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

💧 Freshwater Endangered 🌡️ Subtropical

Luciobarbus Mascarensis

Luciobarbus mascarensis Brahimi, Freyhof, Henrard & Libois, 2017
Max Length
18.8 cm
Max Weight
-
Lifespan
-
Trophic Level
2.8
Depth
-
Climate
Subtropical
Resilience
Medium
Vulnerability
31.00/100
Typical Length
-
Depth Zone
pelagic

📖 Overview

Overview information for Luciobarbus Mascarensis is currently being compiled by our editorial team.

Scientific Name
Luciobarbus mascarensis
Authority
Brahimi, Freyhof, Henrard & Libois, 2017
Habitat
Freshwater
Climate
Subtropical
IUCN Status
EN
Max Length
18.8 cm
Trophic Level
2.8
Resilience
Medium
Vulnerability
31.00/100
Salinity
0–0.5 ppt

🐟 Physical Description

Dorsal spines (total): 0; Dorsal soft rays (total): 12; Anal spines: 0; Anal soft rays: 8. Diagnosis: Luciobarbus mascarensis is distinguished from other Luciobarbus species from the African Mediterranean basin, except L. chelifensis and L. leptopogon, by having usually 41 + 1-2 lateral line scales, vs. 49-51 + 1-2 in L. biscarensis, 43-47 + 1-2 in L. callensis, 43-45 + 1-3 in L. rifensis and L. setivimensis, 42-45 + 1-2 in L. yahyaouii; only L. chelifensis and L. leptopogon have regularly 41 lateral-line scales on the flank . Luciobarbus mascarensis is distinguished from L. chelifensis by having a longer anal fin, 19-22% of standard length vs. 18-19%, and the dorsal fin serrated at 2/3 of its length vs. serrated along almost its entire length, and from L. leptopogon by having a deeper body, body depth at dorsal-fin origin 26-31% of standard length vs. 20-27%, and a wider caudal peduncle, caudal peduncle depth 74-84% of caudal peduncle length vs. 60-74% . Luciobarbus mascarensis is also distinguished from L. biscarensis by having 7.5 scale rows between the lateral line and the dorsal-fin origin vs. 8.5-9.5, 4.5-5.5 scale rows between the lateral line and the pelvic-fin origin vs. 7.5-8.5, 4 unbranched dorsal-fin rays vs. 5, the dorsal-fin origin situated in front or above the pelvic-fin origin vs. behind, a longer anal fin, 19-22% of standard length vs. 17-20%, a short caudal peduncle, caudal peduncle length 15-17% of standard length vs. 16-19%; it is further distinguished from L. callensis and L. rifensis by having a longer anal fin, 19-22% of standard length vs. 17-19% in L. callensis and 16-19% in L. rifensis, a wider anal-fin base, 7-10% of standard length vs. 6-8% in L. rifensis, and a wider caudal peduncle, caudal peduncle depth 74-84% of caudal peduncle length vs. 60-78% in L. rifensis; it is also distinguihed from L. setivimensis by having a more narrow interorbital distance, 36-40% of head length vs. 40-44%; it is also distinguished from L. yahyaouii by having 4 unbranched dorsal-fin rays vs. usually 5, a greater distance between the pelvic and anal-fin origins, 24-28% of standard length vs. 21-24%, and a shorter caudal peduncle, caudal peduncle length 15-17% of standard length vs. 16-19.4% .

🌀 Behaviour

Behavioural data for Luciobarbus Mascarensis is currently being reviewed.

🦐 Diet

Diet information for Luciobarbus Mascarensis is currently being compiled.

🥚 Reproduction

Reproduction data for Luciobarbus Mascarensis is currently being compiled.

🌍 Habitat & Distribution

Freshwater; pelagic. Subtropical

🌿 Ecology

Zone Preferences
💧 Freshwater 🐟 Pelagic
Trophic Level
2.8±0.3

📐 Morphometrics

Length–Weight Relationship: W = 0.01047 × L2.99 (TL)
Max TL
18.8cm
Dorsal Rays
12
Anal Rays
8

🌡️ Water Parameters & Tolerance

Salinity Range
0–0.5ppt

🛡️ Conservation Assessment

IUCN Category
Endangered
Assessment Date
2021

📊 Population Risk & Fisheries

Population Resilience
Medium
Minimum doubling time
Fishing Vulnerability
31.00/100
Low vulnerability
Trophic Level
2.8
Omnivore / Planktivore
Climate Zone
Subtropical
Described By
Brahimi, Freyhof, Henrard & Libois, 2017

👥 Community & Contribute

Aquareap Community Observations
0 Observations logged on Aquareap

No observations yet - be the first to log one!

View all observations for Luciobarbus Mascarensis ↗
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.