Next Article in Journal
Applying the Nernst Equation to Control ORP in Denitrification Process for Uranium-Containing Nuclear Effluent with High Loads of Nitrogen and COD
Next Article in Special Issue
Land-Use Pattern as a Key Factor Determining the Water Quality, Fish Guilds, and Ecological Health in Lotic Ecosystems of the Asian Monsoon Region
Previous Article in Journal
Flow-Type Landslides Analysis in Arid Zones: Application in La Chimba Basin in Antofagasta, Atacama Desert (Chile)
Previous Article in Special Issue
Insights into Phytoplankton Dynamics and Water Quality Monitoring with the BIOFISH at the Elbe River, Germany
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:

Fish Species Composition, Distribution and Community Structure in Relation to Environmental Variation in a Semi-Arid Mountainous River Basin, Iran

Mojgan Zare-Shahraki
Eisa Ebrahimi-Dorche
Andreas Bruder
Joseph Flotemersch
Karen Blocksom
4 and
Doru Bănăduc
Department of Natural Resources, Isfahan University of Technology, Isfahan 84156-83111, Iran
Institute of Microbiology, University of Applied Sciences and Arts of Southern Switzerland, 6850 Mendrisio, Switzerland
Office of Research and Development, United States Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DC 20460, USA
National Health and Environmental Effects Research, United States Environmental Protection Agency, Corvallis, OR 97333, USA
Applied Ecology Research Center, Lucian Blaga University of Sibiu, European Union, 550012 Sibiu, Romania
Authors to whom correspondence should be addressed.
These authors contributed equally to this work.
Water 2022, 14(14), 2226;
Submission received: 28 May 2022 / Revised: 1 July 2022 / Accepted: 10 July 2022 / Published: 14 July 2022


We analyzed spatial variation in fish species richness and community composition in the Karun River basin, Iran. Knowledge about fish diversity in the basin is incomplete and varies widely along spatial and temporal scales: The Karun is the longest river in Iran (950 km) with the largest drainage area (about 67,000 km2). Fish samples were collected from 54 sites from July through August 2019 using a backpack electro-fisher. Physico-chemical and habitat parameter data collected at each site included pH, conductivity (μS/cm), dissolved oxygen (mg/L), water temperature (°C), turbidity (NTU), stream width (m), stream depth (m), water velocity (m/s) and elevation (m). In total, 37 species were collected (5241 individuals weighing 110.67 kg). The species collected represented 12 families and 27 genera. A total of 13 endemic species (35.14%), 16 native species (43.24%), and eight non-native species (21.62%) were recorded. Diversity indices were calculated and used to measure the spatial variation in community composition. Relationships between native and endemic species assemblage structure and environmental descriptors were assessed using canonical correspondence analysis (CCA). The first two axes of the canonical correspondence analysis explained 62.57% of the variation in the data. Of the nine environmental descriptors analyzed, eight significantly affected species distribution; however, electrical conductivity and elevation were most influential. Our study provides up-to-date status information on the distribution of freshwater fishes in the Karun River basin. This information is essential for developing conservation and management strategies to support the long-term sustainability of fish populations in the Karun River basin.

1. Introduction

Large river basins have been inhabited by humans for more than five millennia and have contributed to the success of some of the most important human culture and civilization centers in human history [1,2,3,4,5]. However, human presence in the watersheds resulted in complex and highly variable impacts on lotic ecosystems. Such human impacts have altered water flows and the quality of habitats of many freshwater fish species and are a major cause of the decline in freshwater fish biodiversity [3,4,5]. Despite the importance of these impacts, many large river systems have not been adequately studied, especially where the spatial and temporal dynamics of the area require complex study designs for robust assessment [6]. Many Iranian rivers, such as the Karun River basin, serve as examples of this lack of knowledge [7,8,9,10].
The Middle East is a transition region between three important biogeographical units, the Palearctic, the Afrotropical, and the Oriental realms [11]. Iran is located in the Palearctic region bordering the Oriental and Ethiopian zones [12], and its north-west, west and south-west are parts of Irano-Anatolian biodiversity hot spot with high biodiversity and endemism, especially with regard to freshwater fish [13,14]. The ichthyofaunal composition of Iran is a result of the Iranian Plateau boarding the Eastern Mediterranean (Western-Palearctic), the Southern Asian (Indo-Oriental) and the Ethiopian regions [15]. As a result, this area is considered as the origin of many fish species, and an important crossroad of migration routes, resulting in high biodiversity of freshwater fishes [16,17]. New species of fish are regularly being described from this area. However, human population growth, aquaculture, fish introductions and movement, drought, pollution and habitat destruction have had negative effects on the diversity of freshwater fish communities [15,18].
Among the Iranian Plateau drainage systems, the Karun River basin shows a great fish diversity [13,14,19] despite being affected by pollution and impacted water quality [20], which has increased the environmental risks to freshwater fish [21]. For example, many sections of the basin receive raw sewage from industrial, agricultural and urban sources which may lead to the bioaccumulation of chemicals in fish tissues [22]. Negative effects of water quality issues or loss of natural habitats on aquatic organisms may include effects on reproduction, behavior, the immune system or genetic damage leading to alterations in community composition [23]. Understanding the impact of such pollutants on fish species composition, distribution and community structure in the Karun River basin is challenging due to limited knowledge on fish diversity and distribution in the different sections of the basin. Thus, the goal of our study was to reveal spatial patterns of fish community structure in the Karun River basin in the context of environmental variables.

2. Material and Methods

2.1. Study Area

The Karun River is the longest river (950 km) in Iran with the largest drainage area (about 67,000 km2). It flows from the central Zagros range and discharges into the Persian Gulf. This study was limited to wadable sections of Karun’s basin, including 18 large and small rivers (Figure 1). The average distance between sampling sites was 27 ± 44 km. Where present, the tree vegetation on both sides of the stream was mixed, mostly consisting of Fagaceae, Tamaricaceae, and Salicaceae.

2.2. Field Sampling

Fish samples were collected from 54 sites (Figure 1) from July to August 2019 using a backpack electro-fisher (Samus 1000, Poland; 12 V import, 250 V export), which was applied from downstream to upstream at each site. Sampling sites were 150–200 m long and comprised different mesohabitats. Each site was fished for approximately 90 min. Fish with body lengths greater than 20 mm were identified to the species level, counted, measured for total length and weight, and returned to the river [24]. Fish less than 20 mm were conserved in formaldehyde and transported to the laboratory for identification using a dissecting microscope. The identification of fish species was based on available references [12,14,25,26].

