Next Article in Journal
Exploring Deep-Sea Biodiversity in the Porcupine Bank (NE Atlantic) through Fish Integrative Taxonomy
Next Article in Special Issue
Early Succession Patterns of Benthic Assemblages on Artificial Reefs in the Oligotrophic Eastern Mediterranean Basin
Previous Article in Journal
A Modified Approach of Extracting Landfast Ice Edge Based on Sentinel-1A InSAR Coherence Image in the Gulf of Bothnia
Previous Article in Special Issue
Trophic Diversity of a Fish Community Associated with a Caulerpa prolifera (Forsskål) Meadow in a Shallow Semi-Enclosed Embayment
 
 
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Review

Alien Species Threat across Marine Protected Areas of Turkey—An Updated Inventory

by
Murat Bilecenoğlu
1,* and
Melih Ertan Çınar
2
1
Department of Biology, Faculty of Arts & Sciences, Aydın Adnan Menderes University, Aydın 09010, Turkey
2
Department of Hydrobiology, Faculty of Fisheries, Ege University, Bornova, İzmir 35100, Turkey
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
J. Mar. Sci. Eng. 2021, 9(10), 1077; https://doi.org/10.3390/jmse9101077
Submission received: 27 August 2021 / Revised: 21 September 2021 / Accepted: 25 September 2021 / Published: 1 October 2021
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Marine Benthic Biodiversity of Eastern Mediterranean Ecosystems)

Abstract

:
This study presents the first comprehensive assessment of alien species occurrences within the selected 11 Marine Protected Areas (MPAs) located on the Aegean and Levantine coasts of Turkey. The inventory includes a total of 289 species belonging to 15 phyla, in which lowest and highest diversities were observed in Saros Bay MPA (27 species, northern Aegean Sea) and Fethiye-Göcek Bay MPA (150 species, northwest Levantine Sea), respectively. Alien species distributions that were revealed in protected areas located in the southern Aegean and Levantine Seas were 56.9% similar (based on presence vs. absence data), while northern Aegean sites formed another distinct group. According to the breakdown of major phyla through the entire study areas, Mollusca had the highest alien diversity (22.1% of alien species), followed by Actinopterygii (19.0%), Arthropoda (15.2%) and Annelida (13.5%). Casual aliens were represented by very low proportions in each MPA, proving that most species were already established in the region, with a significant proportion of invasive species. Regardless of the localities, the majority of the species originated from the Red Sea, whose primary pathway of introduction is the corridor, the Suez Canal. In the absence of effective management actions against bioinvasions, MPAs located along the Turkish coastline do not currently seem to provide any protection, revealing a large conservation gap to be filled.

1. Introduction

In the Mediterranean Sea, Marine Protected Areas (MPAs) are described as clearly defined marine geographical spaces (including subtidal, intertidal and supratidal ecosystems, together with coastal lakes/lagoons connected permanently or temporarily to the sea), which are recognized, dedicated and managed through legal or other effective means, to achieve the long-term conservation of nature with its associated ecosystem services and cultural values [1]. As clearly implied by this broad generic term, MPAs are the most effective conservation tool in the key management of marine ecosystem alterations around the world [2], by maintaining natural ecological processes, increasing ecosystem resilience, preserving genetic diversity, ensuring the sustainable utilization of species and ecosystems, restoring the biomass and structure of species assemblages, and providing socio-economic benefits [3,4,5]. These advantages, however, can only be noticeable in appropriately sited, strongly protected and effectively managed MPAs [3], which prominently protect natural habitats and species from multiple local human stressors, e.g., overexploitation of living resources and habitat destruction [6]. The recent assessments of the development of MPAs in the Mediterranean Sea during the last decade show progress towards the increased protection of marine and coastal areas; however, results are not encouraging and effectiveness of management measures are still a matter of concern [7]. Currently, 9.7% of the Mediterranean Sea is designated as MPAs, but only a small portion are associated with a properly implemented management plan and few countries have fulfilled the designated target of 10% by 2020, pointed out both in the UN Sustainable Development Goal 14 and Aichi target 11 (Convention on Biological Diversity) [8].
MPAs appear to be quite vulnerable when the enormous impacts of global-scale stressors such as climate change, pollution and biological invasions are taken into consideration [9]. The latter phenomenon is of special importance throughout the Mediterranean Sea, since the basin is among the most ecologically altered marine regions globally, representing a hotspot of biological invasions [10,11]. Human-mediated alien species introductions are regarded as one of the main causes of drastic biodiversity changes in the region, causing a troublesome problem because of the unprecedented rate of their invasion, and the irreversible impacts they pose on local ecosystems, human health and the socio-economy [12,13], and so their impact on protected areas could thus be much more severe [14,15]. Despite the widespread theory that MPAs are resistant to invasion owing to their high species diversity and putative abundance of predators, competitors and parasites of alien species, this hypothesis is not fully supported and marine reserves may even promote the introduction of alien species [10,16]. Through the wealth of research carried out so far, very few attempts have been made to clarify the status of alien species within coastal protected areas, in which the available information denotes that majority of Mediterranean MPAs are at a high risk of invasion [17] and their boundaries offer almost no protection from many high-impact invasive species [18].
Biodiversity and ecosystem conservation in Turkey is ensured by protected areas dispersed in 15 different categories (National Parks, Special Environment Protection Areas, Strict Nature Reserves, etc.), managed officially by two governmental bodies (Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry and Ministry of Environment and Urbanization). Currently, about 6.8% of Turkey’s marine areas are nominally protected, which is significantly lower than the reported regional and global figures [8,19]. As with most parts of the Mediterranean Sea, alien and invasive species inventories specifically concentrated on MPAs are scarce in Turkey, where existing information is provided by a series of government-funded projects in the early 2000s [20,21,22], clearly outdated and seeking critical revisions. In order to promote the development of coordinated efforts and management measures throughout the Mediterranean Sea, a basin-specific action plan concerning species introductions and invasive species was recently published [23]. Considering the knowledge gaps to be filled on various issues, contracting countries are recommended to give national priority to take all necessary actions (scientific research and monitoring, national impact assessments, etc.) for improving the available knowledge, and conducting baseline and monitoring studies to obtain reliable data on the distribution of marine alien species. Conforming to the existing international commitments, Turkey has recently set its first national objective through the National Biodiversity Action Plan 2018–2028 [24] to determine the pressures and threats to biodiversity and ecosystems, including mitigating the impacts of alien species.
The success of the regulation of the prevention and management of invasive species relies heavily on the compilation of alien species inventories [25], which provide early warning of potentially invasive species, both within a country and for neighboring countries, and constitute an important tool for the implementation of relevant policies [26,27]. It is imperative that such inventories remain current and updated regularly by accurate scientific information, since the alien status of several species is constantly changing based on genetic studies, taxonomic revisions and biogeographic reviews [28]. Owing to the large knowledge gap regarding alien species occurrences through the MPAs in Turkey, we carried out a critical revision of their distribution, origin and modes of introduction, which are policy-relevant attributes of the utmost importance. No marine area in the world is immune to invasions and no action can be taken without such core biodiversity data. This is the first comprehensive treatment of alien taxa inhabiting MPAs in Turkey, which provides a scientific basis for further management actions and the effective allocation of resources.

