Introduction

The rotifer fauna of Turkey is relatively well known(Ustaoğlu, 2004; Kaya et al., 2008), resulting in a totalof 261 taxa recorded from the country. Nevertheless, it isclear that this figure is still far from complete: there areonly a few studies on the littoral and none on interstitialhabitats of the region. As these are known to contain ahighly diverse and specialised fauna, we expect that ourknowledge of the α-diversity of aquatic ecosystems in theregion is, at best, incomplete. The new records presentedherein illustrate this.

One genus of pelagic rotifers that has been recordedquite frequently worldwide is Asplanchna Gosse, 1850.

According to José de Paggi (2002), the familyAsplanchnidae contains 15 species, 7 of which have beenrecorded from Turkey: Asplanchna brightwellii Gosse,1850; A. girodi de Guerne, 1888; A. priodonta Gosse,1850; A. sieboldii (Leydig, 1854); A. silvestrii Daday,1902; Asplanchnopus dahlgreni Myers, 1934; and A.hyalinus Harring, 1913 (see Ustaoğlu, 2004; Erdoğanand Güher, 2005). Numerous studies dealing with aspectsof the taxonomy of the genus Asplanchna are available(e.g., Salt et al., 1978; Gilbert et al., 1979; Koste andShiel, 1980; Pourriot et al., 1984; Koste and Tobias,1988; Shiel and Koste, 1993; José de Paggi, 2002);however, the diversity in the trophi morphology of theseanimals is still insufficiently documented.

73

Some Turkish Rotifer Species Studied Using Light and ScanningElectron Microscopy

Ahmet ALTINDAĞ1, Hendrik SEGERS2, Murat KAYA1,*1Department of Biology, Faculty of Science, Ankara University, 06100 Beşevler, Ankara - TURKEY

2Royal Belgian Institute of Natural Sciences, Freshwater Biology, Vautierstraat 29, B-1000, Brussels, BELGIUM

Received: 05.03.2008

Abstract: A number of records of rotifers from Turkey are discussed. An account is given on trophi morphology in 4 species ofAsplanchna Gosse, 1850. Cephalodella segersi De Smet, 1998 is recorded for the second time after its description, and Lecane shieliSegers and Sanoamuang, 1994 is recorded from Turkey for the first time. Both these and a population of Hexarthra polyodontapolyodonta (Hauer, 1957) from the species’ type locality, Lake Van, are illustrated using light and scanning electron microscopictechniques.

Key Words: Rotifera, trophi morphology, new records, Asplanchna, Cephalodella, Hexarthra, Turkey

Işık ve Taramalı Elektron Mikroskobu Kullanarak Bazı Türkiye Rotifer Tür Çalışmaları

Özet: Türkiye’den kaydedilen çok sayıda rotifer tartışıldı. Asplanchna Gosse, 1850’nin dört türünün trophi morfolojisi üzerine bir bilgiverildi. Cephalodella segersi De Smet, 1998 tanımlandığından sonra ikinci kez ve Lecane shieli Segers and Sanoamuang, 1994 iseTürkiye’den ilk kez kaydedildi. Hexarthra polyodonta polyodonta (Hauer, 1957)’nın bir populasyonu tip lokalitesinden ve diğer ikitür, ışık ve taramalı elektron mikroskobu (SEM) teknikleri kullanılarak şekillendirildi.

Anahtar Sözcükler: Rotifera, trophi morfolojisi, yeni kayıtlar, Asplanchna, Cephalodella, Hexarthra, Türkiye

* E-mail: muratkaya3806@yahoo.com

Turk J Zool33 (2009) 73-81 © TÜBİTAKdoi:10.3906/zoo-0803-1

Research Article

Materials and Methods

Samples were collected using a 55-μm-mesh planktonnet and preserved in 4% formalin. We used Leica DMLSand Olympus BX51 microscopes for identification anddrawing of the species. Trophi were isolated by dissolvingthe soft body parts in dilute NaOCl, and were preparedfor scanning electron microscopy (SEM) following theprocedure of De Smet (1998a). SEM was performedusing a JEOL JSM-60 60 LV on material processed with aPolaron SC 502 sputter-coater.

