Ceyhan Nehri’ndeki (Türkiye) Balık Geçitlerinin Etkinlikleri ve Uygunlukları

Öz

Ceyhan Nehir havzasında bulunan iki balık geçidinin etkinlikleri trap uygulaması, dıştan takma markalamalar (T-bar anchor tag), PIT telemetri ve radio telemetri yöntemleri ile incelenmiştir. Çalışma sonuçlarına göre havuzlu ve orifisli balık geçidine yerleştirilen trapta hiç bir balık tespit edilememiş olduğundan bu balık geçidinin etkinliğinin olmadığı belirlenmiştir. Ayrıca 50 adet dıştan takma marka, 44 adet PIT marka ve 47 adet radio markası taşıyan balıklardan hiç birinin bu balık geçidinden geçmediği görülmüştür. Dikey yarıklı balık geçidine yerleştirlen trapta ise toplam 900 Capoeta damascina ve 520 Alburnus adanensis tespit edilmiştir. Göç yapan C. damascina bireylerinin cinsiyet oranları ile göç zamanları arasında bir ilişki tespit edilmiştir. Uygulanan yöntemlere göre balık geçidinin performansı farklılık göstermiştir. Bu farklılık markalanan balıkların boylarının farklı olmasından kaynaklanmıştır. Çünkü radyo taglarla markalanan balıkların boyları PIT taglarla ve dıştan takma markalarla markalanan balıklardan daha büyüktü ve bu nedenle radyo telemetri yöntemine göre hesaplanan balık geçidi performansı diğer yöntemlere göre daha yüksek bulunmuştur. Ayrıca, 20 cm’den büyük balıkların balık geçidinden geçme performansı küçük balıklara göre daha yüksek olmuştur.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Balık geçidi,balık göçü,etkinlik,trap,telemetri

Efficiency and Suitability of the Fish Passages of River Ceyhan, Turkey

Abstract

The efficiencies of the two fish passages of River Ceyhan (Turkey) were investigated by using trap catches, external tags (T-bar anchor tags), PIT telemetry and radio telemetry. According to the results of the study, the pool and weir type fish passage were not effective; no fish entered the trap in this fish passage. Further, it was observed that none of the 50 external tagged fishes, 44 PIT-tagged fishes, and 47 radio-tagged fishes passed through this fish passage. A total of 900 Capoeta damascina and 520 Alburnus adanensis entered the trap installed in the vertical slot fish passage. A relationship was found between the gender ratio of the migratory C. damascina and their migration times. Fish passage performance was different according to the applications. These differences in fish passage success among the applications originated from the sizes of the tagged fish. Because the sizes of the radio-tagged fish were much larger than that of the external tagged fish and PIT-tagged fish so the success of the fish passage according to the radio telemetry was estimated higher than that of the other applications. The further passing ratio of the fish over 20 cm in length was higher than that of the small individuals.

Keywords

• Fish passage,fish migration,efficiency,trap,telemetry

Kaynakça

1. Aarestrup K, Lucas M, Hansen JA. 2003. Efficiency of a nature‐like bypass channel for sea trout (Salmo trutta) ascending a small Danish stream studied by PIT telemetry. Ecol Freshw Fish. 12(3):160-168. doi:10.1034/j.1600-0633.2003.00028.x
2. Agostinho AA, Gomes LC, Fernandez DR, Suzuki HI. 2002. Efficiency of fish ladders for neotropical ichthyofauna. River Res Appl. 18(3):299-306. doi:10.1002/rra.674
3. Agostinho AA, Gomes LC, Veríssimo S, Okada EK. 2004. Flood regime, dam regulation and fish in the Upper Paraná River: effects on assemblage attributes, reproduction and recruitment. Rev Fish Biol Fisher. 14(1):11-19. doi:10.1007/s11160-004-3551-y
4. Agrin Co Ltd. 1999. Aslantas Dam and related aspects of the Ceyhan River basin, Turkey. A WCD case study prepared as an input to the World Commission on Dams, Cape Town. [son erişim: 5.09.2019]. http://dams.org/kbase/studies/tr
5. Alp A, Akyüz A, Özcan M, Yerlі SV. 2018. Assessment of movements and habitat use of Salmo opimus in Fırnız stream, river Ceyhan of Turkey using radio telemetry techniques. Environ Biol Fish. 101(11):1613-1624. doi:10.1007/s10641-018-0807-2
6. Brown JJ, Limburg KE, Waldman JR, Stephenson K, Glenn EP, Juanes F, Jordaan A. 2013. Fish and hydropower on the US Atlantic coast: failed fisheries policies from half‐way technologies. Conserv Lett. 6(4):280-286. doi:10.1111/conl.12000
7. Buck WO. 1906. The Fishway at Grand Lake Stream. T Am Fish Soc. 35(1):233-236. doi:10.1577/15488659(1906)36[233:TFAGLS]2.0.CO;2
8. Buck WO. 1913. Fishways for the Rank and File. T Am Fish Soc. 42(1):101-114. doi:10.1577/15488659(1912)42[101:FFTRAF]2.0.CO;2

9. Bunt CM, Katopodis C, McKinley RS. 1999. Attraction and passage efficiency of white suckers and smallmouth bass by two Denil fishways. N Am J Fish Manage. 19(3):793-803. doi:10.1577/15488675(1999)019<0793:AAPEOW>2.0.CO;2
10. Bunt CM, Castro-Santos T, Haro A. 2012. Performance of fish passage structures at upstream barriers to migration. River Res Appl. 28(4):457-478. doi:10.1002/rra.1565
11. Calles EO, Greenberg LA. 2005. Evaluation of nature‐like fishways for re‐establishing connectivity in fragmented salmonid populations in the river Emån. River Res Appl. 21(9):951-960. doi:10.1002/rra.865
12. Castro-Santos T, Cotel A, Webb PW. 2009. Fishway evaluations for better bioengineering: an integrative approach. In Challenges for diadromous fishes in a dynamic global environment. American Fisheries Society, Symposium.69: 557-575 pp.
13. Castro-Santos T, Haro A, Walk S. 1996. A passive integrated transponder (PIT) tag system for monitoring fishways. Fish Res. 28(3):253-261. doi:10.1016/0165-7836(96)00514-0
14. Cheney AN. 1898. Fishways, their construction and use. Third Annual Report to the Commissioners of Fisheries, Game, and Forests of the State of New York, 222.
15. Clay CH. 1995. Design of fishways and other fish facilities. Lewis Publishers: Boca Raton.
16. Davis SM. 1980. American shad movement, weight loss and length frequencies before and after spawning in the St. Johns River, Florida. Copeia. 1980(4):889-892. doi:10.2307/1444476
17. DSI. 2013. Balık geçitlerinin planlanmasında balık faunasının tespiti ve balık geçidi temel kriterlerinin belirlenmesi projesi. Solaklı ve Yanbolu Dereleri Sonuç Raporu. DSI Genel Müdürlüğü, Ar-Ge Yayın no: 2, Ar-GE Proje no:2011/2. [in Turkish]
18. Dyche LL. 1912. Regarding fishways and dams. T Am Fish Soc. 41(1):301-306.
19. Fredrich F, Ohmann S, Curio B, Kirschbaum F. 2003. Spawning migrations of the chub in the River Spree, Germany. J Fish Biol. 63(3):710-723. doi:10.1046/j.1095-8649.2003.00184.x
20. Gowans ARD, Armstrong JD, Priede IG. 1999. Movements of adult Atlantic salmon in relation to a hydroelectric dam and fish ladder. J Fish Biol. 54(4):713-726. doi:10.1111/j.1095-8649.1999.tb02028.x
21. Jackson DC, Marmulla G. 2001. The influence of dams on river fisheries. FAO Fisheries Technical Paper (419), 1-44.
22. Jepsen N, Schreck C, Clements S, Thorstad EB. 2005. A brief discussion on the 2% tag/bodymass rule of thumb. Aquatic telemetry: advances and applications, proceedings of the fifth conference on fish telemetry held in Europe. Ustica, Italy. [son erişim: 15.11.2019]. http://www.fao.org/tempref/docrep/fao/008/y5999e/y5999e25.pdf
23. Kara C, Alp A, Şimşekli M. 2010. Distribution of fish fauna on the upper and middle basin of Ceyhan River, Turkey. Turk J Fish Aquat Sc. 10(1):111-121. doi: 10.4194/trjfas.2010.0116
24. Katopodis C, Williams JG. 2012. The development of fish passage research in a historical context. Ecol Eng. 48(2012):8-18. doi:10.1016/j.ecoleng.2011.07.004
25. Kuru M, Yerli SV, 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.
26. Kucukali S, Verep B, Alp A, Turan D, Mutlu T, Kaya C, Yıldırım Y, Toreyin BU, Özelçi D. 2019. Flow structure and fish passage performance of a brush-type fish way: a field study in the İyidere River, Turkey. Mar Freshwater Res. 70(11):1619-1632. doi:10.1071/MF18242
27. Larinier M. 2000. Dams and fish migration. World Commission on Dams. FAO Fisheries Technical Paper (419), 45-89.
28. Larinier M, Travede F, Porcher JP. 2002. Fishways: biological basis, design criteria and monitoring. B Fr Peche Piscic. 364 suppl., 208 p.
29. Larinier M. 2008. Fish passage experience at small-scale hydro-electric power plants in France. Hydrobiologia. 609(1):97-108. doi:10.1007/s10750-008-9398-9
30. Lucas MC, Mercer T, Armstrong JD, McGinty S, Rycroft P. 1999. Use of a flat-bed passive integrated transponder antenna array to study the migration and behaviour of lowland river fishes at a fish pass. Fish Res. 44(2):183-191. doi: 10.1016/S0165-7836(99)00061-2
31. Lucas MC, Bubb DH. 2005. Seasonal movements and habitat use of grayling in the UK. Environment Agency Report SC030210/SR, Bristol.
32. Makrakis S, Miranda LE, Gomes LC, Makrakis MC, Junior HMF. 2011. Ascent of neotropical migratory fish in the Itaipu reservoir fish pass. River Res Appl. 27(4):511-519. doi:10.1002/rra.1378
33. Marmulla G. 2001. Dams, fish and fisheries: opportunities, challenges and conflict resolution FAO Fisheries Technical Paper. No. 419. Rome, 166p.
34. Moser ML, Darazsdi AM, Hall JR. 2000. Improving passage efficiency of adult American shad at low-elevation dams with navigation locks. N Am J Fish Manage. 20(2):376-385. doi:10.1577/15488675(2000)020<0376:IPEOAA>2.3.CO;2
35. Pon LB, Cooke SJ, Hinch SG. 2006. Passage efficiency and migration behaviour of salmonid fishes at the Seton Dam Fishway. Final report for the Bridge Coastal Restoration Program, Project 05.Se.01.
36. Prince EE. 1914. A Perfect Fish Pass: Some suggestions as to defects in fish passes and how to overcome them. T Am Fish Soc. 43(1):47-56. doi:10.1577/1548-8659(1913)43[47:APFP]2.0.CO;2
37. Ramstad KM, Woody CA. 2003. Radio tag retention and tag-related mortality among adult sockeye salmon. N Am J Fish Manage. 23(3):978-982. doi:10.1577/15488675(2003)023<0978:RTRATM>2.0.CO;2
38. Reagan RE, Adams N, Rondorf D, Fitzgerald G, Spateholts B, Hoffman T, Olson D. 2005. Distribution, migration behavior, habitat use, and species interactions of fall-released juvenile hatchery spring Chinook salmon in the Deschutes River, Oregon, 2003. Annual report for 2003. U.S Fish and Wildlife Service. 42p.
39. Riley WD, Ibbotson AT, Beaumont WRC, Rycroft P, Cook AC. 2010. A portable, cost effective, pass-through system to detect downstream migrating salmonids marked with 12mm passive integrated transponder tags. Fish Res. 101(3):203-206. doi:10.1016/j.fishres.2009.10.003
40. Rogers WH. 1892. Fishways. T Am Fish Soc. 21(1):127-135.
41. Roscoe DW, Hinch SG. 2010. Effectiveness monitoring of fish passage facilities: historical trends, geographic patterns and future directions. Fish Fish. 11(1):12-33. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-2979.2009.00333.x
42. Tanrıverdi Ç, Alp A, Demirkıran AR, Üçkardeş F. 2010. Assessment of surface water quality of the Ceyhan River basin, Turkey. Environ Monit Assess. 167(1-4):175-184. doi: 10.1007/s10661-009-1040-4
43. Thorsteinsson V. 2002. Tagging methods for stock assessment and research in fisheries. Report of concerted action FAIR CT.96.1394, 179p.
44. Thorstad EB, Rikardsen AH, Alp A, Økland F. 2013. The use of electronic tags in fish research- an overview of fish telemetry methods. Turk J Fish Aquat Sc. 13(5):881-896. doi:10.4194/1303-2712-v13_5_13
45. Wagner RL, Makrakis S, Castro-Santos T, Makrakis MC, Dias JHP, Belmont RF. 2012. Passage performance of long-distance upstream migrants at a large dam on the Paraná River and the compounding effects of entry and ascent. Neotrop Ichthyol. 10(4): 785-795. doi:10.1590/S1679-62252012000400011
46. Williams JG, Armstrong G, Katopodis C, Larinier M, Travade F. 2012. Thinking like a fish: a key ingredient for development of effective fish passage facilities at river obstructions. River Res Appl. 28(4):407-417. doi:10.1002/rra.1551
47. Worrall J. 1874. The Fishways of Pennsylvania. T Am Fish Soc. 3(1):38-44. doi:10.1577/1548-8659(1874)4[38:TFOP]2.0.CO;2