- Summary of Invasiveness
- Taxonomic Tree
- Notes on Taxonomy and Nomenclature
- Distribution Table
- History of Introduction and Spread
- Risk of Introduction
- Habitat List
- Biology and Ecology
- Water Tolerances
- Natural enemies
- Notes on Natural Enemies
- Means of Movement and Dispersal
- Pathway Causes
- Pathway Vectors
- Impact Summary
- Economic Impact
- Environmental Impact
- Threatened Species
- Social Impact
- Risk and Impact Factors
- Uses List
- Detection and Inspection
- Similarities to Other Species/Conditions
- Prevention and Control
- Gaps in Knowledge/Research Needs
- Links to Websites
- Distribution Maps
Don't need the entire report?
Generate a print friendly version containing only the sections you need.Generate report
PicturesTop of page
IdentityTop of page
Preferred Scientific Name
- Caprella mutica Schurin, 1935
International Common Names
- English: ghost shrimp; Japanese skeleton shrimp
Local Common Names
- Netherlands: macho spookkreeftje
Summary of InvasivenessTop of page
C. mutica was first described from sub-boreal areas of north-east Asia in 1935 (Schurin, 1935). The first reports of C. mutica outside its native habitat were from the Pacific and Atlantic coasts of North America in the 1970s (Carlton, 1979) and 1980s (Marelli, 1981; Cohen and Carlton, 1995) and it has since spread to both northern and southern hemispheres (Ashton et al., 2007a). C. mutica is one of the largest caprellid amphipods, mature males attain body lengths of up to 50 mm (Nishimura, 1995) and populations can attain densities > 300,000 individuals/m2 (Ashton, 2006). C. mutica is an aggressive species, out-competing native caprellid amphipods for space, even at low densities (Shucksmith, 2008).C. mutica is frequently associated with man-made structures and is found in abundance on boat hulls, navigation/ offshore buoys, floating pontoons and aquaculture infrastructure. It is highly likely that its dispersal is associated with vessel movements whilst attached to hull fouling. Whilst the wider environmental implications of C. mutica have not yet been confirmed, it is likely that it has an important impact on benthic and plankton communities (Cook et al., 2007b). This species is currently not present on an alert list (e.g. IUCN, ISSG) or listed as a regulated pest etc.
Taxonomic TreeTop of page
- Domain: Eukaryota
- Kingdom: Metazoa
- Phylum: Arthropoda
- Subphylum: Crustacea
- Class: Malacostraca
- Subclass: Eumalacostraca
- Order: Amphipoda
- Suborder: Caprellidea
- Family: Caprellidae
- Genus: Caprella
- Species: Caprella mutica
Notes on Taxonomy and NomenclatureTop of page
The caprellid amphipod Caprella mutica was first described by Schurin (1935) in Peter the Great Bay, Vladivostok, Russia and was subsequently identified in the neighbouring Possjet Bay, Japan (Vassilenko, 1967) and Akkeshi Bay, Japan (Arimoto, 1976).
DescriptionTop of page
C. mutica is one of the largest caprellid amphipods, mature males attain body lengths of up to 50 mm (Nishimura, 1995), whereas females are smaller and attain body lengths of up to 29 mm (Ashton, 2006). Juvenile, immature C. mutica typically range in body length from 0.81 to 7.95 mm (Ashton, 2006). Live specimens of C. mutica are pale brown to dark red in colour, and the brood pouch of the female is covered with dark red spots. The first two pereonites are elongated in the male and are densely covered with setae. The second pereonite is the longest of the seven pereonites. On the male, gnathopod 2 arises from the distal end of pereonite 2 and is also densely setose. There is no setation on the first and second pereonites in the females, which are greatly shortened compared with the male. Gnathopod two is located anteriorly on the second pereonite of the female. The third to seventh pereonites have dorsal and lateral spines and there are three spines around the base of each gill. The gills are located on pereonites 3 and 4. The antennule of the male is slightly greater than half the body length and has a flagellum of 22 (± 2 S.D.) articles. C. mutica can be definitively identified by the relative size of the three projections on the grasping margin of the propodus of gnathopod 2. In large males, the middle projection is the most prominent (Willis et al., 2004).
DistributionTop of page
Distribution TableTop 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.Last updated: 10 Jan 2020
|Continent/Country/Region||Distribution||Last Reported||Origin||First Reported||Invasive||Reference||Notes|
|Japan||Present||Present based on regional distribution.|
|-Hokkaido||Present||1968||Native||Akkashi Bay, Shikotan Island, Kunashir Island|
|-Honshu||Present||1967||Native||Possjet Bay, Sea of Japan|
|Belgium||Present, Widespread||2007||Introduced||1998||Mainly concentrated on navigation buoys adjacent to the port of Zeebrugge|
|Denmark||Present||2005||Introduced||Found on the Horns Rev offshore windfarm|
|France||Present||2004||Introduced||Found in harbour in Le Havre|
|Germany||Present||2007||Introduced||2004||Found in marinas on the islands of Sylt and Helgoland off the coast of Germany|
|Ireland||Present||2006||Introduced||2003||First sighted on a fish farm in Bertraghboy Bay|
|Netherlands||Present, Widespread||2005||Introduced||1994||First sighting in Europe|
|Norway||Present||2007||Introduced||1999||Found in harbours and on aquaculture structures|
|Russia||Present||Present based on regional distribution.|
|-Russian Far East||Present, Widespread||1935||Native||First found in Peter the Great Bay, Vladivostok|
|United Kingdom||Present, Widespread||2007||Introduced||2001||Found on marina and aquaculture structures|
|Canada||Present||Present based on regional distribution.|
|-New Brunswick||Present||2003||Introduced||Found on mussel lines in Passamaquody Bay|
|-Quebec||Present||2004||Introduced||Found on mussel lines in Chaleur Bay|
|United States||Present||Present based on regional distribution.|
|-California||Present||2004||Introduced||1973||Established in the 1970s|
|-Connecticut||Present||2003||Introduced||Found in yacht yard in Mystic|
|-Maine||Present||2003||Introduced||Found in marina in South Freeport|
|-Oregon||Present||1983||Introduced||Found in Coos Bay|
|-Washington||Present||Introduced||Found in harbour in Puget Sound; Last reported: Pre-1979|
|New Zealand||Present, Localized||2004||Introduced||2004||Present in harbour in Timaru|
|Atlantic - Northeast||Present, Widespread||2007||Introduced|
|Atlantic - Northwest||Present, Widespread||2004||Introduced||First recorded in Area 21 in 2003. Found in marinas, harbours and on mussel lines|
|Pacific - Eastern Central||Present, Widespread||2004||Introduced||First recorded in Area 77, pre-1979 from a harbour in Puget Sound. Has since spread throughout northern part of this area|
|Pacific - Northwest||Present, Widespread||1935||Native||First recorded in Area 61 from Peter the Great Bay, subsequently recorded in 1967 and 1968 from Japan|
|Pacific - Southwest||Present, Localized||2004||Introduced||2004||First recorded in Timaru Harbour in 2004|
History of Introduction and SpreadTop of page
The first reports of C. mutica outside its native habitat were from the Pacific and Atlantic coasts of North America in the 1970s (Carlton, 1979) and 1980s (Marelli, 1981; Cohen and Carlton, 1995). It is unknown whether these records are the result of several independent cross-oceanic introductions with oyster spat (Carlton, 1979), or the result of local small-scale transport following the first introduction (Carlton, 1996). The next series of records are from Europe, with C. mutica first identified in 1994 in a harbour at Neeltje Jans in the Netherlands (M Faasse, National Museum of Natural History Naturalis, The Netherlands, personal communication, 2008). Direct sequencing of mitochondrial DNA indicates that C. mutica was introduced to Europe either directly from Asia or from the Atlantic coast of North America (Ashton, 2006). The exact mode of introduction is unknown, although it is highly likely that ballast water transport and/ or hull fouling could be involved rather than stock movements of cultured species (Cook et al., 2007b).
IntroductionsTop of page
|Introduced to||Introduced from||Year||Reason||Introduced by||Established in wild through||References||Notes|
|Natural reproduction||Continuous restocking|
Risk of IntroductionTop of page
It is highly likely that C. mutica may be accidentally introduced to South America, southern Australia, and South Africa (Ashton et al., 2007a). All these regions are within the temperature boundaries for C. mutica and they are also key areas of shipping activity. South America and Australia are particularly well linked to south-east Asia as dispersal routes for introduced species (Carlton, 1987). Within Europe, this species is likely to continue to extend its current range, but is unlikely to survive in the central and eastern Baltic Sea due to low salinities (FIMR, 2006), and based on current knowledge it is not expected to become established in the Mediterranean Sea on account of the high summer seawater temperatures (Cook et al., 2006a). Long-range distribution will most probably depend on the movement of floating artificial structures, such as commercial and recreational vessels, whilst attachment to floating marine algae may account for more localised movements (Cook et al., 2007b). It is unlikely that C. mutica will be deliberately introduced to a region.
HabitatTop of page
In the native range, C. mutica is typically associated with either attached or drifting macroalgae, including Sargassum spp. or aquaculture structures, such as the ropes used for the culture of the macroalga Undaria spp. in Otsuchi Bay (Kawashima et al., 1999). In regions outside its native range, it has been found associated with areas of anthropogenic activity, such as harbours, marinas, navigation buoys, oil rigs and aquaculture sites (Willis et al., 2004; Ashton, 2006; Kerckhof et al., 2007).
Habitat ListTop of page
|Marine||Inshore marine||Principal habitat||Harmful (pest or invasive)|
|Marine||Inshore marine||Principal habitat||Natural|
|Marine||Inshore marine||Principal habitat||Productive/non-natural|
Biology and EcologyTop of page
Direct sequencing of mitochondrial DNA (cytochrome c oxidase subunit I gene) has been used to investigate genetic variation between native and non-native populations of C. mutica. Three hundred individuals were PCR-amplified, which included 51 from the native area in Japan and 249 from non-native populations. Overall, base frequencies were biased towards A and T (A = 26%, T = 36%, C = 20%, G = 18%). All unique genetic sequences for C. mutica have been deposited with GenBank (accession numbers: DQ466220-466523). The genetic divergence between non-native populations of C. mutica in the northern hemisphere indicated significant differentiation between populations in different oceanic provinces and among populations in geographic regions. A total of seven haplotypes were found in the non-native populations, indicating considerably reduced genetic diversity relative to the native populations in Japan, where 31 unique haplotypes were observed. Collectively, the Atlantic populations were shown to have a comparatively high genetic diversity and most of the populations from this oceanic province share haplotypes. The unique haplotypes present on the Pacific coast of North America indicate strong genetic differentiation and no gene flow between the Atlantic and Pacific populations (Ashton, 2006).Reproductive Biology
Populations of C. mutica showed an increase in spring to a peak abundance in late summer (August – September), followed by a decline in population abundance during the winter in coastal waters on the west coast of Scotland. This cycle typically follows annual seawater temperatures for the region and is similar to that observed in the native habitat in the Sea of Japan (Fedotov, 1991). Juvenile C. mutica were present throughout the year on the west coast of Scotland in fish farm cages, which may indicate either continuous reproduction in this species or delayed growth of over-wintering juveniles. Females tend to dominate the population and this is most marked in autumn and winter (Ashton, 2006). Ovigerous females are found throughout the year and the number of eggs is positively related to the length of the female (Ashton, 2006). The greatest number of ovigerous females are found in the spring and summer months (April to October) (Ashton, 2006). The number of eggs per female is highly variable (min = 3, max = 363, average = 74, SD = 47.7) (Ashton, 2006). Females produce their first brood approximately 53 days post-hatching at an average body length of 8.5mm and at a seawater temperature of 13–14oC (Cook et al., 2007b). Each female has an average of two sequential broods released at approximately 20 day intervals. The maximum number of recorded hatchlings produced by a single female at a seawater temperature of 13.0 ± 0.5°C is 82. Juveniles typically emerge from the brood pouch at a body length of approximately 1.3 mm (Cook et al., 2007b).Physiology and Phenology
C. mutica is able to survive for up to 20 days without additional food under laboratory conditions (Cook et al., 2007b) andis tolerant of a broad range of temperature and salinity conditions, with 100% mortality at 30°C (48 h LT50, 28.3 ± 0.41°C), and salinities lower than 16‰ (48 h LC50, 18.7 ± 0.24‰) over a short (48 h) exposure period (Ashton et al., 2007b). Although lethargic at low temperatures (2°C), no mortality was observed, and the species is known to survive at temperatures as low as -1.8°C. The upper LC50 was greater than the highest salinity tested (40‰), thus it is unlikely that salinity will limit the distribution of C. mutica in open coastal waters. However, the species will be excluded from brackish water environments such as the heads of sea lochs and estuaries. The physiological tolerances of C. mutica are beyond the physical conditions experienced in its native or introduced range and are thus unlikely to be the primary factors limiting its present distribution and future spread (Ashton et al., 2007a).
Caprellids are known to be opportunist feeders and to consume any readily available organic material (Keith, 1969). C. california and C. equilibria were found to consume organic detritus, diatoms, dinoflagellates and crustaceans, including other caprellids, amphipods, isopods, harpacticoid copepods and ostracods (Keith, 1969). In laboratory studies, C. mutica has been observed grazing upon the diatom Cylindrotheca fusiformis Reumann and Lewin and the macroalgae, Fucus vesiculosus L. They have also been observed actively filtering particles out of the water column using their second pair of setose antennae as filtering structures. Feeding trials with Artemia- nauplii revealed feeding rates of approximately 20 Artemia /hour for males and 13 Artemia /hour for females. Feeding rates remain constant over a period of 24 hours indicating continuous feeding throughout the day and night. Low temperatures led to a significant decline (about 60 and 50% for males and females, respectively) in feeding rates. When offered high food quantities, the average feeding rates were higher compared to when smaller quantities of food were offered (K Boos, Biologische Anstalt Helgoland, Alfred Wegener Institut for Polar- and Marine Research, Germany, personal communication, 2008).
C. mutica is typically found associated with attached macroalgae and drifting seaweeds in its native habitat, including Sargassum spp and on aquaculture structures, such as ropes for Undaria culture in Otsuchi Bay (Kawashima et al., 1999). In non-native habitats, this species typically clings to a wide range of artificial structures (aquaculture nets, ropes, pontoons, submerged lines and boat hulls) and on fouling organisms associated with these structures (including macroalgae - particularly red filamentous algae, such as Ceramium spp., hydroids, ascidians, mussels and barnacles) (Ashton, 2006; Cook et al., 2006a). In addition, studies have found that C. mutica, prefers to attach to filamentous (e.g. filamentous and branching macroalgae) and soft structures (e.g. solitary tunicates) compared with hard structures, such as bivalve shells (Shucksmith, 2008).Environmental Requirements
See Water Tolerances.
Water TolerancesTop of page
|Parameter||Minimum Value||Maximum Value||Typical Value||Status||Life Stage||Notes|
|Depth (m b.s.l.)||0.5||20||Optimum|
|Salinity (part per thousand)||18||35||Optimum||11-40 tolerated; 48 h LC50, 18.7 ± 0.24; upper LC50 > 40 (Ashton et al., 2007b)|
|Water temperature (ºC temperature)||0||22||Optimum||-1.8-25 tolerated; 48 h LT50, 28.3 ± 0.41; 100% mortality at 30 (Ashton et al., 2007b)|
Natural enemiesTop of page
Notes on Natural EnemiesTop of page
Very little information is known about the natural enemies of C. mutica. A recent study, however, has found that the European shore crab Carcinus maenas will consume large quantities of C. mutica in laboratory experiments (Shucksmith, 2008).
Means of Movement and DispersalTop of page
Natural dispersal for C. mutica is likely to be limited, as this species does not have a planktonic larval stage. Free-swimming (or natural dispersal) is, therefore, likely through short-distance swimming or current-driven dispersal following disturbance from the substrate (Ashton, 2006). Small numbers of caprellids have been identified in planktonic samples from marginal seas (Takeuchi and Sawamoto, 1998) and swimming has been observed for certain caprellid species (Caine, 1980). C. mutica has also been observed swimming short distances in the laboratory and field (E Cook, Scottish Association of Marine Science, UK, personal observation, 2008), however, the maximum distance of dispersal for this method is unknown.Vector Transmission (Biotic)
C. mutica has been found on drifting seaweed in its native habitat (Sano et al., 2003) and on the west coast of Scotland (Ashton, 2006). It has been suggested that this mechanism is responsible for the long distance dispersal (> 1000 km) of several planktonic species (Jokiel, 1984; Helmuth et al., 1994). In a recent study on the west coast of Scotland, C. mutica was found on 27% of the drifting mats of macroalgae collected. The maximum number of individuals on one algal mat was 71, including ovigerous females and males (Ashton, 2006). It is most likely, however, that this mechanism for dispersal will be most frequent in the spring and summer months, when large quantities of algae are produced along the continental shelf (Thiel and Haye, 2006).
