Ichthyofauna of Gibe Sheleko National Park and some morphometric relationships of fish of the

tributary rivers, Southern Ethiopia

1
Sefi Mekonen * and 2Abera Hailu

*1
Department of Biology, College of Natural and Computational Science, Debre Berhan
University, Ethiopia. P.O. Box, 445

2
Department of Wildlife and Ecotourism Management, Wolkite University, Ethiopia

*
Email: [email protected], [email protected]

ABSTRACT
This study was carried out along a tributary of Gibe Sheleko National Park to investigate the diversity,
relative abundance and morphometric characteristics of fish. By using monofilament gill-nets, fish
were collected, their species identified and their morphometric data measured. A total of 10 species
were identified, dominated overall by Synodontis schall (28.52%), followed by Labeobarbus nedgia
(18.88%) and Labeobarbus intermedius (14.06%). According to the Index of Relative Importance
(IRI), S. schall was also first (49.13%), followed by L. intermedius (15.49%). There were no
significance differences in the IRI values of fish and relative abundance between the dry and wet
season (p > 0.05). Synodontis schall had the largest girth (23.1 cm), but Clarias gariepinus had the
largest eye diameter (8.4 mm) and body weight (1713.4 g). Heterobranchus longifilis was first in total
fork and standard length (64.7 cm, 64.7 cm and 59.8 cm, respectively). However, the paired t test of
the total body length was not significantly different from the fork length (P> 0.05), but not showing
statistical differences from standard length, weight and girth (P < 0.05). Gibe River had a higher
number of species (N) than Wabe River in both seasons. The Shannon Diversity Index (H') in Gibe
River was also higher (2.09) than Wabe (1.84) during the dry season, but lowest in the wet season
(1.52 and 1.57, respectively). Furthermore, both (N) and (H') were not statistically different between
tributaries and seasons (p > 0.05). Generally, differences in sampling habitats and fishing effort might
have contributed to discovered variants findings. Fishery development should be implemented in the
Park to use the fish resource sustainably.

Keywords: Conservation, Diversity, Fishery, Fish Fauna, Freshwater, Park, Species

 INTRODUCTION

Ethiopia is the water-tower of East Africa and endowed with several water bodies that contain a
high diversity of aquatic fauna including fishes (Golubtsov and Mina 2003, Golubtsov and
Darkov 2008). Ethiopia has a rich diversity of fish fauna in its lakes, rivers and reservoirs,
although they are poorly known (Awoke 2015). Results of various studies indicate that the
number of species could increase to over 200 (Awoke 2015, Awoke et al. 2015) and about 38
species and two sub-species are endemic to Ethiopia (Getahun 2007).

Although Ethiopia has a high production potential and diversity of fish fauna, during the last few
decades, the fish biodiversity of the country has been declining rapidly due to different factors
such as anthropogenic (like overfishing, urbanisation, damming, abstraction of waters for
irrigation and power generation and pollution), lack of stakeholders’ follow-up and governmental
support and climate change (Tesfaye and Wolff 2014, Temesgen and Getahun 2016). These
factors have subjected the natural water bodies in general and rivers in particular to severe stress
with devastating effects on fish diversity (Golubtsov and Darkov 2008, Temesgen and Getahun
2016).

The knowledge of Ethiopian fish fauna diversity is far from complete (Golubtsov and Mina
2003, Kebede et al. 2017). Notable fishery investigations have been carried out only in a few of
the numerous freshwater bodies (Temesgen and Getahun 2016), especially in the rivers that are
not exhaustively explored (Getahun 2007). Limited works have been carried out regarding an
estimation of the potential of the fish diversity profile of Ethiopian rivers, which are supposed to
be economically important, including for a large number of small or medium rivers, such as the
ones explored in this study location Gibe River (Golubtsov and Mina 2003, Awoke 2015,
Tesfaye and Wolff 2014). Before our study, for the present study area of Gibe Sheleko National
Park (GSNP), the tributaries were still virgin, because we had not found any literature resources
and documents from the Park office regarding fish fauna. It is believed that this study was the
first investigation of the Ichthyofauna diversity, including some morphometric measurement of
fish in GSNP. Therefore, the main aim of this work was to address the present fish species of
GSNP.

