Ege Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences
Research Article
PDF BibTex RIS Cite

Assessment of goatfish fisheries in Turkey based on the microdata set of official landing statistics

Year 2021, Volume: 38 Issue: 3, 303 - 309, 15.09.2021

Nuray ÇELİK MAVRUK Sinan MAVRUK Dursun AVŞAR

https://doi.org/10.12714/egejfas.38.3.06
Cited By: 1

Abstract


Although goatfishes (Mullidae Rafinesque, 1815) are among the most important commercial fishes in Turkey, no research has been found investigating the characteristics and spatial patterns of goatfish fishery. Here, we assessed the goatfish fishery of Turkey based on the microdata set of Turkish National Fishery Statistics gathered by Turkish Statistical Institute (TÜİK) between 2014 and 2017. In this context, we investigated the variation of total goatfish catch by cities. In addition, we compared the contribution of small (boat <10m) and large scale (boat >10m) fishers as well as different fishing techniques to the total goatfish catch in Turkey. Finally, an evaluation was made on the discard rates recorded in the official landing statistics. The results showed that higher red mullet (Mullus barbatus Linnaeus, 1758) catch was reported in the eastern Mediterranean, whereas surmullet (Mullus surmuletus Linnaeus, 1758) catch was significantly higher in the western Black Sea. On the other hand, fishery-independent investigations revealed that the Turkish fishery fleet mostly catches red mullet throughout the coasts of Turkey. Therefore, the separate records of red mullet and surmullet in the landing statistics likely represent the local names of red mullet rather than two different species. Large scale fishers were the main source of fishery pressure in the Mediterranean Sea, the Aegean Sea and the Black Sea. However, the majority of the catch was landed by small scale fishers in the Marmara Sea. The bottom trawl fishery landed 88, 92 and 87% of total goatfish catch in the Black Sea, the Aegean Sea and the Mediterranean Sea, respectively. Purse seiners provided the largest part of total goatfish catch (40%) in the Marmara Sea, where the bottom trawl fishery is prohibited. The overall average for the discard rate was found to be 0.47%. There were no statistically significant differences among the discard rates of two species, marine regions or fishing methods.

Keywords

Fishery characterization, landing statistics, Mullidae, Mullus barbatus, Mullus surmuletus, red mullet, surmullet

