Hubbry Logo
BarbusBarbusMain
Open search
Barbus
Community hub
Barbus
logo
8 pages, 0 posts
0 subscribers
Be the first to start a discussion here.
Be the first to start a discussion here.
Barbus
Barbus
Barbus
View on Wikipedia
from Wikipedia

Barbus
Barbus barbus
Barbus plebejus
Scientific classification Edit this classification
Kingdom: Animalia
Phylum: Chordata
Class: Actinopterygii
Order: Cypriniformes
Family: Cyprinidae
Subfamily: Barbinae
Genus: Barbus
Daudin, 1805[1][2]
Type species
Cyprinus barbus

Barbus is a genus of ray-finned fish in the family Cyprinidae. The type species of Barbus is the common barbel, first described as Cyprinus barbus and now named Barbus barbus. Barbus is the namesake genus of the subfamily Barbinae, but given their relationships, that taxon is better included in the Cyprininae at least for the largest part (including the type species of Barbus).

Description and uses

[edit]

Their common names – barbs and barbels – refer to the fact that most members of the genera have a pair of barbels on their mouths, which they can use to search for food at the bottom of the water.

Barbels are often fished for food; in some locations they are of commercial significance. The roe of barbels is poisonous, however. The large Barbus barbs are also often eaten in their native range.

The smaller barbs are in some cases traded as aquarium fish. Some are quite significant, but as a whole, the genus is not yet as well represented in aquaria as the Southeast Asian Puntius.[3]

Systematics and taxonomy

[edit]

Barbus has a long history as a "wastebasket taxon". Historically, most fish commonly known as "barbs" were usually placed here by default. More recently, many "barbs" have been reclassified into genera such as Arabibarbus, Barbichthys, Barbodes, Barboides, Barbonymus, Barbopsis, Caecobarbus, Capoeta, Carasobarbus, Clypeobarbus, Enteromius, Hypselobarbus, Hypsibarbus, Labeobarbus, Leptobarbus, Luciobarbus, Mesopotamichthys, Poropuntius, Probarbus, Pseudobarbus, Puntioplites and Puntius.[4]

Thus, Barbus is for the time being restricted to typical barbels, and only contains fishes from Africa and Europe, as well as adjacent Asia. However, the genus even in the reduced version is probably paraphyletic, and many African species (particularly the small ones) do not seem to belong here, either. Eventually, Barbus is likely to be restricted to the group around B. barbus – the large European to Ponto-Caspian species commonly known as "barbels". Luciobarbus and particularly Messinobarbus are highly similar and might better be included in Barbus again. They all seem to be close relatives – perhaps the closest living relatives – of Aulopyge huegelii. Carasobarbus and Labeobarbus are probably closely related to this group, too, and some large hexaploid barbs (e.g. L. reinii) may well belong in Labeobarbus.[citation needed]

The small barbs from Africa, by contrast, are quite distinct. They might even warrant establishment of a new subfamily – in particular if the Labeoninae are not included in the Cyprininae –, as they seem to be as distinct from barbels and typical carps, as these are from the garras (which are part of the disputed Labeoninae), rendering the old "Barbinae" paraphyletic. Within the small African barbs, several lineages can be recognized. These are mostly diploid; a tetraploid group largely restricted to southern Africa is very close to Pseudobarbus and might even be included therein. In particular, the group called "redfins" may well be monophyletic and belong in Pseudobarbus entirely, instead of being split between Pseudobarbus and Barbus.[citation needed]

Species

[edit]

These are the currently recognized species of this genus:[5]

Fossil species

[edit]

A fossil species (Barbus megacephalus Günther, 1876) is known from the Paleogene Sipang Fauna of Indonesia.,[6] but it probably should be placed in another genus.

See also

[edit]