2.3. Physico-Chemical and Habitat Parameters

Physico-chemical and habitat parameters measured in situ included pH, electrical conductivity (EC) (μS/cm), dissolved oxygen (DO: mg/L), water temperature (T: °C), turbidity (NTU), stream width (m), average stream depth (m), water velocity (m/s) and elevation (m). Dissolved oxygen was measured by a portable oxygen meter (Model: WTW oxi 3210); stream width and stream depth using measurement tapes and tube, respectively; water velocity (Flow meter, Model: 001); and elevation using GPS (Garmin GPSMAP 64X).

2.4. Data Analysis

Dominant and common fish species were determined by the index of relative importance (IRI) based on the numerical percentage, weight percentage and frequency of occurrence Equation (1) [27]:
IRIi = (%Ni + %Wi) × %Fi
where %Ni and %Wi represent the percentage in terms of numbers and percentage in terms of weight, respectively, of species i in the total catch, and %Fi is the frequency of occurrence of species i. When IRIi was greater than 10%, species i was considered dominant, whereas species with 1% < IRIi < 10% were considered common.
Several diversity indices Equations (2)–(5) were used to measure the spatial variation in fish species diversity as follows [28,29]:
Margalef species richness index : D = S 1 / l n N
Simpson’s index of diversity : D = 1     P i 2
Shannon–Wiener diversity index : H =   P i   l n   P i
Pielou evenness index : J = H / l n S
where S is the number of species, N is the total number of individuals of all species, and Pi is the proportion of each species in the sample.
A dataset covering all collected species at each site was constructed. Similarity analyses were conducted based on the relative abundance of species/site. The furthest-neighbor method with squared Euclidean distance was then used for cluster analysis of the community matrix. A gradient in the community of native and endemic species and the importance of environmental descriptors were assessed using canonical correspondence analysis (CCA). Species with a frequency of occurrence of at least 10% of the total sampled sites were included in this analysis (9 native and 11 endemic species). Statistical analysis was carried out using R software (version 4.0.3) [30] in the vegan package.

3. Results

3.1. Species Composition

Thirty-seven species in total were collected from the 54 sites (5241 individuals weighing 110.67 kg) and categorized into 12 families and 27 genera (Appendix A and Appendix B). Of these, the most species-rich family was Cyprinidae (40.5%, 15 species), followed by Leuciscidae (21.6%, eight species), Nemacheilidae (10.8%, four species) and Xenocyprididae (5.4%, two species). Aphanidae, Poeciliidae, Sisoridae, Mastacembelidae, Salmonidae, Mugilidae, Gobionidae and Gobiidae were represented by one species each. A total of 13 endemic species (35.14%), 16 native species (43.24%) and eight non-native species (21.62%) were reported in the Karun River basin. The fish from the study area belonged to four feeding groups. The percentage of omnivorous, benthivorous, carnivorous, and herbivorous fish accounted for 54.05%, 21.62%, 8.11% and 16.22%, respectively. The substrate preference for most of the species was rocky streambed (72.97%), followed by vegetative substrate (27.03%). Distribution and presence status of different species at the Karun River basin, along with other characteristics, are presented in Table 1. The dominant species were Capoeta coadi (IRI, 23%), followed by Capoeta aculeata (IRI, 12.41%), Garra rufa (IRI, 10.29%) and Chondrostoma regium (IRI, 10.27%). The common species were Alburnus sellal (IRI, 6.78%), Capoeta pyragyi (IRI, 5.72%), Squalius berak (IRI, 2.77%), Capoeta trutta (IRI, 2.54%), Garra gymnothorax (IRI, 2.25%), Alburnoides idignensis (IRI, 1.22%), and Barbus lacerta (IRI, 1.02%) (Table 2). The abundance and biomass of these 10 species accounted for 78.57% of the total individuals and 83.86% of the total biomass.

3.2. Species Distribution in the Karun River Basin

The general distribution of fish species in the 54 sites is shown in Appendix B. Four species (Capoeta coadi, Chondrostoma regium, Garra rufa, and Alburnus sellal) appeared in more than 50% of sites, whereas nine species were recorded in only one or two sites. Cluster analysis divided sampling sites into ten different groups (Figure 2) based on relative abundance of different fish species. Most sampling sites, and consequently, most fish species were in one group, all of which were located in the upper and middle parts of the Karun River basin (Figure 3). The other groups covered five sites (49–53) located in the lower mainstream regions in the Karun River basin (Figure 2). Five species (Mastacembelus mastacembelus, Carasobarbus luteus, Arabibarbus grypus, Alburnus caeruleus and Hemiculter leucisculus) were only reported from these sites. Some species such as Gambusia holbrooki, Rhinogobius lindbergi and Pseudorasbora parva were found only at site 22 and Ctenopharyngodon idella was present only at site 24.

3.3. Spatial Variation in Fish Composition

Fish diversity and evenness indices are presented in Table 3. No fish were caught at sites 0, 15, and 29, which are therefore not included in Table 3. The highest species richness was observed at sites 20 and 22 (with 13 and 15 fish species, respectively), whereas the lowest value (one species) was observed at site 49. The maximum abundance (388 individuals) was collected at site 38, whereas the minimum (two and three individuals) was observed at sites 18 and 49, respectively. The highest biomass (5688.4 g) was observed at site 10, whereas lowest (14.08 g) was observed at site 49. The species diversity indices also differed among sampling sites. The Simpson dominance index ranged from 0–0.86, with a smaller value indicating a higher concentration and lower diversity. The maximum value for Margalef species richness index (2.96), Shannon−Wiener diversity index (2.14), Simpson’s index (0.86), and Pielou evenness index (1) were observed at sites 31, 22, 41 and (18, 46) respectively. Site 49, with only one species, had the minimum score (0) for evenness and diversity indices.

3.4. Environmental Variables

Details of some measured physico-chemical and habitat parameters in the Karun River are presented in Table 4.
The first two axes of the canonical correspondence analysis explained 62.57% of the data variation. The first axis explained 37.17%, and the second axis explained 25.4%. Out of nine analyzed environmental descriptors, eight variables had a significant influence on species distribution (Table 5), but electrical conductivity and elevation were the most influential. In streams with greater stream width, C. trutta, C. coadi, C. aculeata, C. regium and G. rufa were more common and some species, such as G. silviae, A. sellal, T. hafezi, C. kosswigi, L. barbulus and T. saadii, were present in shallower depths. In rivers with higher electrical conductivity and temperature, the most common species were C. macrostomus and G. gymnothorax; in rivers with higher water velocity and elevation, A. doriae and S. berak were common (Figure 4).

