Ladik ve Simenlik Gölleri’nde Yaşayan Turna Balığının Otolit Biyometrisi ve Şekil Analizleri Kullanılarak Stok Ayrımları

Öz

Bu çalışma, Ladik ve Simenlik Gölleri’nden örneklenmiş ve ekonomik değeri oldukça yüksek olan turna balığının (Esox lucius) total boyu ve otolit özellikleri arasındaki ilişkileri incelemek ve otolit şekil indeks değerlerini saptamak için gerçekleştirilmiştir. Toplamda 140 örnek (Ladik Gölü: 82 birey, Simenlik Gölü: 58 birey) örneklenmiştir. Otolit eni, boyu, çevresi ve alanı görüntü analiz programı ile belirlenmiştir. Otolit ölçümleri ve balık total boyu arasındaki ilişkinin belirlenmesinde doğrusal ve doğrusal olmayan ilişkilerden faydalanılmıştır. Otolit şekil analizleri için Şekil Faktörü, Yuvarlaklık, Dairesellik, Dikdörtgensellik, En-Boy Oranı ve Eliptiklik parametreleri kullanılmıştır. Her iki lokalite için de otolit ölçümleri ve balık boyu arasındaki ilişkilerde otolit boyunun en yüksek r2 değerine sahip olduğu bulunmuştur (Ladik Gölü r2=0,949, Simenlik Gölü r2=0,914). Otolit şekil indeksleri otolit ölçümleri kullanılarak hesaplanmıştır. Şekil indekslerinin lokaliteler arasında karşılaştırma sonuçlarına göre, Yuvarlaklık, Eliptiklik ve En-Boy Oranı parametrelerinin önemli derecede farklı olduğu bulunmuştur. Sonuçlar, turna popülasyonlarının ayrım için otolit şekil indekslerinin kullanışlı bir araç olduğunu belirtmektedir.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Esox lucius
• otolit şekli
• biyometri
• Ladik Gölü
• Simenlik Gölü

Stock Discrimination of Northern Pike Esox lucius L., 1758 Inhabiting Lakes Simenlik and Ladik (Samsun-Turkey) Using Otolith Biometry and Shape Analysis

Öz

This study was carried out to investigate the relationships between total length and otolith dimensions and to detect the otolith shape index values of Northern pike (Esox lucius) which has high economic value, sampled from Ladik and Simenlik Lakes. A total of 140 specimens (Lake Ladik: 82 individuals, Lake Simenlik: 58 individuals) were sampled. Otolith height, length, perimeter, and area were determined by Imaging Software. Nonlinear and linear models were applied to estimate the relationships between the otolith measurements and total length. Form factor, circularity, roundness, rectangularity, aspect ratio, and ellipticity were used for otolith shape analyses. It was found that the relationship between the total length-otolith length was found to have the highest r2 value (Lake Ladik r2=0.949, Lake Simenlik r2=0.914) among the total length-otolith morphometrics at both localities. Otolith shape indices were calculated by using otolith measurements. As a result of comparing shape indices, it was found that there was a significant difference in two localities using roundness, ellipticity, and aspect ratio (P <0.05). The results indicated otolith shape indices could be used as a suitable tool to discriminate Northern pike populations.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Esox lucius
• otolith shape
• biometry
• Ladik Lake
• Simenlik Lake

Kaynakça

1. Afanasyev PK, Orlov AM, Rolsky AY. 2017. Otolith shape analysis as a tool for species identification and studying the population structure of different fish species. Bio Bull. 44(8): 952-959. doi:10.1134/S1062359017080027.
2. Agüera A, Brophy D. 2011. Use of sagittal otolith shape analysis to discriminate Northeast Atlantic and Western Mediterranean stocks of Atlantic saury, Scomberesox saurus saurus (Walbaum). Fish Res. 110(3): 465-471. doi:10.1016/j.fishres.2011.06.003.
3. Avigliano E, de Carvalho BM, Miller N, Gironde SC, Tombari A, Limburg K, Volpedo AV. 2019. Fin spine chemistry as a non-lethal alternative to otoliths for stock discrimination in an endangered catfish. Mar Ecol Prog. 614: 147-157. doi: 10.3354/meps12895.
