Hostname: page-component-7b9c58cd5d-g9frx Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-03-15T19:39:15.196Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Feeding ecology of black scorpion fish (Scorpaena porcus Linnaeus, 1758) in SE Black Sea region, (Ordu) Turkey

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  06 March 2020

Mehmet Aydin
Affiliation:
Ordu University, Fatsa Faculty of Marine Sciences, TR-52400, Ordu, Turkey
Rahşan Evren Mazlum*
Affiliation:
Recep Tayyip Erdogan University, Faculty of Fisheries, TR-53100, Rize, Turkey
*
Author for correspondence: Rahşan Evren Mazlum, E-mail: evren.mazlum@erdogan.edu.tr
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Black scorpion fish (Scorpaena porcus) is an important species for both artisanal and industrial fisheries in the Turkish Black Sea, with 306 tonnes landed in 2017. The diet composition of this species was investigated through the examination of their stomach contents. A total of 621 S. porcus (ranging from 12.79–765.5 g) were caught by trammel net in the south-eastern Black Sea (Turkish waters) from December 2015 to November 2016. The importance of prey items in the diet of S. porcus was assessed using the Index of Relative Importance (%IRI). Overall, the dominant species was the isopod Idotea balthica (52.8%IRI) followed by decapods (38.5%IRI) and teleosts (8.7%IRI). Seasonal variations in the diets were observed, with isopods predominant in autumn (>85%IRI), teleosts in winter (>77%IRI) and decapod crustaceans (>78%IRI) in spring and summer. The modified Costello's graphical analysis evinced a specialist feeding strategy for S. porcus during winter, spring and autumn while a shift to generalistic feeding strategy was exhibited in summer by a limited number of S. porcus individuals.

Type
Research Article
Copyright
Copyright © Marine Biological Association of the United Kingdom 2020

Introduction

Black scorpionfish (Scorpaena porcus Linnaeus, 1758) (Osteichthyes: Scorpaenidae) is widely distributed in the Eastern Atlantic, from the southern British Isles to Morocco, including the Azores, Canary Islands, Mediterranean Sea and Black Sea (de Sola et al., Reference de Sola, Herrera, Keskin, de Morais, Smith-Vaniz, Carpenter and de Bruyne2015). It is a commercially and ecologically important species and has been regarded as a delicacy in some areas due to its rough and white meat (Ferri et al., Reference Ferri, Stagličić and Matić-Skoko2012; Çulha et al., Reference Çulha, Yabanlı, Baki and Yozukmaz2016). The total Turkish landings of S. porcus from the Black Sea, Sea of Marmara and the Aegean Sea, Mediterranean Sea were 201.9, 143.2 and 138.6 tonnes in 2014, 2015 and 2016, respectively (TÜİK, 2016, 2017). Reported landings in 2017 increased to 306 t (TÜİK, 2018).

Several studies have been carried out on S. porcus in recent years, including age, reproductive biology and dietary composition in the Mediterranean Sea (Bradai & Bouain, Reference Bradai and Bouain1988, Reference Bradai and Bouain1991; Rafrafi-Nouira et al., Reference Rafrafi-Nouira, El Kamel-Moutalibi, Boumaïza, Reynaud and Capapé2016), Adriatic Sea (Pallaoro & Jardas, Reference Pallaoro and Jardas1991; Jardas & Pallaoro, Reference Jardas and Pallaoro1992), Tyrrhenian Sea (Arculeo et al., Reference Arculeo, Froglia and Riggio1993) and Black Sea (Bilgin & Çelik, Reference Bilgin and Çelik2009; Roşca & Arteni, Reference Roşca and Arteni2010; Kuzminova et al., Reference Kuzminova, Rudneva, Salekhova, Shevchenko and Oven2011).

The age, growth and reproduction aspects of S. porcus are relatively well documented, whereas its diet composition from the Turkish Black Sea is restricted to the studies of Demirhan & Can (Reference Demirhan and Can2009) and Başçınar & Sağlam (Reference Başçınar and Sağlam2009). The former study reported Carcinus mediterraneus, Crangon crangon and crab species (unidentified) as important prey species while the latter reported red mullet (Mullus barbatus) in winter and harbour crab (Liocarcinus depurator) in summer as the main diet component of S. porcus. However, neither of these studies evaluated the full seasonality of feeding habits.