4. Discussion

4.1. Environmental Parameters

The influence of environmental variables on fish species distribution and community structure contributes to a more complete understanding of fish-habitat relationships [31]. Among water quality parameters, water temperature (T) is one of the most important parameters that affects the survival, growth, and metabolic activities of fish [31,32,33,34]. The maximum recommended level of water temperature in some references is 20 °C to 30 °C to support fish growth rate [35,36,37,38], which was consistent with our results. In our study, water temperature increased longitudinally from headwaters to downstream sites [36,37,38]. pH was probably also influential in explaining the presence or absence of fish species. The optimal pH for freshwater fish species usually ranges from 5.5 to 7.5 [31,32,33,34], which is consistent with the results of our study. The concentration of dissolved oxygen also strongly influences abundance, distribution, activity, behavior and survival of freshwater fish [39,40,41]. In this study, high concentrations were consistently recorded (Table 4). Water turbidity and velocity can also impact fish community structure. Water transparency in fluvial systems is affected by season, rainfall patterns, and water velocity [42], whereas current velocity is controlled by season, altitude, and morphological structure [42]. Meteorology and microclimatic drivers also influence hydrology of the study sites in the Karun with depth of water increasing from upstream to downstream sites. High turbidity and high flow velocities were indeed observed in the Karun, in particular during and after rainfall events. Turbidity values reported as best supporting fish communities range from 0–40 (NTU) [43]. In our study, increased water velocities were associated with decreases in all diversity indices and in richness, a finding concurrent with those of other studies [36,44,45,46].

4.2. Fish Community Structure and Diversity

Our study provides information about the community structure and spatial variation of the fish species in the Karun River basin. Fish species vary in their sensitivity to human intervention, natural calamities and environmental degradation in general [42,47,48,49,50]. The majority of fish species observed in our study belonged to the Cyprinidae and Leuciscidae families. The most dominant species was C. coadi, followed by C. aculeata, G. rufa and C. regium. These species have many populations across their distribution range and no known major threat; therefore, they were classified as species of least concern [14]. Owing to the large size of two of the species in the genus Capoeta, they are targeted by fishermen. C. regium is an endangered species in Turkey [51].
Endemic freshwater fish comprise 79 species in Iran [14], of which thirteen species are endemic to the Karun basin (Table 1). Endemic species have, by definition, a small geographic spread and often depend on specific and sometimes rare habitat types [52,53]. Among them, some species, including Aphanius vladykovi and Sasanidus kermanshahensis, were classified as near threatened and endangered, respectively [14]. The endemic species we detected had limited distribution in our set of sites (Appendix A) and are particularly sensitive to change and degradation of the environment compared to more dispersed species [51,52]. Only Carasobarbus kosswigi (native) and Cyprinus carpio (non-native) were considered vulnerable [14].
Site 22 had the highest species richness among all sampling sites. This was surprising given that site did not have water quality and habitat conditions that seemed appropriate to support the observed fish community. We hypothesize that the observed high richness may have been partly caused by a great flood event that occurred in the study area in the early spring of 2019 prior to our summer sampling, and that some species may have been transferred to this site and were not able to return to their original habitat when waters receded due to the presence of a previously submerged barrier in the river (Figure 5d). Additionally, three non-native species (i.e., Pseudorasbora parva, Rhinogobius lindbergi and Gambusia holbrooki were recorded only at this site. Site 20 (Figure 5e) supported the next highest species richness. Bank areas were well vegetated and a mixture of micro-habitats was present. Physico-chemical characteristics and habitat conditions were also suitable. The lowest species richness was observed at site 49 with only one species, Hemiculter leucisculus. This species is typical of downstream sites of the Karun River basin and generally not observed in upstream areas [14]. Hydrological characteristics of site 49 varied substantially over the day due to the influence of water discharge from power generation turbines. When discharges occur from the reservoir into the river during power generation, the mean depth, water velocity and flow increase substantially. Regularly disrupted flow conditions probably limited fish diversity at this site. Nyanti et al. (2018) reach a similar conclusion in the context of hydropower operations on the Batang Ai river in Malaysia. Evenness in our communities was close to 1, indicating very few dominant species in the Karun River basin (Table 3) [53]. Among the sampling sites, sites 0 (Figure 5a), 15 (Figure 5b) and 29 (Figure 5c) were registered as fish-free sites. Observed conditions that might have contributed to these sites being less utilized by fish include low water temperature, high water velocity, the presence of large boulders in the riverbed, and also the lack of nutrients. This, together with reduced connectivity of these sites, might explain the absence of fish at these three sites [54,55].
In general, the results of cluster analysis (Figure 2 and Figure 3) showed that some species, such as Hemiculter leucisculus, Carasobarbus luteus, Mastacembelus mastacembelus, Alburnus caeruleus and Acantobramam marmid, were found only in downstream parts of the Karun River basin (Sites 49–53). These species are generally considered tolerant species that prefer warm water with stony or gravel substrates and bushy riparian zones [56]. Environmental conditions differ strongly between the lower and the upper parts of the Karun River basin (e.g., water depth, river width, substrate size, temperature, EC, pH, etc.). The lower parts of the basin are furthermore influenced by urbanization. These factors influence the distribution of fish in rivers [36].
In this study, the CCA analysis revealed how native and endemic fish community composition responded to changes in environmental variables in the Karun River Basin [57,58]. Most of the measured environmental variables had a significant influence on species distribution (Table 5). However, EC and elevation were the most influential variables for the distributions of native and endemic fish species in the Karun River basin. G.gymnothorax and C.macrostomus were positively associated with high conductivity, whereas S.berak, A.sellal, T.saadii and B.karunensis were positively associated with dissolved oxygen concentrations. Jaramillo-Villa et al. (2010) and Suarez et al. (2011) stated that altitudinal gradients promote changes in community composition along river systems due to differences in habitat use, feeding behaviour and movement of fish species [59,60]. Likewise, Dubey et al. (2012) observed that EC, DO, pH, alkalinity, and salinity were most strongly correlated with fish community composition of the Kali Gandaki River basin in Nepal, and the Ganga River basin in India [61]. In the study of Mondal and Bhat (2020) EC, DO and water velocity were influential factors in tropical streams in India [62]. Our results concur with the findings from these studies and further support the importance of these environmental variables in characterizing fish–environment relationships.

