**4. Discussions**

**3.4. Different size classes of diet composition**

(**Figure 4**).

August).

366 Selected Studies in Biodiversity

Different size classes of topmouth gudgeon were characterized by different diet compositions (**Figure 4**). Prey zooplankton species was consumed by 58.90% of the 6.0- to 6.9-cm sized topmouth gudgeon, with a large weight (0.39%) percentage. However, it consumed in the 6.0–6.9 cm size class in the diet in terms of numbers (75.12%). In the stomachs of topmouth gudgeon of the 8.0–8.9 cm size class, only phytoplankton species was determined. In >10 cm sized topmouth gudgeon prey, Insecta species was identified

**Figure 5.** Percentages of the lake ecosystems and diet of topmouth gudgeon in Lake Eğirdir in 2010 (May, June, July,

The fish fauna of Lake Eğirdir was previously reported to consist of *Cyprinus carpio, Carassius gibelio, Tinca tinca, Vimba vimba, Capoeta pestai, Sander lucioperca, Alburnus chalcoides,*  *Pseudophoxinus egridiri, Pseudophoxinus handlirschi, Cobitis turcica, Barbatula mediterraneus, Seminemacheilus ispartensis, Aphanius anatoliae, Gambusia affinis, Knipowitschia caucasica, Hemigrammocapoeta kemali, Atherina boyeri* and *Pseudorasbora parva* [41]. Total of 15 fish species, including *P. parva*, were observed from January to December 2010 in the Lake Eğirdir [59]. Among the 15 recorded fish species, sand smelt *Atherina boyeri* (65.72%), killifish *Aphanius anatoliae* (19.39%) and Caucasian dwarf goby *Knipowitschia caucasica* (3.01%) are not commercially precious. Fishing activities were very limited in the lake and the average of annual catch was approximately 21.19 kg ha−1 in 2010. Fish species, which dominate in the catches, were crucian carp *Carassius gibelio*, pikeperch *Sander lucioperca*, common carp *Cyprinus carpio* and vimba, *Vimba vim*ba [60]. Zooplankton abundance in the lake ranged from 42 ± 24 to 3092 ± 2435 individuals L−1 from January to December 2010. Rotifera was the most abundant group dominated mainly by *Polyarthra dolichoptera* and *Keratella cochlearis*. *Bosmina longirostris* was also relatively abundant in the lake. In contrast, *C. sphaericus* showed lower abundance. The zooplankton abundance comprised as follows: Rotifera, 89.62%; Cladocera, 7.78% and Copepoda, 2.60% [43, 59]. The average number of zoobenthic organisms was 4.195 individuals/m2 , and *Tubifex* spp. were the most abundant taxa with 52.33% abundance, followed by *Chironomu*s spp. (17.10%) in the Lake Eğirdir [45].

et al. [7] confirmed that the fish prefers Chironomid larvae in Belgium. The consumption of fish eggs and fish larvae by topmouth gudgeon was well documented [34, 37]. Gozlan et al. [7] reported that eggs of native fish species and larvae were preferred the diet of topmouth gudgeon in China and Germany. In the present study, unidentified egg (1.37%) was also found in stomach contents of the fish. Additionally, the present study showed monthly variations in dominated food items and frequency occurrence of some food items significantly differed from month to month. Diet of topmouth gudgeon showed a great variety of food taxa in May except *Chironomus* sp. and *C. curvispinum*. The fish also preferred *A. quadrangularis, C. sphaericus, P. aduncus*, Annelida and *Chironomus* sp. (pupa). Shannon's diversity was highest

Prey Selection of *Pseudorasbora parva* (Temminck and Schlegel, 1846) in a Freshwater Ecosystem (Lake Eğirdir/Turkey)

