Sander lucioperca (pike-perch)
- Summary of Invasiveness
- Taxonomic Tree
- Distribution Table
- History of Introduction and Spread
- Risk of Introduction
- Habitat List
- Biology and Ecology
- Latitude/Altitude Ranges
- Water Tolerances
- Natural enemies
- Means of Movement and Dispersal
- Pathway Causes
- Pathway Vectors
- Impact Summary
- Economic Impact
- Environmental Impact
- Social Impact
- Risk and Impact Factors
- Uses List
- Detection and Inspection
- Similarities to Other Species/Conditions
- Prevention and Control
- 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
- Sander lucioperca (Linnaeus, 1758)
Preferred Common Name
Other Scientific Names
- Centropomus sandat Lacepède, 1802
- Lucioperca linnei Malm, 1877
- Lucioperca lucioperca (Linnaeus, 1758)
- Lucioperca sandra Cuvier, 1828
- Perca lucioperca Linnaeus, 1758
- Sander lucioperca (Oken, 1817)
- Stizostedion lucioperca (Linnaeus, 1758)
- Stizostedion luciperca Linnaeus, 1758
- Stizostedium lucioperca (Linnaeus, 1758)
International Common Names
- English: European pike-perch; European walleye; perch-pike; pikeperch; zander
- Spanish: lucioperca
- French: perche-brochet; sandre
- Russian: sudak
Local Common Names
- Albania: luci; lucioperke; sharmaku heshtor; sharmaku i argjende; sharmaku i eger
- Austria: Schill
- Bulgaria: biala ribba; byala riba; sulka
- Czech Republic: candát obecný
- Denmark: sandart; sandørred
- Estonia: koha
- Finland: kuha
- Germany: Amaul; Berschick; Candat; Fogas; Hechtbarsch; Nagemaul; Sandart; Sandat; Sandaten; Sandbarsch; Sandel; Sander; Sannat; Saumer; Schiel; Schill; Schindel; Wolgazander; Zander; Zannat; Zant
- Greece: potamolavrako
- Hungary: fogas süllö
- Iran: sevideh; sevideh; sibey; sibeyak; sibeyak; soof-e-maamooli; soof-e-maamooli; suf; suf; suf-e ma'muli; suf-e Ma'muli
- Italy: lucioperca; sandra
- Latvia: zandarts
- Lithuania: starkis
- Netherlands: snoekbaars
- Norway: gjörs
- Poland: sandacz
- Portugal: lúcio perca; lucioperca
- Romania: alâar; ciopic; guran; salau; strapazan; suduc; zmug
- Russian Federation: sudakk
- Serbia: smud; smudj; smuo smudj; zubac obycajny
- Slovakia: zubác obycajný
- Slovenia: smuc
- Sweden: gös
- Switzerland: Zander
- Turkey: akbalik; levrek; sudak baligi; uzunlevrek baligi
- Yugoslavia (Serbia and Montenegro): smud; smudj
Summary of InvasivenessTop of page
As S. lucioperca is an obligate piscivore as an adult, this species will predate on native and non-native fish species where introduced. Following its importation to the England in the mid-1800s, S. lucioperca was introduced into the wild during the mid-twentieth century, most notably to the lower part of the River Great Ouse system (East Anglia) and then to canals of the Midlands. A summary of the extensive research on the species that followed (Smith et al., 1998) could not lend support to the numerous claims of adverse impacts, reporting that evidence of negative impacts was equivocal, with only one study suggesting lower numbers of native forage fishes in a stretch of (man-made) canal with S. lucioperca than in a nearby stretch of canal where the species was absent. Predation on native fishes was subsequently reported elsewhere, including on ruffe (Gymnocephalus cernuus) as well as seaward migrating smolts of sea trout (Salmo trutta) and Atlantic salmon (Salmo salar), with potentially adverse population impacts (Jepsen et al., 2000; Koed, 2001; Koed et al., 2002). Crivelli (1995) also shows how the introduction of a non-native piscivorous species into inland waters can lead to the extinction and decimation of populations of native species in the Mediterranean region and how the removal of these native species, leads to major changes in the ecosystem. Schulze et al. (2006) noted that when S. lucioperca was introduced into a German lake, there was a shift in perch (Perca fluviatilis) habitat usage from the pelagic zones of the lake towards the littoral zone in response to the competition from the pikeperch. They also stated there was an increase in predation on juvenile perch by both pikeperch and pike (Esox Lucius) leading to a decrease in the abundance of large perch. As S. lucioperca is an open water predator and well adapted to feeding in turbid water or low-light conditions (Karas and Sandström, 2002), it can also potentially cause the collapse of a fishery by removing many of the young fish not allowing them to grow and spawn. S. lucioperca is a vector of fish diseases and parasites which can be transmitted to native and farmed fish and it has also been found to be capable of hybridizing with Eurasian perch (Perca fluviatilis) (Kahilainen et al., 2011) and Volga perch Sander volgensis (Specziar et al., 2009; Müller et al., 2010).
Taxonomic TreeTop of page
- Domain: Eukaryota
- Kingdom: Metazoa
- Phylum: Chordata
- Subphylum: Vertebrata
- Class: Actinopterygii
- Order: Perciformes
- Suborder: Percoidei
- Family: Percidae
- Genus: Sander
- Species: Sander lucioperca
DescriptionTop of page
S. lucioperca has a long slender body with the back and flanks are green to blue-grey to brown-black, the belly is white to bluish and fins are yellow-grey. The dorsal and caudal fins have rows of black spots on the membranes, largest and most distinctive on the spiny dorsal fin. Other fins are pale yellow. See http://www.briancoad.com/Species%20Accounts/Gasterosteidae%20to%20Pleuronectidae.htm for images. Several dark bands run vertically from the back down each side (Maitland, 2004). There are no spines on the gill cover. The mouth has many small teeth and 1–2 enlarged canine teeth in anterior part of each jaw. The species has two dorsal fins – one with 13 to 20 spines and one with 1–2 spines and 18 to 24 soft rays. The caudal fin has 17 soft rays and the anal fin has 2–3 spines and 10–14 soft rays (Larsen and Berg, 2006). S. lucioperca can reach sizes up to 1000 mm (standard length) (Lelek, 1987), which corresponds to a weight of about 15–20 kg. Maximum age is inversely correlated to growth rate. Slow-growing S. lucioperca reach 20–24 years of age; while faster-growing reach about 8–9 years (Sonesten, 1991). Stunted populations have been reported, with limited food resources being identified as the likely reason for the unusually slow growth (Vinni et al., 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|
|Atlantic, Northeast||Present||Native||Froese and Pauly, 2004|
|Afghanistan||Present||Native||Coad, 1981; Froese and Pauly, 2004|
|Armenia||Present||Native||Blanc et al., 1971; Froese and Pauly, 2004|
|Azerbaijan||Present||Native||Blanc et al., 1971; Froese and Pauly, 2004|
|China||Present||Introduced||Walker Yang, 1999; Froese and Pauly, 2004|
|Georgia (Republic of)||Present||Native||Blanc et al., 1971; Froese and Pauly, 2004|
|Iran||Present||Native||Coad, 1996; Froese and Pauly, 2004|
|Kazakhstan||Present||Native||Blanc et al., 1971; Froese and Pauly, 2004|
|Kyrgyzstan||Present||Introduced||Savvaitova and Petr, 1999; Froese and Pauly, 2004|
|Turkey||Present||Introduced||Froese and Pauly, 2004; Innal and Erk'Akan, 2006|
|Uzbekistan||Present||Native||Khurshut, 2001; Froese and Pauly, 2004|
|Algeria||Present||Introduced||FAO, 1997; Froese and Pauly, 2004|
|Morocco||Present||Introduced||Welcomme, 1988; Froese and Pauly, 2004|
|Tunisia||Present||Introduced||Welcomme, 1988; Froese and Pauly, 2004|
|USA||Present||Introduced||Robins et al., 1991; Froese and Pauly, 2004|
|Austria||Present||Native||Blanc et al., 1971; Froese and Pauly, 2004|
|Belgium||Present||Introduced||Blanc et al., 1971; Froese and Pauly, 2004|
|Bulgaria||Present||Introduced||Blanc et al., 1971; Froese and Pauly, 2004|
|Croatia||Present||Introduced||FAO, 1997; Froese and Pauly, 2004|
|Czech Republic||Present||Native||Blanc et al., 1971; Froese and Pauly, 2004|
|Denmark||Present||Introduced||Welcomme, 1988; Froese and Pauly, 2004|
|Estonia||Present||Native||Froese and Pauly, 2004; Froese and Pauly, 2011|
|Finland||Present||Native||Froese and Pauly, 2004; Froese and Pauly, 2011|
|France||Present||Introduced||Keith et al., 2001; Froese and Pauly, 2004|
|Germany||Present||Native||Gerstmeier and Romig, 1998; Froese and Pauly, 2004|
|Greece||Present||Native||Bobori et al., 2001|
|Hungary||Present||Native||Blanc et al., 1971; Froese and Pauly, 2004|
|Italy||Present||Introduced||Gandolfi et al., 1991; Froese and Pauly, 2004|
|Latvia||Present||Native||Blanc et al., 1971; Froese and Pauly, 2004|
|Lithuania||Present||Native||Blanc et al., 1971; Froese and Pauly, 2004|
|Moldova||Present||Native||Blanc et al., 1971; Froese and Pauly, 2004|
|Netherlands||Present||Introduced||Welcomme, 1988; Froese and Pauly, 2004|
|Norway||Present||Native||Blanc et al., 1971; Froese and Pauly, 2004|
|Poland||Present||Native||Blanc et al., 1971; Froese and Pauly, 2004|
|Portugal||Present||Introduced||Azevedo et al., 2004|
|-Azores||Present||Introduced||Azevedo et al., 2004|
|Romania||Present||Native||Blanc et al., 1971; Froese and Pauly, 2004|
|Russian Federation||Present||Native||Reshetnikov et al., 1997; Froese and Pauly, 2004|
|Serbia||Present||Native||Blanc et al., 1971|
|Slovakia||Present||Native||Blanc et al., 1971; Froese and Pauly, 2004|
|Slovenia||Present||Introduced||FAO, 1997; Froese and Pauly, 2004|
|Spain||Present||Introduced||Elvira, 1995; Froese and Pauly, 2004|
|Sweden||Present||Native||Blanc et al., 1971; Froese and Pauly, 2004|
|Switzerland||Present||Introduced||Blanc et al., 1971; Froese and Pauly, 2004|
|UK||Present||Introduced||1878||Not invasive||Smith et al., 1998; Froese and Pauly, 2004|
|Ukraine||Present||Native||Sabaneev, 1911; Froese and Pauly, 2004|
|Yugoslavia (Serbia and Montenegro)||Present||Native||Froese and Pauly, 2004|
History of Introduction and SpreadTop of page
S. lucioperca has a long history of introductions outside of its native range, both as an angling target and for aquaculture, and has occasionally been used as a biomanipulation tool to remove unwanted cyrpinids (Lappalainen et al., 2003; Larsen and Berg, 2006). The native range includes the Caspian, Baltic, Black and Aral Sea basins and the Elbe (North Sea basin) and Maritza (Aegean Sea basin) drainages north to 65°N in Finland (Kottelat and Freyhof, 2007). However, this species has now been introduced to most of Europe, as well as parts of Asia (Turkey) and Africa. Its range now includes the Netherlands (Welcomme, 1988), France (Keith and Allardi, 2001), Spain (Elvira, 1995), the UK (Wheeler, 1992; Copp et al., 2003) and Denmark (Dahl, 1982).