4.3. Current Threats to Fish Communities in the Karun River Basin

Disturbances due to drought, dam construction, sand excavation (i.e., damaging effects on fish feeding, migration, and reproduction grounds), pollution, and overfishing are the most significant threats to fish biodiversity in Iran [25,63,64] as in other parts of Asia [65,66,67]. For example, the construction of the Karun 1, 3, 4, Abbaspour, and Gotvand dams on the Karun River has strongly altered river connectivity and hydrology, and disrupted the longitudinal migration of fishes. In particular, the frequent droughts in the last few years have severely threatened aquatic organisms including fish. In summer, many large rivers are reduced to a trickle as a result of excessive water abstraction for agricultural purposes. However, it seems that some fish species have been able to adapt to these new conditions and persist. Overfishing and illegal fishing are other threats to fish communities throughout all large river systems in Iran, especially in the downstream parts of the Karun River basin. As a result of such widespread alterations and habitat loss, fish communities have been negatively impacted in most Iranian water bodies [25].

5. Conclusions

Conservation of freshwater fish should be based on a comprehensive understanding of large-scale species-richness patterns and endemism patterns. The methods used in our study provide a basis for assessing the current status of freshwater fish diversity in the Karun River basin. This status information is essential in determining appropriate conservation and management strategies and filling gaps in knowledge in important but strongly altered basins such as the Karun River basin. Some of the described impacts of altered environmental conditions with consequences on fish community composition could be alleviated by the designation and effective management of protected areas. Based on our findings, we propose the following conservation measures to protect and sustainably use fish biodiversity in the Karun River basin: (1) re-establishment of economically important fish species such as L. barbulus, A. grypus and C. kosswigi; (2) prohibition of fishing during the breeding season; and (3) habitat restoration for endangered and important species such as G. silviae and S. kermanshahensis.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, M.Z.-S. and E.E.-D.; Data curation, M.Z.-S.; Formal analysis, M.Z.-S., E.E.-D., A.B., J.F., K.B. and D.B.; Funding acquisition, M.Z.-S., E.E.-D. and A.B; Investigation, M.Z.-S. and E.E.-D.; Methodology, M.Z.-S.; Project administration, M.Z.-S.; Resources, M.Z.-S. and E.E.-D.; Software, M.Z.-S.; Supervision, M.Z.-S., E.E.-D., A.B., J.F., K.B. and D.B.; Validation, E.E.-D., A.B., J.F., K.B. and D.B.; Visualization, M.Z.-S., E.E.-D., A.B., J.F., K.B. and D.B.; Writing—original draft, M.Z.-S., E.E.-D., A.B., J.F., K.B. and D.B.; Writing—review and editing, M.Z.-S., E.E.-D., A.B., J.F., K.B. and D.B. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.


This research was financially supported through a collaborative project between the Isfahan University of Technology and the Swiss Leading House for South Asia and Iran (ZHAW). We are grateful to the Iranian Ministry of Energy and the Department of Environment for their in-kind support.

Institutional Review Board Statement

Not applicable.

Informed Consent Statement

All the co-authors checked and are agreed with this form of the accepted research paper. All experiments have been conducted as per the guidelines of the Institutional Animal Ethics Committee, Department of Natural Resources, Isfahan University of Technology, Isfahan, Iran.

Data Availability Statement

Not applicable.


The authors appreciate Ebrahim Motaghi, Saeid Asadolah, and Azita Rezvani for their assistance with fieldwork and map preparation, respectively. The authors would like to thank Johnson Brent and Sean Collins (United States Environmental Protection Agency) for their comments on an earlier draft that greatly contributed to the improvement of this paper. The research presented was not performed or funded by EPA and was not subject to EPA’s quality system requirements. The views expressed in this article are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily represent the views or the policies of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

Appendix A. The fish species presence/absence status in the Karun River basin

SiteCapoeta coadiCapoeta aculeataCapoeta pyragyiCapoeta truttaCarassius gibelioArabibarbus grypusCyprinus carpioGarra rufaGarra gymnothoraxBarbus lacertaBarbus karunensisLuciobarbus barbulusCarasobarbus luteusCarasobarbus kosswigiCyprion macrostomusChondrostoma regiumSqualius berakSqualius lepidusAcanthobrama marmidAlburnus sellalAlburnus caeruleusAlburnus doriaeAlburnoides idignesisHemiculter leucisculusCtenopharyngodon idellaSasanidus kermanshahensisTurcinoemacheilus saadiiTurcinoemacheilus hafeziOxynoemacheilus freyhofiGlyptothorax silviaePlaniPlaniliza abuAphanius vladykoviMastacembelus mastacembelusOncorhynchus mykissRhinogobius lindbergiPseudorasbora parvaGambusia holbrooki

Appendix B. The photos of all recorded fish species in the Karun River basin, Iran

Water 14 02226 g0a1aWater 14 02226 g0a1bWater 14 02226 g0a1cWater 14 02226 g0a1dWater 14 02226 g0a1e