2. Materials and Methods

Selection of the study sites was made according to their marine terrain coverage. Among the existing coastal and marine protected areas in Turkey, only those with over 40 km2 of marine space were considered, including 7 MPAs in the Aegean Sea and 4 in the Levantine Sea (Table 1, Figure 1). Despite its huge area of nearly 11,000 km2, the Finike Seamounts special environment protection area (northwest Levant) was omitted from the analyses, since the area was characterized by unique habitats (i.e., mud volcanoes) hosting deep sea species and currently no data on the existence of any alien species were available.
In order to determine marine faunal hotspots in Turkey, species occurrence records (comprising all extant taxa) associated with accurate locality information and/or exact coordinates were plotted on a map where the Turkish coasts were divided into equivalent squares of 15 × 15 km2, which were then entered into an Excel file for further analysis (for full account see [29]). Initial entries were based on governmental marine biodiversity studies conducted at 8 MPAs [20,21,22,30,31,32,33], with a number of alien taxa as follows: Saros Bay (5 sp.), Ayvalık Islands (5 sp.), Foça (1 sp.), Gökova Bay (26 sp.), Datça-Bozburun Peninsula (33 sp.), Köyceğiz-Dalyan (10 sp.), Fethiye-Göcek Bay (93 sp.), Kaş-Kekova (71 sp.); no baseline inventory was available for Karaburun-Ildır, Patara and Göksu Delta. An updated version of this file (including floral elements) focusing solely on alien taxa was used in a recent comprehensive inventory [12], which formed the core data of the present study. For better presenting the distributional patterns of alien species, we also included previously unpublished observations (not new for the country or the region but overlooked occurrences in corresponding MPAs). The presence vs. absence matrix was used to reveal similarities within the MPAs, using cluster analysis with a group average sorting performed with the PRIMER 5.2 software [34].
The terminology of alien species followed [10], referring to species introduced by human activities, while species undergoing climate-shifted range expansions, without human-assisted spread, were not considered to be alien. Species that formed self-maintaining populations with at least two records in the area (three records for fish) spread over time and space, were classified as established species, while those having been recorded only once (no more than twice for fish) with no evidence of self-sustaining populations were classified as casual species [12]. Established aliens whose populations had proliferated and rapidly expanded their distributional range by overcoming biotic and abiotic barriers in the region were treated as invasive species [35]. Only primary pathways were considered in the classification of the pathways for the alien species introductions to Turkey (corridor via the Suez Canal, ships and aquaculture). Cryptogenic (species with no definite evidence of their native or introduced status) and questionable species were all left out of the inventory. Origins of each species were examined under 12 categories (IP: Indo-Pacific, RS: Red Sea, AT: Atlantic, NA: North Atlantic, WA: Western Atlantic, ST: Subtropical Atlantic/Pacific, IO: Indian Ocean, PG: Persian Gulf, PO: Pacific Ocean, TA: Tropical Atlantic, CT: Circumtropical, Unk: Unknown).

3. Results

The alien species inventory of Turkish MPAs included a total of 289 species belonging to 15 phyla, the majority of which had established successfully breeding populations throughout the study sites (61.6%) and a significant portion displayed an invasive character (29.4%) (Appendix A). Mollusca ranked first in terms of the number of alien species (64 sp.), followed by Chordata (55 sp.), Arthropoda (44 sp.) and Annelida (39 sp.). Percentage distribution of alien species phyla in each MPA is presented in Table 2.
There were significant differences in local alien biodiversity, with a clear decreasing pattern in a clockwise direction from Levantine towards the northern Aegean Sea coasts. The cluster analysis showed that MPAs were clearly separated into two groups (northern Aegean Sea areas vs. southern Aegean Sea and Levant Sea combined) at 30.0% similarity, which split further at 46.0% and 56.9% similarities (Figure 2). The numbers of taxa were typically higher in Levantine localities (ranging from 93 to 150 sp.), gradually decreasing to 69–106 sp. in the southern Aegean Sea and the minimum values were observed northwards, at values between 27 to 73 sp.
It is striking that the number of casual aliens is quite low throughout the entire study area (none in Foça and Köyceğiz-Dalyan, ranging from 1.2% to 6.9% elsewhere), where the great majority of the species are either characterized by successfully breeding established populations or possess an invasive character (Figure 3). The proportion of invasive taxa ranged from 37.0% (Göksu Delta) to 62.3% (Köyceğiz-Dalyan), displaying a large-scale impact regardless of their occurrence localities. The two invasive fish, Lagocephalus sceleratus (Gmelin, 1789) and Siganus rivulatus (Forsskål, 1775) were present in each of the MPAs, while some other noxious species, such as Caulerpa cylindracea (Sonder, 1845) (Chlorophyta), Asparagopsis armata (Harvey, 1855) (Rhodophyta), Leodice antennata (Savigny, 1820) (Annelida), etc., were absent in just a few sites.
According to their origins, there was a very pronounced dominance of Red Sea originated species (201 sp., out of 289 sp.), while the contribution of rest of the categories was set at low levels (Figure 4). This was an expected result, since Turkey was geographically located close to the Red Sea, which explained why corridors (Suez Canal) were the main vector of the species introductions (Figure 5). Ship-transferred species were higher in proportion at the north Aegean MPAs (Saros Bay, Ayvalık Islands, Foça and Karaburun-Ildır, ranging between 28.1–48.1%), significantly reducing to levels of 8.7–18.0% in the rest of the coastal areas. Saros Bay was the only locality that shipping-oriented introductions outnumbered Suez Canal introductions (13 sp. vs. 9 sp., respectively); the latter vector was dominant elsewhere. Aquaculture was the least impacting vector and only four such species were present in MPAs (for example, the Pacific Ocean originated invasive bivalve Ruditapes philippinarum (Adams & Reeve, 1850)).

4. Discussion

The present inventory revealed that (i) existing MPAs were exposed to different levels of alien biota impact, with a clear decreasing trend from the Levantine coasts to the northernmost regions of the Aegean Sea; (ii) the Suez Canal was the most important vector for species introductions, and was also responsible for the existence of the huge proportion of Red Sea-originated biota; and (iii) the high rates of established aliens and invasive species were obvious in every MPA. These results were in accordance with the general trends observed for the alien biota of the entire coast of Turkey during the last decade [12,35]. The low number of species determined in the northern Aegean protected areas should be carefully monitored, since they may be related to lower research efforts, in comparison to the northern Levantine coasts. The significant taxonomic similarity we found between the southern Aegean and Levantine MPAs was an issue to be taken seriously and may have indicated an ongoing biotic homogenization event, although concrete data for proving this phenomenon are currently lacking. It is a known fact that species invasions and extinctions lead to a decrease in β-diversity, by increasing the genetic, taxonomic or functional similarity of two or more locations over time [36].
When Mediterranean Sea coastal countries were taken into consideration, more alien taxa were recorded along the Turkish coastline than anywhere else. For example, the reported diversity was 452 sp. in Israel [37], 265 sp. in Italy [38], 214 sp. in Greece [39], 136 sp. in Tunisia [40] and 73 sp. in Libya [41]. Receiving 185 new alien species introductions just during the last decade, the immense impact of bioinvasions to the Turkish marine realm reflected the diversity estimates, now reaching to 539 species, 404 of which were established in the region [12]. Thus, it was not surprising that there was a high number of alien species (289 sp.) throughout Turkish MPAs, which we believe was merely an underestimation and could certainly be increased by further research. The relevant data are currently incomparable to any other regional datasets, due to the lack of country-based comprehensive alien species checklists, which focus on their presence in protected areas of the Mediterranean Sea. As previously outlined, Mediterranean MPAs face common challenges including a lack of baseline information and the inefficient reporting of biological invasions [10,18,42], constituting crucial data to draw robust conclusions in the effective management of protected sites [14,43].
No control of alien species is feasible that would not also harm other components of the biota once an invasion process is underway [10,44], thus the objective highlighted in the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) at art. 8(h), calling for contracting parties “as far as possible and as appropriate, (to) prevent the introduction of, control or eradicate those alien species which threaten ecosystems, habitats or species” can only be partially fulfilled, especially by the eastern Mediterranean countries where the existing invasion process is unique. By ratifying and signing the “International Convention for the Control and Management of Ship’s Ballast Water and Sediments” in 2014, Turkey took an important step that could considerably decrease risks of ship-borne introductions, but the troublesome vector, the Suez Canal, remains wide open, unquestioningly destroying the strength of the proposed eradication measures. The first ever government-supported incentive notification on the bounty hunting of the noxious Lagocephalus sceleratus along Turkish coasts (for a price of EUR 0.5 per each captured individual) ended with little success, where only 46,000 individuals were eradicated out of the targeted 1 million fish [12]. Although L. sceleratus fishery was also conducted within the existing MPAs, the captured quantities in each site have not been announced yet. The above-mentioned notification has been updated recently (official gazette no. 31524, dated 27 June 2021), now encouraging the capture of all Tetraodontids inhabiting Turkey (native pufferfish were incomprehensibly included as well) from now until the end of 2023. There are also efforts to cull and create consumption demand to decrease the population trend of Pterois miles in the Kaş-Kekova region [45], though currently no official announcement has been made.
MPAs alone are unlikely to be sufficient in preventing biological invasions in the Mediterranean Sea, as evidenced from results of several recent studies [46,47,48,49]. On the contrary, the Red Sea invaders, which came from a highly competitive environment, find a suitable feeding and shelter ground in the Mediterranean MPAs, whereby they increase their population sizes enormously and utilize the areas as stepping stones in their distribution expansions [16]. Therefore, alien species’ harvesting should be promoted in MPAs where they benefit from fishing bans and restrictions that apply within the MPAs. Considering the highly connected nature of the Mediterranean Sea, a basin-wide ecosystem-based policy on bioinvasions is required [10]. The effective management of the Suez Canal is of utmost importance, and an issue which all Mediterranean countries have failed to put on their conservation agendas so far, highlighting the urgent need of international cooperation in the management of alien species [12].
In terms of their resilience to invasive species, an unmanaged MPA is no different from an unprotected coastal area, reflecting the current situation we are experiencing in Turkey. The drastic impact of invaders are therefore the expected and inevitable result of numerous “lacks”, including a lack of legal background, lack of marine management plans (available only for Foça, Gökova Bay and Kaş-Kekova with no measures defined against the struggle with aliens), the lack of public/governmental awareness and understanding of the impacts of invasive species, the lack of trained staff devoted to monitor the impacts of alien taxa, the lack of funds to regularly carry out monitoring research (at least for selected invasive species), and the lack of fishery regulations in favor of apex predators, etc.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, M.B., M.E.Ç.; methodology, M.B., M.E.Ç.; analysis, M.B., M.E.Ç.; writing—original draft preparation, M.B., M.E.Ç.; writing—reviewing and editing, M.B., M.E.Ç. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research received no external funding.

