Preference of Zebra Mussel, Dreissena polymorpha in the Diet and Effect on Growth of Gobiids: A Comparative Study Between Two Different Ecosystems

Gaygusuz, Özcan; Gaygusuz, Çiğdem Gürsoy; Tarkan, Ali Serhan; Acipinar, Hasan; Türer, Zeynep

doi:10.5053/ekoloji.2007.651

Cited by 17 publications

(14 citation statements)

References 16 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Traditional diet studies of N. fluviatilis and P. semilunaris in both native and non-native regions (Sindilariu & Freyhof, 2003;Kakareko, Zbikowski, & Zytkowicz, 2005;Adámek et al, 2007;Gaygusuz et al, 2007;Grabowska et al, 2009;Gürsoy Gaygusuz, Tarkan, & Gaygusuz, 2010;Adámek et al 2010;Piria et al, 2011;Piria, Jakšić, Jakovlić, & Treer, 2016;Mikl et al, 2017) are in accordance with SIA results in the present study, with the exception of plant material that was one of the important groups found in SIA for both gobiids in İznik and Uluabat lakes (Table 2). However, the dominance of food groups was represented differently between stomach contents RESEARCH PAPER -2712-v18_11_04 and SIA, which might relate to the latter providing a time-integrated analysis of assimilated diet sources (Thomas & Crowther, 2015), whereas stomach content analysis provides only a snapshot of ingested food resources at the time of sampling (e.g.…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 80%

“…Two of these gobies from Black Sea Region of Turkey, Western tubenose goby Proterorhinus semilunaris (Heckel, 1837) and monkey goby Neogobius fluviatilis (Pallas, 1814), are an important component of the native fish communities of Turkish inland waters and locally marketed for food consumption (Özuluğ, Altın, & Meriç, 2005;Turan, Taş, Çilek, & Yılmaz, 2008;Çınar et al, 2013). Whilst they are usually included within ichthyofaunal studies (Geldiay & Balık, 1988), there is only limited knowledge on their biology, such as length-weight relationships (Tarkan, Gaygusuz, Özuluğ, Gürsoy Gaygusuz, & Saç, 2009), reproductive parameters (Sasi & Berber, 2010) and diurnal feeding preferences (Gaygusuz, Gürsoy Gaygusuz, Tarkan, Acıpınar, & Türer, 2007). They are also considered potential invaders in Europe and North America.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Untitled

Tarkan¹,

Karakuş²,

Tepeköy³

et al. 2018

Turk. J. Fish. Aquat. Sci.

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Several Ponto-Caspian gobiids have expanded from their native distribution ranges to Europe and North America. As knowledge on their bio-ecological features in their native range is still limited, the trophic ecology of monkey goby Neogobius fluviatilis and Western tubenose goby Proterorhinus semilunaris was studied in three natural lakes in the Marmara Region of NW Turkey using the stable isotopes of δ 13 C and δ 15 N. In two of the lakes, the trophic niches (as the isotopic niche) of the gobies were highly divergent with co-existing native fishes, with no overlap. Moreover, mixing models suggests considerable inter-specific dietary differences. In all lakes, the trophic niches of gobies were never significantly larger than those of coexisting fishes. These results suggest that when introduced outside of their natural range, the gobies might integrate into new fish communities via exploiting resources that are underexploited by native fishes or will initially share resources with these species before their niches diverge, perhaps through competitive displacement.

show abstract

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 80%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Untitled

Tarkan¹,

Karakuş²,

Tepeköy³

et al. 2018

Turk. J. Fish. Aquat. Sci.

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Indeed, the diet of monkey goby in Slovakia is composed mainly from Chironomid larvae and small Crustaceans, whereas the prey of bighead and round gobies also include bigger items, such as Molluscs, Amphipods and Trichoptera larvae, with bighead goby preying even on small fishes (Koščo et al, 2006;Adámek et al, 2007). Similar dietary preferences for smaller prey have been reported for both native and non-native populations of monkey goby, with Mollusc consumption limited to large specimens (Berg, 1949;Kakareko et al, 2005;Gaygusuz et al, 2007).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 59%

Ontogenetic variability in the external morphology of monkey goby, Neogobius fluviatilis (Pallas, 1814) and its relevance to invasion potential

et al. 2008

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In the previous decade, four species of non-native gobies have invaded the middle section of the river Danube and its tributaries. An effective tool for understanding biological invasions is the evaluation of various biological traits (morphological, life history, ontogenetic) within an epigenetic context. The present study examines the external morphology of monkey goby Neogobius fluviatilis (Pallas, 1814) from the mouth of the River Hron, the morphological differences among three goby species (monkey, bighead and round) and the relevance of these differences for invasive potential. Monkey goby reach their definite phenotype very early in their ontogeny and thus represent a strongly precocial (specialized) species with direct development. The morphological differences between monkey and two other goby species also reflect its strong specialization for sandy substrata and smaller prey types. Thus, monkey goby are not expected to spread to new areas as fast as the round and bighead gobies, and their distribution is likely to be limited to sandy and/or sandy-gravel substrata. If this assumption is correct, then the potential adverse impact of monkey goby on native fauna or even ecosystem is likely to be less than that of the bighead and round gobies.

show abstract

“…D. polymorpha is widely distributed throughout the Black Sea region (Son, 2007), and tends to be abundant where it is found (Gaygusuz et al, 2007;Vrtílek and Reichard, 2012). It has well-described negative impacts, such as obstructing pipelines (DSI, 2005) and fouling unionid mussels (Lewandowski, 1976;Schloesser et al, 1996).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%