months. In August, Insecta (*Chironomus* sp.), Annelida and Phytoplankton (*Gomphonema* sp.) were determined in the stomach content. The ratio of Insecta was 54.42%. It is important to note that *D. cucullata, Gomphonema* sp. and *Pediastrum* sp. were present in stomach only in August. The variety of food in June was less than that in the other months. In addition, zooplankton (*B. longirostris*), Trichoptera larvae and Malacostraca (*C. curvispinum*) were the crucial prey for the feeding of topmouth gudgeon in July. The ratio of Trichoptera larvae was 42.09%. Typically, the dominant food item (frequency of occurrence) was *Chironomus* sp., with 66.67% of total individuals in size classes of 11.0–11.9 cm, followed by *C. curvispinum* (33.33%) in the size classes of 10.0–10.9 cm, *Disparalona rostrata* (1.37%) in the size classes of 6.0–6.9 cm, Annelida (14.29%) in the size classes of 9.0–9.9 cm, Nauplii and *Pleuroxus aduncus* (1.37%) in the size classes 7.0–7.9 cm and *Daphnia cucullata* (3.57%), *Gomphonema* sp. (7.14%) and *Pediastrum* sp. (3.57%) were noticeable in the size classes of 8.0–8.9 cm. Yalçin-Özdilek et al. [37] indicated that topmouth gudgeon individuals with lengths greater than 3 cm mainly consumed Cyanobacteria. The importance of zooplankton, Insecta and Malacostraca in the diet of topmouth gudgeon is differed in different size of fish classes in this study. Larger fish have fewer zooplankton, more insecta and malacostraca in their diet and vice versa for smaller fish. Wolfram-Wais et al. [4] suggested that the diet of topmouth gudgeon changed with Chironomid larvae, especially epiphytic species in Neusiedler See from Austria. This result is in harmony with our study since the topmouth gudgeon >6 cm fed mainly on *Chironomus* sp. The fish was found to feed on *Chironomus* sp. intensively between April and June in Lake Eğirdir. Fullness index of topmouth gudgeon was also reported to be the highest in summer and spring [37]. Xie et al. [34] showed that topmouth gudgeon fed intensively during summer and autumn. However, fullness index of the topmouth gudgeon was high between April and June in Lake Eğirdir. Dietary overlap of topmouth gudgeon was reported by Yalçin-Özdilek et al. [37] from Gelingüllü reservoir. However, there was no dietary overlap between the smallest size class and the other classes [37]. Xie et al. [34] indicated that diet overlap of topmouth gudgeon individuals was low in summer and autumn. Our study showed that specimens belong to the <8 cm size classes were determined to ingest a great variety of prey items in comparison to other size classes. The specimens with >8 cm consumed mainly Annelida, *Chironomus* (pupa), *C. curvispinum*, Trichoptera larvae, principally *Chironomus* sp. However, zooplankton also was of importance in the diet of <8 cm size classes. Statistical analyses indicated that weight and length have the significant effects on nutrition habits of *Pseudorasbora parva* in Lake Eğirdir. Small-sized individuals preferred to feed on *N. hibernica*, whereas annelida was preferable

=1.80) was higher than in the other

http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.70471

369

in May and lowest in April. The variety of food in May (H′

*P. parva* had a diversed diet composition mainly with *Chironomus* sp., *N. hibernica, Chydorus sphaericus* and *Bosmina longirostris*. We determined that the diet of topmouth gudgeon in Lake Eğirdir was dominated by *Chironomus* sp. *Chironomus* spp. are also one of the most important food in Neusiedler See from Austria [4]. It was also stated that the topmouth gudgeon feeds on Chironomid larvae, Ceratopogonid larvae and Gastropods in Austria. Our results are in accordance with Wolfram-Wais et al. [4] who stated that topmouth gudgeon showed reliance mean to *Chironomus* spp., according to the IRI index. Hliwa et al. [35] observed that the diet of topmouth gudgeon in the Balaton Reservoir was characterized by *Bosmina* sp., *Chydorus* sp., Copepoda and *Daphnia* sp. According to Xie et al. [34], the diet of the topmouth gudgeon from the Biandantang Lake from China was registered by Copepoda, Cladocera, Ostracoda, Chironomid larvae and Mollusca. Generally, these findings have many common points with the present study. However, according to Yalçin-Özdilek et al. [37], the diet of the topmouth gudgeon from Turkey in Gelingüllü Reservoir was based mainly on Cyanobacteria, Insecta and Cladocera.

A minor role of Platyhelminthes in the topmouth gudgeon diet was also observed in Gelingüllü Reservoir by Yalçin-Özdilek et al. [37]. In addition, Karakuş [22] indicated that *P. parva* feeds dominantly on Insecta, detritus, Copepoda and other zooplankton groups, but rarely on Macrophyta, Nematode and Rotifers in Sarıçay Stream, Muğla, Turkey. Additionally, Karakuş [22] found that *P. parva* has a variety of diet spectrum and niche width, further it feeds on higher trophic levels.