References

  • Balık, İ. (2020). Effect of Depth and Season on Catch Composition and Discard Rate in Gillnet Fishery in the South-eastern Coast of the Black Sea. Acta Aquatica Turcica, 16(1), 82–93.
  • Bariche, M., Bilecenoglu, M., & Azzurro, E. (2013). Confirmed presence of the Red Sea goatfish Parupeneus forsskali (Fourmanoir & Guézé, 1976) in the Mediterranean Sea, BioInvasions Record. 2( December 2012), 34–36. DOI:10.3391/bir.2013.2.2.15
  • Başusta, N., Kumlu, M., Gökçe, M., & Göçer, M. (2002). Yumurtalık Koyu’nda dip trolü ile yakalanan türlerin mevsimsel değişimi ve verimlilik indeksi. Ege Üniversitesi Su Ürünleri Dergisi, 19, 29–34.
  • Bilecenoglu, M., Kaya, M., Cihangir, B., & Cicek, E. (2014). An updated checklist of the marine fishes of Turkey. Turkish Journal of Zoology, 38, 901–929. DOI:10.3906/zoo-1405-60
  • Froese, R., & Pauly, D. (2020). Fishbase. Retrieved from www.fishbase.org (01.09.2020)
  • Garibaldi, L. (2012). The FAO global capture production database: A six-decade effort to catch the trend. Marine Policy, 36(3), 760–768. DOI:10.1016/j.marpol.2011.10.024
  • Gökçe, G., Saygu, İ., & Eryaşar, A. R. (2016). Catch composition of trawl fisheries in Mersin Bay with emphasis on catch biodiversity. Turkish Journal of Zoology, 40(4), 522–533. DOI:10.3906/zoo-1505-35
  • Golani, D., Ozturk, B., & Basusta, N. (2006). Fishes of the Eastern Mediterranean (Vol. 24). Turkey: Turkish Marine Research Foundation.
  • Hoşsucu, H. (2000). Balıkçılık III (Avlama Yöntemleri). İzmir-Türkiye: Ege Üniversitesi Su Ürünleri Fakültesi Yayınları No: 59.
  • Mavruk, S. (2020). Trends of white grouper landings in the Northeastern Mediterranean: reliability and potential use for monitoring. Mediterranean Marine Science, 21(1), 183–190. DOI:http://dx.doi.org/10.12681/mms.18986
  • Mavruk, S., & Avşar, D. (2007). Lesepsiyen balıkların Akdeniz Ekosistemine Etkileri. Türk Sucul Yaşam Dergisi, 3(5), 380–386.
  • Mavruk, S., Bengil, F., Yeldan, H., Manasirli, M., & Avsar, D. (2017). The trend of lessepsian fish populations with an emphasis on temperature variations in Iskenderun Bay, the Northeastern Mediterranean. Fisheries Oceanography, 26(5), 542–554. DOI:10.1111/fog.12215
  • Özyurt, C. E., Perker, M., Kiyağa, V. B., Mavruk, S., & Kayaalp, T. (2018). Biomass of some lessepsian fish species in the soft bottoms of Iskenderun Bay (Northeast Mediterranean). Review of Hydrobiology, 11(1), 23–39.
  • Pauly, D., Ulman, A., Piroddi, C., Bultel, E., & Coll, M. (2014). ‘Reported’ versus ‘likely’ fisheries catches of four Mediterranean countries. Scientia Marina, 78(S1), 11–17. DOI:10.3989/scimar.04020.17A
  • Pauly, D., & Zeller, D. (2015). Catch Reconstruction: concepts, methods and data sources. Online Publication. Sea Around Us (www.seaaroundus.org). University of British Columbia.
  • Pauly, D., & Zeller, D. (2016). Catch reconstructions reveal that global marine fisheries catches are higher than reported and declining. Nature Communications, 7, 1–9. DOI:10.1038/ncomms10244
  • Pauly, D., & Zeller, D. (2017). The best catch data that can possibly be? Rejoinder to Ye et al. “FAO’s statistic data and sustainability of fisheries and aquaculture.” Marine Policy, 81(February), 406–410. DOI:10.1016/j.marpol.2017.03.013
  • R Core Team (2019). R: A Language and Environment for Statistical Computing. Vienna, Austria: R Foundation for Statistical Computing. Retrieved from http://www.r-project.org/ (01.09.2019)
  • Resmi Gazete, (2012). Commercial Fishery Regulation Rescripts of Republic of Turkey (No: 2012/65). Official Gazette of the Republic of Turkey.
  • Resmi Gazete, (2016). Commercial Fishery Regulation Rescripts of Republic of Turkey (No: 2016/35). Official Gazette of the Republic of Turkey.
  • Resmi Gazete, (2020). Commercial Fishery Regulation Rescripts of Republic of Turkey (No: 2020/20). Official Gazette of the Republic of Turkey.
  • Sokal, R. R., & Rohlf, F. J. (2012). Biometry: the principles and practice of statistics in biological research (Vol. 4). New York, NY: W.H. Freeman and Company.
  • TÜİK, (2019). Su Ürünleri İstatistikleri. Retrieved from www.tuik.gov.tr (01.09.2019).
  • Ulman, A., Bekişoğlu, S., Zengin, M., Knudsen, S., Unal, V., Mathews, C., … Pauly, D. (2013). From bonito to anchovy: a reconstruction of Turkey’s marine fisheries catches (1950-2010). Mediterranean Marine Science, 14(2), 309–342. DOI:10.12681/mms.414
  • Wickham, H. (2009). ggplot2: Elegant Graphics for Data Analysis. New York: Springer-Verlag. DOI: 10.1007/978-0-387-98141-3
  • Yemişken, E., Dalyan, C., & Eryilmaz, L. (2014). Catch and discard fish species of trawl fisheries in the Iskenderun Bay (North-Eastern Mediterranean) with emphasis on lessepsian and chondricthyan species. Mediterranean Marine Science, 15(2), 380–389. DOI:10.12681/mms.538
  • Yıldız, T., & Karakulak, F. S. (2017). Discards in bottom-trawl fishery in the western Black Sea (Turkey). Journal of Applied Ichthyology, 33(4), 689–698. DOI:10.1111/jai.13362
  • Yıldız, Taner, & Karakulak, F. S. (2018). The Catch Composition of Bottom Trawl Fishing in the Western Black Sea (Şi̇le-İğneada). Journal of Aquaculture Engineering and Fisheries Research, 4(1), 20–34. DOI:10.3153/jaefr18003
  • Yıldız, T., Zengin, M., Uzer, U., Karakulak, F. S., & Akpınar, İ. Ö. (2019). Community structure of demersal assemblages in the southwestern Black Sea. Regional Studies in Marine Science, 32. DOI:10.1016/j.rsma.2019.100844
  • Zeller, D., & Pauly, D. (2016). Marine fisheries catch reconstruction: definitions, sources, methods and challenges. In D. Pauly & D. Zeller (Eds.), Global Atlas of Marine Fisheries: A Critical Appraisal of Catches and Ecosystem Impacts (pp. 12–33). Washington, DC: Island Press.