The main objective of this study was to thoroughly assess the diet composition of S. porcus in the Turkish Black Sea. The feeding habits of S. porcus were investigated during winter, spring, summer and autumn to trace any seasonal shifts in the diet. Furthermore, the impact of predator size on their diets was also noted.

Materials and methods

Sampling activities

Individuals of Scorpaena porcus were collected from a coastal study area of the South-Eastern Black Sea, extending for 2.5 km between the towns of Ünye and Gülyalı (Figure 1). The samples were taken at depths of 5–40 m using trammel net (inner-panel mesh sizes of 44, 50, 56 and 60 mm). Bimonthly sampling of S. porcus was undertaken from December 2015 to November 2016 covering four seasons. Sampled specimens were transported to the laboratory in an ice box for stomach contents analysis.

Fig. 1. Map of the study area.

Laboratory analysis

Prior to dissection, each fish was weighed (to the nearest 0.1 g) and total length measured to the nearest 0.1 cm. They were categorized into three different length groups (9.0–13.9 cm, 14.0–18.9 cm and ≥19.0 cm). The stomachs were removed and their contents examined on a Petri dish. Prey items were identified to the lowest possible taxon using a stereomicroscope and then counted and weighed.

Stomach fullness and dietary analysis

Visual estimates of stomach fullness were made according to Kitsos et al. (Reference Kitsos, Tzomos, Anagnostopoulou and Koukouras2008) and were categorized as empty (0%), moderately full (25%), half full (50%), quite full (75%) and very full (100%). Furthermore, the degree of stomach fullness of S. porcus was also determined using the stomach content index (Battaglia et al., Reference Battaglia, Andaloro, Esposito, Granata, Guglielmo, Guglielmo, Musolino, Romeo and Zagami2016):

(1)$${\rm SCI}\,\lpar \% \rpar \,= \,\displaystyle{{{\rm Wet\;weight\;of\;stomach\;content}} \over {{\rm Fish\;body\;wet\;weight}}} \times 100$$

The contribution of each prey taxon found in the stomachs of S. porcus was determined by the following dietary indices (Hyslop, Reference Hyslop1980); empty stomachs were not included in these analyses.

Frequency of percentage occurrence:

(2)$$\% F_i = \displaystyle{{F_i} \over {\mathop \sum \nolimits_{i = 1}^n F_i}} \times 100$$

Percentage numerical abundance:

(3)$$\% N_i = \displaystyle{{N_i} \over {\mathop \sum \nolimits_{i = 1}^n N_i}} \times 100$$

Percentage weight:

(4)$$\% W_i = \displaystyle{{W_i} \over {\mathop \sum \nolimits_{i = 1}^n W_i}} \times 100$$

where n is the total number of prey taxa, Fi is the number of stomachs containing prey i, Ni and Wi are the total number and wet weight (same prey species were weighed together) of prey i, respectively.

The index of relative importance (IRI) was then estimated combining %F, %N and %W into a single estimate of the relative importance of prey types (Pinkas, Reference Pinkas1971):

(5)$${\rm IRI}\,= \,\% F\,\lpar N\% + W\% \rpar \,\Rightarrow \,\% {\rm IRI}\,= \,100 \times \;{\rm IR}{\rm I}_i\mathop \sum \limits_{i = 1}^n {\rm IR}{\rm I}_i$$

The feeding strategy of S. porcus was evaluated by the modified Costello plot (Costello, Reference Costello1990; Amundsen et al., Reference Amundsen, Gabler and Staldvik1996), which is based on a 2-dimensional representation of frequency of percentage occurrence (x-axis) and prey-specific abundance (y-axis) of the different prey items found in the stomachs of a predator. The prey-specific abundance was calculated as follows:

(6)$$\rho _i = \displaystyle{{\sum S_i} \over {\sum S_{ti}}} \times 100$$

where ρi is the prey-specific abundance of prey i, Si is the stomach content (by mass in this study) of prey i, and Sti is the total stomach content in only those individuals with prey i in their stomach.