References

[edit]
Revisions and contributorsEdit on WikipediaRead on Wikipedia

Barbus

View on Grokipedia
from Grokipedia
Barbus is a of ray-finned fishes belonging to the family , commonly referred to as barbels due to the fleshy, whisker-like barbels around their mouths. The is the , Barbus barbus, originally described as Cyprinus barbus by in 1758. These are characterized by their elongate bodies, terminal or subterminal mouths equipped with four barbels (two rostral and two maxillary), and scales that vary in size across species, often featuring a of 40–60 scales. In its current taxonomic interpretation, the genus Barbus (sensu stricto) encompasses approximately 36-38 , primarily tetraploid forms distributed across , western Asia (including , Georgia, and ), and . This monophyletic group is part of the larger, paraphyletic Barbus sensu lato assemblage, which historically included over 800 but has undergone significant revisions, with many tropical and African barbs reclassified into genera such as Enteromius, Pethia, and Luciobarbus. typically inhabit clear, fast-flowing rivers, streams, and occasionally lakes with gravel or rocky substrates, where they occupy benthic niches, feeding on benthic , , plant matter, and small . Barbus exhibit high morphological and , with ongoing taxonomic studies revealing cryptic , hybridization events, and biogeographic patterns influenced by Pleistocene glaciations and river connectivity in the Western Palearctic region. Notable members include the (B. barbus), a popular target in European rivers reaching up to 80 cm in length. Several Barbus hold ecological importance as indicators of in lotic systems and contribute to local fisheries, while their adaptability has led to some being introduced outside native ranges, occasionally impacting .

Physical Characteristics

Morphology and Anatomy

Barbus species exhibit a distinctive body morphology adapted to their primarily lotic, bottom-oriented lifestyle in freshwater environments. The body is typically elongated and cylindrical to , facilitating streamlined movement through flowing waters, with a single originating midway along the back and an adipose fin present in many species positioned between the dorsal and caudal fins for added stability during . Scalation consists of scales covering the body, with the typically featuring 40-60 scales in numerous species, aiding in mechanosensory detection of water currents and prey vibrations. A defining feature of the is the presence of barbels, sensory organs that protrude from the head region, numbering four (two rostral and two maxillary pairs). These fleshy, whisker-like structures are richly innervated with chemoreceptors and mechanoreceptors, enabling the detection of food particles and environmental cues in low-visibility or murky conditions common to riverine habitats. The name Barbus derives from the Latin barbus, meaning "bearded," directly referencing these prominent barbels. The oral anatomy is specialized for benthic , featuring an inferior or subterminal position that allows efficient scraping and suction from the substrate. The are often thick and papillate, particularly the lower with a lobe or pad, enhancing grip on slippery surfaces. Internally, Barbus possess robust pharyngeal jaws with teeth arranged in three rows, commonly following a formula such as 2.3.5-5.3.2, which function as a grinding mill to process a mix of material, , and small . In larger species like Barbus barbus, anatomical variations include a robust, flattened and reinforced opercular bones, adaptations that support forceful bottom-dwelling behaviors such as digging into substrates for and shelter. These skeletal reinforcements provide structural integrity against the physical stresses of fast-flowing, rocky riverbeds.

Size Variation and Coloration

Species in the genus Barbus exhibit significant interspecific variation in adult body , ranging from small forms reaching a maximum of approximately 10-20 cm in standard length (SL), such as Barbus euboicus and Barbus sperchiensis, to larger species like Barbus barbus, which can attain up to 120 cm in total length (TL). Intraspecific size differences are also notable, with growth rates influenced by environmental factors such as , flow regime, and availability; for instance, B. barbus populations in warmer, nutrient-rich rivers show faster somatic growth compared to those in cooler, oligotrophic streams. Common lengths for many Barbus species fall between 20-40 cm TL, though maximum sizes are rarely achieved in the wild due to predation and habitat constraints. Coloration in Barbus species typically features an olive to yellowish-brown dorsal surface, transitioning to silvery or pale yellow sides and a white ventral area, providing a base pattern that varies subtly across species. For example, Barbus fucini displays silvery-grey tones with irregular brown spots on the back and flanks, while Barbus barbus adults often lack prominent spots beyond 10 cm SL, presenting a more uniform greenish-brown hue dorsally. Fins are generally dusky or translucent, but cryptic patterns of fine dark spots or mottling on the body and head aid in blending with gravelly riverbed substrates. Sexual dimorphism is evident in both size and coloration, with females often attaining larger maximum sizes than males in species like Barbus balcanicus, where females reach ages of 3+ years compared to 2+ for males. During the spawning season, males develop brighter hues, such as red or orange tinting on the fins and operculum, contrasting with the duller, more subdued tones of females; this is particularly pronounced in Barbus barbus, where breeding males exhibit enhanced reddish pelvic and anal fins. Ontogenetic changes in coloration occur as individuals mature, with juveniles generally more translucent and lacking the dense pigmentation of adults, featuring pale, semi-transparent bodies with minimal spotting to reduce visibility in shallow nursery habitats. In Barbus species, early juveniles retain translucent body regions until pigmentation develops to form the adult cryptic pattern. These shifts align with habitat transitions from sheltered shallows to open river channels.

