Altı Cypriniform Balık Türünde Lagenar ve Utrikular Otolitlerin Morfolojik Karakterizasyonu

Yıl 2024, , 67 - 73, 31.03.2024

Ceren Çetin , Savaş Yılmaz

https://doi.org/10.35229/jaes.1416333

Öz

Bu çalışmada, Cypriniformes takımının Cyprinidae ve Leuciscidae familyalarına ait simpatrik altı balık türünde lagenar (asteriskus) ve utrikular (lapillus) otolitlerin morfolojik karakterleri incelendi ve iki otolit tipinin bu türleri tanımlama potansiyeli değerlendirildi. Kasım 2022'de, Tersakan Çayı (Samsun, Türkiye)'ndan elektroşok cihazı kullanılarak Barbus tauricus, Capoeta tinca, Abramis brama, Alburnoides kurui, Scardinius erythrophthalmus ve Squalius cephalus olmak üzere 6 balık türünü ait toplam 120 örnek yakalandı. Her bir örneğin total boyu ölçüldü, lagenar ve utrikular otolitleri çıkarıldı. Asteriskusun distal ve proksimal tarafları ile lapillusun dorsal ve ventral yüzeyleri taramalı elektron mikroskobu ile fotoğraflandı. Morfolojik analizlerde sadece sağ otolitler kullanıldı. Çalışılan türlerinin tamamında, asteriskuslar lapilluslardan daha büyüktü. Utrikular otolitlerin lagenar otolitlere göre daha fazla fenotipik karaktere sahip olduğu gözlendi. Bununla birlikte, daha kesin tür teşhisi için her iki otolit tipinin tüm morfolojik karakterlerinin birleştirilmesi önerildi. Bu çalışma, Türkiye'nin endemik iki balığı olan Alburnoides kurui ve Capoeta tinca'nın otolit morfolojisi üzerine ilk referansdır.

Anahtar Kelimeler

Asteriskus, Cyprinidae, lapillus, Leuciscidae, otolit morfolojisi

Morphological Characterization of Lagenar and Utricular Otoliths in Six Species of Cypriniform Fishes

Öz

In this study, the morphological characters of lagenar (asteriscus) and utricular (lapillus) otoliths in six sympatric fish species belonging to the families Cyprinidae and Leuciscidae of the order Cypriniformes were examined, and the potential of the two otolith types to identify these species was evaluated. A total of 120 specimens of six fish species, namely Barbus tauricus, Capoeta tinca, Abramis brama, Alburnoides kurui, Scardinius erythrophthalmus and Squalius cephalus, were caught from Tersakan Stream (Samsun, Türkiye) in November 2022 using an electroshock device. The total length of each sample was measured, and lagenar and utricular otoliths were removed. The distal and proximal sides of the asteriscus and the dorsal and ventral surfaces of the lapillus were photographed with a scanning electron microscope. Only right otoliths were used in morphological analyses. In all studied species, asterisci were larger than lapilli. It was observed that utricular otoliths had more phenotypic characteristics than lagenar ones. However, it was suggested to combine all morphological characters of both otolith types for more precise species identification. This study is the first reference on the otolith morphology of Alburnoides kurui and Capoeta tinca, two endemic fish of Turkey.

