Ichthyofauna of the rio Grande, Paraná river system, at the Funil dam area, MG, Brazil
Breno P. NOGUEIRA*; Marcelo F. G. BRITO**; Ricardo CAMPOS-DA-PAZ*** & Gabriel A. PEREIRA*
* SETE Soluções e Tecnologia Ambiental - E-mail: [email protected]; [email protected]
** Biologist - E-mail: [email protected]
*** Departamento de Zoologia - UFRJ - E-mail: [email protected]
Table 1. Species recorded at the rio Grande basin, UHE Funil area.
INTRODUCTION
Brazilian economic and social development during the last decade has resulted in a
growing need for energy. One outcome of this situation has been the presentation of a
number of projects establishing new dams in rivers all around the country, including some at
the Paraná river system in southeastern Brazil. Establishment of dams invariably results in
negative impacts over the ichthyofauna as a whole, with the “new” system just created often
consisting of less diverse assemblages than the original one. The present study was mainly
developed around the Usina Hidrelétrica (UHE) Funil (the “Funil dam”) area, the most recent
relevant barrier established in the rio Grande basin (Figure 1). Objectives of this contribution
are centered on the production of data for implementing conservative efforts regarding the
ichthyofauna occuring in that area.
Figure 1. The old Funil bridge at the rio Grande (Lavras/Perdões municipalities), upper rio Paraná system,
Minas Gerais State, Brazil. After establishment of the Funil dam, that bridge is currently submerged.
MATERIALS AND METHODS / RESULTS
Collections of fishes were made bimonthly between November/2000 and
October/2001, representing a total of six field trips, and also encompassing the Cervo,
Capivari, Ingaí, Jacaré, Verde e das Mortes rivers, all at the rio Grande basin (between the
Furnas reservoir and the Itutinga dam at the rio Grande basin). During that period, 60 species
were recorded (54% Characiformes; 30% Siluriformes; 5% Perciformes and Gymnotiformes;
4% Cyprinodontiformes; and 2% Cypriniformes) (Table 1). Three species are exotic (namely,
Oreochromis cf. niloticus, Poecilia reticulata e Aristichthys cf. nobilis) and a hybrid was also
noticed (Pseudoplatystoma sp.). Most abundant species noticed during the study were,
repectively, Galeocharax knerii, Astyanax cf. fasciatus, Cyphocharax nagelii, Steindachnerina
insculpta and Astyanax altiparanae (Figure 2). Concerning biomass, most representative
values were observed for G. knerii, Salminus maxillosus, A. cf. fasciatus, Schizodon nasutus
and C. nagelii (Figure 3).
E s p é c ie
E s p é c ie
A p a r e io d o n ib it ie n s is
A p a r e io d o n ib it ie n s is
G e o p h a g u s b r a s ilie n s is
C a llic h t h y s c f . c a llic h t h y s
L e p o r in u s a m b ly r h y n c h u s
G e o p h a g u s b r a s ilie n s is
C a llic h t h y s c f . c a llic h t h y s
O r e o c h r o m is s p .
E ig e n m a n n ia c f . v ir e s c e n s
L e p o r in u s a m b ly r h y n c h u s
L e p o r in u s e lo n g a t u s
P r o c h ilo d u s lin e a t u s
L e p o r in u s o b t u s id e n s
E ig e n m a n n ia c f . v ir e s c e n s
L e p o r in u s s t r ia t u s
H o p lia s c f . la c e r d a e
L e p o r e llu s v it a t t u s
O r e o c h r o m is s p .
G ym n o tu s s p .
G ym n o tu s s p .
