SOME BENTHIC SOFT-BOTTOM CRUSTACEANS ALONG THEANATOLIAN COAST OF THE BLACK SEA

BY

FEVZI KIRKIM1), MURAT SEZGIN2,3), TUNCER KATAGAN1), LEVENT BAT2)

and EYLEM AYDEMIR2)

1) Department of Hydrobiology, Fisheries Faculty, Ege University, TR-35 100 Bornova-Izmir,Turkey

2) Department of Hydrobiology, Fisheries Faculty, Ondokuz Mayıs University, TR-57 000 Sinop,Turkey

ABSTRACT

This study is based on the results of a benthos survey of soft bottoms along the Black Seacoasts of Turkey in May-July 1999. Benthos sampling was conducted at depths of 13-79 m at30 stations. A total of 30 macrobenthic species of Crustacea was identified. The most commonspecies in there soft bottoms are, by numbers of individuals, Pseudocuma longicornis (Bate, 1858),Iphinoe elisae (Bacescu, 1950), Iphinoe tenella G. O. Sars, 1878, Ampelisca diadema (A. Costa,1853), Bathyporeia guilliamsoniana (Bate, 1857), and Perioculodes longimanus longimanus (Bate& Westwood, 1868). Megamphopus cornutus Norman, 1869, Ampelisca pseudosarsi Bellan-Santini& Kaim-Malka, 1977, Megaluropus massiliensis Ledoyer, 1976, and Monoculodes griseus DellaValle, 1893 represent new records for the Crustacea fauna of the Turkish Black Sea coast.

RÉSUMÉ

Cette étude est fondée sur les résultats d’un suivi du benthos des fonds meubles le long descôtes de la Mer Noire de Turquie en mai-juin 1999. L’échantillonnage du benthos a été réaliséà des profondeurs de 13-79 m sur 30 stations. Un total de 30 espèces macrobenthiques a étéidentifié. Les espèces les plus communes de ces fonds meubles sont, en nombre d’individus,Pseudocuma longicornis (Bate, 1858), Iphinoe elisae (Bacescu, 1950), Iphinoe tenella G. O.Sars, 1878, Ampelisca diadema (A. Costa, 1853), Bathyporeia guilliamsoniana (Bate, 1857) etPerioculodes longimanus longimanus (Bate & Westwood, 1868).

Megamphopus cornutus Norman, 1869, Ampelisca pseudosarsi Bellan-Santini & Kaim-Malka,1977, Megaluropus massiliensis Ledoyer, 1976 et Monoculodes griseus Della Valle, 1893 représen-tent de nouveaux signalements pour la faune des crustacés de la côte turque de la Mer Noire.

3) Corresponding author; e-mail through: msezgin@omu.edu.tr

© Koninklijke Brill NV, Leiden, 2006 Crustaceana 79 (11): 1323-1332Also available online: www.brill.nl/cr

1324 FEVZI KIRKIM ET AL.

INTRODUCTION

Recently, Koukouras et al. (2001), updated the information from the GreeceNational Center for Marine Research (NCMR)’s database. Out of a total of about6000 species of benthic invertebrates in the Mediterranean, the Black Sea hosts,as far as known, relatively low numbers of benthic invertebrates: only 808, ascompared to 2637 in the Aegean Sea. In general, it has been established that,apparently as a result of natural factors, species diversity in the Black Sea isapproximately three times lower that of the Mediterranean. This proportion of3 : 1 is also valid for the soft bottom macrofauna at comparable coastal sites, i.e.,representative of “clean” up to “extremely polluted” ecosystems, both in the BlackSea and the Aegean Sea (Zenetos et al., 2000).

Crustaceans are a qualitative and quantitative key component of the benthicfauna on soft and hard substrata. Those represented in the macrozoobenthiccommunity of the Black Sea have always been of interest, because of theirsensitivity to pollution and response to environmental stress. Systematic studieson Arthropoda found in the Turkish Seas were started by Demir (1952), andthe crustaceans of the Black Sea waters of Turkey were subsequently studiedby Holthuis (1961), Stock (1967, 1968), Kocatas & Katagan (1980), Mutlu et al.(1992), Ates (1999), Sezgin (1999), and Gönlügür (2003). The existing systematicand ecological information concerning the macrobenthic Crustacea fauna of theTurkish Black Sea coast comprises a quite restricted number of papers. Therefore,the aim of the present study was to add the knowledge that has recently becomeavailable from original research on the macrobenthic crustacean fauna along theeastern Anatolian coast of the Black Sea.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

The present study was based on the results of a benthos survey of the soft bot-toms along the Black Sea coasts of Turkey in May-July 1999. Benthos samplingswere conducted at a depth range of 13-79 m at 30 stations (fig. 1, table I).