Türkiye’deki barbungiller balıkçılığının TÜİK mikro-veri setine dayalı olarak değerlendirilmesi

Year 2021, Volume: 38 Issue: 3, 303 - 309, 15.09.2021

Nuray ÇELİK MAVRUK Sinan MAVRUK Dursun AVŞAR

https://doi.org/10.12714/egejfas.38.3.06
Cited By: 1

Abstract


Barbungiller (Mullidae Rafinesque, 1815), Türkiye balıkçılığının en önemli türleri arasında yer almaktadır. Buna karşın, barbungil balıkçılığının genel karakteristik özellikleri ve iller bazında değişimi üzerine geniş ölçekli bir değerlendirme ile karşılaşılmamıştır. Bu çalışma kapsamında Türkiye İstatistik Kurumu (TÜİK) tarafından 2014-2017 yılları için derlenen mikro-veri seti kullanılarak ticari balıkçılık filomuz tarafından gerçekleştirilen barbun (Mullus barbatus Linnaeus, 1758) ve tekir (Mullus surmuletus Linnaeus, 1758) avının şehirlere göre değişimi incelenmiş, küçük (tekne <10m) ve büyük ölçekli (tekne >10m) balıkçılar ile farklı balıkçılık yöntemlerinin toplam ava katkısı karşılaştırılmış ve rapor edilen ıskarta oranları değerlendirilmiştir. Çalışma sonucunda Doğu Akdeniz’de barbun, Batı Karadeniz’de ise tekir balığı avının daha fazla olduğu görülmüştür. Diğer taraftan, literatürde balıkçılıktan bağımsız olarak yapılan araştırmaların sonuçları incelendiğinde Türk balıkçılık filosunun esas olarak barbun avladığı görülmüştür. Dolayısıyla, TÜİK istatistiklerindeki barbun ve tekir kayıtlarının farklı türlerden ziyade yerel isimlendirme farklılıklarını yansıttığına dair güçlü bir şüphe oluşmuştur. Akdeniz, Ege ve Karadeniz’de barbun avının çoğu büyük ölçekli balıkçılar tarafından karşılanırken, Marmara’da küçük ölçekli balıkçıların toplam ava katkısı daha yüksektir. Toplam avın Karadeniz’de %88’i, Ege’de %92’si ve Akdeniz’de %87’si dip trolü avcılığından karşılanmaktadır. Dip trolü avcılığının yasak olduğu Marmara Denizi’nde ise, toplam barbun avının %40’ı gırgır balıkçıları tarafından rapor edilmiştir. Mikro-veri setinde rapor edilen ıskarta oranının türler, denizler ve av araçları arasındaki değişimi istatistik açıdan önemli bulunmamış olup, barbun ve tekirin toplamı için %0,47 olarak hesaplanmıştır.

Keywords

Av istatistikleri, balıkçılığın karakterizasyonu, Mullidae, Mullus barbatus, Mullus surmuletus, barbun, tekir balığı

Supporting Institution

Çukurova Üniversitesi Bilimsel Araştırma Projeleri Birimi

Thanks

Bu çalışmada Türkiye İstatistik Kurumu (TÜİK) tarafından Su Ürünleri İstatistikleri kapsamında derlenen deniz ürünleri anketlerine ait mikroveri seti kullanılmıştır. Destekleri dolayısıyla TÜİK’e ve veri erişimindeki yardımları dolayısıyla TÜİK Adana Veri Araştırma Merkezi çalışanlarına teşekkürü borç bilirim.