Results and Discussion

Here, we report the results of a taxonomic study ofsome rare Turkish rotifer species (Asplanchnabrightwellii, A. girodi, A. priodonta, Asplanchna silvestrii,Cephalodella segersi, Hexarthra polyodonta polyodonta,and Lecane shieli). Two of these, Cephalodella segersi andLecane shieli, are of particular biogeographic relevanceand are new to the Turkish fauna.

Morphology of some Turkish Asplanchna species

Identification of Asplanchna species relies onanatomical features as well as on trophi morphology (seeJosé de Paggi, 2002). Our material presents an extensionof the known variability in several species:

Asplanchna silvestrii Daday, 1902 (Figures 1-8) has ahorseshoe-shaped vitellarium containing 38-42 nuclei andhas trophi bearing large lamellae behind the rami apices(Sarma and Elias-Guttierez, 1997; José de Paggi, 2002).

Our specimens have a vitellarium containing 47-53 nuclei,and the trophi lack lamellae behind the rami apices. Theyare also relatively small (female body length 428-621 μm,trophi 135-178 μm, fulcrum 21-23 μm versus bodylength 800-1150 μm in José de Paggi (2002).Notwithstanding these differences, we tentatively identifythe specimens as Asplanchna silvestrii, considering thatSalt et al. (1978) identified similar specimens lackinglamellae behind the rami apices as such.

Sampling locality: the Turkish specimens are fromLake Akşehir (ecology: inland freshwater, Konya,Turkey), and were collected from the pelagic zone in May1993. Lake Akşehir is a tectonic lake, and has a maximumsurface of 35,000 ha. The deepest part of the lake is 7 mdeep. Coordinates: 38°26’52.89”N, 31°25’26.66”E;altitude: 966 m (Altınsaçlı et al., 2000). This species,which is not uncommon in the Americas, appears to berare in the Old World.

Asplanchna brightwellii Gosse, 1850 (Figures 9-15):Vitellarium horseshoe-shaped containing 23-31 nuclei.Our specimens are relatively small: Female body length260-430 μm, trophi 133-197 μm, fulcrum 15-19 μmversus body length 500-1500 μm, trophi 130-270 μm, inJosé de Paggi (2002).

Asplanchna brightwellii resembles A. sieboldii, andthese 2 species have often been confused. However, theirtrophi are diagnostic: those of A. brightwellii havesymmetrical lamellae behind the rami apices, whereasthose in A. sieboldii are asymmetrical.

Some Turkish Rotifer Species Studied Using Light and Scanning Electron Microscopy

74

� � �

������

���

Figures 1-3. Asplanchna silvestrii. 1: habitus (contracted specimens), 2: vitellarium, 3: trophus.1, 2: ventral view, 3: dorsal view.

A. ALTINDAĞ, H SEGERS, M KAYA

75

�

�

�������

���

�� ���

�

Figures 4-8. Trophi of Asplanchna silvestrii, SEM photographs. 4, 5, 7: dorsal view, 6, 8: ventralview.

����

�� ��

��

��

��

�

Figures 9-12. Asplanchna brightwellii. 9: habitus (contracted specimens), 10. trophus, 11, 12: vitellarium. 9, 11, 12: ventral view,10: dorsal view.

Sampling locality: The material originates fromSarımsaklı Dam Lake (Kayseri, Turkey), collected on 30August 2006. The samples were collected from thepelagic part of the lake. Coordinates: 38°53’16.50”N,35°44’26.30”E; altitude: 1330 m, ecology: inlandfreshwater.