IntroductionsTop of page
|Introduced to||Introduced from||Year||Reason||Introduced by||Established in wild through||References||Notes|
|Natural reproduction||Continuous restocking|
|Algeria||Hungary||1985||Froese and Pauly (2011)|
|Azores||unknown||Yes||Froese and Pauly (2011)|
|China||Former USSR||1960-1969||Yes||Froese and Pauly (2011)|
|Croatia||unknown||Yes||Froese and Pauly (2011)|
|Cyprus||Hungary||1987||Yes||Froese and Pauly (2011)|
|Czech Republic||unknown||Yes||Froese and Pauly (2011)|
|Denmark||Sweden||ca. 1910||Yes||Berg (2012)|
|Former USSR||unknown||Yes||Froese and Pauly (2011)|
|France||1888||Yes||Froese and Pauly (2011)|
|Germany||1800-1899||Yes||Froese and Pauly (2011)|
|Iran||unknown||Froese and Pauly (2011)|
|Italy||1900||Yes||Froese and Pauly (2011)|
|Kyrgyzstan||1954-1956||Yes||Froese and Pauly (2011)|
|Morocco||Germany||1949||Yes||Froese and Pauly (2011)|
|Netherlands||Germany||1901||Yes||Froese and Pauly (2011)|
|Portugal||unknown||Yes||Froese and Pauly (2011)|
|Slovenia||unknown||Yes||Froese and Pauly (2011)|
|Spain||unknown||Yes||Froese and Pauly (2011)|
|Switzerland||1880||Yes||Froese and Pauly (2011)|
|Tunisia||Germany||1968||Yes||Froese and Pauly (2011)|
|Turkey||Austria||1955||Yes||Froese and Pauly (2011)|
|UK||Sweden||1878||Yes||Froese and Pauly (2011)|
|UK||Germany||1878||Yes||Froese and Pauly (2011)|
|USA||Germany||1970||Froese and Pauly (2011)|
|Uzbekistan||unknown||Froese and Pauly (2011)|
Risk of IntroductionTop of page
Historically, S. lucioperca has been mostly introduced into lakes, and from these lakes, the fish have migrated into larger rivers (e.g. River Gudenaa in Denmark; Koed, 2001), and in some cases have, through migration, established themselves into neighbouring lakes (Larsen and Berg, 2006). In Sweden and other countries, S. lucioperca is still stocked to support fisheries, both within and outside the area of its natural range (Laikre and Palmé, 2005), including as illegal releases by anglers (Copp et al., 2003). Illegal stockings by anglers have also been reported from Denmark (Berg, 2012).
HabitatTop of page
S. lucioperca inhabits rivers, lakes, reservoirs, moderately running waters and brackish coastal waters with salinities of ca. 12 ppt (Larsen and Berg, 2006) or more. It thrives in turbid, moderately eutrophic waters with high oxygen content (http://www.briancoad.com). This species can be found in small schools near sandy and stony bottoms in deeper areas of rivers, preferably in areas with cover. They are also found in clear waters if the depth is sufficient to enable it to seek refuge during daytime (Sonesten, 1991). Habitat preferences vary over the year and according to age and environmental conditions (Lappalainen et al., 1995). During the autumn, S. lucioperca inhabits areas of 1.2–1.8 m in depth, until the winter months when they move to much deeper waters. Once winter is over, they migrate to shallower waters with a gravel/pebble substratum for spawning. Habitat usage during the summer months is varied. Diel variations in adults indicate elevated activity levels at dusk (Poulet et al., 2005).
Habitat ListTop of page
|Inland saline areas||Secondary/tolerated habitat||Natural|
|Rivers / streams||Principal habitat||Natural|
|Inshore marine||Secondary/tolerated habitat||Natural|
Biology and EcologyTop of page
S. lucioperca has a chromosone number of 24 haploid/gametic (n) and 48 diploid/zygotic (2n) (Klinkhardt et al., 1995). It is known to hybridize with Sander volgensis (Specziar et al., 2009; Müller et al., 2010) and also perch (Perca fluviatilis) (Kahilainen et al., 2011). DNA analyses of this species have been conducted by Säisä et al. (2010) and April et al. (2011).
