A Distinction of Some Cyprinid Species from Tigris River Basin According to Scales by Geometric Morphometric Methods

Yıl 2020, Cilt: 9 Sayı: 2, 148 - 153, 23.12.2020

Serbest Bilici

https://doi.org/10.31196/huvfd.786577

Cited By: 1

Öz

In this study, a total of 86 (31♀♀, 55♂♂) cyprinid specimens belonging to the species, Luciobarbus mystaceus, Arabibarbus grypus, Luciobarbus esocinus and Carasobarbus luteus, were collected from the Tigris River near Cizre town. The size (as centroid size) and shape of scale separately were analyzed by 2D geometric morphometric methods. The size and shape of species were different but not for sex, according to ANOVA. Mahalonobis length of CVA results shows that only the difference between Luciobarbus esocinus and Carasobarbus luteus was not significant. DFA results based on T2 all species scale shape differences were significant except Luciobarbus esocinus and Carasobarbus luteus.

Anahtar Kelimeler

Cyprinidae, Geometric, Landmark, Morphometric, Scale, Shape, Turkey

Dicle Nehir Sistemindeki Bazı Cyprinid Türlerinin Pullarından Geometrik Morfometrik Yöntemle Ayırt Edilmesi

Öz

Bu çalışmada, Cizre ilçesi yakınlarındaki Dicle Nehri'nden Luciobarbus mystaceus, Arabibarbus grypus, Luciobarbus esocinus ve Carasobarbus luteus türlerine ait toplam 86 (31♀♀, 55♂♂) cyprinid örneği toplanmış ve büyüklüğü (centroid olarak) boyut ve pul şekli ayrı ayrı 2D geometrik morfometrik yöntemlerle analiz edilmiştir. Türlerin boyutu ve şekli farklıydı, ancak ANOVA'ya göre cinsiyet için farklı değildi. CVA sonuçlarının Mahalonobis mesafesine göre, sadece Luciobarbus esocinus ve Carasobarbus luteus arasındaki farkın anlamlı olmadığını göstermektedir. Luciobarbus esocinus ve Carasobarbus luteus dışında T2'ye dayalı DFA sonuçları tüm türlerin pul şekil farklılıkları önemliydi.