Asplanchna priodonta Gosse, 1850 (Figures 16-18):The size of the specimens falls within the range given forthe species by José de Paggi (2002): Female body length479-553 μm, trophi 63-74 μm, fulcrum 14-16 μm.

Sampling locality: The samples were collected from thepelagic part of Ağcaşar Dam Lake (Kayseri, Turkey), on 25December 2005. Coordinates: 38°10’41.71”N,35°23’39.39”E; altitude: 292 m, ecology: alkali inland water.

Asplanchna girodi de Guerne, 1888 (Figures 19-21):Our specimens are relatively small compared to therecorded range for the species [Female body length 453-522 μm, trophi 78-89 μm, fulcrum 15-17 μm, versusbody length 500-700 μm, males 250-397 μm, trophi 93μm in José de Paggi (2002)].

Some Turkish Rotifer Species Studied Using Light and Scanning Electron Microscopy

76

s

b

im

14

t

13

m

r

sa

10 μm

a

15

10 μm20 μm

f

Figures 13-15. SEM trophi of Asplanchna brightwellii (a: apophysis, b: bulla, f: fulcrum, im:inner margin of the ramus, m: manubrium, r: ramus, s: scapus, sa:subapophysis, t: tooth of the ramus).

���

��

�� ��Figures 16, 17. Asplanchna priodonta. 16: habitus; 17: trophus. 16, 17: dorsal view.

Sampling locality: The samples are from Sarıkamış(Kars, Turkey), 16 July 1986 (coll. H. J. Dumont).Coordinates: 40°19’52.78”N, 42°34’43.14”E; altitude:2750 m, ecology: inland freshwater.

As far as can be judged from published records,Asplanchna sieboldii appears to be slightly more commonin Turkey than A. brightwellii: A. sieboldii has beenrecorded from 11 different localities (Geldiay, 1949;Margaritora et al., 1977; Segers et al., 1992; Altındağand Yiğit, 1999; Bekleyen, 2001; Bozkurt et al., 2002;Erdoğan and Güher, 2005; Bozkurt, 2006; Kaya andAltındağ, 2007), whereas A. brightwellii has beenrecorded from 7 localities, including the present study(Daday, 1903; Mann, 1940; Geldiay, 1949; Margaritoraand Cottarelli, 1970; Dumont and De Ridder, 1987). Thisassessment is preliminary, however, as they have beenconfused in the past. We hope that the present illustrationof their trophi, and of those of the other species, willprevent further confusion.

Other new or rare Turkish rotifers

Cephalodella segersi De Smet, 1998 (Figures 22-25):This species’ habitus, and toe and trophi shape indicate aclose relationship with Cephalodella catellina (Müller,1786) (De Smet, 1998b). They are easily distinguished,however, by their characteristic trophi: in C. segersi theright manubrium has an incompletely closed terminal loop

A. ALTINDAĞ, H SEGERS, M KAYA

77

��

���

Figure 18. SEM trophus of A. priodonta. Ventral view.

���

��

���

Figures 19, 20. Asplanchna girodi. 19: habitus, 20: trophus. 19: ventral view, 20: dorsal view.

with a forked ventral arm; its left manubrium ends in anopen loop with a simple ventral arm (Figures 24, 25). InC. catellina both manubria end in an incompletely closedloop with a simple ventral arm. C. segersi is furthermorecharacterised by having a more prominent alula on its leftramus, and the less developed basal chamber of the rightramus (see De Smet, 1998b for more details).

The Turkish specimens are slightly larger than thoserecorded from Belgium by De Smet (1998b). Ourmeasurements indicate a total length of 77-109 μm, toelength 15-17 μm, total trophi length of 30 μm (fulcrum19 μm, left uncus 20 μm, right uncus 17 μm), whereasDe Smet (1998b) records a total length of 68-98 μm, toelength 15-18 μm, and trophi 22-23 μm.

