alves and pompeu - rio das velhas

5/10/2018 Alves and Pompeu - Rio Das Velhas - slidepdf.com

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/alves-and-pompeu-rio-das-velhas 1/16

587

American Fisheries Society Symposium 45:587–602, 2005© 2005 by the American Fisheries Society

* Corresponding author: [email protected]

Historical Changes in the Rio das Velhas

Fish Fauna—Brazil

C ARLOS BERNARDO M. A LVES* AND P AULO S. POMPEU

Projeto Manuelzão – Universidade Federal de Minas Gerais, Avenida Alfredo Balena,190 /10.012 Belo Horizonte (MG) Brasil 30130-100

Abstract.—The Rio das Velhas is a tributary of the Rio São Francisco, one of Brazil’slargest rivers. It is the Rio São Francisco’s second most important tributary in water volume(mean annual discharge of 631 m3/s), with a drainage area of 27,867 km2, length of 761km, and mean width of 38 m. Like many other rivers around the world, it became heavily polluted in the 1900s. The Rio das Velhas is the most polluted river of Minas Gerais statebecause the basin contains approximately 4.5 million people. Unlike other Brazilian rivers,its fish fauna was studied from 1850 to 1856. Fifty-five fish species were recorded; 20 of them were first described at that time, when there were previously no more than 40known species in the entire São Francisco basin. Recent fish collections, approximately 150 years later, indicate 107 fish species, but some may be locally extinct. There are goodprospects of rehabilitating this fauna because of the connectivity of the Rio das Velhas

with the São Francisco main stem, its well-preserved tributaries, and increased investmentsin sewage treatment.

Introduction

The neotropical biogeographic area is the world’srichest fish species region (around 8,000 species,Schaefer 1998), but also one of the least known(Menezes 1996). Despite having one of the richestfish faunas in the world, there are few publishedstudies regarding the past richness, distribution, and

ecology of Brazilian fishes. Many of these studies areassociated with modifications resulting from damconstruction; for example, in the Paraná basin, com-partmentalization and flow regulation significantly altered fish populations, especially of migratory spe-cies (Agostinho and Júlio, Jr. 1999).

In Brazil, untreated sewage effluents, defores-tation, mining, dam construction, siltation, intro-duction of nonnative species, and water diversionscontributed to rapid declines in fish species rich-

ness and altered spatial distributions (Agostinho and

Zalewski 1996). This scenario is common to many areas of the country and is worst in highly industri-alized or urbanized areas.

The aim of this chapter is to evaluate thechanges in the fish assemblage of the Rio das Velhasbasin in the past 150 years and associate thosechanges with environmental disturbances.

Methods

Study Area

The Rio das Velhas, located in central Minas Geraisstate (Figure 1), is one of the most important tribu-taries of the Rio São Francisco, one of Brazil’s larg-est rivers. It is the second most important tributary in water volume (mean annual discharge of 631m3/s), with a basin area of 27,867 km2, length of

761 km, mean width of 38 m (CETEC 1983;PLANVASF 1986), and maximum width of 400m (Sílvia Magalhães, Projeto Manuelzão, personalcommunication). The Rio das Velhas basin has the



588 A LVES AND POMPEU

Figure 1.—Rio das Velhas basin, present sampling stations, and relative position in Minas Gerais state and Brazil.The shaded area indicates the probable collecting area of J. T. Reinhardt in the 19th century. (modified from Alves andPompeu 2001)



589HISTORICAL CHANGES IN THE R IO DAS V ELHAS FISH F AUNA —BRAZIL

largest metropolitan region, the highest gross domes-tic product, the largest human population, and thelongest river course in the Sao Francisco basin. Itsheadwaters occur at 1,520 m above sea level and its

confluence with the Rio São Francisco at an altitudeof 478 m. Mean annual precipitation ranges from110 to 160 cm (www.codevasf.gov.br). There are noavailable data on river depths, although it was navi-gable up to Sabará, near the Metropolitan Region of Belo Horizonte (MRBH1), in the 19th century (Bur-ton 1977). Presently, many stretches are heavily silted,allowing one to wade across the river.

The Rio das Velhas’ headwaters are located in atransition zone between the Atlantic rainforest and

cerrado, which is the typical savanna-like vegetationof central Brazil. Both biomes are identified as worlddiversity hotspots because they have exceptional con-centrations of endemic species undergoing excep-tional loss of habitat (Myers et al. 2000). Below itsheadwaters to its mouth, Rio das Velhas flows only through cerrado. Another vegetation formation oc-curs near high elevation headwaters: the camposrupestres (literally, rock fields), a type of shrubby montane savanna, such as seen in the Rio Cipó, one

of its most important tributaries. This formation isvery rich in floral and faunal species, with high diver-sity and endemism (Costa et al. 1998).

Like many other rivers around the world, theRio das Velhas became heavily polluted in the 20thcentury. The Rio das Velhas is the most polluted riverof Minas Gerais state, partly because the basin has atotal human population of 4.5 million people (IBGE2000), and domestic sewage and industrial wastes of the MRBH are only partially treated (Table 1). The

sewage of 3.2 million people is collected, but only 27.5% of it is primarily treated (www.copasa.com.br).New sewage treatment plants (STPs) and wastewaterconveyances are being built to increase the rate of sewage treatment.

Fish Sampling

Johannes T. Reinhardt collected fish in two trips toBrazil, between 1850 and 1856. All specimens were

sent to the Zoological Museum of CopenhagenUniversity (Denmark). The sampling methods werenot formally described, but Reinhardt did travel tomany locations with local fishermen, and they

brought him any different, rare, or interesting fishspecies. Reinhardt assigned Christian F. Lütken therights to publish the monograph describing his col-lections (Lütken 1875). Not only the fishes, but alsoall field annotations, preliminary studies, and draw-ings were donated to Lütken. The expected sam-pling area of Reinhardt’s collections is drawn in Fig-ure 1 as a polygon formed by each cited collectionlocation in Lütken’s book. In the introduction of hismonograph, the author pointed out the importance

of the material:

“… that was the first time ichthyologicalmaterial was collected in the South Ameri-can continent, as a result of a long stay of anaturalist in a single area, which permit-ted the local freshwater fish to be the sub-

ject of a specific study.”

Present sampling stations include six sites on theRio das Velhas main stem and other six sites on the

five tributaries. The mean distance between Rio dasVelhas collecting sites was 59 km (ranging from 27to 95 km). Each tributary had only one samplingsite, except Rio Cipó with two sites because of itsgreater length. All sites were selected depending onaccess and distance between upstream and down-stream sites (main channel) in order to representupper, medium, and lower river stretches. Onetributary (Rio Cipó) and three main stem stationsapproximate Reinhardt’s collection locations, justi-

fying their selection for temporal comparisons. Ex-cept for Rio Cipó, which was sampled five times,every site was visited two or three times since 1999to represent both dry and wet seasons.

Fish were caught with gill nets (20 m long, with3–16 cm stretch measure mesh), seines (5 m long, 1mm mesh), cast nets (3 cm stretch measure mesh),and kick nets (1 mm mesh). Gill nets were fished inthe water column for 14 h overnight. Seines wereused in shallow areas or littoral zones, kick nets were

employed in near-shore aquatic macrophytes (bothshorelines) and in riffles, and cast nets were used inhabitats too deep to wade. The three latter methods

were employed for 1–3 h. They were used only quali-

1 The Metropolitan Region of Belo Horizonte is formed by 34 counties located around the Minas Gerais state capital,representing a total area of approximately 9,500 km2.




T a b l e 1 . — U p r i v e r t o d o w n r i v e r w a t e r q u a l i t y o f t h e R i o d a s V e l h a s i n 1 9 9 9 ( f r o m A l v e s e t a l . 2 0 0 0 ) .