S. lucioperca begin migrating about a month prior to spawning into shallow areas, usually around April-May, or when temperatures reach 10–14°C in the spawning grounds. Brackish water fish will migrate to freshwater habitats. The males are territorial and construct a shallow nest, usually about 5–10 cm deep and 50 cm in diameter in sand or gravel, or among exposed plant roots on which eggs are deposited, usually in turbid water and at 1–3 m depth (Sokolov and Berdicheskii, 1989). Breeding usually takes place at dawn or during the night. Fecundity is dependant on the size of the female, but ranges between 150–400 eggs/g and range in size from 0.9–1.5 mm. After spawning, the female departs and the male guards the nest, fanning the eggs with his pectoral fins.
Most of the work completed on this species has been undertaken in Iran, with Eslami and Mokhayer (1977) finding some of the S. lucioperca to be infested with larvae of the nematode Anisakis. Eslami et al. (2011) reported Anisakis from the gastro-intestinal tract. This parasite can infest man if fish is eaten smoked, salted or fried at temperatures below 50°C. Mokhayer (1976) records the acanthocephalan Corynosoma caspicum. Jalali and Molnár (1990) record the monogenean Ancyrocephalus paradoxus. Masoumian et al. (2005) recorded the protozoan parasite Trichodina perforata. Pazooki et al. (2007) recorded various parasites, including Diplostomum spathaceum and Argulus foliaceus. Barzegar et al. (2008) recorded the digenean eye parasite Diplostomum spathaceum from this fish. Barzegar and Jalali (2009) reviewed crustacean parasites in Iran and found Achtheres percarum on this species. Azadikhah et al. (2009) found 6 parasite species including two Trichodina spp. from the gills and Vorticella sp. on the skin; other parasites included Gyrodactylus sp. and Argulus foliaceus from the gills, and Diplostomum spathaceum from the lens of the eyes. Rolbiecki (1993) noted the parasitic metazoa of pikeperch in Poland to include Achteres percarum, Ancyrocephalus paradoxus, Argulus foliaceus, Azygia lucii, Bothriocephalus sp., pleroceroid, Brachyphallus crenatus, Bucephalus polymorphus, Bunodera luciopercae, Camallanus lacustris, Camallanus truncates, Corynosoma semerme, Diplostomum spathaceum, Ichthyocotylurus playcephalus, Neoechinorhynchus rutile, Piscicola geometra, Pomphorhynchus laevis and Tylodelphys clavata.
The diet of pikeperch in Estonia included smelt (Osmerus eperlanus), ruffe (Gymnocephalus cernuus), perch (Perca fluviatilis), vendace (Coregonus albula), pikeperch itself and roach (Rutilus rutilus; Kangur and Kangur, 1998). In Finland, smelt were the most numerous prey species for every size-class of pikeperch, but the diet also included perch and roach (Keskinen, 2008). Pikeperch has also been reported to feed on smolts of migrating sea trout (Salmo trutta) and Atlantic salmon (Salmo trutta; Jepson et al., 2000; Koed, 2001, Koed et al., 2002).
S. luciperca occurs in large, turbid rivers and eutrophic/mesotrophic lakes, brackish coastal lakes and estuaries (Lelek, 1987); however, it requires a high oxygen concentration. It also occurs in oligotrophic clearwater lakes if they are deep enough to provide dark environments during the daytime (Sonesten, 1991). Salinity levels of up to 20 psu are tolerated, with preferred levels of <5 ppt (Winkler et al. 1988; Saisa et al., 2010). Spawning is restricted to salinity levels below 5 ppt (Lappalainen, 2003).
ClimateTop of page
|Cf - Warm temperate climate, wet all year||Preferred||Warm average temp. > 10°C, Cold average temp. > 0°C, wet all year|
|Cs - Warm temperate climate with dry summer||Preferred||Warm average temp. > 10°C, Cold average temp. > 0°C, dry summers|
|Cw - Warm temperate climate with dry winter||Preferred||Warm temperate climate with dry winter (Warm average temp. > 10°C, Cold average temp. > 0°C, dry winters)|
|Df - Continental climate, wet all year||Preferred||Continental climate, wet all year (Warm average temp. > 10°C, coldest month < 0°C, wet all year)|
|Ds - Continental climate with dry summer||Preferred||Continental climate with dry summer (Warm average temp. > 10°C, coldest month < 0°C, dry summers)|
|Dw - Continental climate with dry winter||Preferred||Continental climate with dry winter (Warm average temp. > 10°C, coldest month < 0°C, dry winters)|
Latitude/Altitude RangesTop of page
|Latitude North (°N)||Latitude South (°S)||Altitude Lower (m)||Altitude Upper (m)|
Water TolerancesTop of page
|Parameter||Minimum Value||Maximum Value||Typical Value||Status||Life Stage||Notes|
|Dissolved oxygen (mg/l)||Optimum||>4.5 tolerated|
|Salinity (part per thousand)||Optimum||Up to 20 ppt tolerated (Winkler et al., 1988; Saisa et al., 2010)|
|Water temperature (ºC temperature)||27||Optimum||0-35 tolerated (Craig, 2000)|
Natural enemiesTop of page
|Natural enemy||Type||Life stages||Specificity||References||Biological control in||Biological control on|
|Anguilla anguilla||Predator||Juveniles||not specific|
|Esox lucius||Predator||All Stages||not specific|
|Perca fluviatilis||Predator||Juveniles||not specific|
|Phoca caspica||Predator||All Stages||not specific|
|Silurus glanis||Predator||All Stages||not specific|
Means of Movement and DispersalTop of page
Natural Dispersal (Non-Biotic)
S. lucioperca migrates during the spawning season and also in winter (Koed, 2001) to find suitable habitats. Larvae drift passively after hatching.
S. lucioperca has a long history of introductions outside of its native range, as an angling target and an aquaculture species and has occasionally been used as a biomanipulation tool to remove unwanted cyprinids (Lappalainen et al., 2003; Larsen and Berg, 2006).
Pathway CausesTop of page
|Hunting, angling, sport or racing||Yes||Yes|
|Live food or feed trade||Yes||Yes|
Pathway VectorsTop of page
Impact SummaryTop of page
|Fisheries / aquaculture||Positive and negative|
Economic ImpactTop of page
In its introduced range, S. lucioperca is mainly used for sport fishing, so there is an economic benefit for individuals and fishermen, as well as the creation of jobs in the aquaculture industry.
Environmental ImpactTop of page
Impact on Biodiversity
The impact of introductions of S. lucioperca are well documented, for instance, this species is known to hybridize with Volga pikeperch Sander volgensis (Specziar et al., 2009; Müller et al., 2010) and also a single incident of hybridization with Eurasian perch Perca fluviatilis has been reported (Kahilainen et al., 2011).
S. lucioperca was introduced to the Turkish Lake Egirdir in 1955 and from 1961 became an important commercial species there. However, the introduction is associated with the disappearance of several indigenous fish species including two in the genus Phoxinellus which are now considered extinct (Crivelli, 1995). In this case it also led to an increase in the native Turkish crayfish Astacus leptodactylus which was rare due to predation on eggs and larvae by the now extinct fish, resulting in an increase in foreign trade for the Turkish economy. It has also been claimed that introductions have resulted in a significant reduction of cyprinid fishes in the UK, but a comprehensive review found no convincing evidence of this (Smith et al., 1998).
S. lucioperca is a vector of the trematode Bucephalus polymorphus which caused a decrease in native cyprinid populations in some French basins in the 1960s and 1970s (Lambert, 1997) and recently in water systems newly colonized by zebra mussel (Dreissena polymorpha) the primary host of this parasite.
Social ImpactTop of page
In a lot of countries, S. lucioperca is considered a highly desirable species for recreational as well as commercial fishing, so in addition to its value for commercial fishermen, recreational fishing and tourism may create a demand not only for food, accommodation and transportation, but also for related recreational activities such as camping, boating, canoeing, etc; all of which may provide economic opportunities locally.
Risk and Impact FactorsTop of page Invasiveness
- Proved invasive outside its native range
- Has a broad native range
- Abundant in its native range
- Capable of securing and ingesting a wide range of food
- Highly mobile locally
- Long lived
- Changed gene pool/ selective loss of genotypes
- Host damage
- Negatively impacts aquaculture/fisheries
- Reduced native biodiversity
- Threat to/ loss of native species
- Pest and disease transmission
- Interaction with other invasive species
- Highly likely to be transported internationally deliberately
- Highly likely to be transported internationally illegally
- Difficult to identify/detect in the field
- Difficult/costly to control
Uses ListTop of page
Animal feed, fodder, forage
- Biological control
- Sport (hunting, shooting, fishing, racing)
Human food and beverage
- Meat/fat/offal/blood/bone (whole, cut, fresh, frozen, canned, cured, processed or smoked)
Detection and InspectionTop of page
Dorsal fins almost touching; no black spot on the base of the backward end of the 1st dorsal fin; large canine teeth; 80-95 lateral ctenoid scales; no spine pointing backwards on the operculum bone.
Similarities to Other Species/ConditionsTop of page
Generally easy to distinguish from other percids except the other Sander species.
Prevention and ControlTop of page
In the UK, S. lucioperca requires a licence under the Import of Live Fish Act (1980) to keep or release (i.e. fisheries).
Early warning systems
The list server Aliens-L provides an international forum for announcing recent discoveries of non-native species. A similar, but peer-reviewed function for non-native aquatic organisms is provided by the international journal, Aquatic Invasions (www.aquaticinvasions.net), which was set up as part of the EC Integrated Project No. 506675 ‘Assessing LArge scale environmental Risks for biodiversity with tested Methods (ALARM)’.
This is established at the national level.
Not much awareness on species invasiveness; however, introductions are well published through the angling media.
In the UK there have been local attempts to remove S. lucioperca (e.g. Smith et al., 1996), however, Britton et al. (2010) states that eradication would be virtually impossible when the species has a wide geographical distribution (e.g. England).