Institutional Review Board Statement

Not applicable.

Informed Consent Statement

Not applicable.

Data Availability Statement

Data is contained within the article.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

Appendix A

Table A1. Alien species inventory of Turkish MPAs. The sorting of the sites follows a counterclockwise direction, from the north Aegean to the northern Levantine Sea. Establishment Success (ES)—C: casual aliens, E: established aliens, Inv: invasive species; Origin (O)—IP: Indo-Pacific, RS: Red Sea, AT: Atlantic, NA: North Atlantic, WA: Western Atlantic, ST: Subtropical Atlantic/Pacific, IO: Indian Ocean, PG: Persian Gulf, PO: Pacific Ocean, TA: Tropical Atlantic, CT: Circumtropical, Unk: Unknown; Pathways (PW)—Aq: aquaculture, S: ships, Su: Suez Canal (corridor).
Table A1. Alien species inventory of Turkish MPAs. The sorting of the sites follows a counterclockwise direction, from the north Aegean to the northern Levantine Sea. Establishment Success (ES)—C: casual aliens, E: established aliens, Inv: invasive species; Origin (O)—IP: Indo-Pacific, RS: Red Sea, AT: Atlantic, NA: North Atlantic, WA: Western Atlantic, ST: Subtropical Atlantic/Pacific, IO: Indian Ocean, PG: Persian Gulf, PO: Pacific Ocean, TA: Tropical Atlantic, CT: Circumtropical, Unk: Unknown; Pathways (PW)—Aq: aquaculture, S: ships, Su: Suez Canal (corridor).
Species ListSaros BayAyvalıkFoçaKaraburunGökova BayDatçaKöyceğizFethiyePataraKaş-KekovaGöksuESOPW
Ochrophyta
Botrytella parva (Takamatsu) H.-S.Kim, 1996 1 CIPS
Cladosiphon zosterae (J.Agardh) Kylin, 1940 1 1 1EATS
Cutleria multifida (Turner) Greville, 183011 111 1111EIPAq
Dictyota cyanoloma Tronholm, De Clerck, Gomez Garreta & Rull Lluch, 2010 1 ESTS
Halothrix lumbricalis (Kützing) Reinke, 188811 1 111 EUnkS
Pylaiella littoralis (Linnaeus) Kjellman, 187211 1 EUnkS
Sphaerotrichia firma (Gepp) A.D.Zinova, 1940 1 1 EUnkS
Stypopodium schimperi (Buchinger ex Kützing) Verlaque & Boudouresque, 1991 11111 1111InvRS?Su
Chlorophyta
Caulerpa cylindracea Sonder, 18451111111111 InvRSSu
Caulerpa racemosa var. lamourouxii f. requienii (Montagne) Weber-van Bosse, 1898 1111ERSSu
Caulerpa scalpelliformis (R.Brown ex Turner) C. Agardh, 1817 111 ERSSu
Caulerpa taxifolia var. distichophylla (Sonder) Verlaque, Huisman&Procacin, 2013 1InvPOS
Codium fragile subsp. fragile (Suringar) Hariot, 1889111111 InvUnkS
Codium parvulum (Bory ex Audouin) P.C.Silva, 2003 1 ERSSu
Codium taylorii P.C. Silva, 1960 1 EIPS
Pseudocodium okinawense E.J.Faye, M.Uchimura & S.Smimada, 2008 1 CPOS
Rhodophyta
Acanthophora nayadiformis (Delile) Papenfuss, 19681 1 1111ERSSu
Asparagopsis armata Harvey, 1855111111 1111InvUnkS
Asparagopsis taxiformis (Delile) Trevisan de Saint-Léon, 1845 1 InvRSSu
Bonnemaisonia hamifera Hariot, 1891 1 1111InvIP?S
Botryocladia madagascariensis G. Feldmann, 1945 1 111 EUnkS
Colaconema codicola (Børgesen) H. Stegenga, J.J. Bolton, & R.J. Anderson, 19971 11 1111EUnkS
Ganonema farinosum (Lamouroux) Fan & Wang, 1974 1 111 1111ERS Su
Hypnea spinella (C. Agardh) Kützing, 1847 1 1111ECTS
Lophocladia lallemandii (Montagne) Schmitz, 1893 11111 1111ERSSu
Polysiphonia morrowii Harvey, 1857 1 InvPOS
Polysiphonia paniculata Montagne, 1842 1 EUnkS
Vertebrata fucoides (Hudson) Kuntze 1891 111 EUnkS
Tracheophyta
Halophila stipulacea (Forsskål) Ascherson, 1867 111111111 InvRSSu
Foraminifera
Adelosina longirostra (d’Orbigny, 1826) 1 CUnkS
Amphisorus hemprichii Ehrenberg, 1840 111 InvUnk?
Amphistegina lobifera Larsen, 1976 1 1 1 111 InvRSSu
Articulina alticostata Cushman, 1944 1 EPOS
Astacolus insolitus (Schwager, 1866) 1 EPOS
Bolivina striatula Cushman, 19221 EUnk?
Clavulina cf. multicamerata Chapman, 1907 1 1 ERSSu
Cornuspiroides striolata (Brady) 1 EUnkS
Cyclorbiculina compressa (d’Orbigny, 1839) 1 CUnk?
Cymbaloporetta plana (Cushman, 1915) 1 1 1 ERSSu
Cymbaloporetta squammosa (d’Orbigny, 1839) 1 1 1 EUnk?
Entosigmomorphina sp. 1 CPOS
Euthymonacha polita (Chapman, 1904) 1 EUnkS
Haddonia sp. 11 ERSSu
Hauerina diversa Cushman, 1946 11 ERSSu
Heterostegina depressa d’Orbigny, 1826 11 ERSSu
Iridia diaphana Heron-Allen and Earland, 1914 1 1 EPOS
Miliolinella cf. hybrida (Terquem, 1878) 1 CRSSu
Nodophthalmidium antillarum (Cushman, 1922) 1 ERSSu
Peneroplis arietinus (Batsch, 1791) 1 11 ERSSu
Peneroplis pertusus (Forsskål in Niebuhr, 1775) 1 1 1 11 ERSSu
Peneroplis planatus (Fichtel & Moll, 1798) 1 1 1 11 CRSSu
Planogypsina acervalis (Brady, 1884)1 ERSSu
Planogypsina squamiformis (Chapman, 1901)1 1 1 ERSSu
Pseudomassilina reticulata (Heron-Allen and Earland, 1915) 1 CRSSu
Pseudonodosaria brevis (d’Orbigny, 1846) 1 CPOS
Pulleniatina obliquiloculata (Parker & Jones, 1862)1 CPOS
Pyrgo denticulata (Brady, 1917) 1 EUnk?
Quinqueloculina cf. mosharrafai Said, 1949 1 CRSSu
Schlumbergerina alveoliniformis (Brady, 1879)1 11 ERSSu
Sorites orbiculus Ehrenberg, 1839 1 1 1 11 EUnk?
Sorites variabilis Lacroix, 1941 1 11 ERSSu
Spiroloculina angulata Cushman, 1917 1 11 ERSSu
Triloculina cf. fichteliana d’Orbigny, 1839 1 1 1 ERSSu
Vaginulinopsis sublegumen Parr, 1950 1 1 EPOS
Hydrozoa
Clytia linearis (Thorneley, 1900) 1 ERSSu
Filellum serratum (Clarke, 1879) 1 ECTS
Macrorhynchia philippina Kirchenpauer, 1872 1 InvRSSu
Sertularia marginata (Kirchenpauer, 1864) 1 ECTS
Scyphozoa
Cassiopea andromeda (Forsskål, 1775) 1111 InvRSSu
Phyllorhiza punctata von Lendenfeld, 1884 1 ERSSu
Rhopilema nomadica Galil, Spanier & Ferguson, 1990 1111 11InvRSSu
