Skip to main content Accessibility help
×
Home
Hostname: page-component-5cfd469876-9knjr Total loading time: 0.24 Render date: 2021-06-25T11:21:31.338Z Has data issue: true Feature Flags: { "shouldUseShareProductTool": true, "shouldUseHypothesis": true, "isUnsiloEnabled": true, "metricsAbstractViews": false, "figures": true, "newCiteModal": false, "newCitedByModal": true, "newEcommerce": true }

Morphometric differentiation of gudgeon species inhabiting the Carpathian Basin

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  14 March 2012

Péter Takács
Affiliation:
Balaton Limnological Institute, Centre for Ecological Research of the Hungarian Academy of Sciences (BLI CER HAS), PO Box 35, 8237 Tihany, Hungary
Corresponding
E-mail address:
Get access

Abstract

The aim of this study was to examine morphometric differentiation of gudgeon (Romanogobio and Gobio) species inhabiting the Carpathian Basin, Hungary, with special regard to two recently described species classified into the Gobio genus. For statistical analyses, 23 morphometric and 8 meristic characters were measured on each of the 733 preserved specimens originating from museum collections. The analyses of the standardized morphometric traits revealed low intraspecific variability in all studied species, but varying degrees of interspecific differences. The strongest morphometric differentiation was found in Romanogobio uranoscopus (Agassiz, 1828), which can be characterized by the most special environmental needs. The two allopatric Gobio species showed the weakest morphometric difference. The meristic characters showed high variability in the Romanogobio spp., but did not show significant differences in the two Gobio species. The results show that the morphometric and meristic similarity of the studied Gobio species is definitely high, which preclude reliable identification based on phenotypic characters if only some specimens are available. It seems that the most usable discriminating feature for these species is the localization of the collection site.

Type
Research Article
Copyright
© EDP Sciences, 2012

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below.