  1. Cianfaglione, K. Plant Landscape and Models of French Atlantic Estuarine Systems, Extended Summary of the Doctoral Thesis. Transylv. Rev. of Syst. and Ecol. Res. 2021, 1, 15–36. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  2. Fang, Y.; Jawitz, J.W. The Evolution of Human Population Distance to Water in the USA from 1790 to 2010. Nat. Commun. 2019, 10, 430. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  3. Marić, S.; Stanković, D.; Wazenbök, J.; Šanda, R.; Erös, T.; Takács, A.; Specziár, A.; Sekulić, A. Phylogeography and population genetics of the European mudminnow (Umbra krameri) with a time-calibrated phylogeny for the family Umbridae. Hidrobiologia 2017, 792, 151–168. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  4. Bănăduc, D.; Rey, S.; Trichkova, T.; Lenhardt, M.; Curtean-Bănăduc, A. The Lower Danube River–Danube Delta–North West Black Sea: A Pivotal Area of Major Interest for the Past, Present and Future of Its Fish Fauna—A Short Review. Sci. Total Environ. 2016, 545–546, 137–151. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  5. Bănăduc, D.; Joy, M.; Olosutean, H.; Afanasyev, S.; Curtean-Bănăduc, A. Natural and Anthropogenic Driving Forces as Key Elements in the Lower Danube Basin–South-Eastern Carpathians–North-Western Black Sea Coast Area Lakes: A Broken Stepping Stones for Fish in a Climatic Change Scenario? Environ. Sci. Eur. 2020, 32, 73. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. Caleta, M.; Marcic, Z.; Buj, I.; Zanella, D.; Mustafic, P.; Duplic, A.; Horvatic, S. A Review of Extant Croatian Freshwater Fish and Lampreys: Annotated List and Distribution. Ribar. Croat. J. Fish. 2019, 77, 137–234. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  7. Coad, B.W. Zoogeography of the Fishes of the Tigris-Euphrates Basin. Zool. Middle East 1996, 13, 51–70. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Ghadiri, H.; Afkhami, M. Pollution of Karun-Arvand Rood River System in Iran. In Proceedings of the The First International Conference on Environmental Science and Technology, New Orleans, LA, USA, 23–26 January 2005; American Science Press: New Orleans, LA, USA, 2005. [Google Scholar]
  9. Khoshnood, Z.; Khoshnood, R. Effect of Industrial Wastewater on Fish in Karoon River. Transylv. Rev. Syst. Ecol. Res. 2016, 17, 109–120. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  10. Woodbridge, K.P.; Parsons, D.R.; Heyvaert, V.M.; Walstra, J.; Frostick, L.E. Characteristics of Direct Human Impacts on the Rivers Karun and Dez in Lowland South-West Iran and Their Interactions with Earth Surface Movements. Quat. Int. 2016, 392, 315–334. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Alwan, N.H.; Zareian, H.; Esmaeili, H.R. Capoeta Coadi, a New Species of Cyprinid Fish from the Karun River Drainage, Iran Based on Morphological and Molecular Evidences (Teleostei, Cyprinidae). Zookeys 2016, 572, 155–180. [Google Scholar]
  12. Coad, B.W. Freshwater Fishes of Iran. Available online: (accessed on 1 October 2020).
  13. Esmaeili, H.R.; Coad, B.W.; Gholamifard, A.; Nazari, N.; Teimori, A. Annotated Checklist of the Freshwater Fishes of Iran. Zoosystematica Ross. 2010, 19, 361–386. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. Jouladeh-Roudbar, A.; Ghanavi, H.R.; Doadrio, I. Ichthyofauna from Iranian Freshwater: Annotated Checklist, Diagnosis, Taxonomy, Distribution and Conservation Assessment. Zool. Stud. 2020, 59, e21. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  15. Zareian, H.; Esmaeili, H.R.; Nejad, R.Z.; Vatandoust, S. Hemiculter Leucisculus (Basilewsky, 1855) and Alburnus Caeruleus Heckel, 1843: New Data on Their Distributions in Iran. Casp. J. Environ. Sci. 2015, 13, 11–20. [Google Scholar]
  16. Durand, J.D.; Tsigenopoulos, C.S.; Unlu, E.; Berrebi, P. Phylogeny and Biogeography of the Family Cyprinidae in the Middle East Inferred from Cytochrome b DNA—Evolutionary Significance of This Region. Mol. Phylogenet. Evol. 2002, 22, 91–100. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  17. Krupp, F.; Al-Jumaily, M.; Bariche, M.; Khalaf, M.; Malek, M.; Streit, B. The Middle Eastern Biodiversity Network: Generating and Sharing Knowledge for Ecosystem Management and Conservation. Zookeys 2009, 31, 3–15. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Kamalifar, R.; Amiri-Moghaddam, J.; Maniei, F. Induction of Spawning in Capoeta Aculeata, (Valenciennes in Cuv. & Val., 1844) (Teleostei, Cyprinidae), Using Carp Pituitary Extract. Int. J. Bioflux Soc. 2009, 1, 6. [Google Scholar]
  19. Teimori, A.; Esmaeili, H.R.; Gholamhosseini, A. The Ichthyofauna of Kor and Helleh River Basins in Southwest of Iran with Reference to Taxonomic and Zoogeographic Features of Native Fishes. Iran. J. Anim. Biosyst. 2010, 6, 1–8. [Google Scholar]
  20. Sabbaghi, M.; Masihi, S. Valuation of the Water Pollution in Karun River (Case Study of Ahvaz City). Aust. J. Basic Appl. Sci. 2012, 6, 25–34. [Google Scholar]
  21. Hosseini-Zare, N.; Gholami, A.; Panahpour, E.; Jafarnejadi, A. Pollution Load Assessment in the Soil and Water Resources: A Case Study in Karun River Drainage Basin, Southwest of Iran. Eur. Online J. Nat. Soc. Sci. 2014, 3, 427–434. [Google Scholar]
  22. Maktabi, P.; Javaheri Baboli, M.; Jafarnejadi, A.R.; Askary Sary, A. Mercury Concentrations in Common Carp (Cyprinus Carpio) Tissues, Sediment and Water from Fish Farm along the Karoun River in Iran. Vet. Res. Forum 2015, 6, 217–221. [Google Scholar]
  23. Lawrence, A.J.; Hemingway, K.L. Effects of Pollution on Fish: Molecular Effects and Population Responses; Wiley-Blackwell: Hoboken, NJ, USA, 2003. [Google Scholar]
  24. Barbour, M.T.; Gerritsen, J.; Snyder, B.D.; Stribling, J.B. Rapid Bioassessment Protocols For Use in Streams and Wadeable Rivers: Periphyton, Benthic Macroinvertebrates, and Fish, 2nd ed.; Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Water: Washington, DC, USA, 1999.
  25. Keivany, Y.; Nasri, M.; Abbasi, K.; Abdoli, A. Atlas of Inland Water Fishes of Iran; Iran Department of Environment: Tehran, Iran, 2016. [Google Scholar]
  26. Froese, R.; Pauly, D. Fish Base. Available online: (accessed on 1 December 2019).