Seasonal and ontogenetic changes in feeding habits

The similarities or dissimilarities in the diet composition of S. porcus during different seasons were depicted by dendrogram. The contribution of major prey groups in the diet of S. porcus was determined through principal component analysis (PCA). The results of the PCA (only components 1 and 2) were presented as vector and sample map. Also, the diversity of prey species in the diet of different sizes of S. porcus during different seasons were displayed by a diversity profile plot. These analyses were conducted using %IRI values (log-transformed). The dendrogram was constructed using PRIMER 6 software (Clarke & Gorley, Reference Clarke and Gorley2006), PCA in R v3.4.4 (R Core Team, 2017) and a diversity profile plot by PAST v2.15 (Hammer et al., Reference Hammer, Harper and Ryan2001).

Results

Diet compositions

Overall species diversity and abundance

A total of 621 individuals (ranging from 9.7–32.3 cm and 12.79–765.5 g) were analysed to trace dietary information of S. porcus during winter, spring, summer and autumn. The frequency distribution showed the 13.0–13.5 cm and 15.5 cm size classes were more abundant, with fewer specimens >20 cm (Figure 2).

Fig. 2. Size (TL cm) frequency distribution of specimens of black scorpion fish (Scorpaena porcus) from the SE Black Sea region of Turkey.

Only 52.8% stomachs had food, of which 40.3% stomachs were moderately full, 7.7% half full, 3.2% quite full, and only 1.6% were very full (Figure 3A). Based on SCI (%) values, the stomach fullness ranged from 3.93 ± 0.70 (mean ± SE; range = 0.10–17.47%) in winter, 3.33 ± 0.31 (0.04–13.71%) in spring, 2.38 ± 0.22 (0.04–12.38%) in summer and 3.96 ± 0.42 (0.22–18.33%) in autumn (Figure 3B). The values of SCI (%) of S. porcus were not significantly different among different seasons (one-way ANOVA; F 3,324 = 1.95; P = 0.12).

Fig. 3. Stomach fullness ratio (A) and stomach content index (B) of black scorpion fish (Scorpaena porcus) from the SE Black Sea region of Turkey. The dashed line (----) shows mean value.

A total of 29 prey species belonging to four phyla was observed in the diet of S. porcus (Table 1). Overall, the main prey taxon was Idotea balthica, which constituted 52.8%IRI of the total diet composition. This was followed by decapods (46.5%IRI) and teleosts (8.7%IRI). The most abundant species were Idotea balthica (Isopoda), Upogebia pusilla, Pilumnus hirtellus and Xantho poressa (Decapoda) and Mullus barbatus and Trachurus mediterraneus (Teleostei).

Table 1. Diet composition of black scorpion fish (Scorpaena porcus) for season and different length classes (TL cm) in SE Black Sea region, (Ordu) Turkey

Temporal variation of species diversity and abundance

The prey diversity was higher in summer in the 14.0–18.9 cm size class, followed by 16 prey types by the same size group in autumn (Figure 4). The least diversity was observed in ≥19.0 cm size class with only two prey types during spring followed by four to six prey types in the 9.0–13.9 and ≥19.0 cm groups in winter. Furthermore, the most predominant prey groups during the spring and summer were decapods (78.4–100%IRI) in all sizes, except the largest size S. porcus whose diet contained 69.6%IRI of decapods and 29.3%IRI of teleosts in the summer (Table 1). In autumn, isopods became the most predominant prey group contributing to 85.6–87.5%IRI in the diets of all sizes of S. porcus. Furthermore, in winter, the major prey group observed in the diet composition of S. porcus were teleosts. In terms of teleosts, Trachurus mediterraneus was the dominant prey species and constituted 77.4–83.8%IRI of the diets in 9.0–13.9 and 14.0–18.9 cm sizes of S. porcus. The largest size S. porcus had the largest diversity of fishes, consisting of T. mediterraneus (40.4%IRI), Mullus barbatus (29.7%IRI) and Syngnathus acus (9.4%IRI).