Anahtar Kelimeler

Asteriscus, Cyprinidae, lapillus, Leuciscidae, otolith morphology

Kaynakça

• Argillier, C., Barral, M. & Irz, P. (2012). Growth and diet of the pikeperch Sander lucioperca (L.) in two French reservoirs. Fisheries & Aquatic Life, 20(3), 191-200. DOI: 10.2478/v10086-012-0024- 0.
• Arroyo‐Zúñiga, K.I., Pacheco‐Ovando, R., Granados‐ Amores, E., Granados‐Amores, J., González Ramírez, J. & Díaz‐Santana‐Iturrios, M. (2022). Lapillus otolith shape, a useful taxonomic feature for the identification of sea catfishes (Ariidae: Siluriformes) from the north‐eastern Pacific. Journal of Fish Biology, 101(5), 1262- 1269. DOI: 10.1111/jfb.15198.
• Assis, C.A. (2003). The lagenar otoliths of teleosts: their morphology and its application in species identification, phylogeny and systematics. Journal of Fish Biology, 62(6), 1268-1295. DOI: 10.1046/j.1095-8649.2003.00106.x.
• Assis, C.A. (2005). The utricular otoliths, lapilli, of teleosts: their morphology and relevance for species identification and systematics studies. Scientia Marina, 69(2), 259-273. DOI: 10.3989/scimar.2005.69n2259.
• Avigliano, E., Rolón, M.E., Rosso, J.J., Mabragaña, E. & Volpedo, A.V. (2018). Using otolith morphometry for the identification of three sympatric and morphologically similar species of Astyanax from the Atlantic Rain Forest (Argentina). Environmental Biology of Fishes, 101(9), 1319-1328. DOI: 10.1007/s10641-018- 0779-2.
• Bani, A., Poursaeid, S. & Tuset, V.M. (2013). Comparative morphology of the sagittal otolith in three species of south Caspian gobies. Journal of Fish Biology, 82(4), 1321-1332. DOI: 10.1111/jfb.12073.
• Belfethi, L. & Moulaï, R. (2022). Diet, prey selection and biomass consumption of the great cormorant (Phalacrocorax carbo) in Algeria. Zoodiversity, 56(1), 57-66. DOI: 10.15407/zoo2022.01.057.
• Bostancı, D. (2009). Otolith biometry-body length relationships in four fish species (chub, pikeperch, crucian carp, and common carp). Journal of Freshwater Ecology, 24(4), 619-624. DOI: 10.1080/02705060.2009.9664339.
• Byrd, B.L., Hohn, A.A. & Krause, J.R. (2020). Using the otolith sulcus to aid in prey identification and improve estimates of prey size in diet studies of a piscivorous predator. Ecology & Evolution, 10(8), 3584-3604. DOI: 10.1002/ece3.6085.
• Campana, S.E. (2004). Photographic atlas of fish otoliths of the Nortwest Atlantic Ocean, NRC Research Press, Canada, 284p.
• Chollet-Villalpando, J.G., De La Cruz-Agüero, J. & Garcia-Rodriguez, F.J. (2014). Comparison of urohyal bone morphology among gerreid fish (Perciformes: Gerreidae). Italian Journal of Zoology, 81(2), 246-255. DOI: 10.1080/11250003.2014.912681
• Çiçek, E., Sungur, S., Fricke, R. & Seçer, B. (2023). Freshwater lampreys and fishes of Türkiye; an annotated checklist, 2023. Turkish Journal of Zoology, 47(6), 324-468. DOI: 10.55730/1300- 0179.3147.
• Das, M. (1994). Age determination and longevity in fishes. Gerontology, 40(2-4), 70-96. DOI: 10.1159/000213580.
• Davoodi, P. & Rahimian, H. (2016). Identifying Neogobius species from the southern Caspian Sea by otolith shape (Teleostei: Gobiidae). Zootaxa, 4205(1), 81-86. DOI: 10.11646/zootaxa.4205.1.7.
• Farooq, N. & Panhwar, S.K. (2023). Taxonomic and otolith shape parameters of nine sympatric catfishes commercially harvested in Pakistan. Croatian Journal of Fisheries, 81(1), 23-32. DOI: 10.2478/cjf-2023-0003.
• Fricke, R., Eschmeyer, W.N. & Van der Laan, R. (2023). Eschmeyer's Catalog of Fishes: Genera, Species, References. Erişim tarihi: 20 Mart 2023, http://reseacrharchive.calacademy.org/research/ic hthyology/catalog/fishcatmain.asp.
• Kontaş, S. & Bostancı, D. (2015). Morphological and biometrical characteristics on otolith of Barbus tauricus Kessler, 1877 on light and scanning electron microscope. International Journal of Morphology, 33(4), 1380-1385. DOI: 10.4067/S0717-95022015000400032
• Kontaş, S., Yedier, S. & Bostancı, D. (2020). Otolith and scale morphology of endemic fish Cyprinion macrostomum in Tigris-Euphrates Basin. Journal of Ichthyology, 60, 562-569. DOI: 10.1134/S0032945220040086.
• Kurucu, G. & Bostancı, D. (2018). Using scanning electron microscopy and length-otolith size relationship for otolith morphological description of Capoeta banarescui Turan et al., 2006 and Squalius cephalus (L., 1758) (Actinopterygii: Cyprinidae) from Turkey. Acta Zoologica Bulgarica, 70(1), 83-88.
• Lin, Y.J. & Al-Abdulkader, K. (2019). Identification of fish families and species from the western Arabian Gulf by otolith shape analysis and factors affecting the identification process. Marine and Freshwater Research, 70(12), 1818-1827. DOI: 10.1071/MF18282.