  27. Pinkas, L.; Oliphant, M.S.; Iverson, I.L.K. Food Habits of Albacore, Bluefin Tuna, and Bonito in California Waters; Department of Fish and Game: Sacramento, CA, USA, 1971.
  28. Peet, R.K. The Measurement of Species Diversity. Annu. Rev. Ecol. Syst. 1974, 5, 285–307. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Magurran, A.E. Ecological Diversity and Its Measurement; Springer: Dordrecht, The Netherlands, 1988. [Google Scholar]
  30. R Core team. R: A Language and Environment for Statistical Computing 2020. Available online: (accessed on 1 June 2020).
  31. Gillooly, J.F.; Brown, J.H.; West, G.B.; Savage, V.M.; Charnov, E.L. Effects of Size and Temperature on Metabolic Rate. Science 2001, 293, 2248–2251. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  32. IUCN. Red Book of Threatened Fishes of Bangladesh; IUCN: Dhaka, Bangladesh, 2013. [Google Scholar]
  33. Yağcı, A.; Yağcı, M.A.; Bilgin, F.; Erbatur, İ. The Effects of Physicochemical Parameters on Fish Distribution in Egirdir Lake, Turkey. Iran. J. Fish. Sci. 2016, 15, 846–857. [Google Scholar]
  34. Fialho, A.P.; Oliveira, L.G.; Tejerina-Garro, F.L.; De Mérona, B. Fish-Habitat Relationship in a Tropical River under Anthropogenic Influences. Hydrobiologia 2008, 598, 315–324. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  35. Islam, M.A.; Siddik, M.A.B.; Hanif, M.A.; Chaklader, M.R.; Nahar, A.; Ilham, I. Length-Weight Relationships of Four Small Indigenous Fish Species from an Inland Artisanal Fishery, Bangladesh. J. Appl. Ichthyol. 2017, 33, 851–852. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  36. Paujiah, E.; Solihin, D.D.; Affandi, R. Community Structure of Fish and Environmental Characteristics in Cisadea River, West Java, Indonesia. J. Biodjati 2019, 4, 278–290. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. Magnuson, J.J.; Crowder, L.B.; Medvick, P.A. Temperature as an Ecological Resource. Integr. Comp. Biol. 1979, 19, 331–343. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  38. Scrimgeour, G.; Prowse, T.; Culp, J.; Chambers, P. Ecological Effects of River Ice Break-up: A Review and Perspective. Freshw. Biol. 1994, 32, 261–275. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. Masese, F.; Muchiri, M.; Raburu, P. Macroinvertebrate Assemblages as Biological Indicators of Water Quality in the Moiben River, Kenya. Afr. J. Aquat. Sci. 2009, 34, 15–26. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. Siddik, M.; Chaklader, M.; Hanif, M.; Islam, M.; Sharker, M.; Rahman, M. Stock Identification of Critically Endangered Olive Barb, Puntius Sarana (Hamilton, 1822) with Emphasis on Management Implications. J. Aquac. Res. Dev. 2016, 7, 1000411. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  41. Kramer, D.L. Dissolved Oxygen and Fish Behavior. Environ. Biol. Fishes 1987, 18, 81–92. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  42. Ruma, M.; Hossain, M.M.; Rahman, M.B.; Nahar, A.; Siddik, M.A.B. Fish Community Structure of Sandha River: A Link Analysis towards Fisheries Management and Conservation. J. Biodivers. Endanger. Species 2017, 5, 92. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  43. Dettinger, M.D.; Diaz, H.F. Global Characteristics of Stream Flow Seasonality and Variability. J. Hydrometeorol. 2000, 1, 289–310. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  44. Negi, R.; Mamgain, S. Species Diversity, Abundance and Distribution of Fish Community and Conservation Status of Tons River of Uttarakhand State, India. Fish. Aquat. Sci. 2013, 8, 617–626. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  45. Rachmatika, I.; Sjafei, D.S.; Nurcahyadi, W. Fish Fauna Of Gunung Halimun National Park Region: Additional Information On The Utilization. Ber. Biol. 2002, 6, 13–24. [Google Scholar]
  46. Shahnawaz, A.; Venkateshwarlu, M.; Somashekar, D.S.; Santosh, K. Fish Diversity with Relation to Water Quality of Bhadra River of Western Ghats (INDIA). Environ. Monit. Assess. 2010, 161, 83–91. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  47. Rowe, D.C.; Pierce, C.L.; Wilton, T.F. Fish Assemblage Relationships with Physical Habitat in Wadeable Iowa Streams. N. Am. J. Fish. Manag. 2009, 29, 1314–1332. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  48. Cunico, A.M.; Ferreira, E.A.; Agostinho, A.A.; Beaumord, A.C.; Fernandes, R. The Effects of Local and Regional Environmental Factors on the Structure of Fish Assemblages in the Pirapó Basin, Southern Brazil. Landsc. Urban Plan. 2012, 105, 336–344. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  49. Bănăduc, A.; Bănăduc, D.; Bucşa, C. Watersheds Management (Transylvania/Romania): Implications, Risks, Solutions. In Strategies to Enhance Environmental Security in Transition Countries; Springer: Dordrecht, The Netherlands, 2007; pp. 225–238. ISBN 978-1-4020-5994-0. [Google Scholar]
  50. Fricke, R.; Bilecenoglu, M.; Sari, H.M. Annotated Checklist of Fish and Lamprey Species (Gnathostomata and Petromyzontomorphi) of Turkey, Including a Red List of Threatened and Declining Species; Stuttgarter Beiträge zur NaturkundeSerie A, Staatliches Museum für Naturkunde: Stuttgarter, Germany, 2007. [Google Scholar]
  51. Leprieur, F.; Beauchard, O.; Blanchet, S.; Oberdorff, T.; Brosse, S. Fish Invasions in the World’s River Systems: When Natural Processes Are Blurred by Human Activities. PLoS Biol. 2008, 6, e28. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  52. Xing, Y.; Zhang, C.; Fan, E.; Zhao, Y. Freshwater Fishes of China: Species Richness, Endemism, Threatened Species and Conservation. Divers. Distrib. 2016, 22, 358–370. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  53. Nyanti, L.; Noor-Azhar, N.I.; Soo, C.L.; Ling, T.Y.; Sim, S.F.; Grinang, J.; Ganyai, T.; Lee, K.S.P. Physicochemical Parameters and Fish Assemblages in the Downstream River of a Tropical Hydroelectric Dam Subjected to Diurnal Changes in Flow. Int. J. Ecol. 2018, 2018, 8690948. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  54. Angel, A.; Ojeda, F.P. Structure and Trophic Organization of Subtidal Fish Assemblages on the Northern Chilean Coast: The Effect of Habitat Complexity. Mar. Ecol. Prog. Ser. 2001, 217, 81–91. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  55. Yeager, L.A.; Layman, C.A.; Allgeier, J.E. Effects of Habitat Heterogeneity at Multiple Spatial Scales on Fish Community Assembly. Oecologia 2011, 167, 157–168. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  56. Jafarzadeh, N.; Rostami, S.; Sepehrfar, K.; Lahijanzadeh, A. Identification of the Water Pollutant Industries in Khuzestan Province. Iran. J. Environ. Health Sci. Eng. 2004, 1, 36–42. [Google Scholar]