References

Bănărescu, P., 1961. Weitere systematische studien über die Gattug Gobio (Pisces, Cyprinidae) insbesondere im Donaubecken. Vestn. Česko-Slov. Zool. Spol., 25, 318346.Google Scholar
Bănărescu, P.M., 1954. Biometrische und systematische studien an Gobio gobio aus Rumänien. Věstn. Čsl. Zool. Spol., 18, 640.Google Scholar
Bănărescu, P.M., 1962. Phylletische Beziehungen der Arten und Artbildung bei der Gattung Gobio (Pisces, Cyprinidae). Vest. Cs. Zool. Spol., 26, 3864.Google Scholar
Bănărescu, P.M., 1964. Pisces – Osteichthyes (pesti ganoizi si osisi), Fauna Rep. Pop. Romîne, Vol. 13, Ed. Acad. Rep. Pop. Romîne, Bucurest, 959 p.Google Scholar
Bănărescu, P.M., 1992. A critical updated checklist of Gobioninae (Pisces, Cyprinidae). Trav. Mus. Hist. Nat. “Grigore Antipa”, 32, 303330.Google Scholar
Bănărescu, P.M., 1999. Cyprinidae 2/I. In: Bănărescu, P.M. (ed.), The Freshwater Fishes of Europe, Vol. 5/I, Aula-Verlag Gmbh., Wiebelsbeim, 134136.Google Scholar
Berg, L.S., 1949. Fishes of fresh waters of the USSR and adjacent countries. Izd. Akad. Nauk SSSR, 2, 469925.Google Scholar
Berinkey, L., 1962. On the taxonomic place of the Hungarian populations of Gobio gobio L. (Pisces, Cyprinidae). Ann. Hist.-Nat. Mus. Nat. Hung., 54, 483494.Google Scholar
Berinkey, L., 1966. Halak-Pisces, Fauna Hungarie, Akadémiai Kiadó, Budapest, 132 p.Google Scholar
Bickford, D., Lohman, D.J., Navjot, S.S., Ng, P.K.L., Meier, R., Winker, K., Ingram, K.K. and Das, I., 2007. Cryptic species as a window on diversity and conservation. Trends Ecol. Evol., 22, 148155.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Bogutskaya, N.G. and Naseka, A.M., 2004. Catalogue of agnathans and fishes of fresh and brackish waters of Russia with comments on nomenclature and taxonomy, KMK Scientific Press Ltd, Moscow, 389 p.Google Scholar
Bourke, P., Magnan, P. and Rodriquez, M.A., 1997. Individual variations in habitat use and morphology in brook charr. J. Fish Biol., 51, 783794.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brinsmead, J. and Fox, M.G., 2002. Morphological variation between lake- and stream-dwelling rock bass and pumpkinseed populations. J. Fish Biol., 61, 16191638.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brito, R.M. and Coelho, M.M., 1999. Genetic structure of the Iberian chub, Leuciscus pyrenaicus, in the Tejo drainage. Hydrobiologia, 392, 169177.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Çakmak, E. and Alp, A., 2010. Morphological differences among the mesopotamian spiny eel, Mastacembelus mastacembelus (Banks & Solander 1794) populations. Turk. J. Fish. Aquat. Sci., 10, 8792.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cuvier, G. and Valenciennes, A., 1842. Historie Naturelle des Poissons, P. Bertrand ed., Paris, 16: 474 p., pl. 456–487. II.
Elliott, N.G., Haskard, K. and Koslow, J.A., 1995. Morphometric analysis of orange roughy (Hoplostethus atlanticus) off the continental slope of southern Australia. J. Fish Biol., 46, 202220.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Emerson, B.C. and Hewitt, G.M., 2005. Phylogeography. Curr. Biol., 15, R367R371.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Erős, T., 2007. Partitioning the diversity of riverine fish: the roles of habitat types and non-native species. Freshw. Biol., 52, 14001415.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Freyhof, J. and Naseka, A.M., 2005. Gobio delyamurei, a new gudgeon from Crimea, Ukraine (Teleostei: Cyprinidae). Ichthyol. Explor. Freshw., 16, 331338.Google Scholar
Fulton, C.J., Bellwood, D.R. and Wainwright, P.C., 2001. The relationship between swimming ability and habitat use in wrasses (Labridae). Mar. Biol., 139, 2533.Google Scholar
Hammer, Ø., Harper, D.A.T. and Ryan, P.D., 2001. PAST: paleontological Statistics software package for education and data analysis. Palaeontol. Electron., 4, 19.Google Scholar
Hänfling, B. and Brandl, R., 1998a. Genetic and morphological variation in a common European cyprinid, Leuciscus cephalus within and across central European drainages. J. Fish Biol., 52, 706715.Google Scholar
Hänfling, B. and Brandl, R. 1998b. Genetic differences of the bullhead Cottus gobio L. across watersheds in Central Europe: evidence of two taxa. Heredity, 80, 110117.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Harka, Á., 1986. Vizeink küllőfajai. Halászat, 79, 180182.Google Scholar
Harka, Á. and Sallai, Z., 2004. Magyarország halfaunája, Nimfea Természetvédelmi Egyesület, Szarvas, 269 p.Google Scholar
Harka, Á., Szepesi, Zs., Kosco, J. and Pavol, J., 2004. Adatok a Zagyva vízrendszerének halfaunájához. Halászat, 9, 117124.Google Scholar
Jászfalusi, L., 1951. Die endemischen Cobitis und Gobio Arten der Tisza, Sowie ihrer Nebenflüsse. Ann. Hist.-Nat. Mus. Nat. Hung., 1, 113125.Google Scholar
Karakousis, Y., Traiantaphyllidis, C. and Economidis, P.S., 1991. Morphological variability among seven populations of brown trout, Salmo trutta L., in Greece. J. Fish Biol., 38, 807817.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Koščo, J., 1997. Biometric characters of Gobio gobio (L.) from the Tisa Basin. In: Abstracts of the Third Session of the Symposium “Systematics and phylogenesis of the animal world: Systematics of the fishes from the Cyprinidae”, Olsztyn-Kortowo, Poland.
Kottelat, M. and Freyhof, J., 2007. Handbook of European freshwater fishes. Publications Kottelat, Cornol, Switzerland, 646 p.Google Scholar
Kottelat, M. and Persat, H., 2005. The genus Gobio in France, with redescription of G. gobio and description of two new species. Cybium, 29, 211234.Google Scholar
Mendel, J., Lusk, S., Vasil'eva, E., Vasil'ev, V., Lusková, V., Ekmekci, F., Erk'akan, F., Ruchin, A., Koščo, J., Vetešník, L., Halačka, K., Šanda, R., Pashkov, A. and Reshetnikov, S., 2008. Molecular phylogeny of the genus Gobio Cuvier, 1816 (Teleostei: Cyprinidae) and its contribution to taxonomy. Mol. Phylogen. Evol., 47, 10611075.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Naseka, A.M., 1996. Comparative study on the vertebral column in the Gobioninae (Cyprinidae, Pisces) with special reference to its systematics. Publ. Espec. Inst. Esp. Oceanogr., 21, 149167.Google Scholar
Naseka, A.M. and Bogutskaya, N.G., 1998. A new gudgeon species Romanogobio pentatrichus (Gobioninae, Cyprinidae) from from the basin of Kuban River. Vopr. Ihtiol., 38, 219227.Google Scholar
Naseka, A.M. and Poznjak, V.G., 2000. Northcaucasian long-barbeled gudgeon Romanogobio ciscaucasicus in the basin of the Kuban River (Gobioninae, Cyprinidae). Vopr. Ihtiol., 40, 406410.Google Scholar
Naseka, A.M., Erk'akan, F. and Küçük, F., 2006. A description of two new species of the genus Gobio from Central Anatolia (Turkey) (Teleostei: Cyprinidae). Zoosyst. Rossica, 15, 185194.Google Scholar
Neave, F.B., Mandrak, N.E., Docker, M.F. and Noakes, D.L., 2006. Effects of preservation on pigmentation and length measurements in larval lampreys. J. Fish Biol., 68, 9911001.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nelson, J.S., 2006. Fishes of the World, John Wiley & Sons, Inc., Hoboken, NJ, 601 p.Google Scholar
Nowak, M., Košo, J. and Popek, W., 2008a. Review of the current status of systematics of gudgeons (Gobioninae, Cyprinidae) in Europe. AACL Bioflux, 1, 2738.Google Scholar
Nowak, M., Popek, W., Drăg-Kozak, E., Epler, P. 2008b. Morphology of the common gudgeon, Gobio gobio (L.) sensu lato, from the Vistula River drainage in the context of recent literature data (Teleostei: Cyprinidae). Arch. Pol. Fish., 16, 3748.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nowak, M., Petrescu-Mag, I.V., Mierzwa, D., Popek, W., 2009. On some interesting Romanian gudgeons (Cyprinidae: Romanogobio) found in the collection of Museum and Institute of Zoology PAS. AES Bioflux, 1, 8188.Google Scholar
Nowak, M., Mendel, J., Szczerbik, P., Klaczak, A., Mikołajczyk, T., Ozga, K., Fałowska, B. and Popek, W., 2011. Contributions to the morphological variation of the common gudgeon, Gobio gobio complex (Teleostei: Cyprinidae), in the upper Vistula drainage (southeast Poland). Arch. Pol. Fish., 19, 3749.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Podani, J., 2001. SYN-TAX 2000 computer programs for data analysis in ecology and systematics. User's manual. Scientia Publishing, Budapest, 53 p.Google Scholar
Sály, P., Erős, T., Takács, P., Kiss, I. and Bíró, P., 2009. Kisvízfolyások halegyüttestípusai és karakterfajai a Balaton vízgyűjtőjén: élőhelytípus-indikátorok és fajegyüttes-indikátorok. Pisces Hung., 3, 133146.Google Scholar
Sevcsik, A. and Erős, T., 2008. A revised catalogue of freshwater fishes of Hungary and the neighbouring countries in the Hungarian Natural History Museum (Pisces). Ann. Hist.-Nat. Mus. Nat. Hung., 100, 331383.Google Scholar
Shields, A.S. and Carlson, S.R., 1996. Effects of formalin and alcohol preservation on lengths and weights of juvenile sockeye salmon. Alaska Fish. Res. Bull., 3, 8193.Google Scholar
Taberlet, P., Fumagalli, L., Wust-Saucy, A. and Conosson, J., 1998. Comparative phylogeography and postglacial colonization routes in Europe. Mol. Ecol., 7, 453464.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Takács, P., 2007. Dombvidéki és síkvidéki kisvízfolyások halállományainak összehasonlító vizsgálata. Acta Agraria Debr. Suppl. Pisces Hung. I., 25, 5459.Google Scholar
Takács, P., Csoma, E., Erős, T. & Nagy, S.A., 2008. Distribution patterns and genetic variability of three stream-dwelling fish species. Acta Zool. Sci. Hung., 54, 209303.Google Scholar
Turan, C., Yalçın, Ş., Turan, F., Okur, E., and Akyurt, İ., 2005. Morphometric comparisons of African catfish, Clarias gariepinus, populations in Turkey. Folia Zool., 54, 165172.Google Scholar
Vasil'eva, E.D., Vasil'ev, V.P. and Kuga, T.I., 2004. On the taxonomy of gudgeons of the genus Gobio (Gobioninae, Cyprinidae) of Europe: a new gudgeon species Gobio kubanicus sp. nova from the Kuban’ River drainage. Vopr. Ichtiol., 44, 766782.Google Scholar
Vasil'eva, E.D., Vasil'ev, V.P. and Boltachev, A.R., 2005. Taxonomic relationships of gudgeons (Gobio, Gobioninae, Cyprinidae) of Crimea. J. Ichthyol., 4, 730743.Google Scholar
Vladykov, V., 1925. Über einige neue Fische aus der Tschechoslowakei (Karpathorußland). Zool. Anz., 72, 248252.Google Scholar
Yang, J., He, S., Freyhof, J., Witte, K. and Liu, H., 2006. The phylogenetic relationships of the Gobioninae (Teleostei: Cyprinidae) inferred from mitochondrial cytochrome b gene sequences. Hydrobiologia, 553, 255266.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Send article to Kindle

To send this article to your Kindle, first ensure no-reply@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about sending to your Kindle. Find out more about sending to your Kindle.

Note you can select to send to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be sent to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

Morphometric differentiation of gudgeon species inhabiting the Carpathian Basin
Available formats
×

Send article to Dropbox

To send this article to your Dropbox account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your <service> account. Find out more about sending content to Dropbox.

Morphometric differentiation of gudgeon species inhabiting the Carpathian Basin
Available formats
×

Send article to Google Drive

To send this article to your Google Drive account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your <service> account. Find out more about sending content to Google Drive.

Morphometric differentiation of gudgeon species inhabiting the Carpathian Basin
Available formats
×
×

Reply to: Submit a response

Please enter your response.

Your details

Please enter a valid email address.

Conflicting interests

Do you have any conflicting interests? *