Habitat and Distribution

Geographic Range

The genus Barbus (sensu stricto) has a native distribution across , western , and , where species occupy diverse freshwater systems including rivers, lakes, and basins. In , Barbus barbus is widespread in major drainages such as the and rivers, extending from the eastward to the Transcaspian region, with additional occurrences in Mediterranean basins of , , , and northern . North African populations are concentrated in coastal and inland river systems, often overlapping with southern European ranges. Regional hotspots of highlight the genus's biogeographic significance. In (modern-day ), several species show restricted distributions, such as Barbus ercisianus endemic to the Lake Van basin and its tributaries, contributing to the area's high cyprinid diversity. These hotspots underscore the role of isolated hydrological features in driving Barbus diversification. Introduced populations of Barbus species have been established outside their native ranges, primarily for purposes, with varying success. In , B. barbus has been widely translocated, including to the River Severn in the since the 1970s, where it has formed self-sustaining populations and enhanced recreational fisheries, and to Italian rivers since 1994, leading to established invasive groups that sometimes hybridize with natives. Attempts to introduce Barbus species to and , often via aquarium trade or , have generally failed to establish wild populations, though sporadic escapes occur without long-term persistence. Historical range dynamics for European Barbus were profoundly influenced by Pleistocene glaciations, which caused southward contractions during glacial maxima and subsequent northward recolonizations during interglacials, leading to genetic bottlenecks and phylogeographic structuring in refugia like the Mediterranean and basins. For instance, the Carpathian barbel (B. carpathicus) exhibits expansion patterns tied to post-glacial river connectivity in .

Environmental Preferences

Species of the genus Barbus predominantly inhabit fast-flowing rivers and streams characterized by or substrates, which provide suitable conditions for their rheophilic lifestyle. These fish thrive in clear, well-oxygenated waters with strong currents, often in premontane to lowland reaches of medium- to large-sized rivers. While most prefer lotic environments, some species, such as Barbus meridionalis, occasionally occur in lakes or slower-flowing sections with sand and bottoms. For instance, Barbus plebejus is commonly found in Mediterranean streams with swift flows and substrates. Barbus species generally prefer cool to temperate water temperatures ranging from 10°C to 25°C, with optimal conditions around 10–24°C for growth and activity in species like Barbus barbus. They tolerate levels between 6.5 and 8.0, though distributions can be influenced by variations in acidity. Moderate to high dissolved oxygen levels are essential, as these fish are sensitive to hypoxia and serve as bioindicators of . They exhibit low tolerance to pollution, including and organic contaminants, and , which can degrade spawning substrates and reduce oxygen availability by increasing . Microhabitat preferences vary by life stage, reflecting rheophilic adaptations such as streamlined bodies for navigating currents. Adults typically occupy deeper runs and pools with velocities of 0.5–1.5 m/s, while juveniles favor shallower riffles for and cover. Rheophilic traits enable efficient use of high-flow areas, but juveniles often shift from shoreline shallows to faster mid-channel zones as they mature. Regarding broader tolerances, Barbus are primarily freshwater inhabitants across a range of altitudes from lowland rivers to montane up to sub-alpine elevations. They are mostly stenohaline.

Taxonomy and Evolution

Historical Classification

The genus Barbus was established in 1805 by François Marie Daudin, with the (Barbus barbus), originally described as Cyprinus barbus by in 1758, designated as the ; the name derives from the Latin for "," alluding to the fish's prominent barbels. Although authorship is sometimes attributed to and Hippolyte Cloquet in 1816 due to their more detailed description, Eschmeyer's Catalog of Fishes recognizes Daudin's proposal as the valid origin. Throughout the 19th and early 20th centuries, Barbus served as a broad within the family , encompassing a wide array of morphologically similar cyprinid fishes from , , and , which led to the description of over 800 by the mid-20th century. This expansive classification reflected limited understanding of morphological and geographic variation, resulting in numerous synonymies as later studies revealed . Major taxonomic revisions began in the and , with efforts to delineate more precise boundaries; for instance, Mehmet Karaman's 1971 proposal of the genus Carasobarbus separated certain Middle Eastern and North African from Barbus sensu lato, while other works restricted Barbus sensu stricto to primarily European taxa like B. barbus. These morphological revisions addressed the over-classification by emphasizing differences in lip structure, scale patterns, and habitat preferences. By the , molecular analyses further prompted reclassifications, splitting large hexaploid lineages into genera such as Labeobarbus and Luciobarbus, reducing the core Barbus to about 30-40 valid . Eschmeyer's Catalog of Fishes has been instrumental in tracking these changes, maintaining an updated database of synonymies, valid names, and historical placements for Barbus species since its inception in the 1980s.

