New 🐟 Mercury Safety Guide & Omega-3 Rankings Updated for 2026. View Omega-3 Rankings →

💧 Freshwater Critically Endangered 🌡️ Tropical

Coptodon Deckerti

Coptodon deckerti Thys van den Audenaerde, 1967
Max Length
10.2 cm
Max Weight
-
Lifespan
-
Trophic Level
2.7
Depth
-
Climate
Tropical
Resilience
High
Vulnerability
15.00/100
Typical Length
-
Depth Zone
demersal

📖 Overview

Pair-bonding, open substrate brooder/spawner with both parents guarding the brood . It breeds in shallow water above 2 m water depth, where pairs excavate shallow pits often close to stones, branches or similar structures . Coptodon cf. deckerti observed to primarily feed upon zooplankton, copepods and small amounts of insect larvae; juveniles were observed nibbling on fins of Sarotherodon species .

Scientific Name
Coptodon deckerti
Authority
Thys van den Audenaerde, 1967
Habitat
Freshwater
Climate
Tropical
Body Shape
Fusiform / normal
IUCN Status
CR
Max Length
10.2 cm
Trophic Level
2.7
Resilience
High
Vulnerability
15.00/100
Salinity
0–0.5 ppt

🔬 Taxonomy

🐟 Physical Description

Dorsal spines (total): 14 - 16; Dorsal soft rays (total): 11 - 12; Anal spines: 3; Anal soft rays: 8 - 9. Diagnosis: Coptodon deckerti differs from its congeners except for a few members of the genus Coptodon in quadricuspid posterior pharyngeal teeth on lower pharyngeal jaw, a character shared only with Coptodon tholloni, C. cameronensis, C. dageti, C. congica, C. ejagham, and C. nigrans . It differs from C. cameronensis and C. dageti in lower length of dorsal fin base, 50.6-54.7% of standard length vs. 57.2-65.0%; from C. tholloni in higher predorsal distance, 41.2-46.1% of standard length vs. 35.6-40.7%; from C. congica in lower body depth, 36.0-40.0% of standard length vs. 41.5-49.2%; from C. kottae in narrower interorbital width, 9.4-12.2% of standard length vs. 12.4-14.0%; and from C. ismailiaensis in longer lower jaw length, 13.8-16.5% of standard length vs. 11.8-12.0% . Differences to C. nigrans are based on a combination of morphometric, life history, genetic and ecological data, i.e. a shorter snout length, 12.7-15.6% of standard length vs. 15.8-18.2%, by breeding exclusively in the shallow water above 2 m water depth vs. excavated caves below 5 m depth, largest reproductively active C. deckerti specimen are smaller than smallest reproductively active specimens of C. nigrans, 60.2-102.2 mm standard length vs. 105.5-151.5 mm . It differs from C. ejagham in larger eye length, 8.5-10.7% of standard length vs. 6.2-8.4% . : fusiform / normal; Cross section: compressed.

🌀 Behaviour

Behavioural data for Coptodon Deckerti is currently being reviewed.

🦐 Diet

aquatic invertebrates
small fish
algae
detritus

🥚 Reproduction

🐣 Oviparous 👄 Mouth Brooder 🛡️ Egg Guarder
Spawning Season
spring
Spawn Location
Substrate
Fertilization
External

🌍 Habitat & Distribution

Freshwater; demersal. Tropical

🌿 Ecology

Zone Preferences
💧 Freshwater ⬇️ Benthic
Trophic Level
2.7±0.1

📐 Morphometrics

Length–Weight Relationship: W = 0.01445 × L2.99 (TL)
Max TL
10.2cm
Dorsal Spines
15
Dorsal Rays
12
Anal Spines
3
Anal Rays
9

🌡️ Water Parameters & Tolerance

Salinity Range
0–0.5ppt

🛡️ Conservation Assessment

IUCN Category
Critically Endangered
Assessment Date
2023

📊 Population Risk & Fisheries

Population Resilience
High
Minimum doubling time
Fishing Vulnerability
15.00/100
Low vulnerability
Trophic Level
2.7
Omnivore / Planktivore
Body Shape
Fusiform / normal
Climate Zone
Tropical
Described By
Thys van den Audenaerde, 1967

🌐 Names & Taxonomy

Scientific Synonyms

Scientific Name Author Year Status
Tilapia deckerti Thys van den Audenaerde 1967 Synonym

🗺️ Global Occurrence Map

Occurrence records from the Global Biodiversity Information Facility (GBIF) - 9 records indexed .

Occurrence density from GBIF View GBIF records ↗

👥 Community & Contribute

Aquareap Community Observations
0 Observations logged on Aquareap

No observations yet - be the first to log one!

View all observations for Coptodon Deckerti ↗
Suggest an Edit

Spotted incorrect or outdated data? Submit a correction and our editorial team will review it. Approved edits go live within 48 hours.

Link to a scientific paper, FishBase, or other authoritative source
Report an Issue

Found a factual error, broken data, or inappropriate content? Let us know and we will investigate promptly.