Umbra pygmaea (eastern mudminnow)
- 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
- Natural Food Sources
- Latitude/Altitude Ranges
- Air Temperature
- Water Tolerances
- Natural enemies
- Notes on Natural Enemies
- Means of Movement and Dispersal
- Pathway Causes
- Pathway Vectors
- Impact Summary
- Environmental 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
- Principal Source
- 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
- Umbra pygmaea (DeKay, 1842)
Preferred Common Name
- eastern mudminnow
Other Scientific Names
- Fundulus fuscus Ayres, 1843
- Leuciscus pygmaeus DeKay, 1842
- Melanura annulata Agassiz, 1853
- Umbra limi pygmaea DeKay, 1842
International Common Names
- English: striped mudminnow
- French: petit poisson chien; poisson chien; umbre pygmée
- Russian: karlikovaya evdoshka
- Chinese: ai yin yú
Local Common Names
- Belgium: Amerikaanse hondsvis
- Denmark: lille hundefisk
- Finland: pikkukoirakala
- Germany: Amerikanischer Hundsfisch; Kleiner Hundsfisch
- Netherlands: Amerikaanse hondsvis
- Romania: tiganus
- Sweden: dvärghundfisk
Summary of InvasivenessTop of page
U. pygmaea is a small bodied fish native to the Atlantic and Gulf slopes of the USA (Page and Burr, 1991). It was imported in the early 20th century to Europe (France, Belgium, Germany and the Netherlands) for ornamental reasons and as food for imported North American salmonids (Verreycken et al., 2010). More recent introductions have occurred in Poland (Grabowska et al., 2010) and Denmark (Nielsen, 2012). The largest number of localities in Europe is in southeast Netherlands and northeast Belgium (Verreycken et al., 2010). In its introduced range, U. pygmaea reaches its highest abundances in lentic waters, especially moorland pools (Dederen et al., 1986), where it has little competition from other species (Verreycken et al., 2010). Aquaculture and other ponds are a major source of individuals in riverine populations (Verreycken et al., 2010). U. pygmaea demonstrates a great tolerance of poor habitat quality, such as low pH, temperature and oxygen saturation (Poll, 1949; Dederen et al., 1986). Negative impacts of U. pygmaea are generally described as low to medium (Verreycken et al., 2010; Froese and Pauly, 2014), especially in riverine systems, but it may be considered a high impact species in ditches with dense vegetation or in waters without other fish species (such as acid moorland pools) (Dederen et al., 1986).
Taxonomic TreeTop of page
- Domain: Eukaryota
- Kingdom: Metazoa
- Phylum: Chordata
- Subphylum: Vertebrata
- Class: Actinopterygii
- Class: Umbra pygmaea
- Order: Esociformes
- Family: Umbridae
- Genus: Umbra
- Species: Umbra pygmaea
Notes on Taxonomy and NomenclatureTop of page
Umbra pygmaea was originally described by DeKay (1842) as Leuciscus pygmaeus. U. pygmaea is one of three members in the genus Umbra (family Umbridae); namely, two North American species, U. pygmaea (eastern mudminnow) and U. limi (central mudminnow), and one European species, U. krameri (European mudminnow) (Kottelat and Freyhof, 2007). Schmidt and Daniels (2006) designated neotypes for both U. pygmaea and U.limi, because the original descriptions (DeKay (1842) and Kirtland (1840), respectively) did not provide enough information to allow an identification of either species.
DescriptionTop of page
U. pygmaea is a small bodied fish (15 cm TL) with a robust body cylindrical near the head and slightly compressed towards the tail. The snout is short, with the mandible slightly protruding beyond the tip of the upper jaw. All fins are rounded, dorsal fin inserted far at the back, just behind the pelvic fins. Pigmentation is yellowish green with 10-12 narrow lateral dark stripes. A prominent dark blotch is visible at the caudal base (Kottelat and Freyhof, 2007; Froese and Pauly, 2014).
DistributionTop of page
U. pygmaea is native to the Atlantic and Gulf slopes of the USA, from southeastern New York (including Long Island) to St. Johns River drainage in Florida and west to Aucilla River drainage in Florida and Georgia (Page and Burr, 1991). It was imported in the early 20th century to Europe for ornamental reasons and as food for imported North American salmonids. It now occurs in six European countries: France, Belgium, Germany, the Netherlands, Poland and Denmark (Verreycken et al., 2010).
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|
|Belgium||Present, Localized||Introduced||Only abundant in north-east of Belgium|
|Denmark||Present, Few occurrences||Introduced||Only present in Oksbøl (West Jutland)|
|France||Present, Few occurrences||Introduced||Population in Central France (near Lapalisse) probably D (Keith, pers. comm.)|
|Germany||Present, Few occurrences||Introduced||Only 7 records|
|Netherlands||Present, Localized||Introduced||Only abundant in southeastern provinces, (adjacent to Belgium) Noord-Brabant and Limburg|
|Poland||Present, Few occurrences||Introduced||Only reported from some small tributaries in River Oder system|
|United States||Present||Present based on regional distribution.|
|-Delaware||Present, Widespread||Native||NatureServe (2014)|
|-District of Columbia||Present, Widespread||Native||NatureServe (2014)|
|-Florida||Present, Localized||Native||NatureServe (2014)|
|-Georgia||Present, Localized||Native||NatureServe (2014)|
|-Maryland||Present, Widespread||Native||NatureServe (2014)|
|-New Jersey||Present, Widespread||Native||NatureServe (2014)|
|-New York||Present, Localized||Native||NatureServe (2014)|
|-North Carolina||Present, Widespread||Native||NatureServe (2014)|
|-Pennsylvania||Present, Widespread||Native||NatureServe (2014)|
|-South Carolina||Present, Widespread||Native||NatureServe (2014)|
|-Virginia||Present, Widespread||Native||NatureServe (2014)|
History of Introduction and SpreadTop of page
U. pygmaea was imported from the USA in the late 19th/early 20th century to Europe (France, Belgium, Germany and The Netherlands) (Verreycken et al., 2010). It has more recently been introduced to Poland (Grabowska et al., 2010) and Denmark (Nielsen, 2012). Despite being introduced into Europe over 100 years ago, the distribution of U. pygmaea is still limited in most of the countries where it now occurs (with only one site in Denmark and less than 10 localities each in France and Poland). However, southeast Netherlands and northeast Belgium harbour U. pygmaea in many localities (more than 900). The spread in the non-native range seems to be very slow and is mainly human mediated (due to its use as live bait or aquarium fish, or escapes from aquaculture ponds infested with U. pygmaea) (Verreycken et al., 2010).
IntroductionsTop of page
|Introduced to||Introduced from||Year||Reason||Introduced by||Established in wild through||References||Notes|
|Natural reproduction||Continuous restocking|
|Belgium||Netherlands||1920||Aquaculture (pathway cause)
Ornamental purposes (pathway cause)
|Yes||Verreycken et al. (2007); Verreycken et al. (2010)||Dispersal from the Netherlands|
|Denmark||1987||Fisheries (pathway cause)||Yes||Verreycken et al. (2010)||Release of live bait|
|France||1910||Aquaculture (pathway cause)||Yes||Verreycken et al. (2010)||Accidental introduction in ponds from either USA or Belgium|
|Germany||1919||Aquaculture (pathway cause)
Ornamental purposes (pathway cause)
|Yes||Verreycken et al. (2010)||Introduced as forage for American salmonids from either USA or Netherlands|
|Netherlands||1900s||Aquaculture (pathway cause)||Yes||Verreycken et al. (2010)||Escapes from aquaculture facilities, maybe from Germany|
|Poland||1995||Aquarium trade (pathway cause)
Ornamental purposes (pathway cause)
|Yes||Grabowska et al. (2010)||Aquaculture releases|
Risk of IntroductionTop of page
The risk of introduction from its native area seems very small, but unintentional introduction from infested aquaculture ponds to other ponds in its non-native range, as happened in the Marne region, France (Guidou and Keith, 2002), or escapes/drifts from ponds into riverine systems are still possible (Crombaghs et al., 2000; Verreycken et al., 2010). Intentional releases from aquaria (Grabowski et al., 2010) or use as live bait (Nielsen, 2012) cannot be excluded as potential sources of introduction (Verreycken et al., 2010).
HabitatTop of page
The typical habitat of U. pygmaea is lowland waters with little to no streamflow, such as backwaters, ponds and irrigation channels (Kottelat and Freyhof, 2007). In its introduced range, the highest abundances are reached in lentic waters such as floodplain waters and especially moorland pools (Dederen et al., 1986), where U. pygmaea has little competition from other species. Aquaculture and other ponds are a major source of individuals in riverine populations (Verreycken et al., 2010).
Habitat ListTop of page
|Freshwater||Irrigation channels||Present, no further details||Natural|
|Freshwater||Rivers / streams||Secondary/tolerated habitat||Natural|
|Freshwater||Ponds||Principal habitat||Harmful (pest or invasive)|
Biology and EcologyTop of page
Haploid chromosome number is 11, diploid 22 (Froese and Pauly, 2014). Natural hybridization between U. pygmaea and U. limi in the Hudson River drainage (New York state) was documented by Schmidt and Daniels (2006).
Age at maturity is 1.7 ± 0.3 yrs. The species is oviparous. Maximum fecundity is around 2000 ± 700 eggs. Spawning takes place in April and May at temperatures between 9 and 15°C. U. pymaea females build nests and guard them. The larvae remain in algal nests for about 6 days (Froese and Pauly, 2014; Kuehne and Olden, 2014).
Physiology and Phenology
U. pygmaea demonstrates great adaptability and tolerance of poor habitat quality, such as low pH, temperature and oxygen saturation (Poll, 1949; Dederen et al., 1986). Poll (1949) documented an incident where an U. pygmaea individual survived a whole night out of water. Extremely low pH-values (pH 3) were tolerated in an experimental setup without any mortality, and eggs and fry were observed in waters with a pH as low as 3.5 (Dederen et al., 1986). In natural environments, Dederen et al. (1986) found U. pygmaea in waters pH ranging from 3.5 to 8.1.
Population Size and Density
Densities in lotic waters in Belgium ranged from 0.2 to 664.0 individuals per 100 m of continuous electrofishing, with the majority of the sampling sites (51.2%) containing between 1.0 and 10.0 individuals per 100 m (Verreycken et al., 2010). den Hartog and Wendelaar-Bonga (1990) reported densities of up to 20 kg/ha in moorland pools in the Netherlands. Densities may be even higher (up to 250 kg/ha) in otherwise fishless pools (Verreycken, personal observation).
U. pygmaea is a bottom-feeding generalist and mainly feeds on insect larvae, worms, molluscs and crustaceans. Panek and Weis (2013) found a broad diet consisting of 13-17 distinct prey classes. Although regarded as an invertivore, fish alevins (sac fry) are also eaten (Froese and Pauly, 2014). Cannibalism was documented by Panek and Weis (2013) during the summer season.
Natural Food SourcesTop of page
|Food Source||Food Source Datasheet||Life Stage||Contribution to Total Food Intake (%)||Details|
|Macro invertebrates||All Stages||chironomid larvae, Ephemeroptera, Asellidae, Odonata and Coleoptera|
|Nekton||All Stages||fish unidentified, U. pygmaea|
|Zoobenthos||All Stages||insects, crustaceans, worms, mollusks, gastropods|
|Zooplankton||All Stages||cladocerans, copepods|
ClimateTop of page
|Cs - Warm temperate climate with dry summer||Preferred||Warm average temp. > 10°C, Cold average temp. > 0°C, dry summers|
Latitude/Altitude RangesTop of page
|Latitude North (°N)||Latitude South (°S)||Altitude Lower (m)||Altitude Upper (m)|
Air TemperatureTop of page
|Parameter||Lower limit||Upper limit|
|Absolute minimum temperature (ºC)||0|
|Mean annual temperature (ºC)||4||23|
|Mean maximum temperature of hottest month (ºC)||35|
|Mean minimum temperature of coldest month (ºC)||0|
Water TolerancesTop of page
|Parameter||Minimum Value||Maximum Value||Typical Value||Status||Life Stage||Notes|
|Ammonium [ionised] (mg/l)||1.46||18.49||Harmful||Dederen et al. (1986)|
|Conductivity (µmhos/cm)||0.000127||0.00125||Harmful||Verreycken et al. (2010)|
|Depth (m b.s.l.)||Optimum||Mainly in waters <1m deep (Crombaghs et al., 2000), mean water depth 0.51 (range 0.15 – 1.20 m) (Verreycken et al., 2010)|
|Dissolved oxygen (mg/l)||0||20.4||Harmful||Poll (1949), Verreycken et al. (2010)|
|Hardness (mg/l of Calcium Carbonate)||50||140||Optimum||Froese and Pauly (2014), Dederen et al. (1986)|
|Hardness (mg/l of Calcium Carbonate)||10||Harmful||Froese and Pauly (2014), Dederen et al. (1986)|
|Salinity (part per thousand)||0||10||Harmful||Hoese (1963)|
|Turbidity (JTU turbidity)||0.39||2.24||Harmful||Dederen et al. (1986)|
|Velocity (cm/h)||0||18000||Optimum||Crombaghs et al. (2000), Verreycken et al. (2010)|
|Velocity (cm/h)||0||1584000||Harmful||Crombaghs et al. (2000), Verreycken et al. (2010)|
|Water pH (pH)||6.0||6.5||Optimum||Froese and Pauly (2014), Verreycken et al. (2010), Dederen et al. (1986)|
|Water pH (pH)||3.2||8.5||Harmful||Froese and Pauly (2014), Verreycken et al. (2010), Dederen et al. (1986)|
|Water temperature (ºC temperature)||0.1||23||Harmful||14°C-15°C optimal spawning temperature (Lippson & Moran, 1974) 10 – 15°C (Kottelat & Freyhof, 2017)|
Natural enemiesTop of page
|Natural enemy||Type||Life stages||Specificity||References||Biological control in||Biological control on|
|Alcedo atthis||Predator||All Stages||not specific||n/a|
|Esox lucius||Predator||All Stages||not specific||n/a|
|Perca fluviatilis||Predator||All Stages||not specific||n/a|
|Podiceps cristatus||Predator||All Stages||not specific|
|Sander lucioperca||Predator||All Stages||not specific||n/a|
Notes on Natural EnemiesTop of page
Verreycken et al. (2010) found no significant correlation between the number of U. pygmaea and the numbers of fish predators (pike Esox lucius, pikeperch Sander lucioperca and perch Perca fluviatilis more than 20 cm) in a sample site in Flemish lotic water. However, for lentic waters, Dederen et al. (1986) reported an inverse relation between the abundance of U. pygmaea and the presence of predatory fish species. In its native range, Panek (1981) similarly found an inverse relation with the number of fish species present. Grebe (Podiceps cristatus) is a possible regulator mudminnow densities (den Hartog and Wendelaar-Bonga, 1990).
Means of Movement and DispersalTop of page
Natural dispersal seems very slow and densities in lotic waters are generally low (Verreycken et al., 2010).
Escapes from earthen aquaculture and other ponds are a major source of Umbra specimens in riverine populations (Guidou and Keith, 2002; Verreycken et al., 2010). Belgian pisciculturists unintentionally spread U. pygmaea to several ponds in the Marne region (France) in the 1980s.
Originally U. pygmaea was imported as food for North American salmonids in Europe. It was later also introduced from the USA as an ornamental species. The release of live bait by anglers in Denmark and the release of ornamental fish in Poland were reported to be the sources of introduction in those countries (Verreycken et al., 2010).
Pathway CausesTop of page
|Aquaculture||Imported as food for aquaculture of North American salmonids||Yes||Wolter, 2009; Wolter and Röhr, 2010|
|Escape from confinement or garden escape||Releases and escapes from aquaria||Yes||Verreycken et al., 2010|
|Hitchhiker||Belgian pisciculturists unintentionally spread U. pygmaea in several ponds in Marne region (France)||Yes||Guidou and Keith, 2002; Verreycken et al., 2010|
|Hunting, angling, sport or racing||Release of live bait from anglers||Yes||Verreycken et al., 2010|
|Interconnected waterways||Dispersal between southern Netherlands and northern Belgium||Yes||Verreycken et al., 2010|
|Ornamental purposes||Yes||Grabowska et al., 2010|
|Pet trade||Imported from USA for aquariarists||Yes||Verreycken et al., 2010|
Pathway VectorsTop of page
Impact SummaryTop of page
Environmental ImpactTop of page
Impact on Biodiversity
Negative impacts on biodiversity are generally described as low to medium (Verreycken et al., 2010; Froese and Pauly, 2014), especially in riverine systems. U. pygmaea may be considered a high impact species in ditches with dense vegetation or in waters without other fish species (Dederen et al., 1986). In moorland pools U. pygmaea may even play an important role as a top predator (Dederen et al., 1986). Vooren (1972) reported heavy predation on (protected) amphibian larvae.
Risk and Impact FactorsTop of page
- 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
- Threat to/ loss of endangered species
- Threat to/ loss of native species
- Highly likely to be transported internationally accidentally
- Highly likely to be transported internationally deliberately
- Highly likely to be transported internationally illegally
- Difficult to identify/detect as a commodity contaminant
- Difficult/costly to control
UsesTop of page
U. pymaea has been suggested as possible control agents for Aedes mosquitoes in marshes and slow-moving vegetated streams in the USA (Slavin et al., 1977).
In moorland marshes in its non-native range, it may be a primary food source for grebe and common kingfisher Alcedo atthis (Vooren, 1970; Dederen et al., 1986).
Uses ListTop of page
Animal feed, fodder, forage
- Fodder/animal feed
- Biological control
- Laboratory use
- Pet/aquarium trade
- Research model
- Sport (hunting, shooting, fishing, racing)
DiagnosisTop of page
Genetic diagnosis can be performed. There are 10 barcode sequences available for U. pygmaea from BOLD and GenBank (Encyclopedia of Life, 2015).
Detection and InspectionTop of page
U. pymaea may be detected using conventional fish sampling methods (boat and backpack electrofishers, fyke nets, seines and minnow traps). Once captured, the species is easily identified in its native as well as non-native region because, save a few exceptions, there is no overlap in area with its close congeners U. limi (found in North America) and U. krameri (found in the Danube drainage, Europe). Analysis of meristics, morphometry and genetics can help, using the dichotomous keys such as Page and Burr (1991) or descriptions from Schmidt and Daniels (2006) and Kottelat and Freyhof (2007).
Similarities to Other Species/ConditionsTop of page
U. pygmaea looks very similar to its close congeners U. limi (found in North America) and U. krameri (found in Europe).
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.
Prohibition of the sale of U. pygmaea in the aquarium trade could restrict the non-native area and prevent further spread. In addition, better control of fish stocking with fish from infested ponds could help prevent further introductions.
Eradication in a closed system may be feasible using piscicides (such as rotenone), especially in ponds where U. pygmaea is the only fish species present. Physical removal, even after draining a pond, seems very difficult, if not impossible, given that this species can survive buried in mud. In open systems eradication would be even more problematic.
Physical control of closed water systems may be feasible by removing the majority of the fish by draining the water or by catching the fish with fykes and/or nets.
Grebe (Podiceps cristatus) is a possible regulator of Umbra densities (den Hartog and Wendelaar-Bonga, 1990). Pike (Esox lucius) and other fish predators may help to reduce U. pygmaea populations, as Dederen et al. (1986) reported an inverse relation between the abundance of U. pygmaea and the presence of predatory fish species.
Chemical control in a closed system may be feasible using piscicides (such as rotenone), especially in ponds where U. pygmaea is the only fish species present.
Monitoring and Surveillance (incl. Remote Sensing)
Regular fish monitoring programmes (using electrofishing, fykes or seine nets) may detect U. pygmaea. In the near future, e-DNA may also be a sampling method.
Gaps in Knowledge/Research NeedsTop of page
It is not clear whether the situation has changed since Verreycken et al. (2010) reported the distribution of U. pygmaea’s non-native range. International cooperation would be needed to gather the current distribution in the non-native range again. In addition, more work is needed to study the impacts of U. pygmaea in lotic and especially lentic waters (such as predation on amphibian larvae and aquatic invertebrates).
ReferencesTop of page
Crombaghs BHJM; Akkermans RW; Gubbels REMB; Hoogerwerf G, 2000. The distribution and ecology of fish in flowing waters in Limburg. 496 pp.
Dederen LHT; Leuven RSEW; Wendelaar-Bonga SE; Oyen FGF, 1986. Biology of the acid-tolerant fish species Umbra pygmaea (DeKay, 1842). Journal of Fish Biology, 28:307-326.
Encyclopedia of Life, 2015. Encyclopedia of Life. www.eol.org
Froese R; Pauly D, 2014. FishBase. http://www.fishbase.org
Geiter O; Homma S; Kinzelbach R, 2002. Inventory and assessment of invasive species in Germany. (Bestandsaufnahme und Bewertung von Neozoen in Deutschland.) Texte des Umweltbundesamtes 2002 [Texts of the Federal Environmental Office in 2002]. 174+36+31+52 pp.
Guidou F; Keith P, 2002. Population status of Umbra pygmaea pygmy umbre (DeKay, 1842) in the department of Marne. (Etat des populations de l'umbre pygmée Umbra pygmaea (DeKay, 1842) dans le département de la Marne.) Bulletin Français de la Pêche et de la Pisciculture [Bulletin of French Fishing and Aquaculture], 365/366:549-552. doi:10.1051/kmae:2002051
Hartog Cden; Wendelaar-Bonga SE, 1990. Umbra pygmaea, an acid-tolerant fish. Naturwissenschaffen, 77:40-41.
Hoese HD, 1963. Salt tolerance of the eastern mudminnow Umbra pygmaea. Copeia, 1:165-166.
Hooftman RN; Vink GL, 1981. Cytogenetic effects of the eastern mudminnow, Umbra pygmaea, exposed to ethyl methanesulfonate, benzo[a]pyrene, and river water. In: Ecotoxicology and Environmental Safety, 5. 261-269.
Kuehne LM; Olden JD, 2014. Ecology and conservation of mudminnow species worldwide. Fisheries, 39:341-351.
NatureServe, 2014. NatureServe Explorer Comprehensive Species Reports. Arlington, VA, USA: NatureServe. http://explorer.natureserve.org/servlet/NatureServe
Nielsen JG, 2012. Small dogfish Umbra pygmaea. (Lille hundefisk Umbra pygmaea.) In: Atlas over danske ferskvandsfisk [Atlas of Danish freshwater fish] [ed. by Carl, H. \Møller, P. R.]. Københavns Universitet: Statens Naturhistoriske Museum, 369-373.
Panek FM, 1981. PhD thesis. Newark, New Jersey, USA: Rutgers University, 113 pp.
Panek FM; Weis JS, 2012. Age, growth, and reproduction of the eastern mudminnow (Umbra pygmaea) at the Great Swamp National Wildlife Refuge, New Jersey. Northeastern Naturalist, 19:217-228.
Panek FM; Weiss JS, 2013. Diet of the eastern mudminnow (Umbra pygmaea DeKay) from two geographically distinct populations within the North American native range. Northeastern Naturalist, 20:37-48.
Poll M, 1949. [English title unavailable]. (L'introduction en Belgique et l'acclimatation dans la nature d'un poisson américain supplémentaire Umbra pygmaea (DeKay).) Institut Royal des Sciences Naturelles Bulletin, 25:1-11.
Schmidt RE; Daniels RA, 2006. Hybridization in Umbridae in the Hudson River, New York, with designation of neotypes for Umbra limi and Umbra pygmaea. Zootaxa, 1113:1-20.
Slavin PT; Bradford E; Halpin R; McConnick D, 1977. The eastern mudminnow Umbra pygmaea (DeKay): a potential control agent of woodland pool Aedes spp. Mosquito News, 37:301.
Verreycken H; Anseeuw D; Thuyne Gvan; Quataert P; Belpaire C, 2007. The non-indigenous freshwater fishes of Flanders (Belgium): review, status and trends over the last decade. Journal of Fish Biology, 71(Suppl. D):160-172. http://www.blackwell-synergy.com/doi/abs/10.1111/j.1095-8649.2007.01679.x
Verreycken H; Geeraerts C; Duvivier C; Belpaire C, 2010. Present status of the North American Umbra pygmaea (DeKay, 1842) (eastern mudminnow) in Flanders (Belgium) and in Europe. Aquatic Invasions [Proceedings of the 16th International Conference on Aquatic Invasive Species, Montreal, Canada, 19-23 April 2009.], 5(1):83-96. http://www.aquaticinvasions.ru/2010/AI_2010_5_1_Verreycken_etal.pdf
Wolter C, 2009. Fish neozoa in the river Oder. http://www.igb-berlin.de/IGB-Publikationen/Wolter_2009_e_AEeng.pdf (accessed February 2015)
Wolter C; Röhr F, 2010. Distribution history of non-native freshwater fish species in Germany: how invasive are they? Journal of Applied Ichthyology [Alien species in aquaculture and fisheries. Proceedings of a conference Managing Alien Species for Sustainable Development of Aquaculture and Fisheries (MALIAF), University of Florence, Italy, 5-7 November 2008.], 26(s2):19-27. http://www.blackwell-synergy.com/loi/jai
CABI, Undated. CABI Compendium: Status inferred from regional distribution. Wallingford, UK: CABI
Geiter O, Homma S, Kinzelbach R, 2002. Inventory and assessment of invasive species in Germany. (Bestandsaufnahme und Bewertung von Neozoen in Deutschland). In: Texte des Umweltbundesamtes 2002 [Texts of the Federal Environmental Office in 2002], 174+36+31+52 pp.
Guidou F, Keith P, 2002. Population status of Umbra pygmaea pygmy umbre (DeKay, 1842) in the department of Marne. (Etat des populations de l'umbre pygmée Umbra pygmaea (DeKay, 1842) dans le département de la Marne). In: Bulletin Français de la Pêche et de la Pisciculture [Bulletin of French Fishing and Aquaculture], 365 (366) 549-552. DOI:10.1051/kmae:2002051
Nielsen JG, 2012. Small dogfish Umbra pygmaea. (Lille hundefisk Umbra pygmaea). In: Atlas over danske ferskvandsfisk [Atlas of Danish freshwater fish], [ed. by Carl H, Møller P R]. Københavns Universitet, Statens Naturhistoriske Museum. 369-373.
Verreycken H, Geeraerts C, Duvivier C, Belpaire C, 2010. Present status of the North American Umbra pygmaea (DeKay, 1842) (eastern mudminnow) in Flanders (Belgium) and in Europe. Aquatic Invasions. 5 (1), 83-96. http://www.aquaticinvasions.ru/2010/AI_2010_5_1_Verreycken_etal.pdf DOI:10.3391/ai.2010.5.1.10
Wolter C, Röhr F, 2010. Distribution history of non-native freshwater fish species in Germany: how invasive are they? Journal of Applied Ichthyology. 26 (s2), 19-27. http://www.blackwell-synergy.com/loi/jai DOI:10.1111/j.1439-0426.2010.01505.x
OrganizationsTop of page
Principal SourceTop of page
Draft datasheet under review
ContributorsTop of page
06/03/15 Original text by:
Hugo Verreycken, Research Institute for Nature and Forest (INBO), Belgium
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/