Research Article |
Corresponding author: Aurel Năstase ( aurel.nastase@ddni.ro ) Academic editor: Predrag Simonović
© 2022 Aurel Năstase, Ștefan Honț, Marian Iani, Marian Paraschiv, Irina Cernișencu, Ion Năvodaru.
This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY 4.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.
Citation:
Năstase A, Honț Ș, Iani M, Paraschiv M, Cernișencu I, Năvodaru I (2022) Ecological status of fish fauna from Razim Lake and the adjacent area, the Danube Delta Biosphere Reserve, Romania. Acta Ichthyologica et Piscatoria 52(1): 43-52. https://doi.org/10.3897/aiep.52.79646
|
The aim of this study was to determine the ecological status of fish fauna of Razim Lake under the conditions of the water salinity changing from brackish, almost 70 years ago, into freshwater nowadays. The natural processes of siltation and organic deposits, characteristic of Danube Delta lake complexes, intensified in the last decades and included also Razim Lake. The presently reported study of Razim Lake and the adjacent area was undertaken in 2020 with intention to cover fish fauna collected with three different sampling methods (electrofishing, gillnetting, and seining). For each sampling method, Catch per Unit Effort (CPUE), relative abundance, and biomass were determined, as well as selected ecological parameters to determine ecological status of richness species in the area. Published data included 55 fish species, mainly marine and euryhaline, but in 2020 only 43 species were reported. Also, the species composition shifted from marine ones to freshwater or euryhaline ones. Of those 43 species captured in 2020 from Razim Lake and neighboring areas, 39 were native and four were non-native, including a newcomer, the Chinese sleeper, Perccottus glenii Dybowski, 1877. Few species were migratory, reophilous, or reophilous-stagnophilous which rarely enter Razim Lake, but the majority were limnophilous or stagnophilous-reophilous species. Four species were dominant in terms of the abundance; Blicca bjoerkna (Linnaeus, 1758); Rutilus rutilus (Linnaeus, 1758); Alburnus alburnus (Linnaeus, 1758); and Carassius gibelio (Bloch, 1782). In terms of the biomass the dominants were: Cyprinus carpio Linnaeus, 1758; Carassius gibelio; Sander lucioperca (Linnaeus, 1758); Pelecus cultratus (Linnaeus, 1758); and Blicca bjoerkna. Some differences between sampling methods used were observed. Eudominant, euconstant, and main species were Blicca bjoerkna and the majority of fish species were accessories, with differences amongst sampling methods used. Fish diversity parameters indicate a stable ichthyocoenosis, more stable along the lake shoreline. Ecological indicators of fish fauna from Razim Lake in 2020 grade the water lake quality as a moderate ecological class according to the Water Framework Directive of the European Union.
fish species richness, abundance, biomass, fish ecology indicators, water ecological status
The Razim–Sinoie lake complex is situated in the southern part of the Danube Delta Biosphere Reserve (DDBR) and formed in an old gulf of the Black Sea—Halmirys—with water surface of 86 770 ha. The largest lake in the complex is Razim Lake with 41 400 ha (
Study area, sampling period, fish, and water measurements. The study area was represented by five sectors of Razim Lake, a large-surface lake: Fundea Gulf (1), Holbina Gulf (2), southern lake (3), Mustaca sector north and south and Oaia Lake (4), west Lake Enisala (5), and canals (Dunăvăț, Mustaca, Dranov) (Fig.