Descriptions of species diversity and abundance are important to obtain information on the
quality and quantity of the available habitats (Begon et al. 1990, Gebremariam et al. 2002,
Tesfaye and Wolff 2014). Fish have an essential role as an indicator of ecological integrity of
running waters. Under this concept, there is an increasing emphasis on gathering biological
data to serve a broad-spectrum of environment objects and plans, such as the
protection of endangered and threatened species and effective management and
conservation of fish and fisheries have not been given much consideration in the management of
fish fauna of GSNP. Gebe Sheleko National Park has not been given due attention regarding fish
and fisheries. Therefore, the absence of information about the Park riverine fisheries triggered
the necessity to conduct this study. The study on morphometric characters in fish is important
because they can be used for taxonomic resolution and are able to spot differences between fish
population growth parameters (Nagelkerke 1997). Therefore, this study was carried out to
identify fish diversity, determine the relative abundance of fish species and to examine some
morphometric measurements of the dominant fish of the GSNP to improve the Park and riverine
fisheries management. The study provides preliminary information on the overall ecological
character of the GSNP riverine ecosystems.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Study Area
The study was conducted in Gibe Sheleko National Park, located in the Gurage Zone of Southern
Ethiopia. It is 170 km south west of Addis Ababa. It is geographically located from 05°25' N to 06°15'N
and 35°24' E (Fig. 1). The altitude of the area ranges from 1050 to 1835 m above sea levels. The park
covers 248 km2 bounded by three Districts namely Cheha, Abeshigie and Enemorenaener. It characterised
by a heterogeneous landscape, flora, fauna and habitat types and it is dissected by deep gorges of the
Gibe, Deriee and Wabe Rivers. Gibe Sheleko National Park has viable populations of mammalian species
and viable groups of fauna species to diversified flora and also involves varieties of bird species, reptiles
and amphibians, as well as insects also being found (Amare 2015, Tilahun et al. 2017).

Figure 1. Map of Gibe Sheleko National Park (Source: Belete et al., 2017)

Site selection and field sampling

Based on information from local fishermen and a previous survey, we selected a total of eight
sampling sites along the Gibe and Wabe Rivers (Table 1). Sampling sites were selected by
 considering the nature and velocity of the rivers, accessibility, substrate type and human
interference in the river sections. The coordinates of the sampling sites were determined using
GPS. Data were collected both in a dry season (January to March) and a wet season (April 16 to
June) in 2019.

Table 1. Sampling sites with their codes, GPS readings and habitat type in Gibe and Wabe
tributaries.

Tributary Fishing site Altitude(m) Habitat Coordinate (GPS)

Gibe River G1 1067 Rocky and sandy 08013’91’’N, 037034’41’’E
G2 1079 Rocky and sandy 08013’99’’N, 037034’30’’E
G3 1082 Rocky and sandy 08013’81’’N, 037034’85’’ E
G4 1086 Rocky and sandy 08013’86’’N, 037034’64’’ E
G5 1084 Rocky and sandy 08013’93’’N, 0 37034’44’’ E
Wabe W1 1673 Turbid muddy and rock gravel 08014’85N, 037045’41’’ E
River W2 1669 Turbid muddy and rock gravel 08014’78’’N, 037045’39’’ E
W3 1647 Turbid muddy and rock gravel 08014’65’’N, 037045’30’’ E

Fish sampling and identification

On a monthly basis (January to June 2019), fish were collected using monofilament gill-nets which had
mesh sizes of 5 mm to 55 mm, a panel length of 25 m and depth of 1.5 m. Hooks and locally-available
traps were also used during fish sampling. Some specimens were also obtained from fishermen.
Immediately after capturing the fish, morphometric measurements were recorded and all specimens were
preserved in plastic jars containing 4% formalin and labelled with all necessary information of
fishes. Once back in the laboratory, the preserved specimens were soaked in tap water for 5 days to wash
the formalin away and then transferred to 75% ethanol for conservation and identification. All specimens
were identified to species level using taxonomic keys.

Morphometric measurements

Total length, fork length, standard length, girth, weight, eye diameter and the distance between eyes of
fish specimens were measured using digital calipers, ruler and digital balance. Total Length (TL) was
measured from the tip of the snout to the tip of the caudal fin, i.e. the greatest distance between the most
anterior projecting parts of the head and the posterior most tip of the caudal fin. Standard Length (SL)
was measured from the tip of the snout to the base of the caudal fin. It was a straight distance from the
anterior most part of the head to the end of the vertebral column/caudal peduncle. Fork length (FL) was
measured from the tip of the snout to the end of the middle caudal fin rays. Width (WD) was girth of
body. Eye Diameter (ED) was distance from the anterior to the posterior rims of the eye in the
longitudinal axis. Distance between Eyes (DBE) was distance between both eyes. Weight (W) was body
total weight.

Species diversity and relative abundance

Estimation of relative abundance of fish was made by the contribution of the catch in each overnight
fishing sample. The Index of Relative Importance (IRI) and Shannon Diversity Index (H') were used to
evaluate relative abundance and diversity of fish, respectively. The IRI is a measure of relative abundance
or commonness of the species, based on number and weight of individuals in catches, as well as their
frequency of occurrence. IRI gives a better representation of the ecologically-important species rather
than the weight, number or frequency alone (Sanyanga 1996).

