Published June 13, 2019
| Version v1
Journal article
Open
The Fishes Of The Amazon: Distribution And Biogeographical Patterns, With A Comprehensive List Of Species
Creators
Description
Dagosta, Fernando C.P., Pinna, Mário De (2019): The Fishes Of The Amazon: Distribution And Biogeographical Patterns, With A Comprehensive List Of Species. Bulletin of the American Museum of Natural History 2019 (431): 1-167, DOI: 10.1206/0003-0090.431.1.1, URL: https://bioone.org/journals/bulletin-of-the-american-museum-of-natural-history/volume-2019/issue-431/0003-0090.431.1.1/The-Fishes-of-the-Amazon--Distribution-and-Biogeographical-Patterns/10.1206/0003-0090.431.1.1.full
Files
source.pdf
Files
(27.0 MB)
| Name | Size | Download all |
|---|---|---|
|
md5:9e8cad6a8c6e4604954dc2fb8dea3c98
|
27.0 MB | Preview Download |
Linked records
Additional details
Identifiers
- LSID
- urn:lsid:plazi.org:pub:FF8CAD6A8C6E4604954DFFFBFFEAFF98
- URL
- http://publication.plazi.org/id/FF8CAD6A8C6E4604954DFFFBFFEAFF98
References
- Eigenmann (1909) delimited his Amazonian Province from a dispersionist perspective, where present-day connections among drainages provided the explanation for faunal sharing among basins. However, the correct interpretation for most of such massive ichthyofaunal sharing among different lowland South American basins is directly related to a complex historical context that began in the Upper Cretaceous, at least, with the formation of the Sub-Andean Foreland basin (Lundberg et al., 1998) and has little relation to present (and rather ineffective) physical connections (e.g., Casiquiare canal).
- The sub-Andean Foreland is a series of retroarc depressions lying to the east of the Andean Cordilleras that served as the main drainage axis of South America throughout the Upper Cretaceous to the Paleogene (Cooper et al., 1995; DeCelles and Giles, 1996; Lundberg, 1998; DeCelles and Horton, 2003; Albert and Reis, 2011; Lima and Ribeiro, 2011; Wesselingh and Hoorn, 2011). For much of its existence, the Sub- Andean Foreland was drained mostly by the proto-Amazon-Orinoco basin (Lundberg et al., 1998), even though the latter has also drained other areas of the South American platform further east.
- Both the pattern described here and the Amazon Province of Eigenmann (1909) match mostly (exclusive of the La Plata basin included in Eigenmann's province) the spatial limits of the proto-Amazon-Orinoco, which was a continuous basin until its fragmentation in the late Miocene (ca. 10 Ma) as a result of the rise of the Vaupes Arch in eastern Colombia that separated the modern Orinoco and Amazon basins (Hoorn, 1994a; Cooper et al., 1995; Harris and Mix, 2002; Albert and Carvalho, 2011; but see Mora et al., 2010, for a more recent estimate). That barrier may have prevented lineages that diversified after its rise from increasing their range throughout all lowland regions and may also have caused the extinction of lineages in some of those basins. Those two factors may explain the absence of some typical Amazonian lowland forms in the Orinoco basin (see examples in Amazon-only Lowland). On the other hand, part of the faunal sharing between the Amazon and Orinoco may result from broad distributions before the modern separation between those basins, i.e., from the proto-Amazon-Orinoco. Still another hypothesis to explain the same pattern is megafan dynamics, geologically more recent (see Wilkinson et al., 2010). As will be discussed in the section Negro and Orinoco, the Canal Casiquiare does not seem to be a relevant dispersal route to explain the extensive list of taxa shared between the Amazon and Orinoco lowlands.