Fish sampling. The fish sampling and Catch per Unit Effort calculation (CPUE) was done in accordance with EU recommendations by use of common methods:
Taxonomy and ecology. The fish species scientific names used are consistent with the Eschmeyer’s Catalog of Fishes (
Frequency (constancy), dominance, and ecological significance classification according to:
Category | Symbol | [%] |
---|---|---|
Dominance | ||
Sporadic | D1 | <1 |
Subrecedent | D2 | 1–2 |
Recedent | D3 | 2–4 |
Subdominant | D4 | 4–8 |
Dominant | D5 | 8–16 |
Eudominant | D6 | >16 |
Constancy | ||
Very rare | C1 | 0.0–10.0 |
Rare | C2 | 10.1–25 |
Widespread | C3 | 25.1–45.0 |
Frequent | C4 | 45.1–70.0 |
Very frequent | C5 | 70.1–100 |
Ecological significance | ||
Accidental-adventitious | W1A | <0.001 |
Accidental | W1 | <0.1 |
Accessory | W2 | 0.1–1.0 |
Associate | W3 | 1.0–5.0 |
Complementary | W4 | 5.0–10.0 |
Characteristic | W5 | 10.0–20.0 |
Main, leading | W6 | >20 |
To determine ecological status of the lake, some quantitative ecological parameters were chosen as most expressive for fish communities: Relative Abundance in Number per Unit Effort (NPUE), Relative Biomass in Biomass Per Unit Effort (BPUE), the biodiversity index according Shannon–Wiener Index Hs, and Equitability Index = Evenness index (E) as in
Ecological matrix class for fish parameters assessment in accordance with the WFD (expert judgement based) according to the “one out, all out” principle.
Status | Color | Class | NPUE (n) | BPUE [g] | H s | E |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Very bad | Red | I | < 25 | < 500 | < 1 | < 0.2 |
Bad | Orange | II | 25–100 | 500–2000 | 1.0–1.4 | 0.2–0.4 |
Moderate | Yellow | III | 100–250 | 2000–5000 | 1.4–1.8 | 0.4–0.6 |
Good | Green | IV | 250–500 | 5000–10000 | 1.8–2.2 | 0.6–0.8 |
Very good | Blue | V | >500 | >10000 | >2.2 | >0.8 |
H s = –Σ pi ∙ ln(pi)
according Shannon–Wiener formulae
pi = Nr ∙ N –1
where pi is the dominance; Nr is the number of individuals belonging to a certain species; and N = total number of individuals in a sample.
E = Hs ∙ Hmax–1
According to the Water Framework Directive, it is desirable to test and apply known ecological parameters that could improve the methods of assessing the ecological status, using, when no other methods are available, even expert judgement analysis (this analysis from papers was thought of and used in a European project in 2014: Black Sea e-Eye - Innovative Instruments for Environmental Analysis in NW Black Sea Basin, to improve methodology after
Sampling site | N gillnets | Electr. | C gillnets | Seine | Total catch | ||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Name | No. | No. | L [m] | [min] | No. | L [m] | H No. | N | [g] |
Enisala | 5 | 14 | 420 | 30 | 4 | 120 | 5 | 1537 | 68653.9 |
Fundea | 1 | 12 | 360 | 30 | 3 | 90 | 0 | 2029 | 83557.5 |
Mustaca N | 4 | 12 | 360 | 30 | 7 | 210 | 0 | 789 | 87343 |
Mustaca S | 4 | 12 | 360 | 30 | 6 | 180 | 0 | 843 | 86432 |
Center | 4 | 3 | 90 | 0 | 15 | 450 | 0 | 385 | 46174 |
Holbina | 2 | 12 | 360 | 30 | 6 | 180 | 0 | 1029 | 70585 |
Periteasca S | 3 | 12 | 360 | 30 | 3 | 90 | 0 | 1245 | 76443 |
Canal Mustaca | 4 | 0 | 0 | 10 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 114 | 33403 |
Oaia mare | 4 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 4 | 120 | 0 | 71 | 20826 |
TOTAL Fish | 77 | 2310 | 190 | 48 | 1440 | 5 | 8042 | 573417.4 | |
Crayfish | 36 | 1446 |
In the summer of 2020, we captured 8042 fish individuals with more than 573 kg of fish and 36 individuals weighting in a total of almost 1.5 kg of crayfish (Table
Species richness. All captured individuals belong to 43 fish species and one crayfish species—Pontastacus leptodactylus. Overall, Razim’s ichthyofauna is dominated by limnophilous or stagnophilic-rheophilic species, such as white bream, Blicca bjoerkna (Linnaeus, 1758) and roach, Rutilus rutilus (Linnaeus, 1758), followed by characteristic-complementary-associated species, such as ziege, Pelecus cultratus (Linnaeus, 1758); European perch, Perca fluviatilis Linnaeus, 1758; pike-perch, Sander lucioperca (Linnaeus, 1758); common bream, Abramis brama (Linnaeus, 1758); bleak, Alburnus alburnus (Linnaeus, 1758); and gibel carp, Carassius gibelio (Bloch, 1782), but the majority of species occur sporadically in the Lake, with a significant number of species being accidentally found here (Table
Ecological significance of fish species from Razim Lake and the adjacent area (also included classes “Present = P” for species which could not be standardized, just observed).