Anahtar Kelimeler

Balık pulu, Cyprinidae, Morfometrik, Şekil, Türkiye, Geometrik, Belirteç

Kaynakça

• References Avigliano E, Domanico, A Sánchez, S Volpedo AV, 2017: Otolith elemental fingerprint and scale and otolith morphometry in Prochilodus lineatus provide identification of natal nurseries. Fisheries Research, 186, 1-10.
• Beckman WC, 1962: The Freshwater Fishes of Syria and their General Biology and Management, First Edition. FAO Fisheries Biology Technical, Roma, Italy.
• Bilici S, Ünlü E, Cicek T, Satici Ö, 2016: The reproductive biology of Carasobarbus luteus and Capoeta trutta in the Tigris River, Turkey. Cybium, 40(2), 147-153.
• Bookstein FL, 1999: Linear methods for nonlinear maps: Procrustes fits, thin-plate splines, and the biometric analysis of shape variability. In: Brain Warping (AW. Toga, Ed.), pp. 157–181. Academic Press, San Diego.
• Cicek T, Kaya A, Bilici S, Ünlü E, 2016: Size and shape analysis of two close Cyprinidae species (Garra variabilis-Garra rufa) by geometric morphometric methods. Survey in Fisheries Sciences, 2(2), 35-44.
• Coad BW, 1996: Zoogeography of the fishes of the Tigris-Euphrates basin. Zool. Middle East, 13, 71–83.
• Çiçek E, Sungur S, Fricke R, 2020: Freshwater lampreys and fishes of Turkey; a revised and updated annotated checklist 2020. Zootaxa, 4809(2), 241-270.
• De Lamater ED, Courtanay WR, 1973: Studies on scale structure of flatfishes. I. The genus Trinectes, with notes on related forms. Proceedings of the 27th Annual conference of the Southeast Association. Game and fish communication, pp. 592-608.
• Economidis PS, 1989: Distribution pattern of the genus Barbus (Pisces, Cyprinidae) in the freshwaters of Greece. Extrait des “Travaux du Museum d’Historie naturelle Grigore Antipa, 30, 223-229.
• Esmaeili HR, Gholami Z, 2011: Scanning Electron Microscopy of the scale morphology in Cyprinid fish, Rutilus frisii kutum Kamenskii, 1901 (Actinopterygii: Cyprinidae). Iranian Journal of Fisheries Sciences, 10(1), 155-166.
• Esmaeili HR, Hojat AT, Teymouri A, 2007: Scale structure of a cyprinid fish, Capoeta damascina (Valenciennes in Cuvier and Valenciennes, 1842) using scanning electron microscope (SEM). Iranian Journal of Science & Technology, (31), 255-262.
• Hammer Ø, Harper DAT, Ryan PD, 2001: PAST-palaeontological statistics, ver. 1.89. Palaeontol. electron, 4(1), 1-9. Ibañez AL, Cowx, IG, O'Higgins P, 2007: Geometric morphometric analysis of fish scales for identifying genera, species, and local populations within the Mugilidae. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences, 64(8), 1091-1100.
• Ibáñez AL, Cowx IG, O'Higgins P, 2009: Variation in elasmoid fish scale patterns is informative with regard to taxon and swimming mode. Zoological Journal of the Linnean Society, 155(4), 834-844.
• Ibáñez AL, Pacheco-Almanzar E, Cowx IG 2012: Does compensatory growth modify fish scale shape?. Environmental Biology of Fishes, 94(2), 477-482.
• Ibáñez AL, Jawad LA, Sadighzadeh Z, 2016: Morphometric variation of fish scales among some species of the family Lutjanidae from Iranian waters. Cah. Biol. Mar, 57, 289-295.
• Jawad L, Al‐Jufaili SM, 2007: Scale morphology of greater lizardfish Saurida tumbil (Bloch, 1795)(Pisces: Synodontidae). Journal of Fish Biology, 70(4), 1185-1212.
• Jawad LA, 2005. Comparative morphology of scales of four teleost fishes from Sudan and Yemen. Journal of Natural History, 39(28), 2643-2660.
• Karaman M, 1971: Süβwasserfische der Türkei. 8.Teil. Revision der Barben Europas, Vorderasiens und Nordafrikas. Mitteilungen aus dem Hamburgischen Zoologischen Museum und Institut, 67, 175–254.
• Klingenberg CP, 2011. MorphoJ: an integrated software package for geometric morphometrics. Molecular ecology resources, 11(2), 353-357.
• Kuru M, Yerli S, Mangıt F, Ünlü E, Alp A, 2014: Fish biodiversity in inland waters of Turkey. Journal of Academic Documents for Fisheries and Aquaculture, 1(3), 93-120.
• Kuru M, 1979: The fresh water fish of South-Eastern Turkey-2 (Euphrates-Tigris Sisteme). Hac. Bull. Nat. Sci. Eng, 7–8, 105–114.
• Miranda R, Escala M, 2000: Morphological and biometric comparison of the scales of the barbels (Barbus Cuvier) of Spain. Journal of Morphology, 245(3), 196-205.
• Nelson JS, 2006: Fishes of the world. Fourth Ed. John Wiley and Sons. Inc., Hoboken, New Jersey. 601 p.
• Oosten JV, 1957: The skin and scales. The Physiology of Fishes, Vol. 1, 207-244.
• Poulet N, Reyjol Y, Collier, H, Lek S, 2005: Does fish scale morphology allow the identification of populations at a local scale? A case study for rostrum dace Leuciscus leuciscus burdigalensis in River Viaur (SW France). Aquatic Sciences, 67(1), 122-127.
• Rohlf FJ, 2016: tps Dig, version 2.26. See http://life. bio. sunysb. edu/morph/soft-dataacq. html.
• Staszny A, Ferincz A, Weiperth A, Havas E, Urbanyi B, Paulovits G, 2012: Scalemorphometry study to discriminate gibel carp (Carassius gibelio) populations in the balaton-catchment (Hungary). Acta Zoolocgica Academiae Scientiarum Hungaricae, 58, 19–27.
• Șerban C, Grigoraş G, 2018: Structural and morphometric study of scales in petzea rudd (Scardinuz racovitzai MÜLLER 1958). Applied Ecology and Environmental Research, 16(5), 6063-6076.
• Tsigenopoulos CS, Berrebi P, 2000: Molecular Phylogeny of North Mediterranean Freshwater Barbs (Genus Barbus: Cyprinidae) Inferred from Cytochrome b Sequences: Biogeographic and Systematic Implications. Molecular Phylogenetics and Evolution, 14, 165–179.
• Zelditsch ML, Swiderski DL, Sheets HD, Fink WL, 2004: Geometric moprhometrics for biologists: A primer. San-Diego etc.: Elsevier Academic Press,. 443 p