Steindachner, 1864, tirgis-nase Chondrostoma regium Heckel, 1843 , bleak Alburnus orontis Sauvage, 1882 , spined-loach Cobitis taenia Linnaeus, 1758 and angora-loach Noemacheilus angorae Steindachner, 1897 . A. orontis was the most dominant species, constituting 1199 fish and 28.77% of the total fishes, followed by C. tinca 1173 fish and 28.15% , B. p. escherichi 584 fish and 14.01% , L. cephalus 454 fish and 10.90% , A. bipunctatus 322 fish and 7.73% , C. regium 245 fish and 5.88 % , N. angorae 107 fish and 2.57% C. c. sieboldi 65 fish and 1.56% and C. taenia 18 fish and 0.43% . The density and biomass values were estimated as 11456 fish ha-1 and 346.78 kg ha-1 in February 2007, 8982 fish ha-1 and279.82 kg ha-1 in May 2007, 6320 fish ha-1 and 251.52 kg ha-1 in August 2007 and 2887 fish ha-1 and 168.87 kg ha-1 in November 2007, respectively. The lowest density and biomass values were observed in November 2007

Keywords

• Density
• Biomass
• Electrofishing
• Kirmir stream
• Ankara
• Turkey

References

1. Bravo R, Soriguer M C, Villar N & Hernando J A (1999). A simple method to estimate the significance level of the catch probability in the catch removal method in river fish populations. Fisheries Research 44: 179-182
2. Bohlin T S, Hamrin T G, Heggberget G R & Saltveit S J (1989). Electrofishing theory and practice with special emphasis on salmonids. Hydrobiologia 173: 9-43
3. Chen J, Thompson M E & Wu C (2004). Estimation of fish abundance indices based on scientific research trawl surveys. Biometrics 60: 116-123
4. Dikov T & Zivkov M (2004). Abundance and biomass of fishes in the Veleka River, Bulgaria. Folia Zoologica 53(1): 81-86
5. Hankin D G (1984). Multistage sampling designs in fisheries research: Applications in small Streams. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 41(11): 1575-1591
6. Kelso J R M (1989). Validity of the removal method for fish population estimation in a small lake. North American Journal of Fisheries Management 9: 471- 476
7. Kolev V (2010). Density and biomass of the wild trout in some Bulgarian rivers. Forestry Ideas 16 2(40): 221- 229
8. Korkmaz A Ş (2005). Kadıncık Deresi’ndeki (Çamlıyayla- Mersin) balık yoğunluğu ve biyoması. Tarım Bilimleri Dergisi-Jornal of Agricultural Sciences 11(1): 91-97

9. Korkmaz A Ş & Atay D (1997). Şuğul Deresi’ndeki balık populasyonlarının dinamiğinin incelenmesi: Büyüklük, yoğunluk, biyomas ve üretim. IX. Su Ürünleri Sempozyumu. Bildiriler (I): 17-19 Eylül, Eğirdir/Isparta, s. 163-181
10. Korkmaz A Ş, Ölmez M & Atay D (1998). Observations on some quantitative parameters of fish populations of the Hatila Brook, the Çoruh River, Eastern Turkey. In: Proceedings of the 1th International Symposium on Fisheries and Ecology, 2-4 September, Trabzon, Turkey, pp. 27-33
11. Kucuk S & Alpbaz A (2008). The impact of organic pollution on the Kirmir Creek and Sakarya River in Turkey. Water Resources 5: 617-624
12. Lacroix G L (1989). Production of juvenile Atlantic salmon (Salmo salar) in two acidic rivers of Nova Scotia. Canadian Journal of Fisheries Aquatic Science 46: 2003-2018
13. Moran P A P (1951). A mathematical theory of animal trapping. Biometrika 38: 307-311
14. Namin J I & Spurny P (2004). Fish community structure of the middle course of the Becva River. Czech Journal of Animal Science 49(1): 43-50
15. Neves R J & Pardue G B (1983). Abundance and production of fishes in a small Appalachian Stream. Transaction of the American Fisheries Society 112: 21-26
16. Ölmez M (1992). Yukarı Sakarya Havzası Sakaryabaşı Bölgesi balıklarının populasyon dinamiği üzerinde bir araştırma. Doktora tezi, Ankara Üniversitesi Fen Bilimleri Enstitüsü (Basılmamış), Ankara.
17. Seber G A F (1973). The estimation of animal abundance and related parameters. Gaffin London, 506 pp
18. Seber G A F & Whale J F (1970). The removal method for two and three samples. Biometrics 28: 393-400
19. Penaz M, Pivnicka K, Barus V & Prokes M (2003). Temporal changes in the abundance of barbel, Barbus barbus in the Jihlava River, Czech Republic. Folia Zoologica 52: 441-448
20. Pires A M, Cowx I G & Coelho M M (1999). Seasonal changes in fish community structure of intermittent streams in the middle reaches of the Guadiana basin, Portugal. Journal of Fish Biology 54: 235-249
21. Platts W S & McHenry M L (1988). Density and biomass of trout and char in western Streams. General Technical Report INT-241. U.S. Forest Service, Ogden, UT
22. Ricker W E (1975). Computation and interpratiom of biological statistics of fish population. Bulletin of the Fisheries Research Board of Canada 191-382
23. Vlach P, Dusek J, Svatora M & Moravec P (2005). Fish assemblage structure, habitat and microhabitat preference of five fish species in a small Stream. Folia Zoologica 54(4): 421-431
24. Zippin C (1956). An evaluation of the removal method of estimating animal populations. Biometrics 12: 163- 189
25. Zippin C (1958). The removal method of population estimation. The Journal of Wildlife Management 22(1): 82-90
26. Zubik R J & Fraley J J (1988). Comparison of snorkel and mark-recapture estimates for trout populations in large Streams. North American Journal of Fisheries Management 8: 58-62
27. White G C, Anderson D R, Burnham K P & Otis D L (1982). Capture-recapture and removal methods for sampling closed populations. Los Alamos National Lab., Report LA-8787-NERP, Los Alamos, New Mexico
28. Williams W P (1965). The population density of four species of freshwater fish, roach (Rutilus rutilus (L.)), bleak (Alburnus alburnus (L.)), dace (Leuciscus leuciscus (L.)) and perch (Perca fluviatilis L.) in the river Thames at reading. Journal of Animal Ecology 34: 173-185