Phylogenetic Relationships

Barbus is placed within the subfamily Cyprininae of the family , a diverse group of freshwater fishes primarily distributed across and . The genus is phylogenetically close to Luciobarbus, which includes large-barbeled species from the Mediterranean Basin, , and the , and to Enteromius, comprising small-bodied diploid barbs endemic to . These relationships are supported by molecular analyses of mitochondrial and nuclear DNA markers, which position Barbus within the broader Barbinae or Cyprininae clades depending on the classification scheme. Molecular phylogenies, particularly those employing and other mitochondrial genes, have established that Barbus sensu lato is paraphyletic and polyphyletic. European and Ponto-Caspian species consistently form a monophyletic tetraploid , distinct from Asian and African lineages. In contrast, African Barbus species exhibit polyphyletic origins, clustering with smiliogastrine or other cyprinid groups rather than with the core Barbus . This non-monophyly was robustly demonstrated in comprehensive studies from 2015 to 2018 using multi-locus datasets. To address this , recent taxonomic revisions advocate restricting Barbus to its monophyletic European and Ponto-Caspian core, excluding large Middle Eastern forms reassigned to Luciobarbus and small African diploids transferred to Enteromius. Some proposals suggest further subdivision, such as elevating certain African lineages to genera like Barbopsis, though these remain debated. Research in the , integrating genomic data with morphology, continues to refine these boundaries, emphasizing the need for stable nomenclature amid ongoing discoveries. Evidence of close evolutionary ties includes rare intergeneric hybridization events, such as between Barbus and Luciobarbus in Caucasian river basins, where mitochondrial and nuclear markers detect admixed individuals. These hybrids indicate potential in , highlighting reticulate evolution within the group, though such cases are infrequent and often limited by ecological barriers.

Fossil Record

The fossil record of Barbus and related cyprinids is sparse and predominantly fragmentary, consisting mainly of pharyngeal bones, teeth, and isolated skeletal elements, with few complete specimens preserved. The earliest known Barbus-like cyprinid is Sundabarbus megacephalus (originally described as Barbus megacephalus), from probable Eocene deposits in the Sangkarewang Formation of the Ombilin Basin, , , dating to approximately 40–50 million years ago. This , reclassified from the genus Barbus due to distinct morphological features such as a deep head and robust body, represents an early diversification within the subfamily Barbinae and suggests the presence of barbs in during the , though it is not a member of the modern Barbus . In Europe, the oldest potential records of Barbus or closely related forms date to the middle Miocene, including indeterminate Barbini (aff. Barbus) from the Gračanica locality in the Bugojno Basin, Bosnia and Herzegovina, approximately 13.8–14.8 million years old. These remains, comprising skeletal fragments from lacustrine deposits, indicate an early European presence of the group during a period of climatic warming and faunal exchange. Additional Miocene fossils include Barbus orientalis from the upper Miocene of the Caucasus region, known from dental and pharyngeal elements that align with extant barbs. Upper Miocene records of Luciobarbus (a segregate genus often associated with Barbus sensu lato) occur in Spain, providing evidence of diversification in western Europe around 5–11 million years ago. An early Pliocene specimen attributable to Luciobarbus graellsii or a close relative, from the Camp dels Ninots site in northeastern Spain (Ruscinian stage, ~4–5 million years ago), consists of pharyngeal dentition and fin elements, marking one of the more complete barb fossils and extending the known range of the species into warmer Pliocene environments. The African fossil record for Barbus is notably limited, likely due to taphonomic biases in tropical freshwater deposits, with the earliest occurrences in the upper , such as indeterminate Barbus sp. from sites in and based on pharyngeal bones and teeth. remains of Barbus or Labeobarbus (another related segregate) have been reported from rift basin deposits in the , including fragmentary elements from the Lakes and Albert region. Overall, approximately 5–10 fossil taxa have been described across these regions, though many require reclassification amid ongoing taxonomic revisions of the paraphyletic Barbus complex. These fossils collectively suggest an Eurasian origin for the Barbus lineage during the Eocene to , with subsequent dispersal into via Miocene connections, such as the Tethys Seaway remnants, influencing the genus's modern distribution. The scarcity of pre-Miocene African records supports a model of colonization rather than evolution on the .