B i o c h e m i c a l

C h e m i c a l

T o t a l

T o t a l

V o l a t i l e

R i v e r

D i s s o l v e d

o x y g e n

o x y g e n

d i s s o l v e d

s u s p e n d e d

s u s p e n d e d

k i l o -

o x y g e n

d e m a n d

d e m a n d

s o l i d s

s o l i d s

s o l i d s

A m m o n i a C h l o r o p h y l l - a

m e t e r C

o o r d i n a t e s

( m g / L )

( m g / L )

( m g / L )

( m g / L )

( m g / L )

( m g / L )

( m g / L )

( m g / m 3 )

2 0

4 3 o 3 4 ’ 3 9 ” W 2 0 o 1 8 ’ 4 3 ” S

–

–

–

–

–

–

–

–

7 8

4 3 o 4 7 ’ 2 4 ” W 2 0 o 0 5 ’ 1 7 ” S

8 . 0

–

–

2 , 3 5 5 . 0

1 1 . 0

–

1 . 2

–

1 1 4

4 3 o 4 8 ’ 5 2 ” W 1 9 o 5 3 ’ 3 7 ” S

5 . 1 9

9 . 0

7 3 . 6

–

–

–

–

–

2 0 4 a

4 3 o 5 4 ’ 3 9 ” W 1 9 o 3 3 ’ 3 6 ” S

0 . 0 – 2 . 2

3 . 6 – 4 2 . 0

9 . 5 – 2 1 0 . 4

1 3 9 . 7 – 6 5 7 . 1

1 6 . 4 – 4 6 7 . 0

1 5 . 3 – 1 , 6 0 8 . 0

0 . 0 – 1 2 . 2

2

. 0 – 9 . 6

2 9 9

4 4 o 0 1 ’ 1 0 ” W 1 9 o 1 4 ’ 0 7 ” S

1 . 0 – 3 . 4

2 . 0 – 1 7 . 9

9 . 9 – 4 2 . 2

1 2 9 . 3 – 2 , 0 8 1 . 0

2 . 3 – 1 , 7 2 1 . 0

3 . 7 – 2 6 9 . 0

0 . 0 – 1 1 . 0

2 . 4 – 1 5 . 5

3 7 3

4 4 o 0 2 ’ 1 4 ” W 1 9 o 0 0 ’ 3 7 ” S

1 . 6 – 9 . 5

0 . 3 – 7 . 3

7 . 2 – 1 5 . 2

1 2 7 . 1 – 9 5 6 . 1

0 . 7 – 3 8 1 . 0

0 . 6 – 9 0 . 0

0 . 0 – 6 . 9

1 . 3 – 4 0 . 2

4 0 0

4 4 o 0 7 ’ 1 3 ” W 1 8 o 5 7 ’ 0 7 ” S

0 . 2 – 1 2 . 7

0 . 5 – 1 1 . 5

5 . 6 – 4 0 . 0

1 1 1 . 1 – 9 4 1 . 0

0 . 3 – 4 1 6 . 0

6 . 7 – , 1 9 2 . 0

0 . 0 – 2 . 9

3 . 5 – 4 4 . 3

4 5 4

4 4 o 0 9 ’ 0 4 ” W 1 8 o 4 8 ’ 2 7 ” S

0 . 6

3 . 1

6 . 4

4 1 6 . 0

6 8 . 7

5 8 5 . 7

1 . 8

–

4 9 3

4 4 o 1 1 ’ 3 3 ” W 1 8 o 4 0 ’ 1 5 ” S

2 . 9 – 1 0 . 6

–

–

–

–

–

–

–

a A p p r o x i m

a t e l y 4 0 k m u p s t r e a m o f t h i s p o i n

t , t h e R i o d a s V e l h a s r e c e i v e s t h e s e w a g e o f t h e M e t r o p o l i t a n R e g i o n o f B e l o H o r i z o n t e ( M R B H ) .




tatively to provide a more complete species richnesslist. Site lengths were 50–100 m, depending on waterdepth and velocity.

Results

Present samples in the basin have produced 107 spe-cies, 81 of which occurred in Reinhardt’s study area(Figure 1). Lütken (2001) described 55 species inthe Rio das Velhas basin, 46 were found in the mainstem, and 24 in tributaries near Lagoa Santa andthe Rio Cipó. Three levels of comparison withLütken were performed: (1) all data together, (2)

only the Rio das Velhas main stem, and (3) only theRio Cipó (Figure 2). Rio Cipó had been chosen foranalysis because it was the most cited tributary inthe past work. Presently, it is one of the most pre-served rivers and has a national park in its headwa-ters. For all data together, 34 species were reportedby both Lütken and us, 21 species were reportedonly by Lütken, and 47 species were collected only by us. In the Rio das Velhas, 16 species were col-lected in both our studies, 27 species were reported

only by Lütken, and 28 species were collected only by us. In the Rio Cipó, 13 species were collected inboth studies, 11 species had occurred only inLütken’s report, and 48 species occurred only in our

collections. We have added 26 fish species toLütken’s list, the great majority consisting of small-sized fishes with adults less than 10 cm long (Figure3).

Ecological attributes have been reported for20 extinct species in Reinhardt’s study area (Table2). Only a few of these attributes appear relevantto the species’ extinctions. For example, theSiluriformes represent less than 35% of the Riodas Velhas basin fish fauna, but 70% of the locally extinct fish species.

Discussion

Surveys of fish species richness provide informationfor analysis of spatial-temporal and community structure patterns, assessment of biological integrity,and conservation of biodiversity (Cao et al. 2001).The number of samples, site size, and distance be-tween sites is critical to an accurate assessment, sinceconclusions depend on species richness and fish as-semblage composition. Cao et al. (2001) suggestedthe evaluation of sampling sufficiency based on the

relationship between the proportion of total rich-ness and the similarity among replicate samples.Hughes et al. (2002) calculated the optimal site dis-tance for electrofishing Oregon rivers. For tropical

Figure 2.—Temporal and spatial comparisons of fish assemblages of the Rio das Velhas, considering the whole areastudied by Reinhardt, the main stem, and Rio Cipó separately, showing the common and exclusive species between hisand recent studies. (adapted from Alves and Pompeu 2001)




waters, especially for Brazilian rivers, sampling ef-fort studies are rare, despite their importance.Penczak et al. (1998) provided information regard-

ing fishing effort and use of different fishing gearsin the Rio Paraná basin. They demonstrated thatdifferent fishing gears play a complementary role infish inventories and showed statistically significantdifferences between riversides at the same site. Cli-mate and river size peculiarities support the needfor further studies of this type to provide accurateand precise data in tropical fish surveys. For the Riodas Velhas, site selection was based on accessibility and river regions represented (upper, middle, and

lower reaches), and the number of samples at eachsite was intended to characterize rainy and dry sea-sons. We used different kinds of fishing gears tomaximize species richness assessments.

Costa et al. (1998) estimated fish species rich-ness for the main river basins in Minas Gerais: SãoFrancisco (170 species), High Paraná basin (120),Doce (77), Paraíba do Sul (59), Jequitinhonha (36),and Mucuri (44). Recent studies with new speciesdescriptions and new occurrence records allow a

more accurate estimation of Rio São Francisco’ rich-ness (176 species) within Minas Gerais boundaries(Alves et al. 1998). Because of the lack of collec-

tions in many portions of the São Francisco basin,such as small headwater streams, the whole basinmay support 250–300 fish species. To support this

hypothesis, we have registered 107 species in theRio das Velhas; seven of which are new to science(Hisonotus sp.1, Hisonotus sp.2, Planaltina sp.,Bunocephalus sp.1, Bunocephalus sp.2, Rineloricariasp., and Harttia sp.). Voucher specimens are depos-ited at Museu de Zoologia da Universidade de SãoPaulo (MZUSP) (Appendix A).