References

  • Balık, İ. (2020). Effect of Depth and Season on Catch Composition and Discard Rate in Gillnet Fishery in the South-eastern Coast of the Black Sea. Acta Aquatica Turcica, 16(1), 82–93.
  • Bariche, M., Bilecenoglu, M., & Azzurro, E. (2013). Confirmed presence of the Red Sea goatfish Parupeneus forsskali (Fourmanoir & Guézé, 1976) in the Mediterranean Sea, BioInvasions Record. 2( December 2012), 34–36. DOI:10.3391/bir.2013.2.2.15
  • Başusta, N., Kumlu, M., Gökçe, M., & Göçer, M. (2002). Yumurtalık Koyu’nda dip trolü ile yakalanan türlerin mevsimsel değişimi ve verimlilik indeksi. Ege Üniversitesi Su Ürünleri Dergisi, 19, 29–34.
  • Bilecenoglu, M., Kaya, M., Cihangir, B., & Cicek, E. (2014). An updated checklist of the marine fishes of Turkey. Turkish Journal of Zoology, 38, 901–929. DOI:10.3906/zoo-1405-60
  • Froese, R., & Pauly, D. (2020). Fishbase. Retrieved from www.fishbase.org (01.09.2020)
  • Garibaldi, L. (2012). The FAO global capture production database: A six-decade effort to catch the trend. Marine Policy, 36(3), 760–768. DOI:10.1016/j.marpol.2011.10.024
  • Gökçe, G., Saygu, İ., & Eryaşar, A. R. (2016). Catch composition of trawl fisheries in Mersin Bay with emphasis on catch biodiversity. Turkish Journal of Zoology, 40(4), 522–533. DOI:10.3906/zoo-1505-35
  • Golani, D., Ozturk, B., & Basusta, N. (2006). Fishes of the Eastern Mediterranean (Vol. 24). Turkey: Turkish Marine Research Foundation.
  • Hoşsucu, H. (2000). Balıkçılık III (Avlama Yöntemleri). İzmir-Türkiye: Ege Üniversitesi Su Ürünleri Fakültesi Yayınları No: 59.
  • Mavruk, S. (2020). Trends of white grouper landings in the Northeastern Mediterranean: reliability and potential use for monitoring. Mediterranean Marine Science, 21(1), 183–190. DOI:http://dx.doi.org/10.12681/mms.18986
  • Mavruk, S., & Avşar, D. (2007). Lesepsiyen balıkların Akdeniz Ekosistemine Etkileri. Türk Sucul Yaşam Dergisi, 3(5), 380–386.
  • Mavruk, S., Bengil, F., Yeldan, H., Manasirli, M., & Avsar, D. (2017). The trend of lessepsian fish populations with an emphasis on temperature variations in Iskenderun Bay, the Northeastern Mediterranean. Fisheries Oceanography, 26(5), 542–554. DOI:10.1111/fog.12215
  • Özyurt, C. E., Perker, M., Kiyağa, V. B., Mavruk, S., & Kayaalp, T. (2018). Biomass of some lessepsian fish species in the soft bottoms of Iskenderun Bay (Northeast Mediterranean). Review of Hydrobiology, 11(1), 23–39.
  • Pauly, D., Ulman, A., Piroddi, C., Bultel, E., & Coll, M. (2014). ‘Reported’ versus ‘likely’ fisheries catches of four Mediterranean countries. Scientia Marina, 78(S1), 11–17. DOI:10.3989/scimar.04020.17A
  • Pauly, D., & Zeller, D. (2015). Catch Reconstruction: concepts, methods and data sources. Online Publication. Sea Around Us (www.seaaroundus.org). University of British Columbia.
  • Pauly, D., & Zeller, D. (2016). Catch reconstructions reveal that global marine fisheries catches are higher than reported and declining. Nature Communications, 7, 1–9. DOI:10.1038/ncomms10244
  • Pauly, D., & Zeller, D. (2017). The best catch data that can possibly be? Rejoinder to Ye et al. “FAO’s statistic data and sustainability of fisheries and aquaculture.” Marine Policy, 81(February), 406–410. DOI:10.1016/j.marpol.2017.03.013
  • R Core Team (2019). R: A Language and Environment for Statistical Computing. Vienna, Austria: R Foundation for Statistical Computing. Retrieved from http://www.r-project.org/ (01.09.2019)
  • Resmi Gazete, (2012). Commercial Fishery Regulation Rescripts of Republic of Turkey (No: 2012/65). Official Gazette of the Republic of Turkey.
  • Resmi Gazete, (2016). Commercial Fishery Regulation Rescripts of Republic of Turkey (No: 2016/35). Official Gazette of the Republic of Turkey.
  • Resmi Gazete, (2020). Commercial Fishery Regulation Rescripts of Republic of Turkey (No: 2020/20). Official Gazette of the Republic of Turkey.
  • Sokal, R. R., & Rohlf, F. J. (2012). Biometry: the principles and practice of statistics in biological research (Vol. 4). New York, NY: W.H. Freeman and Company.
  • TÜİK, (2019). Su Ürünleri İstatistikleri. Retrieved from www.tuik.gov.tr (01.09.2019).
  • Ulman, A., Bekişoğlu, S., Zengin, M., Knudsen, S., Unal, V., Mathews, C., … Pauly, D. (2013). From bonito to anchovy: a reconstruction of Turkey’s marine fisheries catches (1950-2010). Mediterranean Marine Science, 14(2), 309–342. DOI:10.12681/mms.414
  • Wickham, H. (2009). ggplot2: Elegant Graphics for Data Analysis. New York: Springer-Verlag. DOI: 10.1007/978-0-387-98141-3
  • Yemişken, E., Dalyan, C., & Eryilmaz, L. (2014). Catch and discard fish species of trawl fisheries in the Iskenderun Bay (North-Eastern Mediterranean) with emphasis on lessepsian and chondricthyan species. Mediterranean Marine Science, 15(2), 380–389. DOI:10.12681/mms.538
  • Yıldız, T., & Karakulak, F. S. (2017). Discards in bottom-trawl fishery in the western Black Sea (Turkey). Journal of Applied Ichthyology, 33(4), 689–698. DOI:10.1111/jai.13362
  • Yıldız, Taner, & Karakulak, F. S. (2018). The Catch Composition of Bottom Trawl Fishing in the Western Black Sea (Şi̇le-İğneada). Journal of Aquaculture Engineering and Fisheries Research, 4(1), 20–34. DOI:10.3153/jaefr18003
  • Yıldız, T., Zengin, M., Uzer, U., Karakulak, F. S., & Akpınar, İ. Ö. (2019). Community structure of demersal assemblages in the southwestern Black Sea. Regional Studies in Marine Science, 32. DOI:10.1016/j.rsma.2019.100844
  • Zeller, D., & Pauly, D. (2016). Marine fisheries catch reconstruction: definitions, sources, methods and challenges. In D. Pauly & D. Zeller (Eds.), Global Atlas of Marine Fisheries: A Critical Appraisal of Catches and Ecosystem Impacts (pp. 12–33). Washington, DC: Island Press.

