New Data on the Distribution and Conservation Status of the Two Endemic Scrapers in the Turkish Mediterranean Sea Drainages (Teleostei: Cyprinidae)

Introduction

Capoeta is one of the most widespread genus in Anatolia. The diversity in the genus in Turkey has been studied intensively in the last 15 years by the both molecular and taxonomic studies [1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15]. Among these studies, Turan [5] examined mitochondrial 16S rDNA New Data on the Distribution and Conservation Status of the Two Endemic Scrapers in the Turkish Mediterranean Sea Drainages (Teleostei: Cyprinidae) gene sequences in order to reassess the taxonomic status of Capoeta species in Anatolia. According to his findings; C. antalyensis, C. barroisi, C. damascina, C. pestai, C. tinca and C. trutta are valid species, as well as there are four subspecies of C. capoeta (C. c. angorae, C. c. bergamae, C. c. capoeta and C. c. sieboldii). Turan [5] also suggested that Göksu River and Dalaman Stream populations are belong Int J Zoo Animal Biol

to two new species that have not yet been named. Subsequently, Schöter, et al. [7] identified Göksu River populations as C. caelestis. Recently, Dalaman River populations have been identified as C. aydinensis with populations inhabit in Tersakan, Namnam and Büyük Menderes River [4]. Alwan [15] and Alwan, et al. [16] conclusively demonstrated that C. angorae from the Seyhan and Ceyhan is a synonym of C. damascina, this view also supported by following molecular and taxonomic studies [4, 9, 11, 12, 13, 17].

Küçük & Güçlü [18] reported C. antalyensis between Peri Village (near Gündoğdu-Manavgat, Antalya) and stream Boğa (almost the westernmost side of the Antalya city).

According to the studies mentioned above, Capoeta antalyensis is known from stream and rivers around Antalya, and C. caelestis is known from Göksu River (near Silifke, Mersin) where it was described first and some coastal streams between Antalya and Göksu River. Here, we checked streams and rivers draining to Turkish Mediterranean Sea to determine the exact distribution range of the both species.

On the other hand, Özdemir [10] reported that Capoeta caelestis is taxonomically close to C. damascina and there is confusion in the taxonomic situation of this species. Her claim triggered us to evaluate the taxonomic validity of C. caelestis and compare it with C. damascina.

Catalog number Sampling sites Coordinates N Sampling date Capoeta caelestis

03-0018 Göksu River at Yelmez 37.039444, 32.616111 4 10.10.2004 03-0084 Göksu River at Hamamköy- 36.631389, 33.367778 12 26.06.2012 03-0020 Göksu River at near Dülgerler 37.029167, 32.697778 57 10.10.2004 03-0046 Steam Gevne at Çayarası 36.645833, 32.405000 5 18.10.2009 03-0003 Manavgat River at 7 km northeast Manavgat 36.830556, 31.504167 N 14.10.1995 03-0006 Stream Karpuz at Hacıobası 36.728889, 31.593333 9 25.05.1995 03-0028 Stream Alara at Çakallar 36.693611, 31.724444 4 13.10.1995 03-0047 Stream Ilıca -at Ilıca 36.818611, 31.353056 2 02.05.2009 03-0044 Stream Dragon (Anamur)-at Alaköprü 36.175833, 32.895000 13 17.06.2008 03-0045 Stream Karpuz at Hacıobası 36.728889, 31.593333 2 18.10.2009 03-0048 Stream Kaledran at Anıtlı 36.123333, 32.584444 4 17.06.2008 03-0114 Stream Kargı at northern Türkler 36.624940, 31.813196 5 18.06.2008 03-0120 Stream Kargı at northern Türkler 36.624940, 31.813196 4 15.10.1995 IFC-ESUF

1962 Stream Güneybahşiş at Güneybahşiş 36.185000, 32.859000 27 24.03.2019 1964 Stream Sapadere at north of Beyreli 36.465007, 32.237990 7 25.03.2019 1965 Kaledran Çayı western Anıtlı 36.122000, 32.570000 6 26.03.2019 1966 Göksu River at 5 km southeast Silifke 36.346611, 33.980613 10 24.03.2019 FFR

Material and Methods

Fishes were caught with pulsed DC electro-fishing equipment from 28 sampling sites throughout Turkish Mediterranean Sea drainages between Göksu River and stream Boğa (Figure 1 & Table 1). After anastesia, fish samples were fixed in 4% formalin and transferred to the laboratory for classify at species level. Measurements were made using a dial calliper (0.1 mm). All measurements were made point-to point, never by projections. Meristic counts and measurements follow Kottelat & Freyhof [19] and Kaya [14]. The map (Figure 1) was created using the Qgis v. 2.6.1-Brighton software available at http://divagis.org.

Click to enlarge

Results

Metric and meristic characters of Capoeta antalyensis, C. caelestis and C. damascina were given in Tables 2&3.

Table 2: Morphometry of Capoeta antalyensis, C. caelestis and C. damascina. Capoeta antalyensis (Battalgil, 1944) - Pamphylian scraper The species characterized by having two pairs barbel, comparatively large scales (51-57 lateral line scales), less gill rakers on the first gill arch (14-17), a very weak last unbranched dorsal-fin ray (ossified 8-18%) and the absence of serrae along the posterior margin of the last unbranched dorsal-fin ray (Figure 2).

Click to enlarge

The species found from Köprüçay and Aksu rivers and streams Boğa and Gündoğdu, all around Antalya (Table 1 & Figure 1). • Habitat The species prefer fast flowing rivers and larger streams with gravel or rocky substrates. However, it is also known in dam lakes on Aksu River.

Click to enlarge

Discussion and Suggestion

The findings of this study demonstrate that Capoeta antalyensis and Capoeta caelestis inhabits very close geographically. Capoeta caelestis is distinguished from Capoeta antalyensis by having one pair barbels (vs. two pairs), more lateral line scales (57-67, vs. 51-57) and more gill rakers on the first gill arch (17-21, vs. 14-17) (Table 3). Additionally, it was reported that there are 4.14%

differences in cyt b gene sequences between C. caelestis and C. antalyensis [11].

The second river is Köprüçay which is faced with environmental pollution in upper part. However, the situation seems to be slightly better than Aksu River. In recent years, because of the activities of marble and quarry cement-derived substances are mixed with the river. These activities have led to mass fish deaths in the river several times. The habitat between the Köprülü canyon and the DSİ Aspendos regulator remains a suitable habitat for Capoeta antalyensis.

Freyhof [23] emphasized the situation of the both Aksu and Köprüçay. Accordingly, he assessed the conservation status of the species as Vulnerable. However, our recent observation in the field shows that the situation is worse and -at least for now- there is not any solution to protect the species. Therefore, we are Freyhof [23] mentioned that several populations of C. antalyensis seem to be impacted by (natural) hybridization with Capoeta caelestis. Geiger, et al. [17] supported this opinion with molecular data. This opinion triggered us to compare the specimens accordingly. Our comparisons show that all of populations located west of stream Gündoğdu (36.850182, 31.290019) belong to Capoeta antalyensis. It has been observed that there are some variations in terms of meristic features (such as lateral line scales and number of barbels which are diagnostically important for the both species in the region) among the specimens which are distributed in the region between Ilıca and Kargı streams. In order to solve this problem exactly, detailed morphological and molecular studies are needed.

Freyhof [24] emphasized that Capoeta caelestis is relatively resistant against most threats despite it has a relatively small distribution range. Besides, he remarked that the species has more than 10 independent populations and it is not believed to has declined fast enough to qualify for a threat category or "Near Threatened". Therefore, he assessed the conservation status of the species as "Least Concern". In this study, we found the species from 18 different locations and at least 12 independent water sources. Our findings very similar to the result of Freyhof [24]. Therefore, we agree about the conservation status of the species as "Least Concern" by following Freyhof [24].

Click to enlarge

Özdemir [10] claimed that Capoeta caelestis is taxonomically close to C. damascina (Figure 4) and there is confusion in the taxonomic situation of this species. According to our comparison, Capoeta caelestis is distinguished from C. damascina by having weaker last unbranched dorsal-fin ray (ossified 32-50%, vs. 50-75%) and the absence of serrae along the posterior margin of it (vs. presence). Besides, C. caelestis has less lateral line scales than C. damascina (57-67, vs. 66-76), less scale rows between lateral line and anal fin origin (7-8, vs. 8-12) and fewer gill rakers on the first gill arch (17-21, vs. 20-25) (Table 3). Additionally, it was reported that there are 2% differences in cyt b gene sequences between C. caelestis and C. damascina [11].

These results show that the both species are well separated from each other by both molecular and morphological data. Therefore, there is not any confusion about the validity of C. caelestis as Özdemir [10] mentioned.

Acknowledgment

We thank to Salim Serkan Güçlü (Isparta) and Züleyha Akpınar (Rize) for their help during the fieldworks, Esra Bayçelebi (Rize) for producing the distribution map for us. This work was supported by the Recep Tayyip Erdoğan University Scientific Research Projects Coordination Unit (Project No: 2015.53002.103.01.06).