In the UK, the current policy for consents to keep and release is based on a presumption against licenses for drainage basins where the species is currently absent. Similar policies may exist in other countries where the species is not native.
As established populations are difficult and costly to control, further introductions or stocking should be avoided.
Includes electrofishing and gill and seine netting.
Under current EU legislation on the use of alien species in aquaculture, movements and releases of non-native species within the EU are regulated, requiring an appropriate risk assessment and consideration of management options for parts of the EU where a species is ‘locally absent’.
The only effective method of fish eradication is the application of rotenone, a piscicide that is also toxic to non-target species.
Monitoring and Surveillance
General survey methods include gill nets (including multi mesh gill nets designed for monitoring fish in lakes), seine nets, fyke nets etc. and electrofishing. Both radio and acoustic telemetry can also be used.
ReferencesTop of page
April J; Mayden RL; Hanner RH; Bernatchez L, 2011. Genetic calibration of species diversity among North America's freshwater fishes. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 108(26):10602-10607.
Azadikhah D; Masoumian M; Motallebi AA; Malek M; Nekuifard A; Jalali B, 2009. Survey of parasitic infection of pikeperch (Sander lucioperca) in Aras Reservoir (west Azerbaijan). In: 1st International Congress on Aquatic Animal Health Management and Diseases, January 27-28 2009, Tehran, Iran.
Azevedo JMN; Leitão MMCS; Borges I; Moreira R; Patrício R, 2004. Ensaio de Quantificação de Fauna Piscícola de Lagoas em São Miguel (Açores) ([English title not available]). 9501-801 Ponta Delgada, Azores: Centro de Investigação dos Recursos Naturais e Departmento de Biologia, Universidade de Açores, Rua Mãe de Deus,9501-801.
Barzegar M; Jalali B, 2009. Crustacean parasites of fresh and brackish (Caspian Sea) water fishes of Iran. Journal of Agricultural Science and Technology, 11(2):161-171. http://jast.journals.modares.ac.ir/?_action=showPDF&article=77
Barzegar M; Raeisi M; Bozorgnia A; Jalali B, 2008. Parasites of the eyes of fresh and brackish water fishes in Iran. Iranian Journal of Veterinary Research, 9(3):256-261, Pe300. http://www.shirazu.ac.ir/en/index.php?page_id=60
Berg S, 2012. Zander Sander lucioperca (Linnaeus, 1758). (Sandart Sander lucioperca (Linnaeus, 1758).) In: Atlas over Danske ferskvandsfisk [ed. by Carl, H. \Møller, P. R.]. Copenhagen, Denmark: Natural History Museum of Denmark, University of Copenhagen, 585-599.
Blanc M; Gaudet JL; Banarescu P; Hureau JC, 1971. European inland water fish: a multilingual catalogue. London: Fishing News (Books) Ltd.
Brabrand A; Faafeng B, 1993. Habitat shift in roach (Rutilus rutilus) induced by pikeperch (Stizostedion lucioperca) introduction: predation risk versus pelagic behaviour. Oecologia, 95:38-46.
Britton JR; Cucherousset J; Davies GD; Godard MJ; Copp GH, 2010. Non-native fishes and climate change: predicting species responses to warming temperatures in a temperate region. Freshwater Biology, 55(5):1130-1141. http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/cgi-bin/fulltext/123349915/HTMLSTART
Brown JA; Scott DM; Wilson RW, 2007. Do estuaries act as saline bridges to allow invasion of new freshwater systems by non-indigenous fish species? In: Biological Invaders in Inland Waters: Profiles, Distribution and Threats. Invading Nature - Springer Series in Invasion Ecology Vol. 2 [ed. by Gherardi, F.]. Springer.
Coad BW, 1996. Exotic fish species in the Tigris-Euphrates basin. Zoology in the Middle East 13:71-83.
Copp GH; Wesley KJ; Kovac V; Ives MJ; Carter MG, 2003. Introduction and establishment of the pikperch Stizostedion lucioperca (L.) in Stanborough Lake (Hertfordshire) and its dispersal in the Thames catchment. The London Naturalist, 82:139-153.
Dahl J, 1982. A century of pikeperch in Denmark. EIFAC Technical Paper, 42(Supp. 2):344-352.
Dhora D, 2010. Register of Species of the Fauna of Albania 2010. (Regjistër I specieve të faunës së Shqipërisë 2010.) Register of Species of the Fauna of Albania 2010. Shkodër: Camaj-Pipa.
Dörner H; Hülsmann S; Hölker F; Skov C; Wagner A, 2007. Size-dependent predator-prey relationships between pikeperch and their prey fish. Ecol. Freshwat. Fish, 16:307-314.
Eslami A; Sabokroo H; Ranjbar-Bahadori SH, 2011. Infection of Anisakids larvae in long tail tuna (Thunnus tonggol) in North Persian Gulf. Iranian J. Parasitol, 6(3):96-100.
Froese R; Pauly D, 2004. FishBase DVD. Penang, Malaysia: Worldfish Center. Online at www.fishbase.org.
Gandolfi G; Zerunian S; Torricelli P; Marconato A; eds, 1991. I pesci delle acque interne italiane. Ministero dell’Ambiente e Unione Zoologica Italiana. Instituto Poligrafico e Zecca dello Stato, Roma. 616 pp.
Gerstmeier R; Romig T, 1998. Die Süßwasserfische Europas: für Naturfreunde und Angler. Stuttgart, Germany: Franckh-Kosmos Verlag, 368 pp.
Gülle I; Zeki Yildirim M; Kücük F, 2008. Limnological history of Lake Egirdir (Turkey): from the 1950's to the present. Natura Montenegrina, 7:115-128.
Innal D; Erk'Akan F, 2006. Effects of exotic and translocated fish species in the inland waters of Turkey. Reviews in Fish Biology and Fisheries, 16(1):39-50. http://www.springerlink.com/link.asp?id=100215
Jeppesen E; Jensen JP; Skovgaard HP; Hvidt CB, 2001. Changes in the abundance of planktivorous fish in Lake Skanderborg during the past two centuries - a palaeoecological approach. Palaeogeography,Palaeoclimatology, Palaeooecology, 172:143-152.
Kahilainen KK; Teacher AGF; Kahkonen K; Vinni M; Lehtonen H; Merila J, 2010. First record of natural hybridization and intogression between pikeperch (Sander lucioperca) and perch (Perca fluviatilis). Ann. Zool. Fenn, 48:39-44.
Kangur A; Kangur P, 1998. Diet composition and size-related changes in the feeding of pikeperch, Stizostedion lucioperca (Percidae) and pike, Esox lucius (Esocidae) in the Lake Peipsi (Estonia). In: Italian Journal of Zoology, 65(Supplement) [ed. by Bianco, P. G.]. 255-259.
Karas P; Sandström A, 2002. Effects of eutrophication on Y-O-Y freshwater fish communities in coastal areas of the Baltic. Environ. Biol. Fish, 63:89-101.
Keith P; Allardi J, 2001. Atlas des poissons d’eau douce de France. Patrimoines naturels, 47. Paris, France: MNHN, 387 pp.
Keskinen T, 2008. Feeding ecology and behaviour of pikeperch, Sander lucioperca (L.), in boreal lakes. Jyväskylä Studies in Biological and Environmental Studies. Jyväskylä, Finland: Jyväskylä University Printing House, 54 pp.
Khurshut EE, 2001. Fishes of Uzbekhistan.
Koed A, 2001. [English title not available]. (Sandart i Gudenaen.) Fisk & Hav, 53:10-17.
Koed A; Jepsen N; Aarestrup K; Nielsen C, 2002. Initial mortality of radiotagged Atlantic salmon (Salmo salar L.) smolts following release downstream of a hydropower station. Hydrobiologia, 483:31-37.
Kottelat M, 1997. European freshwater fishes. Biologia, Bratislava, 52(Supplement):271 pp.
Laikre L; Palmé A, 2005. Spridning av främmande populationer i Sverige (Spread of alien populations in Sweden). [Naturvardsverkets rapport 5475.]
Lambert A, 1997. The introduction of freshwater fish species in continental areas. "What about their parasites?". (Introduction de poissons dans les milieux aquatiques continentaux: "Quid de leurs parasites?".) Bulletin Français de la Pêche et de la Pisciculture, No. 344/345:323-333.
Lappalainen J; Dörner H; Wysujack K, 2003. Reproduction biology of pikeperch (Sander lucioperca (L.)) - a review. Ecol. Freshwat. Fish, 12:95-106.
Lappalainen J; Erm V; Lehtonen H, 1995. Pikeperch, Stizostedion lucioperca (L.), catch in relation to juvenile density and water temperature in Parnu Bay, Estonia. Fish. Manage. Ecol, 2:113-120.
Larsen LK; Berg S, 2006. NOBANIS - Invasive Alien Species Fact Sheet - Stizostedion lucioperca. Online Database of the North European and Baltic Network on Invasive Alien Species - NOBANIS. http://www.nobanis.org
Masoumian M; Pazooki J; Yahyazadeh M; Teymornezhad A, 2005. Protozoan (sic) from fresh water fishes of north west Iran. Iranian Journal of Fisheries Sciences, 4(2):31-42, 115.
Mehner T; Arlinghaus R; Berg S; Dörner H; Jacobsen L; Kasprzak P; Koschel R; Schultz H; Skov C; Wolter C; Wysujack K, 2004. How to link biomanipulation and sustainable fisheries management: a step-by-step guideline for lakes of the European temperate zone. Fish. Manage. Ecol, 11:261-275.
Mokhayer B, 1976. Fish diseases in Iran. Rivista italiana di Piscicoltura e Ittiopatologia, 11(4):123-128.
Müller T; Taller J; Kolics S; Kovács B; Urbányi B; Specziár A, 2010. First record of natural hybridization between pikeperch Sander lucioperca and Volga pikeperch S. volgensis. J. Appl. Ichthyol, 26:481-484.