Species | Nordic gillnets | Commercial gillnets | Electrofishing device | Seine | Other fishing gear | ||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
D | C | W | D | C | W | D | C | W | D | C | W | ||
Abramis brama | D1 | C2 | W1 | D4 | C2 | W3 | D2 | C3 | W3 | P | |||
Alburnus alburnus | D4 | C5 | W4 | D5 | C5 | W5 | D4 | C5 | W4 | P | |||
Alosa immaculata | D1 | C1 | W1A | ||||||||||
Alosa tanaica | D2 | C3 | W2 | D1 | C2 | W1 | P | ||||||
Pontastacus leptodactylus | D1 | C3 | W2 | D1 | C1 | W1 | D1 | C3 | W2 | P | |||
Atherina boyeri | D5 | C2 | W3 | ||||||||||
Babka gymnotrachelus | D1 | C3 | W2 | P | |||||||||
Ballerus sapa | D1 | C1 | W1A | ||||||||||
Blicca bjoerkna | D6 | C5 | W6 | D2 | C1 | W1 | D4 | C4 | W3 | D6 | C5 | W5 | P |
Carassius carassius | D2 | C1 | W2 | ||||||||||
Carassius gibelio | D1 | C3 | W2 | D6 | C5 | W6 | D4 | C3 | W3 | D3 | C5 | W3 | P |
Clupeonella cultriventris | D6 | C4 | W4 | D1 | C2 | W2 | P | ||||||
Cobitis tanaitica | D1 | C1 | W1 | ||||||||||
Ctenopharyngodon idella | D1 | C2 | W1 | P | |||||||||
Cyprinus carpio | D1 | C1 | W1A | D5 | C3 | W3 | D4 | C4 | W3 | D1 | C2 | W2 | P |
Esox lucius | D1 | C1 | W1 | D1 | C1 | W1 | P | ||||||
Gymnocephalus cernuus | D1 | C2 | W2 | ||||||||||
Hypophthalmichthys molitrix | D1 | C1 | W1A | ||||||||||
Knipowitschia caucasica | D2 | C2 | W2 | ||||||||||
Lepomis gibbosus | D1 | C1 | W1A | D1 | C1 | W1 | D1 | C2 | W1 | ||||
Leuciscus aspius | D1 | C2 | W1 | D2 | C2 | W2 | D1 | C3 | W2 | P | |||
Mugil cephalus | D1 | C1 | W1A | ||||||||||
Misgurnus fossilis | D1 | C1 | W1A | ||||||||||
Ponticola eurycephalus | D1 | C1 | W1A | D5 | C2 | W3 | |||||||
Neogobius fluviatilis | D1 | C1 | W1 | D1 | C1 | W1 | D4 | C4 | W3 | P | |||
Ponticola kessleri | D2 | C2 | W2 | ||||||||||
Neogobius melanostomus | D1 | C2 | W1 | P | |||||||||
Pelecus cultratus | D5 | C5 | W5 | D2 | C5 | W3 | P | ||||||
Perca fluviatilis | D4 | C5 | W4 | D2 | C1 | W2 | D4 | C3 | W3 | D4 | C5 | W4 | P |
Perccottus glenii | D1 | C1 | W1A | D1 | C1 | W1 | |||||||
Petroleuciscus borysthenicus | D1 | C1 | W1A | ||||||||||
Ponticola syrman | D1 | C1 | W1A | D1 | C2 | W1 | P | ||||||
Proterorhinus marmoratus | D1 | C1 | W1 | ||||||||||
Pungitius platygaster | D1 | C1 | W1 | ||||||||||
Rhodeus amarus | D1 | C1 | W1 | D2 | C2 | W2 | |||||||
Rutilus rutilus | D5 | C5 | W5 | D6 | C5 | W6 | D6 | C5 | W6 | P | |||
Sander lucioperca | D2 | C4 | W3 | D4 | C3 | W3 | D3 | C3 | W2 | D5 | C5 | W5 | P |
Scardinius erythrophthalmus | D4 | C4 | W3 | D1 | C1 | W1 | D4 | C3 | W3 | D5 | C5 | W4 | P |
Silurus glanis | D1 | C1 | W1A | D1 | C1 | W1 | D1 | C1 | W1 | ||||
Syngnathus abaster | D1 | C1 | W1A | D1 | C3 | W2 | P | ||||||
Tinca tinca | D1 | C1 | W1 | D4 | C1 | W2 | |||||||
Umbra krameri | D1 | C1 | W1 | ||||||||||
Vimba vimba | D1 | C2 | W1 | D1 | C1 | W1 | |||||||
Anguilla anguilla | P |
Out of the 43 fish species captured or observed in Razim Lake, nearly 1/3 are without commercial value (small fish) and 2/3 (30 fish species) have commercial value. From these 30 commercial fish species, more than 1/4 have high commercial value—pontic shad, Alosa immaculata Bennett, 1835; pike-perch, Sander lucioperca; Wels catfish, Silurus glanis Linnaeus, 1758; common carp, Cyprinus carpio Linnaeus, 1758; European eel, Anguilla anguilla (Linnaeus, 1758); and northern pike, Esox lucius Linnaeus, 1758). Almost half of the species have medium market value (like gibel carp, rudd, roach, tench, perch, bream, etc.) and almost 1/4 have low economic value (goby species). Of the 43 fish species, the majority are native and four are non-native species: Chinese sleeper, Perccottus glenii Dybowski, 1877; silver carp, Hypophthalmichthys molitrix (Valenciennes, 1844); grass carp, Ctenopharyngodon idella (Valenciennes, 1844); pumpkinseed sunfish, Lepomis gibbosus (Linnaeus, 1758). While some of the species are migratory, reophilous or reofilous-stagnofilous, such as Alosa immaculata, Anguilla anguilla, and white-eye bream, Ballerus sapa (Pallas, 1814), occur rarely in the Lake, others are stagnofilous-reophilous or limnophilous species which are the majority. The stagnophilous (limnophilous) species, like Caucasian dwarf goby, Knipowitschia caucasica (Berg, 1916) and mudminnow, Umbra krameri Walbaum, 1792, are very well represented in Razim Lake or the adjacent area.
Ecological status. The main species (eudominant, very frequent) in Razim Lake and adjacent waters are Blicca bjoerkna, Rutilus rutilus and Alburnus alburnus, but the majority of the species are accessory, as well as a significant percentage of species being accidental, with some differences between sampling methods (Table
The parameters used in the ecological characterization of Razim Lake from the point of view of the ichthyofauna show that they fall into the moderate class, the majority of the indicators having moderate and good values, but according to the “one out, all out” principle there are some indicators in the moderate state class, which makes us assert that Razim Lake has a Moderate ecological status in 2020 (Table
The ecological status of fish species from Razim Lake and the adjacent area according to
EcT | T [°C] | Ar [km2] | Geo | C | EcS | Fc | Fb | P:Z | FcR | FbR | P:Z/R |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
17 | 10–25 | <100 | Peat | 101–800 | High | Pi + Abex | 5–20 | >1 | |||
Good | Pi + Abex | 5–20 | >1 | 1.4 | |||||||
Mod. | Pi or Abex | >20 | 0.5–1 | Yes | 68 | ||||||
Poor | Altd | >20 | <0.5 | ||||||||
Bad | Altd | <5 | <0.5 |
Ecological status of Razim Lake and the adjacent area (according to WFD) using the “one out, all out” principle for fish biological parameters.