Species Diversity

Extant Species

The genus Barbus currently includes approximately 38 valid extant , all of which are cyprinid fishes restricted to freshwater habitats in and western , following extensive taxonomic revisions that have excluded many previously included tropical and African taxa based on molecular phylogenetic evidence. This represents a substantial reduction from historical counts exceeding 500 , driven by studies reclassifying polyphyletic groups into separate genera like Labeobarbus and Enteromius. Species in this genus are characterized by the presence of four barbels, elongated bodies suited to rheophilic environments, and variable scalation patterns, with sizes ranging from under 15 cm for small, torrent-dwelling forms to over 100 cm for larger river . The type species, Barbus barbus (common barbel), is the most widespread and largest, reaching a maximum total of 120 cm and inhabiting fast-flowing rivers across from the to the basin, where it prefers gravelly substrates. Other prominent include Barbus petenyi, a medium-sized barb (up to 55 cm) endemic to the and drainages, distinguished by its robust build and reddish caudal fin; and Barbus lacerta, a small (max 15 cm), scaleless or semi-scaled adapted to high-velocity streams in the Tigris-Euphrates system, with a depressed head for bottom-dwelling. Endemics such as Barbus anatolicus, described in 2018 from northern Anatolian rivers like the Kızılırmak, highlight ongoing discoveries and exhibit distinctive spotting patterns and a maximum of about 20 cm. The full list of valid extant Barbus species, arranged alphabetically and including recent additions, is as follows: B. anatolicus, B. balcanicus, B. barbus, B. bergi, B. biharicus, B. borysthenicus, B. caninus, B. carottae, B. carpathicus, B. ciscaucasicus, B. cyclolepis, B. cyri, B. euboicus, B. fucini, B. haasi, B. ida, B. karunensis, B. kubanicus, B. lacerta, B. lorteti, B. macedonicus, B. meridionalis, B. miliaris, B. niluferensis, B. oligolepis, B. oscensis, B. peloponnesius, B. pergamonensis, B. petenyi, B. plebejus, B. prespensis, B. rebeli, B. rionicus, B. samniticus, B. sperchiensis, B. strumicae, B. tauricus, B. thessalus, B. tyberinus, B. waleckii, B. xanthos.
SpeciesNative RangeMax Length (cm)IUCN Status Summary
Barbus barbus (widespread)120 TLLeast Concern (2023)
Barbus caninus (Apennines)40 SLNear Threatened (2023)
Barbus euboicus ( Island)12 SLEndangered (2023)
Barbus lacerta (Tigris-Euphrates)15 SLLeast Concern (2023)
Barbus meridionalis (Adriatic basin)25 SL (2023)
Barbus petenyi (Danube basin)55 SLLeast Concern (2023)
Barbus plebejus (Tyrrhenian basin)30 SLNear Threatened (2023)
Barbus tyberinus (Tiber River)35 SLEndangered (2023)
IUCN statuses reflect assessments as of 2023-2024, with many widespread stable but endemics threatened by loss; a full covers about 80% of . Recent phylogenetic indicates additional undescribed lineages within Barbus, particularly in Anatolian and Balkan drainages, pending formal description based on genetic and morphological . Recent descriptions include B. oscensis from (2021) and B. ida from (2020), reflecting ongoing taxonomic refinements.

Subgeneric Groups

The genus Barbus is characterized by informal subgeneric divisions that reflect morphological and geographical patterns among its current (sensu stricto), often distinguishing between large-bodied Palaearctic forms and smaller rheophilic lineages. These groups are not formal subgenera but are recognized in recent taxonomic literature based on shared traits like body size, barbel configuration, and adaptations. The European and Ponto-Caspian group comprises large-bodied species adapted to temperate rivers, such as B. barbus and B. tauricus, which possess four barbels and inhabit river systems draining into the , Caspian, and Aral seas. These species exhibit robust morphologies suited to flowing waters, with streamlined bodies for rheophilic lifestyles in cooler climates. In contrast, smaller-bodied groups include rheophilic forms like B. euboicus and B. lacerta, which occur in Mediterranean and Middle Eastern streams, demonstrating adaptations to high-velocity flows and variable conditions. Morphological keys delineating these groups include variations in barbel count (consistently two pairs in Palaearctic forms), dorsal fin ray numbers (typically 10-12 total rays, with 3-4 unbranched and 7-9 branched), and scale patterns (e.g., lateral line scales ranging 40-60). These traits aid in delimiting evolutionary lineages amid the genus's history.

Ecology and Life History

Barbus species, in their current taxonomic scope (sensu stricto), exhibit ecological traits adapted to Palearctic freshwater systems.