  57. Angermeier, P.L.; Karr, J.R. Biological Integrity Versus Biological Diversity as Policy Directives: Protecting Biotic Resources. In Ecosystem Management; Springer: New York, NY, USA, 1994; pp. 264–275. [Google Scholar]
  58. Daufresne, M.; Boët, P. Climate Change Impacts on Structure and Diversity of Fish Communities in Rivers. Glob. Chang. Biol. 2007, 13, 2467–2478. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  59. Jaramillo-Villa, U.; Maldonado-Ocampo, J.A.; Escobar, F. Altitudinal Variation in Fish Assemblage Diversity in Streams of the Central Andes of Colombia. J. Fish Biol. 2010, 76, 2401–2417. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  60. Suarez, Y.R.; de Souza, M.M.; Ferreira, F.S.; Pereira, M.J.; da Silva, E.A.; Ximenes, L.Q.L.; de Azevedo, L.G.; Martins, O.C.; Junior, S.E.L. Patterns of Species Richness and Composition of Fish Assemblages in Streams of the Ivinhema River Basin, Upper Paraná River. Acta Limnol. Bras. 2011, 23, 177–188. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  61. Dubey, V.K.; Sarkar, U.K.; Pandey, A.; Sani, R.; Lakra, W.S. The Influence of Habitat on the Spatial Variation in Fish Assemblage Composition in an Unimpacted Tropical River of Ganga Basin, India. Aquat. Ecol. 2012, 46, 165–174. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  62. Mondal, R.; Bhat, A. Temporal and Environmental Drivers of Fishcommunity Structure in Tropical Streams from Two Contrasting Regions in India. PLoS ONE 2020, 15, e0227354. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  63. Mostafavi, H.; Teimori, A.; Schinegger, R.; Schmutz, S. A New Fish Based Multi-Metric Assessment Index for Cold-Water Streams of the Southern Caspian Sea Basin in Iran. Environ. Biol. Fishes 2019, 102, 645–662. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  64. Mostafavi, H.; Schinegger, R.; Melcher, A.; Moder, K.; Mielach, C.; Schmutz, S. A New Fish-Based Multi-Metric Assessment Index for Cyprinid Streams in the Iranian Caspian Sea Basin. Limnologica 2015, 51, 37–52. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  65. Patil, T.S.; Bhosale, A.R.; Yadav, R.B.; Khandekar, R.S.; Muley, D.V. Study of Endemic and Threatened Fish Species Diversity and Its Assemblage Structure from Northern Western Ghats, Maharashtra, India. Int. J. Zool. Res. 2015, 11, 116–126. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  66. Pokharel, K.K.; Basnet, K.B.; Majupuria, T.C.; Baniya, C.B. Correlations between Fish Assemblage Structure and Environmental Variables of the Seti Gandaki River Basin, Nepal. J. Freshw. Ecol. 2018, 33, 31–43. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  67. Yang, J.; Yan, D.; Yang, Q.; Gong, S.; Shi, Z.; Qiu, Q.; Huang, S.; Zhou, S.; Hu, M. Fish Species Composition, Distribution and Community Structure in the Fuhe River Basin, Jiangxi Province, China. Glob. Ecol. Conserv. 2021, 27, e01559. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Figure 1. Distribution of sampling sites (0–53) in the Karun River basin, Iran.
Figure 1. Distribution of sampling sites (0–53) in the Karun River basin, Iran.
Water 14 02226 g001
Figure 2. Grouping data matrix rows (sampling sites) using cluster analysis and silhouette width.
Figure 2. Grouping data matrix rows (sampling sites) using cluster analysis and silhouette width.
Water 14 02226 g002
Figure 3. Grouping data matrix columns (fish species) using cluster analysis and silhouette width.
Figure 3. Grouping data matrix columns (fish species) using cluster analysis and silhouette width.
Water 14 02226 g003
Figure 4. CCA biplot for native and endemic fish species composition and environmental variables. (Abbreviation, EC: Electrical conductivity, T: Temperature, Do: Dissolved oxygen).
Figure 4. CCA biplot for native and endemic fish species composition and environmental variables. (Abbreviation, EC: Electrical conductivity, T: Temperature, Do: Dissolved oxygen).
Water 14 02226 g004
Figure 5. Some examples of sampling sites in the Karun River basin; (a) site 0 (Dezdaran), (b) 15 (Cheshmeh Pireh ghar), (c) 29 (Ab sefid waterfall), (d) 22 (Tireh), (e) 20 (Chamchit 1).
Figure 5. Some examples of sampling sites in the Karun River basin; (a) site 0 (Dezdaran), (b) 15 (Cheshmeh Pireh ghar), (c) 29 (Ab sefid waterfall), (d) 22 (Tireh), (e) 20 (Chamchit 1).
Water 14 02226 g005
Table 1. Different characteristics of fish species recorded in the Karun River basin.
Table 1. Different characteristics of fish species recorded in the Karun River basin.
SpeciesDistributionPresence Status in Karun BasinFeeding BehaviourSubstrate
IUCN Status
Acanthobrama marmidTigris basinNativeOmnivoreVegetativeLeast Concern
Alburnoides idignensisTigris basinEndemicOmnivoreVegetativeNot Evaluated
Alburnus caeruleusTigris basinNativeOmnivoreVegetativeLeast Concern
Alburnus doriaeNamak, Esfahan and Tigris basinsEndemicBenthivoreRockyNot Evaluated
Alburnus sellalTigris, Kor, Maharlu Lake, Persis and Hormuz basinsNativeOmnivoreRockyLeast Concern
Aphanius vladykoviTigris and Esfahan basinsEndemicOmnivoreVegetativeNot Evaluated
Arabibarbus grypusTigris, Persis and Hormuz basinsNativeOmnivoreVegetativeVulnerable/Decreasing
Barbus karunensisTigris basinEndemicOmnivoreRockyNot Evaluated
Barbus lacertaTigris basinNativeOmnivoreRockyLeast Concern
Capoeta aculeataTigris and Kor basinsEndemicHerbivoreRockyNot Evaluated
Capoeta coadiTigris and Esfahan BasinsEndemicHerbivoreRockyNot Evaluated
Capoeta truttaTigris basinNativeHerbivoreRockyLeast Concern
Carasobarbus kosswigiTigris basinNativeOmnivoreRockyVulnerable/Decreasing
Carasobarbus luteusTigris, Persis, Hormuz, Maharlu Lake basinsNativeHerbivoreRockyLeast Concern
Carassius gibelioIntroduced widely; found in all basins of Iran.Non-nativeOmnivoreVegetativeNot Evaluated