Following Lütken’s work, a number of new spe-cies records were added to the São Francisco basinlist. The greatest number of species added to Lütken’s

listed species from the Rio das Velhas were particu-larly significant in the tributaries, where 48 wererecorded for the first time. On the other hand, inthe upper Rio das Velhas, only 28 species are newly recorded. In general, the different sampling tech-niques may account for the number of species addedby the recent studies. Because the great majority of fish listed by Lütken were caught by fishermen,smaller species certainly were underestimated. Fish-ermen are always interested in fish that command

good market prices or that are large enough to in-terest human consumers. Twenty-six species, mea-suring less than 10 cm total length, or 37 if we con-

Figure 3.—Past records of fish species, recent additions to the Rio das Velhas basin, and total richness, by size-classes.(Adapted from Alves and Pompeu 2001).




sider species less than 20 cm, have been added tothe first historical list. Comparing the size-class dis-tribution between the past and present studies (Fig-ure 3), smaller species currently represent the greaternumber of species. The only added species greaterthan 50 cm was the common carp Cyprinus carpio,

which is a nonnative species. Although Lütken’s data can only be used quali-

tatively, since there were no measures of abundanceand sampling efforts differed, this was a unique op-

portunity to evaluate the modifications that haveoccurred in the past 150 years. Many activities overthis time, such as mining, agriculture, industrializa-tion, urbanization, and population growth, likely

produced direct and indirect negative effects on thefish fauna. All these activities altered chemical orphysical habitats or both. For example, Pompeu and

Alves (2003) demonstrated the local extinction of 70% of the original fish species of Lagoa Santa, ashallow permanent lake once connected to Rio dasVelhas by a small stream. Among the factors thatcaused this drastic decrease were blockage from themain stem, introduction of nonnative species,changes in water level, elimination of littoral

(Cyperaceae) and submerged (Characeae) vegeta-tion, organic pollution, and siltation. Among the 20 species not recorded recently in

Reinhardt’s area, 7 were collected outside it in the

Table 2.—Ecological attributes of fishes extinct in Reinhardt’s study area. Bold font = extinct species in the Rio dasVelhas basin.

Maximum length Main food Migratory Speciesa (cm)b Itemsc Behaviorc Endemicd

CharaciformesFamily Characidae

Brycon orthotaenia 40.1 fruits, insects yes yesSerrapinnus piaba 4.6 plankton no yesHasemania nana 2.6 insects no yesRoeboides xenodon 11.5 insects, fish scales no yes

SiluriformesFamily Doradidae

Franciscodoras marmoratus 26.2 ? no yesFamily Auchenipteridae

Glanidium albescens 12.4 ? no yes

Trachelyopterus galeatus 15.7 insects, fishes, plants no noFamily PimelodidaeBagropsis reinhardti 31.4 ? ? yesConorhynchos conirostris 73.4 mollusks yes yes

Rhamdiopsis microcephala 9.8 insects no yesPimelodella vittata 9.2 insects no yesPseudopimelodus charus 26.2 fishes no yes

Family TrichomycteridaeStegophilus insidiosus 5.0 fish mucous no yesTrichomycterus brasiliensis 7.9 insects no no

Family LoricariidaeHypostomus alatus 40.6 algae no yes

Hypostomus francisci 28.8 algae no yesHypostomus lima 21.0 algae no yesRineloricaria lima 18.3 algae no ?

PerciformesFamily Sciaenidae

Pachyurus francisci 39.3 fishes no yesPachyurus squamipennis 40.6 fishes no yes

a = according to Britski (2001); b = according to Lütken (1875, 2001); c = according to Alves et al. (1998); d =according to Reis et al. (2003).




Rio das Velhas basin (pirapitinga Brycon orthotaenia,piaba2 Serrapinnus piaba, cascudos Hypostomus alatus and Hypostomus francisci , corvina Pachyurus sguami-

pennis , piaba Roeboides xenodon, and cangati

Trachelyopterus galeatus ), so they have been only lo-cally extirpated. Thirteen species are apparently ab-sent from the basin (mandi-bagre Bagropsis reinhardti ,pirá Conorhynchos conirostris , mandi-serrudoFranciscodoras marmoratus , peixe-douradoGlanidiumalbescens , piabaHasemania nana, cascudo Hypostomus lima, corvina Pachyurus francisci , mandi-chorãoPimelodella vittata, bagre-sapo Pseudopimelodus charus , candiru Stegophilus insidiosus , cambevaTrichomycterus brasiliensis bagrinho Rhamdiopsis

microcephala, and cascudo-barbado Rineloricarialima). The second of them, C . conirostris , plays a sig-nificant role in Rio São Francisco commercial fisher-ies. According to Reinhardt’s observations, C .conirostris used to swim up-river in Rio das Velhasannually, from February to March. This movementcould correspond to its reproductive migration tospawning grounds in the Rio das Velhas tributaries.The populations of this species seem to fluctuate sig-nificantly in time. After many years of being practi-

cally absent from commercial fisheries, the speciesbecame abundant following large 1996–1997 floodsin the Rio São Francisco basin. In 1998, juveniles(ranging from 11.2 to 13.3 cm standard length) werecaught in the Rio São Francisco near Rio Carinhanha(personal observation).

Among the species locally extinct, most are cat-fishes and armored catfishes. Generally, these arebenthic species, living among rocks and gravel (Bur-gess 1989). The sedimentation that transformed the

channel into a shallow river and eliminated naviga-bility near MRBH also altered substrate composition.The major causes of this process were the mines inthe Rio das Velhas headwaters, deposition of organicsediments from MRBH, vegetation clearing, sedi-ment runoff from agriculture, and uncontrolled ur-banization. Where there was once a diverse bottomof cobble, gravel, and sand, today there is a homog-enized sandy substrate, eliminating many bottomfeeders. Many catfishes are herbivorous or ilioph-

agous, grazing algae and organic matter attached torocks.

Burton (1977) described the abundance andsizes of fish species of the Rio das Velhas and the Rio

São Francisco in 1867. He felt that the fishery had agreater economic value than mining. Today, fishessuch as surubim Pseudoplatystoma corruscans , whichonce reached 100 kg or more, are rarely caught largerthan 40 kg; most of them are 10–25 kg. Surubim isthe most important commercial fish of the São Fran-cisco basin (Godinho et al. 1997). Radio telemetry studies, with fish collected and marked in Rio SãoFrancisco, have recently shown surubim migrates 200km into the Rio das Velhas (Alexandre Godinho,

Universidade Federal de Minas Gerais, personal com-munication). These data reinforce the importance of the Rio das Velhas to the São Francisco basin.

Nevertheless, there are regular fish kills in theRio das Velhas, mainly in the beginning of the rainy season (Alves et al. 2000). Heavy organic dischargesfrom the MRBH accumulate in the river bottomduring the dry season. At the beginning of the sum-mer rainy season, this material is suspended at thesame time water temperatures are greatest. Rapid

decomposition of the organic matter depletes dis-solved oxygen, causing frequent fish kills. Annualkills of adults and burying of the eggs and larvae of those that survive leads to annual decreases of resi-dent fish populations and those migrating from theRio São Francisco. The consequences of this heavy pollution affect all river biota. Recent studiesshowed how the MRBH changes the expected

water quality, fish, and benthic richness in the mainstem (Alves and Pompeu 2001; Pompeu et al., in

press). A monitoring program for the Rio das Velhas

basin has begun, analyzing chemical, physical andbiological parameters (microbiological, phytoplank-ton, zooplankton, macroinvertebrates, and fish) at37 sites located in the main stem, tributaries, andMRBH. The objective of this biomonitoring pro-gram is to establish the basin’s general features andto locate reference sites for assessing the degree of perturbation (Hughes 1995), thereby facilitating

empirical comparisons over space and time. The Riodas Velhas basin includes sites ranging from quiteundisturbed to heavily polluted and highly

2 Many characins, subfamily Tetragonopterinae aregenerically referred to as “piaba.”




channelized reaches, so we are optimistic about as-sessing current and potential conditions.

