Environmental Biology of Fishes

, Volume 84, Issue 1, pp 109–120 | Cite as

High altitude mountain streams as a possible refuge habitat for the catfish Amphilius uranoscopus

  • Matthias P. van Oosterhout
  • Gerard van der Velde
  • Ian G. Gaigher
Article

Abstract

Amphilius uranoscopus is a catfish species, restricted to rivers and streams in east, southern and central Africa. It is likely to be displaced due to both competition and predation by exotic trout and other introduced fish. In high altitude mountain streams it can be the only species occurring, which means that this habitat may act as a refuge for this species. Ecosystems like this are threatened by habitat alteration and are therefore in need of protection. The abiotic environment, population structure, behavior and feeding biology of Amphilius uranoscopus were studied in a small, high-altitude perennial tributary of the Limpopo River in the Soutpansberg mountain range, Limpopo Province, South Africa, during 2005–2006. Here A. uranoscopus showed nocturnal behavior. It used dark hollow crevices in rapids as shelters during the daytime. The rapids are characterized by a high flow rate, high dissolved oxygen content and coarse riverbed substrate consisting mainly of boulders without fallen leaves. In contrast to the adults, juveniles found shelter among the fallen leaves in pools. At night, A. uranoscopus moved out of the rapids into the open water of the pools. The main food of A. uranoscopus consisted of macroinvertebrates, mainly Trichoptera larvae. Amounts of algae and detritus in its diet were negligible. A. uranoscopus foraged mainly in rapids and on rock surfaces, spending less time foraging between the fallen leaves at the bottom of pools, in open water, at the surfaces of bottom and bank and near the water surface. At the water surface, it also fed opportunistically on terrestrial insects that dropped into the stream, like flying termites. A. uranoscopus was the top predator of the stream system and reached a high density (0.71 fish m−2). There was no competition from other fish species at the study site as they were lacking. A. uranoscopus showed a striking ability to climb and cling on to vertical substrates to conquer waterfalls and very shallow streams that sometimes become dry, using its fins, adhesive body and protruding mouth teeth.

Keywords

Amphilius uranoscopus Refuge habitat Behavior Diet analysis Stable isotopes 

References

  1. Anonymous (1982) Amphilius platychir. Trop Fish Hobbyist 30Google Scholar
  2. Bell-Cross G (1976) The fishes of Rhodesia. National Museums and Monuments of Rhodesia, Salisbury, pp 169–171Google Scholar
  3. Fouche PSO, Foord SH, Potgieter N, van der Waal BCW, van Ree T (2005) Towards an understanding of factors affecting the biotic integrity of rivers in the Limpopo Province: niche partitioning, habitat preference and microbiological status in rheophilic biotopes of the Luvuvhu and Mutale rivers. Water Research Commission, pp 61–132Google Scholar
  4. Gaigher IG, Hamman KCD, Thorne SC (1980) The distribution, conservation status and factors affecting the survival of indigenous freshwater fishes in the Cape Province. Koedoe 23:57–88Google Scholar
  5. Gratwicke B, Marshall BE (2001) The relationship between exotic predators Micropterus salmoides and Serranochromis robustus and native stream fisher in Zimbabwe. J Fish Biol 58:68–75Google Scholar
  6. Günther A (1864) Report on a collection of reptiles and fishes made by Dr. Kirk in the Zambesi and Nyassa regions. Sep Proc Zool Soc London: 1–2Google Scholar
  7. Jackson PBN (1961) The impact of predation, especially by the tiger-fish (Hydrocynus vittatus Cast.) on African freshwater fishes. Proc Zool Soc Lond 132:1–30Google Scholar
  8. Jubb RA (1967) Freshwater fishes of Southern Africa. Balkema, Capetown, pp 147–148Google Scholar
  9. Kadye WT, Moyo NAG, Magadza CHD, Kativu S (2008) Habitat associations of three stream fishes on a montane plateau (Nyika Plateau, Malawi). Acta Zool Sin 54:67–76Google Scholar
  10. Matthes H (1967) The fishes and fisheries of the Ruaha River basin, Tanzania. EAFFO Occ Pap 9:1–9Google Scholar
  11. Minagawa W, Wada E (1984) Stepwise enrichment of 15N along food chains: further evidence and the relation between δ 15N and animal age. Geochim Cosmochim Acta 48:1135–1140 doi:10.1016/0016-7037(84)90204-7 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Moyle PB, Vondracek B (1985) Persistence and structure of the fish assemblage in a small California stream. Ecology 66:1–13 doi:10.2307/1941301 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Pfeffer GJ (1889) Übersicht der von Herrn Dr. Franz Stuhlmann in Ägypten, auf Sanzibar und dem gegenüberliegenden Festlande gesammelten Reptilien Amphibien Fische Mollusken und Krebse. Jahrb Wiss Anst Hamburg 6(2):15–16Google Scholar
  14. Pienaar U de V (1978) The freshwater fishes of the Kruger National Park. National Parks Board of Trustees, Pretoria, pp 59–60Google Scholar
  15. Seegers L (1996a) The fishes of the Lake Rukwa Drainage. Koninklijk Museum voor Midden-Afrika Tervuren. Annalen Zool Wetenschappen 187:192–195Google Scholar
  16. Seegers L (1996b) Die Amphilius-Arten Ostafrikas. DATZ Aquar Terr 49(4):249–251, Eugen Ulmer, StuttgartGoogle Scholar
  17. Skelton PH (1984) A systematic revision of species of the catfish genus Amphilius (Siluroidei, Amphiliidae) from east and southern Africa. Ann Cape Prov Mus 16(Part 3):41–71, nat HistGoogle Scholar
  18. Skelton PH (1990) The conservation and status of threatened fishes in southern Africa. J Fish Biol 37:87–95 doi:10.1111/j.1095-8649.1990.tb05024.x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Skelton PH (1993) A complete guide to the freshwater fishes of southern Africa. Southern Book, Halfway House, p 147Google Scholar
  20. Winemiller KO, Kelso-Winemiller LC (1996) Comparative ecology of catfishes in the Upper Zambezi River floodplain. J Fish Biol 49:1043–1061 doi:10.1111/j.1095-8649.1996.tb01777.x CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2008

Authors and Affiliations

  • Matthias P. van Oosterhout
    • 1
  • Gerard van der Velde
    • 1
    • 2
  • Ian G. Gaigher
    • 3
  1. 1.Department of Animal Ecology and Ecophysiology, Institute for Water and Wetland ResearchRadboud University NijmegenNijmegenThe Netherlands
  2. 2.National Museum of Natural History NaturalisLeidenThe Netherlands
  3. 3.Lajuma Environmental Research CentreMakhadoSouth Africa

Personalised recommendations