Fig. 4. Plot of diversity profile depicting the number of different prey items found in the stomachs of black scorpion fish (Scorpaena porcus) sampled from the SE Black Sea region of Turkey.

The population of S. porcus can be considered as a specialized predator during winter, spring and autumn where most of the prey points positioned close to the upper left corner of the modified Costello plot (Figure 5). However, a generalized feeding strategy of S. porcus was also observed in summer, where some of the prey points positioned to the lower part of the graph. In each season most of the prey points positioned to the left corner of the Costello plot reflecting that each prey category was consumed by only a limited fraction of S. porcus.

Fig. 5. Costello graph using frequency of percentage occurrence and prey-specific abundance (% mass) for black scorpion fish (Scorpaena porcus) from the SE Black Sea region of Turkey.

Similarities in diet compositions

The PCA explained 42.7 and 34.2% of the variance of the data on the first and second axis respectively. Their cumulative contribution was 76.9% indicating most of the information was represented by the two principal components. PCA clearly separated the dietary preferences of S. porcus during different seasons into three groups (Figure 6B). The spring and summer samples clustered together and separated from the autumn and winter (Figure 6A). This cluster was mainly explained by decapods, indicating this prey group as the dominant prey group in these two seasons (Figure 6A, B). The winter and autumn did not make any cluster indicating different dietary preferences of S. porcus during these seasons. Furthermore, PCA indicated teleosts in winter, and Isopoda in autumn as important prey taxa (Figure 6A, B).

Fig. 6. Principal component analysis (PCA) scores plot for different prey groups retrieved from the stomachs of black scorpion fish (Scorpaena porcus) from the SE Black Sea region of Turkey. Sample distributions (A), variable vector distributions (B).

The dendrogram showed the diets of the 9.0–13.9 and 14.0–18.9 cm sizes of S. porcus to be relatively similar for all seasons (Figure 7). The dendrogram also revealed 77% similarity in autumn, 67% in summer, 58% in winter and 54% in spring. In summer, the largest size group was separated from the other two size groups with 63% dissimilarity, while in winter, the largest group shared up to 54% similarity with the 9.0–13.9 and 14.0–18.9 groups. Overall, the largest size S. porcus had the least amount of similarity with the other groups.

Fig. 7. Dendrogram (based on %IRI values) showing the similarity in composition of diet of black scorpion fish (Scorpaena porcus) sampled from the SE Black Sea region of Turkey during different seasons.

Discussion

Diet composition and feeding strategy

Combinations of dietary analysis and modelling of gastric evacuation are important components to be included in studies designed to assess the impacts of predatory fish on their prey under different sets of environmental conditions (Hislop et al., Reference Hislop, Robb, Bell and Armstrong1991; Khan et al., Reference Khan, Seyhan, Başçinar and Başçinar2016; Andreasen et al., Reference Andreasen, Ross, Siebert, Andersen, Ronnenberg and Gilles2017; Khan & Seyhan, Reference Khan and Seyhan2019). The dietary analysis of S. porcus showed isopod and decapod crustaceans as main food items contributing to 91.3%IRI of the overall diet, whereas the contribution of teleosts to the overall diet was 8.7%IRI. In the present study, seasonal shifts in diet were observed in all sizes of S. porcus, feeding largely on isopods in autumn (>85.6%IRI), teleosts in winter (>77%IRI) and decapods (>78.4%IRI) in spring and summer. A similar trend of seasonal shifts in the diets of S. porcus along the Adriatic coast was observed by Pallaoro & Jardas (Reference Pallaoro and Jardas1991) in winter, spring and summer. Pallaoro & Jardas (Reference Pallaoro and Jardas1991) found decapods to be a predominant prey group in the stomach contents of S. porcus in autumn, contrary to the present study. Furthermore, Harmelin-Vivien et al. (Reference Harmelin-Vivien, Kaim-Malka, Ledoyer and Jacob-Abraham1989) reported teleosts from the Posidonia seagrass beds in the Marseilles area to be a major prey item of S. porcus during summer and autumn (43.9 and 39.5% of prey weight), whose proportion decreased to 13.8% during winter. These findings are in contrast to the results of the present study. Başçınar & Sağlam (Reference Başçınar and Sağlam2009) also investigated the feeding habits of S. porcus in the south-eastern Black Sea region of Turkey, but covering only two seasons: summer and winter. They found decapods in summer and teleosts in winter to be the major food of S. porcus which is in line with the findings of the present study. In their study, mud shrimp (Upogebia pusilla) was the main diet component in the summer, whereas in the present study this prey item was found during spring as the main component in the diet of the 9.0–13.9 cm size class (75%IRI) and with a relatively lower quantity (37% IRI) in S. porcus individuals ranging from 14.0–18.9 cm in size, while in summer, it appeared only in the stomach contents of the >19.0 size S. porcus as accessory prey (3.7%IRI). Contrary to the present study, Başçınar & Sağlam (Reference Başçınar and Sağlam2009) found sea horse, Hippocampus sp. as a main diet component for larger size S. porcus in winter.