Even though confusion with any other of its 154congeners (Segers, 2007) is hardly possible consideringthe highly characteristic trophi of C. segersi (Nogrady etal., 1995; see De Smet, 1998b), it is likely that the

Some Turkish Rotifer Species Studied Using Light and Scanning Electron Microscopy

78

��

���

��

Figure 21. SEM trophus of A. girodi. Ventral view (la: lamellae).

��

�� ���

��

��

�� ��

��

Figures 22-25. Cephalodella segersi. 22, 23: habitus, 24, 25: trophi (22, 23: lateralviews, 24, 25: dorso-lateral views, dm: distal manubria part, lm: leftmanubrium, rm: right manubrium).

species has been overlooked in the past. Cephalodellasegersi was described from man-made Lake Blankaart,near the outlet of “Steenbeek” rivulet, Woumen, WestVlaanderen, Belgium.

Sampling locality: the Turkish specimens are fromLake Yeniçağ (Bolu, Turkey) and were collected on 13July 2005. They represent the second record of thespecies. Coordinates: 40°42’7.05”N, 31°31’43.08”E;altitude: 900 m, inland freshwater.

Hexarthra polyodonta polyodonta (Hauer, 1957)(Figures 26-32): the number of the uncus teeth is 11-13.Total measurements: body length 364 μm, length of

trophi 29 μm, width of trophi 47 μm, fulcrum 7 μm,ramus 21 μm. This species is known in Turkey from 2localities only (Dumont and De Ridder, 1987). We hopethat our SEM examination of the trophi of the populationfrom the type locality of the taxon may help to clarify thestatus of the 2 subspecies of H. polyodonta, viz. H.polyodonta soaplakeiensis Koste, 1977 and H. polyodontajasperina Dumont, Coussement and Anderson, 1978, andcontribute to a better understanding of the taxon’sdistribution.

Sampling locality: the specimens examined are fromthe species’ type locality, Lake Van (Van, Turkey; Hauer,

A. ALTINDAĞ, H SEGERS, M KAYA

79

50 μm

2726

50 μm

Figures 26-32. Hexarthra polyodonta. 26: habitus, 27: vental arm, 28: apical view of trophi,29: posterior view of trophi, 30, 32: posterior views of manubrium and uncus,31: ventral view of rami (f: fulcrum, m: manubrium, r: ramus, u: uncus teeth).

��

�

��

�

�� ��

�

��

�� ��

������

�

1957), and were collected on 12 July 2003. Coordinates:38°28’4.51”N, 43°15’19.17”E; altitude: 1026 m,ecology: saline lake.

Lecane shieli Segers and Sanoamuang, 1994 (Figure33). To date, this species has only been recorded fromseveral localities in Thailand (e.g., Sanoamuang andSavatenalinton, 2001), and has recently been recordedfrom Australia (Kobayashi et al., 2007). Although Lecaneshieli can be confused with L. elegans (e.g., by Altındağ

and Yiğit, 2005), the species is unmistakable by itsrelatively soft yet elongate and nearly parallel-sided lorica,and long toes with curved claws. It is similar to L.isanensis Sanoamuang and Savatenalinton, 2001, but thelatter species lacks antero-lateral head aperture spines.The present specimens, although appearing differentmorphologically because they are relatively weaklycontracted, clearly belong to this species and representthe first record of the taxon outside Thailand andAustralia. The size of the Turkish specimens (dorsal platelength 98-103, width 61, ventral plate length 110-118,toe length 43.5-47, claw length 6.7-8.6 μm) concurswith the range given for the species by Segers andSanoamuang (1994).

Sampling locality: The Turkish specimens werecollected from Beyşehir Lake on 21 November 2000(Konya, Turkey). Coordinates: 37°41’48.51”N,31°37’34.10”E; altitude: 1125 m, ecology: alkali lake.