(%𝑊𝑖+%𝑁𝑖)𝑥%𝐹𝑖
%IRI = ∑𝑍−1(%𝑊𝑗+%𝑁𝑗)𝑥%𝐹𝑗 𝑋 100 Where, %Wi and %Ni are percentages weight and number
𝐽−1

of each species of total catch, respectively. %Fi is a percentage frequency occurrence of each
species in total number of settings. %Wj and Nj are percentage weight and number of total
species in total catch. Fj is percentage frequency of occurrence of total species in total number of
settings.
The Shannon Diversity Index (H'): H' is a measure of species weighted by the relative abundance
(Begon et al. 1990). H' is calculated as follows: H' = ∑pi ln pi; where, pi - the proportion of
individuals in the ith species. The Shannon Index is used to indicate diversity of fishes at
different sampling sites. A high value indicates high species diversity.

Data Analysis

Descriptive statistics were used to analyse the mean value of the biomass weight during wet and
dry seasons and also the mean, range and standard error of the species length frequency. The
significant difference of species relative abundance during wet and dry season was analysed
using the t-test and Chi-square test. One-way ANOVA was used to determine the significant
difference of species diversity between sites (SPSS, v.21).

RESULTS

Fish Species Composition

During this extensive study, a total of ten species referable to four orders and seven families were
identified from Gibe and Wabe Rivers of GSNP in dry and wet seasons (Tables 2, 4). Cyprinidae was the
predominant family representing three species, contributing 30% of the fish diversity in the Park,
followed by Clariidae with two species (20% of fish of study area). The freshwater fish fauna in the
studied rivers contained a mixture of Nilo Sudanic: Mormyrus kannume Forsskål, 1775, Bagrus
docmak (Forsskål, 1775) and Labeo forskalii (Rüppell, 1835); and highland East African
forms: Labeobarbus intermedius (Rüppell, 1835), Labeobarbus nedgia (Rüppell, 1835), Clarias
gariepinus (Burchell, 1822) and Oreochromis niloticus (Linnaeus, 1758).
In the studied rivers, Cyprinidae and Clariidae were the dominant families. Synodontis schall, L. nedgia,
L. intermedius, C. gariepinus and O. niloticus were common in both seasons at Gibe and Wabe Rivers
(Fig. 2). However, Heterobranchus longifilis Valenciennes, 1840 and L. forskalii were found only in Gibe
River in both seasons. Moreover, in Gibe River, there were ten and six fish species during wet and dry
seasons, respectively. Gibe River has ten species, which is greater than for the Wabe River (eight species)
(Table 2).
 Table 2. Fish species composition of the Gibe and Wabe Rivers tributaries in the Gibe Sheleko
National Park during the dry and wet season. Presence (+) and absence (-) of each species during
the dry and wet seasons are presented relative to each river drainage

No. Order Family Scientific Name Local Name Tributary

(Amharic) Gibe Wabe

Wet

Wet
Dry

Dry
1. Siluriformes Mochokidae Synodontis Qeqe + + + +
schall Bloch and Schneider,
1801
2. Cypriniformes Cyprinidae Labeobarbus nedgia Rüppell, Tseyimat + + + +
1835
3. Cypriniformes Cyprinidae Labeobarbus intermedius Tseyimat + + + +
Rüppell 1835
4. Siluriformes Clariidae Clarias gariepinus Burchell, Ambaza + + + +
1822
5. Perciformes Cichlidae Oreochromis niloticus Birqe + + + +
Linnaeus, 1758
6. Siluriformes Bagridae Bagrus docmak Forsskål, 1775 Keniya assa + - + -
7. Cypriniformes Cyprinidae Labeo forskalii Rüppell, 1835 Tseyimat + - - -
8. Siluriformes Clariidae Heterobranchus longifilis Zemetu + + - -
Valenciennes, 1840
9. Osteoglossiformes Mutmut Mormyrus Mutmut + - + -
kannume Forsskål, 1775
10. Siluriformes Korenti assa Malapterurus electricus Korenti assa + - + -
Gmelin, 1789
 A

A. Ventral view and B. Lateral view of Synodontis schall

Labeobarbus nedgia
 Labeobarbus intermedius

Clarias gariepinus
Figure 2: Fish species identified from Gibe Sheleko National Park Tributary
Morphometric measurements of identified fish species
Clarias gariepinus have large eye diameter (8.4 mm) followed by S. schall (8.3 mm) and O.
niloticus (7.5 mm), but L. intermedius have the smallest eye diameter (3.8 mm) (see Table 3). In
the present study, H. longifilis was the first ranked fish, based on body length of fish which
measured an average of 64.7 cm, 64.7 cm and 59.8 cm total, fork and standard length,
respectively. However, based on body girth, S. schall was the largest (23.1 cm), followed by B.
docmak (21.7 cm) and C. gariepinus (20.3 cm). Similarly, the body of C. gariepinus had a
measured mean of 1713.4 g weight and was also the largest, followed by S. schall (1679.5 g) and
B. docmak (987.8 g).

The eye diameter and the distance between eyes of the fish did not show statistical differences
(X2 = 80.0, df = 72, p = 0.242). Similarly, body weight of fish and girth were not statistically
 different (X2 = 90.0, df = 81, p = 0.231). However, the pairwise comparison t-test showed that
the total body length was not significantly different from the fork length (t = 3.533, df = 9, p =
0.006), but statistically different from standard length (t = 5.54, df = 9, Pp = 0.00), weight (t = -
7.37, df = 9, p = 0.00) and girth (t = 4.131, df = 9, p = 0.003).

