ACTA ZOOLOGICA BULGARICA

Aquatic Ecology Acta zool. bulg., 68 (4), 2016: 557-561

Model of the Pontic Shad Alosa immaculata (Bennet, 1835)

Mirjana Lenhardt1*, Ion Navodaru2, Milen Vassilev3, Aleksandar Kalauzi1, Slobodan Regner1,
Željka Višnjić-Jeftić1, Katarina Tošić4 & Marija Smederevac-Lalić1

1
Institute for Multidisciplinary Research University of Belgrade, Kneza Viseslava 1, 11000 Belgrade, Serbia
2
Danube Delta National Institute for Research and Development, Babadag Street 165, 820112 Tulcea, Romania
3
Institute of Biodiversity and Ecosystem Research, Bulgarian Academy of Sciences, 1 Tsar Osvoboditel Blvd, 1000 Sofia, Bulgaria
4
Faculty of Biology University of Belgrade, Studentski trg 16, 11000 Belgrade, Serbia

Abstract: Data on the catch of Pontic shad in the Lower Danube River Region for the period 1920-2008 were used to
make one-component and two-component models. The catch model for Pontic shad showed natural cyclic
fluctuations with no sign of population decrease. The oscillation periods were 11.17 years and 9.56 years,
which corresponded to solar activity cycles. In addition, as anchovy represents the main food source of
Pontic shad in the Black Sea, the catch of anchovy in the Black Sea for the period 1950-2006 was mod-
elled. Pearson’s coefficient (cc=0.6785) indicated that 67.86% of the Pontic shad catch was dependent on
the anchovy catch during the analysed time period. Besides the necessity for better gathering of data in the
Lower Danube River Region on the catch of Pontic shad, there is also a need for more profound studies
on this species. It is evident that this valuable fish species requires more attention from fish managers in
all countries of the Lower Danube River Region.

Key words: Lower Danube River Region, shad populations, commercial catch, oscillation periods, solar activity

Introduction
The Pontic shad Alosa immaculata (Bennet, 1838) Navodaru & Waldman 2003), the structure of Pontic
is an anadromous fish species migrating for spawn- shad spawning migrants (Ciolac 2004, Ciolac &
ing from the Black Sea to the Danube River, with a Patriche 2004) and the drift of Pontic shad larvae
long tradition of commercially shared fisheries by (Navodaru 2001). The main study of Pontic shad
countries in the Lower Danube River Region. It is in Bulgaria is the work of Kolarov (1985), which
highly appreciated by a certain number of consum- involved morphological investigation, growth,
ers because it is the Christian custom of local people structure of migrants and analysis of the catch in
to eat Pontic shad during lent (Ciolac & Patriche Bulgaria. The least studied is the species in Serbia,
2004). even though the species has been protected in this
Pioneer research of Pontic shad was conducted country since 1993. Papers on age determination
by Ukraine and Romania in the years 1950-1960. (Visnjic-Jeftic et al. 2009), geometric morphomet-
The most recent papers and scientific research con- ric analysis (Visnjic-Jeftic et al. 2010) and heavy
cerning Pontic shad was carried out in Romania. metal analysis in Pontic shad tissues (Visnjic-Jeftic
The topics of these papers concerned Pontic shad et al. 2013) were published based on investigations
exploitation (Navodaru 1996, Navodaru 1998, of this species in Serbia.