Ozen MR; Turna II; Cinar K, 2008. As an example of ecological devastation Egirdir Lake (Turkey). Bulgarian Journal of Agricultural Science [4th International Conference "Aquaculture and Water ecosystems", Plovdiv, Bulgaria, 10-11 October 2007.], 14(2):195-200. http://bjas.hit.bg/
Pazooki J; Masoumian M; Yahyazadeh M; Abbasi J, 2007. Metazoan parasites from freshwater fishes of Northwest Iran. Journal of Agricultural Science and Technology, 9(1):25-33. http://www.modares.ac.ir/jast
Poulet N; Arzel C; Messad S; Lek S; Argillier C, 2005. Diel activity of adult pikeperch Sander lucioperca (L.) in a drainage canal in the Mediterranean basin during spring. Hydrobiologia, 543:79-90.
Reshetnikov YS; Bogutskaya NG; Vasil'eva ED; Dorofeeva EA; Naseka AM; Popova OA; Savvaitova KA; Sideleva VG; Sokolov LI, 1997. An annotated check-list of the freshwater fishes of Russia. J. Ichthyol, 37(9):687-736.
Robins CR; Bailey RM; Bond CE; Brooker JR; Lachner EA; Lea RN; Scott WB, 1991. World fishes important to North Americans. Exclusive of species from the continental waters of the United States and Canada. Am. Fish. Soc. Spec. Publ, 21. 243 pp.
Sabaneev LP, 1911. Fishes of Russia (Ryby Rossii). Kiev, Russia: Urozhai Publishing House, 667 pp.
Savvaitova KA; Petr T, 1999. Fish and fisheries in Lake Issyk-Kul (Tien Shan), River Chu and Pamir lakes. In: Fish and fisheries at higher altitudes: Asia [ed. by Petr, T.]. Rome, Italy: FAO, 279-304. [FAO Fisheries Technical Paper.]
Schulze T; Baade U; Dörner H; Eckmann R; Haertel-Borer SS; Hölker F; Mehner T, 2006. Response of the residental piscivorous fish community to introduction of a new predator type in a mesotrophic lake. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Science, 63:2202-2212.
Scott DM; Brown JA; Stakenas S; Wilson RW; Copp GH, 2007. Pikeperch (Sander lucioperca) dispersion through brackish waters - can they and do they? Comparative Biochemistry and Physiology Part A, 146:S77.
Scott DM; Rabineau J; Wilson RW; Hodgson DJ; Brown JA, 2008. Can pikeperch colonise new freshwater systems via estuaries? Evidence from behavioural salinity tests. Marine and Freshwater Research, 59(8):694-702. http://www.publish.csiro.au/nid/126.htm
Smith PA; Leah R; Eaton W, 1994. The impact of zander, an alien piscivorous fish, on prey populations in a heavily-trafficked canal: implications for fishery management. Institute of Fisheries Management 25th Annual Study Course, University of Lancaster, UK. 133-140.
Smith PA; Leah RT; Eaton JW, 1996. Removal of pikeperch (Stizostedion lucioperca) from a British Canal as a management technique to reduce impact on prey fish populations. Annales Zoologici Fennici, 33:537-545.
Smith PA; Leah RT; Eaton JW, 1998. A review of the current knowledge on the introduction, ecology and management of zander, Stizostedion lucioperca), in the UK. In: Stocking and Introduction of Fish [ed. by Cowx, I. G.]. Oxford, UK: Fishing News Books, Blackwell Science Ltd, 209-224.
Sokolov LI; Berdicheskii LS, 1989. Acipenseridae. In: The freshwater fishes of Europe. Vol. 1, Part II. General introduction to fishes Acipenseriformes [ed. by Holcík, J.]., Germany: AULA-Verlag Wiesbaden, 150-153.
Sonesten L, 1991. [English title not available]. (Gösens biologi - en litteratursammenställning.) Information fran Sötvattenslaboratoriet, Drottningholm, 1:1-89.
Specziár A; Bercsényi M; Müller T, 2009. Morphological characteristics of hybrid pikeperch (Sander lucioperca female × Sander volgensis male) (Osteichthyes, Percidae). Acta Zoologica Academiae Scientiarum Hungaricae, 55(1):39-54. http://actazool.nhmus.hu/55/1/Azh55_1_Specziar.pdf
Säisä M; Salminen M; Koljonen M-L; Ruuhijärvi J, 2010. Coastal and freshwater pikeperch (Sander lucioperca) populations differ genetically in the Baltic Sea basin. Hereditas, 147:205-214.
Vinni M; Lappalainen J; Malinen T; Lehtonen H, 2009. Stunted growth of pikeperch Sander lucioperca in Lake Sahajärvi, Finland. J. Fish Biol, 74:967-972.
Wheeler A, 1992. A list of the common and scientific names of fishes of the British Isles. J. Fish Biol., 41(1):1-37.
Winkler HM; Klinkhardt M; Buuk B, 1989. [English title not available]. (Zur Fruchtbarkeit und Reifenentwicklung des Zanders (Stizostedion lucioperca (L.)) aus Brackgewässern der südlichen Ostsee.) Wiss. Z. Univ. Rostock, N-Reihe, 38:31-37.
ContributorsTop of page
07/12/11 Original text by:
Michael Godard, CEFAS, Salmon and Freshwater Team, Pakefield Road, Lowestoft, Suffolk, NR33 0HT, UK
Gordon Copp, CEFAS, Salmon and Freshwater Team, Pakefield Road, Lowestoft, Suffolk, NR33 0HT, UK
Reviewers' names are available on request.
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/