Single, quantitative samples were taken with a Van Veen grab (0.10 m2). Thebenthic samples obtained were sorted with a 0.5 mm mesh sieve. In the laboratory,the organisms were sorted from the sifted sediment under a stereo microscope andstored in 70% alcohol. Physicochemical parameters were measured in situ using a“6600 Model Multiple YSI Probe” connected to a computer.

The extracted fauna was separated into taxonomic groups, identified, andcounted under a stereo microscope as well. Groups were identified and listedaccording to the monographic works by Bacescu (1951) for Cumacea; Riggio(1993) and Giordani-Soika (1950) for Tanaidacea; Bellan-Santini et al. (1982,

SOFT-BOTTOM CRUSTACEANS ANATOLIAN COAST 1325

Fig.

1.M

apof

the

stud

yar

ea,i

ndic

atin

gth

esa

mpl

ing

stat

ions

.

1326 FEVZI KIRKIM ET AL.

TABLE IList of stations with depth and type of substrate

Station no. Locality Depth (m) Substrate

1 Bulancak 13 fine sand2 Bulancak 40 mud3 Görele 24 sand4 Görele 40 mud, clay5 Besikdüzü 22 mud + fine sand6 Besikdüzü 30 mud7 Besikdüzü-Vakfıkebir 19 mud + clay8 Vakfıkebir 24 fine sand + mud9 Vakfıkebir 39 mud10 Vakfıkebir 79 mud + clay11 Çarsıbası 14 fine sand12 Çarsıbası 26 mud13 Mersin 20 fine sand + mud14 Of 17 mud15 Of 20 mud16 Of 45 mud17 Rize 47 dead shells + mud18 Pazar 24 mud19 Pazar 60 dead shells + clay20 Ardesen 15 fine sand21 Ardesen 20 fine sand + mud22 Ardesen 36 fine sand + dead shells23 Ardesen 37 fine sand + dead shells24 Fındıklı 38 mud25 Fındıklı 74 mud26 Hopa 16 mud + fine sand27 Hopa 18 fine sand + mud28 Hopa 40 dead shells + sand29 Hopa 50 dead shells + mud30 Hopa 62 dead shells + mud

1993, 1998) and Greze (1969, 1977) for Amphipoda; and Zariquiey Alvarez (1968)and Falciai & Minervini (1996) for the Decapoda.

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

A total of 415 specimens was collected and attributed to 30 species of mac-robenthic species of Crustacea. The species and their distribution over the variousstations are given in table II.

The fauna was mainly composed of Amphipoda (70%), Cumacea (13.3%),Decapoda (10%), and Tanaidacea (6.7%), by numbers of species (fig. 2).

SOFT-BOTTOM CRUSTACEANS ANATOLIAN COAST 1327

TABLE IIList of the species of Crustacea found at the various stations in Anatolia

Species Station no.

TANAIDACEA

Apseudes latreillii (H.Milne Edwards, 1828) 24Leptochelia savignyi (Krøyer, 1842) 30

CUMACEA

Eudorella truncatula (Bate, 1856) 5Iphinoe elisae (Bacescu, 1950) 5, 6, 11, 13, 17, 21, 27, 28, 30Iphinoe tenella G. O. Sars, 1878 1, 3, 5, 6, 7, 17, 21, 27, 29, 30Pseudocuma longicornis (Bate, 1858) 1, 3, 5, 7, 11, 17, 20, 26, 27, 28, 30

AMPHIPODA

Ampelisca diadema (A. Costa, 1853) 5Ampelisca pseudosarsi Bellan-Santini & Kaim-Malka, 1977 1, 2, 3, 4, 8, 16, 22, 23, 24, 25Ampelisca pseudospinimana

Bellan-Santini & Kaim-Malka, 1977 7, 9, 13, 15, 18Bathyporeia guilliamsoniana (Bate, 1857) 1, 12, 20, 21Caprella acanthifera Leach, 1814 25Medicorophium runcicorne Della Valle, 1893 28Corophium sp. 4, 9, 22, 23Dexamine thea Boeck, 1861 5, 6, 7, 17, 24Ericthonius brasiliensis (Dana, 1855) 30Gammarellus angulosus (Rathke, 1843) 29Jassa ocia (Bate, 1862) 3, 20, 21Megaluropus massilensis Ledoyer, 1976 27Megamphopus cornutus Norman, 1869 10Microdeutopus gryllotalpa A. Costa, 1853 19, 21Microdeutopus versiculatus (Bate, 1856) 2Monoculodes gibbosus Chevreux, 1888 3, 10, 11, 23Monoculodes griseus Della Valle, 1893 10Perioculodes longimanus longimanus