Corresponding author: lenhardt@ibiss.bg.ac.rs

557
Lenhardt M., I. Navodaru, M. Vassilev, A. Kalauzi, S. Regner, Ž. Višnjić-Jeftić, K. Tošić & M. Smederevac-Lalića

The Pontic shad fishery has an economic value where I(t) represents annual fish catch ex-
of about USD 2 million and annual landings of about pressed in tonnes, A, fr φ and c stand for amplitude,
1,000 metric tonnes with about 70% of the fish taken frequency, initial phase and steady state of the oscil-
by Romanian fishermen (Navodaru & Waldman latory component, respectively, while ke denotes the
2003). Negative impacts on Pontic shad stocks in time constant of the decay process. It was developed
the Black Sea and the Danube River are due to over- for situations where fish catch was diminishing with
fishing and pollution (Navodaru 1996, Navodaru & time, at the same time exhibiting an oscillatory com-
Waldman 2003), as well as to dam construction. In ponent. In this case we faced a situation where oscil-
the past, isolated individuals migrated for spawning latory amplitudes were modulated via a bell-shaped
into the Danube River as far upstream as Budapest process, rather than simple decay. Under these cir-
(rkm 1650) (Banarescu 1964). Construction of the cumstances, a natural modification of the previous
Djerdap I and II (the Iron Gates) dams at 943 rkm model would be to substitute the exponential decay
(1970) and 863 rkm (1984), respectively, on the with a Gaussian factor:
Danube River shortened the migration routes of
I (t )  A sin(2f r t   )  ce ke (t t0 ) ,
2
this species. There are no fish passes on these two
dams but some specimens are able to pass the dams
where I(t0) stands for time of maximal catch
through ship locks and reach rkm 1319.
of the bell-shaped component, while parameter ke,
Even though Pontic shad, together with Caspian
instead of the extinction coefficient, should be in-
shad and Black Sea shad, are commercially and cul-
terpreted as the inverse of the width of the Gaussian
turally important within their respective distribu-
process. Six-parameter nonlinear fitting of the two
tions, knowledge of the biology and conservation
catch data series was performed using the Nelder-
status of these shads is poor (Navodaru & Waldman
Mead algorithm, implemented by the authors in
2003). Previously, Pontic shad was DD (data defi-
MATLAB 6.5 (MathWorks Inc., Natick, MA 01760-
cient) on the IUCN red list (Baillie & Groombridge
2098 United States).
1996) and is now VU (Vulnerable) with the popula-
tion trend stated to decrease (IUCN, 2015). It is also
included in Appendix III (protected fauna) of the Results
Bern Convention (Lassalle et al. 2008), in Natura
Catch of Pontic shad
2000 and EU Habitat Directive (92/43/1992). Its
status in the Lower Danube River Region varies de- Data on Pontic shad for the period 1920-2008 were
pending on the country. used by applying the model presented in Fig. 1.
The aim of this study was to perform an analy- Parameter values, obtained for the Pontic shad catch
sis of fishery data, legislation and scientific research model, are:
related to Pontic shad in the Lower Danube River A= 511.35 t, fr=0.0995 1/year (corresponding
Region, which could help us create a sound basis for period T=10.05 years), φ=4.91,
better management of this valuable species. c= 1112.73 t, ke= 0.00242 1/year2, t0=1976.32
years;
However, this model is not able to explain
Material and Methods multiple bell-shaped processes modulating the os-
Catch data on Pontic shad were used from the fol- cillatory component. This is best seen for the period
lowing sources: for the period 1920-1924 after 1920-1950 (Fig. 1). Therefore, we applied a gen-
Daia (1926), for 1925-1964 after Niculescu-Duvaz eralised version of the present model on the same
& Nalbant (1965), for 1965-1982 after Kolarov catch data:
(1991), for 1983-1993 after Froese & Pauly (2015), n

and for 1994-2008 after data from the Danube Delta I (t )  A sin(2 ( f ) t   )  c e
i r i i i
( k e ) i ( t ( t 0 ) i ) 2
,
Institute for Research and Development, Tulcea, i 1

Romania. Data on the catch of anchovy in the Black where i denotes an index of the current compo-
Sea for the period 1950-2006 were obtained from nent, while n stands for the number of components.
FAO FishStatPlus. Such fitting, presented in Fig. 2, for n=2 resulted in
The model applied here for catches of Pontic the following values of model parameters:
shad and anchovy was based on the model intro- A1=264.07 t, (fr)1=0.0895 1/year (T1=11.17
duced in our previous work (Lenhardt et al. 2006), years), (φ)1=3.07, c1=340.00 t, (ke)1=0.001823 1/
year2, (t0)1=1935.83 years;
I (t )  A sin(2f r t   )  ce  ket , A2=568.86 t, (fr)2=0.1046 1/year (T2=9.56

558
 Model of the Pontic Shad Alosa immaculata and Anchovy Engraulis encrasicolus Catch in the Danube...

Fig. 1. The catch of Pontic shad for the period 1920-2008 Fig. 2. Fitting of Pontic shad catch for the period 1920-2008

Fig. 3. Dependence of the Pontic shad catch on the an- Fig. 4. The two catch models: Pontic shad and anchovy
chovy catch during the period 1920-2008

years), (φ)2=4.71, c2=1200.42 t, (ke)2=0.003955 1/ the Pontic shad catch was dependent on the anchovy
year2, (t0)2=1977.41 years. catch during the analysed time period.
Bearing in mind that according to Svetovidov By comparing the two catch models (Fig. 4),
(1964) 73.3% of the Pontic shad’s diet in the Black one for the Pontic shad and one for the anchovy, we
Sea is comprised of fish, mainly represented by an- could conclude that both species had very similar
chovy, we also modelled the anchovy catch in the oscillatory periods, 10.05 and 10.59 years, respec-
Black Sea. Parameter values for the anchovy catch tively. Also, both species showed very similar loca-
model were: tions of maxima of non-oscillatory components (po-
A= 42201.15 t, fr=0.0944 1/year (correspond- sitioned at years 1976.32 and 1977.65), as well as
ing period T=10.59 years), φ=2.24, local maxima of the oscillatory components, at least
c= 215518.80 t, ke= 0.00561 1/year2, t0=1977.65 in the middle section of the time period.
years.
In order to test any correlations between catch-
es of the two species, both data series, I1(t) and I2(t),
Discussion
referring to actual catch per year, were presented on The catch model for Pontic shad showed natural cy-
a scatter plot (Fig. 3). In addition, Pearson’s coef- clic fluctuations with no sign of population decrease.
ficient of the linear correlation was calculated for This is in accordance with the statement made by
the two series (cc=0.6785) indicating that 67.85% of Luzhnyak & Korneev (2006) where some increase

559
Lenhardt M., I. Navodaru, M. Vassilev, A. Kalauzi, S. Regner, Ž. Višnjić-Jeftić, K. Tošić & M. Smederevac-Lalića

in the number of A. immaculata spawners entering Diadromous species are strongly linked to the
the River Don (Ukraine) for spawning was observed history of their basins and constitute an important
during recent years. However, it contradicts to find- heritage (Lassalle et al. 2008, 2009). This work is
ings for sturgeon migrants in the Lower Danube a contribution to the better understanding of Pontic
River Region, beluga (Huso huso) and Russian stur- shad populations in the Lower Danube River Region.
geon (Acipenser gueldenstaedtii), where a decrease Out results demonstrated that additional research is
in the populations of these two species (Lenhardt needed before a common management plan can be
et al. 2006) was recorded, with extinction risk for designed and implemented. It is evident that this
Russian sturgeon estimated to occur around the mid- valuable fish species needs more attention from fish
dle of the century and for beluga around the middle managers in all countries in the Lower Danube River
of the millennium. The main threats to anadromous Region.
Pontic shad are almost the same as those identified In view of the present results and interpreta-
for sturgeons, with the only additional point being tions, we could comment the measures for manage-
the slightly better state of shad stock compared to ment of Pontic shad. During 1958-1989, monitoring
that of sturgeon, due to their natural ability for rapid and regulation of commercial fisheries in the Lower