Ctenophora
Mnemiopsis leidyi (Agassiz, 1865)1 1 1 1 InvNAS
Sipuncula
Aspidosiphon (A.) elegans (Chamisso & Eysenhardt, 1821) 1111 1 ERSSu
Annelida
Aricidea bulbosa Hartley, 1984 1 1 ERSSu
Branchiomma bairdi (McIntosh, 1885) 1 1 InvUnk?S
Branchiomma luctuosum Grube, 1869 1 InvRSSu
Ceratonereis mirabilis Kinberg, 1866 1111111 11ERSSu
Chaetozone corona Berkeley & Berkeley, 194111111111 1 E?POS
Dorvillea similis (Crossland, 1924) 11111111InvRSSu
Eurythoe complanata (Pallas, 1766) 1111111Inv?RS?Su
Eusyllis kupfferi Langerhans, 1879 1 11E?ATS
Exogone africana (Hartmann-Schröder, 1974) 1ERSSu
Exogone breviantennata Hartmann-Schröder, 1959 1 1 ERSSu
Ficopomatus enigmaticus (Fauvel, 1923) 1 InvSTS
Glycinde bonhourei Gravier, 1904 1ERSSu
Hydroides dirampha Mörch, 1863 1 InvCTS
Hydroides elegans (Haswell, 1883) 11 1 1 1 InvCTS
Laonice norgensis Sikorski, 2003 1 CATS
Leodice antennata (Savigny, 1820) 1111111111InvRSSu
Leonnates indicus Kinberg, 1866 1 1 InvRSSu
Leonnates persicus Wesenberg-Lund, 1949 11111 1 11ERSSu
Linopherus canariensis Langerhans, 1881 1 11EATS
Loimia medusa (Savigny, 1818) 1 ERS?Su
Lumbrineris perkinsi Carrera-Parra, 2001 1111ERS?Su
Lysidice collaris Grube, 1870 111 1 ERSSu
Metasychis gotoi (Izuka, 1902) 1 ERSSu
Notomastus aberans Day, 1957 111111111ERSSu
Notomastus mossambicus (Thomassin, 1970) 1InvRSSu
Palola valida (Gravier, 1900) 1 1111ERSSu
Phyllodoce longifrons Ben-Eliahu, 1972 1 ERSSu
Pista unibranchia Day, 1963 11111 1 1 ERSSu
Polycirrus twisti Potts, 1928 1 11ERSSu
Polydora cornuta Bosc, 1802 1 InvWAS
Prionospio (Minuspio) pulchra Imajima 1990 1 1 InvIPS
Prionospio (Prionospio) depauperata Imajima, 19901 1InvPOS
Prionospio (Prionospio) paucipinnulata Blake & Kudenov, 1978 1 EPOS
Prionospio (Prionospio) saccifera Mackie & Hartley, 1990 111 ERSSu
Pseudonereis anomala Gravier, 1900 11111111InvRSSu
Pseudopolydora paucibranchiata Okuda, 1937 1 InvIPS
Spirorbis marioni Caullery & Mesnil, 1897 1 EPOS
Streblospio gynobranchiata Rice & Levin, 1998 11 InvWAS
Syllis ergeni Çinar, 2005 1111111InvRSSu
Cladocera
Pleopis schmackeri (Poppe, 1889)1 11 EIPSu/S
Copepoda
Oithona davisae Ferrari and Orsi, 1984 1 InvPOS
Paracartia grani Sars G.O., 1904 1 EATS
Stomatopoda
Clorida albolitura Ahyong & Naiyanetr, 2000 1ERSSu
Erugosquilla massavensis (Kossmann, 1880) 1 1 1111InvRSSu
Amphipoda
Ampithoe bizseli Özaydınlı and Coleman, 2012 1 EIPS
Latigammaropsis togoensis (Schellenberg, 1925) 1EUnk?S
Isopoda
Paracerceis sculpta Holmes,1904 1 CIP S
Paradella dianae Menzies,1962 1 EUnk?S
Sphaeroma walkeri (Stebbing, 1905) 1 1 ERSSu
Tanaidacea
Paradoxapseudes intermedius (Hansen, 1895) 1 EAT?S
Cumacea
Eocuma sarsii (Kossmann, 1880) 1 ERSSu
Decapoda
Alpheus rapacida de Man, 1908 11ERSSu
Atergatis roseus (Rüppell, 1830) 11 1111ERSSu
Callinectes sapidus Rathbun, 18961 1111111InvWAS
Carupa tenuipes Dana, 1851 111111ERSSu
Charybdis hellerii (Milne Edwards, 1867) 11 1 1 InvRSSu
Charybdis longicollis Leene, 1938 1 1 InvRSSu
Coleusia signata (Paulson, 1875) 1111ERSSu
Eucrate crenata de Haan, 1835 1ERSSu
Gonioinfradens giardi (Nobili, 1905) 1 CIPS
Ixa monodi Holthuis & Gottlieb, 1956 1 1ERSSu
Leptochela pugnax de Man, 1916 1 1 ERSSu
Macrophthalmus indicus Davie, 2012 1 ERSSu
Matuta victor (Fabricius, 1781) 1 ERSSu
Metapenaeopsis aegyptia Galil & Golani, 1990 1 1 ERSSu
Metapenaeopsis mogiensis consobrina (Nobili, 1904) 1 ERSSu
Metapenaeus affinis (H. Milne Edwards, 1837) 1 ERSSu
Metapenaeus monoceros (Fabricius, 1798) 1111111InvRSSu
Metapenaeus stebbingi (Nobili, 1904) 1 InvRSSu
Micippa thalia (Herbst, 1803) 1 1 1 ERSSu
Myra subgranulata Kossmann, 1877 1111ERSSu
Palaemonella rotumana (Borradaile, 1898) 1 ERSSu
Penaeus aztecus Ives, 18911 1 EWAS
Penaeus hathor (Burkenroad, 1959) 1 1 1 InvRSSu
Penaeus pulchricaudatus Stebbing, 1914 (=P. japonicus) 1 1111111InvRSSu
Penaeus semisulcatus de Haan, 1844 1111InvRSSu
Percnon gibbesi (H. Milne Edwards, 1853) 1111 1 InvTAS
Pilumnus minutus De Haan,18351 1 ERSSu
Portunus segnis (Forskål, 1775) 1111 1InvRSSu
Processa macrodactyla Holthuis, 19521 1 ETAS
Thalamita poissonii (Audouin, 1826) 11 1 11ERSSu
Trachysalambria palaestinensis Steinitz, 1932 1111ERSSu
Urocaridella pulchella Yokes & Galil, 2006 1 1 ERSSu
Gastropoda
Diodora ruppellii (Sowerby I, G.B., 1835) 1ERSSu
Pseudominolia nedyma (Melville, 1897) 1ERSSu
Smaragdia souverbiana (Montrouzier in Souverbie & Montrouzier, 1863) 1 1ERSSu
Cerithidium perparvulum (Watson, R.B., 1886) 1EPOS
Cerithium scabridum Philippi, 18481 1 1 11InvRSSu
Rhinoclavis kochi (Philippi, 1848) 1ERSSu
Varicopeza pauxilla (A. Adams, 1855) 1ERSSu
Finella pupoides Adams, A., 1860 111 1InvRSSu
Metaxia bacillum (Issel, 1869) 1ERSSu
Viriola bayani Jousseaume, 1884 1 ERSSu
Cerithiopsis pulvis (Issel, 1869) 1 11ERSSu
Cerithiopsis tenthrenois (Melvill, 1896) 1ERSSu
Sticteulima lentiginosa (Adams, A., 1861) 11ERSSu
Rissoina ambigua (Gould, 1849) 1 CRSSu
Rissoina bertholleti Issel, 1869 1 1ERSSu
Conomurex persicus (Swainson, 1821) 1111111InvPGS
Purpuradusta gracilis notata (Gill, 1858) 1ERSSu
Ergalatax junionae Houart, 2008 1111 11ERSS
Zafra savignyi (Moazzo, 1939) 1 1ERSSu
Zafra selasphora (Melvill & Standen, 1901) 1 1ERSSu
Pyrgulina fischeri Hornung & Mermod, 1925 1ERSSu
Pyrgulina pupaeformis (Souverbie, 1865) 11111ERSSu
Pyrgulina nana Hornung & Mermod, 1924 1CRS?S
Pyrgulina pirinthella Melvill, 1910 1ERSSu
Cingulina isseli (Tryon, 1886) 1ERSSu