Despite substantial environmental degradationand fish composition changes, we found an inter-

esting case of culture conservation. Lütken reportedthat mandi-amarelo Pimelodus maculatus was fre-quently caught with adult wasps in its stomach con-tents. He was curious about how fish could eat somany adults of a free flying insect. The answer wasthat local fishermen used to put wasp nests insidetheir fish-traps, with the adults remaining inside thetrap, attracting fishes (Lütken 1875, 2001). In1999, we discovered a fisherman using the same fish-ing strategy, almost 150 years after Reinhardt re-

corded his observations (personal observation). Ex-amining the contents of his trap, we found threespecimens of bagre-sapo Cephalosilurus fowleri . Bothfish species are catfish.

The present condition of the upper Rio dasVelhas, which is worse than other reaches in theSão Francisco basin, can be changed in the nearfuture. There are 12 sewage treatment plants al-ready installed within the MRBH, and others areprojected. The two larger ones (STP Arrudas and

STP Onça) have treatment capacities of 4,500 L/sand 3,600 L/s, respectively. The other positive fea-tures of the das Velhas basin are its direct connec-tion with the Rio São Francisco, with no natural orartificial barriers, as well as the quality of its tribu-taries, which support 75% of its present fish spe-cies. The natural purification capacity in the Riodas Velhas must also be stressed because the lowerriver does not seem to be altered by the sewageeffluents of MRBH.

Acknowledgments

We are grateful to Bob Hughes, who invited us to write this chapter and for his editorial suggestions.Reviews by Hugo Godinho, Gilmar Santos, andPhil Kaufmann helped clarify the manuscript. Wethank Sílvia Magalhães for her help on the mapand for geographical information about the basin.

We also acknowledge the logistical and financialsupport of Projeto Manuelzão para Revitalizaçãoda Bacia do Rio das Velhas (UFMG), Fundo-Fundep de apoio acadêmico 1999, and Fundação

O Boticário de Proteção à Natureza (grant No.0472002).

References Agostinho, A. A., and H. F. Júlio, Jr. 1999. Peixes da

bacia do alto rio Paraná. Pages 374–400 in R.H. Lowe-McConnell, editor. Estudos ecológicosde comunidades de peixes tropicais. Editora daUniversidade de São Paulo, São Paulo, Brazil.

Agostinho, A. A., and M. Zalewski. 1996. A planíciealagável do alto rio Paraná: importância epreservação. Editora da Universidade Estadualde Maringá, Maringá, Brazil.

Alves, C. B. M., C. A. M. Estanislau, M. A. R. Araújo, M. V. Polignano, and P. S. Pompeu.2000. Projeto S.O.S. Rio das Velhas: estudo daspossíveis causas das mortandades de peixes nasub-bacia. Technical Report. Projeto Manuel-zão/IEF, Belo Horizonte, Brazil.

Alves, C. B. M., and P. S. Pompeu. 2001. A faunade peixes da bacia do Rio das Velhas no final doséculo XX. Pages 165–187 in C. B. M. Alvesand P. S. Pompeu, editors. Peixes do Rio dasVelhas: passado e presente. Editora Segrac, Belo

Horizonte, Brazil. Alves, C. B. M., F. Vieira, P. S. Pompeu, and P. R.

Fonseca. 1998. Estudos de ictiofauna. Pages 1–154 in Plano diretor dos recursos hídricos dasbacias de afluentes do Rio São Francisco emMinas Gerais. Governo do Estado de MinasGerais (Technical report), Belo Horizonte, Bra-zil.

Britski, H. A. 2001. Sobre a obra Velhas-Flodensfiske [Peixes do Rio das Velhas]. Pages 15–22 inC. B. M. Alves and P. S. Pompeu, editors. Peixes

do Rio das Velhas: passado e presente. EditoraSegrac, Belo Horizonte, Brazil.

Britski, H. A., Y. Sato, and A. B. S. Rosa. 1988.Manual de identificação de peixes da região deTrês Marias (com chave de identificação paraos peixes da bacia do São Francisco). Brasília,Câmara dos Deputados/ Companhia doDesenvolvimento do Vale do São Francisco,Brasília, Brazil.

Burgess, W. E. 1989. An atlas of freshwater andmarine catfishes. Tropical Fish Hobbyist Publi-

cations, Neptune City, New Jersey.Burton, R. F. 1977. Viagem de canoa de Sabará ao

Oceano Atlântico. Belo Horizonte, EditoraItatiaia, Belo Horizonte, Brazil.




Cao, Y., D. P. Larsen, and R. M. Hughes. 2001.Evaluating sampling sufficiency in fish assem-blage surveys: a similarity-based approach. Ca-nadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences

58:1782–1793.CETEC. 1983. Diagnóstico ambiental do estadode Minas Gerais. Fundação Centro Tecnológicode Minas Gerais, Série de Publicações Técnicas/SPT-010:1–158, Belo Horizonte, Brazil.

Costa, C. M. R., G. Herrmann, C. S. Martins, L.V. Lins, and I. R. Lamas. 1998. Biodiversidadeem Minas Gerais: um atlas para sua conser-vação. Fundação Biodiversitas, Belo Horizonte,Brazil.

Godinho, H. P., M. O. T. Miranda, A. L. Godinho,

and J. E. Santos. 1997. Pesca e biologia dosurubim Pseudoplatystoma coruscans no Rio SãoFrancisco. Pages 27–42 in M. O. T. Miranda,editor. Surubim. Instituto Brasileiro do Meio

Ambiente e dos Recursos Naturais Renováveis,Brasília, Brazil.

Hughes, R. M. 1995. Defining acceptable biologi-cal status by comparing with reference condi-tions. Pages 31–47 in W. S. Davis and T. P.Simon, editors. Biological assessment and cri-teria: tools for water resource planning and de-

cision making. Lewis Press, Boca Raton,Florida.

Hughes, R. M., P. R. Kaufmann, A. T. Herlihy, S.S. Intelmann, S. C. Corbett, M. C. Arbogast,and R. C. Hjort. 2002. Electrofishing distanceneeded to estimate fish species richness inraftable Oregon rivers. North American Jour-nal of Fisheries Management 22:1229–1240.

IBGE (Instituto Brasileiro de Geografia e Estatística).2000. Sinopse preliminar do censo demográfico.Instituto Brasileiro de Geografia e Estatística, Rio

de Janeiro, Brazil.Lütken, C. F. 1875. Velhas-Flodens fiske. Et bidrag

til Brasiliens ichthyologi. Elfter Professor J.Reinhardt indsamlinger og optegnelser. KonDank Vidensk Selsk Skrift (Kjoebenhavn)12:122–252.

Lütken, C. F. 2001. Peixes do Rio das Velhas: umacontribuição para a ictiologia do Brasil. Pages 23–164 in C. B. M. Alves and P. S. Pompeu, editors.Peixes do Rio das Velhas: passado e presente.Editora Segrac, Belo Horizonte, Brazil.

Machado, A.B.M., G.A.B. Fonseca, R.B. Machado,L.M.S. Aguiar, and L. V. Lins (eds.). 1998. Livro

vermelho das espécies ameaçadas de extinção dafauna de Minas Gerais. Fundação Biodiversitas,Belo Horizonte, Brazil.

Menezes, N. A. 1996. Methods for assessing fresh-

water fish diversity. Pages 289–295 in C. E. M.Bicudo and N. A. Menezes, editors. Biodiversity in Brazil. Conselho Nacional de DesenvolvimentoCientífico e Tecnológico, São Paulo, Brazil.

MMA (Ministério do Meio Ambiente). 2004. ListaNacional das Espécies de Invertebrados Aquá-ticos e Peixes Ameaçados de Extinção. DiárioOficial da União, 102:136-142.

Myers, N., R. A., C. G. Mittermeier, G. A. B.Fonseca, and J. Kent. 2000. Biodiversity hotspots for conservation priorities. Nature

(London) 403:853–858.Penczak, T., L. C. Gomes, L. M. Bini, and A. A.

Agostinho. 1998. Importance of qualitative in-ventory sampling using electric fishing and netsin a large tropical river (Brazil). Hydrobiologia389:89–100.