recovery (Popescu 2010). Danube River Region, especially of sturgeons and
In a two-component model for the catch of Pontic shad, were under the “Convention concern-
Pontic shad, the oscillation periods were 11.17 years ing fishing in Danube waters” signed by Romania,
and 9.56 years – which corresponds to solar activ- Bulgaria, Yugoslavia and the Soviet Union, but fol-
ity cycles (Regner & Gacic 1974, Regner & Gacic lowing the collapse of socialism this Convention was
1977). Kolarov (1985) also showed significant no longer in effect. Nowadays, we have differences
(r=0.63-0.79) impact of solar activity on the catch in the conservation and exploitation status for Pontic
of Pontic shad and a moderate correlation of Pontic shad in these four countries. The Pontic shad has
shad catch with water turbidity and water levels been protected in Serbia since 1993 by the Decree on
(r=0.649). the Protection of Natural Rarities. In Bulgaria it is in-
Fluctuations in the catch model of Pontic shad cluded in the new Red Book as vulnerable (VU) be-
followed fluctuations in the catch model of ancho- cause the catch of Pontic shad in the country has been
vy, which is in accordance with the statement of decreasing in recent years. The prohibited period for
Svetovidov (1964) that anchovy is the main food exploitation in the Bulgarian part of the Danube River
source of Pontic shad in the Black Sea. The high is from 15 April to 15 May. In Romania, Pontic shad
catch of anchovy during the 1970s was probably is proclaimed as not threatened and it is not included
connected to the high productivity of the Black Sea in the Red Book of vertebrates from Romania. The
during these years (Prodanov & Stoyanova 2001, prohibited period for exploitation in the Romanian
Eremeev & Zuyev 2007). Anchovies in the Black part of the Danube River varies, depending on the
Sea have an extremely high reproductive potential river kilometre (Black Sea – rkm 43, for 5-7 days in
(Lisovenko & Andrianov 1996) due to a number of April; rkm 43 – rkm 238, for 20 days in April-May;
factors (early maturation, long period of spawning, rkm 238 – rkm 845.6, for 30 days in April – May). In
multiplicity of spawning, high level of individual the Ukraine, Pontic shad has the status of data defi-
fecundity, high ability to restore reproduction). cient (DD). For better management, further investi-
However, since 1988 the status of the anchovy stock gation and more collaboration among countries in the
in the Black Sea has changed dramatically and a Lower Danube River Region is needed: monitoring
great decrease in populations has occurred, caused of stocks, studies on factors that influence change in
by excessive capture and by an additional nega- stocks, molecular genetic investigation of migrants,
tive factor, the intrusion of a jellyfish (Chashchin determination and protection of spawning and nurs-
1996). ery places in the Danube River and its floodplains
The other problem connected with modelling and delta as well as the costal shelf of the Black Sea.
the Pontic shad catch relates to the absence of data
about changes in catch per unit effort and coeffi- Acknowledgements: This work was carried out with the sup-
cients of vulnerability, which may be improved in port of the Serbian Ministry of Education, Science and Techno-
the future. logical development (Project no. 173045).