Diet and Foraging Behavior

Species of the genus Barbus exhibit an omnivorous diet, primarily consisting of benthic such as (particularly chironomid larvae), crustaceans, and mollusks, alongside , , and plant matter like macrophytes and . Larger individuals in some species incorporate small and eggs into their diet, reflecting ontogenetic shifts toward more protein-rich prey as body size increases. Foraging behavior in Barbus is predominantly bottom-oriented, with species utilizing their sensory barbels to probe sediments and locate prey, enabling efficient detection of buried or drifting benthic organisms. Many Barbus species display crepuscular or nocturnal activity patterns during warmer seasons to minimize predation risk while , particularly in shallow or open waters where diurnal activity could expose them to visual predators. This temporal strategy aligns with heightened benthic probing at dawn, dusk, or night, enhancing access to invertebrate prey without interference. As primary and secondary consumers, Barbus species occupy intermediate trophic positions in freshwater ecosystems, facilitating energy transfer from basal resources like and to higher levels. Seasonal dietary shifts are common, with increased consumption of material and during summer months when invertebrate availability may fluctuate due to or flow changes, contrasting with greater reliance on animal prey in cooler periods. Interspecific variations in diet reflect regional and ecological adaptations; for instance, European species like Barbus barbus are more invertivorous, prioritizing benthic and crustaceans in riverine habitats. These differences underscore the genus's trophic plasticity, allowing coexistence across diverse Eurasian and North African freshwater systems.

Reproduction and Development

Barbus typically engage in , with spawning occurring in gravelly substrates during seasonal floods, often in spring or when water temperatures rise above 10–12°C. Females scatter adhesive or semi-adhesive eggs over prepared nests or riffles, where males release simultaneously; for instance, in Barbus barbus, eggs are deposited in 2–3 portions into shallow, fast-flowing gravel excavations following upstream migration. Most are iteroparous, capable of multiple spawning events per season—up to 15 batches in captivity for B. barbus under optimal conditions. During breeding, males often display territorial aggression to defend spawning sites. Fecundity varies widely by and female size, generally ranging from 5,000 to 20,000 eggs per female across multiple spawnings; for example, Barbus cyclolepis females produce 460–18,420 eggs total, while B. barbus averages 1,650 eggs per spawning event, with up to 2.8 events per female. Eggs are demersal and non-sticky in many , sinking into interstices for protection, though some exhibit mild to substrates. Embryonic development proceeds rapidly under typical riverine temperatures (15–20°C), with cleavage stages (e.g., 2- to 8-blastomere) occurring within 2–3 hours post-fertilization, and somitogenesis by 1–2 days, and hatching after 116–141 hours at 18°C for B. barbus. Post-hatch, larvae are initially pelagic or weakly swimming, with absorption complete by 12 days post-hatching (DPH); they transition through pre-flexion (0–5 DPH), flexion (6–11 DPH), and post-flexion (12–21 DPH) stages before settling to benthic habitats around 18–22 DPH, when fins and scales develop. Juveniles grow to maturity in 2–5 years, depending on environmental conditions and population. No is provided after spawning, as eggs and early larvae rely on substrate concealment for survival, though breeding males in some species show heightened territoriality that indirectly protects nests.

Conservation and Human Uses

Threats and Conservation Status

Barbus species face multiple anthropogenic threats that contribute to population declines across their native ranges in , western Asia, and . from dam construction has severely impacted migratory species, such as Barbus barbus in European rivers, where water reservoirs have disrupted spawning migrations and reduced accessible habitats. from industrial and agricultural runoff further degrades water quality, leading to sharp historical declines in populations like those of B. barbus in the 20th century. exacerbates these pressures, particularly in regions with high demand for rheophilic cyprinids, while invasive alien species, including introduced fishes, pose risks through predation and competition. According to IUCN assessments, many widespread Barbus species are classified as Least Concern globally, reflecting their adaptability in large river basins, but numerous endemics are Vulnerable or Endangered due to localized threats. Examples include Barbus caninus, listed as Near Threatened globally (IUCN 2023) but Endangered regionally in owing to river fragmentation, water abstraction, and habitat degradation in Italian streams, which reduce flow and isolate populations. Similarly, Barbus euboicus is Endangered (IUCN 2024) in , primarily from water extraction that alters hydrological regimes. In , climate change intensifies vulnerabilities by drying wetlands and altering rainfall patterns, threatening endemic species through habitat loss. Hybridization with introduced congeners, such as exotic B. barbus invading Italian basins and interbreeding with endemic B. plebejus, further erodes genetic integrity and endangers native lineages. Recent studies, including 2024 angler catch data, indicate ongoing declines in B. barbus populations across , underscoring the need for enhanced monitoring. Conservation efforts for Barbus emphasize habitat protection and restoration. Protected areas like the Biosphere Reserve safeguard diverse Barbus populations by preserving floodplain connectivity and limiting development. Restocking programs, using hatchery-reared juveniles, have been implemented in European rivers to bolster B. barbus stocks, with over 700,000 larvae released annually in some early initiatives to counteract fragmentation effects. In the 2020s, (eDNA) monitoring has emerged as a non-invasive tool for detecting rare and cryptic Barbus species in European river systems, enabling targeted assessments of population trends and invasive threats.

Fisheries and Aquarium Trade

Commercial fisheries primarily target larger Barbus species in African river systems and lakes, where they contribute significantly to local food security and economic livelihoods. For instance, Labeobarbus bynni (formerly Barbus bynni), known as the Nile barb, is widely harvested as a food fish across the , including in , , and , with catches varying annually based on environmental conditions and fishing effort. In Ethiopia's , endemic Barbus species (now largely reclassified under Labeobarbus) supported commercial gillnet fisheries that peaked at approximately 360 metric tons in , underscoring their role in inland capture production. These fisheries often involve small-scale operations using gillnets and longlines, focusing on adult specimens exceeding 1 kg. In , Barbus barbus, the , is a favored species for recreational , particularly in riverine habitats across the , , and . Anglers commonly employ bottom fishing techniques with baits such as pelletized fishmeal or live , targeting this bottom-dwelling cyprinid in fast-flowing waters. Regulations, including minimum size limits and seasonal closures, are enforced in many countries to sustain populations, as seen in English rivers where angling pressure has prompted monitoring programs. Smaller Barbus species are staples in the international aquarium trade due to their vibrant coloration and peaceful temperament, making them suitable for community aquariums with other non-aggressive . These species are imported from wild stocks or captive-bred facilities, typically requiring schools of at least six individuals to thrive. Breeding in captivity presents challenges, including the need for precise water parameters, separate spawning tanks with fine substrates, and induction for some species to mimic natural flood-triggered . Sustainability efforts in Barbus fisheries have addressed through regulatory measures and diversification into . In , species like Barbus luteus (Himri barbel) in the have faced intense pressure from , leading to younger age structures in catches and prompting calls for stricter management. Following 2010, initiatives have expanded, with successful of Barbus luteus fingerlings in controlled systems to supplement wild stocks and reduce harvest pressure. These developments include techniques to eliminate egg stickiness for artificial reproduction, supporting restocking programs in the Euphrates-Tigris basin.

