Particularities of Prut river ichtyofauna in 2016 study year
Închide
Articolul precedent
Articolul urmator
143 2
Ultima descărcare din IBN:
2020-07-16 21:33
SM ISO690:2012
BULAT, Denis; BULAT, Dumitru; USATÎI, Marin; CROITORU, Ion; VATAVU, Dmitri. Particularities of Prut river ichtyofauna in 2016 study year. In: Sustainable use, protection of animal world and forest management in the context of climate change. Ediția IX, 12-13 octombrie 2016, Chișinău. Chișinău: Institutul de Zoologie, 2016, pp. 190-191. ISBN 978-9975-3022-7-2.
EXPORT metadate:
Google Scholar
Crossref
CERIF
BibTeX
DataCite
Dublin Core
Sustainable use, protection of animal world and forest management in the context of climate change
Ediția IX, 2016
Conferința "Sustainable use, protection of animal world and forest management in the context of climate change"
Chișinău, Moldova, 12-13 octombrie 2016

Particularities of Prut river ichtyofauna in 2016 study year


Pag. 190-191

Bulat Denis, Bulat Dumitru, Usatîi Marin, Croitoru Ion, Vatavu Dmitri
 
Institutul de Zoologie al AŞM
 
Disponibil în IBN: 14 noiembrie 2018



Teza

Investigations conducted in the Prut River basin using sapling seine in the 2016 study year revealed the following ichtyofaunistic features: 1. At the confluence region with Danube River the ichtyofauna is the richest, owing to the ecoton zone (during spring - 25 species and during summer - 27 species were encountered), forming joint contact surfaces between the riverbed, flood plain and Danube River. It noted that in this area the highest taxonomic diversity is found, holding a significant share in catches the invasive and interventing fish species as: Carassius gibelio, Lepomis gibbosus, Pseudorasbora parva, species of gobies (Neogobius fluviatilis, Babka gymnotrachelus, Proterorhinus semilunaris, Ponticola kessleri, Benthophilus nudus) and Syngnathus abaster. This ichtyofaunistic image is largely determined by the major influence of Danube River on Lower Prut ecosystem and presence, in this area, of numerous fish farms, canals, ponds and lakes, which, during high floods, make active mutual exchange of fishery representatives. Among the native fish species in the area of Danube River confluence become common the following taxons: Alburnus alburnus, sapling of Aspius aspius, Blicca bjoerkna, Rhodeus amarus, Rutilus rutilus, Abramis brama and Perca fluviatilis. During the spring, in the reproductive season, eloquent increase the abundance of Gymnocephalus cernua) and Gymnocephalus baloni. 2. In Braniste village resort, located directly downstream of the Costesti -Stanca lake, the species diversity (in spring - 15 species, in summer - 18 species) is also determined by the abundant presence of limno - rheophyls fish species as: Carassius auratus s. lato, Pseudorasbora parva, Perca fluviatilis, Rutilus rutilus, Esox lucius and Scardinius erythrophthalmus. At the same time, it should be noted that this hydrobiotop, with clean and transparent water, sandy substrate and with intense shady trees sides, offer a favorable habitats for rheophyls native fish species as: Squalius cephalus, Barbus barbus, Chondrostoma nasus, Romanogobio kesslerii, etc. 3. In Cahul halt there is a similar situation, the typical rheophyls ichtyofauna is complemented by ubicvist fish species as: Pseudorasbora parva, Carassius gibelio, Rutilus rutilus, Perca fluviatilis and culture one (breeds of carp) coming from numerous limitrophe ecosystems with nearby stagnant water (abandoned ponds near Cahul city, Manta ponds, fish farms, flooded canals, etc.). 4. From gobies group inhabiting Prut River, Neogobius fluviatilis is the most numerous and frequent in captures, becoming eudominant (D5) species and characteristic one (W4, W5) in most of collection sites of Prut River bed. High values of ecological indexes for intervening species Proterorhinus semilunaris are alarming downstream of the Costesti-Stinca dam (Braniste village). In spring this can be a dominant taxon in catches - D4 (D = 8,48% W = 3,39%). From gobies group we have mentioned the emergence and expansion in the Lower Prut of the Bentophilus nudus species, first identified in the spring of 2015 (Bulat, 2015). 5. Some allogenic fish species signaled in Prut River in the 2016 study year, the most abundant in catches are Carassius auratus s. lato, Pseudorasbora parva and Lepomis gibbosus, their affinity degree growing in areas with calm water and rich in aquatic vegetation. 6. Among the native fish species caught in the Lower Prut ecosystem in 2016 most representative are those with short life cycle: Alburnus alburnus and Rhodeus amarus (eudominant in most habitats), and from them of medium size the juvenile of Squalius cephalus, Aspius aspius, Rutilus rutilus, Abramis brama, Blicca bjoerkna can be mentioned. Among the taxons with diverse rarity state captured in Prut River ecosystem in the 2016 study year should be mentioned: Sabanejewia balcanica, Zingel zingel, Leuciscus idus, Barbus barbus, Vimba vimba, Chondrostoma nasus), Gymnocephalus baloni, etc., each of them being identified in species characteristic habitats and at certain times of the life cycle. 7. In the region of the Costesti-Stinca dam control fishering in the summer of 2016 revealed an ichtyofaunistic diversity established of 10 fish species, including the next eudominant (D5) and characteristic (W4 , W5) species: Alburnus alburnus (Wsummer = 8,93%), Rutilus rutilus (Wsummer = 9,57%), Gymnocephalus cernua (Wsummer = 16,11%) and Perca fluviatilis (Wsummer = 10,98%). Among indigenous fish species with major economic and environmental importance which have proved satisfactory strength in catches in the summer of 2016 we can mention: Aspius aspius (Wsummer = 0,79%), Abramis brama (Wsummer = 1,01%) and Sander lucioperca (Wsummer = 1,8%). From interventing fish species, most abundant and frequently represented becomes Neogobius fluviatilis (Wsummer = 2,07%). When analyzing similarity ecological index (Sorensen) of fish catches fish from Prut River in the summer of 2016 using sapling seine, we find that the greatest degree of similarity of fish communities is observed between the resorts: Sculeni - Leova (83%); Leuşeni - Leova (78%) and Cahul –Giurgiuleşti (77%), and the lowest similarity is found between the resorts Leuşeni and Giurgiuleşti (43%). Acknowledgment: The study was performed within the national project 15.817.02.27A