Parameter | NPUE (A) | BPUE (B) | H s | E |
Nordic gillnets (NG) | 158.6 | 6843.6 | 1.955 | 0.564 |
Ecological status NG | Moderate | Good | Good | Moderate |
Electrofishing (E) values | 126 | 18853.5 | 2.320 | 0.774 |
Ecological status E | Moderate | Very Good | Very Good | Good |
Seine (S) values | 136.8 | 7249.5 | 2.082 | 0.695 |
Ecological status S | Moderate | Good | Good | Good |
TOTAL | Moderate | Good | Good | Moderate |
Some large fish individuals like Sander lucioperca, Silurus glanis, and Abramis brama were rarely found during our sampling campaign in Razim Lake, probably due to legal and illegal overfishing. Extensive poaching with nylon and small mesh-size gillnets fishing is one of the most dangerous practices in reducing the quality and size of fish populations in the area. There is no precise estimate of the extent of poaching in Razim Lake since 1990, but it is believed that poaching is threatening all animals, especially fishes. Razim Lake, the largest lake of Romania has always been fascinating for studies of fish fauna, especially due to the contact of freshwater with the brackish water, which make it a “natural biological laboratory” of living fish population species, with a lot of hybrid individuals or subspecies. The diversity indices of Razim Lake and adjacent water bodies indicate a stable ecosystem, so a stable fish coenosis, with values of equitability (E) more than medium 0.5 for each sampling method. Shannon–Wiener Index values are increased, the boundaries are more than 1.955 with the maximum on the shorelines or canals from the reed band on the shoreline of the Lake (Fig.
Relative abundance and biomass. Relative abundance (CPUE) is dominated by bream species (especially white bream), roach, giebel carp, perch, bleak, rudd, and ziege, but for the majority of fish species, it has low values, with some differences between sampling methods (Fig.
Physico-chemical parameters of water. Geographical coordinates in some sites and physico-chemical parameters of water are presented in Table
Geographical coordinates and physical-chemical parameters observed in some fishing points from Razim Lake and the adjacent area in summer 2020.
Site code | Geographical coordinates | T [°C] | WD [cm] | TR [cm] | Sal [‰] | C [µS · cm–1] | Ox [mg · L–1] | OxS [%] |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Raz_iul_20_N1 | 44.90654°N, 028.86275°E | 28.7 | 160 | 35 | <0.5 | 495 | 8.58 | 112.4 |
Raz_iul_20_N2 | 44.90374°N, 028.86633°E | 30.2 | 180 | 35 | <0.5 | 492 | 9.01 | 121 |
Raz_iul_20_N3 | 44.89632°N, 028.86646°E | 28.7 | 140 | 35 | <0.5 | 495 | 8.58 | 112.4 |
Raz_iul_20_N4 | 44.86862°N, 028.88374°E | 23.0 | 130 | 30 | <0.5 | 505 | 8.01 | 92.7 |
Raz_iul_20_N5 | 44.85979°N, 028.89621°E | 22.8 | 180 | 30 | <0.5 | 508 | 8.18 | 94.5 |
Raz_iul_20_SN1-12 | 44.893994°N, 028.865412°E | 23.0 | 150 | 30 | <0.5 | |||
Raz_iul_20_Ave | 44.898313°N, 028.871662°E | 23.0 | 150 | 30 | <0.5 | |||
Raz_iul_20_E1 | 44.88736°N, 028.83898°E | 26.6 | 80 | 20 | <0.5 | 1142 | 14.06 | 174.6 |
Raz_iul_20_E2 | 44.88985°N, 028.84497°E | 25.4 | 110 | 20 | <0.5 | 531 | 9.72 | 118.8 |
Raz_iul_20_E3 | 44.89308°N, 028.82632°E | 28.3 | 110 | 20 | <0.5 | 1183 | 13.85 | 173 |
Raz_aug_20_SN1-12 | 25.0 | 150 | 30 | <0.5 | ||||
Raz_aug_20_Ave | 25.0 | 200 | 30 | <0.5 | ||||
Raz_aug_20_E1 | 44.89899°N, 029.09472°E | 25.3 | 250 | 20 | <0.5 | 398 | 6.58 | 80.1 |
Raz_aug_20_E1 | 44.89899°N, 029.09472°E | 25.9 | 250 | 20 | <0.5 | 369 | 6.08 | 75.3 |
Raz_aug_20_E2 | 44.86952°N, 029.09857°E | 25.6 | 50 | 25 | <0.5 | 388 | 8.07 | 99.5 |
Raz_aug_20_E3 | 44.85786°N, 029.11197°E | 26.0 | 80 | 35 | <0.5 | 426 | 8.93 | 110.8 |
Raz_aug_20_E4 | 44.84264°N, 029.09601°E | 25.8 | 120 | 35 | <0.5 | 388 | 8.65 | 107.8 |
Raz_aug_20_E5 | 44.82828°N, 029.07246°E | 25.7 | 130 | 30 | <0.5 | 466 | 10.8 | 124.4 |
Raz_aug_20_E6 | 44.85986°N, 029.04191°E | 25.5 | 140 | 30 | <0.5 | 435 | 8.96 | 110.1 |
Raz_aug_20_E7 | 44.88725°N, 029.03616°E | 25.7 | 90 | 35 | <0.5 | 440 | 11.6 | 143.3 |
Raz_DrMus_aug_20_E1 | 44.90084°N, 029.03267°E | 26.7 | 110 | 25 | <0.5 | 438 | 11.8 | 147.7 |
Raz_Est_aug_20_E2 | 44.91323°N, 029.03304°E | 25.8 | 90 | 25 | <0.5 | 443 | 10.15 | 124.1 |
Raz_Duna_aug_20_E3 | 44.94065°N, 029.03714°E | 26.1 | 25 | 25 | <0.5 | 383 | 6.53 | 81.5 |
Raz_GoFu_aug_20_E4 | 44.94658°N, 029.05917°E | 26.3 | 45 | 25 | <0.5 | 445 | 12.81 | 159.2 |
Raz_GoFu_aug_20_E5 | 44.96377°N, 029.09998°E | 26.9 | 80 | 20 | <0.5 | 426 | 10.74 | 134.4 |
Raz_GoFu_aug_20_E6 | 44.98711°N, 029.09542°E | 26.6 | 50 | 35 | <0.5 | 431 | 9.1 | 113.6 |
Raz_Peri_aug_20_E1 | 44.78973°N, 029.13181°E | 27.0 | 40 | 25 | <0.5 | 424 | 10 | 126 |
Raz_Peri_aug_20_E2 | 44.80348°N, 029.13816°E | 26.5 | 40 | 25 | <0.5 | 394 | 10.33 | 130 |
Raz_Peri_aug_20_E3 | 44.83177°N, 029.1365°E | 26.1 | 80 | 25 | <0.5 | 381 | 4.45 | 55.1 |
Since the 19th century, when Grigore Antipa drew attention to the decline in fish production in Razim Lake, reaching less than 1/3 of what it was 15 years before his studies (
The main species (eudominant, very frequent) in Razim Lake and adjacent waters were white bream, Blicca bjoerkna; roach, Rutilus rutilus; and bleak, Alburnus alburnus, but mostly are accessory, also a significant percentage of species being accidental, with some differences between sampling methods. Relative abundance (CPUE) was dominated by bream species (especially white bream), roach, gibel carp, perch, bleak, rudd, and ziege with low values for the majority of fish species, but relative biomass (BPUE) is dominated by common carp, gibel carp, roach, white bream, ziege, perch, pike-perch, and rudd with some differences between sampling methods. The diversity indices of Razim Lake and the adjacent area point to a more than medium stable fish coenosis, with the most stable being the shoreline area. The parameters used (according to
This research was funded by the Romanian Government through the “Danube Delta” Nucleus Programme 2019–2022. Our thanks to Dr Otel Vasile and Dr Staras Mircea for their scientific advice, many thanks to Katarina Tosic helping us in English translation, also thanks to the Danube Delta National Institute for Research and Development and its scientists, technicians, fishermen, and boat crew for their help in the fieldwork.