Checklist of the Fishes of the Kundelungu National Park (Upper Congo Basin, DR Congo): Species Diversity and Endemicity of a Poorly Known Ichthyofauna

Abstract

The fish diversity of the Kundelungu National Park (KNP), one of the seven national parks of the Democratic Republic of the Congo, has never been thoroughly studied. This first checklist is presented based on a literature compilation and the study of historical (1939–1969) and recent collections (2012–2017). A total of 96 taxa are reported, including 64 native described species, one introduced species (Poecilia reticulata), 13 new species that await formal description and 18 possibly new species that require further investigation to verify their status. These taxa represent 39 genera and 17 families from the KNP including its Buffer Zone (BZ). Only six taxa, including five endemics, are known from the Core Zone on the Kundelungu Plateau (1300–1700 m alt.). At lower altitudes (800–1100 m), in the Annex Zone, 71 taxa, including 17 endemics, were found. Finally, 50 taxa, including 13 endemics and one introduced species, are known from its BZ. The fish fauna of the KNP is threatened by overfishing, destructive fishing practices, and habitat degradation due to mining pollution, and deforestation for agriculture on the river banks. The present study provides the much needed baseline data for the protection and conservation planning of this fish fauna, for which conservation suggestions are formulated.

A new species of Parauchenoglanis (Auchenoglanididae: Siluriformes) from the Upper Lualaba River (Upper Congo), with further evidence of hidden species diversity within the genus

“…and A. sp. 'mukuleji' (Abwe, 2022). As such, the discovery and formal description of a new species for the Lubudi Basin highlights the need for a more comprehensive review of its fish fauna.…”

Two New Shellear Species (Gonorhynchiformes: Kneriidae), from the Luansa River (Upper Congo Basin): Hidden Diversity Revealed by Integrative Taxonomy

“…Thirty-four measurements were also taken, 31 from both sexes, and three additional ones related to the presence of the opercular organ, from males only. The last ones, as described by Abwe [28], are: (i) the outer diameter of the opercular organ; (ii) the inner diameter of the opercular organ; and (iii) the postopercular organ length (SM: Figure S1). For the remaining measurements, eight or ten were taken on the head of female and male specimens, respectively; and 23 and 24, respectively, from the body (SM: Figure S1).…”

“…Sixteen of these measurements were taken as described by Poll [20] (SM: Figure S1a: n • 4, 6, 8, and 21; SM: Figure S1b: n • 13, and 23-26; and SM Figure S1c: n • 1-3, 5, 7, 9, 20, and 25), and three as by Seegers [16] (SM: Figure S1c: n • 17, 18, and 22). Finally, the 15 remaining measurements were taken as described by Abwe [28] (SM: Figure S1b: n • 10, 11, 12, 14, 16; SM: Figure S1c: n • 19, 27, 28, 29, 31, 32, 30, 33, and 34). All measurements were taken with digital callipers to the nearest 0.01 mm on the left side of the specimens, except if this side was damaged.…”

“…'lua-upstream' only. This question of a general vs. a less inclusive or even species-specific sexual dimorphism is further detailed in a study by Abwe [28], treating populations from the KP and its surroundings as a whole. sexual dimorphism is further detailed in a study by Abwe [28], treating populations from the KP and its surroundings as a whole.…”

“…Based on their external morphology, members of this family are characterised by having a subterminale mouth, a protruding upper jaw, a lateral line, and cycloid scales present in some of its representatives only [5][6][7]. To date, the family contains 31 valid species divided over the four present-day However, the different colour patterns of specimens originating from six different, recently sampled, localities along the Luansa do not correspond to those described for K. wittei [28]. Indeed, an integrative study, based on colour and colour pattern (qualitative), meristic and measurement (quantitative), and genetic (COI mtDNA) data, confirmed that none of these populations can be assigned to K. wittei, nor to any other known Kneria species from the Bangweulu−Mweru (B−M) and the Upper Lualaba (UL) ecoregions (ECR; sensu Abell et al [29]).…”