Conclusion

As a result of this study, we add 2 species to the listof Turkish rotifers, and the presence of Asplanchnasilvestrii, a species that is particularly rare in the OldWorld and rather common in the Americas, is confirmed.The total diversity of rotifers in Turkey herewith standsat 263 species.

The SEM study of trophi in Asplanchna will hopefullyclear up the uncertainty regarding species identificationsin the genus.

Acknowledgements

The authors would like to thank Dr S. José de Paggiand Dr R.J. Shiel for comments and suggestions. Theauthors would like to thank Prof. Dr. Yusuf Kalender andtechnician Yusuf Erdemir (Department of Biology, GaziUniversity in Turkey) for access to the scanning electronmicroscope.

Some Turkish Rotifer Species Studied Using Light and Scanning Electron Microscopy

80

��

��

Figure 33. Lecane shieli habitus, ventral view.

Altındağ, A. and Yiğit, S. 1999. A taxonomical study on the rotifer faunaof Akşehir Lake. Turkish Journal of Zoology. 23: 1-6.

Altındağ, A. and Yiğit, S. 2005. The zooplankton fauna and seasonaldistribution Beyşehir Lake. GÜ Gazi Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi. 24:217-225.

Altınşaçlı, S., Kılıç, M. and Altınşaçlı, S. 2000. A preliminary study on theOstracoda (Crustacea) fauna of Lake Akşehir. Turkish Journal ofZoology. 24: 9-16.

Bekleyen, A. 2001. A taxonomical study on the Rotifera fauna ofDevegeçidi Dam Lake (Diyarbakır-Turkey). Turkish Journal ofZoology. 25: 251-255.

References

A. ALTINDAĞ, H SEGERS, M KAYA

81

Bozkurt, A., Lugal Göksu, M.Z., Sarıhan E. and Taşdemir, M. 2002.Rotifera fauna of Asi (Orontes) River (Hatay, Turkey). E.U.Journal of Fisheries & Aquatic Sciences. 19: 63-67.

Bozkurt, A. 2006. Zooplankton of Yenişehir Lake (Reyhanlı, Hatay).E.U. Journal of Fisheries & Aquatic Sciences. 23: 39-43.

Daday, E. 1903. Mikroskopische süsswassertiere aus kleinasien. Sitz.Ber. k. Akad. Wiss. Wien. mathem.-naturh. Kl. 112: 139-167.

De Smet, W.H. 1998a. Preparation of rotifer trophi for light andscanning electron microscopy. Hydrobiologia. 387/388: 117-121.

De Smet, W.H. 1998b. Cephalodella segersi n. sp. (Notommatidae,Monogononta), a new rotifer from Belgium, with notes on C.catellina (O.F. Müller, 1786), C. fluviatilis (Zavadovsky, 1926)and C. maior Zavadovsky, 1926 stat. nov. Hydrobiologia. 367: 1-13.

Dumont, H.J. and De Ridder, M. 1987. Rotifers from Turkey.Hydrobiologia. 147: 65-74.

Erdoğan, S. and Güher, H. 2005. The Rotifera fauna of Gala Lake(Edirne-Turkey). Pakistan Journal of Biologial Sciences. 8: 1579-1583.

Geldiay, R. 1949. Etude comparative sur les faunes macroscopique etmicroscopique du barrage de Tchoubouk et du lac d’Emir(Voisinage d’Ankara). Comm. Fac. Sci, Ankara. 2: 151-199.

Gilbert, J.J., Birky, C.W. and Wurdak, E.S. 1979. Taxonomicrelationships of Asplanchna brightwellii, A.intermedia and A.sieboldii. Arch. Hydrobiol. 87: 224-242.

Hauer, J. 1957. Rotatorien aus dem Plankton des Van-Sees. Arch.Hydrobiol. 53: 23-29.

José de Paggi, S.J. 2002. The Asplanchnidae. In: Nogrady, T., H. Segersand H.J. Dumont (eds). Rotifera 6: Asplanchnidae, Gastropodidae,Lindiidae, Microcodidae, Synchaetidae and Trochosphaeridae.Guides to the identification of the microinvertebrates of thecontinental waters of the world, 8. SPB Academic Publishing b.v.,Amsterdam, New York, 264 pp.

Kaya, M. and Altındağ, A. 2007. Zooplankton fauna and seasonalchanges of Gelingüllü Dam Lake (Yozgat, Turkey). Turkish Journalof Zoology. 31: 347-351.

Kaya, M., Altındağ, A. and Sezen, G. 2008. The genus Sinantherina Boryde St. Vincent, 1826, a new record for the Turkish rotifer fauna.Turkish Journal of Zoology. 32: 71-74.

Kobayashi, T., Shiel, R.J. and Segers, H. 2007. First record of therotifer Lecane shieli Segers & Sanoamuang, 1994 from Australia.Australian Zoologist. 34: 181-183.

Koste, W. and Shiel, R.J. 1980. Preliminary remarks on thecharacteristics of the rotifer fauna of Australia (Notogaea).Hydrobiologia. 73: 221-227.

Koste, W. and Tobias, W. 1988. Rotatorien der Sélingúe-Talsperre inMali, Westafrika. Senckenbergiana Biol. 69: 441-466.

Mann, A.K. 1940. Über pelagische Copepoden Türkischer Seen (MitBerücksichtigung des übrigen Planktons). Int. Revue ges.Hydobiol. Hydrograph. 40: 1- 87.

Margaritora, F.G. and Cottarelli, V. 1970. Le biocenosi planctonicheestive del lago Abant (Turchia Asiatica, Regione del Mar Nero).Rendic. Accad. Lombardo Sci. Lett. C1. Sci B. 104: 170-190.

Margaritora, F.G., Stella, E. and Mastrantuono, L. 1977. Contributo allostudio della fauna ad entomostraci delle acque temporane dellaTurchia Asiatica. Riv. Idrobiol. 16: 151-172.

Nogrady, T., Pourriot, R. and Segers, H. 1995. Rotifera 3: TheNotommatidae and The Scaridiidae. SPB Academic Publishing.

Pourriot, R.D., Benest, C. and Rouger, P. 1984. Caractèrestaxinomiques et specificité dans le genre Asplanchna (Rotifères).Hydrobiologia. 112: 41-44.

Salt, G.W., Sabbadini, G.F. and Commins, M. 1978. Trophi morphologyrelative to food habits in six species of rotifers (Asplanchnidae).Trans. Amer. Micros. Soc. 97: 469-485.

Sarma, S.S.S. and Elias-Gutiérrez, M. 1997. Taxonomic studies offreshwater rotifers (Rotifera) from Mexico. Polskie ArchiwumHydrobiologii. 44: 341-357.

Sanoamuang, L. and Savatenalinton, S. 2001. The rotifer fauna of LakeKud-Thing, a shallow lake in Nong Khai Province, northeastThailand. Hydrobiologia. 446/447: 297-304.

Segers, H. 2007. Annotated checklist of the rotifers (Phylum Rotifera)with notes on nomenclature, taxonomy and distribution. Zootaxa.1564: 1-104.

Segers, H., Emir, N. and Mertens, J. 1992. Rotifera from North andNorth-east Anatolia (Turkey). Hydrobiologia. 245: 179-189.

Segers, H. and Sanoamuang, L. 1994. Two more new species of Lecane(Rotifera: Monogononta), from Thailand. Belg. J. Zool. 124: 39-46.

Shiel, R.J. and Koste, W. 1993. Rotifera from Australian waters. IX.Gastropodidae, Synchaetidae, Asplanchnidae (Rotifera:Monogononta). Trans. R. Soc. S. Aust. 117: 111-139.

Ustaoğlu, R. 2004. A Check-list for Zooplankton of Turkish inlandwaters. E.U. Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences. 21: 191-199.