4. Bacha M, Jeyid AM, Jaafour S, Yahyaoui A, Diop M, Amara R. 2016. Insights on stock structure of round sardinella aurita off north‐west Africa based on otolith shape analysis. J Fish Biol. 89: 4, 2153-2166. doi:10.1111/jfb.13117.
5. Bano F, Serajuddin M. 2021. Sulcus and outline morphometrics of sagittal otolith variability in freshwater fragmented populations of dwarf gourami, Trichogaster lalia (Hamilton, 1822). Limnologica. 125842. doi: 10.1016/j.limno.2020.125842.
6. Battaglia P, Malara D, Romeo T, Andaloro F. 2010. Relationships between otolith size and fish size in some mesopelagic and bathypelagic species from the Mediterranean Sea (Strait of Messina, Italy). Sci. Mar. 74(3): 605–612. doi: 10.3989/scimar.2010.74n3605.
7. Begg GA, Brown RW. 2000. Stock identification of Haddock Melanogrammus aeglefinus on Georges Bank based on otolith shape analysis. Trans of Am Fish Soc129: 335-345. doi:10.1577/1548-8659(2000)129<0935:SIOHMA>2.3.CO;2.
8. Bostanci D, Yedier S, Kontaş S, Kurucu G, Polat N. 2017. Regional variation of relationship between total length and otolith sizes in the three Atherina boyeri Risso, 1810 populations, Turkey. Ege J Fish Aqua Sci. 34(1): 11-16. doi: 10.12714/egejfas.2017.34.1.02.

9. Bostancı D, Yedier S. 2018. Discrimination of invasive fish Atherina boyeri (Pisces: Atherinidae) populations by evaluating the performance of otolith morphometrics in several lentic habitats. Fresen Environ Bull. 27(6): 4493-4501.
10. Bulatović I, Marić, D, Milošević D. 2021. Relationships between Otolith Dimensions and Body Length of Five Cyprinid Fish Species from Lake Skadar, Adriatic Catchment of Montenegro. Acta Zool. Bulg. (In press).
11. Campana SE, Thorrold SR. 2001. Otoliths, increments, and elements: keys to a comprehensive understanding of fish populations? Can J Fish Aquat Sci. 58: 30-38. doi: 10.1139/f00-177.
12. Cardinale M, Doering-Arjes P, Kastowsky M, Mosegaard H. 2004. Effects of sex stock and environment on the shape of known-age Atlantic cod (Gadus morhua) otoliths. Can J Fish Aquat Sci. 61: 158-167. doi: 10.1139/f03-151.
13. Casselman JM. 1996. Age, growth and environmental requirements of pike. In: John C, editor. Pike: Biology and exploitation, Chapman & Hall, 69-101. doi: 10.1007/978-94-015-8775-4_4
14. Chen K, He D, Ding C, Jia Y, Chen Y. 2021. Evaluation of the Lapillar otolith shape as a tool for discrimination of stock of Naked Carp, Gymnocypris selincuoensis in the Tibetan Plateau. Pak J Zool. 1-13.
15. Craig JF. 2008. A short review of pike ecology. Hydrobiologia, 601: 5–16. doi: 10.1007/s10750-007-9262-3.
16. Duncan R, Brophy D, Arrizabalaga H. 2018. Otolith shape analysis as a tool for stock separation of albacore tuna feeding in the Northeast Atlantic. Fish Res, 200: 68-74. doi:10.1016/j.fishres.2017.12.011.
17. Fey DP, Greszkiewicz M. 2021. Effects of temperature on somatic growth, otolith growth, and uncoupling in the otolith to fish size relationship of larval northern pike, Esox lucius L. Fish Res, 236: 105843. doi: 10.1016/j.fishres.2020.105843.
18. Galley EA, Wright PJ, Gibb FM. 2006. Combined methods of otolith shape analysis improve identification of spawning areas of Atlantic Cod. ICES Mar Sc. 63: 1710-171. doi: 10.1016/j.icesjms.2006.06.014.
19. Ghanbarifardi M, Zarei R. 2021. Otolith shape analysis of three mudskipper species of Persian Gulf. Iran J Fish Sci. 20(2): 333-342. doi: 10.22092/ijfs.2021.123784.
