Abstract:

Nile perch is an important food fish species of the genus Lates, belonging to family Latidae. It
widely occurs in the Afro-tropical region in Africa, and in East Africa it is native to Lakes Albert
and Turkana and River Albert Nile. It was introduced to lakes Kyoga, Nabugabo and Victoria
where it successfully established itself. Nile perch became the leading fishery, bolstering
economies of Uganda, Kenya and Tanzania, countries that are engaged in Nile perch processing
and export, to the value of US $250m annually. But reccently Nile perch stocks have been
reported to be on
understanding the species’ evolutionary history
management and culturing efforts of Nile perch. Earlier studies were mostly based
morphological characters and were all less or not definitive. This study combined morphological
and molecular characterisation to establish the phylogenetics, genetics and evolutionary history
of Nile perch sampled from lakes - Albert, Kyoga, Nabugabo, Victoria (Uganda), Turkana
'Kenya) and Chamo (Ethiopia) and Senegal River (Senegal). The aims of this study were to
determine phyletic and phylogeographic relationships among populations of Nile perch in its
extant range in E. Africa and to establish the species evolutionary history on the African
continent. Morphological phylogenetics of E. African Nile perch revealed existence 2
norphotypes. Analysis of genetic variation among populations in E. Africa, based on 9
polymorphic microsatellite loci and partial sequence (463bp) of mtDNA showed that introduced
Nile perch had higher genetic diversity than populations from the putative native origins. In
iddition, findings revealed that all sampled water bodies had 2 underlying populations of Nile
}erch, which most probably represent 2 different subspecies. Evolutionary history studied using
^itDNA CR partial sequence (476bp) revealed 37 distinct haplotypes in 124 samples. The
haplotypes clustered into 2 major groups, one composed of individuals sampled from eastern and
¦lie other from western Africa. The 2 most probably belong to 2 different Nile perch lineages that
-Hay have developed in geographical isolation during the Pleistocene times and have remained
Hrgely allopatric. The 2 groupings should be considered as different ESUs since depletion of
individuals from one lineage cannot easily be replenished by natural migration by the other,
¦rerefore, the ESUs should be conserved as such and genetic exchange due to translocations
=t|Ould never be allowed