L e p o r in u s o c t o f a s c ia t u s
H y p o s t o m u s v a r iip ic t u s
L e p o r in u s s t r ia t u s
A p a r e io d o n p ir a c ic a b a e
H o p lia s c f . m a la b a r ic u s
L e p o r in u s o c t o f a s c ia t u s
Ih e r in g ic h t h y s c f . la b r o s u s
L e p o r e llu s v it a t t u s
A p a r e io d o n p ir a c ic a b a e
Ih e r in g ic h t h y s c f . la b r o s u s
S a lm in u s h ila r ii
P r o c h ilo d u s lin e a t u s
H y p o s t o m u s v a r iip ic t u s
H yp o s to m u s s p .
S a lm in u s m a x illo s u s
A s t y a n a x a lt ip a r a n a e
H yp o s to m u s s p .
P im e lo d u s c f . m a c u la t u s
P im e lo d u s c f . m a c u la t u s
H o p lia s c f . m a la b a r ic u s
S c h iz o d o n n a s u t u s
S t e in d a c h n e r in a in s c u lp t a
H yp o s to m u s re g a n i
Anostomidae
Leporellus vittatus (Valenciennes, 1849) – “timburé”
Leporinus amblyrhynchus Garavello & Britski, 1987 – “piau”
Leporinus elongatus Valenciennes, 1850 – “piau-amarelo”
Leporinus obtusidens Valenciennes, 1847 – “piau”
Leporinus octofasciatus Steindachner, 1917 - “piau-vermelho”, “flamenguinho”
Leporinus striatus Kner, 1859 – “canivete”, “piau”
Schizodon nasutus Kner, 1858 – “piau-campineiro”
Characidae
Cheirodontinae
Cheirodontinae sp. 1 – “pequira”
Cheirodontinae sp. 2 – “pequira”
Cynopotaminae
Galeocharax knerii (Steindachner, 1878) – “saricanga”
Salmininae
Salminus hilarii Valenciennes, 1850 – “tabarana”
Salminus maxillosus Valenciennes, 1850 – “dourado”
Briconinae
Brycon orbignyanus (Valenciennes, 1850) – “piracanjuba”
Tetragonopterinae
Astyanax altiparanae Garutti & Britski, 2000 – “lambari-de-rabo-amarelo”
Astyanax cf. fasciatus (Cuvier, 1819) – “lambar-de-rabo-vermelhoi”
Astyanax cf. scabripinnis (Jenyns, 1842) - “lambari”
Astyanax schubarti Britski, 1964 – “lambari”
Bryconamericus stramineus Eigenmann, 1908 - “pequira”
Bryconamericus sp.
Hyphessobrycon bifasciatus Ellis, 1911 – (unnamed)
Oligosarcus cf. pintoi Campos, 1945 – “lambari-dentudo”
Piabina argentea Reinhardt, 1867 – “pequira”
Crenuchidae
Characidium cf. gomesi Travassos, 1956 - “canivete”
Characidium cf. zebra Eigenmann, 1909 – “canivete”
Curimatidae
Cyphocharax nagelii (Steindachner, 1881) – “sardinha”
Steindachnerina insculpta (Fernández-Yépez, 1948) – “sardinha”
Eryhtrinidae
Hoplias cf. malabaricus (Bloch, 1784) – “traíra”
Hoplias cf. lacerdae Ribeiro, 1908 – “traíra-de-açude”
Parodontidae
Apareiodon ibitiensis Campos, 1944 – “canivete”
Apareiodon piracicabae (Eigenmann, 1907) – “canivete”
Parodon nasus Kner, 1859 – “canivete”
Prochilodontidae
Prochilodus lineatus (Valenciennes, 1836) – “curimba”, “curimbatá”
Siluriformes
Callichthyidae
Callichthyinae
Callichthys cf. callichthys (Linnaeus, 1758) – “tamboatá”
Heptapteridae
Imparfinis sp. - “bagrinho”
Heptapteridae sp. – “bagrinho”
Loricariidae
Hypostominae
Hypostomus regani (Ihering, 1905) - “cascudo”
Hypostomus variipictus (Ihering, 1911) - “cascudo”
Hypostomus sp. - “cascudo”
Pareiorhina cf. rudolphi (Miranda Ribeiro, 1911) - “cascudo”
Neoplecostominae
Neoplecostomus paranensis Langeani, 1990 – “cascudinho”
Pimelodidae
Pimelodinae
Iheringichthys cf. labrosus (Lütken, 1874) – “mandi-beiçudo”
Pimelodus cf. maculatus Lacépède, 1803 – “mandi”
Pimelodus cf. fur (Lütken, 1874) – “mandi”
Rhamdia cf. quelen (Quoy & Gaimard, 1824) - “bagre”
Pseudoplatystoma sp. – “cachara” (hybrid)
Pseudopimelodinae
“Pseudopimelodus” pulcher (Boulenger, 1887) – “bagre”
Zungaro zungaro (Humboldt, 1821) – “jaú”
Trichomycteridae
Trichomycterinae
Trichomycterus cf. reinhardti (Eigenmann, 1917) – “cambeva”
Trichomycterus sp. 1 (“grupo brasilensis”) – “cambeva”
Trichomycterus sp. 2 (“grupo brasilensis”) – “cambeva”
Vandeliinae
Paravandellia cf. oxyptera Ribeiro, 1912 – (unnamed)
Gymnotiformes
Gymnotidae
Gymnotus sp. – “sarapó”
Sternopygidae
Eigenmannia cf. virescens (Valenciennes, 1836) – “sarapó”
Apteronotidae
Apteronotus brasiliensis (Reinhardt,1852) – “ituí, sarapó”
Cyprinodontiformes
Poeciliidae
Poeciliinae
Phalloceros caudimaculatus (Hensel, 1868) – “barrigudinho”
Poecilia reticulata Peters, 1860 – “barrigudinho”
Perciformes
Cichlidae
H yp o s to m u s re g a n i
L e p o r in u s e lo n g a t u s
Characiformes
Cichlasomatinae
Cichlasoma cf. paranaense Kullander, 1983 – “cará”
Geophaginae
Geophagus brasiliensis (Quoy & Gaimard, 1824) – “cará”
Pseudocrenilabrinae
Oreochromis cf. niloticus (Linnaeus, 1758) – “tilápia”
H o p lia s c f . la c e r d a e
L e p o r in u s o b t u s id e n s
S a lm in u s h ila r ii
A s t y a n a x a lt ip a r a n a e
C y p h o c h a r a x n a g e lii
S t e in d a c h n e r in a in s c u lp t a
S c h iz o d o n n a s u t u s
C y p h o c h a r a x n a g e lii
A s t y a n a x c f . f a s c ia t u s
A s t y a n a x c f . f a s c ia t u s
Cipriniformes
Cyprinidae
S a lm in u s m a x illo s u s
G a le o c h a r a x k n e r ii
G a le o c h a r a x k n e r ii
0
2
4
6
8
10
2
C P U E ( in d ./1 0 0 m )
Figure 2. Catch Per Unit Effort (CPUE) in number/species
at the rio Grande basin (MG, Brazil).
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
700
Aristichthys cf. nobilis (Richardson, 1845) –”carpa-cabeçuda”
C P U E ( g /1 0 0 m 2 )
Figure 3. Catch Per Unit Effort (CPUE) in
biomass/species at the rio Grande basin (MG, Brazil).
According to CPUE graphs above, it can be noticed that most fishes collected were of
small to medium size. Members of some species attaining to larger sizes were also
sometimes relevant during the collections as, for instance, the piau (L. obtusidens), the piauamarelo (L. elongatus) and the dourado (S. maxillosus), which are all appreciated at the
study area as food items and also for sportive fishing.
A list exhibiting all species recorded during qualitative and quantitative sample efforts is
presented below ( Table 1).
Given the complexity of the ecossistems and environments in the
rio Grande basin area, and the current status of taxonomic knowledge
regarding the Neotropical ichthyofauna as a whole, we expect new
records and corrections to be added to the present list in the future.
Financial support: