Cookies on Invasive Species Compendium

Like most websites we use cookies. This is to ensure that we give you the best experience possible.

Continuing to use www.cabi.org means you agree to our use of cookies. If you would like to, you can learn more about the cookies we use.

Datasheet

Poecilia reticulata (guppy)

Summary

  • Last modified
  • 27 March 2013
  • Datasheet Type(s)
  • Invasive Species
  • Natural Enemy
  • Host Animal
  • Preferred Scientific Name
  • Poecilia reticulata
  • Preferred Common Name
  • guppy
  • Taxonomic Tree
  • Domain: Eukaryota
  •     Kingdom: Metazoa
  •         Phylum: Chordata
  •             Subphylum: Vertebrata
  •                 Class: Actinopterygii
  • Summary of Invasiveness
  • P. reticulata is a prolific livebearing fish species, producing between 20 and 40 young after a gestation period of four to six weeks, and is able to tolerate a wide range of aquatic environments and conditions. It is native to parts of the Caribbean...

Don't need the entire report?

Generate a print friendly version containing only the sections you need.

Generate report

Pictures

Top of page
PictureTitleCaptionCopyright
Poecilia reticulata; a brightly marked male,
TitleMale
CaptionPoecilia reticulata; a brightly marked male,
CopyrightSusanne Zajitschek
Poecilia reticulata; a brightly marked male,
MalePoecilia reticulata; a brightly marked male,Susanne Zajitschek
Poecilia reticulata; Female (top) and brighter marked male (below).
TitleAdults
CaptionPoecilia reticulata; Female (top) and brighter marked male (below).
CopyrightSusanne Zajitschek
Poecilia reticulata; Female (top) and brighter marked male (below).
AdultsPoecilia reticulata; Female (top) and brighter marked male (below).Susanne Zajitschek
Male Poecilia reticulata displaying to female.
TitleCourtship display
CaptionMale Poecilia reticulata displaying to female.
CopyrightSusanne Zajitschek
Male Poecilia reticulata displaying to female.
Courtship displayMale Poecilia reticulata displaying to female.Susanne Zajitschek
Female Poecilia reticulata during parturition.
TitleFemale
CaptionFemale Poecilia reticulata during parturition.
CopyrightSusanne Zajitschek
Female Poecilia reticulata during parturition.
FemaleFemale Poecilia reticulata during parturition.Susanne Zajitschek

Identity

Top of page

Preferred Scientific Name

  • Poecilia reticulata Peters, 1859

Preferred Common Name

  • guppy

Other Scientific Names

  • Acanthophacelus guppii (Günther, 1866)
  • Acanthophacelus reticulatus (Peters, 1859)
  • Girardinus guppii Günther, 1866
  • Girardinus reticulatus (Peters, 1859)
  • Haridichthys reticulatus (Peters, 1859)
  • Heterandria guppyi (Günther, 1866)
  • Lebistes poecilioides De Filippi, 1861
  • Lebistes poeciloides De Filippi, 1861
  • Lebistes reticulatus (Peters, 1859)
  • Poecilia reticulatus Peters, 1859
  • Poecilioides reticulatus (Peters, 1859)

International Common Names

  • English: barbados millions; guppies; million fish; millions; millions fish; rainbow fish
  • French: guppy; poisson million; queue de voile

Local Common Names

  • Albania: lareza tripikaloshe
  • Brazil: barrigudinho-mexicano; gúpi; lebistes; mexicano; sarapintado
  • Czech Republic: zivorodka duhová
  • Germany: Guppy; Millionenfisch; Wilder Riesenguppy
  • Hong Kong: hung dzoek ue
  • Indonesia: ikan seribu
  • Japan: guppii
  • Netherlands: gup
  • Poland: cytrynówka; gupik pawie
  • Slovakia: zivorodka dúhová (gupka)
  • South Africa: guppie; miljoenvis
  • Sri Lanka: guppy
  • Sweden: guppy
  • Trinidad and Tobago: red fin; seven colours
  • Turkey: lepistes
  • Vietnam: cá bay màu

Summary of Invasiveness

Top of page

P. reticulata is a prolific livebearing fish species, producing between 20 and 40 young after a gestation period of four to six weeks, and is able to tolerate a wide range of aquatic environments and conditions. It is native to parts of the Caribbean and northern South America, but it has been widely introduced throughout temperate and tropical regions originally for mosquito control, later as a popular species in the commercial aquarium trade. Further accidental introductions via release of unwanted pets and escape from aquaculture facilities are likely, and eradication of established populations is extremely difficult without broad scale damage to the aquatic environment and biota.

Taxonomic Tree

Top of page
  • Domain: Eukaryota
  •     Kingdom: Metazoa
  •         Phylum: Chordata
  •             Subphylum: Vertebrata
  •                 Class: Actinopterygii
  •                     Order: Cyprinodontiformes
  •                         Family: Poeciliidae
  •                             Genus: Poecilia
  •                                 Species: Poecilia reticulata

Notes on Taxonomy and Nomenclature

Top of page
Poecilia reticulata belongs to the cyprinodont family Poeciliidae, the livebearers. The genus Poecilia contains 43 species (Parenti and Rauchenberger, 1989) distributed naturally in fresh, brackish, and salt water of the New World temperate and tropical zones (Meffe and Snelson, 1989). The guppy was first described as Poecilia reticulata fromspecimens collected in Venezuela by Wilhelm Peters in 1859, and then again independently from specimens collected in Barbados in 1861 by De Filippi as Lebistes poeciloides. Following this, RJ Lechmere Guppy sent specimens from Trinidad to the British Museum of Natural History, where they were given the name Girardinus guppii by Günther in 1866, and it is from this collector that the common name guppy was given. Regan recognised these synonyms and reclassified the species as Lebistes reticulatus in 1913, but this revision was later restored to the original name Poecilia reticulata by Rosen and Bailey (1963). P. reticulata has also been placed in the genera Poeciliodes, Haridichthys, Ananthophacelus, and Heterandia (Magurran, 2005). Besides ‘guppy’, common names for P. reticulata include millions fish, seven colours, rainbow fish and red-tail.

Description

Top of page

P. reticulata belongs to the poeciliids, a group of small freshwater fishes with internal fertilisation and viviparous reproduction. P. reticulata has clear sexual dimorphism. Males are 25-35 mm (SL) and have conspicuous polymorphic colour patterns consisting of combinations of black, white, red-orange, yellow, green, iridescent spots, lines and speckles. Males have a gonopdium; a slender, modified anal fin used as an intromittent organ, whereas the anal fin of females is rounded. Females are uniform silver grey, and are larger and deeper bodied than males (40-60 mm SL). Juvenile fish resemble females, and are independent from birth.

Distribution

Top of page

P. reticulata is native to Trinidad and Tobago and parts of South America including Venezuela, Guyana, Surinam (Farr, 1975). It also occurs in Antigua and Barbuda, Barbados, Brazil, Guyana, Netherlands Antilles, and the US Virgin Islands (Kenny, 1995), and it has been found in Barbados, Cuba and Grenada (Magurran, 2005), but it is not certain whether the species naturally colonised these regions or was introduced.

Distribution Table

Top of page

The distribution in this summary table is based on all the information available. When several references are cited, they may give conflicting information on the status. Further details may be available for individual references in the Distribution Table Details section which can be selected by going to Generate Report.

CountryDistributionLast ReportedOriginFirst ReportedInvasiveReferencesNotes

ASIA

BahrainPresentIntroducedFroese & Pauly, 2007
BangladeshPresentIntroducedBarua et al., 2001; Islam et al., 2003
China
-Hong KongPresent, few occurrencesIntroducedMan & Hodgkiss, 1981
East TimorPresentNativeFroese & Pauly, 2007
IndiaWidespreadIntroducedFAO, 1997
IndonesiaPresentIntroducedFroese & Pauly, 2007; Eidman, 1989
JapanPresentIntroducedFroese & Pauly, 2007; Masuda et al., 1984
-HonshuLocalisedIntroducedNot invasiveMasuda et al., 1984Occurs in the Ryuku Islands and hot springs in Honshu and Kyushu
-KyushuLocalisedIntroducedNot invasiveMasuda et al., 1984
-Ryukyu ArchipelagoLocalisedIntroducedNot invasiveMasuda et al., 1984
LaosPresentIntroducedNot invasiveKottelat, 2001; Froese & Pauly, 2007Non-sustainable population, requires restocking as a mosquito control agent
MalaysiaPresentIntroducedFroese & Pauly, 2007
-Peninsular MalaysiaWidespreadIntroducedInvasiveAng & Gopinath, 1989
-SabahWidespreadIntroducedInvasiveAng & Gopinath, 1989
-SarawakWidespreadIntroducedInvasiveAng & Gopinath, 1989
MyanmarPresentIntroducedFroese & Pauly, 2007
PhilippinesPresentIntroducedFroese & Pauly, 2007; Juliano et al., 1989
SingaporeWidespreadIntroducedChou & Lam, 1989; Ng et al., 1993
Sri LankaWidespreadIntroducedWelcomme, 1988
TaiwanPresentIntroducedFroese & Pauly, 2007; Shao & Lim, 1991
ThailandPresentIntroducedNico et al., 2007; Froese & Pauly, 2007
VietnamPresentNativeFroese & Pauly, 2007

AFRICA

GhanaPresentIntroducedFroese & Pauly, 2007
KenyaPresentIntroducedFroese & Pauly, 2007
MadagascarPresentIntroducedStiassny & Raminosoa, 1994
MalawiLocalisedIntroducedFAO, 1997
MauritiusPresentIntroducedInvasiveFricke, 1999; Froese & Pauly, 2007
MayottePresentIntroducedFroese & Pauly, 2007
NamibiaPresentIntroducedNot invasiveFAO, 1997; Hay et al., 1999
NigeriaPresent, few occurrencesIntroducedWelcomme, 1988
RéunionPresentIntroducedKeith et al., 2006
SenegalPresentIntroducedFroese & Pauly, 2007
South AfricaPresentIntroducedFroese & Pauly, 2007
TanzaniaPresentIntroducedFroese & Pauly, 2007
UgandaPresentIntroducedFroese & Pauly, 2007; Welcomme, 1988
ZambiaLocalisedIntroducedInvasiveAudenaerde Tden, 1994Kitwe and Kafue Swamp

NORTH AMERICA

CanadaPresentIntroducedFroese & Pauly, 2007
-AlbertaAbsent, formerly presentIntroducedNot invasiveCrossman, 1984
MexicoPresentIntroducedFroese & Pauly, 2007; Welcomme, 1988
USAPresentIntroducedFroese & Pauly, 2007; Rixon et al., 2005
-HawaiiPresentIntroducedFroese & Pauly, 2007; Maciolek, 1984

CENTRAL AMERICA AND CARIBBEAN

Antigua and BarbudaPresentNativeFroese & Pauly, 2007
BarbadosPresentNativeFroese Pauly, 2004
Costa RicaPresentIntroducedBussing, 1998; Froese & Pauly, 2007
CubaPresentIntroducedBurgess & Franz, 1989; Froese & Pauly, 2007
GrenadaPresentIntroducedFroese & Pauly, 2007
JamaicaPresentIntroducedFAO, 1997; Froese & Pauly, 2007
MartiniquePresentIntroducedLim et al., 2002
Netherlands AntillesPresentNativeFroese Pauly, 2004
Puerto RicoPresentIntroducedFroese & Pauly, 2007; Welcomme, 1988
Saint LuciaPresentNativeISSG, 2012
Saint Vincent and the GrenadinesPresentIntroducedFroese & Pauly, 2007
Trinidad and TobagoPresentNativeFroese Pauly, 2004; Froese & Pauly, 2007
United States Virgin IslandsPresentNativeFroese Pauly, 2004

SOUTH AMERICA

BrazilPresentNativeInvasiveFroese & Pauly, 2007
ColombiaWidespreadIntroducedWelcomme, 1988
French GuianaPresentIntroducedFroese & Pauly, 2007
GuyanaPresentNativeFroese Pauly, 2004; Froese & Pauly, 2007
ParaguayPresentIntroducedFroese & Pauly, 2007
PeruPresentIntroducedWelcomme, 1988
SurinamePresentIntroducedFroese & Pauly, 2007
VenezuelaPresentNativeNot invasiveFroese & Pauly, 2007

EUROPE

AlbaniaPresentIntroducedCrivelli, 1995
Czech RepublicPresent, few occurrencesIntroducedHolcík, 1991; Welcomme, 1988
HungaryPresent, few occurrencesIntroducedHolcík, 1991
IrelandPresentIntroducedNot invasiveFroese & Pauly, 2007
ItalyPresent, few occurrencesIntroducedHolcík, 1991
NetherlandsPresentIntroducedWelcomme, 1988
Russian FederationPresentIntroducedFroese Pauly, 2004
-Central RussiaLocalisedIntroducedNot invasiveBogutskaya & Naseka, 2002; Reshetnikov et al., 1997
-Southern RussiaLocalisedIntroducedNot invasiveBogutskaya & Naseka, 2002; Reshetnikov et al., 1997
-Western SiberiaLocalisedIntroducedNot invasiveBogutskaya & Naseka, 2002; Reshetnikov et al., 1997
SlovakiaPresent, few occurrencesIntroducedNot invasiveWelcomme, 1988
UKPresentIntroducedNot invasiveWelcomme, 1988

OCEANIA

AustraliaPresentIntroducedArthington & McKenzie, 1997; Lindholm et al., 2005; McKay, 1989
Cook IslandsPresentIntroducedFroese & Pauly, 2007; Welcomme, 1988
FijiPresentIntroducedAndrews, 1985
French PolynesiaPresentIntroducedMarquet, 1993
GuamPresentIntroducedFroese & Pauly, 2007; Welcomme, 1988
New CaledoniaPresentIntroducedEldredge, 1994; Froese & Pauly, 2007
New ZealandLocalisedIntroducedNot invasiveMcDowall, 1999Restricted to thermal waters of Waikato River
PalauPresentIntroducedWelcomme, 1988
Papua New GuineaPresentIntroducedFroese & Pauly, 2007; Allen, 1991
SamoaPresentIntroducedFroese & Pauly, 2007; Welcomme, 1988
VanuatuPresentIntroducedEldredge, 1994

History of Introduction and Spread

Top of page

P. reticulata has been widely introduced throughout temperate and tropical regions since the early 1900s (Welcomme, 1992). Initial introductions of P. reticulata were conducted as a means of mosquito control in Asia, the Pacific, Africa, and Europe; the first documented introduction being to Hawaii in 1905 (Juliano et al., 1989). However, P. reticulata has had mixed success in controlling mosquito populations. In some areas it is regarded as beneficial as a control agent (Juliano et al., 1989), but in other areas it is reported to have had minimal effects on mosquito populations (Castleberry and Cech, 1990). P. reticulata is also a popular ornamental aquarium fish, with a wide variety of strains differing in colour and fin shape cultivated in the aquarium fish trade (Axelrod et al., 1985). It is likely that P. reticulata has been introduced into many countries via accidental or intentional release of aquarium fish into waterways and many introduced populations have become established. P. reticulata is now widely established throughout temperate and tropical freshwater systems worldwide, Fishbase (www.fishbase.org) currently listing 55 introductions, although most of these records are undated.

Introductions

Top of page
Introduced toIntroduced fromYearReasonIntroduced byEstablished in wild throughReferencesNotes
Natural reproductionContinuous restocking
Albania Biological control (pathway cause)YesCrivelli, 1995
Australia Biological control (pathway cause)YesArthington & McKenzie, 1997
BangladeshThailand1957Biological control (pathway cause)Barua et al., 2001; Islam et al., 2003
Canada1960-1969Biological control (pathway cause)NoCrossman, 1984
Colombia1940Biological control (pathway cause)Yes
ColombiaCentral America1940Welcomme, 1988
Cook Islands Biological control (pathway cause)YesWelcomme, 1988
Costa RicaVenezuela Biological control (pathway cause)YesBussing, 1998
CubaBiological control (pathway cause)YesBurgess & Franz, 1989
Czech Republic Biological control (pathway cause)YesHolcík, 1991; Welcomme, 1988
Fiji Biological control (pathway cause)YesAndrews, 1985
French Polynesia Biological control (pathway cause)YesMarquet, 1993
French PolynesiaBiological control (pathway cause)Yes
Guam Biological control (pathway cause)YesWelcomme, 1988
Hawaii1922Biological control (pathway cause)YesMaciolek, 1984
Hong KongBiological control (pathway cause)YesMan & Hodgkiss, 1981
HungaryGermany1924Biological control (pathway cause)YesHolcík, 1991
IndiaSouth America1908Biological control (pathway cause)YesFAO, 1997
Indonesia1920Biological control (pathway cause)YesEidman, 1989
ItalyBiological control (pathway cause)NoHolcík, 1991
JamaicaBiological control (pathway cause)YesFAO, 1997
JapanSouth AmericaBiological control (pathway cause)YesMasuda et al., 1984Occurs in the Ryukyu Islands and hot springs in Honshu and Kyushu
KenyaUganda1950YesWelcomme, 1988
Laos Biological control (pathway cause)Kottelat, 2001; Kottelat, 2001bNon-sustainable population, required restoking as mosquito control agent
Madagascar Biological control (pathway cause)YesStiassny & Raminosoa, 1994
Malawi1984UnknownNoFAO, 1997
MalaysiaVenezuela Biological control (pathway cause)YesAng & Gopinath, 1989
MalaysiaBrazilBiological control (pathway cause)YesAng & Gopinath, 1989
MartiniqueBiological control (pathway cause)YesLim et al., 2002
Mauritius Biological control (pathway cause)Fricke, 1999
Mexico1971Biological control (pathway cause)YesWelcomme, 1988
Namibia Biological control (pathway cause)YesFAO, 1997
Netherlands Biological control (pathway cause)YesWelcomme, 1988
New CaledoniaBiological control (pathway cause)YesEldredge, 1994
New ZealandBiological control (pathway cause)YesMcDowall, 1999
NigeriaUK1972Biological control (pathway cause)NoWelcomme, 1988
Palau Biological control (pathway cause)YesWelcomme, 1988
Papua New Guinea1967Biological control (pathway cause)YesAllen, 1991
PeruCentral America1940Biological control (pathway cause)YesWelcomme, 1988
PhilippinesHawaii1905Biological control (pathway cause)YesJuliano et al., 1989
Puerto RicoCentral America1935Biological control (pathway cause)YesWelcomme, 1988
Russian Federation Biological control (pathway cause)YesBogutskaya & Naseka, 2002
Samoa Biological control (pathway cause)YesWelcomme, 1988
SingaporeMalaysia Biological control (pathway cause)YesNg et al., 1993
SingaporeSouth America1937Biological control (pathway cause)Chou & Lam, 1989
Slovakia Biological control (pathway cause)YesWelcomme, 1988
South AfricaBiological control (pathway cause)Yes
Sri Lanka1930-1939Biological control (pathway cause)YesWelcomme, 1988
Taiwan Biological control (pathway cause)YesShao & Lim, 1991
Thailand YesNico et al., 2007
UgandaUSA1950Biological control (pathway cause)YesWelcomme, 1988
UK1963Biological control (pathway cause)NoWelcomme, 1988
USA1922Biological control (pathway cause)YesRixon et al., 2005
VanuatuBiological control (pathway cause)YesEldredge, 1994
Venezuela Biological control (pathway cause)YesKeith et al., 2006
Zambia Biological control (pathway cause)YesAudenaerde Tden, 1994Streams around Kitwe

Risk of Introduction

Top of page

While intentional introductions of P. reticulata for the purposes of mosquito control have not occurred since the 1950s, P. reticulata is increasingly widely cultivated and distributed in the ornamental aquarium trade, and as such, future unintentional releases are likely. The ability of P. reticulata to inhabit a wide range of water conditions, including polluted water bodies (Juliano et al., 1989) increases the risk of introduced specimens becoming established. Despite documented negative impacts on native species, P. reticulata remains an allowable commercial import in many countries, further increasing the risk of establishment. The prodigious reproductive rate of P. reticulata can lead to rapid expansion of small founder populations (population doubling time less than 15 months), which may then expand into surrounding areas.

Habitat

Top of page

Within its natural range, P. reticulata occurs in a wide range of habitats, from clear mountain streams to turbid slow moving water bodies at low elevations, commonly without significant aquatic vegetation (Juliano et al., 1989). Guppies are commonly confined to the shallow edges of pools and streams, with few individuals in the deeper areas of streams. P. reticulata can tolerate a wide range of temperatures (18-28°C) and salinities, including up to 150% normal seawater (Chervinski, 1984), however they are generally found in freshwater streams near the coast. In non-native areas, guppies are commonly found as the only species in heavily polluted water bodies (Barua et al., 2001).

Habitat List

Top of page
CategoryHabitatPresenceStatus
Brackish
EstuariesSecondary/tolerated habitat
LagoonsSecondary/tolerated habitat
Freshwater
Irrigation channelsSecondary/tolerated habitat
LakesSecondary/tolerated habitat
PondsPrincipal habitat
ReservoirsSecondary/tolerated habitat
Rivers / streamsPrincipal habitat

Biology and Ecology

Top of pageGenetics

P. reticulata has a karyotype of 23 haploid (gametic) chromosomes and 46 diploid (zygotic) chromosomes (n = 23, 2n = 46), and an XY sex determination system, in which males are the heterozygotic sex (Angus, 1989). Regions of the X and Y chromosomes are able to recombine, indicating that the Y chromosome is less specialised than mammalian Y chromosomes and retains essential genes other than those determining sex, as also indicated by the viability of YY males (Winge and Ditlevsen, 1938; Haskins et al., 1970). Genes controlling male colour patterns are found both on gonosomes and autosomes, and are expressed only in the presence of androgenic hormones. Kirpichnikov (1981) described 17 pigmentation traits showing holandric (Y-linked) inheritance patterns, while 16 traits may be on either the X or Y chromosome and 5 autosomally inherited traits, of which one is sex-limited. While colour patterns are usually only expressed in males, characters coded by genes on autosomal or X chromosomes may be expressed by mature females after reproductive senescence (Kirpichnikov, 1981), or through administration of male hormones (Haskins et al., 1970). Y-linked traits are generally controlled by a single locus with multiple allelic variants, are typically dominant, and show additive effects when more than one trait gene is present. Inbreeding depression has been shown to reduce tolerance to temperature and salinity extremes as well as general survival (Nakadate et al., 2003). The differences between line bred aquarium strains and wild populations of P. reticulata (for example, line bred strains are larger and have more elaborate colour patterns), are likely to result in a difference between wild populations and feral populations drawn from aquarium stock. However, the retention of artificially selected traits under natural selection regimes is unlikely, and long standing feral populations may more closely resemble natural populations than do recently introduced/released populations. Feral populations of P. reticulata in Queensland, Australia, have reduced mtDNA haplotype and microsatellite diversity, suggesting a genetic bottleneck sometime in the recent history of these populations, as expected from a small founder population (Lindholm et al., 2005).

Reproductive Biology

In all poeciliids, fertilization is internal, with the male’s spermatozeugmata introduced into the female’s reproductive tract using the gonopodium. P. reticulata females can store the sperm from a single insemination to fertilise ova for up to 8 months. Once fertilised, eggs are retained within the female’s reproductive tract where embryos are nourished by the yolk deposited in the eggs prior to fertilisation. After parturition, fry are immediately able to feed and no further parental care is provided. Indeed, parents have been observed preying on their own offspring in aquaria (Whitern, 1980). The size of a litter ranges from one to more than 100 offspring, and is highly dependent on the size of the female (Reznick and Endler, 1982; Travis, 1989). Within the natural range of P. reticulata, there are consistent differences in the numbers of fry between predation regimes; females from high-predation areas produce more, smaller offspring than females from low-predation areas (Magurran, 2005). Where P. reticulata co-occurs with the predatory cichlid Crenicichla alta, the expected litter size of an average sized female is 6.4, whereas the expected litter size where C. alta does not occur is 2.8 (Reznick and Endler, 1982). Domesticated strains of P. reticulata, bred for larger body size than wild fish, consistently produce broods far greater than these values, commonly of a few dozen or more. P. reticulata males and females mature at 10-20 weeks, and females produce 2-3 generations per year. Predation risk also influences size at maturity; fish from high predation areas mature at 11 mm SL (females) and 9 mm SL (males) (Alkins-Koo, 2000), whereas females from low predation areas mature between 15 and 18 mm SL and males between 15 and 16 mm SL (Reznick and Endler, 1982). Females continue to reproduce to 20-34 months old, and there is no significant period of reproductive senescence. Females are sexually responsive as virgins, and for three to four days after parturition, but at other times avoid mating attempts by males. Male courtship behaviour in this species is intense, and males that court at a higher rate are preferred by females, but may also subject to greater predation risk (Endler, 1987). If females are unresponsive to courtship, males may also perform sneak matings, or gonopodial thrusting, in an attempt to forcefully inseminate females. This mode of reproduction is generally unsuccessful, however, and females may eject male sperm before fertilisation occurs. The sex ratio at birth is even, although adult sex ratios may favour females, indicating that mortality of males is higher.

Nutrition

P. reticulata is omnivorous; feeding on algae (approximately 50% of the wild diet), invertebrate larvae and benthic detritus (Dussault and Kramer, 1981). Within their natural range they may also prey on larvae of their own species and of Rivulus hartii (Houde, 1997). Experimental captive trials have found that the closely related Gambusia holbrooki  preys on a wide range of larvae of other fish species from areas into which P. reticulata has also been introduced (Howe et al., 1997), suggesting that P. reticulata may also prey on these species.

Associations

Within its natural range, P. reticulata is found in association with the predators Crenicichla alta and Rivulus hartii, as well as species from families including Erythrinidae, Callichthyidae, Gobbiidae, Anastomidae, Characidae, Lebiasinidae, Gymnotidae, Poecilidae, Cichlidae and Loricidae (Kenny, 1995). In non-native areas, P. reticulata is associated with other small freshwater fishes, and may out-compete these for resources and territory, causing a reduction in their numbers.

Environmental Requirements

P. reticulata can live and breed in pH of 5-9 and salinities ranging from 0 to 45 ppt. However, P. reticulata cannot tolerate water temperatures below 15°C, and is only found in temperate regions in artificially warmed water bodies, for example at cooling lakes of power stations. Critical thermal maxima ranging of 39-41°C and death points of 41-43°C were reported by Chung (2004) for Venezuelan guppies.

Water Tolerances

Top of page
ParameterMinimum ValueMaximum ValueTypical ValueStatusLife StageNotes
Salinity (part per thousand)05Optimum0-45 tolerated (Chervinski, 1984)
Water pH (pH)7Optimum5-9 tolerated (Chervinski, 1984)
Water temperature (ºC temperature)2429Optimum18-37 tolerated (Chervinski, 1984), other reports suggest species cannot tolerate below 15 or above 39

Natural Enemies

Top of page
Natural enemyTypeLife stagesSpecificityReferencesBiological control inBiological control on
Crenicichla altaPredatorAdultnot specific

Notes on Natural Enemies

Top of page

Fish predators known to naturally co-occur and prey on adult P. reticulata include the catfish, Hoplias malabaricus and the cichlids Aequidens bimaculatus, A. pulcher, and Crenicichla alta (Haskins and Haskins, 1961). Other predators of P. reticulata include Rivulus hartii, which preys predominately on juvenile P. reticulata (Magurran, 2005), and Eleotris pisonis and Gobiomoris dormitor (Reznick and Bryga, 1996). Other natural enemies of P. reticulata include bird predators such as kingfishers (e.g. Chloroceryle americana; herons (e.g. Bulbucus ibis) and flycatchers (e.g. Pitangus sulphuratus; Chadee et al., 1991), as well as mammalian predators including bats and invertebrate predators such as Machrobranchium spp.prawns (Endler, 1991).

Means of Movement and Dispersal

Top of pageNatural Dispersal (Non-Biotic)

Once introduced into a new area, P. reticulata is able to disperse through waterways by swimming. However, geographical features such as waterfalls and rapids may restrict or prohibit the movement of guppies upstream. This is known to be the case in Trinidad, where P. reticulata does not naturally occur is some upstream areas of the streams it inhabits due to physical barriers such as waterfalls. As P. reticulata can tolerate brackish water, it may also move upstream via estuaries.


Vector Transmission (Biotic)

Among some management agencies, there is concern that P. reticulata held in aquaculture facilities may be relocated by predatory birds. Steps to minimise this form of introduction are encouraged by bodies such as the Queensland Department of Primary Industry, Australia.


Accidental Introduction

Numerous introductions have been attributed to the release of aquarium fish into local waterways by hobbyists (Allen et al., 2002). Escape from aquaculture facilities is also possible through flooding events and biotic transmission by predators. Wellcome (1988) lists accidental release of aquarium fish from rearing installations as a likely cause of numerous introductions of small exotic ornamental fishes into non-native areas. While it is difficult to precisely determine the origin of feral stocks of P. reticulata, accidental release from both private hobbyists and rearing facilities is the most likely cause of contemporary introductions.



Intentional Introduction

P. reticulata has been widely introduced by government bodies as a mosquito control agent throughout Africa, Asia-Pacific, and the Americas. In the 1920s, introductions of Poeciliids comprised 22% of major species groups introduced into non-native regions worldwide, and 48% of non-recorded introductions in the period 1800-1980 (Welcomme, 1988). P. reticulata is now present in at least 55 countries.

Pathway Causes

Top of page
CauseNotesLong DistanceLocalReferences
Biological controlYesWelcomme, 1988
Escape from confinement/ garden escapeYes
Intentional releaseYesWelcomme, 1988
Ornamental purposesYes
Pet/aquarium tradeYes

Pathway Vectors

Top of page
VectorNotesLong DistanceLocalReferences
Pets and aquarium speciesCommon import into developed countries as ornamental fish.Yes

Impact Summary

Top of page
CategoryImpact
Cultural/amenityPositive
Economic/livelihoodPositive
Environment (generally)Negative
Human healthPositive

Economic Impact

Top of page

Given the tendency for P. reticulata to prey on the larvae of many freshwater species, this species may also prey on the larvae of species with economic value.

Environmental Impact

Top of page

P. reticulata has a negligible influence on habitats. It feeds predominately on algae and detritus, but does not disrupt the benthic layer.

Impact: Biodiversity

Top of page

The presence of P. reticulata has been associated with declines in native fish species in a number of cases. In the south-western USA, in Nevada, Texas and Arizona, P. reticulata has caused a decline in the populations of the cypriodont Crenichthys baileyi (Rixon et al., 2005), and has been associated with a reduction in abundance of the Utah sucker Catostomus ardens (Courtenay et al., 1974). In Hong Kong, China the native minnow Aphyocypris lini may be threatened by P. reticulata, and native fishes of other countries are likely affected due to its prolific breeding habits (Allen, 1991). In Australia, no direct studies on the interaction between P. reticulata and native fishes have been conducted, but studies on the related poeciliid, Gambusia holbrooki, have shown that where it is abundant, native species are rare (Arthington, 1989). P. reticulata may also impact invertebrate communities where it is introduced, and occurs in mutually exclusive distributions with native damselflies in Oahu, Hawaii, suggesting that predation by P. reticulata excludes damselfly populations (Englund, 1999). Harassment of heterospecifics females by P. reticulata males has been demonstrated in studies by Valero et al. (2008) in laboratory trials, and may constitute a further impact on biodiversity by interfering with reproduction of native species. P. reticulata may also pose a threat to biodiversity because it is a known carrier of trematode parasites (Leberg and Vrijenhoek, 1994).

P. reticulata has also had a variable impact on local mosquito populations - see History of Introduction and Spread, and Uses.

Social Impact

Top of page

The presence of P. reticulata and other poeciliid species may reduce the local abundance of native fish species, potentially interfering with activities of enthusiast groups.

Risk and Impact Factors

Top of page

Impact mechanisms

  • Predation
  • Rapid growth

Impact outcomes

  • Negatively impacts aquaculture/fisheries
  • Reduced native biodiversity
  • Threat to/ loss of endangered species
  • Threat to/ loss of native species

Invasiveness

  • Abundant in its native range
  • Capable of securing and ingesting a wide range of food
  • Fast growing
  • Gregarious
  • Has a broad native range
  • Has high genetic variability
  • Has high reproductive potential
  • Highly adaptable to different environments
  • Highly mobile locally
  • Is a habitat generalist
  • Pioneering in disturbed areas
  • Proved invasive outside its native range
  • Reproduces asexually

Likelihood of entry/control

  • Difficult to identify/detect as a commodity contaminant
  • Difficult to identify/detect in the field
  • Difficult/costly to control
  • Highly likely to be transported internationally deliberately
  • Highly likely to be transported internationally illegally

Uses

Top of pageEconomic Value

P. reticulata has considerable economic value as an ornamental aquarium species, and is widely cultured in commercial fish hatcheries. A number of highly ornamented aquarium strains have been developed, and are extremely popular in the retail aquarium trade, being carried by up to 95% of pet shops in one region of Canada. Major producers include Singapore, Malaysia and Taiwan.

Social Benefit

P. reticulata is one of the most popular aquarium fishes, and has been in the ornamental fish hobby since the early 1900s. It has high recreational and aesthetic value in captivity, but has little or no social benefit in its feral state and is not suitable for recreational fishing.

Environmental Services

While initially thought to be a good candidate for mosquito control, P. reticulata has had mixed success in controlling mosquito populations (Juliano et al., 1989; Castleberry and Cech, 1990).

Uses List

Top of page

Environmental

  • Biological control

General

  • Laboratory use
  • Pet/aquarium trade
  • Research model

Similarities to Other Species/Conditions

Top of page

While juvenile and female P. reticulata appear similar to many other poeciliid species, particularly Gambusia holbrooki, male P. reticulata are easily distinguished by their elaborate colour patterns. The domestic aquarium strain of P. reticulata may differ markedly from the wild form, the former having been line bred for various ornamentation and colour traits. Domesticated females may express colour and patterns normally only present in males, especially in the caudal region, whereas wild caught females are uniform silver/grey.

Prevention and Control

Top of page

Prevention

While further intentional introductions by government bodies are unlikely, accidental and illegal releases of fish by aquarists are likely to continue. In order to prevent such releases, improved public awareness programs are essential. Of particular concern in preventing and controlling the introduction of pest fish species is that, in contrast with terrestrial pest species, freshwater fish such as P. reticulata commonly infest waterways in the public domain. There is thus far less incentive for private landholders to control populations of invasive freshwater fish species and prevent their further introduction. Prevention strategies must therefore be carried out by both government and public groups, and empower individuals to contribute to solutions at the regional level.

Eradication

Eradication of established populations is difficult and may only be successful in small enclosed pools. In large or flowing water bodies such as rivers, streams, and lakes, complete eradication is practically impossible using current technology.

Containment/Zoning

Due to their small size and ability to move freely through water bodies by swimming, containment of P. reticulata within a particular section of a river or stream is difficult. Transmission between water bodies can be prevented by eliminating human-assisted movement of fish through accidental or intentional release.

Control

Biological control

Biological control through introduction of larger predatory species is possible in small, contained water bodies, but this opens the possibility of introducing further problem species. One measure taken by enthusiast groups to eradicate Gambusia holbrooki (a poeciliid species with broadly similar biology to P. reticulata) has been to introduce tropical predatory fish such as Mouth Almighty in the summer months, which then die off during the winter and leave the water body devoid of the invasive species.

Control by utilization

While collection of wild and feral stock for the aquarium trade may occur, it is unlikely to occur at any level that would control or reduce established populations of P. reticulata.

Gaps in Knowledge/Research Needs

Top of page

P. reticulata is one of the most well-studied fish species, but there is a lack of information on the impacts and interactions of P. reticulata on native species. Commonly, studies show a correlation between the reduction in abundance of native species and the presence of P. reticulata without providing information as to the mode of interference or competition between native species and P. reticulata, and as such, this area warrants further attention.

References

Top of page

Alkins-Koo M, 2000. Reproductive timing of fishes in a tropical intermittent stream. Environmental Biology of Fishes, 57:49-66.

Allen GR, 1991. Field Guide to the Freshwater Fishes of New Guinea. Madang, Papua New Guinea: Christensen Research Institute.

Allen GR, Midgley SH, Allen M, 2002. Field guide to the freshwater fishes of Australia. Field guide to the freshwater fishes of Australia, xiv + 394 pp.

Andrews S, 1985. Aquatic species introduced to Fiji. Domodomo, 3:67-82.

Ang K, Gopinath RC, 1989. The status of introduced fish species in Malaysia. In: Exotic aquatic organisms in Asia. Proceedings of the Workshop on Introduction of Exotic Aquatic Organisms in Asia. Asian Fish. Soc. Spec. Publ [ed. by Silva SDe] Manila, Philippines: Asian Fisheries Society, 71-82.

Angus RA, 1989. A genetic overview of Poeciliid fishes. In: Ecology and Evolution of Livebearing Fishes (Poeciliidae) [ed. by Meffe GK, Snelson FFJ] Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey, USA: Prentice Hall, 51-68.

Arthington AH, 1989. Impacts of introduced and translocated freshwater fishes in Australia. In: Exotic Aquatic Organisms in Asia. Proccedings of the Workshop on Introduction of Exotic Aquatic Organisms in Asia. Asia Fish. Soc. Spec. Publ [ed. by Silva SDe] Manila, Philippines: Asian Fisheries Society, 7-20.

Arthington AH, McKenzie F, 1997. Australia: State of the Environment Technical Paper Series (Inland waters). Canberra, Australia: Department of the Environment, 69 p.

Audenaerde Tden, 1994. Introduction of aquatic species into Zambian waters, and their importance for aquaculture and fisheries. ALCOM Field Document No. Harare, Zimbabwe: FAO, 32 p.

Axelrod H, Burgess W, Pronek N, Walls J, 1985. Dr. Axelrod's Atlas of Freshwater Aquarium Fishes. Neptune City, USA: TFH Publications.

Barua SP, Khan MMH, Reza AHMA, 2001. The status of alien invasive species in Bangladesh and their impact on the ecosystems. In: Report of workshop on Alien Invasive Species, Global Biodiversity Forum-South and Southeast Asia Session, Colombo. IUCN Regional Biodiversity Programme, Asia, Colombo, Sri Lanka. October 1999 [ed. by Balakrishna P] Gland, Switzerland: IUCN-The World Conservation Union, 1-7. http://www.biodiversityasia.org/alien.htm

Bogutskaya NG, Naseka A, 2002. An overview of nonindigenous fishes in inland waters of Russia. Proc. Zool. Inst. Russ. Acad. Sci, 296:21-30.

Burgess G, Franz R, 1989. Zoogeography of the Antillean freshwater fish fauna. In: Biogeography of the West Indies: Past, Present, and Future [ed. by Woods C], 236-304.

Bussing W, 1998. Peces de las aguas continentales de Costa Rica. San José, Costa Rica: Editorial de la Universidad de Costa Rica.

Castleberry DT, Cech JJ Jr, 1990. Mosquito control in wastewater: a controlled and quantitative comparison of pupfish (Cyprinodon nevadensis amargosae), mosquitofish (Gambusia affinis) and guppies (Poecilia reticulata) in sago pondweed marshes. Journal of the American Mosquito Control Association, 6(2):223-228.

Chadee D, Ganesh R, Persad R, 1991. Feeding behaviour of the Great Kiskadee, Pitangus sulphuratus, on fish in Trinidad, West Indies. Living World, 1991-1992:42-43.

Chervinski J, 1984. Salinity tolerance of the guppy, Poecilia reticulata Peters. Journal of Fish Biology, 24:449-452.

Chou L, Lam T, 1989. Introduction of exotic aquatic species in Singapore. In: Exotic aquatic organisms in Asia. Proceedings of the Workshop on Introduction of Exotic Aquatic Organisms in Asia. Spec. Publ. Asian Fish. Soc. 3:91-97 [ed. by Silva SDe] Manila, Philippines: Asian Fisheries Society, 91-97.

Chung K, 2004. Critical thermal maxima and acclimation rate of the tropical guppy Poecilla reticulata. Hydrobiologia, 462:253-257.

Contreras-MacBeath T, Mojica H, Wilson R, 1998. Negative impact on the aquatic ecosystems of the state of Morelos, Mexico from introduced aquarium and other commercial fish. Aquarium Sciences and Conservation, 2:67-78.

Courtenay Jr W, Sahlman IIW, Herrema D, 1974. Exotic fishes in fresh and brackish waters of Florida. Biological Conservation. Biological Conservation, 6:292-302.

Crivelli AJ, 1995. Are fish introductions a threat to endemic freshwater fishes in the northern Mediterranean region? Biological Conservation, 72:311-319.

Crossman EJ, 1984. Introduction of exotic fishes into Canada. In: Distribution, Biology and Management of Exotic Fishes [ed. by Courtenay Jr W, Stauffer Jr J] Baltimore, USA: John Hopkins University Press, 78-101.

Dussault G, Kramer DL, 1981. Food and feeding behaviour of the guppy, Poecilia reticulata (Pisces: Poeciliidae). Canadian Journal of Zoology, 59:684-701.

Eidman H, 1989. Exotic aquatic species introduction into Indonesia. In: Exotic aquatic organisms in Asia. Proceedings of the Workshop on Introduction of Exotic Aquatic Organisms in Asia. Asian Fish. Soc. Spec. Publ., 3:57-62. Manila, Philippines [ed. by Silva De] Manila, Philippines: Asian Fisheries Society, 57-62.

Eldredge L, 1994. Freshwater fishes. In Perspectives in aquatic exotic species management in the Pacific Islands. In: Introductions of commercially significant aquatic organisms to the Pacific Islands [ed. by Eldredge L] New Caledonia: South Pacific Commission, 73-84.

Endler JA, 1987. Predation, Light-Intensity And Courtship Behavior In Poecilia reticulata (Pisces, Poeciliidae). Animal Behaviour, 35:1376-1385.

Endler JA, 1991. Variation in the appearance of cuppy colour patterns to guppies and their predators under different visual conditions. Vision Research, 31:587-608.

Englund RA, 1999. The impacts of introduced poeciliid fish and Odonata on the endemic Megalagrion (Odonata) damselflies of Oahu Island, Hawaii. Journal of Insect Conservation, 3(3):225-243.

FAO, 1997. FAO Database on Introduced Aquatic Species. FAO Database on Introduced Aquatic Species. Rome, Italy: FAO.

Farr JA, 1975. Role of predation in evolution of social behavior of natural populations of guppy, Poecilia reticulata (Pisces-Poeciliidae). Evolution, 29:151-158.

Fricke R, 1999. Theses Zoologicae. Koenigstein, Germany: Koeltz Scientific Books, 759 p.

Froese R, Pauly D, 2007. FishBase. http://www.fishbase.org

Haskins CP, Haskins EF, 1961. Polymorphism and population structure in Lebistes reticulatus. In: Vertebrate Speciation [ed. by Blair WF] Austin, USA: University of Texas Press, 320-395.

Haskins CP, Young P, Hewitt RE, Haskins EF, 1970. Stabilised heterozygosis of supergenes mediating certain Y-linked colour patterns in populations of Lebistes reticulatus. Heredity, 25:575-588.

Hay CJ, Zyl Bvan , Bank Fder , Ferreira J, Steyn G, 1999. The distribution of freshwater fish in Namibia. Cimbebasia, 15:41-63.

Holcík J, 1991. Fish introductions in Europe with particular reference to its central and eastern part. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences, 48:13-23.

Houde A, 1997. Sex, Color, and Mate Choice in Guppies. Monographs in Behaviour and Ecology. Princeton, New Jersey, USA: Princeton University Press.

Howe E, Howe C, Lim R, Burchett M, 1997. Impact of the introduced poeciliid Gambusia holbrooki (Girard, 1859) on the growth and reproduction of Pseudomugil signifer (Kner, 1865) in Australia. Marine and Freshwater Research, 48(5):425-433.

Islam MM, Amin ASMR, Sarker SK, 2003. Bangladesh. In: PallewattaN, Reaser J, Gutierrez A, eds., Invasive Alien Species in South-Southeast Asia: National Reports & Directory of Resources. Cape Town, South Africa: Global Invasive Species Programme, 7-20.

ISSG, 2012. Global Invasive Species Database (GISD). Invasive Species Specialist Group of the IUCN Species Survival Commission. http://www.issg.org/database

Juliano R, Guerrero IIIR, Ronquillo I, 1989. The introduction of exotic aquatic species in the Philippines. In: Exotic Aquatic Organisms in Asia. Proceedings of the Workshop on Introduction of Exotic Aquatic Organisms in Asia. Asian Fish. Soc. Spec. Publ [ed. by Silva SDe] Manila, Philippines: Asian Fisheries Society, 154.

Keith P, Marquet G, Valade P, Bosc P, Vigneux E, 2006. Atlas des poissons et des crustacés d'eau douce des Comores, Mascareignes et Seychelles. Patrimoines naturels. Paris, France: Muséum national d'Histoire naturelle, 250 p.

Kenny J, 1995. Views from the bridge: a memoir on the freshwater fishes of Trinidad. Maracas, St Joseph, Trinidad and Tobago: JS Kenny.

Kirpichnikov VS, 1981. Genetic bases of fish selection. Genetic bases of fish selection., 410 pp.

Kottelat M, 2001. Fishes of Laos. Colombo: WHT Publications Ltd.

Leberg PL, Vrijenhoek RC, 1994. Variation among desert topminnows in their susceptibility to attack by exotic parasites. Conservation Biology, 8(2):419-424.

Lim P, Meunier FJ, Keith P, Noël PY, 2002. Atlas des poissons et des crustacés d'eau douce de la Martinique. Patrimoines Naturels. Paris, France: Muséum national d'Histoire naturelle, 130 p.

Lindholm AK, Breden F, Alexander HJ, Chan WK, Thakurta SG, Brooks R, 2005. Invasion success and genetic diversity of introduced populations of guppies Poecilia reticulata in Australia. Molecular Ecology, 14:3671-3682.

Maciolek JA, 1984. Exotic fishes in Hawaii and other islands of Oceania. In: Distribution, Biology and Management of Exotic Fishes [ed. by Courtenay Jr W, Stauffer Jr J] Baltimore, USA: John Hopkins University Press, 131-161.

Magurran AE, 2005. Evolutionary Ecology: The Trinidadian Guppy. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.

Man S, Hodgkiss I, 1981. Hong Kong Freshwater Fishes. Hong Kong, China: Urban Council, Wishing Printing Company.

Marquet G, 1993. [English title not supplied]. (Etude biogeographique de la faune d'eau douce de Polynesie Francaise) Biogeographica, 69(4):157-170.

Masuda H, Amaoka K, Araga C, Uyeno T, Yoshino T, 1984. The Fishes of the Japanese Archipelago. Tokyo, Japan: Tokai University Press.

McDowall RM, 1999. Further feral poeciliid fish in New Zealand fresh waters, with a key to species. New Zealand Journal of Marine and Freshwater Research, 33:673-682.

McKay R, 1989. Exotic and translocated freshwater fishes in Australia. In: Exotic aquatic organisms in Asia. Proceedings of the Workshop on Introduction of Exotic Aquatic Organisms in Asia. Asian Fish. Soc. Spec. Publ [ed. by Silva SDe] Manila, Philippines: Asian Fisheries Society, 21-34.

Meffe G, Snelson FFJ, 1989. An ecological overview of Poeciliid fishes. In: Ecology and Evolution of Livebearing Fishes (Poeciliidae) [ed. by Meffe G, Snelson FFJ] Engelwood Cliffs, New Jersey, USA: Prentice Hall, 13-31.

Moor IJde , Bruton M, 1988. Atlas of alien and translocated indigenous aquatic animals in southern Africa. A report of the Committee for Nature Conservation Research National Programme for Ecosystem Research. South African Scientific Programmes Report. Port Elizabeth, South Africa, 310 p.

Nakadate M, Shikano T, Taniguchi N, 2003. Inbreeding depression and heterosis in various quantitative traits of the guppy, Poecilia reticulata. Aquaculture, 220(1/4):219-226.

Ng PKL, Chou L, Lam T, 1993. The status and impact of introduced freshwater animals in Singapore. Biological Conservation, 64:19-24.

Nico LG, Beamish WH, Musikasinthorn P, 2007. Discovery of the invasive Mayan Cichlid fish "Cichlasoma" urophthalmus (Günther 1862) in Thailand, with comments on other introductions and potential impacts. Aquatic Invasions, 2(3):197-214. http://www.aquaticinvasions.ru/2007/AI_2007_2_3_Nico_etal.pdf

Parenti L, Rauchenberger M, 1989. Systematic overview of the Poeciliines. In: Ecology and evolution of livebearing fishes (Poeciliidae) [ed. by Meffe GK, Snelson FFJ] Eaglewood Cliffs, New Jersey, USA: Prentice Hall, 3-12.

Reshetnikov YS, Bogutskaya N, Vasil'eva E, Dorofeeva E, Naseka A, Popova O, Savvaitova K, Sideleva V, Sokolov L, 1997. An annotated check-list of the freshwater fishes of Russia. Journal of Ichthyology, 37:687-736.

Reznick D, Endler JA, 1982. The impact of predation on life history evolution in Trinidadian guppies (Poecilia reticulata). Evolution, 36:160-177.

Reznick DN, Butler MJ IV, Rodd FH, Ross P, 1996. Life-history evolution in guppies (Poecilia reticulata) 6. Differential mortality as a mechanism for natural selection. Evolution, 50(4):1651-1660.

Rixon CAM, Duggan IC, Bergeron NMN, Ricciardi A, MacIsaac HJ, 2005. Invasion risks posed by the aquarium trade and live fish markets on the Laurentian Great Lakes. Biodiversity and Conservation, 14(6):1365-1381.

Rosen D, Bailey R, 1963. The poeciliid fishes (Cyprinodontiformes), their structure, zoogeography, and systematics. Bull. Am. Mus. Nat. Hist, 126:1-176.

Shao K-T, Lim P, 1991. Encyclopedia of field guide in Taiwan. Taipei, Taiwan: Recreation Press, Co., Ltd, 240 pp.

Stiassny M, Raminosoa N, 1994. The fishes of the inland waters of Madagascar. In: Biological diversity of African fresh- and brackish water fishes [ed. by Teugels G, Guégan J] Senegal: Ann. Mus. R. Afr. Centr., Sci. Zool., 133-148. [Geographical overviews presented at the PARADI Symposium.]

Travis J, 1989. The role of optimizing selection in natural populations. Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics, 20:276-296.

Valero A, Garcia CM, Magurran AE, 2008. Heterospecific harassment of native endangered fishes by invasive guppies in Mexico. Biology Letters, No. 10.1098/rsbl.2006.0489.

Welcomme R, 1988. International introductions of inland aquatic species. FAO Fish. Tech. Pap.

Welcomme R, 1992. A history of international introductions of inland aquatic species. Introductions and transfers of aquatic species. ICES Marine Science Symposia. Copenhagen, Denmark: ICES, 3-14.

Whitern WL, 1980. Guppies. Neptune City, New Jersey, USA: TFH Publications.

Winge O, Ditlevsen E, 1938. A lethal gene in the Y chromosome of Lebistes. Comp. Rend. Trav. Lab. Carlsberg, Ser. Physiol, 22:203-210.

Links to Websites

Top of page
WebsiteURLComment
FishBasehttp://www.fishbase.org
DIAS, Database on Introductions of Aquatic Specieshttp://www.fao.org/figis/servlet/static?dom=collection&xml=dias.xmlThe database includes records of species introduced or transferred from one country to another. Some example maps demonstrate the extent of introductions.

Organisations

Top of page

Italy: FAO (Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations), Viale delle Terme di Caracalla, 00100 Rome, http://www.fao.org/

Contributors

Top of page

07/03/08 Original text by:

Lyndon Jordan, School of Biological, Earth and Environmental Sciences, University of New South Wales, Biological Sciences Building, Randwick, NSW, 2052, Australia

Distribution Maps

Top of page
Distribution map Antigua and Barbuda: Present, native
Froese & Pauly, 2007Albania: Present, introduced
Crivelli, 1995Netherlands Antilles: Present, native
Froese Pauly, 2004Australia: Present, introduced
Arthington & McKenzie, 1997; Lindholm et al., 2005; McKay, 1989Barbados: Present, native
Froese Pauly, 2004Barbados: Present, native
Froese Pauly, 2004Bangladesh: Present, introduced
Barua et al., 2001; Islam et al., 2003Bahrain: Present, introduced
Froese & Pauly, 2007Bahrain: Present, introduced
Froese & Pauly, 2007Brazil: Present, native, invasive
Froese & Pauly, 2007Canada: Present, introduced
Froese & Pauly, 2007Cook Islands: Present, introduced
Froese & Pauly, 2007; Welcomme, 1988China
See regional map for distribution within the countryColombia: Widespread, introduced
Welcomme, 1988Colombia: Widespread, introduced
Welcomme, 1988Costa Rica: Present, introduced
Bussing, 1998; Froese & Pauly, 2007Costa Rica: Present, introduced
Bussing, 1998; Froese & Pauly, 2007Cuba: Present, introduced
Burgess & Franz, 1989; Froese & Pauly, 2007Cuba: Present, introduced
Burgess & Franz, 1989; Froese & Pauly, 2007Czech Republic: Present, few occurrences, introduced
Holcík, 1991; Welcomme, 1988Fiji: Present, introduced
Andrews, 1985UK: Present, introduced, not invasive
Welcomme, 1988Grenada: Present, introduced
Froese & Pauly, 2007French Guiana: Present, introduced
Froese & Pauly, 2007Ghana: Present, introduced
Froese & Pauly, 2007Guam: Present, introduced
Froese & Pauly, 2007; Welcomme, 1988Guyana: Present, native
Froese Pauly, 2004; Froese & Pauly, 2007Guyana: Present, native
Froese Pauly, 2004; Froese & Pauly, 2007Hungary: Present, few occurrences, introduced
Holcík, 1991Indonesia: Present, introduced
Froese & Pauly, 2007; Eidman, 1989Indonesia: Present, introduced
Froese & Pauly, 2007; Eidman, 1989Ireland: Present, introduced, not invasive
Froese & Pauly, 2007India: Widespread, introduced
FAO, 1997Italy: Present, few occurrences, introduced
Holcík, 1991Jamaica: Present, introduced
FAO, 1997; Froese & Pauly, 2007Jamaica: Present, introduced
FAO, 1997; Froese & Pauly, 2007Japan: Present, introduced
Froese & Pauly, 2007; Masuda et al., 1984Japan
See regional map for distribution within the countryJapan
See regional map for distribution within the countryJapan
See regional map for distribution within the countryKenya: Present, introduced
Froese & Pauly, 2007Laos: Present, introduced, not invasive
Kottelat, 2001; Froese & Pauly, 2007Saint Lucia: Present, native
ISSG, 2012Sri Lanka: Widespread, introduced
Welcomme, 1988Madagascar: Present, introduced
Stiassny & Raminosoa, 1994Myanmar: Present, introduced
Froese & Pauly, 2007Martinique: Present, introduced
Lim et al., 2002Mauritius: Present, introduced, invasive
Fricke, 1999; Froese & Pauly, 2007Malawi: Localised, introduced
FAO, 1997Mexico: Present, introduced
Froese & Pauly, 2007; Welcomme, 1988Mexico: Present, introduced
Froese & Pauly, 2007; Welcomme, 1988Malaysia: Present, introduced
Froese & Pauly, 2007Malaysia
See regional map for distribution within the countryMalaysia
See regional map for distribution within the countryMalaysia
See regional map for distribution within the countryNamibia: Present, introduced, not invasive
FAO, 1997; Hay et al., 1999New Caledonia: Present, introduced
Eldredge, 1994; Froese & Pauly, 2007Nigeria: Present, few occurrences, introduced
Welcomme, 1988Netherlands: Present, introduced
Welcomme, 1988New Zealand: Localised, introduced, not invasive
McDowall, 1999Peru: Present, introduced
Welcomme, 1988French Polynesia: Present, introduced
Marquet, 1993Papua New Guinea: Present, introduced
Froese & Pauly, 2007; Allen, 1991Papua New Guinea: Present, introduced
Froese & Pauly, 2007; Allen, 1991Philippines: Present, introduced
Froese & Pauly, 2007; Juliano et al., 1989Philippines: Present, introduced
Froese & Pauly, 2007; Juliano et al., 1989Puerto Rico: Present, introduced
Froese & Pauly, 2007; Welcomme, 1988Puerto Rico: Present, introduced
Froese & Pauly, 2007; Welcomme, 1988Palau: Present, introduced
Welcomme, 1988Palau: Present, introduced
Welcomme, 1988Paraguay: Present, introduced
Froese & Pauly, 2007Réunion: Present, introduced
Keith et al., 2006Russian Federation: Present, introduced
Froese Pauly, 2004Russian Federation: Present, introduced
Froese Pauly, 2004Russian Federation
See regional map for distribution within the countryRussian Federation
See regional map for distribution within the countryRussian Federation
See regional map for distribution within the countrySingapore: Widespread, introduced
Chou & Lam, 1989; Ng et al., 1993Slovakia: Present, few occurrences, introduced, not invasive
Welcomme, 1988Senegal: Present, introduced
Froese & Pauly, 2007Suriname: Present, introduced
Froese & Pauly, 2007Suriname: Present, introduced
Froese & Pauly, 2007Thailand: Present, introduced
Nico et al., 2007; Froese & Pauly, 2007East Timor: Present, native
Froese & Pauly, 2007Trinidad and Tobago: Present, native
Froese Pauly, 2004; Froese & Pauly, 2007Trinidad and Tobago: Present, native
Froese Pauly, 2004; Froese & Pauly, 2007Taiwan: Present, introduced
Froese & Pauly, 2007; Shao & Lim, 1991Taiwan: Present, introduced
Froese & Pauly, 2007; Shao & Lim, 1991Tanzania: Present, introduced
Froese & Pauly, 2007Uganda: Present, introduced
Froese & Pauly, 2007; Welcomme, 1988USA: Present, introduced
Froese & Pauly, 2007; Rixon et al., 2005USA: Present, introduced
Froese & Pauly, 2007; Rixon et al., 2005USA
See regional map for distribution within the countrySaint Vincent and the Grenadines: Present, introduced
Froese & Pauly, 2007Venezuela: Present, native, not invasive
Froese & Pauly, 2007Venezuela: Present, native, not invasive
Froese & Pauly, 2007United States Virgin Islands: Present, native
Froese Pauly, 2004Vietnam: Present, native
Froese & Pauly, 2007Vanuatu: Present, introduced
Eldredge, 1994Samoa: Present, introduced
Froese & Pauly, 2007; Welcomme, 1988Mayotte: Present, introduced
Froese & Pauly, 2007South Africa: Present, introduced
Froese & Pauly, 2007Zambia: Localised, introduced, invasive
Audenaerde Tden, 1994
  • = Present, no further details
  • = Evidence of pathogen
  • = Widespread
  • = Last reported
  • = Localised
  • = Presence unconfirmed
  • = Confined and subject to quarantine
  • = See regional map for distribution within the country
  • = Occasional or few reports
Download KML file Download CSV file
Creative Commons Licence
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported License.

Please click OK to ACCEPT or Cancel to REJECT

Creative Commons Licence
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported License.

Please click OK to ACCEPT or Cancel to REJECT

Distribution map (asia) Bangladesh: Present, introduced
Barua et al., 2001; Islam et al., 2003Bahrain: Present, introduced
Froese & Pauly, 2007Hong Kong: Present, few occurrences, introduced
Man & Hodgkiss, 1981Indonesia: Present, introduced
Froese & Pauly, 2007; Eidman, 1989India: Widespread, introduced
FAO, 1997Japan: Present, introduced
Froese & Pauly, 2007; Masuda et al., 1984Honshu: Localised, introduced, not invasive
Masuda et al., 1984Kyushu: Localised, introduced, not invasive
Masuda et al., 1984Ryukyu Archipelago: Localised, introduced, not invasive
Masuda et al., 1984Laos: Present, introduced, not invasive
Kottelat, 2001; Froese & Pauly, 2007Sri Lanka: Widespread, introduced
Welcomme, 1988Myanmar: Present, introduced
Froese & Pauly, 2007Malaysia: Present, introduced
Froese & Pauly, 2007Peninsular Malaysia: Widespread, introduced, invasive
Ang & Gopinath, 1989Sabah: Widespread, introduced, invasive
Ang & Gopinath, 1989Sarawak: Widespread, introduced, invasive
Ang & Gopinath, 1989Papua New Guinea: Present, introduced
Froese & Pauly, 2007; Allen, 1991Philippines: Present, introduced
Froese & Pauly, 2007; Juliano et al., 1989Palau: Present, introduced
Welcomme, 1988Russian Federation: Present, introduced
Froese Pauly, 2004Singapore: Widespread, introduced
Chou & Lam, 1989; Ng et al., 1993Thailand: Present, introduced
Nico et al., 2007; Froese & Pauly, 2007East Timor: Present, native
Froese & Pauly, 2007Taiwan: Present, introduced
Froese & Pauly, 2007; Shao & Lim, 1991Vietnam: Present, native
Froese & Pauly, 2007
Distribution map (europe) Albania: Present, introduced
Crivelli, 1995Czech Republic: Present, few occurrences, introduced
Holcík, 1991; Welcomme, 1988UK: Present, introduced, not invasive
Welcomme, 1988Hungary: Present, few occurrences, introduced
Holcík, 1991Ireland: Present, introduced, not invasive
Froese & Pauly, 2007Italy: Present, few occurrences, introduced
Holcík, 1991Netherlands: Present, introduced
Welcomme, 1988Russian Federation: Present, introduced
Froese Pauly, 2004Central Russia: Localised, introduced, not invasive
Bogutskaya & Naseka, 2002; Reshetnikov et al., 1997Southern Russia: Localised, introduced, not invasive
Bogutskaya & Naseka, 2002; Reshetnikov et al., 1997Western Siberia: Localised, introduced, not invasive
Bogutskaya & Naseka, 2002; Reshetnikov et al., 1997Slovakia: Present, few occurrences, introduced, not invasive
Welcomme, 1988
Distribution map (africa) Bahrain: Present, introduced
Froese & Pauly, 2007Ghana: Present, introduced
Froese & Pauly, 2007Kenya: Present, introduced
Froese & Pauly, 2007Madagascar: Present, introduced
Stiassny & Raminosoa, 1994Mauritius: Present, introduced, invasive
Fricke, 1999; Froese & Pauly, 2007Malawi: Localised, introduced
FAO, 1997Namibia: Present, introduced, not invasive
FAO, 1997; Hay et al., 1999Nigeria: Present, few occurrences, introduced
Welcomme, 1988Réunion: Present, introduced
Keith et al., 2006Senegal: Present, introduced
Froese & Pauly, 2007Tanzania: Present, introduced
Froese & Pauly, 2007Uganda: Present, introduced
Froese & Pauly, 2007; Welcomme, 1988Mayotte: Present, introduced
Froese & Pauly, 2007South Africa: Present, introduced
Froese & Pauly, 2007Zambia: Localised, introduced, invasive
Audenaerde Tden, 1994
Distribution map (north america) Canada: Present, introduced
Froese & Pauly, 2007Cuba: Present, introduced
Burgess & Franz, 1989; Froese & Pauly, 2007Jamaica: Present, introduced
FAO, 1997; Froese & Pauly, 2007Mexico: Present, introduced
Froese & Pauly, 2007; Welcomme, 1988Puerto Rico: Present, introduced
Froese & Pauly, 2007; Welcomme, 1988USA: Present, introduced
Froese & Pauly, 2007; Rixon et al., 2005Hawaii: Present, introduced
Froese & Pauly, 2007; Maciolek, 1984
Distribution map (central america) Antigua and Barbuda: Present, native
Froese & Pauly, 2007Netherlands Antilles: Present, native
Froese Pauly, 2004Barbados: Present, native
Froese Pauly, 2004Colombia: Widespread, introduced
Welcomme, 1988Costa Rica: Present, introduced
Bussing, 1998; Froese & Pauly, 2007Cuba: Present, introduced
Burgess & Franz, 1989; Froese & Pauly, 2007Grenada: Present, introduced
Froese & Pauly, 2007Guyana: Present, native
Froese Pauly, 2004; Froese & Pauly, 2007Jamaica: Present, introduced
FAO, 1997; Froese & Pauly, 2007Saint Lucia: Present, native
ISSG, 2012Martinique: Present, introduced
Lim et al., 2002Mexico: Present, introduced
Froese & Pauly, 2007; Welcomme, 1988Puerto Rico: Present, introduced
Froese & Pauly, 2007; Welcomme, 1988Suriname: Present, introduced
Froese & Pauly, 2007Trinidad and Tobago: Present, native
Froese Pauly, 2004; Froese & Pauly, 2007USA: Present, introduced
Froese & Pauly, 2007; Rixon et al., 2005Saint Vincent and the Grenadines: Present, introduced
Froese & Pauly, 2007Venezuela: Present, native, not invasive
Froese & Pauly, 2007United States Virgin Islands: Present, native
Froese Pauly, 2004
Distribution map (south america) Barbados: Present, native
Froese Pauly, 2004Brazil: Present, native, invasive
Froese & Pauly, 2007Colombia: Widespread, introduced
Welcomme, 1988Costa Rica: Present, introduced
Bussing, 1998; Froese & Pauly, 2007French Guiana: Present, introduced
Froese & Pauly, 2007Guyana: Present, native
Froese Pauly, 2004; Froese & Pauly, 2007Peru: Present, introduced
Welcomme, 1988Paraguay: Present, introduced
Froese & Pauly, 2007Suriname: Present, introduced
Froese & Pauly, 2007Trinidad and Tobago: Present, native
Froese Pauly, 2004; Froese & Pauly, 2007Venezuela: Present, native, not invasive
Froese & Pauly, 2007
Distribution map (pacific) Australia: Present, introduced
Arthington & McKenzie, 1997; Lindholm et al., 2005; McKay, 1989Cook Islands: Present, introduced
Froese & Pauly, 2007; Welcomme, 1988Fiji: Present, introduced
Andrews, 1985Guam: Present, introduced
Froese & Pauly, 2007; Welcomme, 1988Indonesia: Present, introduced
Froese & Pauly, 2007; Eidman, 1989New Caledonia: Present, introduced
Eldredge, 1994; Froese & Pauly, 2007New Zealand: Localised, introduced, not invasive
McDowall, 1999French Polynesia: Present, introduced
Marquet, 1993Papua New Guinea: Present, introduced
Froese & Pauly, 2007; Allen, 1991Philippines: Present, introduced
Froese & Pauly, 2007; Juliano et al., 1989Palau: Present, introduced
Welcomme, 1988Taiwan: Present, introduced
Froese & Pauly, 2007; Shao & Lim, 1991Vanuatu: Present, introduced
Eldredge, 1994Samoa: Present, introduced
Froese & Pauly, 2007; Welcomme, 1988