Advertisement

Current Status of Fish Communities in the Danube

  • Vladimír KováčEmail author
Chapter
Part of the The Handbook of Environmental Chemistry book series (HEC, volume 39)

Abstract

The Danube is a river with the highest fish species richness (102 species ever reported) in Europe. Nevertheless, it is also a river that faces various human pressures with serious negative impacts on its ecosystems, including fish communities. In this chapter, data from both the Joint Danube Survey 2 (2007) and the Gabčíkovo Hydroelectric Scheme Monitoring (1991–2011) are reanalysed briefly (data from JDS3 - 2013 are not included). A total of 69 species of fishes were recorded within the recent surveys of the Danube, a number that still suggest a high diversity of the Danubian fish community. However, as many as 12 of these species were not native in the Danube, at least not in its whole course, and a total of 18 non-native species have been ever recorded in the Danube. Concerning native species, cyprinids, especially bleak, highly predominated along the whole course of the Danube, though invasive species, such as gobies in the Upper and Middle Danube and gibel in the Lower Danube, were found to be extremely abundant. Biological invasions not only indicate deterioration of environments but also may result in an overall decline in biodiversity. Therefore, a predictive risk assessments and management strategies for introductions and invasions of non-native fishes should be developed for the Danube and applied subsequently at an international level. Human impacts on fish communities of the Danube are also briefly illustrated, with the Gabčíkovo Hydroelectric Scheme used as an example.

Keywords

Diversity Fishes Gabčíkovo monitoring Human impacts Invasive gobies Joint Danube Survey 2 

References

  1. 1.
    Balon EK (1964) Verzeichnis und ökologische Charakteristik der Fische der Donau. Hydrobiologia 24:41–52CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Balon EK (1967) Development of ichthyofauna of the Danube, present situation and attempt for prognosis of further changes after construction of water works. Biol Práce 13:7–121Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Balon EK, Crawford SS, Lelek A (1986) Fish communities of the upper Danube Germany, Austria prior to the new Rhein-Main-Donau connection. Environ Biol Fish 15:243–271Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Schiemer F (2002) Fische als Bioindikatoren und Naturschutzziel von großen Fließgewässern. Verhandlungen der Gesellschaft für Ichthyologie 3:19–35Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Schiemer F, Guti G, Keckeis H et al (2004) Ecological status and problems of the Danube River and its fish Fauna: a review. In: Welcomme RL, Petr T (eds) Proceedings of the second international symposium on the management of large rivers for fisheries sustaining livelihoods and biodiversity in the new millennium, vol I. FAO Regional Office for Asia and the Pacific, BangkokGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Jepsen N, Wiesner C, Schotzko N (2008). Fish. In: Liska I, Wagner F, Slobodnik J (eds) Joint Danube Survey 2, Final Scientific Report. ICPDR. http://www.icpdr.org/main/activities-projects/joint-danube-survey-2
  7. 7.
    Wiesner C et al (2007) Technical report with results from the fish sampling and analyses from the Joint Danube Survey 2007. In: Liska I, Wagner F, Slobodnik J (2008) Joint Danube Survey 2, Final Scientific Report. ICPDR, CD-ROMGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Černý J (1995) Monitoring of ichtyocenoses in the Slovak part of the Danube inland Delta before and after operation start of the Gabčíkovo barrage system. In: Mucha I (ed) Gabčíkovo part of the hydroelectric power project environmental impact review (Evaluation based on two year monitoring). Published for the Faculty of Natural Sciences, Comenius University, Bratislava and the Plenipotentiary of the Slovak Republic for construction and operation of the Gabčíkovo-Nagymaros hydropower project, BratislavaGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Copp GH, Bianco PG, Bogutskaya NG et al (2005) To be, or not to be, a non-native freshwater fish? J Appl Ichtyol 21:242–262CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Balon EK (1981) Additions and amendments to the classification of reproductive styles in fishes. Environ Biol Fish 6:377–389CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Kováč V (2010) Národná metóda stanovenia ekologického stavu vôd podľa rýb – Slovenský ichtyologický index. Aktualizovaná verzia 2010. AQ-BIOS, Bratislava. http://www.aqbios.com/Narodna_metoda_ryby_V_Kovac_2010_upravena_typologia.pdf. Accessed 31 Jan 2013
  12. 12.
    Černý J (2006) Monitoring Danube fish fauna and the influence of the Gabčíkovo project. In: Mucha I, Lisický M (eds) Slovak-Hungarian environmental monitoring on the Danube. Ground Water Consulting Ltd, BratislavaGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Schwarz U, Kraier W (2008) Hydromorphology. In: Liska I, Wagner F, Slobodnik J (eds) Joint Danube Survey 2, Final Scientific Report. ICPDR. http://www.icpdr.org/main/activities-projects/joint-danube-survey-2
  14. 14.
    Hirzinger VH, Keckeis H, Nemeschkal L et al (2004) The importance of inshore areas for adult fish distribution along a free-flowing section of the Danube, Austria. River Res Appl 20:137–149CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Erős T, Tóth B, Sevcsik A et al (2008) Comparison of fish assemblage diversity in natural and artificial rip-rap habitats in the littoral zone of a large river (River Danube, Hungary). Int Rev Hydrobiol 93:88–105CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Polačik M, Trichkova T, Janáč M et al (2008) The ichthyofauna of the shoreline zone in the longitudinal profile of the Danube River, Bulgaria. Acta Zool Bulgarica 60:77–88Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Wheeler A (1978) Ictalurus melas (Rafinesque, 1820) and I. nebulosus (Lesueur, 1819): the North American catfishes in Europe. J Fish Biol 12:435–439CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Ribeiro F, Elvira B, Collares-Pereira MJ et al (2008) Life-history traits of non-native fishes in Iberian watersheds across several invasion stages: a first approach. Biol Invasions 10:89–102CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Novomeská A, Katina S, Copp GH et al (2013) Morphological variability of black bullhead Ameiurus melas in its non-native European populations. J Fish Biol 82, 1103–1118Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Bănărescu P (1964) Pisces – Osteichthyes. Fauna Republicii populare Romîne, vol XIII. Editura Academiei Republicii Populare Române, BucureștiGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Balon EK (1962) Ökologische Bemerkungen über die Standorte der Donaufische mit einer Beschreibung des Fundes des Carassius auratus gibelio Bloch, 1783 und Alburnoides bipunctatus Bloch, 1782. Vest Spol Zool 26:331–351Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Holčík J (1980) Possible reason of the expansion of Carassius auratus Linnaeus, 1758 Teleostei, Cyprinidae in the Danube River Basin. Int Rev Hydrobiol 65:673–679CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Holčík J (1991) Fish introductions in Europe with particular reference to its central and eastern part. Can J Fish Aquat Sci 48:13–23CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Tomeček J, Kováč V, Katina S (2007) Biological flexibility of pumpkinseed, a successful coloniser throughout Europe. In: Gherardi F (ed) Freshwater bioinvaders: profiles, distribution, and threats. Springer, DordrechtGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    García-Berthou E, Moreno-Amich R (2000) Introduction of exotic fish into a Mediterranean lake over a 90-year period. Arch Hydrobiol 149:271–284Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Copp GH, Fox MG, Przybylski M et al (2004) Life-time growth patterns of pumpkinseed Lepomis gibbosus introduced to Europe relative to native North American populations. Folia Zool 53:237–254Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Copp GH, Guti G, Rovný B et al (1994) Hierarchical analysis of habitat use by 0+ juvenile fish in the Hungarian/Slovak flood plain of the River Danube. Environ Biol Fish 40:329–348CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Tomeček J, Kováč V, Katina S (2005) Ontogenetic variability in external morphology of native (Canadian) and non-native (Slovak) populations of pumpkinseed (Lepomis gibbosus, Linnaeus 1758). J Appl Ichthyol 21:335–344CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Wiesner C (2005) New records of non-indigenous gobies (Neogobius spp.) in the Austrian Danube. J Appl Ichthyol 21:324–327CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Svetovidov AN (1964) Fishes of the Black Sea. Nauka, Moscow-Leningrad (in Russian)Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    Pintér K (1998) Die Fische Ungarns, ihre Biologie und Nutzung. Akadémiai Kiadó, BudapestGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Zweimuller I, Moidl S, Nimmervoll H (1996) A new species for the Austrian Danube – Neogobius kessleri. Acta Univ Carol Biol 40:213–218Google Scholar
  33. 33.
    Ahnelt H, Bănărescu P, Spolwind R, Hárka A, Waidbacher H (1998) Occurrence and distribution of three gobiid species (Pisces, Gobiidae) in the middle and upper Danube region – examples of different dispersal patterns? Biologia 53:665–678Google Scholar
  34. 34.
    Stráňai I (1998) Morphometry study on Neogobia kessleri (Günther 1861) from the main stream of the Danube river. Czech J Anim Sci 43:289–292Google Scholar
  35. 35.
    Černý J, Copp GH, Kováč V et al (2003) Initial impact of the Gabčíkovo hydroelectric scheme on 0+ fish assemblages in the Slovak flood plain, River Danube. River Res Appl 19:749–766CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Kováč V, Copp GH, Sousa RP (2009) Life-history traits of invasive bighead goby Neogobius kessleri from the middle Danube with a reflection of who may win the goby competition. J Appl Ichthyol 25:33–37Google Scholar
  37. 37.
    Corkum LD, Sapota MR, Skóra KE (2004) The round goby, Neogobius melanostomus, a fish invader on both sides of the Atlantic Ocean. Biol Invasions 6:173–181CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Berg LS (1949) Freshwater fishes of USSR and adjacent countries, vol 3. Izvestiya Akademii Nauk, Moscow (In Russian)Google Scholar
  39. 39.
    Pinchuk VI, Vasil’eva ED, Vasil’ev VP et al (2003) Neogobius melanostomus (Pallas, 1814). In Miller PJ (ed) The freshwater fishes of Europe, vol 8/I. Aula, WiebelsheimGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Simonović P, Valković B, Paunović M (1998) Round goby Neogobius melanostomus, a new Ponto–Caspian element for Yugoslavia. Folia Zool 47:305–312Google Scholar
  41. 41.
    Stráňai I, Andreji J (2004) The first report of round goby, Neogobius melanostomus (Pisces, Gobiidae) in the waters of Slovakia. Folia Zool 53:335–338Google Scholar
  42. 42.
    Tóth J, Biró P (1984) Exotic fish species acclimatized in Hungarian natural waters. FAO EIFAC technical papers. Document technique de la Cecpi 42(Supplement 2):550–554Google Scholar
  43. 43.
    Stráňai I, Andreji J (2002) New fish species in the waters of Slovakia – Neogobius fluviatilis. V. Česká Ichtyologická Konference, Sborník Referátu, Brno (In Slovak)Google Scholar
  44. 44.
    Čápová M, Zlatnická I, Kováč V et al (2008) Ontogenetic variability in external morphology of monkey goby, Neogobius fluviatilis (Pallas, 1814) and its relevance to invasion potential. Hydrobiologia 607:17–26CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. 45.
    Jurajda P, Černý J, Polačik M et al (2005) The recent distribution and abundance of non-native Neogobius fishes in the Slovak section of the river Danube. J Appl Ichthyol 21:319–323CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. 46.
    Borcherding J, Gertzen S, Staas S (2011) First record of Pontian racer goby, Babka gymnotrachelus (Gobiidae: Teleostei), in the River Rhine, Germany. J Appl Ichtyol 27:1399–1400CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. 47.
    Grabowska JM, Grabowski D, Pietraszewski J et al (2009) Non-selective predator – the versatile diet of Amur sleeper (Perccottus glenii Dybowski, 1877) in the Vistula River (Poland), a newly invaded ecosystem. J Appl Ichthyol 4:451–459CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. 48.
    Gozlan RE, Pinder AC, Shelley J (2002) Occurrence of the Asiatic cyprinid Pseudorasbora parva in England. J Fish Biol 61:298–300CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. 49.
    Záhorská E, Kováč V, Falka I et al (2009) Morphological variability of the Asiatic cyprinid, topmouth gudgeon Pseudorasbora parva, in its introduced European range. J Fish Biol 74:167–185CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. 50.
    Bănărescu PM (1999) Pseudorasbora parva (Temminck & Schlegel 1846). In: Bănărescu PM (ed) The freshwater fishes of europe, vol 5/I. Aula, WiebelsheimGoogle Scholar
  51. 51.
    Rosecchi E, Thomas F, Crivelli AJ (2001) Can life-history traits predict the fate of introduced species? A case study on two cyprinid fish in southern France. Freshwater Biol 46:845–853CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. 52.
    Gaviloaie IC, Falka I (2006) Consideraxcii asupra răspăndiri actuale a murgoiului bălcxat – Pseudorasbora parva (Temminck & Schlegel, 1846) (Pisces, Cyprinidae, Gobininae) – în Europa. Brukenthal Acta Musei 1:145–149Google Scholar
  53. 53.
    Gozlan RE, Andreou D, Asaeda T et al (2010) Pan-continental invasion of Pseudorasbora parva: towards a better understanding of freshwater fish invasions. Fish Fish 11:315–340CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. 54.
    Gozlan RE, St-Hilaire S, Feist SW et al (2005) Disease threat to European fish. Nature 435:1046CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. 55.
    Gozlan RE, Whipps C, Andreou D et al (2009) Identification of the rosette-like agent as Sphaerothecum destruens, a multihost fish pathogen. Int J Parasitol 39:1055–1058CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. 56.
    Elton CS (1958) The ecology of invasions by plants and animals. Methuen & Co, LondonCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. 57.
    Elliott M (2003) Biological pollutants and biological pollution – an increasing cause for concern. Mar Pollut Bull 46:275–280CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Faculty of Natural Sciences, Department of EcologyComenius UniversityBratislavaSlovakia

Personalised recommendations