The results of this study demonstrated the specialized feeding behaviour of S. porcus in the SE Black Sea which was also observed in the central and north-east Adriatic Sea by Castriota et al. (Reference Castriota, Falautano, Finoia, Consoli, Pedà, Esposito, Battaglia and Andaloro2012) and Compaire et al. (Reference Compaire, Cabrera, Gómez-Cama and Soriguer2016). However, some previous studies identified S. porcus as a generalist predator in the south and the central Tyrrhenian Sea (Arculeo et al., Reference Arculeo, Froglia and Riggio1993; Carpentieri et al., Reference Carpentieri, Colloca, Belluscio and Ardizzone2001), western Mediterranean Sea (Morte et al., Reference Morte, Redon and Sanz-Brau2001), south-eastern Black Sea region of Turkey (Demirhan & Can, Reference Demirhan and Can2009) and Romanian Black Sea (Roşca & Arteni, Reference Roşca and Arteni2010). In the present study, a transition from specialist to generalist feeding strategy in summer was exhibited by only a limited fraction of S. porcus population.

In conclusion, the present study confirmed the specialist feeding strategy of S. porcus which has been reported previously by Castriota et al. (Reference Castriota, Falautano, Finoia, Consoli, Pedà, Esposito, Battaglia and Andaloro2012) and Compaire et al. (Reference Compaire, Cabrera, Gómez-Cama and Soriguer2016). A limited fraction of S. porcus also exhibited a shift to a generalistic feeding strategy during summer, which is an important finding. The results of this study can help evaluate the dietary overlap and food partitioning among Scorpaena porcus and other predatory fish such as Scorpaena notata and Scorpaena scrofa found in the Black Sea.

Financial support

This study was supported by Ordu University Research Fund Project No. AR-1655.

