Crustacean diversity of Ildırı Bay (Izmir, Turkey

DOI: 10.22120/jwb.2020.131461.1164 Special issue 41-49 (2020) Challenges for Biodiversity and Conservation in the Mediterranean Region (http://www.wildlife-biodiversity.com/) Research Article Crustacean diversity of Ildırı Bay (Izmir, Turkey) Murat Ozaydinli1*, Kemal Can Bizsel2 1 Ordu University, Fatsa Faculty of Marine Science, Department of Fisheries Technology Engineering, 52400, Ordu, Turkey, 2 Dokuz Eylül University, Institute of Marine Sciences and Technology, 35340, Izmir, Turkey *Email: muratozaydinli@gmail.com Received: 22 July 2020 / Revised: 16 September 2020 / Accepted: 22 September 2020 / Published online: 21 October 2020. Ministry of Sciences, Research, and Technology, Arak University, Iran. Abstract In this study, the crustacean diversity in Ildırı Bay, which is characterized by a high density of aquaculture activity and tourism, was investigated. Sampling was carried out by boxcorer during four seasonal cruises (April, July, November 2010, and February 2011) at eight stations. Based on the analyzed samples, Crustacea has been represented with two classes, five orders, 25 families, and 40 species in the study area. Amphipods were the dominant taxon in terms of species richness (15 species), followed by both tanaids (8 species) and decapods (8 species). Although tanaids were the most abundant taxon, decapods had the highest biomass. The most abundant tanaid species was Chondrochelia savignyi (Kroyer, 1842). Crustacea abundance was negatively correlated with depth. Keywords: Amphipod, Benthic, Semi-enclosed water, The Aegean Sea Introduction Crustaceans are a critical element of the marine benthic ecosystem in terms of macrofauna diversity and impact assessment. Many studies have been conducted on crustacean species in the Aegean Sea (Geldiay and Kocataş 1970, Geldiay and Kocataş 1973, Katağan 1982, Ergen et al. 1988, Kırkım 1998, Katağan et al. 2001, Koçak et al. 2001, Ateş 2003, Sezgin 2003, Yokeş et al. 2007, Anastasiadou et al. 2020). These studies and more have been compiled by Bakır et al. (2014), who has given a checklist. A total of 1028 Crustacean species was reported along the Aegean Sea coast of Turkey Bakır et al. (2014). The Ildırı Bay is characterized by a high intensity of aquaculture and tourism activities (Demirel 2010, Bengil and Bizsel 2014). The data from The Provincial Agriculture Directorate (TIM) show that 15,690 tonnes of aquaculture fish (sea bream, seabass, and bluefin tuna) are produced by 20 facilities in Ildırı Bay per year (Demirel 2010). There are some studies that investigated the impact of aquaculture on water quality (Basaran et al. 2007) and microplankton (Yurga et al. 2005) in Ildırı Bay. Apart from research on aquaculture impacts, studies on macrobenthos diversity of the bay are very scarce. The molluscan fauna of Ildırı Bay has been reported by Culha et al. (2019) and Dogan et al. (2007). Additionally, a new crustacean species (Ampithoe bizseli) was reported by Özaydinli and Coleman (2012) during sampling from a floating aquaculture cage in Ildırı Bay. Although no study focuses 42| Journal of Wildlife and Biodiversity 4 (Special issue): 41-49 (2020) on the crustacean diversity of Ildırı Bay, there are some studies carried out as complementary of the neighboring areas. Kocataş et al. (2001) sampled only one station in Ildırı Bay in his study on the benthic amphipods of Çeşme Peninsula coasts. Mantıkçı (2009) investigated the impact of aquaculture on the macrozoobenthos in Gerence Bay, which is a semi-enclosed marine region as an adjacent site to Ildırı Bay. The study aims to provide an understanding of the crustacean fauna in Ildırı Bay, which is intensely under the anthropogenic impact. This is the first detailed study on the species composition and diversity of the crustacean fauna of Ildırı Bay. Material and methods Study Area The Ildırı Bay is located at the middle-Western coasts of the Anatolia Peninsula in Turkey. The Çeşme and Karaburun peninsulas surround it. At the bay entrance, some islands separate the bay from Sakız (Chios) Strait (Fig. 1). Sampling was carried out during four seasonal cruises (April, July, November 2010 and February 2011) aboard the ‘R/V DokuzEylül 1’ and ‘R/V K. Piri Reis’, at seven stations (St1St7) and one reference station (StR). St5 and St7 were closed around the fish cages, while St6 was relatively distant away. The other four stations, St1, St2, St3, and St4, were in the shallower zone where the fish cages were moored previously until the year that the study began (Fig. 1). The bottom substrate characteristics of the study stations were given in Table 1. Figure 1. Location of the study area (box on the left) and the stations (box on the right) (map produced based on Schlitzer 2020) A sampling of macrobenthic fauna Sediment samples for analyzing macrobenthic fauna were collected using Box Corer with a sampling area of 0.25 m2. Three subsamples from each sample were collected randomly by using plexiglass sampling cores with 4.5 cm internal diameter. Each subsample was preserved in a plastic vial containing a 4% formalin solution until the microscopic analysis in the laboratory. Before microscopic analysis, each sample was sieved through a 0.5 mm mesh sieve and stored in a plastic vial in 4% formaldehyde. The samples were then sorted and analyzed under a stereo-microscope. Crustacea specimens were identified to lowest possible taxon level by following the many different monographs, papers, and guides (Bellan-Santini et al. 1982, 1989, 1993, 1998, Carpenter and Niem 1998 Kırkım 1998) and current taxonomic status 43 | Journal of Wildlife and Biodiversity 4 (Special issue): 41-49 (2020) were checked by the World Register of Marine Species (WoRMS Editorial Board 2020). Their wet weight obtained rapidly after blotting the excessive liquids on absorbent paper. The number of individuals per unit area for each taxa (ind. m–2) and their biomass per unit area (g m–2) were determined. Table 1. Characteristics of sampling stations Stations Biotope Depth St1 Fine sand, Silt-Clay, Posidonia 15 St2 Fine sand, Silt-Clay, Posidonia 10 St3 Fine sand, Silt-Clay, Posidonia 15 St4 Fine sand, Silt-Clay, Posidonia 20 St5 Coarse and Fine sand, Silt-Clay 50 St6 Coarse and Fine sand, Silt-Clay 50 St7 Fine sand, Silt-Clay 70 StR Fine sand, Silt-Clay 60 Data analysis The community parameters of the species were calculated for each station and sampling period. Diversity was calculated using the (log-based) Shannon-Wiener index (H’) (Shannon and Weaver 1949), and evenness index (J’) was calculated following Pielou (1977). Cluster analysis was performed using the BrayCurtis similarity index values (Bray and Curtis 1957) to obtain the degree of similarity in species composition of crustaceans among sampling stations. Prior to this analysis, the data have been transformed (log x+1), according to the procedure described in Clarke and Warwick (2001), for minimizing the influence of dominant and rare taxa. Calculations and analyses were done using the PRIMER v.5 software package. Spearman Rank Order Correlation between crustacean abundance and depth was done using the STATISTICA 8.0 software package. Results In the study area, the crustaceans were represented by two classes, five orders, 25 families, and 40 species. Even though Ostracoda are classified as members of meiofauna, they were also included in the analysis, as they retained on the sieves. Systematics of the species found at the study site are presented in Table 2. Amphipods were the dominant taxon in terms of species richness (15 species), followed by both tanaids (8 species) and decapods (8 species). Cumaceans and isopods were represented by 4 and 3 species, respectively. Although tanaids were the most abundant taxon with 6,180 and./m2 in total, decapods had the highest biomass (5.73 g/m2, 42 % of total). Nevertheless, amphipods have the highest species number, which have ranked them as the secondary taxon in terms of both abundance and biomass. The most abundant tanaid species was Chondrochelia savignyi (Krøyer, 1842), with 4,236 and./m2 in total (Fig. 2). Chondrochelia savignyi was found in every sampling periods at St1 and St2, but rarely at St3 and St4. This species was never found at stations that closed to the floating cages offshore. Three species, Harpinia dellavallei Chevreux, 1910, Perioculodes longimanus angustipes Ledoyer, 1983, and Agathotanaidae (sp.) were only found in StR. Besides, Achaeus cranchii Leach. 1817 was the species found at St7 only in a single sampling period. 45 | Journal of Wildlife and Biodiversity 4 (Special issue): 41-49 (2020) Table 2. Systematic of the Crustacea species at the study site Class Malacostraca Order Amphipoda Family Ampeliscidae Phoxocephalida e Leucothoidae Corophiidae Maeridae Aoridae Oedicerotidae Tanaidacea Agathotanaidae Apseudidae Leptocheliidae Leptognathiida e Cumacea Tanaidae Paratanaoidea Nannastacidae Isopoda Leuconidae Bodotriidae Gnathiidae Decapoda Inachidae Paguridae Callianassidae Ethusidae Galatheidae Diogenidae Processidae Ostracoda Species Ampelisca sp. Ampelisca jaffaensis (Bellan-Santini & Kaim-Malka, 1977) Ampelisca sarsi (Chevreux 1888) Ampelisca truncata Bellan-Santini & Kaim-Malka, 1977 Ampelisca typica (Bate 1856) Harpinia dellavallei Chevreux 1910 Leucothoe sp. Leucothoe oboa Karaman 1971 Leucothoe venetiarum Giordani-Soika 1950 Leptocheirus longimanus Ledoyer 1973 Maera sp. Microprotopus cf. maculatus Norman 1867 Perioculodesa equimanus (Korssman 1880) Perioculodes longimanus angustipes Ledoyer 1983 Synchelidium longidigitatum Ruffo 1947 Agathotanaidae (sp.) 1 Apseudes latreillii (Milne-Edwards 1828) Heterotanais oerstedii (Kroyer 1842) Chondrochelia savignyi (Kroyer 1842) Araphura brevimanus (Lilljeborg 1864) Akanthophoreus gracilis (Krøyer 1842) Tanais dulongii (Audouin 1826) Pseudoparatanais batei (Sars 1882) Campylaspis sp. Cumacea (sp.) Eudorella truncatula (Bate 1856) Iphinoe sp. Gnathia sp. Gnathia vorax (Lucas 1849) Gnathia oxyuraea (Lilljeborg 1855) Achaeus cranchii Leach 1817 Anapagurus sp. Callianassa subterranea (Montagu 1808) Ethusa mascarone (Herbst 1785) Galathea intermedia Liljeborg 1851 Paguridae (sp) Paguristes syrtensis De Saint Laurent 1971 Processa cf. canaliculata Leach 1815 Ostracoda (sp.) 1 Ostracoda (sp.) 2 46| Journal of Wildlife and Biodiversity 4 (Special issue): 41-49 (2020) Figure 2. Dominance of species (left); Abundance and composition of the species (right) in Ildırı Bay Results of Shannon-Wiener diversity and Pielou’s evenness indices were presented in Table 3. St2 was the richest station in terms of Crustacea species for all sampling periods except April 2010. Hence, the highest diversity values were obtained in this station, i.e., H’=1.83 and H’=1.67 in July and November 2010, respectively. As a consequence of higher abundance of C. savignyi (Kroyer, 1842), the highest abundance values were found at St2 and St4 in July 2010 and February 2011, respectively. No species were detected at stations: N'10-St3, J'10-St7, N'10-St7. When seasonal data were pooled for each station, St2 had the highest species number (19 species), while St4 had the highest number of individuals (Fig. 2). According to correlation analysis, Crustacea abundance was negatively correlated with depth (r=-0.5054, p<0.05). A dendrogram for hierarchical clustering of the Crustacea abundances at the study site, using group-average clustering of Bray-Curtis similarities, is shown in Fig. 3. As seen in this dendrogram, the outer stations (St5, St6, St7 and StR) differentiated from the inner stations (St1, St2, St3, and St4), in terms of abundance of Crustacea species. The similarity between these two groups was lower than 20 %. C. savignyi (Kroyer, 1842), Ostracoda (sp.) 1 and Eudorella truncatula (Bate, 1856) were mainly responsible for the dissimilarity between the inner and the outer stations. StR differentiated from the other stations in all sampling periods except in July 2010 (J_R) due to presence of C. savignyi (Kroyer, 1842). Figure 3. A dendrogram for hierarchical clustering of the crustacean abundances at the study site 46| Journal of Wildlife and Biodiversity 4 (Special issue): 41-49 (2020) Table 3. Community parameters of crustacean species Stations Number of Species Total Individual Pielou Evenness Shannon-Wiener Diversity St S N(ind./m2) J' H'(loge) 1 5 3 1 3 2 1 1 1 2 9 2 3 4 3 3 4 7 1 2 2 1 3 10 3 5 1 5 1 1 700 839 419 629 419 210 210 210 419 1205 419 301 231 208 629 693 372 210 419 72 210 839 432 60 1779 210 165 140 210 0.89 0.95 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 0.83 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.68 0.86 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 0.95 0.62 0.95 0.70 0.00 0.93 0.00 0.00 1.43 1.04 0.00 1.10 0.69 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.69 1.83 0.69 1.04 1.39 1.04 1.10 0.94 1.67 0.00 0.69 0.69 0.00 1.04 1.43 1.04 1.12 0.00 1.49 0.00 0.00 April' 10 2 3 4 5 6 7 R 1 July' 10 2 3 4 5 6 November' 10 R 1 2 4 5 6 R 1 February' 11 2 3 4 5 6 7 R Discussion In this study, 40 crustacean species were recorded, and amphipods were the dominant taxon in species numbers (15 species). Kocataş et al. (2001), in his study investigating the benthic amphipods of the coast of the Çeşme Peninsula, identified four amphipod species in one station located in Ildırı Bay. According to Bakır et al. (2014), 484 Crustacea species were recorded in the soft substrate in the Aegean Sea in a depth range of 0–100 m. In the same study, the distribution of the Arthropoda species was mapped along the coast of Turkey. According to this map, there are between 60–79 arthropod species in the coastal areas of Ildırı Bay and between 14–24 species in the more exposed areas. Mantıkçı (2009) found 13 crustacean species in his study investigating fish-farm impact in Gerence Bay, which is adjacent to Ildırı Bay. Only two species, Tanais dulongii (Audouin, 1826) and Callianassa cf. subterranean (Montagu, 1808)were in common with our study. Aslan-Cihangir and Panucci-Papadopoulou (2011) reported that depth is an essential factor in peracarid distribution patterns (Robertson et al. 1989, Corbera and Cardell 1995, Lourido et 47 | Journal of Wildlife and Biodiversity 4 (Special issue): 41-49 (2020) al. 2008) and they found negative correlation (r=-0.4424, p<0.05) between peracarid abundance and depth. As well as in our study, Crustacea abundance was negatively correlated with depth (r=-0.5054, p<0.05). Despite limited knowledge on the bay's biodiversity obtained from the scarce previous study, the contribution of this study, as being the first systematical study, indicated the potential of the region in terms of area. Acknowledgments This work forms part of the MSc thesis of the first author. This study was funded by The Scientific and Technological Research Council of Turkey (TUBITAK, Project no: 107Y225). References Anastasiadou C., Papathanasiou V., Kamidis N., Gubili C. 2020. Crustacean decapod diversity is associated with four shallow meadows of Cymodocea nodosa meadows from the North Aegean Sea. Journal of Wildlife and Biodiversity 4(1): 55–65. Aslan-Cihangir H., Pancucci-Papadopoulou M.A. 2011.Spatial and temporal variation of soft-bottom peracarid (Crustacea: Peracarida) infauna in the Çanakkale Strait (Turkey).Mediterranean Marine Science 12(1): 153–182. Ateş A.S. 2003. Decapoda (Crustacea) species in the sublittoral zone of the Turkish Aegean Sea coast and their bioecological features. PhD, Ege University, İzmir, Turkey. 238 pp. Bellan-Santini D., Karaman G., KrappSchickel G., Ledoyer M., Myers A.A., Ruffo S, Schiecke U. 1982. Gammaridea (Acanthonotozomatidae to Gammaridae). In Sandro Ruffo [ed.], The Amphipoda of the Mediterranean, Part 1, Memoires Del’ Institut Oceanographique, Monaco: 1-364. Bellan-Santini D., Diviacco G., KrappSchickel G., Myers A.A, Ruffo S. 1989. Gammaridea (Haustoriidae to Lysianassidae). In Sandro Ruffo [ed.], The Amphipoda of the Mediterranean, Part 2, Memoires Del’ Institut Oceanographique, Monaco: 365-576. Bellan-Santini, D., Karaman, G.S., KrappSchickel, G., Ledoyer, M, and Ruffo, S. 1993. Gammaridea (Melphidippidae to Talitridae) Ingolfiellidea, Caprellidae. In Sandro Ruffo [ed.], The Amphipoda of the Mediterranean, Part 3, Memoires Del’ Oceanographique, Monoca: 577-813. Bellan-Santini, D., Karaman, G.S., Ledoyer, M.., Myers, A.A.., Ruffo, S, Vader W. 1998. Localities and Map, Addenda to Parts 1-3, Key to Families, Ecology, Faunistics and Zoogeography, Bibliography, Index. In: The Amphipoda of the Mediterranean, Sandro Ruffo ed., Part 4, Memoires Del’ Institut Oceanographique, Monaco: 815959. Bengil F., Bizsel K. 2014. Assessing the impact of aquaculture farms using remote sensing: an empirical neural network algorithm for Ildırı Bay, Turkey. Aquaculture Environment Interactions 6(1): 67–79. Bakır A.K., Katağan T., Aker H.V, Özcan T., Sezgin M., Ateş A.S., Koçak C., Kırkım F. 2014. The marine arthropods of Turkey. Turkish Journal of Zoology 38: 765–831. Basaran A., Aksu M., Egemen O. 2007. Monitoring the Impacts of the Offshore Cage Fish Farm on Water Quality Located in Ildir Bay (Izmir-Aegean Sea). Tarım Bilimleri Dergisi-Journal of Agricultural Sciences 13: 22-28. Bray J.R., Curtis J.T. 1957. An ordination of the upland forest communities of southern Wisconsin. Ecological Monographs 27: 325–349. Clarke K.R., Warwick R.M. 2001. Change in marine communities: an approach to statistical analysis and interpretation (2nd edition). Plymouth: PRlMER-E. Carpenter K.E., Niem V.H. 1998. Volume 2. 48| Journal of Wildlife and Biodiversity 4 (Special issue): 41-49 (2020) Cephalopods, crustaceans, holothurians and sharks. Food And Agriculture Organization Of The United Nations, Rome Corbera J., Cardell M.J. 1995. Cumaceans as indicators of eutrophication on soft bottoms. Scientia Marina 59 (Suppl.1): 6369. Culha M., Somek H., Aksoy O. 2019. Impact of offshore aquaculture on molluscan biodiversity in Ildır Bay, Aegean Sea, Turkey. Journal of Environmental Biology 40: 76–83. Demirel Y. 2010. KıyıBölgesinde Yürütülen Faaliyetlerin Deniz Ekolojine Etkileri. MSc., Dokuz Eylül University, İzmir, Turkey. Dogan A., Onen M., Ozturk B. 2007. IldırKörfezi (İzmir - Çeşme) Bivalvia (Mollusca) Faunası. Turkish Journal of Aquatic Life 3–5 (5–8): 27–35. Ergen Z., Kocataş A., Katağan T., Önen M. 1988. The distribution of Polychaeta and Crustacea fauna found in Posidonia oceanica meadows of Aegean Coast of Turkey. Rapports et Proces-Verbaux des Reunions - Commission Internationale pour l' Exploration Scientifique de la Mer Mediterranee (CIESM) 31: 1–25. Geldiay R., Kocataş A. 1970. A report on the Anomura collected from the Aegean coast of Turkey (Crustacea, Decapoda). Scientific Report in Faculty of Science in Ege University 98: 1–35. Geldiay R., Kocataş A. 1973. Türkiye Natantia (Crustacea) faunasının bazı biyolojik ve ekolojik özellikleri hakkında. In: IV. TÜBİTAK Bilim Kongresi. Ankara, Turkey: TÜBİTAK, pp. 1–7. Katağan T. 1982. Türkiye’nin Ege Denizi littoral Kumase’leri üzerine sistematik ve ekolojik araştırmalar. PhD, Ege University, İzmir, Turkey. Katağan T., Kocataş A., Sezgin M. 2001. Amphipod biodiversity of shallow water Posidonia oceanica (L.) Delile 1813 meadows in the Aegean coasts of Turkey. Acta Adriatica 42: 25–34. Kırkım F. 1998. Investigations on the systematics and ecology of the Aegean Sea Isopoda (Crustacea) fauna. PhD, Ege University, İzmir, Turkey. Koçak C., Katağan T., Kocataş A. 2001. Anomurans of the Aegean Sea coasts of Turkey and reported species from Turkish Seas. Turkish Journal of Zoology 25: 305– 311. Kocataş A., Katağan T., Sezgin M., Kırkım F. 2001.The benthic amphipods of Çeşme peninsula. Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Science 18: 111–115. Lourido A., Moreira J., Troncoso J. S. 2008. Assemblages of peracarid crustaceans in subtidal sediments from the Ría de Aldán (Galicia, NW Spain). Helgoland Marine Research 62: 289–301. Mantıkçı A.M. 2009. Balık çiftliklerinin makrozoobentos üzerine etkileri. MSc., İstanbul University Graduate School of Natural and Applied Sciences, İstanbul, Turkey. Özaydınli M., Coleman C.O. 2012.Ampithoe bizseli n. sp. (Crustacea, Amphipoda) from the west coast of Turkey. Zootaxa 3388: 17–28. Pielou E.C. 1977. Mathematical ecology. New York: John Wiley & Sons. X, 385 S. Robertson M.R., Hall S.J., Eleftheriou A. 1989. Environmental correlates with amphipod distribution in a Scottish Sea loch. Cahiers de Biologie Marine 30: 243-258. Schlitzer R. 2020. Ocean Data View, https://odv.awi.de. Shannon C.E., Weaver W. 1949. The Mathematical Theory of Communication. Urbana: University of Illinois Press, 1117p. WoRMS Editorial Board. 2020. World Register of Marine Species. Available from 49 | Journal of Wildlife and Biodiversity 4 (Special issue): 41-49 (2020) http://www.marinespecies.org at VLIZ. Accessed 2020-09-15. Yokeş M.B., Karhan S.Ü., Okuş E., Yüksek A., Aslan-Yılmaz A., Yılmaz N., Demirel N., Demir V., Galil B.S. 2007. Alien crustacean decapods from the Aegean coast of Turkey. Aquatic Invasions 2: 162– 168. Yurga L., Koray T., Egemen Ö., Başaran A. 2005. Deniz yetiştiriciliği yapılan bir bölgede mikroplankton tür çeşitliliği ve TRIX indekslerinde oluşan değişimler. Ege Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 22 (1): 177–186.