560
 Model of the Pontic Shad Alosa immaculata and Anchovy Engraulis encrasicolus Catch in the Danube...

References

Baillie J. B. Groombridge 1996. IUCN Red List of Threatened Navodaru I. 1998. Pontic shad: a short review of the species and
Animals, The IUCN Species Survival Commission, 257 p. its fishery. – The Shad Journal, 3 (4): 3-5.
Banarescu P. 1964. Fauna R.P.R. Pisces-Osteichthyes. Acad. Navodaru I. 2001. Seaward drift of the Pontic shad larvae (Alosa
R.P.R., Bucuresti, XVIII. (In Romanian) Pontica) and the influence of Danube River hydrology on
Chashchin A. K. 1996. The Black Sea populations of anchovy. – their travel path through the Danube delta system. – Bul-
Scientia Marina 60 (2): 219-225. letin Français de la Pêche et de la Pisciculture, 362/363:
Ciolac A. 2004. Migration of fishes in Romanian Danube River. 749-760.
– Applied Ecology and Environmental Research, 2 (1): Navodaru I. & J. R. WALDMAN 2003. Shads of Eastern Europe
143-163. from the Black Sea: review of species and fisheries. – In:
Ciolac A. & N. Patriche 2004. Structure of Danube Shad (Alosa Limburg K. E., J. R. Waldman (Eds.): Biodiversity and
pontica, Eichwald 1838) spawner flocks migrating for Conservation Worldwide. American Fisheries Society
reproduction in Danube River. – Applied Ecology and Symposium, 35: 69-76.
Environmental Research, 2 (2): 53-58. Niculescu-Duvaz M. & T. Nalbant 1965. Considerations on
Daia P. P. 1926. Exploitation of state fisheries. Tipografia Copuz- systematics of the Danube shad (Alosa pontica pontica
eanu. 201 p. (In Romanian). Eichw.) and on specific phenomena related to migration and
Eremeev V. N. & G. V. Zuyev 2007. Commercial fishery impact forecast of this species in Danube River waters. – Bulletin
on the modern Black Sea ecosystem: a review. – Turkish of Research Institute for Fisheries and Aquaculture, 26 (1):
Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences, 7: 75-78. 15-25. (In Romanian).
Froese R. & D. Pauly 2015. FishBase. World Wide Web electronic Popescu I. 2010. Fisheries in the Black Sea. Directorate general
publication. www.fishbase.org, version (12/2015). for internal policies. Policy Department B: Structural and
Cohesion policies. European Parliament, 69 p.
Kolarov P. P. 1985. Biological characteristics and population
dynamic of anadromous fish species. PhD Thesis, Institute Prodanov K. B. & M. D. Stoyanova 2001. Stock assessment
for Fish Resources, Varna. of the Black Sea anchovy during the period 1979-1993. –
Mediterranean Marine Science, 2/2: 7-15.
Kolarov P. 1991. Alosa pontica pontica (Eichwald, 1838) – In
H. Hoestland, Ed.): The freshwater fishes of Europe. Regner S. & M. Gacic 1974. The fluctuations of sardine catch
Vol.2.  Clupeidae, Anguilidae. Aula-Verlag, Wiesbaden, along the eastern Adriatic coast and solar activity. – Acta
Germany, 337-387. Adriatica, 15 (11): 15 p.
Lassalle G., M. Beguer, L. Beaulaton & E. Rochard 2008. Regner S.& M. Gacic 1977. An attempt of long-term forecast
Diadromous fish conservation plans need to consider global of sardine catch along the Eastern Adriatic coast. – Rap-
warming issues: an approach using biogeographical mod- port Commission International Mer Mediterranee 24 (5):
els. – Biological Conservation, 141: 1105-1118. 77-79.
Lassalle G., P. Crouzet & E. Rochard 2009. Modelling the Svetovidov A. N. 1964. The fishes of the Black Sea. Akademiya
current distribution of European diadromous fishes: an Nauk SSSR, Nauka, Moskva.
approach integrating regional anthropogenic pressures. – Visnjic-Jeftic Z., I. Jaric, Lj. Jovanovic, S. Skoric, M. Smedere-
Freshwater Biology, 54: 587-606. vac-Lalic, M. Nikcevic & M. Lenhardt 2010. Heavy metal

Lenhardt M., I. Jaric, A. Kalauzi & G. Cvijanovic 2006. Assess- and trace element accumulation in muscle, liver and gills
ment of extinction risk and reasons for decline in sturgeon. of the Pontic shad (Alosa immaculata Bennet 1835) from
– Biodiversity and Conservation, 15: 1967-1976. the Danube River (Serbia). – Microchemical Journal, 95
(2): 341-344.
Lisovenko L. A. & D. P. Andrianov 1996. Reproductive biology of
anchovy (Engraulis encrasicolus ponticus Alexandrov 1927) Visnjic-Jeftic Z., M. Lenhardt, I. Navodaru, A. Hegedis, Z. Gacic
in the Black Sea. – Scientia Marina, 60 (2): 209-218. & M. Nikcevic 2009. Reproducibility of age determination
by scale and vertebra in Pontic shad (Alosa Pontica Eich-
Luzhnyak V. A. & A. A. Korneev 2006. Modern ichthyofauna of
wald, 1838), from the Danube. – Archives of Biological
the Lower Don Basin in conditions of the anthropogenic
Sciences, 61 (2): 337-342.
transformation of its runoff. – Journal of Ichthyology, 46
(7): 525-533. Visnjic-Jeftic Z., M. Lenhardt, T. Vukov, Z. Gacic, S. Skoric,
M. Smederevac-Lalic & M. Nikcevic 2013. The geometric
Navodaru I. 1996. Exploitation of Alosa Pontica in the Danube
morphometrics and condition of Pontic shad, Alosa im-
Delta, Romania. – In: Cowx I. G. (Ed.): Stock Assessment
maculata (Pisces: Clupeidae) migrants to the Danube River.
in Inland Fisheries. Fishing News Books, Oxford, UK,
– Journal of Natural History, 47 (15-16): 1121-1128.
448-453.
Received: 06.01.2016
Accepted: 21.03.2016

561