PLANVASF. 1986. Plano diretor para o desenvolvi-mento do Vale do São Francisco. Companhiade Desenvolvimento do Vale do São Francisco,Brasília, Brazil.

Pompeu, P. S., and C. B. M. Alves. 2003. Local fish

extinction in a small tropical lake in Brazil. Neo-tropical Ichthyology 1(2):133–135.

Pompeu P. S., C. B. M. Alves, and M. Callisto. InPress. The effects of urbanization on biodiversity and water quality in the Rio das Velhas basin,Brazil. In L. R. Brown, R. H. Gray, R. M.Hughes, and M. R. Meadow, editors. Effects of urbanization on stream ecosystems. AmericanFisheries Society, Symposium 47, Bethesda,Maryland.

Reis, R. E., S. O. Kullander, and C. J. Ferraris, Jr.

2003. Check list of the freshwater fishes of Southand Central Americanérica. Editora da Ponti-fícia Universidade Católica do Rio Grande doSul, Porto Alegre, Brazil.

Schaefer, S. A. 1998. Conflict and resolution: im-pact of new taxa on phylogenetic studies of theneotropical cascudinhos (Siluroidei: Loricariidae).Pages 375–400 in L. R. Malabarba, R. E. Reis,R. P. Vari, Z. M. S. Lucena and C. A. S. Lucena,editors. Phylogeny and classification of neotropi-cal fishes. Editora da Pontifícia Universidade

Católica do Rio Grande do Sul, Porto Alegre,Brazil.




N a t i v e / a l i e n /

E n d e m

i s m /

M R S L

S p e c i e

s ( S c i e n t i f i c n a m e s ) 1

C o m m o n n a m e s 2

l o c a l l y e x t i n c t C o n s e r v a t i o n s t a t u s 3

( c m )

V o u c h e r s p

e c i m e n s

1 .

A c e s t r o

r h y n c h u s l a c u s t r i s ( L ü t k e n 1 8 7 5 )

P e i x e - c a c h o r o

n a t i v e

2 2 . 4

M Z U S P 7 3 7 4 5 ,

7 3 7 5 5 , 7 3

7 7 5 , ,

7 3 7 7 9

2 .

A n c h o v i e l l a v a i l l a n t i ( S t e i n d a c h n e r 1 9 0 8

)

S a r d i n h a

n a t i v e

5 . 4

–

3 .

A p a r e i o d o n h a s e m a n i ( E i g e n m a n n 1 9 1 6 )

C a n i v e t e

n a t i v e

e n d e m i c

4 . 7

–

4 . A . i b i t

i e n s i s ( A m a r a l C a m p o s 1 9 4 4 )

C a n i v e t e

n a t i v e

8 . 2

M Z U S P 7 3 6 8 7 ,

7 3 8 1 3

5 .

A . p

i r a c i c a b a e ( E i g e n m a n n 1 9 0 7 )

C a n i v e t e

n a t i v e

1 1 . 6

M Z U S P 7 3 6 8 1 ,

7 3 8 0 4

6 .

A p t e r o n o t u s b r a s i l i e n s i s ( R e i n h a r d t 1 8 5 2 )

n a t i v e

2 0 . 3

M Z U S P 7 3 6 7 4

7 .

A s t y a n a x b i m a c u l a t u s ( L i n n a e u s 1 7 5 8 )

L a m b a r i - d o - r a b o - a m a r e l o

n a t i v e

1 2 . 7

M Z U S P 7 3 6 5 8 ,

7 3 7 1 9 , 7 3 7 4 7 , 7 3 7 6 4

8 .

A . e

i g e n m a n n i o r u m ( C o p e 1 8 9 4 )

L a m b a r i

n a t i v e

9 . 2

M Z U S P 7 3 7 0 2 ,

7 3 7 1 7 , 7 3 7 2 1

9 .

A . f a s c

i a t u s ( C u v i e r 1 8 1 9 )

L a m b a r i - d o - r a b

o - v e r m e l h o

n a t i v e

1 5 . 5

M Z U S P 7 3 7 1 0 ,

7 3 7 4 6 , 7 3 7 9 2

1 0 . A . s c a b

r i p i n n i s ( J e n y n s 1 8 4 2 )

L a m b a r i

n a t i v e

9 . 3

M Z U S P 7 3 7 1 4

1 1 . A . t a e n

i a t u s ( J e n y n s 1 8 4 2 )

L a m b a r i

n a t i v e

1 0 . 0

M Z U S P 7 3 8 2 7

1 2 . A s t y a n a x s p .

L a m b a r i

n a t i v e

7 . 2

–

1 3 . B e r g i a r i a w e s t e r m a n n i ( L ü t k e n 1 8 7 4 )

M a n d i

n a t i v e

e n d e m i c

2 1 . 8

M Z U S P 7 3 8 0 6

1 4 . B r y c o n

n a t t e r e r i ( G ü n t h e r 1 8 6 4 )

P i r a p e t i n g a

n a t i v e

t h r e a t e n e d

1 4 . 7

–

1 5 . B . o r t h

o t a e n i a ( G ü n t h e r 1 8 6 4 )

M a t r i n c h ã

n a t i v e

e n d e m i c

2 8 . 5

M Z U S P 7 3 8 3 6

1 6 . B r y c o n a m e r i c u s s t r a m i n e u s ( E i g e n m a n n 1

9 0 8 )

P i a b a

n a t i v e

4 . 3

M Z U S P 7 3 6 8 0 ,

7 3 6 9 6

1 7 . B r y c o n o p s a f f i n i s ( G ü n t h e r 1 8 6 4 )

P i a b a

n a t i v e

8 . 4

M Z U S P 7 3 6 7 9 ,

7 3 7 9 1

1 8 . B u n o c e p h a l u s s p N . 1

n a t i v e

e n d e m i c

4 . 9

–

1 9 . B u n o c e p h a l u s s p N . 2

n a t i v e

e n d e m i c

3 . 7

M Z U S P 7 3 8 0 0

2 0 . C a l l i c h

t h y s c a l l i c h t h y s ( L i n n a e u s 1 7 5 8 )

C a b o r j a , t a m o a t á

n a t i v e

1 1 . 4

M Z U S P 7 3 7 2 9

2 1 . C e p h a l o s i l u r u s f o w l e r i ( H a s e m a n 1 9 1 1 )

B a g r e - s a p o

n a t i v e

e n d e m i c

2 8 . 0

M Z U S P 7 3 6 6 7 ,

7 3 7 5 6 , 7 3 8 1 5

2 2 . C e t o p s o r h a m d i a i h e r i n g i ( S c h u b a r t & G o

m e s 1 9 5 9 )

B a g r i n h o

n a t i v e

7 . 8

M Z U S P 7 3 6 7 6 ,

7 3 6 9 5

2 3 . C h a r a c i d i u m f a s c i a t u m ( R e i n h a r d t 1 8 6 7 )

M o c i n h a

n a t i v e

8 . 3

M Z U S P 7 3 7 1 5 ,

7 3 7 9 0

A p p e n d i x A . — F i s h s p e c i e s o f R i o d a s V e l h a

s b a s i n




2 4 . C . l a g o s a n t e n s i s ( T r a v a s s o s 1 9 4 7 )

M o c i n h a

n a t i v e

e n d e m i c a n

d t h r e a t e n e d 2 . 7

M Z U S P 7 3 7 0 8 ,

7 3 7 9 7

2 5 . C . z e b r a ( E i g e n m a n n 1 9 0 9 )

M o c i n h a

n a t i v e

5 . 4

M Z U S P 7 3 6 6 6 ,

7 3 6 8 9 , 7 3 7 0 0 , 7 3 7 5 1 ,

7 3 7 9 5 , 7 3 8 1 4

2 6 . C i c h l a

c f . m o n o c u l u s

T u c u n a r é

a l i e n

3 1 . 0

M Z U S P 7 3 7 6 7 ,

7 3 7 7 2

2 7 . C i c h l a s o m a f a c e t u m ( J e n y n s 1 8 4 2 )