References

Amundsen, PA, Gabler, HM and Staldvik, F (1996) A new approach to graphical analysis of feeding strategy from stomach contents data – modification of the Costello (1990) method. Journal of Fish Biology 48, 607614.Google Scholar
Andreasen, H, Ross, SD, Siebert, U, Andersen, NG, Ronnenberg, K and Gilles, A (2017) Diet composition and food consumption rate of harbor porpoises (Phocoena phocoena) in the western Baltic Sea. Marine Mammal Science 33, 10531079.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Arculeo, M, Froglia, C and Riggio, S (1993) Food partitioning between Serranus scriba and Scorpaena porcus (Perciformes) on the infralittoral ground of the South Tyrrhenian Sea. Cybium 3, 251258.Google Scholar
Başçınar, NS and Sağlam, H (2009) Feeding habits of black scorpionfish Scorpaena porcus, in the South-Eastern Black Sea. Turkish Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 9, 99103.Google Scholar
Battaglia, P, Andaloro, F, Esposito, V, Granata, A, Guglielmo, L, Guglielmo, R, Musolino, S, Romeo, T and Zagami, G (2016) Diet and trophic ecology of the lanternfish Electrona risso (Cocco 1829) in the Strait of Messina (central Mediterranean Sea) and potential resource utilization from the Deep Scattering Layer (DSL). Journal of Marine Systems 159, 100108.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bilgin, S and Çelik, E (2009) Age, growth and reproduction of the black scorpionfish, Scorpaena porcus (Pisces, Scorpaenidae), on the Black Sea coast of Turkey. Journal of Applied Ichthyology 25, 5560.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bradai, M and Bouain, A (1988) Age et croissance de Scorpaena porcus et Scoroaena scrofa du Golfe de Gabes. Bull. Inst. Natn. Scient. Tech. Oceanogr. Peche Salammbo 15, 1338.Google Scholar
Bradai, M and Bouain, A (1991) Reproduction de Scorpaena porcus (Linné, 1758) et de S. scrofa (Linné 1758) (Pisces, Scorpaenidae) du Golfe de Gabes. Oebalia 17, 167180.Google Scholar
Carpentieri, P, Colloca, F, Belluscio, A and Ardizzone, G (2001) Preliminary notes on feeding habits of Scorpaena porcus (Linnaeus, 1758) in the central Tyrrhenian Sea. Biologia Marina Mediterranea 8, 699703.Google Scholar
Castriota, L, Falautano, M, Finoia, MG, Consoli, P, Pedà, C, Esposito, V, Battaglia, P and Andaloro, F (2012) Trophic relationships among scorpaeniform fishes associated with gas platforms. Helgoland Marine Research 66, 401411.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Clarke, K and Gorley, R (2006) PRIMER User Manual/Tutorial, Version 6. Plymouth: PRIMER-E.Google Scholar
Compaire, JC, Cabrera, R, Gómez-Cama, C and Soriguer, MC (2016) Trophic relationships, feeding habits and seasonal dietary changes in an intertidal rockpool fish assemblage in the Gulf of Cadiz (NE Atlantic). Journal of Marine Systems 158, 165172.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Costello, M (1990) Predator feeding strategy and prey importance: a new graphical analysis. Journal of Fish Biology 36, 261263.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Çulha, ST, Yabanlı, M, Baki, B and Yozukmaz, A (2016) Heavy metals in tissues of scorpionfish (Scorpaena porcus) caught from Black Sea (Turkey) and potential risks to human health. Environmental Science and Pollution Research 23, 2088220892.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
de Sola, L, Herrera, J, Keskin, Ç, de Morais, L, Smith-Vaniz, WF, Carpenter, K and de Bruyne, G (2015) Scorpaena porcus. In The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species. Available at https://www.iucnredlist.org/species/198747/60813489 e.T198747A60813489 (Accessed 29 June 2019).Google Scholar
Demirhan, S and Can, M (2009) Age, growth and food composition of Scorpaena porcus (Linnaeus, 1758) in the southeastern Black Sea. Journal of Applied Ichthyology 25, 215218.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ferri, J, Stagličić, N and Matić-Skoko, S (2012) The black scorpionfish, Scorpaena porcus (Scorpaenidae): could it serve as reliable indicator of Mediterranean coastal communities’ health? Ecological Indicators 18, 2530.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hammer, Ø, Harper, D and Ryan, P (2001) PAST: Paleontological Statistics Software Package for Education and Data Analysis. Palaeontologia Electronica 4, 19.Google Scholar
Harmelin-Vivien, M, Kaim-Malka, R, Ledoyer, M and Jacob-Abraham, S (1989) Food partitioning among scorpaenid fishes in Mediterranean seagrass beds. Journal of Fish Biology 34, 715734.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hislop, JRG, Robb, AP, Bell, MA and Armstrong, DW (1991) The diet and food consumption of whiting (Merlangius merlangus) in the North Sea. ICES Journal of Marine Science 48, 139156.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hyslop, E (1980) Stomach contents analysis – a review of methods and their application. Journal of Fish Biology 17, 411429.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jardas, I and Pallaoro, A (1992) Age and growth of black scorpionfish, Scorpaena porcus L., 1758 in the Adriatic Sea. Rapport de la Commission Internationale pour la Mer Méditerranée 33, 296.Google Scholar
Khan, U, Seyhan, K, Başçinar, N and Başçinar, N (2016) Satiation meal and the effects of meal and body sizes on gastric evacuation rate in brook trout Salvelinus fontinalis fed commercial pellets. Journal of Fish Biology 89, 12271238.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Khan, U and Seyhan, K (2019) Gastric evacuation rates in farmed brook trout subjected to a range of feeding conditions fed commercial pellets. Aquaculture 513, 734390.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kitsos, MS, Tzomos, T, Anagnostopoulou, L and Koukouras, A (2008) Diet composition of the seahorses, Hippocampus guttulatus Cuvier, 1829 and Hippocampus hippocampus (L., 1758) (Teleostei, Syngnathidae) in the Aegean Sea. Journal of Fish Biology 72, 12591267.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kuzminova, N, Rudneva, I, Salekhova, L, Shevchenko, N and Oven, L (2011) State of black scorpionfish (Scorpaena porcus Linnaeus, 1758) inhabited coastal area of sevastopol region (Black Sea) in 1998–2008. Turkish Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 11, 101111.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Morte, S, Redon, MJ and Sanz-Brau, A (2001) Diet of Scorpaena porcus and Scorpaena notata (Pisces: Scorpaenidae) in the western Mediterranean. Cahiers de Biologie Marine 42, 333344.Google Scholar
Pallaoro, A and Jardas, I (1991) Food and feeding habits of black scorpionfish (Scorpaena porcus L. 1758) (Pisces, Scorpaenidae) along the Adriatic coast. Acta Adriatica 32, 885898.Google Scholar
Pinkas, L (1971) Food habits study: food habits of albacore bluefin tuna and bonito in California waters. Fishery Bulletin 152, 1105.Google Scholar
Rafrafi-Nouira, S, El Kamel-Moutalibi, O, Boumaïza, M, Reynaud, C and Capapé, C (2016) Food and feeding habits of black scorpionfish, Scorpaena porcus (Osteichthyes: Scorpaenidae) from the northern coast of Tunisia (Central Mediterranean). Journal of Ichthyology 56, 107123.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Roşca, I and Arteni, OM (2010) Feeding ecology of black scorpionfish (Scorpaena porcus Linnaeus, 1758) from the Romanian Black Sea (Agigea – Eforie Nord area). Animal Biology and Animal Husbandry 2, 3946.Google Scholar
TÜİK (2016) Fishery Products, 2015. Available at http://www.turkstat.gov.tr/PreHaberBultenleri.do?id=21720 (Accessed 6 October 2018).Google Scholar
TÜİK (2017) Fishery Products, 2016. Available at http://www.turkstat.gov.tr/PreHaberBultenleri.do?id=24657 (Accessed 6 October 2018).Google Scholar
TÜİK (2018) Fishery Products, 2017. Available at http://tuik.gov.tr/HbGetir.do?id=27669&tb_id=2 (Accessed 6 October 2018).Google Scholar
Figure 0

