The Assessment of Community Interest Fish Species from Protected Area Rosci0229

Florea, Luiza; Strătilă, Sorin Dorin; Costache, Mioara

doi:10.1515/trser-2015-0004

Abstract

In the protected area ROSCI0229 Siriu were named three fish species of community interest: Gobio uranoscopus frici Vladykov, 1925, Barbus petenyi Heckel, 1847 and Cottus gobio Linné, 1758. Out of 193 fish collected in 2010, 49 were Barbus petenyi and 37 Cottus gobio. In the three monitored rivers (Buzău River, Siriu River, and Crasna River), Barbus petenyi was present in two of them and Cottus gobio was present in all of them. According to the analytical indices of population, frequency, numerical abundance and density we assessed a favorable population status for Barbus petenyi in Buzău River and a medium favorable population status for Cottus gobio in Buzău River and its tributaries Crasna River and Siriu River.

References

1. Bănărescu P., 1964 ‒ Pisces: Osteichthys (Peşti Ganoizi şi Osoşi), Editura R.P.R. Academy, Bucharest, 13, 962. (in Romanian)
Search in Google Scholar
2. Bănărescu P., 1968 ‒ Lista revizuită a peștilor din România, Buletinul Institutului de Cercetări și Proiectări Piscicole, XXVII, 3, 53-61. (in Romanian)
Search in Google Scholar
3. Bănărescu P. and Bănăduc D., 2007 ‒ Habitats Directive (92/43/EEC) fish species (Osteichthyes) on the Romanian territory, Acta Ichtiologica Romanica, II, 43-78.
Search in Google Scholar
4. Cantarello E. and Newton A., 2008 ‒ Towards cost-effective indicators to maintain Natura 2000 sites in favourable conservation status. Preliminary results from Cansiglio and New Forest, Forest, 1, 75-80.10.3832/ifor0410-0010075
Search in Google Scholar
5. Charles S., Subtil F., Kielbassa J. and Pont D., 2008 ‒ An individual-based model to describe a bullhead population dynamics including temperature variations, Ecological modelling, 215, 377-392.10.1016/j.ecolmodel.2008.04.005
Search in Google Scholar
6. Chaumota A., Milionia N., Abdolib A., Pont D. and Charles S., 2006 ‒ First step of a modelling approach to evaluate spatial heterogeneity in a fish (Cottus gobio) population dynamics, Ecological modelling, 197, 263-273.10.1016/j.ecolmodel.2006.03.024
Search in Google Scholar
7. Cowx I. G. and Welcomme R. L., 1998 ‒ Rehabilitation of Rivers for Fish, Blackwell Science, Oxford, UK, 204.
Search in Google Scholar
8. Curtean-Bănăduc A. and Florescu F. (eds), 2007 ‒ Romanian NATURA 2000 NGO Coalition contribution for the SCIs designation, Editura Alma Mater Sibiu, ISBN 978-973-632-402-4, 211.
Search in Google Scholar
9. Fischer S. and Kummer H., 2000 ‒ Effects of residual flow and habitat fragmentation on distribution and movement of bullhead (Cottus gobio L.) in an alpine stream, Hydrobiologia, 422/423, 305-317.10.1007/978-94-011-4164-2_25
Search in Google Scholar
10. Fish base, 2011.
Search in Google Scholar
11. Florea L., 2011 ‒ The distribution of the conservative fish species in the Natura 2000 network from Romania, Studii şi cercetări ştiinṭifice, Seria: Biologie, XXI, Editura Alma-Mater, Bacău, ISSN 1224-919X, 1-7.
Search in Google Scholar
12. Fontaine B., Bouchet P., Van Achterberg K., Alonso-Zarazaga M. A., Araujo R., Asche M., Aspöck U., Audiso P., Aukema B., Bailly N., Balsamo M., Bank R. A., Barnard P., Belfiore C., Bogdanowicz W., Bongers T., Boxshall G., Burckhardt D., Camicas J.-L., Chylarecki P., Crucitti P., Deharveng L., Dubois A., Enghoff H., Faubel A., Fochetti R., Gargominy O., Gibson D., Gibson R., López M. S. G., Goujet D., Harvey M. S., Heller K.-G., Van Helsdingen P., Hoch H., De Jong H., De Jong Y., Karsholt O., Los W., Lundqvist L., Magowski W., Manconi R., Martens J., Massard J. A., Massard-Geimer G., Mcinnes S. J., Mendes L. F., Mey E., Michelsen V., Minelli A., Nielsen C., Nafría J. M. N., Van Nieukerken E. J., Noyes J., Pape T., Pohl H., De Prins W., Ramos M., Ricci C., Roselaar C., Rota E., Schmidt-Rhaesa A., Segers H., Strassen R. Z., Szeptycki A., Thibaud J.-M., Thomas A., Timm T., Van Tol J., Vervoort W. and Willmann R., 2007 - The European Union’s 2010 target: putting rare species in focus, Biological Conservation, 139, 167-185.10.1016/j.biocon.2007.06.012
Search in Google Scholar
13. Gaston K. J., Jackson S. E., Nagy A., Cantu-Salazar L. and Johnson M., 2008 ‒ Protected areas in Europe - principle and practice, Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences, 1134, 97-119.10.1196/annals.1439.00618566091
Search in Google Scholar
14. Gosselin M., Petts G. E. and Maddock I. P., 2010 ‒ Mesohabitat use by bullhead (Cottus gobio), Hydrobiologia, 652.1 , 299-310.10.1007/s10750-010-0363-z
Search in Google Scholar
15. Hanfling B. and Brandl R., 1998 ‒ Genetic variability, population size and isolation of distinct populations in the freshwater fish Cottus gobio L, Molecular Ecology, 7, 1625-1632.10.1046/j.1365-294x.1998.00465.x
Search in Google Scholar
16. Hanfling B. and Weetman D., 2006 ‒ Concordant Genetic Estimators of Migration Reveal Anthropogenically Enhanced Source-Sink Population Structure in the River Sculpin, Cottus gobio, Genetics, 1487-1501.10.1534/genetics.105.054296152665316624916
Search in Google Scholar
17. Iftime A., 2004 ‒ Preliminary data on the distribution of two twin species of the genus Barbus (Pisces: Teleostei: Cyprinidae) in southern Romania, Travaux du Museum National d’Histoire Naturelle “Grigore Antipa”, București, XLVlI, 263-268.
Search in Google Scholar
18. Iojă C. I., Pătroescu M., Rozylowicz L., PopescuV. D. and Vergheleţ M., 2010 ‒ The efficacy of Romania’s protected areas network in conserving biodiversity, Biological Conservation, 143, 2468-2476.10.1016/j.biocon.2010.06.013
Search in Google Scholar
19. Knaepkens G., Bruyndoncx L., Bervoets L. and Eens M., 2002a ‒ The presence of artificial stones predicts the occurrence of the European bullhead (Cottus gobio) in a regulated lowland river in Flanders (Belgium), Ecology of Freshwater Fish, 11, 203-206.10.1034/j.1600-0633.2002.00013.x
Search in Google Scholar
20. Knaepkens G., Knapen D., Bervoets L., Hanfling B., Verheyen E. and Eens M., 2002b ‒ Genetic diversity and condition factor: a significant relationship in Flemish but not in German populations of the European bullhead (Cottus gobio L.), Heredity, 89, 280-287.10.1038/sj.hdy.6800133
Search in Google Scholar
21. Knaepkens G., Bervoetsb L., Verheyenc E. and Eens M., 2004 ‒ Relationship between population size and genetic diversity in endangered populations of the European bullhead (Cottus gobio): implications for conservation, Biological Conservation, 115, 403-410.10.1016/S0006-3207(03)00156-3
Search in Google Scholar
22. Kotlik P., Tsigenopoulos C., Rab P.and Berrebi P., 2002 ‒ Two new Barbus species from the Danube River basin, with redescription of B. petenyi (Teleostei: Cyprinidae), Folia zoologica, 51, 3, 227-240.
Search in Google Scholar
23. Legalle M., Santoul F., Figuerola J., Mastrorillo S. and Cereghino R., 2005 ‒ Factors influencing the spatial distribution patterns of the bullhead (Cottus gobio L., Teleostei Cottidae): a multiscale study, Biodiversity and Conservation, 14, 1319-1334.10.1007/s10531-004-9673-7
Search in Google Scholar
24. Maiorano L., Falcucci A. and Boitani L., 2008 ‒ Size-dependent resistance of protected areas to land-use change, Proceedings of the Royal Society B, 275, 1297-1304.10.1098/rspb.2007.1756260267418319213
Search in Google Scholar
25. Margules C. R. and Pressey R. L., 2000 ‒ Systematic conservation planning, Nature, 405, 243-253.10.1038/3501225110821285
Search in Google Scholar