- Some examples of exclusive taxon sharing between the Amazon and Orinoco lowlands are: Acanthicus hystrix (see Chamon, 2016), Acestrorhynchus heterolepis (see Gonzalez, 2015), Brachyhypopomus sullivani (see Crampton et al., 2016), Brycon amazonicus (see Lima, 2017), Boulengerella maculata (see Vari, 1995), Cetopsis coecutiens (see Vari et al., 2005), Cynodon gibbus (see Toledo-Piza, 2000a), Colossoma macropomum, Lasiancistrus schomburgkii (see Armbruster, 2005), Leptodoras paelongus (see Sabaj Perez, 2005), Metynnis guaporensis and M. luna (see Ota, 2015), Moenkhausia comma, Moenkhausia lepidura (fig. 7B, see Marinho and Langeani, 2016), Mylossoma albiscopum (see Mateussi, 2015), Nemadoras cristinae (see Sabaj Perez et al., 2014), Paragoniates alburnus (see Quevedo, 2006), Peckoltia bachi (see Armbruster, 2008), Potamorhina altamazonica (fig. 7C, see Vari, 1984), Sorubim elongatus (see Littmann, 2007), Trachydoras brevis, T. gepharti, T. microstomus and T. nattereri (see Sabaj and Arce, 2017), Vandellia cirrhosa (fig. 7D), Adontosternarchus spp. (see Mago-Leccia et al., 1985), Brachyrhamdia spp. (see Slobodian, 2013), Chalceus spp. (see Zanata and Toledo-Piza, 2004), Compsaraia (see Bernt and Albert, 2017), Hassar spp. (see Birin- delli et al., 2011), Laemolyta spp. (see Mautari and Menezes, 2006), Liosomadoras spp. (see Birindelli and Zuanon, 2012), Microphilypnus spp. (see Caires and Figueiredo, 2011), Tenellus spp. (sensu Birindelli, 2014; Sabaj Perez et al., 2014), and Sternarchogiton spp. (see de Santana and Crampton, 2007).
- There are many Amazonian Lowland fish lineages that also occur in the Parana-Paraguay basin, which was not permanently connected to the proto-Amazon-Orinoco. The location of the watershed divide between the proto-Amazon- Orinoco River basin and the La Plata changed between the end of the Paleogene and the beginning of the Neogene (see Tagliacollo et al., 2015). Initially, it was the Chapare Buttress in the Late Oligocene (ca. 30-20 Ma) (Lundberg, 1998) and subsequently the Michicola Arch, starting during the Late Miocene (ca. 11.8-10 Ma) in the area of modern eastern Bolivia (Lundberg et al., 1998; Montoya-Burgos, 2003; Albert and Carvalho, 2011; Carvalho and Albert, 2011a). Several events may have permitted biotic dispersal between the Amazon and Paraguay: upper Paraguay captures of proto- Amazonas-Orinoco headwaters (Lundberg et al., 1998), Amazon capture of upper Paraguay headwaters (Lundberg et al., 1998), river megafans involving the upper Rio Mamore and tributaries of the upper Rio Paraguay (Wilkinson et al., 2006, 2010; Ota et al., 2014) and capture of upper Rio Paraguay into the upper Rio Guapore (Ota et al., 2014). Because all possible connections between the Amazon and the Parana-Par- aguay happened as a result of separate events of different ages, it is very likely that many species shared between those basins, despite their congruent distributions, lack temporal congruence. They correspond instead to cases of pseudocongruence, sensu Donoghue and Moore (2003), and are not biogeographically homologous. Taxa shared between those basins include: Acestrorhynchus abbreviatus (see Gonzalez, 2015), Acestrorhynchus gr. lacustris (see Gonzalez, 2015), Brachyhypopomus bombilla (see Crampton et al., 2016), Epapterus dispilurus (see fig. 8B; Vari and Ferraris, 1998), Hemigrammus lunatus (see fig. 8C; Ota et al., 2014), Mesonauta festivus (see fig. 8D; Kullander and Silfvergrip, 1991; Schindler, 2005), Moema spp. (see Costa, 2004), and Prionobrama spp. (see Quevedo, 2006). A complete list of species shared exclu- sively between the Madeira and the Paraguay is presented in Madeira and Paraguay.