Nikolova et al. [36] reported seasonal variations in the diet of *P. parva* from shallow eutrophic lakes along river Vit of Bulgaria. Diet of the topmouth gudgeon was dominated by Diptera/Chironomidae. The role of the Oligochaeta, Ephemeroptera, Copepoda/Calanoida Trichoptera and Nematoda as important additional food resource for topmouth gudgeon was recorded by Nikolova et al. [36]. In our study of temporal variation (monthly) of the diet revealed that the topmouth gudgeon diet in June and August was dominated by *Chironomus* sp., whereas in July there was an increase in the consumption of *Bosmina longirostris*. Gozlan *Pseudophoxinus egridiri, Pseudophoxinus handlirschi, Cobitis turcica, Barbatula mediterraneus, Seminemacheilus ispartensis, Aphanius anatoliae, Gambusia affinis, Knipowitschia caucasica, Hemigrammocapoeta kemali, Atherina boyeri* and *Pseudorasbora parva* [41]. Total of 15 fish species, including *P. parva*, were observed from January to December 2010 in the Lake Eğirdir [59]. Among the 15 recorded fish species, sand smelt *Atherina boyeri* (65.72%), killifish *Aphanius anatoliae* (19.39%) and Caucasian dwarf goby *Knipowitschia caucasica* (3.01%) are not commercially precious. Fishing activities were very limited in the lake and the average of annual catch was approximately 21.19 kg ha−1 in 2010. Fish species, which dominate in the catches, were crucian carp *Carassius gibelio*, pikeperch *Sander lucioperca*, common carp *Cyprinus carpio* and vimba, *Vimba vim*ba [60]. Zooplankton abundance in the lake ranged from 42 ± 24 to 3092 ± 2435 individuals L−1 from January to December 2010. Rotifera was the most abundant group dominated mainly by *Polyarthra dolichoptera* and *Keratella cochlearis*. *Bosmina longirostris* was also relatively abundant in the lake. In contrast, *C. sphaericus* showed lower abundance. The zooplankton abundance comprised as follows: Rotifera, 89.62%; Cladocera, 7.78% and Copepoda, 2.60% [43, 59]. The average number of zoobenthic

52.33% abundance, followed by *Chironomu*s spp. (17.10%) in the Lake Eğirdir [45].

in Gelingüllü Reservoir was based mainly on Cyanobacteria, Insecta and Cladocera.

A minor role of Platyhelminthes in the topmouth gudgeon diet was also observed in Gelingüllü Reservoir by Yalçin-Özdilek et al. [37]. In addition, Karakuş [22] indicated that *P. parva* feeds dominantly on Insecta, detritus, Copepoda and other zooplankton groups, but rarely on Macrophyta, Nematode and Rotifers in Sarıçay Stream, Muğla, Turkey. Additionally, Karakuş [22] found that *P. parva* has a variety of diet spectrum and niche width, further it feeds on higher trophic levels. Nikolova et al. [36] reported seasonal variations in the diet of *P. parva* from shallow eutrophic lakes along river Vit of Bulgaria. Diet of the topmouth gudgeon was dominated by Diptera/Chironomidae. The role of the Oligochaeta, Ephemeroptera, Copepoda/Calanoida Trichoptera and Nematoda as important additional food resource for topmouth gudgeon was recorded by Nikolova et al. [36]. In our study of temporal variation (monthly) of the diet revealed that the topmouth gudgeon diet in June and August was dominated by *Chironomus* sp., whereas in July there was an increase in the consumption of *Bosmina longirostris*. Gozlan

*P. parva* had a diversed diet composition mainly with *Chironomus* sp., *N. hibernica, Chydorus sphaericus* and *Bosmina longirostris*. We determined that the diet of topmouth gudgeon in Lake Eğirdir was dominated by *Chironomus* sp. *Chironomus* spp. are also one of the most important food in Neusiedler See from Austria [4]. It was also stated that the topmouth gudgeon feeds on Chironomid larvae, Ceratopogonid larvae and Gastropods in Austria. Our results are in accordance with Wolfram-Wais et al. [4] who stated that topmouth gudgeon showed reliance mean to *Chironomus* spp., according to the IRI index. Hliwa et al. [35] observed that the diet of topmouth gudgeon in the Balaton Reservoir was characterized by *Bosmina* sp., *Chydorus* sp., Copepoda and *Daphnia* sp. According to Xie et al. [34], the diet of the topmouth gudgeon from the Biandantang Lake from China was registered by Copepoda, Cladocera, Ostracoda, Chironomid larvae and Mollusca. Generally, these findings have many common points with the present study. However, according to Yalçin-Özdilek et al. [37], the diet of the topmouth gudgeon from Turkey

