pdf35

Ribogospod. nauka Ukr., 2025; 1(71): 49-65
DOI: https://doi.org/10.61976/fsu2025.01.049
UDC [639.371.5:597.554.3]:639.311(477)

Some peculiarities of the reproduction of stone moroko (Pseudorasbora parva Temminck & Schlegel, 1846) in a pond fish farm of the Polissya zone of Ukraine

A. Shukh, This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. , ORCID ID 0000-0001-9567-0776, I.I. Schmalhausen Institute of Zoology of National Academy of Sciences of Ukraine
D. Kuzmeniuk, This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. , ORCID ID 0009-0002-1837-8821, Taras Shevchenko National University of Kyiv, Kyiv
Y. Kutsokon, This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. , ORCID ID 0000-0001-9721-5638, I.I. Schmalhausen Institute of Zoology of National Academy of Sciences of Ukraine
A. Podobailo, This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. , ORCID ID 0000-0003-2958-8445, Taras Shevchenko National University of Kyiv, Kyiv

Purpose. To establish the fecundity and maturity stages in different portions of stone moroko eggs during preparation for the wintering period in the invaded area - in the conditions of pond fish farms of the Polissya zone.

Methodology. The material was collected in the fall of 2022 in ponds of a fish farm located in the Polissya zone. Namely, in the village of Lany-Sokolivski, Lviv region, with water supply from the Sukil River, which belongs to the Dniester River basin. A sample of stone moroko (240 individuals) was selected using a lift net, the standard length and weight of each fish was measured, the sex was determined, scales were collected to determine age, and eggs from females were collected for further fertility studies. Fulton’s and Clark’s condition factors, gonad-somatic index and the number of eggs at different stages of maturity according to Shikhshabekov were calculated [27].

Findings. The gonadosomatic index ranged from 0.25% to 6.62%. At the same time, the values ​​of GSI in males were significantly lower than those in females, which coincided with the data for other water bodies. With age, GSI values ​​decreased for both sexes. The absolute fecundity of stone moroko females ranged from 129 to 1388 eggs, the average value of the individual absolute fecundity index (IAP) was 630.8 eggs. The absolute fecundity of age-2+ fish was 416.4; age-3+ – 569.3; age-4+ – 959.9. For all age groups, the largest number of eggs belonged to the D1 maturity stage. Mature eggs of stage E were the least represented, which was due to the end of the spawning period at the time of sampling.

Originality. For the first time, in aquaculture conditions, the reproductive performance of the stone moroko was assessed before the start of the wintering period in a fish farm pond.

Practical Value. The stone moroko is one of the most successful invasive fish species in freshwater bodies of Ukraine but data on the characteristics of its reproduction is scarce. Understanding the characteristics of the reproduction of invasive alien species is key to being able to assess their further spread and counteract it.

Keywords: invasive alien species, Pseudorasbora parva, fecundity, Dniester basin, pond, fish farm, Polissya.

REFERENCES

  1. Gozlan, R. E., Andreou, D., Asaeda, T., Beyer, K., Bouhadad, R., Burnard, D., Caiola, N., Cakic, P., Djikanovic, V., & Esmaeili, H. R., et al. (2010). Pan-continental invasion of Pseudorasbora parva: towards a better understanding of freshwater fish invasions. Fish and Fisheries, 11, 315-340. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-2979.2010.00361.x 
  2. Banarescu, P. (1964). Pisces - Osteichthyes (pesti ganoizi si osisi). Bucharest. https://doi.org/10.2307/1441537 
  3. Karabanov, D. P., Kodukhova, Yu. V., & Kutsokon, Yu. K. (2010). Ekspansiya amurskogo chebachka, Pseudorasbora parva (Cypriniformes, Cyprinidae), v vodoyemy Evrazii. Vestnik zoologii, 44(2), 115-124.
  4. Movchan, Yu. V., & Kozlov, V. I. (1978). Morfologicheskaya kharakteristika amurskogo chebachka Pseudorasbora parva (Schlegel) v vodoemah Ukrainy. Gidrobiologicheskiy zurnal, 14(5), 42-48.
  5. Kozlov, V. I. (1974). Amurskiy chebachok − Pseudorasbora parva (Schl.) −  noviy vid ichtiofauny baseyna Dnestra. Vestnik zoologii, 1, 77-78.
  6. Kutsokon, Yu. K., & Markovych, M. P. (2018). Ryby-vselentsi v shtuchnyh vodoymakh Zakarpattya. Suchasni problem teoretychnoi ta praktychnoi ichtiologii: VIII Mizhnar. Ichtiologichna nauk.-prakt. konf. Kherson: VYDAVETS GRIN D. S., 105-109.
  7. Markovych, M. P., & Kutsokon, Y. K. (2012). Alien fish species in the lakes of Uzhhorod city (Transcarpathia, Ukraine). Folia oecologica, 8, 65 -74.
  8. Rosecchi, E., Crivelli, A. J., & Catsadorakis, G. (1993). The establishment and impact of Pseudorasbora parva, an exotic fish species introduced into Lake Mikri Prespa (northwestern Greece). Aquatic Conservation: marine and freshwater ecosystems, 3(3), 223-231.https://doi.org/10.1002/aqc.3270030306  
  9. Bănărescu, P. (1999). The freshwater fishes of Europe. (Vol. 5/1. Cyprinidae). Wiesbaden: Aula Verlag.
  10. Pollux, B. J. A., & Pollux, P. M. J. (2004). Fish and birth deaths due to blue algae in the Romeinenweerd. Natuurhistorisch Maandblad, 93, 207-209.
  11. Kapusta, A., Kutsokon, Y., & Bogacka-Kapusta, E. (2014). Comparisons of morphometrics recently established population of topmouth gudgeon (Pseudorasbora parva) from a heated lakes in Poland. Folia oecologica, 6(2), 4-8.
  12. Ding, H., Gu, X., Zhang, Zh., Huo, B., Li, D., & Xie C. (2019). Growth and feeding habits of invasive Pseudorasbora parva in the Chabalang Wetland (Lhasa, China) and its trophic impacts on native fish. Journal of Oceanology and Limnology, 37(2),  628-639. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00343-019-8004-5 
  13. Stein, H., & Herl, O. (1986). Pseudorasbora parva – eine neue Art der mitteleuropaeischen Fischfauna. Zeitschrift fuer die Binnenfischerei, 36, 1-2.
  14. Didenko, A. V., & Kruzhylina, S. V. (2015). Trophic interaction between topmouth gudgeon (Pseudorasbora parva) and the co-occurring species during summer in the Dniprodzerzhynsk reservoir. Knowledge and Management of Aquatic Ecosystems, 416, 13. https://doi.org/10.1051/kmae/2015009 
  15. Kutsokon, Yu. K., (2011). Novi vydy ryb v fainu Ukrainy: chebachok amurskiy. Biologiya i khimiya v shkoli, 1(83), 48-49.
  16. Nikolskiy, G. V. (1956). Ryby basseyna Amura. Moskva: Akademia nauk SSSR. 
  17. Wohlgemuth, E., & Šebela, M. (1987). Topmouth Gudgeon, New Species of European Ichthyofauna. Živa, 35, 25-27.
  18. Barus, V., Kux, Z., & Libosvarsky, J. (1984). On Pseudorasbora parva (Pisces) in Czechoslovakia. Folia Zoologica, 33, 5-18.
  19. Giurca, R., & Angelescu, N. (1971). Consideratii privinid biologia sia aria de raspindire geografica a cyprinidului Pseudorasbora parva (Schlegel) in apele Romaniei. Buletinul de Cercetări Piscicole, 30, 99-109.
  20. Movchan, Yu. V., & Smirnov, A. I. (1981). Fauna Ukrayiny. (Vol. 8. Ryby. Koropovi. Ch. 1). Kyiv: Naukova dumka.
  21. Davies, G. D., & Britton, J. R. (2021). Consistency in the life history traits of four invasive Pseudorasbora parva populations in Southern England. Journal of Applied Ichthyology, 37, 295-302. https://doi.org/10.1111/jai.14175 
  22. Záhorská, E., & Kováč, V. (2009). Reproductive parameters of invasive topmouth gudgeon Pseudorasbora parva (Temminck and Schlegel, 1846) from Slovakia. Journal of Applied Ichthyology, 25, 466-469. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1439-0426.2009.01190.x 
  23. Jia, Yi., Kennard, M. J., Liu, Yu., Sui X., Chen, Yi., Li, K., Wang, G., & Chen Yi (2019). Understanding invasion success of Pseudorasbora parva in the Qinghai-Tibetan Plateau: Insights from life-history and environmental filters. Science of The Total Environment, 694, 133739. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2019.133739 
  24. Kotusz, J. (1998). Morphometrics of Pseudorasbora parva (Schlegel, 1842) (Cyprinidae: Gobioninae), a species introduced into the Polish waters. Acta Ichthyologica et Piscatoria, 28, 3-14. https://doi.org/10.3750/AIP1998.28.2.01 
  25. Tarkan, A. S., Mol, O., Aksu, S., Köse, E., Kurtul, I., Başkurt, S., Haubrock, P. J., Balzani, P., Çınar, E., Britton, J. R., Oztopcu-Vatan, P., & Emiroğlu, Ö. (2023). Phenotypic responses to piscivory in invasive gibel carp populations. Aquatic Sciences, 85, 75. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00027-023-00974-8 
  26. Chugunova, N. I. (1959). Rukovodstvo po izucheniyu vozrasta i rosta ryb. Moskva.
  27. Shykhshabekov, M. M. (2014). Adaptivniy potential I funktsionalny osoblyvosty reproduktivnykh system ryb v ekologichno transformovanykh vodoymakh. Dnipropetrovsk.
  28. Nesterenko, O. S. (2023). Fiziologo-biokhimichni adaptazii sonyachnogo okunya Lepomis gibbosus (Linnaeus, 1758) do ekologichnykh chynnykiv baseynu Zaporizkogo (Dniprovskogo) vodoskhovyshcha. PhD thesis. Dnipro: DNU.
  29. Marenkov, O. M. (2018). Laboratory Manual on General and Special Ichthyology. World News of Natural Sciences, 18(1), 1-51.
  30. Ashwini, G. G., & Girish, R. G. (2012). Study of gonadosomatic index of freshwater fish Cyprinus carpio. Trends in Fisheries Research, 1(1), 32-33.
  31. Fulton, F. (1902). Rate of growth of sea fishes. 20th Annual Report of the FisheryBoard of Scotland, 3, 326-446.
  32. Clark, F. N. (1928). The weight length relationship of the California saerdine (Sardina coarulea) at San-Pedro. Division of fish and game of California. Fish bulletin, 12, 59.
  33. Bagenal, T. B. (1987). Methods for assessment of fish production in fresh waters. Oxford.
  34. Nocita, A., La Sala, G., Busatto, T., Santini, G., & Balzani, P. (2023). Population structure and dietary plasticity of four invasive populations of the topmouth gudgeon Pseudorasbora parva. International Review of Hydrobiology, 107, 167-178. https://doi.org/10.1002/iroh.202302142 
  35. Britton, J. R., Davies, G. D., Brazier, M., & Pinder, A. C. (2007). A case study on the population ecology of a topmouth gudgeon (Pseudorasbora parva) population in the UK and the implications for native fish communities. Aquatic Conservation: Marine and Freshwater Ecosystems, 17, 749-759. https://doi.org/10.1002/aqc.809 
  36. Shukh A., Fedorcak J., Pekarik L., & Kutsokon Y. (2025). Length-weight relationships and sex ratio in populations of topmouth gudgeon (Pseudorasboraparva) in Ukraine and Slovakia. BioInvasionsRecords, 14 (in press). https://doi.org/10.3391/bir.2025.14.1.12 
  37. Adamek, Z., & Siddiqui, M. M. (1977). Reproduction parameters in a natural population of topmouth gudgeon, Pseudorasbora parva, and its condition and food characteristics with respect to sex dissimilarities. Polish Archives of Hydrobiology, 44, 145-152.
  38. Tesfahun, A., Alebachew, S., & Kebtieneh, N. (2023). Length-weight relationships and reproductive biology of commercially important fishes from Ribb Reservoir, Ethiopia. Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences, 26(5), 318-335. https://doi.org/10.47853/FAS.2023.e27 
  39. Kant, R., Gupta, K., & Langer, S. (2016). Fecundity in fish Puntiussophore and relationship of fecundity with fish length, fish weight and ovary weight from Jammu water bodies J and K (India). International Journal of Fisheries and Aquaculture Sciences, 6, 99-110.
  40. Alp, A.,  Kara, C., & Büyükçapar, H. M. (2003). Reproductive biology of brown trout, Salmo trutta macrostigma Dumeril 1858, in a tributary of the Ceyhan River which flows into the eastern Mediterranean Sea. Journal of Applied Ichthyology, 19, 346-351. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1439-0426.2003.00455.x 
Home2025№ 1/2025 (71)2025_01-049_065-Shukh