20. Gierl C, Reichenbacher B. 2015. A new fossil genus of Gobiiformes from the Miocene characterized by a mosaic set of characters. Copeia, 103(4): 792-805. doi: 10.1643/CI-14-146.
21. Harvey JT, Loughlin TR, Perez MA, Oxman DS. 2000. Relationship between fish size and otolith length for 63 species of fishes from the Eastern North Pacific Ocean. NOAA Technical Report NMFS 150.
22. Harvey B. 2009. A biological synopsis of northern pike (Esox lucius). Canadian Manuscript Report of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 2885, 31, Canada.
23. Jawad LA, Park JM, Kwak SN, Ligas A. 2017. Study of the relationship between fish size and otolith size in four demersal species from the south-eastern Yellow Sea. Cahiers Biol. Mar. 58: 9–15. doi: 10.21411/CBM.A.645C2013.
24. Jemaa S, Bacha M, Khalaf G, Dessailly D, Rabhi K, Amara R. 2015. What can otolith shape analysis tell us about population structure of the European sardine, Sardina pilchardus, from Atlantic and Mediterranean waters?. J Sea Res. 96: 11-17. doi:10.1016/j.seares.2014.11.002.
25. Kanjuh T, Mrdak D, Piria M, Tomljanović T, Joksimović A, Talevski T, Milošević D. 2018. Relationships of otolith dimension with body length of European eel Anguilla anguilla (Linnaeus, 1758) from Adriatic catchment of Montenegro. Acta Adriatica, 59(1): 91-96.
26. Karás, P, Lehtonen H. 1993. Patterns of movement and migration of pike (Esox lucius L.) in the Baltic Sea. Nordic J Fresh Res, 68: 72-79.
27. Labidi BM, Mejri M, Shahin AAAB, Quignard JP, Trabelsi M, Ben Faleh A. 2020. Stock discrimination of the bogue, Boops boops (Actinopterygii: Perciformes: Sparidae), from two Tunisian marine stations using the otolith shape. Acta Ichthyol Piscat. 50(4). doi: 10.3750/AIEP/02978.
28. Lecomte-Finiger R. 1992. The crystalline ultrastructure of otolith of the eel (A. anguilla L. 1758). J Fish Biol. 40: 181-190. doi: 10.1111/j.1095-8649.1992.tb02565.x.
29. Leguá J, Plaza G, Pèrez D, Arkhipkin A. 2013. Otolith shape analysis as a tool for stock identification of the southern blue whiting, Micromesistius australis. Lat. Am. J. Aquat. Res. 41: 479-489. doi: 10.3856/vol41-issue3-fulltext-11.
30. Mahé K, Ider D, Massaro A, Hamed O, Jurado-Ruzafa A, Gonçalves P, Anastasopoulou A, Jadaud A, Mytilineou C, Elleboode R, Ramdane Z, Bacha M, Amara R, de Pontual H, Ernande B. 2019. Directional bilateral asymmetry in otolith morphology may affect fish stock discrimination based on otolith shape analysis. ICES J Mar Sci. 76(1): 232-243. doi:10.1093/icesjms/fsy163.
31. Mapp J, Hunter E, Kooij JVD, Songer S, Fisher M. 2017. Otolith shape and size: The importance of age when determining indices for fish-stock separation. Fish Res. 190: 43–52. doi: 10.1016/j.fishres.2017.01.017.
32. Mehanna SF, Jawad LA, Ahmed YA, Abu El‐Regal MA, Dawood D. 2016. Relationships between fish size and otolith measurements for Chlorurus sordidus (Forsskål, 1775) and Hipposcarus harid (Forsskål, 1775) from the Red Sea coast of Egypt. J Appl Ichthyol. 32(2): 356-358.
33. Möller S, Winkler HM, Klügel A, Richter S. 2019. Using otolith microchemical analysis to investigate the importance of brackish bays for pike (Esox lucius Linnaeus, 1758) reproduction in the southern Baltic Sea. Ecol Freshw Fish. 28: 602–610. doi:10.1111/eff.12478.
34. Morley S, Belchier M. 2002. Otolith and body size relationships in bigeye grenadier (Macrourus holotrachys) in CCAMLR subarea 48.3. Ccamlr Sci. 9: 133-143.