Fig. 1. Map of the study area.

Figure 1

Fig. 2. Size (TL cm) frequency distribution of specimens of black scorpion fish (Scorpaena porcus) from the SE Black Sea region of Turkey.

Figure 2

Fig. 3. Stomach fullness ratio (A) and stomach content index (B) of black scorpion fish (Scorpaena porcus) from the SE Black Sea region of Turkey. The dashed line (----) shows mean value.

Figure 3

Table 1. Diet composition of black scorpion fish (Scorpaena porcus) for season and different length classes (TL cm) in SE Black Sea region, (Ordu) Turkey

Figure 4

Fig. 4. Plot of diversity profile depicting the number of different prey items found in the stomachs of black scorpion fish (Scorpaena porcus) sampled from the SE Black Sea region of Turkey.

Figure 5

Fig. 5. Costello graph using frequency of percentage occurrence and prey-specific abundance (% mass) for black scorpion fish (Scorpaena porcus) from the SE Black Sea region of Turkey.

Figure 6

Fig. 6. Principal component analysis (PCA) scores plot for different prey groups retrieved from the stomachs of black scorpion fish (Scorpaena porcus) from the SE Black Sea region of Turkey. Sample distributions (A), variable vector distributions (B).

Figure 7

Fig. 7. Dendrogram (based on %IRI values) showing the similarity in composition of diet of black scorpion fish (Scorpaena porcus) sampled from the SE Black Sea region of Turkey during different seasons.