• Masson, L., Almeida, D., Tarkan, A.S., Önsoy, B., Miranda, R., Godard, M.J. & Copp, G.H. (2011). Diagnostic features and biometry of head bones for identifying Carassius species in faecal and archaeological remains. Journal of Applied Ichthyology, 27(5), 1286-1290. DOI: 10.1111/j.1439-0426.2011.01869.x
• Mendoza, R.P.R. (2006). Otoliths and their applications in fishery science. Croatian Journal of Fisheries, 64(3), 89-102.
• Nelson, J.S., Grande, T.C. & Wilson, M.V. H. (2016). Fishes of the world, 5th ed., John Wiley and Sons, Incorporated, Canada, 752p.
• Ozpicak, M. (2020). Otolith shape and characteristics as a morphological approach to the stock identification in Barbus tauricus (Cyprinidae). Journal of Ichthyology, 60, 716-724. DOI: 10.1134/S0032945220050045.
• Ozpicak, M., Saygin, S., Aydin, A., Hancer, E., Yilmaz, S. & Polat, N. (2018). Otolith shape analyses of Squalius cephalus (Linnaeus, 1758) (Actinopterygii: Cyprinidae) inhabiting four inland water bodies of the middle Black Sea Region, Turkey. Iranian Journal of Ichthyology, 5(4), 293-302. DOI: 10.22034/iji.v5i4.311.
• Pavlov, D.A. (2022). Otolith morphology in gibel carp Carassius gibelio and crucian carp C. carassius (Cyprinidae). Journal of Ichthyology, 62(6), 1067-1080. DOI: 10.1134/S0032945222060200.
• Pierce, G.J., Boyle, P.R. & Diack, J.S.W. (1991). Identification of fish otoliths and bones in faeces and digestive tracts of seals. Journal of Zoology, 224(2), 320-328. DOI: 10.1111/j.1469- 7998.1991.tb04810.x.
• Popper, A.N., Ramcharitar, J. & Campana, S.E. (2005). Why otoliths? Insights from inner ear physiology and fisheries biology. Marine & Freshwater Research, 56(5), 497-504. DOI: 10.1071/MF04267.
• Schulz-Mirbach, T. & Plath, M. (2012). All good things come in threes – species delimitation through shape analysis of saccular, lagenar and utricular otoliths. Marine & Freshwater Research, 63(10), 934-940. DOI: 10.1071/MF12132.
• Schulz-Mirbach, T. & Reichenbacher, B. (2006). Reconstruction of oligocene and neogene freshwater fish faunas-an actualistic study on cypriniform otoliths. Acta Palaeontologica Polonica, 51(2), 283-304.
• Schulz-Mirbach, T., Riesch, R., de León, F.J.G. & Plath, M. (2011). Effects of extreme habitat conditions on otolith morphology-a case study on extremophile livebearing fishes (Poecilia mexicana, P. sulphuraria). Zoology, 114(6), 321- 334. DOI: 10.1016/j.zool.2011.07.004.
• Schwarzhans, W. (2014). Head and otolith morphology of the genera Hymenocephalus, Hymenogadus and Spicomacrurus (Macrouridae), with the description of three new species. Zootaxa, 3888(1), 1-73. DOI: 10.11646/zootaxa.3888.1.1.
• Tarkan, A.S., Gürsoy Gaygusuz, C., Gaygusuz, Ö. & Acıpınar, H. (2007). Use of bone and otolith measures for size-estimation of fish in predator- prey studies. Folia Zoologica, 56(3), 328.
• Toyran, K. & Albayrak, I. (2019). Distribution and ecology of Lutra lutra (Linnaeus, 1758) in Kizilirmak River (Turkey). Journal of Animal & Plant Sciences, 29(3), 871-880.
• Turan, C., Ergüden, D., Gürlek, M., Çevik, C. & Turan, F. (2015). Molecular systematic analysis of shad species (Alosa spp.) from Turkish marine waters using mtDNA genes. Turkish Journal of Fisheries & Aquatic Sciences, 15, 149-155. DOI: 10.4194/1303-2712-v15_1_16.
• Tuset, V.M., Azzurro, E. & Lombarte, A. (2012). Identification of Lessepsian fish species using the sagittal otolith. Scientia Marina, 76(2), 289-299. DOI: 10.3989/scimar.03420.18E.
• Tuset, V.M., Lombarte, A. & Assis, C.A. (2008). Otolith atlas for the western Mediterranean, north and central eastern Atlantic. Scientia Marina, 72(S1), 7-198. DOI: 10.3989/scimar.2008.72s17.
• Yazıcı, R. (2018). Sıddıklı Küçükboğaz Baraj Gölü’ndeki yayın balığı (Silurus glanis L., 1758)’nın biyolojik özellikleri. Ahievran Üniversitesi Fen Bilimleri Enstitüsü. Kırşehir, Türkiye, 137s.
• Yazıcıoğlu, O., Yılmaz, S., Yazıcı, R., Erbaşaran, M. & Polat, N. (2016). Feeding ecology and prey selection of European perch, Perca fluviatilis inhabiting a eutrophic lake in northern Turkey. Journal of Freshwater Ecology, 31(4), 641-651. DOI: 10.1080/02705060.2016.1220432.
• Yazicioglu, O., Polat, N. & Yilmaz, S. (2018). Feeding biology of pike, Esox lucius L., 1758 inhabiting Lake Ladik, Turkey. Turkish Journal of Fisheries & Aquatic Sciences, 18(10), 1215-1226. DOI: 10.4194/1303-2712-v18_10_08.
• Yedier, S. & Bostancı, D. (2022). Molecular and otolith shape analyses of Scorpaena spp. in the Turkish seas. Turkish Journal of Zoology, 46(1), 78-92. DOI: 10.3906/zoo-2105-26.
• Yılmaz, S., Yazıcıoğlu, O., Yazıcı, R. & Polat, N. (2015). Relationships between fish length and otolith size for five cyprinid species from Lake Ladik, Samsun, Turkey. Turkish Journal of Zoology, 39(3), 438-446. DOI: 10.3906/zoo-1403-58.