35. Nordahl O, Koch‐Schmidt P, Sunde J, Yıldırım Y, Tibblin P, Forsman A, Larsson P. 2019. Genetic differentiation between and within ecotypes of pike (Esox lucius) in the Baltic Sea. Aquatic Conser. 29(11): 1923-1935. doi: 10.1002/aqc.3196.
36. Osman YA, Mahé K, El-Mahdy SM, Mohammad AS, Mehanna S. 2021. Relationship between fish length and otolith morphological characteristics of Sargocentron spiniferum (Forsskål, 1775) from the Southern Red Sea. doi: 10.20944/preprints202104.0092.v1
37. 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.
38. Pereira LS, Agostinho AA, Winemiller KO. 2017. Revisiting cannibalism in fishes. Rev Fish Biol Fisher. 27: 499–513. doi: 10.1007/s11160-017-9469-y.
39. Petursdottir G, Begg GA, Marteinsdottir G. 2006. Discrimination between Icelandic Cod (Gadus morhua L.) populations from adjacent spawning areas based on otolith growth and shape. Fish Res. 80: 182-189. doi: 10.1016/j.fishres.2006.05.002.
40. Ponton D. 2006. Is geometric morphometrics efficient for comparing otolith shape of different fish species?. Journal of Morphology, 267(6): 750-757. doi:10.1002/jmor.10439.
41. Prejs A, Pijanowska J, Koperski P, Martyniak A, Boron S, Hliwa P. 1997. Food-web manipulation in a small, eutrophic Lake Wirbel, Poland. Long-term changes in fish biomass: a basic measure of water quality. A case study. Hydrobiologia, 342/343: 383–386. doi: 10.1023/a:1017047625303.
42. Radhakrishan KV, He W, Liu M, Xie S. 2009. Otoliths—the biological CD-ROMs of fish. Current Sci. 97 (8): 1121–1122.
43. Renán X, Montero-Muñoz J, Garza-Pérez JR, Brulé T. 2016. Age and stock analysis using otolith shape in Gags from the Southern Gulf of Mexico. T Am Fish Soc 145(6): 1252-1265. doi: 10.1080/00028487.2016.1217928.
44. Saygin S, Ozpiçak M, Elp M, Polat N, Atici AA, Akçanal Odun N. 2017. Comparative analysis of the otolith features of tarek (Alburnus tarichi (Güldenstädt, 1814)) from different lakes across Van Basin (Van, Erçek, Nazik, Aygır) (Turkey). Limnofish, 3(2): 91–99. doi:10.17216/LimnoFish.310312.
45. Saygin S, Özpiçak M, Yilmaz S, Polat N. 2020. Otolith shape analysis and the relationships between otolith dimensions–total length of European Bitterling, Rhodeus amarus (Cyprinidae) sampled from Samsun Province, Turkey. Journal of Ichthyology, 60: 570-577. doi: 10.1134/S0032945220040190.
46. Sharma CM, Borgstrøm R. 2008. Increased population density of pike Esox lucius–a result of selective harvest of large individuals. Ecol freshw fish. 17(4): 590-596. doi: 10.1111/j.1600-0633.2008.00310.x.
47. Škeljo F, Ferri J. 2012. The use of otolith shape and morphometry for identification and size-estimation of five wrasse species in predator-prey studies. J. Appl. Ichthyol., 28: 524–530. doi: 10.1111/j.1439-0426.2011. 01925.x.
48. Soupir CA, Brown ML, Kallemeyn LW. 2000. Trophic ecology of largemouth bass and northern pike in allopatric and sympatric assemblages in northern boreal lakes. Can J Zool. 78(10): 1759-1766. doi: 10.1139/cjz-78-10-1759.
49. Stańczak K, Król J, Hliwa P. 2017. Otolith fluorescent marking of pike (Esox lucius L.) larvae. Polish Journal of Natural Sciences. 32(1): 191-199.
50. Sunde J, Yıldırım Y, Tibblin P, Forsman A. 2020. Comparing the performance of microsatellites and RAD seq in population genetic studies: analysis of data for pike (Esox lucius) and a synthesis of previous studies Frontiers in genetics, 11, 218. doi: 10.3389/fgene.2020.00218.