, and *Tubifex* spp. were the most abundant taxa with

organisms was 4.195 individuals/m2

368 Selected Studies in Biodiversity

et al. [7] confirmed that the fish prefers Chironomid larvae in Belgium. The consumption of fish eggs and fish larvae by topmouth gudgeon was well documented [34, 37]. Gozlan et al. [7] reported that eggs of native fish species and larvae were preferred the diet of topmouth gudgeon in China and Germany. In the present study, unidentified egg (1.37%) was also found in stomach contents of the fish. Additionally, the present study showed monthly variations in dominated food items and frequency occurrence of some food items significantly differed from month to month. Diet of topmouth gudgeon showed a great variety of food taxa in May except *Chironomus* sp. and *C. curvispinum*. The fish also preferred *A. quadrangularis, C. sphaericus, P. aduncus*, Annelida and *Chironomus* sp. (pupa). Shannon's diversity was highest in May and lowest in April. The variety of food in May (H′ =1.80) was higher than in the other months. In August, Insecta (*Chironomus* sp.), Annelida and Phytoplankton (*Gomphonema* sp.) were determined in the stomach content. The ratio of Insecta was 54.42%. It is important to note that *D. cucullata, Gomphonema* sp. and *Pediastrum* sp. were present in stomach only in August. The variety of food in June was less than that in the other months. In addition, zooplankton (*B. longirostris*), Trichoptera larvae and Malacostraca (*C. curvispinum*) were the crucial prey for the feeding of topmouth gudgeon in July. The ratio of Trichoptera larvae was 42.09%. Typically, the dominant food item (frequency of occurrence) was *Chironomus* sp., with 66.67% of total individuals in size classes of 11.0–11.9 cm, followed by *C. curvispinum* (33.33%) in the size classes of 10.0–10.9 cm, *Disparalona rostrata* (1.37%) in the size classes of 6.0–6.9 cm, Annelida (14.29%) in the size classes of 9.0–9.9 cm, Nauplii and *Pleuroxus aduncus* (1.37%) in the size classes 7.0–7.9 cm and *Daphnia cucullata* (3.57%), *Gomphonema* sp. (7.14%) and *Pediastrum* sp. (3.57%) were noticeable in the size classes of 8.0–8.9 cm. Yalçin-Özdilek et al. [37] indicated that topmouth gudgeon individuals with lengths greater than 3 cm mainly consumed Cyanobacteria. The importance of zooplankton, Insecta and Malacostraca in the diet of topmouth gudgeon is differed in different size of fish classes in this study. Larger fish have fewer zooplankton, more insecta and malacostraca in their diet and vice versa for smaller fish.

Wolfram-Wais et al. [4] suggested that the diet of topmouth gudgeon changed with Chironomid larvae, especially epiphytic species in Neusiedler See from Austria. This result is in harmony with our study since the topmouth gudgeon >6 cm fed mainly on *Chironomus* sp. The fish was found to feed on *Chironomus* sp. intensively between April and June in Lake Eğirdir. Fullness index of topmouth gudgeon was also reported to be the highest in summer and spring [37]. Xie et al. [34] showed that topmouth gudgeon fed intensively during summer and autumn. However, fullness index of the topmouth gudgeon was high between April and June in Lake Eğirdir. Dietary overlap of topmouth gudgeon was reported by Yalçin-Özdilek et al. [37] from Gelingüllü reservoir. However, there was no dietary overlap between the smallest size class and the other classes [37]. Xie et al. [34] indicated that diet overlap of topmouth gudgeon individuals was low in summer and autumn. Our study showed that specimens belong to the <8 cm size classes were determined to ingest a great variety of prey items in comparison to other size classes. The specimens with >8 cm consumed mainly Annelida, *Chironomus* (pupa), *C. curvispinum*, Trichoptera larvae, principally *Chironomus* sp. However, zooplankton also was of importance in the diet of <8 cm size classes. Statistical analyses indicated that weight and length have the significant effects on nutrition habits of *Pseudorasbora parva* in Lake Eğirdir. Small-sized individuals preferred to feed on *N. hibernica*, whereas annelida was preferable food for large fish. *M. leuckarti* was found to be markedly dominant in stomach content of *P.parva* in May. Indeed, *M. leuckarti* showed spread across the temperate zone of the lake in April–June [61]. In addition, Demirhindi [62] and Aksoylar and Ertan [63] reported variation in distribution of *M. leuckarti* in the lake [43]. The rate recorded in the stomach contents showed that *M. leuckarti* changed by sampling sites. *Pseudorasbora parva* fed on harpacticoid copepods *N. hibernica* mainly in May.