References

  1. https://www.itis.gov/servlet/SingleRpt/SingleRpt?search_value=Barbus&search_topic=Scientific_Name&search_kingdom=Animal
  2. https://www.fishbase.se/summary/Barbus-barbus.html
  3. https://etyfish.org/barbinae/
  4. https://www.fishbase.se/identification/SpeciesList.php?genus=Barbus
  5. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC10127354/
  6. https://www.fishbase.se/summary/barbus-barbus.html
  7. https://www.kmae-journal.org/articles/kmae/full_html/2021/01/kmae200146/kmae200146.html
  8. https://www.entomoljournal.com/archives/2016/vol4issue4/PartG/4-3-180-286.pdf
  9. https://fishtaxa.com/index.php/Fishtaxa/article/download/164/162/319
  10. https://scispace.com/pdf/pharyngeal-teeth-lateral-ethmoids-and-jaw-teeth-of-fishes-221ez4txx1.pdf
  11. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/16229160/
  12. https://www.fishbase.se/summary/Barbus-euboicus
  13. https://www.fishbase.se/summary/Barbus-sperchiensis
  14. https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1111/j.1600-0633.2012.00588.x
  15. https://www.fishbase.se/summary/Barbus-fucini
  16. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/260979079_A_contribution_to_understanding_the_ecology_of_the_large_spot_barbel_-_sexual_dimorphism_growth_and_population_structure_of_Barbus_balcanicus_Actinopterygii_Cyprinidae_in_Central_Croatia
  17. https://www.jstor.org/stable/4534541
  18. https://journals.tubitak.gov.tr/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2337&context=zoology
  19. https://www.fishbase.se/summary/Barbus-barbus
  20. https://www.nature.com/articles/6800080
  21. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/316504368_Distribution_of_fish_species_in_the_Van_Lake_Basin
  22. https://research.wur.nl/en/publications/lake-tanas-piscivorous-barbus-cyprinidae-ethiopia-ecology-evoluti
  23. https://www.fao.org/fishery/docs/CDrom/aquaculture/a0844t/docrep/009/AE997B/AE997B07.htm
  24. https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/24750263.2017.1341959
  25. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC3861402/
  26. https://www.fishbase.se/summary/Barbus_meridionalis.html
  27. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/330535367_SPECIES_OF_GENUS_BARBUS_AND_ITS_DISTRIBUTION_IN_THE_IVORIAN_HYDROSYSTEMS
  28. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0378432020305248
  29. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/24145194_The_endohelminth_fauna_of_barbel_Barbus_barbus_correlates_with_water_quality_of_the_Danube_River_in_Bulgaria
  30. https://bioflux.com.ro/docs/2018.394-406.pdf
  31. https://www.frontiersin.org/journals/environmental-science/articles/10.3389/fenvs.2024.1371150/full
  32. https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/BF00008135
  33. https://researcharchive.calacademy.org/research/ichthyology/catalog/fishcatget.asp?genid=867
  34. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/318188997_The_Taxonomy_and_Relationships_of_the_African_Small_Barbs_Cypriniformes_Cyprinidae
  35. https://www.alr-journal.org/articles/alr/pdf/1990/04/alr90402.pdf
  36. https://zookeys.pensoft.net/article/3291/
  37. https://royalsocietypublishing.org/doi/10.1098/rspb.2001.1654
  38. https://researcharchive.calacademy.org/research/ichthyology/catalog/fishcatmain.asp
  39. https://sfi-cybium.fr/sites/default/files/pdf-actus/Tan%20et%20Armbruster%202018%20Cypriniformes%20classifications.pdf
  40. https://bmczool.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s40850-021-00073-x
  41. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S1055790318307784
  42. https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s12549-020-00437-0
  43. https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-94-011-3092-9_2
  44. https://riviste.unimi.it/index.php/RIPS/article/view/26982
  45. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/308602350_32_Fossil_Fish_Remains_from_Mio-Pliocene_Deposits_at_Lothagam_Kenya_The_Dawn_of_Humanity_in_Eastern_Africa
  46. https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1046/j.1467-2960.2001.00052.x
  47. https://www.mapress.com/zt/article/view/zootaxa.4461.4.5
  48. https://www.iucnredlist.org/
  49. https://www.biotaxa.org/ft/article/download/2-2-5/28903/0
  50. https://www.egejfas.org/tr/download/article-file/1573658
  51. https://www.sciencedirect.com/topics/agricultural-and-biological-sciences/barbus
  52. https://www.scirp.org/journal/paperinformation?paperid=34118
  53. https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/eff.70007
  54. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/230500415_Thermal_related_variations_of_seasonal_and_daily_spawning_periodicity_in_Barbus_barbus
  55. https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10750-020-04394-9
  56. https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/797b5d0f3e0eff618e245858a72c3650746b6e24
  57. http://www.limnofish.org/en/pub/issue/65544/796589
  58. https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1111/j.1439-0426.2010.01564.x
  59. https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1111/jai.14233
  60. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/287007449_Embryonic_Development_of_Barbel_Barbus_barbus
  61. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1751731120301099
  62. https://www.kmae-journal.org/articles/kmae/pdf/2013/02/kmae1200100.pdf
  63. https://www.desertfishes.org/dfc/africa/barbcape.html
  64. https://helcom.fi/wp-content/uploads/2019/08/HELCOM-Red-List-Barbus-barbus.pdf
  65. https://portals.iucn.org/library/sites/library/files/documents/RL-68-003.pdf
  66. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/225925360_Threatened_fishes_of_the_world_Barbus_caninus_Bonaparte_1839_Cyprinidae
  67. https://www.iucnredlist.org/species/2592/197057344
  68. https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002/edn3.428
  69. https://www.iucnredlist.org/species/2563/136963792
  70. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/24103005/
  71. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0165783624002881
  72. https://www.mdpi.com/2410-3888/8/7/355
  73. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0306456510001002
  74. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/395030251_Using_Environmental_DNA_eDNA_to_Detect_Cryptic_and_Rare_Barb_Species_in_the_Lake_Victoria_Catchment
  75. https://www.fishbase.se/summary/Labeobarbus-bynni
  76. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0006320703001988
  77. https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/fwb.14342
  78. https://www.aquariumglaser.de/en/fisharchive/enteromius-fasciolatus-barbus-fasciolatus-barbus-barilioides-2/
  79. https://www.tfhmagazine.com/articles/freshwater/the-butterfly-barb-a-rewarding-challenge-full-article
  80. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/286868372_Age_and_growth_characteristics_of_Himri_Barbel_Barbus_luteus_Heckel_1843_in_Orontes_River_Turkey
Add your contribution
Related Hubs
User Avatar
No comments yet.