Monotygma fulva (Adams, A., 1853) 1ERSSu
Monotygma lauta (Adams, A., 1853) 1ERSSu
Odostomia lorioli (Hornung & Mermod, 1924) 1ERSSu
Oscilla galilae Bogi, Karhan & Yokeş, 2012 1CIP?S
Syrnola fasciata Jickeli, 1882 1 1 1InvRSSu
Syrnola lendix (Adams, A., 1853) 1EIOSu
Turbonilla edgarii (Melvill, 1896) 1ERSSu
Leucotina natalensis Smith, E.A., 1910 1ERSSu
Bulla arabica Malaquias & Reid, 2008 11ERS?Su
Pyrunculus fourierii (Audouin, 1826) 1 11InvRSSu
Retusa desgenettii (Audouin, 1826) 1 ERSSu
Lamprohaminoea cyanomarginata (Heller & Thompson, T.E., 1983) 1111 111 ERSSu
Biuve fulvipunctata (Baba, 1938) 11 ERSSu
Acteocina mucronata (Philippi, 1849) 1ERSSu
Mnestia girardi (Audouin, 1826) 1ERSSu
Oxynoe viridis (Pease, 1861) 111 EIPS
Elysia tomentosa Jensen, 1997 1 E?IPS
Bursatella leachii Blainville, 1817 1 1 ERS?Su
Syphonota geographica (Adams, A. & Reeve, 1850) 1 1 ERSSu
Goniobranchus annulatus (Eliot, 1904) 1 ERSSu
Hypselodoris infucata Rueppel & Leuckart, 1828 1 11ERSSu
Plocamopherus ocellatus Rüppell & Leuckart, 1828 1 ERSSu
Baeolidia moebii Bergh, 1888 11 CRSSu
Coryphellina rubrolineata O’Donoghue, 1929 11 111 ERSSu
Siphonaria crenata Blainville 1827 1ERSSu
Bivalvia
Brachidontes pharaonis (Fischer, P., 1870) 11111111InvRSSu
Clementia papyracea (Gmelin, 1791) 1ERSSu
Dendostrea folium (Linnaeus, 1758) 11 1 EIP?S
Ervilia scaliola Issel, 1869 1CRSSu
Fulvia fragilis (Forsskål in Niebuhr, 1775) 1 1InvRSSu
Isognomon legumen (Gmelin, 1791) 1 ERSSu
Magallana gigas (Thunberg, 1793) 1 EPOAq
Malleus regula (Forsskål in Niebuhr, 1775) 1 1 1 ERSSu
Pinctada imbricata radiata (Leach, 1814) 11111 11InvRSSu
Ruditapes philippinarum (Adams & Reeve, 1850)1 InvPOAq
Saccostrea cuccullata (Born, 1778) 1 EIPS
Septifer cumingii Récluz, 1849 1 1 ERSS
Teredothyra dominicensis (Bartsch, 1921) 1 EWAS
Cephalopoda
Sepioteuthis lessoniana d’Orbignyi, 1826 1 1 InvRSSu
Bryozoa
Amathia verticillata (delle Chiaje, 1822) 1 1 InvATS
Celleporaria brunnea (Hincks, 1884) 1 1 InvATS
Echinodermata
Ophiactis savignyi (Müller & Troschel, 1842) 1 ERSSu
Diadema setosum (Leske, 1778) 1111 1 InvRSSu
Synaptula reciprocans (Forrskål, 1775) 1111111InvRSSu
Tunicata
Ascidiella aspersa (Müller, 1776) 1 ENAS
Clavelina oblonga Herdman, 1880 1 EWAS
Diplosoma listerianum (Milne Edwards, 1841) 1 1 E?ATS
Microcosmus exasperatus Heller, 1878 1 1 ERSSu
Phallusia nigra Savignyi, 1816 1111InvWA?S
Pyura (=Herdmania) momus (Savigny, 1816) 1111 ERSSu
Rhodosoma turcicum (Savigny, 1816) 1 ECTS
Styela plicata (Lesueur, 1823) 1 1 1 Inv?ATS
Symplegma brakenhielmi (Michaelsen, 1904) 1 InvRSSu
Actinopterygii
Acanthopagrus bifasciatus (Forsskål, 1775) 1 CRSSu
Alepes djedaba (Forsskål, 1775) 1111111InvRSSu
Apogonichthyoides pharaonis (Bellotti, 1874) 1111111ERSSu
Atherinomorus forskalii (Rüppell, 1838) 1111111InvRSSu
Bregmaceros nectabanus Whitley, 1941 111111111ERSSu
Callionymus filamentosus Valenciennes, 1837 11111ERSSu
Champsodon nudivittis (Ogilby, 1895) 11 1111111InvRSSu
Cheilodipterus novemstriatus (Rüppell, 1838) 11ERSSu
Cynoglossus sinusarabici (Chabanaud, 1913) 1 1ERSSu
Diplogrammus randalli Fricke, 1983 1 CRSSu
Dussumieria elopsoides Bleeker, 1849 1InvRSSu
Equulites klunzingeri (Steindachner, 1898) 1111111InvRSSu
Equulites popei (Whitley, 1932) 1InvRSSu
Etrumeus golanii DiBatistta, Randall and Bowen, 2012 1 1111111InvRSSu
Fistularia commersonii (Rüppell, 1835) 1111111InvRSSu
Fistularia petimba Lacepède, 1803 1111111InvRSSu
Hazeus ingressus Engin, Larson, Irmak, 2018 1 CRSSu
Hemiramphus far (Forsskål, 1775) 111111111ERSSu
Herklotsichthys punctatus (Rüppell, 1837) 1ERSSu
Jaydia queketti (Gilchrist, 1903) 1111111ERSSu
Jaydia smithi Kotthaus, 1970 1ERSSu
Lagocephalus guentheri (Richardson, 1844) 1111111InvRSSu
Lagocephalus sceleratus (Gmelin, 1789)11111111111InvRSSu
Lagocephalus suezensis Clark & Gohar, 1953 1111111InvRSSu
Liza carinata (Valenciennes, 1836) 1ERSSu
Nemipterus randalli Russell, 1986 1111111InvRSSu
Ostorhinchus fasciatus (White, 1790) 1111111ERSSu
Oxyurichthys petersi (Klunzinger, 1871) 1111111ERSSu
Paranthias furcifer (Valenciennes, 1828) 1 CAT?
Parexocoetus mento (Valenciennes, 1846) 1111111ERSSu
Parupeneus forskalli (Fourmanoir & Guézé, 1976) 1111111InvRSSu
Pelates quadrilineatus (Bloch, 1790) 1ERSSu
Pempheris rhomboidea Kossmann & Räuber, 1877 1111111ERSSu
Petroscirtes ancylodon Rüppell, 1838 1 ERSSu
Planiliza haematocheilus (Temminck & Schlegel, 1845)111 InvPOAq
Pomadasys stridens (Forsskål, 1775) 1ERSSu
Priacanthus sagittarius Starnes, 1988 1CRSSu
Pteragogus trispilus Randall, 2013 1111111ERSSu
Pterois miles (Bennett, 1828) 11111111InvRSSu
Sargocentron rubrum (Forsskål, 1775) 1111111ERSSu
Saurida lessepsianus (Russell, Golani and Tikochinski, 2015) 1111111InvRSSu
Scarus ghobban Forsskål, 1775 1 CRSSu
Scomberomorus commerson Lacepède, 1800 1111111ERSSu
Siganus luridus (Rüppell, 1829) 1111111111InvRSSu
Siganus rivulatus Forsskål, 177511111111111InvRSSu
Sillago suezensis Golani, Fricke and Tikochinski, 2014 1 1ERSSu
Sphyraena chrysotaenia Klunzinger, 1884 111111111InvRSSu
Sphyraena flavicauda Rüppell, 1838 11111InvRSSu
Stephanolepis diaspros Fraser-Brunner, 1940 1111111ERSSu
Synchiropus sechellensis Regan, 1908 1 ERSSu
Torquigener flavimaculosus Hardy & Randall, 1983 1111111InvRSSu
Tylerius spinosissimus (Regan, 1908) 1CRSSu
Upeneus moluccensis (Bleeker, 1855) 111111111InvRSSu
Upeneus pori Ben-Tuvia & Golani, 1989 1111111InvRSSu
Vanderhorstia mertensi Klausewitz, 1974 1111111ERSSu