51. Tracey SR, Lyle JM, Duhamel G. 2006. Application of elliptical Fourier analysis of otolith form as a tool for stock identification. Fish Res. 77(2): 138–147. doi: 10.1016/j.fishres.2005.10.013.
52. Tuset VM, Lombarte A, González JA, Pertusa JF, Lorente MJ. 2003. Comparative morphology of the sagittal otolith in Serranus spp. J Fish Biol. 6(1): 1491-1504.
53. Vieira AR, Neves A, Sequeira V, Paiva RB, Gordo LS. 2014. Otolith shape analysis as a tool for stock discrimination of forkbeard (Phycis phycis) in the Northeast Atlantic. Hydrobiologia, 728(1): 103-110. doi: 10.1007/s10750-014-1809-5.
54. Vu QT, Kartavtsev YP. 2020. Otolith shape analysis and its utility for identification of two smelt species, Hypomesus japonicus and H. nipponensis (Osteichthyes, Osmeridae) from the Northwestern Sea of Japan with inferences in stock discrimination of H. japonicus. Russian Journal of Marine Biology, 46(6): 431-440.doi:10.1134/S1063074020060115.
55. Waessle JA, Lasta CA, Favero M. 2003. Otolith morphology and body size relationships for juvenile for juvenile Sciaenidae in the Rìo de la Plata estuary (35-36ºS). Sci. Mar. 67: 233-240.
56. Więcaszek B, Nowosielski A, Dąbrowski J, Górecka K, Keszka S, Strzelczak, A. 2020. Fish size effect on sagittal otolith outer shape variability in round goby Neogobius melanostomus (Pallas 1814). J Fish Biol. 97: 1520-1541. doi: 10.1111/jfb.14521.
57. Yazicioglu O, Polat N, Yilmaz S. 2018. Feeding biology of pike, Esox lucius L., 1758 inhabiting Lake Ladik, Turkey. Turk J Fish Aquat Sci. 18(10): 1215-1226. doi: 10.4194/1303-2712-v18_10_08.
58. Yazicioğlu O, Yılmaz S, Erbaşaran M, Uğurlu S, Polat N. 2017. Bony structure dimensions-fish length relationships of pike (Esox lucius L., 1758) in Lake Ladik (Samsun, Turkey). North-Western J Zool. 13: 1, 149-153.
59. Yedier S. 2021. Otolith shape analysis and relationships between total length and otolith dimensions of European barracuda, Sphyraena sphyraena in the Mediterranean Sea. Iran J Fish Sci. 20(4): 1080-1096. doi: 10.22092/ijfs.2021.124429.
60. Yilmaz S, Emiroğlu Ö, Aksu S, Başkurt S, Polat N. 2019. Relationships between otolith dimensions and body growth of North African Catfish Clarias gariepinus (Burchell, 1822) from the upper basin of the Sakarya River, Turkey. Croatian Journal of Fisheries 77: 57-62. doi: 10.2478/cjf-2019-0006.
61. Yilmaz S, Yazicioğlu O, Yazici R, Polat N. 2015. Relationships between fish length and otolith size for five cyprinid species from Lake Ladik, Samsun, Turkey. Turk J Zool. 39(3): 438-446. doi: 10.3906/zoo-1403-58.
62. Zan XX, Zhang C, Xu BD, Zhang CL. 2015. Relationships between fish size and otolith measurements for 33 fish species caught by bottom trawl in Haizhou Bay, China. J Applied Ichthyol. 31(3): 544-548. doi: 10.1111/jai.12751.
63. Zar JH. 1999. Biostatistical analysis, Prentice-Hall, 663, New Jersey.
64. Zengin M, Saygin S, Polat N. 2015. Otolith shape analysis and dimensions of the anchovy Engraulis encrasicolus L. in the Black and Marmara Seas. Sains Malaysiana 44(1): 657-662. doi: 10.17576/jsm-2015-4405-03.
65. Zengin Ozpiçak M, Saygin S, Aydın A, Hancer E, Yilmaz S, Polat N. 2018. The relationships between otolith dimensions-total length of chub (Squalius cephalus, L. 1758) sampled from a few inland waters of the Middle Black Sea region. Limnofish, 4(1): 17–24. doi: 10.17216/LimnoFish.342524.