Table 3. Body coloration and average morphometric measurements of identified specie.

No. Fish Species Coloration Average Body length

Distance b/n eye

(cm)

Eye Diameter

Weight (g)
Girth (cm)
Standard
(mm)

(mm)
Total

Fork
1. Labeo Dark olive above and 5.7 7.2 33.4 27.6 24.8 17.3 694.8
forskalii on the sides, white
beneath
2. Labeobarbus Olive above, yellow or 3.8 8.1 56.6 52.3 49.7 17.2 957.7
intermedius pinkish beneath; fins
brown or olive
3. Labeobarbus Olive or greenish grey 4.5 10.4 39.4 37.6 33.8 16.8 870.8
nedgia above, yellowish
beneath; fins olive or
grey.
4. Heterobranc Olive above, white 5.8 12.3 64.7 64.7 59.8 18.4 897.3
hus longifilis beneath; adipose dorsal
fin often blackish at the
end
5. Bagrus Greyish blue to dark 7.4 12.7 47.8 44.3 42.6 21.7 987.8
docmak olive above, white
beneath
6. Synodontis Grey, brown, or olive 8.3 14.1 41.5 30.5 27.5 23.1 1679.5
schall above; white beneath.
7. Mormyrus Brownish or olive 5.8 9.7 42.3 38.6 37.1 17.5 912.8
kannume above; white beneath
8. Oreochromis Brown or grey to dark 7.5 9.1 19.2 18.8 16.9 15.7 659.7
niloticus olive colour
9. Malapterurus Olive above, yellow or 4.8 5.6 14.7 11.0 10.2 9.8 472.8
electricus pinkish beneath; fins
brown or olive
10 Clarias Dark, grayish - black 8.4 9.4 18.7 17.3 16.4 20.3 1713.4
gariepinus above and creamy-
white below

Relative abundance of fishes

A total of 249 fish specimens belonging to 10 species were collected from eight
sampling sites during the study period. Of the total specimens collected, 179 were caught during
the dry season and 70 specimens were caught during the wet season. There was significant
difference in the mean number of fish specimens collected in the dry season (t = 3.943 df = 9, p
= 0.003). However, there were no obvious statistical differences in the mean number of
specimens between rivers in the wet season total catch (t = 2.923, df = 9, p = 0.017). Moreover,
the total catch of fish that were collected during the study period were not statistically different
between dry and wet season (F = 4.51, df = 1, p= 0.048). In this study, S.
schall was the most abundant species in number, both in wet and dry seasons, followed by L.
nedgia, L. intermediu and C. gariepinus and they contributed 28.52%, 18.88%, 14.06% and
10.44% of the total catch, respectively. Malapterurus electricus was only collected as two
specimens and was the least abundant fish species (Table 4).

Table 4: Total catches of fishes and percentage (%) of composition in dry and wet seasons.
Some species were not found in wet season which represented as (-).

No. Fish Species Season Total % composition

Dry Wet
1 Synodontis schall 51 20 71 28.52
2 Labeobarbus nedgia 32 15 47 18.88
3 Labeobarbus intermedius 21 14 35 14.06
4 Clarias gariepinus 16 10 26 10.44
5 Oreochromis niloticus 14 9 23 9.23
6 Bagrus docmak 18 - 18 7.23
7 Labeo forskalii 10 - 10 4.02
8 Heterobranchus longifilis 7 2 9 3.61
9 Mormyrus kannume 8 - 8 3.21
10 Malapterurus electricus 2 - 2 0.80
Total 179 70 249 100
Number of fish across the sites in each river for both seasons is indicated in Fig. 3. In both the
Gibe and Wabe Rivers, the number of fish caught in the dry season was higher than during the
wet season. In the Gibe River, the numbers of fish in all sites was higher in the dry season than
the wet season, but in the Wabe River at site one, there were fewer fish than during the wet
season.
 80
65 Dry Wet
60
42
Number of Fishes

40 32
21
20 14 12 8 16 13
8 4 7
3 3 1
0
G1 G2 G3 G4 G5 W1 W2 W3
Sampling Sites

Figure 3: Total number or abundance of fishes recorded in eight sampling sites at Gibe (G1 to
G5) and Wabe (W1 to W3) River sites in dry and wet seasons

Gibe River had more species diversity (10 species) than Wabe River (eight species) in the dry season
and in the wet season (Gibe River, six species; Wabe River, five species (Fig. 4, Table 5). Accordingly,
the Shannon Diversity Index (H') was highest in the Gibe River with a value of (H' = 2.09) compared to
the Wabe River (H' = 1.84) during the dry season. However, H' was highest in the Wabe River (H' =
1.57) during the wet season (Gibe River, H' = 1.52). Moreover, both the number of species (N) and
Shannon Diversity Index (H') were not statistically different between the Gibe and Wabe Rivers F =
0.36, df = 1, p= 0.609 and F = 0.101, df = 1, p = 0.781, respectively. Similarly, between dry and wet
seasons there were no obvious statistical differences of N and H' values F = 9.80, df = 1, p = 0.89 and F
= 10.855, df = 1, p = 0.81, respectively.