(Bate & Westwood, 1868) 1, 3, 4, 5, 7, 24Phtisica marina Slabber, 1778 4, 6, 10, 25Stenothoe monoculoides (Montagu, 1815) 28, 29, 30Synchelidium maculatum Stebbing, 1906 7, 8, 13, 22

DECAPODA

Diogenes pugilator (Roux, 1829) 20Liocarcinus depurator (Linnaeus, 1758) 7Xantho poressa (Olivi, 1792) 21

The absolute maximum number of 7 species, was noted at stations 5 and 7. Thehighest number of individuals among all stations is reported as 82, at station 28.

Of the total of 30 benthic crustaceans, 15 species were encountered at a singlestation only. The large share (50%) of “rare” species gives us grounds to expectthat, with this study, the actual total number of soft-bottom species in this area has

1328 FEVZI KIRKIM ET AL.

Fig. 2. Numbers of individuals and of species, for each of the crustacean groups studied.

not been found yet. The commonest cumacean, Pseudocuma longicornis (Bate,1858) (36.6%) had the highest frequency value of the 30 stations, followed by thecumacean, Iphinoe tenella G. O. Sars, 1878 (33.3%), the amphipod, Ampeliscadiadema (A. Costa, 1853) (33.3%), the cumacean, Iphinoe elisae (Bacescu,1950) (30%), and the amphipod, Perioculodes longimanus longimanus (Bate &Westwood, 1868) (20%), respectively.

The highest dominance value according to number of individuals was found forthe cumacean, I. elisae (25.3%), followed by I. tenella (16.9%), the amphipod,A. diadema (15.7%), the cumacean, P. longicornis (10.8%), and the amphipod,Bathyporeia guilliamsoniana (Bate, 1857) (5.5%). Mutlu et al. (1992) also men-tioned that these same species were abundantly observed in this very area. Thesespecies are the most commonly occurring, and hence will play a central role inbuilding the structure of the crustacean fauna in this region. The most recent studyconcerning the qualitative distribution of crustaceans was carried out by Sezgin etal. (2001): these authors reported that 42 species of amphipods were found alongthe coast of the Sinop Peninsula in the Black Sea.

The total numbers of species diversity for each group on the soft bottomsdecreases with depth (fig. 3). Peaks of species diversity are at <50 m, in relativelyshallow water zones: 10-25 and 25-50 m. Depth apparently has a major influenceon the composition of the fauna, especially above the 50 m level.

Dissolved oxygen and temperature substantially affect the distribution patternalong the shores of the Turkish Black Sea coast. In the study region, the averageoxygen level was 7.95 ml−1 between 10 and 25 m depth, and it dropped to 4.9ml−1 at 25-50 m. At a depth of 50-100 m, the average oxygen level was 1.25 ml−1.

SOFT-BOTTOM CRUSTACEANS ANATOLIAN COAST 1329

Fig. 3. Species numbers according to depth for each of the groups of Crustacea studied.

Temperature and salinity values were 15.9◦C and 17.5� at 0-25 m, 8.8◦C and18.7� at 25-50 m, and 7.9◦C and 18.9� at 50-100 m, respectively. Decline innumbers of species with depth was consistent through all groups, indicating thatliving conditions are governed by the same main factors. However, total numbersof individuals may differ considerably according to the specific conditions at eachstation or larger area, respectively. The major factors are, obviously, the decreasingconcentration of dissolved oxygen and the temperature in the near-bottom waterwith increasing depth, owing to the general stratification of the Black Sea.

The amphipods, Megamphopus cornutus Norman, 1869, Ampelisca pseudosarsiBellan-Santini & Kaim-Malka, 1977, Megaluropus massiliensis Ledoyer, 1976,and Monoculodes griseus Della Valle, 1893, represent new records for the TurkishBlack Sea fauna.

Megaluropus massiliensis was recorded previously as M. agilis Hoek, 1889from the Bulgarian coast of the Black Sea (Kaneva-Abadjieva, 1964). However,M. agilis is currently placed in the synonymy of M. massilensis (cf. Bellan-Santiniet al., 1982).

In the course of this study, we observed variation in some morphologicalcharacters among the species of the genus Bathyporeia. According to Bellan-Santini et al.’s (1989) identification key, in addition to B. guilliamsoniana, therewould also be Bathyporeia megalops Chevreux, 1911 and B. sunnivae Bellan-Santini & Vader, 1988 in our samples.

However, we have checked our samples again according to d’Udekem d’Acoz &Vader (2005). As a result, we had to conclude that previous data on Mediterraneanand Pontic Bathyporeia species may be doubtful and hence either not, or not fully,reliable. Concerning B. megalops, this is a big-eyed form, similar to the male of

1330 FEVZI KIRKIM ET AL.

B. guilliamsoniana. Although adult males of B. guilliamsoniana always have largeeyes, there is some variation in their development. Females and immature malesof B. guilliamsoniana have a tooth on epimeral plate 3. In mature males, withlong antennae, the tooth on epimeral plate 3 is often blunt or lacking. However,there always is a tooth on coxa 1. B. sunnivae seems to be a junior synonym ofB. guilliamsoniana: despite careful examination, we found no difference betweenB. guilliamsoniana and B. sunnivae, except for the presence/absence of posteriorspines on the first urosomite. B. sunnivae and B. guilliamsoniana are often foundtogether in the same sample: these observations would thus suggest that B.sunnivae is a mere form of B. guilliamsoniana, and that the presence or absenceof those backspines is a variable character for this species in the MediterraneanSea. It is hence considered that there are only five taxa of Bathyporeia in theMediterranean Basin, including the Black Sea: B. guilliamsoniana (Bate, 1857),B. phaiophthalma Bellan-Santini, 1973, B. tenuipes lindstromi Stebbing, 1906, B.elegans Watkin, 1938 (very rare), and B. borgi d’Udekem d’Acoz & Vader, 2005.As a result, the key of Bellan-Santini et al. (1989) can no longer be used to reliablyidentify the species of Bathyporeia in the Mediterranean and adjacent basins (cf.d’Udekem d’Acoz & Vader, 2005).

Ampelisca pseudosarsi and Monoculodes griseus had not been recorded fromthe Black Sea before. A. pseudosarsi has antenna 1 shorter than the antenna 2peduncle; antenna 2 longer than the body; and the head narrowed anteriorly, and isdiffers in these respects from Ampelisca diadema and A. pseudospinimana Bellan-Santini & Kaim-Malka, 1977 that are common in the Black Sea. M. griseus isdifferent from the common Monoculodes gibbosus Chevreux, 1888, in that thecarpus of gnathopod 1 forms a postero-dorsal notch, guarding the post-palmaredge.

Despite these taxonomic observations, the crustacean fauna of the Black Sea isstill systematically complicated. It will be necessary to consider the developmentalstage of various of the taxa here at issue, in order to arrive at more definitiveconclusions with respect to the precise status of some of these forms.

REFERENCES

ATES, A. S., 1999. Liocarcinus depurator (Linnaeus, 1758) and Brachynotus sexdentatus (Risso,1827) (Decapoda, Brachyura), two new records for the Turkish Black Sea fauna. TurkishJournal of Zoology, 23: 115-118.

BACESCU, M., 1951. Cumacea. Fauna Republicii Populare Romine, 4: 1-94. (Bucharest).BELLAN-SANTINI, D., G. DIVIACCO, G. KRAPP-SCHICKEL, A. A. MYERS & S. RUFFO, 1989.

Gammaridea (Haustoriidae to Lysianassidae). In: S. RUFFO (ed.), The Amphipoda of theMediterranean, 2. Mémoires de l’Institut Océanographique, Monaco, 13: xv-xx, 365-576.

SOFT-BOTTOM CRUSTACEANS ANATOLIAN COAST 1331

BELLAN-SANTINI, D., G. KARAMAN, G. KRAPP-SCHICKEL, M. LEDOYER, A. A. MY-ERS, S. RUFFO & U. SCHIEKE, 1982. Gammaridea (Acanthonotozomatidae to Gammari-dae). In: S. RUFFO (ed.), The Amphipoda of the Mediterranean, 1. Mémoires de l’InstitutOcéanographique, Monaco, 13: i-xiv, 1-364, 1 map.

BELLAN-SANTINI, D., G. KARAMAN, G. KRAPP-SCHICKEL, M. LEDOYER & S. RUFFO, 1993.Gammaridea (Melphidippidae to Talitridae), Ingolfiellidea, Caprellidea. In: S. RUFFO (ed.),The Amphipoda of the Mediterranean, 3. Mémoires de l’Institut Océanographique, Monaco,13: xxi-xxv, 577-814.

BELLAN-SANTINI, D., G. KARAMAN, M. LEDOYER, A. A. MYERS, S. RUFFO & W. VADER,1998. Addenda to parts 1-3, key to families, ecology, faunistics and zoogeography, bibliographyindex. In: S. RUFFO (ed.), The Amphipoda of the Mediterranean, 4. Mémoires de l’InstitutOcéanographique, Monaco, 13: xxviii-xliv, 815-959.

DEMIR, M., 1952. Bogaz ve adalar sahillerinin omurgasız dip hayvanları. Hidrobiyoloji ArastırmaEnstitüsü Yayınlarından, Istanbul University Pres., 2A: 1-654. [In Turkish.]

FALCIAI, L. & R. MINERVINI, 1996. Guide des homards, crabes, langoustes, crevettes et autresCrustacés Décapodes d’Europe: 1-287. (Delachaux et Niestlé SA, Lausanne-Paris).

GIORDANI-SOIKA, A., 1950. Tanaidacei egli isopodi marini della laguna di Venezia, Archiv.Oceanogr. Limnologia, 7 (2-3): 213-238.

GREZE, I. I., 1969. Opredeliteli bespozvonochnykh Chernogo morya [Keys for the identification ofinvertebrates of the Black Sea], 2: 1-449. [In Russian.]

— —, 1977. Amfipody Chernogo morya ikh biologiya [Amphipods of the Black Sea and theirbiology]: 1-156. (Noukova Dumka, Kiev). [In Russian.]

GÖNLÜGÜR, G., 2003. BatıKaradeniz (Sinop) Sahillerinin üst infralittoral zonundaki bazıfasieslerüzerinde kalitatif ve kantitatif arastırmalar: 1-323. (Ph.D. Thesis, University of Aegean, Izmir).[In Turkish.]

HOLTHUIS, L. B., 1961. Report on a collection of Crustacea Decapoda and Stomatopoda fromTurkey and the Balkans. Zoologische Verhandelingen, Leiden, 47: 1-67.

KANEVA-ABADJIEVA, V., 1964. On the amphipod fauna of the Black Sea along the Bulgarian coastand in the area near the Bosphorus. Bulletin de l’Institut de Pisciculture et de Pêcherie, Varna,4: 73-89.

KOCATAS, A. & T. KATAGAN, 1980. Türkiye Karadeniz Sahillerinin bentik Amphipodları. In:Proceedings of the Seventh Science Congress, Kusadasi, 6-10 October 1980: 285-296. (AegeanUniversity Press, Aydin). [In Turkish.]

KOUKOURAS, A., E. VOULTSIADOU, M. S. KITSOS & S. DOULGERAKI, 2001. Macrobenthicfauna diversity in the Aegean Sea. Affinities with other Mediterranean regions and the BlackSea. Bios, Macedonia, Greece, 6: 61-76.

MUTLU, E., M. ÜNSAL & F. BINGEL, 1992. A preliminary view on the faunal assemblage of soft-bottom crustaceans along the nearshores of the Turkish Black Sea. Acta Adriatica, 33 (1/2):177-189.

RIGGIO, S., 1993. I Tanaidacei dei mari Italiani: quadro delle conoscenze. Boll. Mus. civ. St. nat.Verona, 20 (2): 583-698.

SEZGIN, M., 1999. Tritaeta gibbosa (Bate, 1862) (Amphipoda, Dexaminidae) in the Turkish BlackSea fauna. Turkish Journal of Marine Sciences, 5: 47-54.

SEZGIN, M., A. KOCATAS & T. KATAGAN, 2001. Amphipod fauna of the central Black Sea region.Turkish Journal of Zoology, 25: 57-61.

STOCK, J. H., 1967. A revision of the European species of the Gammarus locusta-group (Crustacea,Amphipoda). Zoologische Verhandelingen, Leiden, 90: 1-56.

— —, 1968. A revision of the European species of the Echinogammarus pungens-group (Crustacea,Amphipoda). Beaufortia, Amsterdam, 16 (211): 13-78.

1332 FEVZI KIRKIM ET AL.

UDEKEM D’ACOZ, C. D’ & W. VADER, 2005. The Mediterranean Bathyporeia revisited (Crustacea,Amphipoda, Pontoporeiidae), with the description of a new species. Bolletino del MuseoCivico di Storia Naturale di Verona, 29: 3-38.

ZARIQUIEY ALVAREZ, R., 1968. Crustáceos decápodos Ibéricos. Investigación Pesquera,Barcelona, 32: 1-510.

ZENETOS, A., N. K. REVKOV, T. S. KONSULOVA, N. SERGEEVA, N. SIMBOURA, V. R.TODOROVA & V. E. ZAIKA, 2000. Coastal benthic diversity in the Black and Aegean seas.Mediterranean Marine Science, 1/2: 105-117.

First received 2 March 2006.Final version accepted 27 June 2006.