Chelicorophium curvispinum (Caspian mud shrimp)
- 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
- Environmental Impact
- Threatened Species
- Risk and Impact Factors
- 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
- Chelicorophium curvispinum (G. O. Sars, 1895)
Preferred Common Name
- Caspian mud shrimp
Other Scientific Names
- Corophium curvispinum G. O Sars, 1895
Local Common Names
- Finland: liejukatka
- Germany: Schlickkrebs; Süßwasser-Röhrenkrebs
- Netherlands: kaspische slijkgarnaal
- Poland: belkaczek wschodni
Summary of InvasivenessTop of page
Rapid growth rate, early maturation, ability to produce several generations per year, and high fecundity made C. curvispinum a very successful invader of European waters (Van den Brink et al., 1993; Haas et al., 2002; Grabowski et al., 2007). Due to extremely high densities it reaches and its filter feeding, this species became one of the most important primary consumers, as well as an important prey item for fish in invaded ecosystems (Van den Brink et al., 1993; Haas et al., 2002; Van Riel et al., 2006). In addition, C. curvispinum is known to build mud tubes on stony substrates, often resulting in change of the physical structure of bottom relief (so called “corophiid grounds”). This may promote some epifaunal species (other amphipods, chironomids, oligochaetes, leeches, etc.), and also inhibit lithophilic organisms (e.g., Dreissena polymorpha, whose larvae fail to settle) (Van den Brink et al., 1991; Van der Velde et al., 1998; Haas et al., 2002).
Taxonomic TreeTop of page
- Domain: Eukaryota
- Kingdom: Metazoa
- Phylum: Arthropoda
- Subphylum: Crustacea
- Class: Malacostraca
- Subclass: Eumalacostraca
- Order: Amphipoda
- Suborder: Gammaridea
- Family: Corophiidae
- Genus: Chelicorophium
- Species: Chelicorophium curvispinum
Notes on Taxonomy and NomenclatureTop of page
The species was initially described as Corophium curvispinum by G. O. Sars (1985) from material collected in the Caspian Sea. A new name for this species (Corophium devium) was introduced by Wundsch (1912), who found a “new” corophiid in the Havel-Spree system near Berlin. However, it soon became apparent that C. devium was conspecific with C. curvispinum. Because of great morphological variability, C. curvispinum appeared in subsequent papers under different names, including C. curvispinum subsp. sowinskyi, C. sowinskyi, C. curvispinum subsp. sowinskyi praenatio devium, C. curvispinum praenatio fluviatilis, Cyrtophium spongicola (reviewed in Jazdzewski and Konopacka, 1996). This taxonomic problem was resolved by Mordukhaj-Boltovskoj (1947), who re-examined the original material of G. O. Sars and concluded that C. curvispinum was a good species, which, in particular, significantly differs from the sympatrically occurring C. sowinskyi. However, recent revision of the family Corophiidae has placed C. curvispinum into the new genus Chelicorophium (Bousfield and Hoover, 1997).
DescriptionTop of page
As with other gammarids, C. curvispinum has a typical laterally compressed, arched, and grey-yellow body of up to 7 mm in length (Van den Brink et al., 1993). Prominent morphological features of this species include:
· very large antennae II, with one long, well developed, and 1-2 smaller spurs on the fourth segment
· 8-10 spines and 1-2 setae on the outer margin of the pedunculus of uropod I, and 4-6 spines on its inner margin
· a sharp triangular rostrum on the head (Eggers and Martens, 2001).
Juvenile individuals resemble adults, but are much smaller in size. Detailed descriptions of C. curvispinum morphology can be found in Carausu (1943), Jazdzewski and Konopacka (1996), Eggers and Martens (2001) and Konopacka (2004).
DistributionTop of page
C. curvispinum originates from the lower reaches of large rivers of the Black Sea and Caspian Sea basins (Dedju, 1967; Vaate et al., 2002). It is one of the oldest invaders in Europe, whose spread was associated with ship traffic through the artificially constructed interbasin canals. The earliest report of this species was in the Spree-Havel system near Berlin in 1912; in 1920s it also was found in Poland where, probably, it had been established for some time (Jazdzewski and Konopacka, 2002; Vaate et al., 2002). Thus, there is no doubt that initially C. curvispinum colonized Europe through the Dnieper-Bug Canal. The second wave of its invasion in Europe occurred after re-opening of the Maine-Danube canal in 1992 (Vaate et al., 2002; Jazdzewski and Konopacka, 2002; Karatayev et al., 2008). The most westerly current locality of the species is in Ireland where it was found in 2001 (Lucy et al., 2004). It is likely that C. curvispinum was transferred to Ireland with ships coming from the United Kingdom (Crawford, 1935), a country colonised by the species in the early 1930s due to ships that were sailing from northern Germany ports (Vaate et al., 2002). Introduction of the species into Ireland from continental Europe is also possible. Nowadays, C. curvispinum is widely distributed in Europe and is considered as one of the most probable future invaders of North American waters (Ricciardi and Rasmussen, 1998). In addition to the distribution table records for Belarus, C. curvispinum is also found in the Belarusian section of the Neman River (S Mastitsky, Belarusian State University, Russia, personal communication, 2009).
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.
|Continent/Country/Region||Distribution||Last Reported||Origin||First Reported||Invasive||Reference||Notes|
|Belarus||Present||1914||Introduced||Wolski, 1930; Tischikov and Tischikov, 1999; Mastitsky and Makarevich, 2007||Pripyat River near Mozyr|
|Belgium||Present||1981||Introduced||Invasive||Brink et al., 1993||River Meuse|
|Bosnia-Hercegovina||Widespread||Introduced||Invasive||Žganec et al., 2009|
|Croatia||Present||Introduced||Invasive||Žganec et al., 2009||Drava River near Molve, Novo Virje, Karaska, Luka, Kriznica, Donji Miholjac and Sarvas. Sava River near Stara Gradiska, Davor, Slavonski Brod, Slavonski Samac, Zupanja and Gunja. Danube River near Baltina, Aljmas, Dalj and Sarengrad. Kupa River near Petrinja|
|Estonia||Present||2005||Introduced||2005||Invasive||Herkül and Kotta, 2007||Eastern Gulf of Finland near Sillamäe, in Narva Bay|
|France||Widespread||1994||Introduced||Invasive||Jazdzewski and Konopacka, 2002; Devin et al., 2003||Moselle River|
|Germany||Present||1912||Introduced||1912||Wundsch, 1912; Schellenberg, 1942; Nesemann et al., 1995; Haas et al., 2002; Riel et al., 2006||Spree-Havel river system near Berlin|
|Hungary||Present||Introduced||Muskó, 1994; Nesemann et al., 1995; Muskó et al., 2007|
|Ireland||Present||2001||Introduced||Lucy et al., 2004||Upper Lough Erne Geaglum, Lough Key, Lough Derg, Dromineer|
|Lithuania||Present||1921||Introduced||Gasiunas, 1964; Arbaciauskas, 2008|
|Netherlands||Present||Introduced||Brink et al., 1993; Josens et al., 2005||Meuse River close to the St. Andries Canal, which connects the rivers Waal and Meuse, Meuse River near Grave, close to the Meuse-Waal Canal, Lake IJsselmeer, Rhine River delta, Waal River near Nijmegen, IJssel River near Kampen|
|Poland||Present||1925||Introduced||Jazdzewski and Konopacka, 1996; Konopacka, 2004; Jazdzewski et al., 2005; Grabowski et al., 2007||Szczecin Lagoon of the Baltic Sea|
|Romania||Present||Native||Not invasive||Carausu, 1943||Danube River delta|
|Russian Federation||Present||Introduced||Invasive||Osadchikh, 1977; Mordukhaj-Boltovskoj, 1978; Jazdzewski and Konopacka, 1996; Malyavin et al., 2008|
|-Northern Russia||Present||Introduced||Invasive||Malyavin et al., 2008|
|-Southern Russia||Widespread||Native||Not invasive||Mordukhaj-Boltovskoj, 1978|
|Serbia||Widespread||2001||Introduced||Invasive||Paunovic et al., 2007||Serbian section of the Danube River|
|UK||Present||1935||Introduced||Crawford, 1935; Pygott and Douglas, 1989|
|Ukraine||Present||Introduced||Invasive||Lubyanov and Fatovenko, 1967; Lubyanov et al., 1967; Bortkevich, 1987; Pligin, 2005; Silaeva and Protasov, 2005||Dneprovskoe Reservoir, Dnieper River|
History of Introduction and SpreadTop of page
C. curvispinum is native to the lower reaches of large rivers discharging into the Black Sea and Caspian Sea (Dedju, 1967; Vaate et al., 2002; Jazdzewski and Konopacka, 2002). Its initial spread into the Baltic Sea and North Sea drainage systems likely occurred in the second half of the nineteenth century through the canals connecting the Dnieper, Vistula, Oder and Elbe basins (Vaate et al., 2002; Jazdzewski and Konopacka, 2002; Karatayev et al., 2008). The earliest report of C. curvispinum in Europe was in the Spree-Havel system near Berlin in 1912. In 1914, it was recorded from Belarus (Wolski, 1930), and then in 1920s from Poland (Jazdzewski and Konopacka, 2002); however, in both of these countries C. curvispinum was probably established well before its discovery. Through the Oginskiy Canal that linked the Dnieper River (Black Sea basin) with the Neman River (Baltic Sea basin), C. curvispinum dispersed to Lithuania, where it was found in was found in 1921 (Gasiunas, 1964). However, it may have colonized the Lithuanian section of Neman long before, sometime during the nineteenth century. By this time it may have also been present in the Belarusian part of this river (Karatayev et al., 2008). The species reached the coastal waters of the Baltic Sea via the Vistula and Neman rivers (Baltic Sea Alien Species Database, 2009).
IntroductionsTop of page
|Introduced to||Introduced from||Year||Reason||Introduced by||Established in wild through||References||Notes|
|Natural reproduction||Continuous restocking|
|Belarus||Ukraine||1850-1900||Interbasin transfers (pathway cause)
Interconnected waterways (pathway cause)
|Belgium||1970-1980||Interconnected waterways (pathway cause)||Yes||Brink et al. (1993); Josens et al. (2005)|
|Estonia||Lithuania||2005||Interconnected waterways (pathway cause)||Yes||Herkül and Kotta (2007)|
|France||1970-1980||Interconnected waterways (pathway cause)||Yes||Brink et al. (1993); Josens et al. (2005)|
|Germany||Poland||1912||Interbasin transfers (pathway cause)
Interconnected waterways (pathway cause)
|Hungary||Romania||1850-1900||Interconnected waterways (pathway cause)||Yes||Muskó (1994)|
|Ireland||2001||Yes||Lucy et al. (2004)||Ship ballast water/ sediment|
|Lithuania||Ukraine||1850-1900||Interbasin transfers (pathway cause)||Yes||Gasiunas (1964)|
|Netherlands||Germany||1987||Interconnected waterways (pathway cause)||Yes||Brink et al. (1993)|
|Poland||Ukraine||1850-1900||Interbasin transfers (pathway cause)||Yes||Jazdzewski and Konopacka (2002)|
|UK||Germany||1925-1935||Yes||Crawford (1935)||Ship ballast water/ sediment|
|Ukraine||Ukraine||1850-1900||Interconnected waterways (pathway cause)||Yes||Silaeva and Protasov (2005)||Native to the lower section of the Dnieper River, Ukraine. Shipping activity has spread it to upper sections of the river|
Risk of IntroductionTop of page
The spread of Dikerogammarus villosus across Europe has been facilitated by construction of the interbasin canals, in particular the Dnieper-Bug Canal, Dnieper-Neman Canal, and the Main-Danube Canal (Vaate et al., 2002; Karatayev et al., 2008). Common mechanisms of dispersal this species include its active migration and transportation along with boats and ships (Vaate et al., 2002). Using these pathways, C. curvispinum has also become widely distributed in Europe. The most likely region to be invaded by this amphipod in the near future is North America (Ricciardi and Rasmussen, 1998).
HabitatTop of page
C. curvispinum inhabits hard surfaces such as rocks, wood, submerged vegetation and bivalve shells (Van den Brink et al., 1993; Mastitsky and Makarevich, 2007). It is common in rivers, estuaries and other areas of brackish water. The highest densities of this species have been reported from riverine habitats with rocky substrates. In addition, there is a positive correlation between the density of C. curvispinum and such factors as water velocity and concentration of phytoplankton (Van den Brink et al., 1993).
Habitat ListTop of page
|Estuaries||Principal habitat||Harmful (pest or invasive)|
|Lagoons||Present, no further details||Harmful (pest or invasive)|
|Lagoons||Present, no further details||Natural|
|Irrigation channels||Present, no further details||Harmful (pest or invasive)|
|Lakes||Present, no further details||Harmful (pest or invasive)|
|Reservoirs||Present, no further details||Harmful (pest or invasive)|
|Rivers / streams||Principal habitat||Harmful (pest or invasive)|
Biology and EcologyTop of page
C. curvispinum is an active filter feeder that especially benefits from high concentrations of phytoplankton in large rivers (Van der Velde et al., 1998).
C. curvispinum was reported to have strong affinity to aggregations of the mollusc Dreissena spp. (Jazdzewski and Konopacka, 2002; Devin et al., 2003; Pligin, 2005), this can be explained by long co-evolution of these species in their native Ponto-Caspian basin. The shells of the dreissenids provide C. curvispinum with a good solid substrate for building its mud tubes. These tubes, in turn, often become populated with other gammarids (including the exotic Dikerogammarus haemobaphes and Dikerogammarus villosus), oligochaetes, leeches, molluscs, and chironomids (Lubyanov et al., 1967). However, excessive production of mud tubes may negatively affect lithophilic species by inhibiting their successful settlement (Haas et al., 2002).
Water TolerancesTop of page
|Parameter||Minimum Value||Maximum Value||Typical Value||Status||Life Stage||Notes|
|Depth (m b.s.l.)||2||3||Optimum||5 tolerated (Van den Brink et al., 1993)|
|Dissolved oxygen (mg/l)||9||10||Optimum||(Van den Brink et al., 1993)|
|Salinity (part per thousand)||Optimum||<6 preferred; 6 tolerated (Van den Brink et al., 1993)|
|Suspended solids (mg/l)||30||Optimum||(Van den Brink et al., 1993)|
|Velocity (cm/h)||100||Optimum||Lower limt of <0.1 and upper limit of 200 tolerated (Van den Brink et al., 1993)|
|Water temperature (ºC temperature)||20||Optimum||Lower limit tolerated close to 0|
Natural enemiesTop of page
|Natural enemy||Type||Life stages||Specificity||References||Biological control in||Biological control on|
|Abramis brama||Predator||Adult/Juveniles||not specific||Brink et al., 1993|
|Acipenser ruthenus||Predator||Adult/Juveniles||not specific||Brink et al., 1993|
|Acipenser stellatus||Predator||Adult/Juveniles||not specific||Brink et al., 1993|
|Alburnus alburnus||Predator||Adult/Juveniles||not specific||Brink et al., 1993|
|Anguilla anguilla||Predator||Adult/Juveniles||not specific||Brink et al., 1993|
|Barbatula barbatula||Predator||Adult/Juveniles||not specific||Brink et al., 1993|
|Cottus gobio||Predator||Adult/Juveniles||not specific||Brink et al., 1993|
|Dictyocoela||Parasite||Adult||not specific||Prokop et al., 2006|
|Dikerogammarus villosus||Predator||Adult/Juveniles||not specific||Riel et al., 2006|
|Gobio gobio||Predator||Adult/Juveniles||not specific||Brink et al., 1993|
|Gymnocephalus cernuus||Predator||Adult/Juveniles||to species||Brink et al., 1993|
|Neogobius gymnotrachelus||Predator||Adult/Juveniles||not specific||Grabowska and Grabowski, 2005|
|Perca fluviatilis||Predator||Adult/Juveniles||not specific||Brink et al., 1993|
|Pomphorhynchus||Parasite||Adult||not specific||Riel et al., 2003|
|Sander lucioperca||Predator||Adult/Juveniles||not specific||Brink et al., 1993|
Notes on Natural EnemiesTop of page
Being present in high numbers, C. curvispinum is readily consumed by fish. This amphipod has been documented in the field as a food item of at least 12 fish species, 8 of which were reported from the introduced range of C. curvispinum (Van den Brink et al., 1993). In the River Rhine, C. curvispinum was also found to be consumed by another Ponto-Caspian invader – the predacious amphipod Dikerogammarus villosus (Van Riel et al., 2006).
Studies on parasites of C. curvispinum are extremely scarce, with data from its native range completely lacking. In its introduced range, C. curvispinum has been documented to host a microsporidian parasite (Prokop et al., 2006) and an acanthocephalan parasite (Van Riel et al., 2003). The latter acanthocephalan species, Pomphorhynchus sp., has been suspected to be responsible for the recent decline of C. curvispinum in two Dutch rivers (Van Riel et al., 2003).
Means of Movement and DispersalTop of page
Natural dispersal of C. curvispinum occurs by active migrations (Vaate et al., 2002; Jazdzewski and Konopacka, 2002; Josens et al., 2005). The speed of active upstream range extension of C. curvispinummay reach up to 15 km/year (Josens et al., 2005).
Intentional introductions of C. curvispinum, though possible, have not been reported.
Pathway CausesTop of page
Pathway VectorsTop of page
Impact SummaryTop of page
|Environment (generally)||Positive and negative|
Environmental ImpactTop of page
C. curvispinum is one of the most successful invaders of European fresh and brackish waters. Rapid growth rate, early maturation, ability to produce up to three generations per year, and high fecundity allowed this species to form extremely high densities in a number of invaded waterbodies (Van den Brink et al., 1993; Haas et al., 2002; Grabowski et al., 2007). The maximum density of C. curvispinum in its introduced range was reported from the lower River Rhine, The Netherlands at 700,000 individuals/m2 (Van den Brink et al., 1993). Due to its occurrence at high densities and filter feeding nature, C. curvispinum has become one of the most important primary consumers in the invaded ecosystems (Haas et al., 2002). At the same time, this species can serve as a prey item for a number of other species, including fish (Van den Brink et al., 1993; Grabowska and Grabowski, 2005) and gammarids (Van Riel et al., 2006).
Threatened SpeciesTop of page
Risk and Impact FactorsTop of page Invasiveness
- Proved invasive outside its native range
- Abundant in its native range
- Highly adaptable to different environments
- Is a habitat generalist
- Tolerates, or benefits from, cultivation, browsing pressure, mutilation, fire etc
- Highly mobile locally
- Fast growing
- Has high reproductive potential
- Altered trophic level
- Damaged ecosystem services
- Ecosystem change/ habitat alteration
- Modification of natural benthic communities
- Modification of nutrient regime
- Reduced native biodiversity
- Threat to/ loss of native species
- Competition - monopolizing resources
- Pest and disease transmission
- Rapid growth
- Highly likely to be transported internationally accidentally
- Difficult to identify/detect as a commodity contaminant
- Difficult to identify/detect in the field
- Difficult/costly to control
UsesTop of page
C. curvispinum does not possess any economic value or social benefits. It is not used in environmental services.
Detection and InspectionTop of page
Adult C. curvispinum can relatively easily be identified in the field using the descriptions provided by Carausu (1943), Jazdzewski and Konopacka (1996), Eggers and Martens (2001), Konopacka (2004) and Dobson (2012). Juveniles are harder to identify as most of the specific morphological features in such individuals are underdeveloped. The amphipods can be collected using standard nets used for benthic sampling (e.g., rectangular dipnet).
Similarities to Other Species/ConditionsTop of page
C. curvispinum can be confused with another congener currently spreading in Europe – Chelicorophium sowinskyi. These two species, however, differ morphologically, and the differences can be seen in both sexes, but in different appendages or in different parts of appendages. In general, C. sowinskyi is a more hairy form, a character that is especially prominent in males. A detailed comparison of distinguishing features of C. curvispinum and C. sowinskyi can be found in Jazdzewski and Konopacka (1996). A UK identification guide to invasive freshwater shrimps and isopods includes species present in the UK and others that are invasive across Europe (Dobson, 2012).
Prevention and ControlTop of page Prevention
Early Warning Systems
A number of open-access Internet databases and thematic websites can be used as the early warning systems since they provide maps of the current distribution of C. curvispinum in Europe, as well as georeferenced information on the recent findings of this amphipod. Examples of such websites are as follows:
DAISIE Database on Alien Species in Europe (http://europe-aliens.org/)
Aquatic Invaders of Belarus: Alien Species Database (http://www.aliensinbelarus.com)
Website of the online journal ‘Aquatic Invasions’ (http://www.aquaticinvasions.net)
There are no ecologically sound measures for eradication of C. curvispinum on a waterbody-wide scale.
There are no acknowledged methods to control or remove C. curvispinum.
No Integrated Pest Management programs for C. curvispinum have been developed.
Monitoring and Surveillance
There are no specific monitoring programmes aimed at early detection and tracking of C. curvispinum.
Gaps in Knowledge/Research NeedsTop of page
There are several significant gaps and uncertainties in the current understanding of the biology and ecology of C. curvispinum, including:
- environmental requirements
- natural enemies
- genetic diversity
- factors controlling the seasonal patterns of reproduction
- control menthods.
ReferencesTop of page
Bousfield EL; Hoover PM, 1997. The amphipod superfamily Corophioidea on the Pacific coast of North America. Part V. Family Corophiidae. Corophiinae new subfamily. Systematic and distributional ecology. Amphipacifica, 2(3):67-139.
Brink FWB den; Velde G der; Bij Vaate A de, 1993. Ecological aspects, explosive range extension and impact of a mass invader, Corophium curvispinum Sars, 1895 (Crustacea: Amphipoda), in the Lower Rhine (The Netherlands). Oecologia, 93:224-232.
Dobson M, 2012. Identifying Invasive Freshwater Shrimps and Isopods., UK: Freshwater Biological Association, 30 pp. https://secure.fera.defra.gov.uk/nonnativespecies/news/index.cfm?id=77
Gasiunas II, 1964. Representatives of the Caspian fauna in the waterbodies of Lithuania. In: Abstracts of the XI Scientific conference on studies of inland waters of the Baltic Sea region, 24-28 November 1964, Petrozavodsk, 66-67.
Haas G; Brunke M; Strei B, 2002. Fast turnover in dominance of exotic species in the Rhine River determines biodiversity and ecosystem function: an affair between amphipods and mussels. In: Invasive Aquatic Species of Europe: Distribution, Impacts and Management [ed. by Leppakoski E, Gollasch S, Olenin] Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer Academic Publishers, 426-432.
Herbst V; Bäthe J, 1993. The current distribution of the genus Corophium (Crustacea: Amphipoda) in the Weser. (Die aktuelle Verbreitung der Gattung Corophium (Crustacea: Amphipoda) in der Weser) Lauterbornia, 13:27-35.
Herkül K; Kotta J, 2007. New records of the amphipods Chelicorophium curvispinum, Gammarus tigrinus, G. duebeni, and G. lacustris in the Estonian coastal sea. Proceedings of the Estonian Academy of Sciences. Biology and Ecology, 56:290-296.
Jazdzewski K; Konopacka A, 1996. Remarks on the morphology, taxonomy and distribution of Corophium curvispinum G. Sars, 1985 and Corophium sowinskyi Martynov, 1924 (Crustacea, Amphipoda, Corophiidae). Bollettino del Museo Civico di Storia Naturale di Verona, 20:487-501.
Jazdzewski K; Konopacka A, 2002. Invasive Ponto-Caspian species in waters of the Vistula and Oder basins and the southern Baltic Sea. In: Invasive aquatic species of Europe: Distribution, impacts and management [ed. by Leppäkoski E, Gollasch S, Olenin] Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer Academic Publishers, 384-398.
Josens G; Vaate A bij de; Usseglio-Polatera P; Cammaerts R; Cherot F; Grisez F; Verboonen P; Bossche JP vanden, 2005. Native and exotic Amphipoda and other Peracarida in the River Meuse: new assemblages emerge from a fast changing fauna. Hydrobiologia, 542:203-220.
Lubyanov IP; Buzakova AM; Gaydash YK, 1967. Changes in composition of macro- and microzoobenthos of the Dneprovskoe Reservoir after establishment of regulated run-off in the middle course of the Dnieper River. In: Hydrobiological regime of the Dnieper River under conditions of regulated run-off [ed. by Vladimirova KS, Zerov KK, Melnichuk GL, Olivari GA, Tseeb YY] Kiev, : Naukova Dumka Press, 167-175.
Lubyanov IP; Fatovenko MA, 1967. First stages of formation of the bottom fauna of the Dneprodzerzhinskoe Reservoir. In: Hydrobiological regime of the Dnieper River under conditions of regulated run-off [ed. by Vladimirova KS, Zerov KK, Melnichuk GL, Olivari GA, Tseeb YY] Kiev, : Naukova Dumka Press, 147-158.
Mordukhaj-Boltovskoj FD, 1978. The composition and distribution of Caspian fauna according to modern data. In: Proceedings of the All-Union hydrobiological society "Elements of aquatic ecosystems" Moscow, : Nauka Press, 100-139.
Prokop ZM; Dunn AM; Smith JE; Grabowski M, 2006. Genetic diversity and microsporidian parasites in a Ponto-Caspian invader Chelicorophium curvispinum. In: Abstracts of the Symposium "An Evolutionary Aspect of Biological Invasions", Fribourg, Switzerland.
Pygott JR; Douglas S, 1989. Current distribution of Corophium curvispinum Sars var devium Wundsch (Crustacea: Amphipoda) in Britain with notes on its ecology in the Shropshire Union canal. Naturalist, 114:15-17.
Ricciardi A; Rasmussen JB, 1998. Predicting the identity and impact of future biological invaders: a priority for aquatic resource management. Canadian Journal of Aquatic and Fisheries Science, 55:1759-1765.
Riel MC Van; Velde G der; Bij Vaata A de, 2003. Pomphorynchus spec. (Acanthocephala) uses the invasive amphipod Chelicorophium curvispinum (G. Sars, 1895) as an intermediate host in the River Rhine. Crustaceana, 76:241-246.
Riel MC van; Velde G van der; Rajagopal S; Marguillier S; Dehairs F; Vaate A bij de, 2006. Trophic relationships in the Rhine food web during invasion and after establishment of the Ponto-Caspian invader Dikerogammarus villosus. Hydrobiologia, 565:39-58.
Sars GO, 1895. Crustacea Caspia. Contributions to the knowledge ofthe Carcinological Fauna of the Caspian Sea. Part III. Amphipoda. Third Article. Gammaridae (concluded). Corophiidae. Bulletin of the Academy of St.-Petersburg, ser. 5, 3:275-314.
Silaeva AA; Protasov AA, 2005. On cohabitation of alien species in periphyton and benthos. In: Abstracts of the Second International Symposium "Alien Species in Holarctic (Borok-2)", Borok, Russia, 27 September-1 October 2005 [ed. by Dgebuadze YY, Slynko YV].
Tischikov GM; Tischikov IG, 1999. Macrozoobenthos fauna in the middle and low Berezina River. In: Proceedings of the International conference on aquatic ecosystems "The results and future of aquatic ecology research" [ed. by Karatayev AY] Minsk, : Belarusian State University Press, 251-264.
Vaate A bij de; Jazdzewski K; Ketelaars HAM; Gollash S; Velde G van der, 2002. Geographical patterns in range extension of Ponto-Caspian macroinvertebrate species in Europe. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences, 59:1159-1174.
Velde G der; Rajagopal S; Brink FWB den; Kelleher B; Paffen BGP; Kempers AJ; Bij Vaate A de, 1998. Ecological impact of an exotic invasion in the River Rhine. In: New concepts for sustainable management of river basins [ed. by Nienhuis PH, Leuven RSEW, Ragas AMJ] Leiden, Netherlands: Backhuys Publishing, 159-169.
Wundsch HH, 1912. A new species of the genus Corophium Latr. from the Müggelsee near Berlin. (Eine neue Species des Genus Corophium Latr. aus dem Müggelsee bei Berlin) Zoologische Anzeiger, 39:729-738.
OrganizationsTop of page
Belgium: Service de systématique et d’écologie animales, Université Libre de Bruxelles, Av. Roosevelt, 50, cp 160/13, B-1050 Bruxelles, http://www.ulb.ac.be/homepage_uk.html
France: Laboratoire des Interactions Ecotoxicologie, Biodiversité, Ecosystèmes, Campus Bridoux, Rue du Général Delestraint - 57070 METZ, http://www.liebe.univ-metz.fr/tebe-e.htm
Russian Federation: Institute of Zoology, Russian Academy of Sciences, Universitetskaya emb. 1, St.-Petersburg, 199034, http://www.zin.ru
Northern Ireland: Queen's University - School of Biological Sciences, 97 Lisburn Road, Belfast, BT9 7BL, http://www.qub.ac.uk/schools/SchoolofBiologicalScience
Ukraine: Institute of Hydrobiology, National Academy of Sciences of Ukraine, 12 Heroyiv Stalingradu Ave, Kyiv, 04210, http://www.nas.gov.ua/en/Structure/dgb/ihb/Pages/default.aspx
ContributorsTop of page
26/06/09 Original text by:
Sergey Mastitsky, Belarusian State University, Biology Faculty, General Ecology Dept., Nezalezhnasti 4 ave., 220030 Minsk, Belarus, Russia
Distribution MapsTop of page
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/