Hostname: page-component-5c6d5d7d68-ckgrl Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-08-20T11:11:53.607Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Age, growth and mortality of anchovy Engraulis encrasicolus in the south-eastern region of the Black Sea during the 2010–2011 fishing season

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  02 July 2013

N. Erdoğan Sağlam*
Affiliation:
Ordu University, Fatsa Faculty of Marine Sciences, Fatsa/Ordu, 52400-Turkey
C. Sağlam
Affiliation:
Ordu University, Fatsa Faculty of Marine Sciences, Fatsa/Ordu, 52400-Turkey
*
Correspondence should be addressed to: N. Erdoğan SağlamOrdu UniversityFatsa Faculty of Marine Sciences, Fatsa/Ordu, 52400-Turkey email: nes-34@hotmail.com

Abstract

In this research age composition, sex-ratio, growth, survival, mortality and exploitation rates were determined in the south-eastern Black Sea region of Turkey during the 2010–2011 fishing season. Anchovy in the age group 2 was the most abundant (64.06%), followed by age groups 1 (33.12%), 3 (1.80%) and 0 (1.02%). Mean length and weight of the total sample, males and females, were 11.63 ± 0.02 cm, 9.98 ± 0.04 g; 11.39 ± 0.03 cm, 9.40 ± 0.07 g; and 11.98 ± 0.02 cm, 10.73 ± 0.05 g, respectively. The mean condition factor was CF = 0.63 and the sex composition was 61.27% female, 34.40% male and 4.33% unidentified. Equations describing the relationship between length and weight, age and length, and age and weight were derived as W = 0.011 × L2.742, L(t) = 16.368*(1–e−0.425*(t +1.35)) and W(t) = 23.516*(1 –e–0.425*(t+1.35))2,747, respectively. The survival (S), instantaneous total mortality (Z), annual mortality (A), natural mortality (M) and fishing mortality (F) rates were found to be S = 5.8%, Z = 2.84 yr–1,, A = 94.2%, M = 0.66 yr−1, and F = 2.18 yr–1, respectively. The exploitation rate was calculated as 0.77, which is higher than the optimum exploitation level.

Type
Research Article
Copyright
Copyright © Marine Biological Association of the United Kingdom 2013 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

REFERENCES

Bilgin, S., Samsun, N., Samsun, O. and Kalaycı, F. (2006) Orta Karadeniz'de 2004–2005 Av Sezonunda Hamsi'nin, Engraulis encrasicolus L., 1758, Boy-Frekans Analiz Metodu ile Populasyon Parametrelerinin Tahmini, E.Ü. Su Ürünleri Dergisi 23, 359364.Google Scholar
Bingel, F. (1985) Balık Populasyonlarının İncelenmesi. İstanbul Üniversitesi Rektörlüğü Su Ürünleri Yüksek Okulu Sapanca Balık Üretme ve Islah Merkezi Yayınevi, İstanbul.Google Scholar
Bingel, F. and Gücü, A.C. (2010) Karadeniz Hamsisi ve Stok (Tespiti) Çalışmaları. 1. Ulusal Hamsi Çalıştayı: Sürdürülebilir Balıkçılık, 17–18 Haziran 2010 Trabzon, pp. 3857.Google Scholar
Boran, M. (1995) Trabzon Sahillerinde Çeşitli Kirleticilerin Zamansal ve Alansal Dağılımı . PhD thesis. Karadeniz Technical University, Trabzon, Turkey.Google Scholar
Brothers, E.B. (1987) Methodological approaches to the examination of otoliths in aging studies. In Summerfolt, R.C. and Hall, G.E. (eds) Age and growth of fish. Ames, IA: Iowa State University Press, pp. 319330.Google Scholar
Düzgüneş, E. and Karaçam, H. (1989) Karadeniz'deki Hamsi (Engraulis encrasicolus L. 1758) Balıklarında Bazı Populasyon Büyüme Özelliklerinin İncelenmesi. Doğa Zoology 13, 7783.Google Scholar
Erdogan, N., Duzgunes, E. and Ogut, H. (2009) Black Sea fisheries and climate change. In Workshop on climate forcing and its impacts on the Black Sea marine biota. Trabzon (Turkey) 3–6 June 2009. CIESM Workshop Monographs, n°39.Google Scholar
Erkoyuncu, I. and Özdamar, E. (1989) Estimation of the age, size and sex composition and growth parameters of anchovy Engraulis encrasicolus (L) in the Black Sea. Fishery Research 7, 41247.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
FAO (2000) FISAT II - FAO-ICLARM Stock Assessment Tool. Available at: http://www.fao.org/fishery/topic/16072/en (accessed 8 May 2013).Google Scholar
Fischer, W. (1973) FAO Species Identification Sheets for Fishery Purposes Mediterranean and Black Sea (Fishing area 37), Volume 1. FAO, Rome.Google Scholar
Genç, Y. and Başar, S. (1991) Ekonomik Deniz Ürünleri Araştırma Projesi. Su Ürünleri Merkez Araştırma Enstitüsü. Trabzon (Project Final Report).Google Scholar
Genç, Y. and Başar, S. (1992a) Ekonomik Deniz Ürünleri Araştırma Projesi, Karadeniz'deki Hamsi Balıkları Üzerine Bir Araştırma. Su Ürünleri Merkez Araştırma Enstitüsü. Trabzon (Project Final Report).Google Scholar
Genç, Y. and Başar, S. (1992b) Doğu ve Orta Karadeniz Bölgesindeki Hamsi Balığı Üzerine Araştırmalar. Su Ürünleri Merkez Araştırma Enstitüsü. Trabzon (Project Final Report).Google Scholar
Gözler, A.M. and Çiloğlu, E. (1998) Rize-Hopa Açıklarında 1997–1998 Avlanma Sezonunda Avlanan Hamsi (Engraulis Encrasicolus L., 1758) Balığı'nın Bazı Populasyon Parametreleri Üzerine Bir Araştırma. Doğu Anadolu Bölgesi III. Su Ürünleri Sempozyumu, 10–12 Haziran 1998 Erzurum, pp. 373382.Google Scholar
Gulland, J.A. (1971) The fish resources of the ocean. Revised edition. West Bylfleet: Fishing News (Books) Ltd.Google Scholar
Gulland, J.A. (1983) Fish stock assessment: a manual of basic methods. Volume 1. Chichester: FAO/Wiley Interscience Series on Food and Agriculture.Google Scholar
Karaçam, H. and Düzgüneş, E. (1988) Hamsi Balıklarında Net Et Verimi ve Besin Analizleri Üzerine Bir Araştırma. E.Ü. Su Ürünleri Dergisi 5, 100107.Google Scholar
Kayalı, E. (1998) Doğu Karadeniz ekosistemindeki hamsi (Engraulis encrasicolus L. 1758) ve istavrit (Trachurus mediterraneus) balıklarının biyoekolojik özellikleri üzerine bir araştırma. Master's thesis. Karadeniz Technical University, Trabzon, Turkey.Google Scholar
Kideys, A.E. (1994) Recent dramatic changes in the Black Sea ecosystem: the reason for the sharp decrease in Turkish anchovy fisheries. Journal of Marine Systems 5, 171181.Google Scholar
King, M. (1995) Fisheries biology, assessment and management. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Le Cren, E.D. (1951) The length–relationship and seasonal cycle in gonad weight and condition in the perch Perca fluviatilis . Journal of Animal Ecology 20, 201219.Google Scholar
MFALS (2009) Fishery circular No. 2008/48. Ministry of Food, Agriculture and Live Stock. DG Fisheries, Ankara.Google Scholar
Mutlu, C. (1994) A research on some population parameters of anchovy (Engraulis encrasicolus, Linneaus, 1758) in the Southeastern Black Sea. MSc thesis. KTU. Trabzon. Turkey. [In Turkish.]Google Scholar
Mutlu, C. (2000) Population characteristics of anchovy (Engraulis encrasicolus, Linneaus, 1758) population and estimation stock abundance by analytical methods in the Southeastern Black Sea. PhD thesis. KTU. Trabzon. Turkey. [In Turkish.]Google Scholar
Niermann, U., Bingel, F., Ergün, G. and Greve, W. (1998) Fluctuation of dominant mesozooplankton species in the Black Sea, North Sea and the Baltic Sea: is a general trend recognisable? Turkish Journal of Zoology 22, 6381.Google Scholar
Okur, H. (1989) Ekonomik Deniz Ürünleri Araştırma Projesi. Su Ürünleri Merkez Araştırma Enstitüsü. Trabzon (Project Final Report).Google Scholar
Özdamar, E., Kihara, K. and Erkoyuncu, İ. (1991) Some biological characteristics of European anchovy (Engraulis encrasicolus L. 1758) in the Black Sea. Journal of Tokyo University of Fisheries 78, 5764.Google Scholar
Özdamar, E., Samsun, O. and Erkoyuncu, İ. (1995) Karadeniz'de (Türkiye) 1994–1995 Av Sezonunda Hamsi (Engraulis encrasicolus L.) Balığına İlişkin Populasyon Parametrelerinin Tahmini. Su Ürünleri Dergisi 12, 135144.Google Scholar
Pauly, D. (1980) A selection of simple methods for the assessment of tropical fish stocks. FAO Fisheries Circular 729, 54 pp.Google Scholar
Rass, T.S. (1992) Changes in the fish resources of the Black Sea. Oceanology 32, 192203.Google Scholar
Ricker, W.E. (1975) Computation and interpretation of biological statistics of fish populations. Fisheries Research Board of Canada Bulletin 191, 382.Google Scholar
Samsun, O., Samsun, N., Kalayci, F. and Bilgin, S. (2006) A study on recent variations in the population structure of European anchovy (Engraulis encrasicolus L., 1758) in the Southern Black Sea. E.U. Journal of Fisheries & Aquatic Sciences 23, 301306.Google Scholar
Satılmış, H.H., Erdem, Y., Özdemir, S. and Sümer, Ç. (2010) Hamsinin (Engraulis encrasicolus ponticus) Kondisyon Faktörü ve Gonadosomatik İndeksinin Aylık Değişimi İle Fekonditesi. 1. Ulusal Hamsi Çalıştayı: Sürdürülebilir Balıkçılık, 17–18 Haziran 2010 Trabzon, pp. 118121.Google Scholar
Shlyakov, V. (2011) Anchovy in Ukranian coasts. Personal communication during STCEF meetings in Italy.Google Scholar
Slastenenko, E.P. (1956) The fishes of the Black Sea Basin (Turkish translation by Altan, H.). Istanbul: Et ve Balık Kurumu Umum Müdürlüğü Yayınları.Google Scholar
Sparre, P. and Venema, S.C. (1992) Introduction to tropical fish stock assessment, part 1. Manual. FAO Fisheries Technical Paper 306, 376 pp.Google Scholar
Şahin, C., Gözler, A.M. and Hacımurtazaoğlu, N. (2006) 2004–2005 Av Sezonunda Doğu Karadeniz'deki Hamsi (Engraulis encrasicolus L., 1758) Populasyonunun Yapısı. E.Ü. Su Ürünleri Dergisi 23, 497503.Google Scholar
TUIK (2011) Su Ürünleri İstatistikleri 2010. Ankara.Google Scholar
Ünsal, N. (1989) Karadeniz'deki Hamsi Balığı Engraulis encrasicolus (L. 1758)'nın Yaş-Boy Ağırlık İlişkisi ve En Küçük Av Büyüklüğünün Saptanması Üzerine Bir Araştırma. İstanbul Üniversitesi Su Ürünleri Dergisi 3, 1728.Google Scholar
Von Bertalanffy, L. (1957) Quantitative laws in metabolism and growth. Quarterly Review of Biology 32, 217231.Google Scholar