should be kept away from natural ecosystems since they constitute a great threat for native

Prey Selection of *Pseudorasbora parva* (Temminck and Schlegel, 1846) in a Freshwater Ecosystem (Lake Eğirdir/Turkey)

, Abdulkadir Yağci1

1 Fisheries Research Institute, Republic of Turkey Ministry of Food, Agriculture and Livestock,

2 Department of Fisheries, Faculty of Agriculture, University of Kahramanmaraş Sütçü Imam,

We like to thank all the technical staff for help in sampling from the Fisheries Research Institute, Eğirdir-Isparta, and Professor Dr. F. Güler Ekmekçi, Professor Dr. Ali Serhan Tarkan and Professor Dr. Andrzej Witkowski for their support to provide literature and Professor Dr.

[1] Baruš V, Kux Z, Libosvársky J. On *Pseudorasbora parva* (Pisces) in Czechoslovakia. Folia

[2] Perdices A, Doadrio I. Presence of the Asiatic cyprinid *Pseudorasbora parva* (Schlegel,

[3] Rosecchi E, Crivelli AJ, Catsadorakis G. The establishment and impact of *Pseudorasbora parva*, an exotic fish species introduced into lake Mikri Prespa (north-western Greece).

[4] Wolfram-Wais A, Wolfram G, Auer B, Mikschi E, Hain A. Feeding habits of two introduced fish species (*Lepomis gibbosus. Pseudorasbora parva*) in Neusiedler See (Austria), with special reference to chironomid larvae (Diptera: Chironomidae). Hydrobiologia.

Aquatic Conservation: Marine and Freshwater Ecosystems. 1993;**3**:223-231

Nadezhda A. Berezina and Assist. Prof. Dr. Arda Özen for English polishing.

1842) in North Africa. Miscellania Zoológica. 1992;**16**:236-239

3 Mediterranean Fisheries Research, Production and Training Institute, Antalya, Turkey

, Vedat Yeğen1

and

http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.70471

371

fish species for food and breeding grounds.

\*, Ahmet Alp2

\*Address all correspondence to: meralyagci@gmail.com

**Author details**

Meral Apaydin Yağci1

Mehmet Ali Turan Koçer3

Eğirdir, Isparta, Turkey

Kahramanmaraş, Turkey

**Acknowledgements**

Zoologica. 1984;**33**:5-18

1999;**408**/409:123-129

**References**

The results also indicate that topmouth gudgeon feeds on zoobenthic organisms in the lake. Prey selection showed that *D. cucullata, B. lon*girostris, Annelida, Tricoptera larvae and *Gomphonema* sp. positively selected by topmouth gudgeon in Lake Eğirdir; therefore, their selection indices were statistically significant (p < 0.01). Pearre's selectivity indices showed that *A. guttata, C. rectangula, Chironomu*s sp., *C. curvispinum, G. testunidaria, M. leuckarti* and Nauplii were neutrally selected. According to Didenko and Kruzhylina [10], Ivlev's selectivity indices demonstrate that topmouth gudgeon positively selected zooplankters such as *Chydorus sphaericus*, *Alona affinis*, *Pleuroxus* sp. and *Cyclops* sp., but avoided *Bosmina* sp. *Asplanchna priodonta* was also positively selected among rotifers. Anatolian endemics *Aphanius anatoliae* was consumed with a rate of 63.91% in the Lake [64]. In this study, the diatom (from Bacillariophyta) Gomphonema sp. according to the selectivity index, diets low statistically significant (V = 0.225, p < 0.01). Ekmekçi and Kırankaya [17] concluded that *P. parva* develops dense populations in some water bodies and it is blamed for food competition with other species. Moreover, the impact of *P. parva* on natural food structure was shown in terms of zooplankton and zoobenthos and main fish production parameters [65]. Musil et al. [65] found that differences in mean zooplankton members and especially in *Daphnia* density between the seasons of 2003 and 2004 were highly significant in fish ponds (three different ponds). Tarkan [66] informed that the disease vectors, such as *P. parva,* damaging fishing capacity are too large. The topmouth gudgeon has a high reproductive potential and it was uncontrollably introduced into the water resources. In addition, topmouth gudgeon is evaluated in the status of pest species [26].