26. Mehtälä J. and Vuorisalo T., 2007 ‒ Conservation policy and the EU Habitats Directive: Favourable conservation status as a measure of conservation success, European Environment, 17, 363-375.10.1002/eet.458
Search in Google Scholar
27. Nalbant T., 2003 ‒ Checklist of the Fishes of Romania, Part One: Fresh and Saltwater Fishes, Research Studies and Biology, 8, 122-127.
Search in Google Scholar
28. Nielsen S. E., Bayne E. M., Schieck J., Herbers J. and Boutin S., 2007 ‒ A new method to estimate species and biodiversity intactness using empirically derived reference conditions, Biological Conservation, 137, 403-414.10.1016/j.biocon.2007.02.024
Search in Google Scholar
29. Pont D., Hugueny B. and Oberdorff T., 2005 ‒ Modelling habitat requirement of European fishes: do species have similar responses to local and regional environmental constraints, Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences, 62, 1, 163-173.10.1139/f04-183
Search in Google Scholar
30. Pullin A. S., Baldi A., Can O. E., Dieterich M., Kati V., Livoreil B., Lovei G., Mihok B., Nevin O., Selva N. and Sousa-Pinto I., 2009 ‒ Conservation focus on Europe: major conservation policy issues that need to be informed by conservation science, Conservation Biology, 23, 818-824.10.1111/j.1523-1739.2009.01283.x19627313
Search in Google Scholar
31. Sax D. F. and Gaines S. D., 2008 ‒ Species invasions and extinction: The future of native biodiversity on islands, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the USA, 105, 11490-11497.10.1073/pnas.0802290105255641618695231
Search in Google Scholar
32. Seeuws P., Meire P. and Verheyen R. F., 2005 ‒ Microhabitat use and preferences of the endangered Cottus gobio in the River Voer, Belgium, Journal of Fish Biology, 67, 4 , 897-909.10.1111/j.0022-1112.2005.00782.x
Search in Google Scholar
33. Thuiller W., Lavorel S., Araújo M. B., Sykes M. T. and Prentice I. L., 2005 ‒ Climate change threats to plant diversity in Europe, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the USA, 102, 8245-8250.10.1073/pnas.0409902102114048015919825
Search in Google Scholar
34. Utzinger J., Roth C. and Peter A., 1998 ‒ Effects of environmental parameters on the distribution of bullhead (Cottus gobio) with particular consideration of the effects of obstructions, Journal of Applied Ecology, 35, 882-892.10.1111/j.1365-2664.1998.tb00006.x
Search in Google Scholar
35. Vlach P., Dusek J. and Moravec P., 2005 ‒ Fish assemblage structure, habitat and microhabitat preference of five fish species in a small stream, Folia Zoologica, 54, 4, 421-431.
Search in Google Scholar
36. Anonymous, 2009 ‒ Natura 2000 Barometer - Update November 2009, Natura 2000 European Commission Nature and Biodiversity Newsletter, 27, 8-9.
Search in Google Scholar
37. EEA (European Environment Agency), 2006 ‒ Progress towards halting the loss of biodiversity by 2010, EEA report, 5/2006, Luxembourg.
Search in Google Scholar
38. MEF/NAE (Ministry of Environment and Forest/National Agency of Environment), 2009 ‒ Nature conservation and biodiversity, biosafety, National environmental raport, 160-218.
Search in Google Scholar
39. MESD (Minister of Environment and Sustainable Development), 2007 ‒ OM 1964 - The constitute of the natural protected area of Community importance as part integral to the European ecological network Natura 2000 Romanian, 1-1315.
Search in Google Scholar
40. NARW (National Administration “Romanian Waters”, 2009 ‒ Management Plan River of space - Ialomița Buzău,10-25.
Search in Google Scholar
41. http://www.rowater.ro/dabuzau/Planul% Planul de Management al Spațiului Hidrografic Buzău, pdf (accessed at 16.07.2013).
Search in Google Scholar

The Assessment of Community Interest Fish Species from Protected Area Rosci0229

Abstract

Paradigm

My account