References

  1. Meola, B.; Webster, C. The 2016 Status of Marine Protected Areas in the Mediterranean; MedPAN & RAC/SPA: Tunis, Tunisia, 2019; p. 222. [Google Scholar]
  2. Gabrié, C.; Lagabrielle, E.; Bissery, C.; Crochelet, E.; Meola, B.; Webster, C.; Claudet, J.; Chassanite, A.; Marinesque, S.; Robert, P. The Status of Marine Protected Areas in the Mediterranean Sea 2012; MedPAN & RAC/SPA: Marseille, France, 2012; p. 257. [Google Scholar]
  3. Gownaris, N.J.; Santora, C.M.; Davis, J.B.; Pikitch, E.K. Gaps in protection of important ocean areas: A spatial meta-analysis of ten global mapping initiatives. Front. Mar. Sci. 2019, 6, 1–15. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  4. Kelleher, G. Guidelines for Marine Protected Areas; IUCN: Gland, Switzerland; Cambridge, UK, 1999; p. 107. [Google Scholar]
  5. Rodríguez-Rodríguez, D.; Merkohasanaj, M.; Lopez, I. Social and economic sustainability of multiple-use marine protected areas in Spain: A mixed methods, multi-scale study. Ocean Coast. Manag. 2019, 171, 47–55. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. Sala, E.; Giakoumi, S. No-take marine reserves are the most effective protected areas in the ocean. Ices J. Mar. Sci. 2018, 75, 1166–1168. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  7. MedPAN; UNEP/MAP-RAC/SPA. The 2016 Status of Marine Protected Areas in the Mediterranean Main Findings; MedPAN & RAC/SPA: Marseille, France, 2016; p. 16. [Google Scholar]
  8. Gomei, M.; Abdulla, A.; Schröder, C.; Yadav, S.; Sánchez, A.; Rodríguez, D.; Abdul Malak, D. Towards 2020: How Mediterranean Countries Are Performing to Protect Their Sea; WWF: Malaga, Spain, 2019; p. 38. [Google Scholar]
  9. Bruno, J.F.; Bates, A.E.; Cacciapaglia, C.; Pike, E.P.; Amstrup, S.C.; van Hooidonk, R.; Henson, S.A.; Aronson, R.B. Climate change threatens the world's marine protected areas. Nat. Clim. Chang. 2018, 8, 499–503. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Galil, B. Eyes wide shut: Managing bio-invasions in Mediterranean marine protected areas. In Management of Marine Protected Areas: A Network Perspective; Goriup, P.D., Ed.; John Wiley & Sons Ltd: Oxford, UK, 2017; pp. 187–206. [Google Scholar]
  11. Katsanevakis, S.; Coll, M.; Piroddi, C.; Steenbeek, J.; Lasram, F.B.; Zenetos, A.; Cardoso, A.C. Invading the Mediterranean Sea: Biodiversity patterns shaped by human activities. Front. Mar. Sci. 2014, 1, 1–11. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  12. Çinar, M.E.; Bilecenoglu, M.; Yokes, M.B.; Ozturk, B.; Taskin, E.; Bakir, K.; Dogan, A.; Acik, S. Current status (as of end of 2020) of marine alien species in Turkey. PLoS ONE 2021, 16, e0251086. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Coll, M.; Piroddi, C.; Steenbeek, J.; Kaschner, K.; Lasram, F.B.; Aguzzi, J.; Ballesteros, E.; Bianchi, C.N.; Corbera, J.; Dailianis, T.; et al. The biodiversity of the Mediterranean Sea: Estimates, patterns, and threats. PLoS ONE 2010, 5, e11842. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  14. Mannino, A.M.; Parasporo, M.; Crocetta, F.; Balistreri, P. An updated overview of the marine alien and cryptogenic species from the Egadi Islands Marine Protected Area (Italy). Mar. Biodivers. 2017, 47, 469–480. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Monaco, A.; Genovesi, P. European Guidelines on Protected Areas and Invasive Alien Species; Council of Europe and Regional Parks Agency: Rome, Italy, 2014; p. 60. [Google Scholar]
  16. Burfeind, D.D.; Pitt, K.A.; Connolly, R.M.; Byers, J.E. Performance of non-native species within marine reserves. Biol. Invasions 2013, 15, 17–28. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. D'Amen, M.; Azzurro, E. Lessepsian fish invasion in Mediterranean marine protected areas: A risk assessment under climate change scenarios. Ices J. Mar. Sci. 2020, 77, 388–397. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Mazaris, A.D.; Katsanevakis, S. The threat of biological invasions is under-represented in the marine protected areas of the European Natura 2000 network. Biol. Conserv. 2018, 225, 208–212. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Belle, E.; Kingston, N.; Burgess, N.; Sandwith, T.; Ali, N.; MacKinnon, K. Protected Planet Report 2018, Tracking Progress towards Global Targets for Protected Areas; UNEP-WCMC, IUCN & NGS: Cambridge, UK; Gland, Switzerland; Washington, DC, USA, 2018; p. 70. [Google Scholar]
  20. Okus, E.; Sur, H.; Yuksek, A.; Yilmaz, I.; Aslan-Yilmaz, A.; Karhan, S.; Oz, M.; Demirel, N.; Tas, S.; Altiok, A. Datça-Bozburun özel Çevre Koruma Bölgesinin Denizsel ve Kıyısal Alanlarının Biyolojik Çeşitliliğinin Tespiti Final Raporu; T.C. Çevre ve Orman Bakanlığı Özel Çevre Koruma Kurumu Başkanlığı: Ankara, Turkey, 2004; p. 291. (In Turkish) [Google Scholar]
  21. Okus, E.; Yüksek, A.; Yokes, M.B.; Yilmaz, I.N.; Aslan-Yilmaz, A.; Karhan, S.U.; Demirel, N.; Demir, V.; Zeki, S.; Tas, S.; et al. Gökova Özel Çevre Koruma Bölgesinin kıyı ve deniz Alanlarının Biyolojik Çeşitliliginin Tespiti Projesi Final Raporu; T.C. Çevre ve Orman Bakanlığı Özel Çevre Koruma Kurulu Başkanlığı: Ankara, Turkey, 2006; p. 352. [Google Scholar]
  22. Çinar, M.E.; Kocatas, A.; Katagan, T.; Yilmaz, A.; Onen, M.; Tarkan, A.N.; Yalciner, A.C.; Oztürk, B.; Bilecenoglu, M.; Düzgün, Ş.; et al. Fethiye Göcek özel Çevre Koruma Bölgesi Kiyi ve Deniz Alanlarinin Biyolojik Çeşitlilik Tespiti Projesi Final Raporu; T.C. Çevre ve Orman Bakanligi Özel Çevre Koruma Kurumu Başkanliği: Ankara, Turkey, 2010; p. 299. [Google Scholar]
  23. UNEP-MAP. Action Plan Concerning Species Introductions and Invasive Species in the Mediterranean Sea; UN Environment/MAP: Athens, Greece, 2017; p. 14. [Google Scholar]
  24. MoAF. National Biodiversity Action Plan 2018-2028; Republic of Turkey, Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry (MoAF), General Directorate of Nature Conservation and National Parks: Ankara, Turkey, 2019; p. 118.
  25. Marchini, A.; Galil, B.S.; Occhipinti-Ambrogi, A. Recommendations on standardizing lists of marine alien species: Lessons from the Mediterranean Sea. Mar. Pollut. Bull. 2015, 101, 267–273. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  26. Latombe, G.; Pysek, P.; Jeschke, J.M.; Blackburn, T.M.; Bacher, S.; Capinha, C.; Costello, M.J.; Fernandez, M.; Gregory, R.D.; Hobern, D.; et al. A vision for global monitoring of biological invasions. Biol. Conserv. 2017, 213, 295–308. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. Vanderhoeven, S.; Adriaens, T.; Desmet, P.; Strubbe, D.; Backeljau, T.; Barbier, Y.; Brosens, D.; Cigar, J.; Coupremanne, M.; De Troch, R.; et al. Tracking Invasive Alien Species (TrIAS): Building a data-driven framework to inform policy. Res. Ideas Outcomes 2017, 3, e13414. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  28. Zenetos, A.; Galanidi, M. Mediterranean non indigenous species at the start of the 2020s: Recent changes. Mar. Biodivers. Rec. 2020, 13, 1–17. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Çinar, M.E.; Bilecenoglu, M. Preface-special issue on: Marine animal diversity of Turkey. Turk. J. Zool 2014, 38, i–ii. [Google Scholar]
  30. Bizsel, K.C.; Kozludere, S.; Besiktepe, S.; Bizsel, N.; Sayin, E.; Yüksek, A.; Kaboglu, G.; Akçali, B.; Yilmaz, E.C.; Kavcioglu, R.; et al. Köyceğiz-Dalyan özel Çevre Koruma Bölgesi Deniz ve kıyı Alanlarında Biyolojik Çeşitliliğin Tespiti Projesi Sonuç Raporu; T.C. Çevre ve Orman Bakanlığı Özel Çevre Koruma Kurumu Başkanlığı: Ankara, Turkey, 2010; p. 206. [Google Scholar]
  31. SualtiArastirmalariDernegi. Foça özel Çevre Koruma Bölgesi kıyı Alanları Taşıma Kapasitesinin Belirlenmesi Projesi; T.C. Çevre ve Orman Bakanlığı Özel Çevre Koruma Kurumu Başkanlığı: Ankara, Turkey, 2008; p. 528. [Google Scholar]
  32. Tural, U. MedPAN South Turkey Pilot Project, Developing a Management Plan for Kaş-Kekova Specially Protected Area (Spa); WWF MedPO: İstanbul, Turkey, 2012; p. 20. [Google Scholar]
  33. Yigit, N.; Albay, M.; Altinagaç, U.; Okudan Aslan, E.S.; Cevik, C.; Muftuoglu, E.; Balkis, N.; Topçu, N.E.; Kuyucuoglu, B.; Dalyan, C.; et al. Saros Körfezi Özel Çevre Koruma Bölgesi Karasal ve Denizel Biyolojik Çeşitliliğin Tespiti Projesi; T.C. Çevre ve Şehircilik Bakanlığı Tabiat Varlıklarını Koruma Genel Müdürlüğü: Ankara, Turkey, 2014; p. 427. [Google Scholar]
  34. Clarke, K.R.; Warwick, R.M. Change in Marine Communities: An Approach to Statistical Analysis and Interpretation; Natural Environment Research Council: Swindon, UK, 1994.
  35. Çinar, M.E.; Bilecenoglu, M.; Ozturk, B.; Katagan, T.; Yokes, M.B.; Aysel, V.; Dagli, E.; Acik, S.; Ozcan, T.; Erdogan, H. An updated review of alien species on the coasts of Turkey. Mediterr. Mar. Sci. 2011, 12, 257–315. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  36. Olden, J.D.; Comte, L.; Giam, X. Biotic homogenisation. In eLS; John Wiley & Sons, Ltd: Chichester, UK, 2016; pp. 1–8. [Google Scholar]
  37. Galil, B.S.; Mienis, H.K.; Hoffman, R.; Goren, M. Non-indigenous species along the Israeli Mediterranean coast: Tally, policy, outlook. Hydrobiologia 2021, 848, 2011–2029. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. Servello, G.; Andaloro, F.; Azzurro, E.; Castriota, L.; Catra, M.; Chiarore, A.; Crocetta, F.; D’alessandro, M.; Denitto, F.; Froglia, C.; et al. Marine alien species in Italy: A contribution to the implementation of descriptor D2 of the marine strategy framework directive. Mediterr. Mar. Sci. 2019, 20, 1–48. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  39. Zenetos, A.; Corsini-Foka, M.; Crocetta, F.; Gerovasileiou, V.; Karachle, P.K.; Simboura, N.; Tsiamis, K.; Pancucci-Papadopoulou, M.-A. Deep cleaning of alien and cryptogenic species records in the Greek Seas (2018 update). Manag. Biol. Invasions 2018, 9, 209–226. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  40. Ounifi-Ben Amor, K.; Rifi, Μ.; Ghanem, R.; Draeif, I.; Zaouali, J.; Ben Souissi, J. Update of alien fauna and new records from Tunisian marine waters. Mediterr. Mar. Sci. 2016, 17, 124–143. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. Shakman, E.; Eteayb, K.; Taboni, I.; Ben Abdalla, A. Status of marine alien species along the Libyan coast. J. Black Sea/Mediterr. Environ. 2019, 25, 188–209. [Google Scholar]
  42. Otero, M.; Cebrian, E.; Francour, P.; Galil, B.; Savini, D. Monitoring Marine Invasive Species in Mediterranean Marine Protected Areas (Mpas), A Strategy and Practical Guide for Managers; IUCN: Malaga, Spain, 2013; p. 136. [Google Scholar]