Shipping has been identified as an important pathway for the transoceanic introduction of non-native species (Drake and Lodge, 2004). Many of the areas where C. mutica has been introduced are close to busy ports suggesting that ballast water transport and/ or hull fouling could be involved (Cook et al., 2007a). Living Caprella spp. have been found in ships’ ballast tanks (Carlton, 1985) and in sea-chests in a study in New Zealand (Coutts et al., 2003). Within its native environment, C. mutica may be found attached to the macroalgae Ulva spp. and the filamentous Cladophora spp. and these are regularly found attached to ships hulls (Mineur et al., 2007). It has also been seen associated with other algae at high densities on recreational boat hulls (Minchin and Holmes, 2006; G Ashton, Smithsonian Environmental Research Centre, USA and R Shucksmith, The Scottish Association for Marine Science, UK, personal communication, 2008) and in the Adriatic Sea the non-native Caprella scaura is thought to have been spread on the hulls of leisure craft (Sconfietti et al., 2005).
Stock movements of cultured species have also been identified as one means of globally spreading non-native species (Ruiz and Hewitt, 2002; Minchin, 2007). Introduction of C. mutica to the United States has been potentially linked to the importation of the Pacific Oyster, C. gigas for culture purposes (Carlton, 1987). In Europe, the Oosterschelde region in the Netherlands has received extensive shellfish imports and these movements may have been responsible for the introduction of C. mutica (Wolff, 2005). However, this region was regularly sampled between 1990 and 1995 and C. mutica was not found (M Faasse, National Museum of Natural History Naturalis, The Netherlands, personal communication, 2008). This suggests that the introduction to Europe of C. mutica is more likely to be via commercial shipping rather than stock movements of cultured species (Cook et al., 2007a).Intentional Introduction
There are no known reports of C. mutica being intentionally introduced to an area outside its native region.
Pathway CausesTop of page
|Aquaculture||Stock movements of oysters and movements of service boats between aquaculture sites||Yes||Yes||Ashton et al. (2007b); Carlton (1987); Cook et al. (2007a)|
|Disturbance||Natural or artificial dispersal following disturbance||Yes||Yes||Ashton (2006)|
|Hitchhiker||Found attached to commercial and recreational boat hulls||Yes||Yes||Ashton (2006)|
|Self-propelled||Can swim short distances||Yes||Ashton (2006)|
Pathway VectorsTop of page
|Aquaculture stock||Unknown||Yes||Yes||Carlton (1987)|
|Floating vegetation and debris||Males, ovigerous females and juvenile C. mutica have been found attached to drift macroalgae||Yes||Yes||Ashton (2006)|
|Ship ballast water and sediment||Live caprellids have been found in ballast water, although no definitive sightings||Yes||Coutts et al. (2003)|
|Ship hull fouling||C. mutica observed on commercial (fishing boats) and recreational boat hulls||Yes||Yes||Cook et al. (2007a)|
|Water||Short distance current driven dispersal||Yes||Ashton (2006)|
Impact SummaryTop of page
|Environment (generally)||Positive and negative|
Economic ImpactTop of page
There are no known economic impacts related to the presence of this species.
Environmental ImpactTop of page
C. mutica is known to occur in marine protected areas in the UK (e.g. Firth of Lorne, west coast of Scotland), but the impact of this species on the habitats within these areas is unknown.Impact on Biodiversity
C. mutica is an aggressive species and it is highly likely, that this species will displace other native amphipod species and potentially compete with sessile suspension feeders for food.Experiments have shown that C. mutica and a common UK native species of caprellid, Caprella linearis share the same preference for fine filamentous branching structures and as a result, competition for space has been observed in both laboratory and in the field.C. mutica has been observed displacing native C. linearis at low structural diversity due to its aggressive behaviour. At higher structural diversity, however, increased availability of refuges provided shelter for the native caprellid and thus enabled the two species to co-occur.
Further experiments, regarding density dependent interactions between C. mutica and the native caprellid C. linearis on the same substrate showed that only comparatively low numbers of the non-native C. mutica are needed to displace significantly higher proportions of the native species. However, displacement activity was restricted when population abundances of C. linearis declined to relatively low densities, suggesting that C. mutica may not entirely displace C. linearis and, therefore may allow coexistence in the field.
As C. mutica inhabits predominantly artificial structures in the field at present, the impact of this species on benthic biodiversity, native species and species of conservation remains low. Whereas, the impact on plankton biodiversity maybe significant considering their high feeding rates and population densities, particularly in the summer months (Ashton, 2006), however, the scale of this impact is unknown.
Threatened SpeciesTop of page
Social ImpactTop of page
This is no known social impact related to the presence of this species.
Risk and Impact FactorsTop of page
- Proved invasive outside its native range
- Has a broad native range
- Abundant in its native range
- Highly adaptable to different environments
- Pioneering in disturbed areas
- Tolerant of shade
- Capable of securing and ingesting a wide range of food
- Highly mobile locally
- Benefits from human association (i.e. it is a human commensal)
- Fast growing
- Has high reproductive potential
- Has high genetic variability
- Modification of natural benthic communities
- Reduced native biodiversity
- Threat to/ loss of native species
- Competition - monopolizing resources
- Interaction with other invasive species
- Rapid growth
- Highly likely to be transported internationally accidentally
- Difficult to identify/detect as a commodity contaminant
UsesTop of page
There is no known economic value for C. mutica.
C. mutica provides no known social benefit.
C. mutica provides no known environmental services.
Uses ListTop of page
- Laboratory use
- Pet/aquarium trade
- Research model
DiagnosisTop of page
All unique genetic sequences for C. mutica have been deposited with GenBank (accession numbers: DQ466220-466523).
Detection and InspectionTop of page
The main difficulty in the detection of C. mutica has been with the identification of this species prior to 2002, as little taxonomic information was available outside its native region. This problem, however, should be rectified with the inclusion of a detailed identification notes on C. mutica in Willis et al. (2004) and the inclusion of this species in the new edition of Hayward and Ryland’s ‘Handbook of the Marine Fauna of North-West Europe’ later in 2007/08.
Similarities to Other Species/ConditionsTop of page
Prevention and ControlTop of page
Due to the variable regulations around (de)registration of pesticides, your national list of registered pesticides or relevant authority should be consulted to determine which products are legally allowed for use in your country when considering chemical control. Pesticides should always be used in a lawful manner, consistent with the product's label.
Early warning systems
No known early warning system is in place specifically for C. mutica, but as this species becomes more widely known, it is likely that it will be identified more regularly in routine surveys.
No known rapid response system is available to manage C. mutica.
In the UK, public awareness has been largely funded by a charitable trust, the Esmée Fairbairn Foundation, with support from the UK government environment agencies which has enabled the establishment of a marine non-native species website including C. mutica, production of leaflets, posters, splash-proof ID guides and popular articles and public lectures throughout the UK. Public awareness of C.mutica in other invaded regions, however, is unknown.
No known eradication attempts have been made for C. mutica.Containment/Zoning
No known containment/ zoning attempts have been made for C. mutica.
No known control programmes have been undertaken for C. mutica.Physical/mechanical control
Potential physical methods for the control of C. mutica may include:
Potential use of benthic predators.
No known chemical control.
Monitoring and Surveillance
Monitoring for C. mutica is conducted on a regular basis in the UK, Belgium and the Netherlands. A monthly monitoring programme for C. mutica at a fish farm and marina in the Lynne of Lorne, west coast of Scotland has been conducted since 2004.
No mitigation measures have been developed for C. mutica.
Gaps in Knowledge/Research NeedsTop of page
Limited factual information is available on the economic and environmental impacts and control methods for C. mutica and these areas would greatly benefit from future research.
ReferencesTop of page
Arimoto I, 1976. Taxonomic studies of caprellids (Crustacea, Amphipoda, Caprellidae) found in the Japanese adjacent waters. Special publications from the Seto Marine Biological Laboratory Series III. Osaka, Japan: Nippon Printing & Publishing Co. Ltd.
Ashton GV; Willis KJ; Cook EJ, 2007. Global distribution of the Japanese skeleton shrimp, Caprella mutica (Crustacea, Amphipoda, Caprellidae) with a detailed account of the distribution in Scotland, UK. Hydrobiologia, 590:31-41.
Carlton JT, 1985. Transoceanic and interoceanic dispersal of coastal marine organisms: the biology of ballast water. Oceanography and Marine Biology. Oceanography and Marine Biology. An Annual Review, 23:313-371.
Cohen AN; Carlton JT, 1995. Nonindigenous aquatic species in a United States Estuary: A case study of the biological invasions of the San Francisco Bay and Delta. A Report for the United States Fish and Wildlife Service, Washington DC. http://www.anstaskforce.gov/sfinvade.htm
Cook EJ; Black KD; Sayer MDJ; Cromey CJ; Angel DL; Spanier E; Tsemel A; Katz T; Eden N; Karakassis I; Tsapakis M; Apostolaki ET; Malej A, 2006. The influence of caged mariculture on the early development of sublittoral fouling communities: a pan-European study. ICES Journal of Marine Science, 63(4):637-649. http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/journal/10543139
Cook EJ; Jahnke M; Kerckhof F; Minchin D; Faasse M; Boos K; Ashton G, 2007. European expansion of the introduced amphipod Caprella mutica Schurin 1935. Aquatic Invasions, 2(4):411-421. http://www.aquaticinvasions.ru/2007/AI_2007_2_4_Cook_etal.pdf
Cook EJ; Willis KJ; Lozano-Fernandez M, 2007. Survivorship, growth and reproduction of the non-native Caprella mutica Schurin, 1935 (Crustacea: Amphipoda). Hydrobiologia, 590:55-64. http://springerlink.metapress.com/content/1573-5117/
Drake JM; Lodge DM, 2004. Global hot spots of biological invasions: evaluating options for ballast-water management. Proceedings of the Royal Society of London. Series B, Biological Sciences, 271(1539):575-580. http://www.pubs.royalsoc.ac.uk/proc_bio_homepage.shtml
FIMR, 2006. FIMR monitoring of the Baltic Sea environment. In: Annual Report 2006. Finnish Institute for Marine Research Helsinki, Finland: Finnish Institute for Marine Research. http://www.fimr.fi/en/palvelut/bmp.html
Kawashima H; Takeuchi I; Ohnishi M, 1999. Fatty acid compositions in four of caprellid amphipod species (Crustacea) from Otsuchi and Mutsu bays in northern Japan. Journal of the Japanese Oil Chemists Society, 48:595-599.
Kerckhof F; Haelters J; Gollasch S, 2007. Alien species in the marine and brackish ecosystem: the situation in Belgian waters. Aquatic Invasions, 2(3):243-257. http://www.aquaticinvasions.ru/2007/AI_2007_2_3_Kerckhof_etal.pdf
Minchin D, 2007. Aquaculture and transport in a changing environment: overlap and links in the spread of alien biota. Marine Pollution Bulletin, 55(7/9):302-313. http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/journal/0025326X
Pederson J; Bullock R; Carlton J; Dijkstra J; Dobroski N; Dyrynda P; Fisher R; Harris L; Hobbs N; Lambert G; Lazo-Wasem E; Mathieson A; Miglietta M-P; Smith J; Smith JIII; Tyrell M, 2003. Marine Invaders in the Northeast: Rapid assessment survey of non-native and native marine species of floating dock communities. Report for the Massachusetts Institute of Technology Sea Grant Program.
Platvoet D; Bruyne RHde; Gmelig Meyling AW, 1995. Description of a new Caprella-species from the Netherlands: Caprella macho nov.spec. (Crustacea, Amphipoda, Caprellidae). Bulletin of the Zoological Museum,University of Amsterdam, 15:1-4.
Ruiz GM; Hewitt CL, 2002. Toward understanding patterns of coastal marine invasions: a prospectus. In: Invasive Aquatic Species of Europe. Distribution, Impacts and Management [ed. by Leppäkoski E, Gollasch S, Olenin S] Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
Sano M; Omori M; Taniguchi K, 2003. Predator-prey systems of drifting seaweed communities off the Tohoku coast, northern Japan, as determined by feeding habit analysis of phytal animals. Fisheries Science, 69:260-268.
Sconfietti R; Mangili F; Savini D; Occhipinti-Ambrogi A, 2005. Diffusion of the alien species Caprella scaura Templeton, 1836 (Amphipoda: Caprellidae) in the Northern Adriatic Sea. Biologia Marina Mediterranea, 12:335-337.
Takeuchi I; Sawamoto S, 1998. Distribution of caprellid amphipods (Crustacea) in the western North Pacific based on the CSK International Zooplankton Collection. Plankton Biology and Ecology, 45:225-230.
Thiel M; Haye PA, 2006. The ecology of rafting in the marine environment. III. Biogeographical and evolutionary consequences. Oceanography and Marine Biology. Oceanography and Marine Biology. An Annual Review, 44:323-429.
Willis KJ; Cook EJ; Lozano-Fernandez M; Takeuchi I, 2004. First record of the alien caprellid amphipod, Caprella mutica, for the UK. Journal of the Marine Biological Association of the United Kingdom, 84:1027-1028.
Arimoto I, 1976. Taxonomic studies of caprellids (Crustacea, Amphipoda, Caprellidae) found in the Japanese adjacent waters. In: Special publications from the Seto Marine Biological Laboratory Series III. Osaka, Japan: Nippon Printing & Publishing Co. Ltd.
Ashton G V, Willis K J, Cook E J, 2007. Global distribution of the Japanese skeleton shrimp, Caprella mutica (Crustacea, Amphipoda, Caprellidae) with a detailed account of the distribution in Scotland, UK. Hydrobiologia. 31-41.
CABI, Undated. CABI Compendium: Status inferred from regional distribution. Wallingford, UK: CABI
Cohen A N, Carlton J T, 1995. Nonindigenous aquatic species in a United States Estuary: A case study of the biological invasions of the San Francisco Bay and Delta. In: A Report for the United States Fish and Wildlife Service, Washington DC. http://www.anstaskforce.gov/sfinvade.htm
Cook E J, Jahnke M, Kerckhof F, Minchin D, Faasse M, Boos K, Ashton G, 2007. European expansion of the introduced amphipod Caprella mutica Schurin 1935. Aquatic Invasions. 2 (4), 411-421. DOI:10.3391/ai.2007.2.4.11
Pederson J, Bullock R, Carlton J, Dijkstra J, Dobroski N, Dyrynda P, Fisher R, Harris L, Hobbs N, Lambert G, Lazo-Wasem E, Mathieson A, Miglietta M-P, Smith J, Smith J III, Tyrell M, 2003. Marine Invaders in the Northeast: Rapid assessment survey of non-native and native marine species of floating dock communities. In: Report for the Massachusetts Institute of Technology Sea Grant Program, 40 pp.
Vassilenko S V, 1967. Fauna of Caprellidae (Amphipoda) of the Possjet Bay (Sea of Japan) and some data on their ecology. In: Issledovanija Fauny Morei (Explorations of the fauna of the seas of the USSR), Biotzenozy Zalika Possjet Japanskovo Morja, Vol. 5, 196-229.
OrganizationsTop of page
UK: Scottish Association for Marine Science, Dunstaffnage Marine Laboratory, Oban, Argyll, PA37 1QA, Oban, Scotland, UK, http://www.sams.ac.uk/
ContributorsTop of page
16/11/07 Original text by:
Elizabeth Cook, Scottish Association of Marine Science, Ecology Department, Dunstaffnage Marine Laboratory, Oban Argyll, Scotland, UK
Distribution MapsTop of page
Select a dataset
CABI Summary Records
Unsupported Web Browser:
One or more of the features that are needed to show you the maps functionality are not available in the web browser that you are using.
Please consider upgrading your browser to the latest version or installing a new browser.
More information about modern web browsers can be found at http://browsehappy.com/