Details

Primary Language Turkish
Subjects Fisheries Management
Journal Section Articles
Authors

Nuray ÇELİK MAVRUK
T.C. Tarım ve Orman Bakanlığı, Adana İl Tarım ve Orman Müdürlüğü
0000-0003-0955-2832
Türkiye

Sinan MAVRUK
ÇUKUROVA ÜNİVERSİTESİ, SU ÜRÜNLERİ FAKÜLTESİ, SU ÜRÜNLERİ TEMEL BİLİMLERİ BÖLÜMÜ
0000-0003-1958-0634
Türkiye

Dursun AVŞAR
ÇUKUROVA ÜNİVERSİTESİ, SU ÜRÜNLERİ FAKÜLTESİ, SU ÜRÜNLERİ TEMEL BİLİMLERİ BÖLÜMÜ
0000-0003-0955-2832
Türkiye

Project Number FYL-2019-1150
Publication Date September 15, 2021
Submission Date February 18, 2021
Acceptance Date April 28, 2021
Published in Issue Year 2021Volume: 38 Issue: 3

Cite

APA Çelik Mavruk, N. , Mavruk, S. & Avşar, D. (2021). Türkiye’deki barbungiller balıkçılığının TÜİK mikro-veri setine dayalı olarak değerlendirilmesi . Ege Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences , 38 (3) , 303-309 . DOI: 10.12714/egejfas.38.3.06

Cited By

Karadeniz'de Demersal Balıklara Ait Av Miktarlarının Trend Analizi
Journal of Anatolian Environmental and Animal Sciences
https://doi.org/10.35229/jaes.1060770