Results/Conclusions A few characins showed the greatest interactions with microhabitats (higher than 50%), for example, Astyanax sp., A. lineatus, A. asuncionensis, and Jupiaba acanthogaster in PG streams (C= 0.55, 0.64, 0.55, 0.55, respectively); A. altiparanae, A. fasciatus, and A. paranae in PN streams (C=0.64, 0.55, 0.55, respectively); Creagrutus varii and A. rivularis in SF streams (C=0.73, 0.64 respectively). In addition, fish abundance and species connectance was correlated in PG and PN streams (Spearman correlation, r=0.385, p<0.05; r=0.467, p<0.05 respectively). With regards to microhabitat structures, the most frequently explored habitat portion at PG streams were the vegetation contacting water, marginal areas, middle water, and consolidated bottom (C=0.32 equally for all) whereas fine roots (C=0.45) was the most explored microhabitat in PN, and consolidated bottom (C=0.68) in SF. These results indicated some level of convergence in space use by different species across basins, while the positive correlation between abundance and connectance in PR and PN can represent a numeric response to plasticity in microhabitat use. A lot of species were associated with hard bottom in SF basin, and this habitat use requires some morphological specializations, that resulted in fewer connections with others portions of microhabitat. The detection of the key habitat structures in each basin can be considered of great importance for restoration and management of aquatic ecosystems.