10
10 8
(H') and (N) Value

8 6
5
6
4 2.09 1.52 1.84 1.57
2
0
Gibe Wabe
Dry H' 2.09 1.84
Dry N 10 8
Wet H' 1.52 1.57
Wet N 6 5
 Figure 4: Shannon diversity index (H') and number of fish species (N) in Gibe and Wabe River
of GSNP during wet and dry season.

The species composition of all catches, both in dry and wet seasons, were analysed and ranked, based on
the Index of Relative Importance (IRI). According to IRI, the most important species in the total catches
were S. schall (49.13%), L. intermedius (15.49%), C. gariepinus (11.70%) and L. nedgia (9.97%).
However, there was no significant differences between fish species of IRI values (X 2 = 90.0, df = 81, p =
0.231).

Table 5: Number (N) and index of relative importance (IRI) of fishes in the study area. %Wi
and %Ni = percentages in weight and number of each species of total catch. %Fi = percentage
frequency occurrence of each species in total number of settings. %Wj and Nj= percentages in
weight and number of total species in total catch. Fj= percentage frequency of occurrence of
total species in total number of settings).

No. Fish Species N %N W %W F %F IRI %IRI

1. Synodontis schall 71 28.52 119244.5 40.50 14 20.0 1380.4 49.13

2. Labeobarbus 35 14.06 33519.5 11.38 12 17.14 435.04 15.49

intermedius

3. Clarias 26 10.44 44548.4 15.13 9 12.86 328.83 11.70

gariepinus

4. Labeobarbus 47 18.88 40927.6 13.90 6 8.57 280.02 9.97

nedgia

5. Oreochromis 23 9.23 15173.1 5.15 7 10.0 143.80 5.12

niloticus

6. Bagrus docmak 18 7.23 17780.4 6.04 6 8.57 113.72 4.05

7. Labeo forskalii 10 4.02 6948 2.36 7 10.0 63.8 2.27

8. Heterobranchus 9 3.61 8075.7 2.74 4 5.71 36.26 1.29

longifilis

9. Mormyrus 8 3.21 7302.4 2.48 3 4.29 24.41 0.87

kannume
10. Malapterurus 2 0.80 945.6 0.32 2 2.86 3.20 0.11
electricus

Total 249 100 294465.2 100 70 100 2809.48 100

Fishery activities
The fishermen in the study area have been involved in fishing for 6-15 hours within a day
and there are seasonal fishermen who fish from the river only for consumption. Fishing in the study area
is mainly artisanal and fish are sold at the local market. The commercially-important species are S. schall,
L. nedgia, L. intermedius, C. gariepinus and O. niloticus. The fisher folk use locally-available gear,
such as single hook and line and mosquito net (Fig. 5). In addition, Birbira (Milletia ferruginea) seed
powder is also used to anaesthetise and collect the fish.

Figure 5: Fishing activity in the study area by using single hook

 DISCUSSION

The present study revealed 10 species, belonging to a single class Actinopterygii (ray-finned
fishes), four orders and seven families in GSNP tributary rivers. The richness is lower than those
reported from certain other rivers of Ethiopia. For example, the reports mentioned 23 fish species
belonging to seven families and five orders from the Beles and Gilgel Beles Rivers (Getahun et
al. 2020), 13 species (belonging to three families from the in Gilgel Abay and Andassa Rivers
(Aynalem et al. 2018) and Oumer et al. (2011) reported the occurrence of 17 species in the head
of the Blue Nile River. However, other researchers have reported less diversity of fish in other
water bodies compared to the diversity of Gibe and Wabe Rivers of GSNP, such as Urga et al.
(2017) identified five species with one family in Debbis River and Melaku et al. (2017)
identified nine species of fin-fish representing seven genera and four families from Geba and Sor
Rivers.

A total of three species of fish were observed belonging to the order Cypriniformes and family
Cyprinidae. The members of this family are distributed in freshwater habitats all over the world
(Nikam et al. 2014). Cyprinidae was the dominant family consistent with the earlier findings of
DeGraaf (2003), Melaku et al. (2017), Urga et al. (2017), Aynalem et al. (2018), Getahun et al.
(2020). The presence dominance of the few families in this study gave the impression that these
cyprinid fishes, being riverine origin, are specifically segregated or adapted in the Gibe-Omo
Basin and its tributaries in Ethiopia. The fish species compositions between Gibe and Wabe
River might be due to special adaption of the riverine cyprinids. Cyprinids are the dominant
family; especially L. intermedius and L. nedgia were common in most of the Ethiopian inland
water bodies previously reported DeGraaf (2003), Oumer et al. (2011), Mequaninnet et al.
(2014).

Of the total ten species, ten and eight species were identified from Gibe and Wabe Rivers of
GSNP, respectively. Synodontis schall, L. nedgia, L. intermedius and C. gariepinus were the
most dominant fish species in GSNP tributaries. The less diversity (10 species) in the present
study might be due to the length of the sampling periods (i.e. this investigation was carried out in
two seasons over relatively short periods of time, while others studies were over a long period)
and fishing gear used have a high selective effect (Limbu et al. 2018). The second reason for the
less diversity reported now might be the effect of flow variability on fish assemblage, for
example, high flows could destroy fish habitat and wash away the already-laid fish eggs. The
other reason might due to the fact that fish diversity decreases drastically in the upper parts of the
rivers as in other Ethiopian basins (Golubtsov and Mina 2003). Gibe River has more species
diversity in both dry and wet seasons. There might be several reasons for variation in abundance
between tributaries. Variation in available nutrients and habitats, temperature, fishing effort, fish
behaviour, size and life history stages of fishes and others might have contributed to the variation
in abundance of the catches (Begon et al. 1990, Stiassny and Getahun 2007).

In all sampling sites, the number of fish was higher during the dry season than the wet season
(Table 4, Fig. 3). The reason for such variations could be probably due to the high turbidity of
the river water, velocity of the water and low temperature during wet season which may have
attributed to the less number of fish caught (DeGraaf 2003). During wet season, there was also
higher water discharge; fish could have highly dispersed in the large volume of water in this
season as compared to the dry season, making them more difficult to catch. (Tesfaye and Wolff
2014). In addition, the variation in catches between wet and dry seasons might be due to the
efficiency of the gill-net and time of setting of the gill-net. Wood logs, leaves, roots and grasses
which were brought by flooding, could have decreased the efficiency of gill-nets during the wet
season. Generally, the fish diversity in both rivers was not the same in wet and dry seasons, like
the results reported by Melaku et al. (2017) in Geba and Sor Rivers Rivers and Tewabe et al.
(2010) in Ayima, Guang, Shinfa and Gendwuha Rivers where fish diversity was higher in the
dry season than the wet season. High density in shallower pools in the dry season and the ease of
their collection using the available fishing gear could be a reason for the high diversity (Oumer et
al. 2011, Mequaninnet et al. 2014, Tewabe et al. 2010).

The Shannon Diversity Index was used to evaluate species diversity of sampling sites and rivers.
It also explains both variety and the relative abundance of fish species (Naesje et al. 2004). The
Shannon Diversity Index (H') also was higher in the dry season than the wet season in Gibe
River and Wabe River. According to the IRI, the most important species in the total catches
were S. schall, followed by L. intermedius, C. gariepinus and L nedgia, respectively. Moreover,
differences in sampling habitats, fishing effort, type of gear and gill-net efficiency, sampling
seasons and altitude might have contributed to the variation in the catch rates and species
diversity (Awoke 2015, Awoke et al. 2015, Abera et al. 2018).

As mentioned above, there might be several reasons for variation in abundance between wet and
dry seasons. Variation in available nutrients and habitats, temperature, fishing effort, fish
behaviour, size and life history stages of fishes and others might have contributed to the variation
in abundance of the catches. Moreover, water level (Karenge and Kolding 1995) and turbidity of
water may also affect abundance (DeGraaf 2003). Flow variability might also have an effect on
fish assemblages. For example, high flows could destroy fish habitat and wash away any
spawned fish eggs. Differences in sampling habitats (river width, substrate type, source distance
and depth), fishing effort, type of gear and gill-net efficiency, sampling seasons and altitude
might have contributed to the variation in the catch rates and species diversity (Karenge and
Kolding 1995, Gebremariam et al. 2002, DeGraaf 2003). However, observed differences in
morphometric characteristics measured in the present study, when compared with those obtained
by other authors, are likely due to differences in the number of specimens examined, differences
in the utilised length ranges or differing study seasons, food availability, feeding rate, gonad
development and spawning period (Teferi et al. 2002, Tewabe et al. 2010).

Conclusion and Recommendations

A total of ten fish species belonging to five orders and six families were identified from Gibe and
Wabe River of GSNP. The fish diversity of GSNP is dominated by Cyprinidae fish species.
Synodontis schall, L. nedgia, L. intermediu and C. gariepinus were the dominant fish species in
GSNP tributaries. Gibe River has more species diversity in both dry and wet seasons. The
Shannon Diversity Index (H') was also higher in the dry season than the wet season in Gibe
River and Wabe River. According to IRI, the most important species in the total catches were S.
schall, followed by L. intermedius, C. gariepinus and L. nedgia, respectively. Moreover,
differences in sampling habitats, fishing effort, type of gear and gill-net efficiency, sampling
seasons and altitude might have contributed to the variation in the catch rates and species
diversity. Therefore, the present study proposes the following recommendations:

 There should be a detailed study on the diversity, relative abundance and biology of fish

species in the upper streams of both rivers.

 Year-round data should be collected to give a clear understanding on the reproductive

biology of fish
 Further studies are needed on food and feeding, reproductive behaviour of fish species

and socioeconomic aspects of fisheries.

 Fishery development should be implemented in both Rivers to use the fish resource

sustainably without affecting the by-catch.

 In addition, training should be given for local people living around the rivers on how to

catch fish with legal fishing gear and how to prepare fish dishes by Wolkite University
and Gibe Sheleko National Park office.
 Fish sport activities should be established in the Park to attract tourists.

 The development of aquaculture and other related alternative fisheries should be

encouraged to reduce the pressure on the natural system.

Acknowledgement
We would like to thank Wolkite University for providing the budget logistic. We special
appreciation goes to Gibe Sheleko National Park staff members for their great help during
sampling and data collection.

Declaration

Data Availability Statement: The authors affirm that there is no separate available data file. All
data necessary for confirming the conclusions of the article are present within the article, figures
and tables.

Authors’ Contribution

SM and AH conceived and designed the investigation. SM and AH collected the data. While, SM
was analyzed the data and wrote the paper.
 Ethics declarations

Ethics approval and consent to participate

Permits for this research were issued by the Ethiopian Wildlife Conservation Authority (EWCA),
Wolkite University (www.wku.edu.et) and Gibe Sheleko National Park management office.
Capture and sampling was conducted in accordance with the guideline of Ethiopian Wildlife
Conservation Authority proclamation number 41/1993 and Gibe Sheleko National Park
management office. The study was approved by Research, Publication and Technology Transfer
Committee of College of Agriculture and Natural Resource under Wolkite University with the
approval reference number RCUILC-CANR01/2011.

Consent for publication

Not applicable.

Conflict of Interest

To the authors’ knowledge, no conflict of interest exists. That is, no interest or relationship,
financial or otherwise that might be perceived as influencing an author’s objectivity exists.

References
Abera L, Getahun A, Lemma B (2018). Changes in Fish Diversity and Fisheries in Ziway-Shala
Basin: The Case of Lake Ziway, Ethiopia. J Fisheries Livest Prod 6: 263. doi:
10.4172/2332-2608.1000263
Amare, A. (2015) Conservation Challenges of Gibe Sheleko National Park, Southwestern
Ethiopia. Natural Resources, 6, 286-289. http://dx.doi.org/10.4236/nr.2015.64025
Awoke, T. M. (2015). Fish species diversity in major river basins of Ethiopia: A review. World
Journal of Fish and Marine Sciences 7 (5): 365‑374.
https://doi.org/10.5829/idosi.wjfms.2015.7.5.95195
Awoke, T., Mingist, M. and Getahun, A. (2015). Abundance and species compositions of fishes
in Blue Nile River, Ethiopia. International Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Studies 2
(6): 334‑339.
Aynalem, Y., Mingist, M. and Getu, A. (2018). Diversity, relative abundance, species
composition and some biological aspects of fishes in gilgel abay and Andassa Rivers,
 Blue Nile Basin, Ethiopia. Fisheries and Aquaculture Journal 9: 241. doi:10.4172/2150-
3508.1000241
Begon M, Harper JL, Townsed CR. (1990). Ecology: individuals, population and communities.
2nd Ed. Blackwell Scientific Publication, 945pp. University Saints Malaysias, Penang,
Malaysia, 1990, 6.
DeGraaf M. (2003). Lake Tana’s piscivorous Barbus (Cyprinidae, Ethiopia): Ecology, evolution
and exploitation. Wageningen University, Wageningen, 256 pp. [ISBN 90-5808-938-x].
Gebremariam, Z., Kebede, W.E. and Desta, Z. (2002). Long-term changes in chemical features
of waters of seven Ethiopian Rift-valley lakes. Hydrobiology, 477: 81-
91. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1021061015788
Getahun, A., Bereie, Z. and Dejen, E. (2020). Diversity of fishes in Beles and Gilgel beles
Rivers, abay basin, Ethiopia. International Journal of Aquaculture and Fishery Sciences
6(3): 068-073. DOI: https:// dx.doi.org/10.17352/2455-8400.000059
Getahun, A., (2007). An overview of the diversity and conservation status of the Ethiopian
freshwater fish fauna. Journal of Afrotropical Zoology special Issue: 87‑96.
Golubtsov, A. S., and Darkov, A. A. (2008). A review of fish diversity in the main Drainage
systems of Ethiopia, pp. 69–102. In: Ecological and Faunistic Studies in Ethiopia
(Pavlov, S. D., Y.Y., Dgebuadze, A. A., Darkov, S. A., Golubtsov, and V. M. Mina,
Eds.). Moscow: KMK Scientific Press.
Golubtsov, A. S., and Mina, J. (2003). Fish species diversity in the main drainage systems of
Ethiopia: Current state of knowledge and research prospective. Ethiopian Journal of
Natural Resources, 5: 281–318.
Karenge L, Kolding J. (1995). Inshore fish population and species changes in Lake Kariba,
Zimbabwe. In: Pitcher, T., Hart, P.J.B. (Eds.), The Impact of Species Changes in African
Lakes. Fish and Fisheries Series, vol. 18. Chapman and Hall, London, 1995, 245-275.
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-011-0563-7_12
Kebede, A., Meko, T., Hussein, A. and Tamiru Y. (2017). Review on Opportunities and
Constraints of Fishery in Ethiopia. International Journal of Poultry and Fisheries
Sciences, 1(1):1-8. https://doi.org/10.15226/2578-1898/1/1/00104
Limbu, J.H., Shrestha,O.H. and Prasad, A. (2018). Ichthyofaunal diversity of Bakraha River of
Morang district, Nepal. International Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Studies, 6(5):
267-271
Melaku, S., Getahun, G. and Wakjira, M. (2017). Population Aspects of Fishes in Geba and Sor
Rivers, White Nile System in Ethiopia, East Africa. Hindawi International Journal of
Biodiversity 2017 (1): 1‑7. https://doi.org/10.1155/2017/1252604
Mequaninnet, D., Mingist, M., Getahun, A. and Anteneh, W. (2014). Spawning migration of
Labeobarbus species of Lake Tana to Gilgel Abay River and its tributaries, Blue Nile
Basin, Ethiopia. African Journal of Fisheries Science 2 (9): 176‑184.
Naesje TF, Hay CJ, Nickansor N, Koekemoer JH, Strand R, Thorstad EB. (2004). Fish
population, gillnet catch and gillnet selectivity in the Kwando River. Namibia.
Norwegian Institute for Nature Research. Tungasletta 2 (7485): 1‑64.
Nagelkerke, L.A.J. (1997). The Barbus of Lake Tana, Ethiopia: Morphological diversity and its
implication for taxonomy, trophic resource partitioning and fisheries. PhD Thesis,
Agricultural University, Wageningen, the Netherlands, 298 pp. [ISBN 9789054857556 -
296].
Nikam, D.S., Shaikh, A.L., Salunkhe, P.S., Kamble,A.B. and Rao, K.R. (2014). Ichthyofaunal
Diversity of Ashti Lake, Tal. Mohol, Dist. Solapur (M.S.). The Global Journal of
Pharmaceutical Research, 3 (12), 4-5.
Oumer, M., Mingist, M. and Dejen, E. (2011). Divesity and relative abundance of fishes in the
head of Blue Nile River, Ethiopia. Ethiopian Journal of Biological Sciences, 10(2): 207-
212 ISSN: 1819-8678 2011.
Sanyanga, R.A. (1996). Variation in abundance of Synodontis zambezensis (Pisces:
Mockokidae) Peters 1852, in the shore fishery of Lake Kariba. Fisheries Research. 1996;
26:171-186.
Stiassny, M. and Getahun, A. (2007). An overview of labeon in relationship and the phylogenetic
placement of the Afro-Asian genus Garra Hamiltin, 1922 (Teleostei: Cyprinidae), with
the description of the five new species of Garra from Ethiopia, and a key to all African
species. Zoological Journal of the Linnran Society 150: 41-83.
Teferi, Y., Admassu, D. and Mengistu, S. (2002). Length-weight relationship, Body condition
and sex ratio of tilapia (Oreochromis niloticus) in Lake Chamo, Ethiopia. SINET:
Ethiopian Journal of Science 25 (1): 19‑26.
Temesgen, M.K. and Getahun, A.G. (2016). Fishery management problems in Ethiopia: Natural
and human induced impacts and the conservation challenges. Reviews in Fisheries
Science and Aquaculture, 24:4, 305-313, DOI: 10.1080/23308249.2016.1187582
Tesfaye, G. and Wolff, M. (2014). The state of inland fisheries in Ethiopia: A synopsis with
updated estimates of potential yield. Ecohydrology andHydrobiology 14 (3): 200‑219.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecohyd.2014.05.001
Tewabe, D., Getahun, A. and Dejen, E. (2010). Fishing activities in Gendwuha, Guang, Shinfa
and Ayima rivers in Tekeze and Abbay basins, Ethiopia: preliminary study.
Ecohydrology and Hydrobiology 10 (24), 333-340.
Tilahun, B., Abie, K., Feyisa,A. and Amare, A. (2017). Attitude and perceptions of local
communities towards the conservation value of Gibe Sheleko National Park,
Southwestern Ethiopia. Agricultural and Resource Economics: International Scientific E-
Journal, 3(2), 65-77
Urga, K.T., Prabhadevi, L., and Tedesse, Z. (2017). Diversity and biology of fishes in the river
Debbis, Ethiopia, International Journal of Aquaculture, 7(20):126-133.
doi:10.5376/ija.2017.07.0020.