  43. Giakoumi, S.; Pey, A. Assessing the Effects of Marine Protected Areas on Biological Invasions: A Global Review. Front. Mar. Sci. 2017, 4, 1–6. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  44. Reise, K.; Olenin, S.; Thieltges, D.W. Are aliens threatening European aquatic coastal ecosystems? Helgol. Mar. Res. 2006, 60, 77–83. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  45. Huseyinoglu, M.F.; Demir, V.; Arda, Y.; Draman, M.; Yokes, M.B. Spatio-temporal distribution of lionfish, Pterois miles (Bennett, 1828) in Kas-Kekova Special Environmental Protected Area, Turkey. Estuar. Coast. Shelf Sci. 2021, 254, 107331. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  46. Giakoumi, S.; Guilhaumon, F.; Kark, S.; Terlizzi, A.; Claudet, J.; Felline, S.; Cerrano, C.; Coll, M.; Danovaro, R.; Fraschetti, S.; et al. Space invaders; biological invasions in marine conservation planning. Divers. Distrib. 2016, 22, 1220–1231. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  47. Giakoumi, S.; Katsanevakis, S.; Albano, P.G.; Azzurro, E.; Cardoso, A.C.; Cebrian, E.; Deiduni, A.; Edelist, D.; Francour, P.; Jimenez, C.; et al. Management priorities for marine invasive species. Sci. Total Environ. 2019, 688, 976–982. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  48. Guidetti, P.; Baiata, P.; Ballesteros, E.; Di Franco, A.; Hereu, B.; Macpherson, E.; Micheli, F.; Pais, A.; Panzalis, P.; Rosenberg, A.A. Large-scale assessment of Mediterranean marine protected areas effects on fish assemblages. PLoS ONE 2014, 9, e91841. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  49. Mannino, A.M.; Balistreri, P. Invasive alien species in Mediterranean Marine Protected Areas: The Egadi Islands (Italy) case study. Biodiversity 2021, 22, 13–23. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Figure 1. Geographical location of the studied MPAs (description of numerals as in Table 1).
Figure 1. Geographical location of the studied MPAs (description of numerals as in Table 1).
Jmse 09 01077 g001
Figure 2. Group average sorting dendrogram of Turkish MPAs based on binary data (presence and absence) of alien taxa.
Figure 2. Group average sorting dendrogram of Turkish MPAs based on binary data (presence and absence) of alien taxa.
Jmse 09 01077 g002
Figure 3. Establishment success of alien taxa in MPAs.
Figure 3. Establishment success of alien taxa in MPAs.
Jmse 09 01077 g003
Figure 4. Origins of alien taxa in MPAs. For ease of interpretation, low contributing origins were grouped: red group, RS: Red Sea; black group, PG: Persian Gulf, IO: Indian Ocean, IP: Indo-Pacific, PO: Pacific Ocean; blue group, AT: Atlantic, TA: Tropical Atlantic, NA: North Atlantic, WA: Western Atlantic; yellow group (others), ST: Subtropical Atlantic/Pacific, CT: Circumtropical; grey group, species with currently unknown origin).
Figure 4. Origins of alien taxa in MPAs. For ease of interpretation, low contributing origins were grouped: red group, RS: Red Sea; black group, PG: Persian Gulf, IO: Indian Ocean, IP: Indo-Pacific, PO: Pacific Ocean; blue group, AT: Atlantic, TA: Tropical Atlantic, NA: North Atlantic, WA: Western Atlantic; yellow group (others), ST: Subtropical Atlantic/Pacific, CT: Circumtropical; grey group, species with currently unknown origin).
Jmse 09 01077 g004
Figure 5. Pathways of the introduction of alien taxa in MPAs.
Figure 5. Pathways of the introduction of alien taxa in MPAs.
Jmse 09 01077 g005
Table 1. General information on studied MPAs of Turkey (NP: national park, SEPA: special environmental protection area).
Table 1. General information on studied MPAs of Turkey (NP: national park, SEPA: special environmental protection area).
MPA NameProtection StatusYear FoundedSurface Area (km2)Marine Coverage (km2)Coastal Length (km)
Aegean Sea
  1. Saros BaySEPA201073053862
  2. Ayvalik Islands NP1995180142110
  3. FoçaSEPA1990715228
  4. Karaburun-Ildır BaySEPA2019947502127
  5. Gökova BaySEPA19881093820193
  6. Datça-Bozburun PeninsulaSEPA19901444737417
  7. Köyceğiz-DalyanSEPA19884614126
Levantine Sea
  8. Fethiye-Göcek BaySEPA1988805339196
  9. PataraSEPA19901974523
  10. Kaş-KekovaSEPA199025815881
  11. Göksu DeltaSEPA19902299835
Table 2. Percentage distribution of alien species phyla in Turkish MPAs.
Table 2. Percentage distribution of alien species phyla in Turkish MPAs.
PhylaSarosAyvalıkFoçaKaraburunGökovaDatçaKöyceğizFethiyePataraKaşGöksu
Ochrophyta11.120.03.18.22.32.8 2.03.22.12.2
Chlorophyta7.48.66.34.12.31.91.42.04.32.11.4
Rhodophyta14.811.46.312.35.84.7 5.38.65.65.1
Tracheophyta 2.93.11.41.20.91.40.71.10.7
Foraminifera18.517.1 19.21.212.3 1.314.015.3
Cnidaria 2.34.74.32.0 0.70.7
Ctenophora3.7 1.2 0.7 0.7
Sipuncula 3.11.41.20.9 0.7
Annelida7.420.034.419.214.012.314.518.08.613.212.3
Arthropoda18.55.73.112.317.410.410.116.710.813.912.3
Mollusca7.4 3.16.89.312.313.016.78.616.030.4
Bryozoa 2.7 1.3
Echinodermata 2.31.92.92.01.11.40.7
Tunicata 6.3 2.81.45.32.21.40.7
Chordata11.114.331.312.339.532.150.725.337.627.134.1
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Bilecenoğlu, M.; Çınar, M.E. Alien Species Threat across Marine Protected Areas of Turkey—An Updated Inventory. J. Mar. Sci. Eng. 2021, 9, 1077. https://doi.org/10.3390/jmse9101077

AMA Style

Bilecenoğlu M, Çınar ME. Alien Species Threat across Marine Protected Areas of Turkey—An Updated Inventory. Journal of Marine Science and Engineering. 2021; 9(10):1077. https://doi.org/10.3390/jmse9101077

Chicago/Turabian Style

Bilecenoğlu, Murat, and Melih Ertan Çınar. 2021. "Alien Species Threat across Marine Protected Areas of Turkey—An Updated Inventory" Journal of Marine Science and Engineering 9, no. 10: 1077. https://doi.org/10.3390/jmse9101077

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop