Check List 5(2): 273-280, 2009. ISSN: 1809-127X

LISTS OF SPECIES

Fish, Maringa Urban Streams, Pirapo river drainage, upper Parana river basin, Parana State, Brazil

Almir Manoel Cunico ' Weferson Junio da Graca ' Angelo Antonio Agostinho "7 Wladimir Marques Domingues * Joao Dirco Latini *

' Universidade Estadual de Maringa, Programa de Pés-Graduacdo em Ecologia de Ambientes Aqudaticos Continentais. Avenida Colombo 5790. CEP 87020-900. Maringa, Parana, Brazil.E-mail: almircunico@gmail.com

* Universidade Estadual de Maringa, Nucleo de Pesquisas em Limnologia, Ictiologia e Aquicultura. Avenida Colombo 5790. CEP 87020-900. Maringda, Parana, Brazil.

Abstract

The metropolitan area of Maringa, Parana state (southeastern Brazil), has many small headwater streams that are affected by urban development. Checklists of fish species in these sites are important tools to learn about the biodiversity of impacted environments. Samples were taken every two months from July 2007 to June 2008 in three different sites along 10 small headwater streams in Maringa city within a gradient of urbanization. A total of 38 fish species ascribed to six orders, 12 families, and 27 genera were collected, including six non-native species, and 14 that

are probably new species.

Introduction

The Pirapo river drainage is located in the upper drainage basin of the Parana River and has an area of 5076 Km’, into the third plateau of Paranean state (22°30' S/ 51°15' W; 23°30' S/ 52°15' W) (Maack 1968). The landscape of the drainage basin is a mosaic of agricultural and urban lands, especially in the metropolitan area of Maringa. Maringa city is an important agro-industrial center of the region, and the third most populous city of Parana state with 325,968 inhabitants (IBGE 2007). Many small headwater streams (1°, 2"¢ and 3" order, sensu Strahler 1957) sprout within the urban perimeter and are affected by urbanization, which in turn affects physical, chemical, and biological characteristics of these environments. The features of an urban stream include a flashier hydrography, high nutrient and contaminant concentrations, altered channel morphology and stability, reduced biotic richness, and dominance of tolerant species (Paul and Meyer 2001, Meyer et al. 2005). In order to understand the environmental changes caused by urban development, the research center “Nucleo de Pesquisas em _ Limnologia, Ictiologia e Aquicultura’ (Nupélia), Universidade Estadual de Maringa (UEM), carried out several fish

samplings in the region throughout one year. Changes in fish assemblage structure in response to urbanization have been less studied compared to other stream biota, particularly invertebrates (Paul and Meyer 2001). The lack of information on fish assemblage structure in urban streams hinders our understanding about the vulnerability, tolerance and consequences of invasive fish species in this impacted environment (Oliveira and Bennemann 2005; Vieira and Shibatta 2007; Cunico et al. 2006). This study provides a checklist of fish species from 10 small urban headwater streams in Maringa, with information about native, non-native and probable new species as well.

Material and methods

Samples were taken every two months from July 2007 to June 2008 in three different sites along 10 small headwater streams (1", 2™ and 3™ order, sensu. Strahler 1957) within an urbanization gradient in Maringa city (Figure 1). Fishes were collected under license of /nstituto Brasileiro do Meio Ambiente e dos Recursos Naturais Renovaveis (IBAMA) (137/2006 DIFAP/IBAMA, Process IBAMA # 02040.000093/06-45).

273

Check List 5(2): 273-280, 2009. ISSN: 1809-127X

LISTS OF SPECIES

The sampling reach lengths at each site were 20 times the mean wetted channel width. A minimum reach length of 40 m and a maximum reach length of 80 m were established. Fishes were caught while wading upstream, using a_ full-wave rectified pulsed DC electroshocker (2.5kW, 400 V, 2 A) operated through two anode dipnets. A stop net (2 mm diameter mesh) was placed at the up and downstream limit of each site. Because identification in field conditions was_ rarely possible, fish were anaesthetized (carnation oil) and fixed in 4% formalin. In the laboratory, fish species were identified in accordance with Graca and Pavanelli (2007). Species classification is presented according to Eschmeyer (2006) for Superior categories and Reis et al. (2003) for Neotropical families. Voucher specimens of each species were deposited in “Colecdo Ictioldgica do Nupélia” of Universidade Estadual de Maringa, available at: http://www.nupelia.uem.br/colecao. In the appendix there is information about the order, species, number of lots, number of

M.6S.69.1bS

23°26'50"S Figure 1. Location of the studied basin and the sampling sites. Areas in grey represent the urban limits. (A) — Sampling site.

specimens, and range of standard length (SL) or total length (TL) in millimeters. Only Crenicichla niederleinii (Holmberg, 1891), has no voucher specimens, and just one specimen collected. Relationship between species richness and the number of samples was calculated by species- accumulation curve using Microsoft Office Excel version 2003.

Results and discussion

A total of 38 fish species ascribed to 27 genera, 12 families, and six orders (Table 1) were collected; five species were considered non- native, and 14 are probably new species. The most representative order was Siluriformes, with four families and 16 species, followed by Characiformes, with four families and 13 species, a common trend in Neotropical rivers (Lowe- McConnell 1999). The species-accumulation curve suggests no occurrence of more species in the sampled streams, except for the Muosotis stream (Figure 2).

274

Check List 5(2): 273-280, 2009. ISSN: 1809-127X

LISTS OF SPECIES

Agua da Roseira

Cumulative species rich ness —_ — i) &

1 2 3 4 5 6

Number of samples

Miosoéts 2 18 o 16 @ g 14 ra 12 = oO 3 10 E 8 Cd) 6 1 2 3 4 5 6 Number of samples Mandacam

S 11 Ef Be» @ » &

= z 5 w 3

1 2 3 4 5 6

Number of samples

Nazaré

ci 12

2 10

~~ &

st 8

O 6

1 2 3 4 5 6

Number of samples

fauna

1 2 3 a 5 6

Number of samples

= =s i) n o =)

-_ p

Cumulative species rich ness

Agua do Pirapé

8 ] ‘Ss a ce Bs gS —i E a Ne 3 1 2 3 4 3 6 Number of samples Guaiapo g 18 2 a, 16 wo 25 14 a¢ i 5 12 & 10 1 2 3 4 5 G

Number of samples

A gua Que¢aba

Cumu lative species richness nh o

1 2 3 4 5 6

Number of samples

Remo

15 g 43 =| S = 11 Le 9 1 2 3 4 5 6

Number of samples

Cumulative species

Romeira

g 12

52 11

= =

=] bn

~ 10

1 2 3 4 5 6 Number of samples

Figure 2. Species cumulation curve in 10 streams in Maringa metropolitan area, Parana state, Brazil.

pas pe

Check List 5(2): 273-280, 2009. ISSN: 1809-127X

LISTS OF SPECIES

The species with the higher number of specimens was Poecilia reticulata Peters, 1859 representing 64.9% of all collected individuals. Three other species represented more than 5% of the overall abundance - AHypostomus aff. ancistroides (Ihering, 1911) (8.7%), Rhamdia quelen (Quoy & Gaimard, 1824) (5.8%) and IJmparfinis mirini Haseman, 1911 (5.4%). Cunico et al. (2006) studied the structure of fish assemblages in three small headwater urban streams in Maringa and found a_ similar abundance distribution, comprising 11 species and including one non- indigenous species (Poecilia reticulata).

Urban streams are susceptible to invasion by non- native fish species and are also associated with the increase of tolerant species (Vieira and Shibatta 2007; Onorato et al. 2000; Wang et al. 2000; Silva 1995). The non-native species captured in the samples, Poecilia reticulata and Xiphophorus hellerii Heckel, 1848, are originally from Venezuela and Mexico respectively (Lucinda

2003). These species had probably been carried by aquarists or introduced for controlling insects’ larvae. Oreochromis niloticus (Linnaeus, 1758) is an African species and possibly was introduced by

escapes from. pisculture tanks. Erythrinus erythrinus (Bloch & Schneider, 1801) from Amazon, Orinoco and Gutanas_ basins is

commonly used as live bait by fishers, what could explain their presence in sampled streams.

Native species listed in Table 1 with no Latin binomens are probably new species, which have been analyzed by specialists. Langeani et al. (2007) listed 50 probably new species from the upper drainage basin of Parana River. However, our studies, along with Maier et al. (2008), indicated the presence of additional species to the upper drainage basin of Parana River that have not been listed by those authors. Such findings demonstrate that increasing sampling efforts in the region could result in some new _ species, especially in its affluents.

Table 1. List of fish species and their respective abundances from Maringa’s urban streams. Letters represent streams: A. Agua da Roseira; B. Agua do Pirapo; C. Agua Quecaba; D. Guaiapo; E. Mandacaru; F. Miosotis; G. Nazaré; H. Remo; I. Romeira; J. Zauna. Local vernacular names of each species are provided between quotation

marks.

OSTEICHTHYES CHARACIFORMES Parodontidae Apareiodon ibitiensis Campos, 1944 — “canivete”

Apareiodon piracicabae 1

(Eigenmann, 1907) — “canivete”

Apareiodon sp. — “canivete” 6

Crenuchidae Characidium aff. zebra

Eigenmann, 1909 — 291

“mocinha” Characidae Incertae sedis Astyanax altiparanae

Garutti & Britski, 2000 — 1 188

“tambiu” Astyanax bockmanni Vari & Castro, 2007 — “lambar1”

D E F G H I J 4

94 3 81 71

132 17 32 116 3

276

Check List 5(2): 273-280, 2009. ISSN: 1809-127X

Astyanax aff. fasciatus (Cuvier, 1819) — “lambari- rabo-vermelho”

Astyanax aff. paranae Eigenmann, 1914 — “lambari”

Bryconamericus stramineus Eigenmann, 1908 — “pequira’, “lambari” Piabina sp. — “pequira” Cheirodontinae Serrapinnus notomelas (Eigenmann, 1915) — “pequira”

Erythrinidae

Erythrinus erythrinus (Bloch & Schneider, 1801) —“jeyu”

Hoplias aff. malabaricus (Bloch, 1794) — “traira” STLURIFORMES Trichomycteridae Trichomycterus diabolus Bockmann, Casatti & de Pinna, 2004 — “candiru” Callichthyidae Callichthys callichthys (Linnaeus, 1758) — “camboja’, “tamboata” Corydoras aeneus (Gill, 1858) — “limpa-vidro” Loricariidae Hypoptopomatinae Hisonotus sp. — “cascudinho limpa-vidro” Hypostominae Hypostomus aff. ancistroides (Ihering, 1911) —“cascudo”

Hypostomus nigromaculatus (Schubart, 1964) — “cascudo”

Hypostomus aff. strigaticeps (Regan, 1908) — “cascudo” Hypostomus sp. — “cascudo”

Loricariinae

Rineloricaria sp. — “cascudo-chinelo” Neoplecostominae Neoplecostomus sp. — “cascudo”

Heptapteridae Cetopsorhamdia iheringi

119

120

LISTS OF SPECIES

243

129

375

152

42 21 6 5 229 982 1 2 51 221 2

502

551

255

135

182

Zit

Check List 5(2): 273-280, 2009. ISSN: 1809-127X

LISTS OF SPECIES

Schubart & Gomes, 1959 — “bagrinho” Imparfinis borodini Mees & 15 24 Cala, 1989 — “bagre-pedra” Imparfinis mirini Haseman, 806 10 295, 33 75 385 1911 —“bagrinho” Phenacorhamdia tenebrosa 11 32 12 1 1 25 147 237 (Schubart, 1964) — “bagrinho” Pimelodella avanhandavae 1 ae Eigenmann, 1917 — “mandi- chorao”, “choraozinho” Rhamdia quelen (Quoy & Lh 37 64 398 603 454 306 42 46 24 Gaimard, 1824) — “bagre”, “yundia” GYMNOTIFORMES Gymnotidae Gymnotus inaequilabiatus 51 6 1 3 8 3 1 (Valenciennes, 1839) — “morenita”, “tuvira” Gymnotus sp. — ““morenita”, 3 1 “tuvira” CYPRINODONTIFORMES Poeciliidae Poecilia reticulata Peters, 55 1307 72 3666 8966 2840 2038 1907 785 1162 1859 — “barrigudinho”, “guaru” Xiphophorus hellerii 8 Heckel, 1848 — “espadinha” SYNBRANCHIFORMES Synbranchidae Synbranchus marmoratus 13 3 5 2 10 Bloch, 1795 — “mucum” PERCIFORMES Cichlidae Crenicichla britskii 9 Kullander, 1982 — “jJoaninha” Crenicichla niederleinii 1 (Holmberg, 1891) — “jyoaninha” Geophagus aff. brasiliensis 30 6 1 5 (Quoy & Gaimard, 1824) — “cara” Oreochromis niloticus 2 9 10 (Linnaeus, 1758) — “tilapia do nilo” Richness 14 4 31 17 10 16 10 13 12 18 Total abundance 1316 1367 2263 5218 10600 41771 3164 3173 1850 1979

278

Check List 5(2): 273-280, 2009. ISSN: 1809-127X

LISTS OF SPECIES

Acknowledgements

We thank Nupélia/UEM (Nicleo de Pesquisas em Limnologia, Ictiologia e Aquicultura) for providing logistical support for collecting and analyzing materials. The electrofishing Nupélia staff (Tato, Tuti, Chiquinho, Valdecir e Gazo) for helping in field work. We also thank Carla S. Pavanelli and Claudio H. Zawadzki for helping to identify some species. Funding was provided by CNPq (Conselho Nacional de Desenvolvimento Cientifico e Tecnoldgico) process 555185/2006-0 to A. A. Agostinho. A. M .C. was supported by grants from CNPq (process # 142168/2006-8), and W. J.

G. from Capes (Coordenacdo de Aperfeigoamento de Pessoal de Nivel Superior).

Literature cited

Cunico, A. M., A. A. Agostinho, and J. D. Latini. 2006. Influéncia da urbaniza¢io sobre as assembléias de peixes em trés corregos de Maringa, Parana. Revista Brasileira de Zoologia 23(4): 1101-1110.

Eschmeyer, W. N. 2006. Catalog of Fishes. Electronic Database accessible at http://www.calacademy.org/research/ichthyology/cata log/classif.html. California Academy of Sciences, San Francisco, USA. Captured on February 2008.

Graca, W. J. and C. S. Pavanelli. 2007. Peixes da planicie de inunda¢do do alto rio Parana e areas adjacentes. Maringa. EDUEM. 241 p.

IBGE (Instituto Brasileiro de Geografia e Estatistica). 2007. Cidades 2007. Electronic Database accessible at http://http://www.ibge.gov.br/cidadesat/default. php. Brasilia, Brazil. Captured on 22 August 2008.

Langeani, F., R. M. C. Castro, O. T. Oyakawa, O. A. Shibatta, C. S. Pavanelli, and L. Casatti. 2007. Diversidade da ictiofauna do Alto Rio Parana: composi¢aéo atual e perspectivas futuras. Biota Neotropica 7(3): 1-17.

Lowe-McConnell, R. H. 1999. Estudos ecologicos de comunidades de peixes tropicais. Sao Paulo. EDUSP. 534 p.

Lucinda, P. H. F. 2003. Family Poeciltidae (Livebearers); p. 555-581 In R. E. Reis, S. O. Kullander, and C. Ferraris Jr. (ed.). Check list of the freshwater fishes of South and Central America. Porto Alegre. EDIPUCRS.

Maack, R. 1968. Geografia fisica do Estado do Parana. Curitiba. Max Roesner. 350 p.

Maier, A., C. H. Zawadzki, W. J. da Graca, and A. G. Bifi. 2008. Fish, Barra Bonita River, upper Parana River basin, state of Parana, Brazil. Check List 4(3): 336-340.

Meyer, J. L., M. J. Paul, and W. K. Taulbee. 2005. Stream ecosystem function in urbanizing landscapes.

Appendix

Journal of the North American Benthological Society 24: 602-612.

Oliveira, D. C. and S. T. Bennemann. 2005. Ictiofauna, recursos alimentares e relagdes com as interferéncias antropicas em um riacho urbano no sul do Brasil. Biota Neotropica 5: 1-13.

Onorato, D., R. A. Angus, and K. R. Marion. 2000. Historical changes in the ichthyofaunal assemblages of the upper Cahaba River in Alabama associated with extensive urban development in the watershed. Journal of Freshwater Ecology 15(1): 47-63.

Paul, M. J. and J. L. Meyer. 2001. Streams in the urban landscape. Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics 32: 333-365.

Reis, R. E., S. O. Kullander, and C. Ferraris Jr. 2003. Check list of the freshwater fishes of South and Central America. Porto Alegre. EDIPUCRS. 742 p.

Silva, C. P. D. 1995. Community structure of fish in urban and natural streams in the Central Amazon. Amazoniana 8(3/4): 221-236.

Strahler, A. N. 1957. Quantitative analysis of watershed geomorphology. Transactions American Geophysical Union 38: 913-920.

Vieira, D. B. and O. A. Shibatta. 2007. Peixes como indicadores da qualidade ambiental do ribeirao Esperanca, municipio de Londrina, Parana, Brasil. Biota Neotropica 7(1): 1-9.

Wang, L. Z., J. Lyons, P. Kanehl, R. Bannerman, and E. Emmons. 2000. Watershed urbanization and changes in fish communities in southeastern Wisconsin streams. Journal of the American Water Resources Association 36: 1173-1189.

Received September 2008 Accepted April 2009 Published online May 2009

Characiformes- Parodontidae- NUP 5605 Apareiodon ibitiensis, 1 (79.0 SL); NUP 5760 Apareiodon piracicabae, | (32.9 SL); NUP 6026 Apareiodon sp., 4 (44.2-55.3 SL); Crenuchidae- NUP 5555 Characidium aff. zebra, 5 (34.0-60.9 SL); Characidae- NUP 5615 Astyanax altiparanae, 3 (64.9-69.7 SL); NUP 5626 Astvanax bockmanni, 5 (47.1-62.1 SL); NUP 5580 Astvanax aff. fasciatus, 8 (28.5-48.7 SL); NUP 6037 Astyvanax aff. paranae, 14 (44.4-76.6 SL); NUP 5765

Pag)

Check List 5(2): 273-280, 2009. ISSN: 1809-127X

LISTS OF SPECIES

Bryconamericus stramineus, 3 (54.4-61.8 SL); NUP 5578 Piabina sp., 5 (51.2-61.0 SL); NUP 6025 Serrapinnus notomelas, 5 (23.1-43.3 SL); Erythrinidae- NUP 6032 Erythrinus erythrinus, 1 (120.4 SL); NUP 6042 Hoplias aff. malabaricus, | (205.4 SL). Siluriformes- Trichomycteridae- NUP 5579 Trichomycterus diabolus, 2 (46.0-72.7 SL); Callichthyidae- NUP 5633 Callichthys callichthys, | (65.1 SL); NUP 5559 Corydoras aeneus, 10 (32.6-39.4 SL); Loricariidae- NUP 3950 Hisonotus sp., 14 (30.7-38.5 SL); NUP 6047 Hypostomus aff. ancistroides, 8 (51.5-142.2 SL); NUP 5561 Hypostomus nigromaculatus, 2 (50.0-62.3 SL); NUP 5283 Hypostomus aff. strigaticeps, 3 (32.9-117.6 SL); NUP 5759 Hypostomus sp., 3 (34.9-84.7 SL); NUP 5577 Neoplecostomus sp., 1 (46.7 SL); NUP 5761 Rineloricaria sp., 2 (45.5-54.6 SL); Heptapteridae- NUP 5556 Cetopsorhamdia iheringi, 5 (31.9-66.5 SL); NUP 6010 Jmparfinis borodini, | (101.7 SL); NUP 5628 Imparfinis mirini, 11 (33.9-67.3 SL); NUP 5607 Phenacorhamdia tenebrosa, 8 (31.7-70.0 SL); NUP 5632 Pimelodella avanhandavae, | (80.4 SL); NUP 6048 Rhamdia quelen, 20 (31.2-107.7 SL); Gymnotiformes- Gymnotidae- NUP 6043 Gymnotus inaequilabiatus, 6 (58.3-201.9 TL); NUP 6044 Gymnotus sp., 2 (120.0-173.6 TL). Cyprinodontiformes- Poeciliidae- NUP 3452 Poecilia reticulata, 15 (17.3-32.9 SL); NUP 6030 Xiphophorus hellerii, 3 (49.2-53.5 SL). Synbranchiformes- Synbranchidae- NUP 6041 Synbranchus marmoratus, 2 (350.5-414.8 TL). Perciformes- Cichlidae- NUP 6003 Crenicichla britskii, 1 (108.8 SL); NUP 6002 Geophagus aff. brasiliensis, 2 (70.9-71.0 SL); NUP 5316 Oreochromis niloticus, 4 (30.3-37.7 SL).

280