- Whitewater Amazonian rivers have high sediment and nutrient loads and a neutral pH, draining a relatively young Andean range. Major whitewater tributaries include the Maranon, Purus, Madeira, Jurua, Putumayo, Japura, and Napo rivers. The whole Rio Amazonas system exhibits whitewater, although it receives other water types from various tributaries. There are few investigations into the impact of such water type changes on the biogeography of Amazonian fishes. Vari (1988) suggested that some curimatids are restricted to whitewater rivers and that their distribution may be more closely linked to ecological rather than historical factors. While the pattern is correct in some cases, we also agree with Lima and Ribeiro (2011: 157) that "some ecological factors that clearly influence fish distribution patterns in northern cis- Andean South America, such as water typology, are, as mentioned previously, a consequence of geomorphological processes and, as such, possess a historical component." Thus, it is possible that lowland species restricted to the Amazon reached such distribution from different causes and histories, either because they diversified after separation of the Orinoco from the proto- Amazon-Orinoco basin or because they are whitewater dependent.
- Evidence suggests that the interpretation of Vari (1988) may be correct for a set of species showing this pattern of distribution. Some of the exclusively Amazonian lowland species are absent in the Rio Tocantins basin, having their distributions limited to the region of the mouth of the Madeira. This may indicate an association with whitewater since tributaries with that type of water become practically nonexistent downstream of that part of the Amazon river. Some examples of the Amazon-only Lowland pattern are: Adontosternarchus balaenops (see fig. 9B; Mago-Leccia et al., 1985), Agoniates anchovia, Aphanotorulus horridus (see Ray and Armbruster, 2016), Aphanotorulus unicolor (see Ray and Armbruster, 2016), Apionichthys nattereri (see Ramos, 2003), Brycon melanopterus (see Lima, 2017), Chalceus erythrurus (see Zanata and Toledo-Piza, 2004), Cetopsis candiru (see fig. 9C; Vari et al., 2005;), Cetopsis oliveirai (see Vari et al., 2005), Chaetobranchopsis orbicularis, Copella stigmasemion (see Marinho and Menezes, 2017), Crenicara punctulatum, Curimata aspera (see Vari, 1989a), C. kneri (see Vari, 1989a), Curimatella meyeri (see fig. 9D; Vari, 1992b), Cyphocharax spiluropsis (see Vari, 1992b), C. notatus (see Vari, 1992b), C. plumbeus (see Vari, 1992b), Denticetopsis seducta (see Vari et al., 2005), Hydrolycus scomberoides (Toledo- Piza et al., 1999), Hypostomus pyrineusi (see Armbruster, 2003), Leporinus jamesi (see Garavello et al., 2014), Protocheirodon pi (see Vari et al., 2016), Mylossoma aureum (see Mateussi, 2015), Nemadoras elongatus, N. hemipeltis, N. humeralis (see Sabaj Perez et al., 2014), Potamorhina latior (see Vari, 1984), Prionobrama filigera (see Quevedo, 2006), Psectrogaster amazonica (see Vari, 1989b), Pseudobunocephalus amazonicus (see Cardoso, 2008), P. bifidus (see Cardoso, 2008), Scoloplax dicra (see Schaefer et al., 1989), Sorubim maniradii (see Littmann, 2007), Steindachnerina bimaculata (see Vari, 1991), S. leucisca (see Vari, 1991), Sternarchella calhamazon (see Lundberg et al., 2013), Trachydoras steindachneri (see Sabaj and Arce, 2017), Aphyolebias spp. (see Costa, 2004), and Chaetobranchopsis spp.
- The pattern of distribution described herein is repeatedly supported as biogeographically coherent in the analyses of Dagosta and de Pinna (2017).
- This pattern is the least common one among lowland species in the Amazon basin. Most cases are also present in the Tocantins basin, but not in Guianan drainages. Some examples of this pattern are: Abramites hypselonotus (see Vari and Williams, 1987), Curimatella dorsalis (see Vari, 1992a), Hypophthalmus oremaculatus (see fig. 10D; Littmann et al., 2015), Rhaphiodon vulpinus (see fig. 10B; Toledo-Piza, 2000a), Roeboides affinis (see Lucena, 2007), Sorubim lima (see fig. 10C; Littmann, 2007), and Mylossoma spp. (see Mateussi, 2015). The Amazonas-Paraguay-Orinoco Lowland pattern comprises areas from the previously described Amazon and Orinoco Lowlands as well as the Amazon and Paraguay Lowlands, and thus the associated geological processes are the same as discussed in the respective headings.