C a r á - p r e t o

n a t i v e

6 . 3

M Z U S P 7 3 7 2 6

2 8 . C . s a n c t i f r a n c i s c e n s e ( K u l l a n d e r 1 9 8 3 )

C a r á - p r e t o

n a t i v e

1 0 . 0

M Z U S P 7 3 7 6 0

2 9 . C r e n i c i c h l a l a c u s t r i s ( C a s t e l n a u 1 8 5 5 )

n a t i v e

4 . 3

–

3 0 . C u r i m a t e l l a l e p i d u r a ( E i g e n m a n n & E i g e n m a n n 1 8 8 9 )

M a n j u b a

n a t i v e

e n d e m i c

7 . 6

–

3 1 . C y p h o c h a r a x g i l b e r t ( Q u o y & G a i m a r d 1 8 2 4 )

S a g ü i r u

n a t i v e

9 . 3

M Z U S P 7 3 7 2 8 ,

7 3 7 3 2

3 2 . C y p r i n

u s c a r p i o ( L i n n a e u s 1 7 5 8 )

C a r p a

a l i e n

7 0 . 0

–

3 3 . D u o p a

l a t i n u s e m a r g i n a t u s ( V a l e n c i e n n e s

1 8 4 0 )

M a n d i - a ç u

n a t i v e

e n d e m i c

2 3 . 4

M Z U S P 7 3 7 3 8 ,

7 3 8 1 2 , 7 3 8 1 9

3 4 . E i g e n m

a n n i a v i r e s c e n s ( V a l e n c i e n n e s 1 8 4

2 )

P e i x e - e s p a d a

n a t i v e

3 6 . 0

M Z U S P 7 3 6 6 0 ,

7 3 7 3 9 , 7 3 7 5 7 , 7 3 7 6 5 ,

7 3 8 0 2

3 5 . G e o p h a g u s b r a s i l i e n s i s ( Q u o y & G a i m a r d 1 8 2 4 )

C a r á

n a t i v e

1 5 . 0

–

3 6 . G y m n o t u s c a r a p o ( L i n n a e u s 1 7 5 8 )

S a r a p ó , t u v i r a

n a t i v e

2 4 . 2

M Z U S P 7 3 7 8 7

3 7 . H a r t t i a l e i o p l e u r a ( O y a k a w a 1 9 9 3 )

C a s c u d i n h o

n a t i v e

e n d e m i c

6 . 1

M Z U S P 7 3 7 1 2

3 8 . H a r t t i a s p . N

C a s c u d i n h o

n a t i v e

e n d e m i c

1 1 . 5

M Z U S P 7 3 6 9 2

3 9 . H e m i g r a m m u s g r a c i l i s ( L ü t k e n 1 8 7 5 )

P i a b a

n a t i v e

2 . 4

–

4 0 . H . m a r g i n a t u s ( E l l i s 1 9 1 1 )

P i a b a

n a t i v e

2 . 7

–

4 1 . H e m i p

s i l i c h t h y s c f . m u t u c a ( O l i v e i r a & O

y a k a w a 1 9 9 9 )

C a s c u d i n h o

n a t i v e

e n d e m i c

3 . 6

M Z U S P 7 3 6 9 8

4 2 . H i s o n o

t u s s p . N 1

C a s c u d i n h o

n a t i v e

e n d e m i c

3 . 3

M Z U S P 7 3 6 8 2 ,

7 3 6 9 4 , 7 3 7 9 3

4 3 . H i s o n o

t u s s p . N 2

C a s c u d i n h o

n a t i v e

e n d e m i c

3 . 4

M Z U S P 7 3 7 0 7 ,

7 3 7 9 4

4 4 . H o m o d i a e t u s s p . N

n a t i v e

e n d e m i c

3 . 6

M Z U S P 7 3 6 9 3

4 5 . H o p l i a

s l a c e r d a e ( M i r a n d a R i b e i r o 1 9 0 8 )

T r a i r ã o

a l i e n

5 7 . 5

M Z U S P 7 3 6 5 5 ,

7 3 7 3 5 , 7 3 8 3 7 , 7 3 8 3 9 ,

7 3 8 4 2

A p p e n d i x A . — C o n t i n u e d .


E n d e m i s m /

M R S L

S p e c i e s ( S c i e n t i f i c n a m e s ) 1



( c m )

V o u c h e r s p e c i m e n s




4 6 . H . m a

l a b a r i c u s ( B l o c h 1 7 9 4 )

T r a í r a

n a t i v e

3 3 . 8

M Z U S P 7 3 6 5 1 ,

7 3 8 3 8

4 7 . H o p l o s t e r n u m l i t t o r a l e ( H a n c o c k 1 8 2 8 )

C h e g a n t e , t a m o

a t á

a l i e n

2 0 . 0

M Z U S P 7 3 7 3 0 ,

7 3 7 4 3 , 7 3 7 4 4 , 7 3 7 6 6 ,

7 3 7 7 0

4 8 . H y p h e s s o b r y c o n s a n t a e

P i a b a

n a t i v e

e n d e m i c

-

M Z U S P 7 3 6 8 3

4 9 . H . a l a t u s ( C a s t e l n a u 1 8 5 5 )

C a s c u d o

n a t i v e

e n d e m i c

2 8 . 6

M Z U S P 7 3 8 2 3 ,

7 3 8 3 2

5 0 . H y p o s t o m u s c o m m e r s o n i ( V a l e n c i e n n e s 1 8

3 6 )

C a s c u d o

n a t i v e

1 1 . 1

M Z U S P 7 3 7 5 9 ,

7 3 8 1 6

5 1 . H . f r a n

c i s c i ( L ü t k e n 1 8 7 4 )

C a s c u d o

n a t i v e

e n d e m i c

2 0 . 3

M Z U S P 7 3 7 2 4

5 2 . H . g a r m a n i ( R e g a n 1 9 0 4 )

C a s c u d o

n a t i v e

e n d e m i c

1 3 . 2

M Z U S P 7 3 6 6 5 ,

7 3 8 1 0

5 3 . H . m a c r o p s ( E i g e n m a n n & E i g e n m a n n 1

8 8 8 )

C a s c u d o

n a t i v e

e n d e m i c

2 2 . 2

M Z U S P 7 3 6 6 4 ,

7 3 7 3 6 , 7 3 7 8 0

5 4 . H . m a r g a r i t i f e r ( R e g a n 1 9 0 8 )

C a s c u d o

n a t i v e

7 . 0

M Z U S P 7 3 6 6 8

5 5 . H y p o s t o m u s s p . ( c i t e d i n B r i t s k i e t a l . , 1 9

8 8 )

C a s c u d o

n a t i v e

e n d e m i c

1 9 . 3

M Z U S P 7 3 7 5 4 ,

7 3 8 1 1

5 6 . H y p o s t o m u s s p p .

C a s c u d o

n a t i v e

3 8 . 0

M Z U S P 7 3 6 8 8 ,

7 3 7 3 7 , 7 3 7 9 8 , 7 3 8 0 9

5 7 . H y s t e r o n o t u s m e g a l o s t o m u s ( E i g e n m a n n 1 9 1 1 )

P i a b a

n a t i v e

e n d e m i c

3 . 7

M Z U S P 7 3 7 0 5

5 8 . I m p a r f i n i s m i n u t u s ( L ü t k e n 1 8 7 4 )

B a g r i n h o

n a t i v e

e n d e m i c

4 . 9

M Z U S P 7 3 6 7 8 ,

7 3 7 0 4 , 7 3 7 9 6

5 9 . L e p o r e l l u s v i t t a t u s ( V a l e n c i e n n e s 1 8 4 9 )

P i a n c ó , p i a u - r o l a

n a t i v e

2 4 . 0

M Z U S P 7 3 6 5 2 ,

7 3 7 2 5 , 7 3 7 3 4

6 0 . L e p o r i n u s a m b l y r h y n c h u s G a r a v e l l o & B r i t s k i 1 9 8 7

T i m b u r é

n a t i v e

1 3 . 5

M Z U S P 7 3 6 5 3 ,

7 3 6 7 2

6 1 . L . m a r c g r a v i i ( L ü t k e n 1 8 7 5 )

T i m b u r é

n a t i v e

e n d e m i c

9 . 9

M Z U S P 7 3 6 5 7 ,

7 3 7 0 6 , 7 3 7 8 4

6 2 . L . o b t u

s i d e n s ( V a l e n c i e n n e s 1 8 3 6 )

P i a u - v e r d a d e i r o

n a t i v e

4 2 . 5

M Z U S P 7 3 6 7 1 ,

7 3 8 4 7

6 3 . L . p

i a u

( F o w l e r 1 9 4 1 )

P i a u - g o r d u r a

n a t i v e

e n d e m i c

1 6 . 2

M Z U S P 7 3 7 7 8

6 4 . L . r e i n h a r d t i ( L ü t k e n 1 8 7 5 )

P i a u - t r ê s - p i n t a s

n a t i v e

e n d e m i c

2 2 . 6

M Z U S P 7 3 7 8 1 ,

7 3 8 1 8

6 5 . L . t a e n

i a t u s ( L ü t k e n 1 8 7 5 )

P i a u - j e j o

n a t i v e

e n d e m i c

2 1 . 4

M Z U S P 7 3 6 6 3 ,

7 3 6 9 1 , 7 3 7 7 7



E n d e m i s m /

M R S L


C o m m o n n a m e

s 2


( c m )





6 6 . L o p h i o s i l u r u s a l e x a n d r i ( S t e i n d a c h n e r 1 8 7 6 )

P a c a m ã

n a t i v e

e n d e m i c

2 5 . 5

M Z U S P 7 3 8 1 7 ,

7 3 8 3 5

6 7 . M o e n k

h a u s i a c o s t a e ( S t e i n d a c h n e r 1 9 0 7 )

P i a b a

n a t i v e

6 . 3

M Z U S P 7 3 8 2 5

6 8 . M . s a n

c t a e f i l o m e n a e ( S t e i n d a c h n e r 1 9 0 7 )

P i a b a

n a t i v e

5 . 3

M Z U S P 7 3 6 8 6

6 9 . M y l e u s m i c a n s ( L ü t k e n 1 8 7 5 )

P a c u

n a t i v e

e n d e m i c

1 7 . 2

M Z U S P 7 3 6 7 3 ,

7 3 6 8 4 , 7 3 8 0 5

7 0 . N e o p l e c o s t o m u s f r a n c i s c o e n s i s ( L a n g e a n i 1 9 9 0 )

C a s c u d i n h o

n a t i v e

e n d e m i c

6 . 7

M Z U S P 7 3 7 1 3

7 1 . O r e o c h

r o m i s n i l o t i c u s ( L i n n a e u s 1 7 5 8 )

T i l á p i a

a l i e n

2 2 . 2

M Z U S P 7 3 7 3 3 ,

7 3 8 2 6

7 2 . O r t h o s p i n u s f r a n c i s c e n s i s ( E i g e n m a n n 1 9 1 4 )

P i a b a

n a t i v e

e n d e m i c

5 . 2

M Z U S P 7 3 7 6 3

7 3 . P a c h y u

r u s s q u a m i p e n n i s ( A g a s s i z 1 8 3 1 )

C o r v i n a

n a t i v e

e n d e m i c

2 3 . 0

M Z U S P 7 3 8 0 7

7 4 . P a m p h

o r i c h t h y s h o l l a n d i ( H e n n 1 9 1 6 )

B a r r i g u d i n h o

n a t i v e

2 . 3

–

7 5 . P a r o d o

n h i l a r i i ( R e i n h a r d t 1 8 6 7 )

C a n i v e t e

n a t i v e

e n d e m i c

1 1 . 4

M Z U S P 7 3 7 2 0 ,

7 3 7 7 6

7 6 . P h a l l o c e r o s c a u d i m a c u l a t u s ( H e n s e l 1 8 6 8

)

B a r r i g u d i n h o

n a t i v e

3 . 2

M Z U S P 7 3 7 1 1

7 7 . P h e n a c o g a s t e r f r a n c i s c o e n s i s ( E i g e n m a n n 1 9 1 1 )

P i a b a

n a t i v e

e n d e m i c

3 . 2

M Z U S P 7 3 6 6 1 ,

7 3 7 9 9

7 8 . P h e n a c o r h a m d i a s o m n i a n s ( M e e s 1 9 7 4 )

B a g r i n h o

n a t i v e

5 . 6

M Z U S P 7 3 6 6 2 ,

7 3 6 7 5 , 7 3 6 8 5 , 7 3 7 0 3 ,

7 3 7 8 9

7 9 . P i a b i n a a r g e n t e a ( R e i n h a r d t 1 8 6 7 )

P i a b a

n a t i v e

7 . 7

M Z U S P 7 3 6 5 4 ,

7 3 6 9 0 , 7 3 6 9 7 , 7 3 7 5 3 ,

7 3 7 8 6

8 0 . P i m e l o d e l l a l a t e r i s t r i g a ( L i c h t e n s t e i n 1 8 2

3 )

M a n d i - c h o r ã o , m a n d i z i n h o

n a t i v e

9 . 2

M Z U S P 7 3 6 6 9 ,

7 3 7 5 2

8 1 . P i m e l o

d u s f u r ( L ü t k e n 1 8 7 4 )

M a n d i - p r a t a , m a n d i - b r a n c o

n a t i v e

1 8 . 8

M Z U S P 7 3 7 4 0 ,

7 3 7 4 2 , 7 3 8 2 1 , 7 3 8 2 4

8 2 . P . m a c u l a t u s ( L a c e p è d e 1 8 0 3 )

M a n d i - a m a r e l o

n a t i v e

3 4 . 0

M Z U S P 7 3 7 8 2 ,

7 3 8 4 4 , 7 3 8 4 8

8 3 . P i m e l o d u s s p . ( c i t e d i n B r i t s k i e t a l . , 1 9 8

8 )

M a n d i

n a t i v e

e n d e m i c

1 7 . 5

M Z U S P 7 3 8 2 0 ,

7 3 8 2 8 , 7 3 8 3 0

8 4 . P l a n a l t i n a s p . N

P i a b a

n a t i v e

e n d e m i c

3 . 2

M Z U S P 7 3 7 0 9 ,

7 3 7 8 5



E n d e m

i s m /

M R S L


C o m m o n n a m e

s 2


( c m )

V o u c h e r s p

e c i m e n s




8 5 . P o e c i l i a r e t i c u l a t a ( P e t e r s 1 8 5 9 )

B a r r g i g u d i n h o

a l i e n

2 . 7

M Z U S P 7 3 7 1 8

8 6 . P r o c h i l o d u s a r g e n t e u s ( S p i x & A g a s s i z 1 8

2 9 )

C u r i m a t á - p a c u

n a t i v e

e n d e m

i c

3 9 . 8

M Z U S P 7 3 8 4 9

8 7 . P . c o s t a

t u s ( V a l e n c i e n n e s 1 8 5 0 )

C u r i m b a t á - p i o a

n a t i v e

e n d e m

i c

4 4 . 0

M Z U S P 7 3 8 2 2 ,

7 3 8 4 3 , 7 3 8 4 5

8 8 . P s e l l o g r a m m u s k e n n e d y i ( E i g e n m a n n 1 9 0 3 )

P i a b a

n a t i v e

5 . 7

M Z U S P 7 3 7 2 7

8 9 . P s e u d o

p l a t y s t o m a c o r r u s c a n s ( S p i x & A g a s s i z 1 8 2 9 )

S u r u b i m

n a t i v e

> 1 1 0 . 0

–

9 0 . P y g o c e n t r u s p i r a y a ( C u v i e r 1 8 1 9 )

P i r a n h a

n a t i v e

e n d e m

i c

1 4 . 9

M Z U S P 7 3 8 4 6

9 1 . R h a m d i a q u e l e n ( Q u o y & G a i m a r d 1 8 2

4 )

B a g r e

n a t i v e

2 9 . 5

M Z U S P 7 3 6 5 9 ,

7 3 7 1 6 , 7 3 7 2 3 , 7 3 7 6 9

9 2 . R h i n e l e p i s a s p e r a ( S p i x & A g a s s i z 1 8 2 9 )

C a s c u d o - p r e t o

n a t i v e

4 6 . 9

M Z U S P 7 3 8 3 1

9 3 . R i n e l o r i c a r i a s p . N

C a s c u d o

n a t i v e

e n d e m

i c

1 5 . 0

M Z U S P 7 3 7 8 3 ,

7 3 8 2 9

9 4 . R o e b o i d e s x e n o d o n ( R e i n h a r d t 1 8 5 1 )

n a t i v e

e n d e m

i c

8 . 0

M Z U S P 7 3 7 5 8 ,

7 3 8 0 3

9 5 . S a l m i n

u s b r a s i l i e n s i s ( C u v i e r 1 8 1 6 )

D o u r a d o

n a t i v e

5 8 . 5

M Z U S P 7 3 8 0 8 ,

7 3 8 3 3

9 6 . S . h i l a r i i ( V a l e n c i e n n e s 1 8 5 0 )

T a b a r a n a , d o u r a d o - b r a n c o

n a t i v e

2 8 . 3

M Z U S P 7 3 7 4 9 ,

7 3 8 3 4

9 7 . S c h i z o d o n k n e r i i ( S t e i n d a c h n e r 1 8 7 5 )

P i a u - b r a n c o

n a t i v e

e n d e m

i c

2 7 . 7

M Z U S P 7 3 7 6 2 ,

7 3 8 4 1

9 8 . S e r r a p i n n u s h e t e r o d o n ( E i g e n m a n n 1 9 1 5

)

P i a b a

n a t i v e

3 . 4

M Z U S P 7 3 6 7 7 ,

7 3 7 0 1 , 7 3 7 5 0 ,

7 3 7 7 4 ,

7 3 7 8 8

9 9 . S . p i a b

a ( L ü t k e n 1 8 7 5 )

P i a b a

n a t i v e

e n d e m

i c

2 . 3

–

1 0 0 . S e r r a s a l m u s b r a n d t i i ( L ü t k e n 1 8 7 5 )

P i r a m b e b a

n a t i v e

e n d e m

i c

1 6 . 9

M Z U S P 7 3 7 6 1

1 0 1 . S t e i n d a c h n e r i n a c o r u m b a e ( P a v a n e l l i & B r i t s k i 1 9 9 9 )

S a g ü i r u

n a t i v e

1 0 . 3

M Z U S P

7 3 6 5 6 ,

7 3 6 9 9 , 7 3 7 2 2 ,

M Z U S P 7 3 7 3 1

1 0 2 . S . e l e g a n s ( S t e i n d a c h n e r 1 8 7 5 )

S a g ü i r u

n a t i v e

1 2 . 2

M Z U S P 7 3 7 4 8 ,

7 3 8 0 1

1 0 3 . S t e r n o p y g u s m a c r u r u s ( B l o c h & S c h n e i d e r 1 8 0 1 )

S a r a p ó

n a t i v e

3 3 . 1

M Z U S P 7 3 6 7 0

1 0 4 . T i l a p i a r e n d a l l i ( B o u l e n g e r 1 8 9 7 )

T i l á p i a

a l i e n

2 0 . 1

M Z U S P 7 3 7 6 8 ,

7 3 7 7 1 ,

7 3 7 7 3 , 7 3 8 4 0



E n d e m

i s m /

M R S L

S p e c i e

s ( S c i e n t i f i c n a m e s ) 1



( c m )

V o u c h e r s p

e c i m e n s




1 0 5 . T r a c h e l y o p t e r u s g a l e a t u s ( L ü t k e n 1 8 7 4 )

C a n g a t i

n a t i v e

M Z U S

P 7 3 7 4 1

1 0 6 . T r i c h o m y c t e r u s r e i n h a r d t i ( E i g e n m a n n 1 9 1 7 )

C a m b e v a

n a t i v e

e n d e m i c

–

1 0 7 . T r i p o r t h e u s g u e n t h e r i ( G a r m a n 1 8 9 0 )

P i a b a - f a c ã o

n a t i v e

e n d e m i c

8 . 7

–

1 0 8 . B a g r o p

s i s r e i n h a r d t i ( L ü t k e n 1 8 7 4 )

M a n d i - b a g r e

l o c a l l y e x t i n c t

e n d e m i c

–

1 0 9 . C o n o r h

y n c h o s c o n i r o s t r i s ( V a l e n c i e n n e s 1 8

4 0 )

P i r á


e n d e m i c a n d t h r e a t e n e d

–

1 1 0 . F r a n c i s c o d o r a s m a r m o r a t u s ( L ü t k e n 1 8 7 4

)

M a n d i - s e r r u d o


e n d e m i c

–

1 1 1 . G l a n i d

i u m a l b e s c e n s ( L ü t k e n 1 8 7 4 )

P e i x e - d o u r a d o


e n d e m i c

–

1 1 2 . H a s e m a n i a n a n a ( L ü t k e n 1 8 7 5 )

P i a b a


e n d e m i c

–

1 1 3 . H y p o s t o m u s l i m a ( L ü t k e n 1 8 7 4 )

C a s c u d o


e n d e m i c

–

1 1 4 . P a c h y u

r u s f r a n c i s c i ( C u v i e r 1 8 3 0 )

C o r v i n a


e n d e m i c

–

1 1 5 . P i m e l o d e l l a v i t t a t a ( L ü t k e n 1 8 7 4 )

M a n d i - c h o r ã o


–

1 1 6 . P s e u d o p i m e l o d u s c h a r u s ( V a l e n c i e n n e s 1 8

4 0 )

B a g r e - s a p o


e n d e m i c

–

1 1 7 . R h a m d

i o p s i s m i c r o c e p h a l a ( L ü t k e n 1 8 7 4 )

B a g r i n h o


–

1 1 8 . R i n e l o r i c a r i a l i m a ( K n e r 1 8 5 3 )

C a s c u d o - b a r b a d o


e n d e m i c

–

1 1 9 . S t e g o p h i l u s i n s i d i o s u s ( R e i n h a r d t 1 8 5 9

C a n d i r u


e n d e m i c

–

1 2 0 . T r i c h o m y c t e r u s b r a s i l i e n s i s ( L ü t k e n 1 8 7 4

C a m b e v a


–

1 A

c c o r d i n

g t o R e i s e t a l . ( 2 0 0 3 ) ;

2 A

s c i t e d

l o c a l l y o r a t T r ê s M a r i a s r e g i o

n ( B r i t s k i e t a l . ,

1 9 8 8 )

3 E

n d e m i s

m c h e c k e d i n F i s h b a s e ( w w w . f i s h b a s e . o r g ) a n d C a t a l o g o f F i s h e s ( w w w . c a l a c a d e m y . o r g / r e s e r a c h / i c h t h y o l o g y / c a t a l o g ) . C o n s e r v a t i o n

s t a t u s r e f e

r s t o a n y c a t e g o r y o f t h r e a t m e

n t i o n e d i n M a c h a d o e t a l . ( 1 9 9

8 ) , a n d M M A 2 0 0 4 ) . M R S L =

m a x i m u m r e c o r d e d s t a n d a r d l

e n g t h i n

p r e s e n t s t u d i e s i n R i o d a s V e l h a s b a s i n .



E n d e m

i s m /

M R S L




( c m )


alves and pompeu - rio das velhas

Documents