Chondrostoma regiumTigris and Esfahan basin.NativeOmnivoreRockyLeast Concern
Ctenopharyngodon idellaIntroduced widely elsewhere, found in all basins of Iran.Non-nativeHerbivoreVegetativeLeast Concern
Cyprinion macrostomusTigris basinNativeOmnivoreRockyLeast Concern
Cyprinus carpioNative to the Caspian Sea basin. Introduced widely to all basins in Iran.Non-nativeOmnivoreVegetativeVulnerable
Gambusia holbrookiIntroduced widely elsewhere, found in all basins of Iran.Non-nativeOmnivoreVegetativeLeast Concern
Garra gymnothoraxTigris basinEndemicOmnivoreRockyNot Evaluated
Garra rufaTigris, Kor, Maharlu Lake and PersisNativeOmnivoreRockyLeast Concern
Glyptothorax silviaeTigris and Persis basinsEndemicBenthivoreRockyNot Evaluated
Hemiculter leucisculusIntroduced widely everywhere, found in all Iranian basins.Non-nativeOmnivoreRockyLeast Concern
Luciobarbus barbulusTigris and Persis basinsNativeCarnivoreRockyNot Evaluated
Mastacembelus mastacembelusTigris and PersisNativeCarnivoreRockyLeast Concern
Oncorhynchus mykissIntroduced widely elsewhere, found in all basins of Iran.Non-nativeCarnivoreRockyNot Evaluated
Oxynoemacheilus freyhofiTigris basinEndemicBenthivoreRockyNot Evaluated
Planiliza abuTigris River, Persis, Hormuz and Maharlu Lake basinsNativeBenthivoreRockyLeast Concern
Pseudorasbora parvaIntroduced widely everywhere, found in all Iranian basins.Non-nativeOmnivoreVegetativeLeast Concern
Rhinogobius lindbergiCaspian, Namak, Hari and Tigris basinsNon-nativeBenthivoreRockyNot Evaluated
Sasanidus kermanshahensisTigris basinEndemicBenthivoreRockyEndangered
Squalius berakTigris basinNativeOmnivoreRockyLeast Concern
Squalius lepidusTigris basinNativeOmnivoreRockyLeast Concern
Turcinoemacheilus hafeziTigris basinEndemicBenthivoreRockyLeast Concern
Turcinoemacheilus saadiiTigris basinEndemicBenthivoreRockyLeast Concern
Capoeta pyragyiTigris basinEndemicHerbivoreRockyLeast Concern
Table 2. The composition of fish species in the Karun River basin.
Table 2. The composition of fish species in the Karun River basin.
Family/SpeciesTotal Number of Individuals (N)Total Biomass W(g)Index of Relative Importance (IRI) (%)Frequency of Occurrence (%)
Acanthobrama marmid44.780.0021.96
Chondrostoma regium50410,06210.27154.9
Alburnoides idignensis2562299.471.22917.64
Alburnus caeruleus3056.930.0243.92
Squalius berak1045623.122.77139.21
Squalius lepidus763630.660.3717.84
Alburnus doriae1452051.490.81517.64
Alburnus sellal3904121.196.78660.78
Capoeta aculeate48518,959.8512.41647.05
Capoeta coadi85722,480.0523.00462.74
Capoeta trutta1845104.412.54831.37
Carasobarbus kosswigi15266.660.0529.80
Carasobarbus luteus421280.930.0773.92
Carassius gibelio44688.520.143
Cyprinion macrostomus1481612.60.83919.60
Cyprinus carpio91348.490.0553.92
Garra rufa6194532.7410.29264.70
Garra gymnothorax254990.972.25239.21
Luciobarbus barbulus44825.250.52833.33
Capoeta pyragyi38616,709.635.72625.49
Arabibarbus grypus217.230.0011.96
Barbus karunensis26786.980.21317.64
Barbus lacerta791938.331.02231.37
Ctenopharyngodon idella1326.90.0061.96
Hemiculter leucisculus421.30.0043.92
Gambusia holbrooki96.860.0031.96
Glyptothorax silviae64296.780.61341.17
Mastacembelus mastacembelus221034.190.0805.88
Oncorhynchus mykiss71245.850.1239.88
Oxynoemacheilus freyhofi6697.850.15911.76
Sasanidus kermanshahensis3627.810.11215.68
Turcinoemacheilus hafezi17348.880.85325.49
Turcinoemacheilus saadii3617.360.12417.64
Planiliza abu661513.90.1033.92
Pseudorasbora parva36.20.0011.96
Rhinogobius lindbergi520.0021.96
Aphanius vladykovi1011.720.0073.92
Note: Bold rows show dominant and common species in the Karun River basin.
Table 3. Spatial variation in fish species richness, abundance and diversity indices in the Karun River basin.
Table 3. Spatial variation in fish species richness, abundance and diversity indices in the Karun River basin.
Diversity Index
Simpson’s Index of DiversityMargalef Species
Richness Index
Pielou Evenness
Total Number
of Species
Total Abundance
Table 4. Details of measured physico-chemical and habitat parameters in the Karun River system.
Table 4. Details of measured physico-chemical and habitat parameters in the Karun River system.
Physico-chemical parameters
Electrical Conductivity (μS/cm)475.752352250281.98
Dissolved Oxygen (mg/L)8.466.0510.510.89
Water Temperature (°C)18.8910.728.433.95
Turbidity (NTU)43.6915.93148.8426.46
Habitat parameters
Stream Width (m)46.49511024.67
Stream Depth (m)48.6327.491.910.62
Water Velocity (m/s)
Altitude (m)1424.94672012445.05
Note: Mean, minimum (Min.), maximum (Max.) and standard deviations (S.D.) are given.
Table 5. Results of CCA for the occurrence of native and endemic fish species and environmental descriptors in the Karun River basin, Iran.
Table 5. Results of CCA for the occurrence of native and endemic fish species and environmental descriptors in the Karun River basin, Iran.
Environmental DescriptorsAxis 1Axis 2F-Ratiop-Value
Electrical Conductivity−0.67870.547545.45210.005 **
Elevation0.736671−0.395585.2050.005 **
Water Temperature−0.519040.679744.72980.005 **
Turbidity0.1696770.815543.60760.005 **
Dissolved Oxygen0.657490.1473.55760.005 **
Water Velocity0.353703−0.577652.68510.005 **
pH0.4418770.144552.85540.01 **
Width−0.23955−0.469672.15360.01 **
Note: ** = significant at α = 0.05.
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Zare-Shahraki, M.; Ebrahimi-Dorche, E.; Bruder, A.; Flotemersch, J.; Blocksom, K.; Bănăduc, D. Fish Species Composition, Distribution and Community Structure in Relation to Environmental Variation in a Semi-Arid Mountainous River Basin, Iran. Water 2022, 14, 2226.

AMA Style

Zare-Shahraki M, Ebrahimi-Dorche E, Bruder A, Flotemersch J, Blocksom K, Bănăduc D. Fish Species Composition, Distribution and Community Structure in Relation to Environmental Variation in a Semi-Arid Mountainous River Basin, Iran. Water. 2022; 14(14):2226.

Chicago/Turabian Style

Zare-Shahraki, Mojgan, Eisa Ebrahimi-Dorche, Andreas Bruder, Joseph Flotemersch, Karen Blocksom, and Doru Bănăduc. 2022. "Fish Species Composition, Distribution and Community Structure in Relation to Environmental Variation in a Semi-Arid Mountainous River Basin, Iran" Water 14, no. 14: 2226.

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop