Scardinius erythrophthalmus (rudd)
- 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
- Means of Movement and Dispersal
- Pathway Causes
- Pathway Vectors
- Impact Summary
- Economic Impact
- Environmental Impact
- Risk and Impact Factors
- Uses List
- 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
- Scardinius erythrophthalmus (Linnaeus, 1758)
Preferred Common Name
Other Scientific Names
- Cyprinus caeruleus Yarrell, 1833
- Cyprinus compressus Hollberg, 1822
- Cyprinus erythrophthalmus Linnaeus, 1758
- Cyprinus erythrops Pallas, 1814
- Cyprinus fuscus Vallot, 1837
- Cyprinus scardula Nardo, 1827
- Leuciscus apollonitis Richardson, 1857
- Leuciscus erythrophthalmus (Linnaeus, 1758)
- Leuciscus scardafa (non Bonaparte, 1837)
- Rutilus erythrophthalmus scardata (Bonaparte, 1837)
- Scardinius crocophthalmus Walecki, 1863
- Scardinius dergle Heckel & Kner, 1858
- Scardinius erithrophthalmus (Linnaeus, 1758)
- Scardinius eruthrophthalmus (Linnaeus, 1758)
- Scardinius erythrophthalmus achrus Stephanidis, 1950
- Scardinius erythrophthalmus dojranensis Karan, 1924
- Scardinius erythrophthalmus racovitzai Müller, 1958
- Scardinius erythrophthalmus rutiloides Vladykov, 1931
- Scardinius hesperidicus Bonaparte, 1845
- Scardinius macrophthalmus Heckel & Kner, 1858
- Scardinius platizza Heckel, 1845
- Scardinius plotizza Heckel & Kner, 1858
- Scardinius racovitzai Müller, 1958
- Scardinius scardafa (non Bonaparte, 1837)
- Scardinius scardafa ohridana Vladyko & Petit, 1930
International Common Names
- English: pearl roach; redeye
- Spanish: escardinio; gardí
- French: about; gardon carpe; gardon de roche; gardon rouge; louzou; plate; platelle; rossard; rotengle; rothfeden; rottle; sergent; suce-roseaux
- Russian: krasnoperka
Local Common Names
- Albania: lloska-ë
- Austria: rotfeder
- Bulgaria: chervenoperka
- Czech Republic: cervenica; merlin; perlín obecný; perlín ostrobrichý; perlin rudoploutvy; rudoun; senkyrka; zruka
- Denmark: rudskalle
- Finland: sorva
- Germany: Meefischli; Rotfeder; Weißfisch
- Greece: kokkinoftera; platitsa
- Iran: sorkh Baleh; sorkh Pareh
- Ireland: deargan
- Italy: scardola
- Netherlands: rietvoorn
- Norway: sorv; sørv; søv
- Poland: wzdrega; wzdrega a. krasnopiórka
- Romania: rosioara
- Slovakia: cervenica obycajná
- Slovenia: rdeceperka
- Sweden: sarv
- Switzerland: rotengle; rotfeder; scardola
- Turkey: kizilkanat baligi
- Yugoslavia (Serbia and Montenegro): crvenperka; dojranska letnica
Summary of InvasivenessTop of page
S. erythrophthalmus is a potential pest in many areas, due to consumption of native plants; as it is omnivorous it can shift its diet to plants, unlike most native fishes. Experiments demonstrated that it might be putting vulnerable aquatic communities at risk (ISSG, 2006). It has a wide tolerance to a variety of habitats, which contributed to its wide distribution (USGS, 2005).
Taxonomic TreeTop of page
- Domain: Eukaryota
- Kingdom: Metazoa
- Phylum: Chordata
- Subphylum: Vertebrata
- Class: Actinopterygii
- Order: Cypriniformes
- Family: Cyprinidae
- Genus: Scardinius
- Species: Scardinius erythrophthalmus
Notes on Taxonomy and NomenclatureTop of page
A number of subspecies of Scardinius erythrophthalmus have been recognized (Banarescu, 1964); some of them have been elevated to distinct species, for example, Scardinius graecus and Scardinius scardafa, (Bogutskaya, 1997; Bianco, 2004) and some are no longer considered valid.
The golden coloured variety of S. erythrophthalmus is sometimes used as an ornamental pond fish (Maitland, 1977). S. erythrophthalmus is known to hybridize with the golden shiner (Notemigonus crysoleucas) (Burkhead and Williams, 1991), which is apparently the first known non-salmonid inter-generic cross of a North American native and an exotic (Taylor et al., 1984).
DescriptionTop of page
S. erythrophthalmus has a deep laterally compressed body with a forked tail, a distinct mouth with a steeply angled protruding lower lip, and robustly marked scales (Nico et al., 2008). The body colour is golden-olive on the back, paling to a silvery-olive on the sides and silvery-white on the belly (ISSG, 2006). The fins are bright orange-red and the eyes are pink to gold in colour (McDowall, 2000). According to Wheeler (1978), all the fins are reddish and the ventral fins are brilliant blood red. Other authors have described the median fins as having a rose-orange wash and the paired fins as rose-orange (USGS, 2005). In nuptial males, the venter is silver and the sides are brassy progressing to bright translucent orange along the mid-back (USGS, 2005).
It has 36-45 lateral scales distinctly curved downward anteriorly, 10-11 anal rays (Page and Burr, 1991), less than 10 soft rays on the dorsal fin (Hubbs et al., 1991), and 9-10 short gill rakers on the first gill arch (Nico et al., 2008). Pharyngeal teeth are strongly serrated and borne on a stout arch with a dental formula of typically 3,5-5,3 (ISSG, 2006).
S. erythrophthalmus is medium-sized with an average total length of 30-45 cm and an average weight of 0.8-2.0 kg (Berg, 1964; Wheeler, 1969, 1978; Muus, 1971). The reported maximum age of S. erythrophthalmus is nineteen years (Froese and Pauly, 2008).
DistributionTop of page
S. erythrophthalmus is widespread in its native range in Europe and central Asia (Banarescu, 1964; Berg, 1964), in the basins of the North, Baltic, Black, Caspian (from Emba, Ural and Volga to the rivers of the southern coast) and Aral seas (Bogutskaya, 1997).
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|
|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|
|Georgia (Republic of)||Present||Native||Blanc et al., 1971; Froese and Pauly, 2004|
|Iran||Present||Native||Coad, 1995; Froese and Pauly, 2004|
|Turkey||Present||Native||Bogutskaya, 1997; Froese and Pauly, 2004|
|Uzbekistan||Present||Native||Kamilov and Urchinov, 1995; Froese and Pauly, 2004|
|Morocco||Present||Introduced||Welcomme, 1988; Froese and Pauly, 2004|
|Tunisia||Present||Introduced||Froese and Pauly, 2004; DIAS, 2007|
|Canada||Present||Introduced||Coad, 1995; Froese and Pauly, 2004|
|USA||Present||Introduced||Crossman, 1991; Froese and Pauly, 2004|
|Albania||Present||Native||Blanc et al., 1971; Froese and Pauly, 2004|
|Austria||Present||Native||Muus and Dahlström, 1968; Froese and Pauly, 2004|
|Belarus||Present||Native||Blanc et al., 1971; Froese and Pauly, 2004|
|Belgium||Present||Native||Muus and Dahlström, 1968; Froese and Pauly, 2004|
|Bosnia-Hercegovina||Present||Native||Crivelli, 1996; Froese and Pauly, 2004|
|Bulgaria||Present||Native||Blanc et al., 1971; Froese and Pauly, 2004|
|Croatia||Present||Native||Crivelli, 1996; Froese and Pauly, 2004|
|Czech Republic||Present||Native||Muus and Dahlström, 1968; Froese and Pauly, 2004|
|Denmark||Present||Native||Muus and Dahlstrøm, 1990; Froese and Pauly, 2004|
|Estonia||Present||Native||Anon, 1999; Froese and Pauly, 2004|
|Finland||Present||Native||Froese and Pauly, 2004|
|France||Present||Native||Keith and Allardi, 2001; Froese and Pauly, 2004|
|Germany||Present||Native||Muus and Dahlström, 1968; Froese and Pauly, 2004|
|Greece||Present||Native||Bobori et al., 2001|
|Hungary||Present||Native||Muus and Dahlström, 1968; Froese and Pauly, 2004|
|Ireland||Present||Native||Muus and Dahlström, 1968; Froese and Pauly, 2004|
|Italy||Present||Native||Muus and Dahlström, 1968; Froese and Pauly, 2004|
|Latvia||Present||Native||Blanc et al., 1971; Froese and Pauly, 2004|
|Liechtenstein||Present||Native||Muus and Dahlström, 1968; Froese and Pauly, 2004|
|Lithuania||Present||Native||Blanc et al., 1971; Froese and Pauly, 2004|
|Luxembourg||Present||Native||Muus and Dahlström, 1968; Froese and Pauly, 2004|
|Moldova||Present||Native||Blanc et al., 1971; Froese and Pauly, 2004|
|Netherlands||Present||Native||Muus and Dahlström, 1968; Froese and Pauly, 2004|
|Norway||Present||Blanc et al., 1971|
|Poland||Present||Native||Muus and Dahlström, 1968; Froese and Pauly, 2004|
|Romania||Present||Native||Muus and Dahlström, 1968; Froese and Pauly, 2004|
|Russian Federation||Present||Native||Reshetnikov et al., 1997; Froese and Pauly, 2004|
|Serbia||Present||Native||Crivelli, 1996; Froese and Pauly, 2004|
|Slovakia||Present||Native||Gerstmeier and Romig, 1998; Froese and Pauly, 2004|
|Slovenia||Present||Native||Gerstmeier and Romig, 1998; Froese and Pauly, 2004|
|Spain||Present||Introduced||Doadrio et al., 1991; Froese and Pauly, 2004|
|Sweden||Present||Muus and Dahlström, 1968|
|Switzerland||Present||Native||Muus and Dahlström, 1968; Froese and Pauly, 2004|
|UK||Present||Native||Maitland and Campbell, 1992; Froese and Pauly, 2004|
|Ukraine||Present||Native||Movchan and Smirnov, 1981; Froese and Pauly, 2004|
|New Zealand||Present||Introduced||Welcomme, 1988; Froese and Pauly, 2004|
History of Introduction and SpreadTop of page
S. erythrophthalmus first appeared in the USA in the late nineteenth century (Courtenay and Williams, 1992). The species entered the USA during two widely separated periods of introduction (Nico et al., 2008). It was initially brought to this country either in the late 1800s or early 1900s. A second period of introduction presumably began in the late 1960s or early 1970s. It has presumably spread across the United States through the bait industry (Nico et al., 2008).
IntroductionsTop of page
|Introduced to||Introduced from||Year||Reason||Introduced by||Established in wild through||References||Notes|
|Natural reproduction||Continuous restocking|
|Canada||USA||Interconnected waterways (pathway cause)||Coad et al. (1995)|
|Ireland||England and Wales||1700-1799||Yes||DIAS (2007)||Angling/sport|
|Madagascar||France||1951||No||Stiassny and Raminosoa (1994)|
|Morocco||France||1935||Yes||Welcomme (1988)||Species produces high density and stunted populations|
|New Zealand||England and Wales||1967||Yes||DIAS (2007)||Widespread in lakes and slow flowing rivers and considered as a noxious species. Becoming widepread in North and South Islands; range in expanding. It is present in still and sluggish waters in and north of the lower Waikato River valley having spread slo|
|Spain||1980||Fisheries (pathway cause)||Yes||Welcomme (1988)||Possible breeding populations exist on a local area. There is an increasing trend of spread of this fish|
|Tunisia||France||1960||Fisheries (pathway cause)||Yes||DIAS (2007)||Reintroduced in 1965|
|USA||Europe||1890-1899||Yes||DIAS (2007)||Reintroduced in 1917. Established in New York; its recent popularity as a bait fish may have resulted in the species acquiring a much wider distribution. Established in St. Lawrence River|
Risk of IntroductionTop of page
S. erythrophthalmus is cultivated as a food fish in some countries and also used as bait for fishing. It has been reported as introduced illegally by anglers in some countries and angling associations may release it for sports fisheries (ISSG, 2006). Bait bucket release is believed to be the primary mechanism by which S. erythrophthalmus has gained access to open waters (Nico et al., 2008). Therefore, use of bait and for sport fisheries may pose a risk of S. erythrophthalmus introductions into new areas.
HabitatTop of page
S. erythrophthalmus occurs in a variety of freshwater habitats, including subalpine oligotrophic lakes, lowland lakes, reservoirs, ponds, large rivers, oxbows, small streams, and thermal springs; in some areas, it enters brackish water (Wheeler, 1969; Kennedy and Fitzmaurice, 1974; Aneer and Nellbring, 1976; Rheinberger et al., 1987). It prefers waters that contain large weed beds (McDowall, 2000) that serve both as cover and a principal component of the diet (Wheeler, 1969; Kennedy and Fitzmaurice, 1974). In streams and rivers, it usually occurs in long, slow pools and backwaters. In ponds, lakes and reservoirs, it is usually found in the littoral zone (USGS, 2005). It can also live in brackish waters (Froese and Pauly, 2008). S. erythrophthalmus can be found at altitudes of 1829 m above sea level (Schindler, 1957).
Habitat ListTop of page
|Rivers / streams||Principal habitat|
Biology and EcologyTop of page
The recorded haploid and diploid chromosome numbers of S. erythrophthalmus in Italy and Sweden are 24 (n) and 48-48 (2n), respectively (Froese and Pauly, 2008). The same haploid and diploid chromosome numbers of S. erythrophthalmus have been reported in unspecified locations (Froese and Pauly, 2008). Haploid and diploid chromosome numbers are reported as 25 (n) and 50-50 (2n) in the South Pyrenees, Umbria, Italy, USA, and Yugoslavia, (Froese and Pauly, 2008) and in unspecified locations (Manna, 1989; Klinkhardt et al., 1995; Froese and Pauly, 2008). Another variation in haploid and diploid chromosome numbers of 26 (n) and 52-52 (2n) in unspecified locations has been reported by Froese and Pauly (2008).
Genetic markers of S. erythrophthalmus were documented by Klinkhardt et al. (1995), but the location was not specified.
Male S. erythrophthalmus generally mature at age one to four years whereas the females mature at age two to five, but maturity can vary with geographic latitude (USGS, 2005). Spawning occurs once per year (McDowall, 1990) or produces two batches of eggs in a spawning season (Holcik, 1967) over spring and summer, when water temperatures rise above about 16°C (Nikolsky, 1963) to 18°C (McDowall, 1990). In its native range S. erythrophthalmus spawns from April to August (Pflieger, 1997). Female S. erythrophthalmus lay 96,000-232,000 eggs per female (Berg, 1964) or 108,000-211,000 eggs per kg of body mass (Kennedy and Fitzmaurice, 1974).
The eggs are demersal, adhesive (Cadwallader, 1977; Cerny, 1977) and small with a diameter of one to 1.4 mm, and are deposited among vegetation (USGS, 2005). Newly fertilized eggs are translucent pale yellow to opaque grey-green (Cadwallader, 1977; Cerny, 1977). Incubation period varies according to the water temperature. Incubation time ranges from 4-5 days at 17.5-21.5°C to 19-20 days at 10.5-11.5°C.
Newly hatched larvae attach themselves to aquatic plants using adhesive organs and stay attached for several days while the yolk is utilized for feeding (McDowall, 1990). Larvae are about 4.5-5.9 mm in total length at hatching (USGS, 2005).
S. erythrophthalmus has a diverse diet from phytoplankton to insects, snails and crustaceans depending on the life stage. At the larval stage S. erythrophthalmus consumes unicellular algae and some phytoplankton; late larval stages feed on cladocerans and copepods while young stages feed on aquatic crustaceans, snails and insects (USGS, 2005). Adult S. erythrophthalmus are omnivorous, feeding mainly on aquatic vegetation as well as surface and aerial insects, snails, crustaceans, diatoms, and occasionally fish eggs (Hartley, 1947; Muus, 1971; Coates and Turner, 1977; Smith, 1985).
Even though S. erythrophthalmus is primarily a freshwater fish it has the ability to tolerate low levels of saline water. It has been found in tidal ponds of the Shannon Estuary and in Courtown Harbour where salinity ranges from 1-10 ppt (Kennedy and Fitzmaurice, 1974) and individuals have been caught in the northern Baltic Sea at a salinity level of 7 ppt (Aneer and Nellbring, 1976).
Water TolerancesTop of page
|Parameter||Minimum Value||Maximum Value||Typical Value||Status||Life Stage||Notes|
|Water pH (pH)||7.0||7.5||Optimum|
|Water temperature (ºC temperature)||10||22||Optimum|
Natural enemiesTop of page
|Natural enemy||Type||Life stages||Specificity||References||Biological control in||Biological control on|
|Channa argus warpachowskii||Predator||Adult/Fry||not specific||Guseva, 1990|
|Esox lucius||Predator||Adult/Fry||not specific||Omarov and Popova, 1985|
|Sander lucioperca||Predator||Adult/Fry||not specific||Stolyarov, 1985|
|Silurus glanis||Predator||Adult/Fry||not specific||Omarov and Popova, 1985|
Means of Movement and DispersalTop of page
S. erythrophthamus are able to disperse within connected water bodies.
S. erythrophthalmus have been widely introduced through a combination of bait bucket releases, escapes from aquaculture facilities and farm ponds, and, presumably, by dispersal from various points of introduction (e.g., Burkhead and Williams, 1991). Dill and Cordone (1997) expressed concern that S. erythrophthalmus may find its way into California as a contaminant in golden shiner shipments imported as bait from Arkansas.
Although many S. erythrophthalmus introductions are considered accidental, it is likely that S. erythrophthalmus also have been intentionally released into public waters during the past few decades (Nico et al., 2008). S. erythrophthalmus has been introduced illegally by anglers in some countries. It has also been released into waters by angling organisations as a sport fish. S. erythrophthalmus has been cultivated in Arkansas and Virginia (and possibly elsewhere) as baitfish and distributed to bait stores in at least sixteen states (Courtenay and Williams, 1992).
Impact SummaryTop of page
Economic ImpactTop of page
Rowe and Champion (1994) recorded that in New Zealand the introduction of S. erythrophthalmus to a small put-and-take trout fishery ruined the fishery because they exhibited stunted growth and subsequently out-competed trout for anglers' lures.
Environmental ImpactTop of page
Impact on Biodiversity
S. erythrophthalmus can be a potential pest in some areas, due to its consumption of aquatic plants, putting vulnerable native aquatic plants at risk (Lake et al., 2002). Cadwallader (1977) reviewed the potential impacts of S. erythrophthalmus in waters of North Island, New Zealand and concluded, in part, that it can be expected to compete for invertebrate food sources with native fishes. Burkhead and Williams (1991) suggest hybridization of S. erythrophthalmus and golden shiner (Notemigonus crysoleucas) may impose a threat to the genetic integrity of the golden shiner.
Risk and Impact FactorsTop of page Invasiveness
- Proved invasive outside its native range
- Has a broad native range
- Abundant in its native range
- Highly adaptable to different environments
- Is a habitat generalist
- Capable of securing and ingesting a wide range of food
- Long lived
- Has high reproductive potential
- Modification of natural benthic communities
- Negatively impacts aquaculture/fisheries
- Reduced native biodiversity
- Threat to/ loss of native species
- Pest and disease transmission
UsesTop of page
S. erythrophthalmus is valued as a sporting fish by anglers (McDowall, 2000) and characteristics of the species have made it a popular bait with anglers fishing for striped bass, Morone saxatilis (Burkhead and Williams, 1991).
Uses ListTop of page
Animal feed, fodder, forage
- Sport (hunting, shooting, fishing, racing)
Similarities to Other Species/ConditionsTop of page
S. erythrophthalmus is similar in appearance to the golden shiner (Notemigonus crysoleucas). The two species can be distinguished by examining the mid-ventral keel, fin colour of adult and pharyngeal teeth. The golden shiner has a scale-less mid-ventral keel, orange or reddish-orange fins of adult and a single row of (0,5-5,0) pharyngeal teeth, whereas the keel of adult S. erythrophthalmus is crossed with scales, and there are two rows of (3,5-5,3) pharyngeal teeth (USGS, 2005). Newly hatched S. erythrophthalmus larvae possess adhesive organs on the head and anterior trunk, while golden shiner larvae do not have adhesive organs (Lippson and Moran, 1974; Snyder et al., 1977).
Prevention and ControlTop of page
In New Zealand S. erythrophthalmus has been declared as a noxious fish, except for the Auckland area where it is valued as a sport fish; it has been declared as a potential pest by Environment Waikato Region and in Wellington Region (ISSG, 2006).
Crossman (1991) suggests the species should not be intentionally or accidentally transferred to other waters, in order to avoid damage to native cyprinid populations by competition and hybridization.
It has been demonstrated that the use of fine-mesh monofilament gill nets is a potentially viable but short-term option for the control of S. erythrophthalmus in small lakes (Neilson et al., 2004). Rowe and Champion (1994) reported that S. erythrophthalmus were eliminated from a two hectare lake using a combination of grass carp to remove weed beds and then rotenone to remove the unwanted fish exposed by weed removal.
ReferencesTop of page
Banarescu P, 1964. [Fauna of the Romanian people's republic No. 8 - Pisces - Osteichthyes]. Fauna republicii populare Romîne-Pisces-Osteichthyes. Bucuresti, Romania: Editura Academiei Republicii Populare Romîne, 959 pp.
Bianco PG, 2004. Threatened fishes of the world: Scardinius scardafa (Bonaparte, 1837) (Cyprinidae): Environmental Biology of Fishes. Threatened fishes of the world: Scardinius scardafa (Bonaparte, 1837) (Cyprinidae).
Bogutskaya NG, 1997. Contribution to the knowledge of leuciscine fishes of Asia Minor. An annotated checklist of leuciscine fishes (Leuciscinae, Cyprinidae) of Turkey with descriptions of a new species and two new subspecies. Mitt. Hamb. Zool. Mus. Inst. 94:161-186.
Courtenay Jr; WR; Williams JD, 1992. Dispersal of aquatic species from aquaculture sources with emphasis on freshwater fishes. In: Rosenfeld A, Mann R, eds. Dispersal of living organisms into aquatic ecosystems. Maryland, USA: University of Maryland, Sea Grant Programme, 49-81.
Froese R; Pauly D, 2004. FishBase DVD. Penang, Malaysia: Worldfish Center. Online at www.fishbase.org.
Griffiths D, 1997. The status of the Irish freshwater fish fauna: a review. Appl. Ichthyol, 13:9-13.
Kamilov G; Urchinov ZhU, 1995. Fish and fisheries in Uzbekistan under the impact of irrigated agriculture. Inland fisheries under the impact of irrigated agriculture: Central Asia [ed. by Petr T]., 10-41. [FAO Fisheries Circular No. 894.]
Lippson AJ; Moran RL, 1974. Manual for identification of early developmental stages of fishes of the Potomac River estuary: Annapolis, Md., Power Plant Siting Program, Maryland Department of Natural Resources.
Manna GK, 1989. Fish cytogenetics related to taxonomy, evolution and monitoring aquatic genotoxic agents. Proceedings of the Symposium on Conservation and Management of Fish Genetic Resources of India. Fish cytogenetics related to taxonomy, evolution and monitoring aquatic genotoxic agents:21-46.
Movchan YuV; Smirnov AI, 1981. Fauna of Ukraine. Fishes. Cyprinid Fishes (Roach, dace, minnow, rudd, grass carp, asp, verchovka, tench, undermouth, gudgeon, barbel). (Fauna Ukrainy. Ryby. Koropovi (Plitka, yalets, golijan, krasnopirka, amur, bilyzna, verkhova, lyn, chebachok amurskyi).
Neilson K; Kelleher R; Branes G; Speirs D; Kelly J, 2004. Use of fine-mesh monofilament gill nets for the removal of rudd ( Scardinius erythrophthalmus) from a small lake complex in Waikato, New Zealand. New Zealand Journal of Marine and Freshwater Research, 38:525-539.
Nico L; Fuller P; Jacobs G, 2008. Scardinius erythrophthalmus. In: USGS Nonindigenous Aquatic Species Database. United States Geological Survey, Gainesville, Florida, USA. http://nas.er.usgs.gov/queries/FactSheet.aspx?SpeciesID=648
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.
Rowe DK; Champion PD, 1994. Biomanipulation of plants and fish to restore Lake Parkinson: a case study of its implications. Restoration of Aquatic Ecosystems, Science and Research Series, Department of Conservation, New Zealand [ed. by Collier , K].
Snyder DE; Mulhall SMB; Douglas SC, 1977. Identification of golden shiner, Notemigonus crysoleucas, spotfin shiner, Notropis spilopterus, and fathead minnow, Pimephales promelas, larvae. Journal of the Fisheries Research Board of Canada, 34(9):1397-1409.
Taylor JN; Courtenay WR; McCann JA, 1984. Known impacts of exotic fishes in the continental United States. In: Distribution, Biology and Management of Exotic Fishes [ed. by Courtenay WR, Stauffer JR] Baltimore, Maryland, USA: Johns Hopkins University Press, 322-373.
OrganizationsTop of page
Italy: FAO (Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations), Viale delle Terme di Caracalla, 00100 Rome, http://www.fao.org/
Switzerland: IUCN (The World Conservation Union), Rue Mauverney 28, Gland 1196, Gland, Switzerland, http://www.iucn.org/
USA: United States Geological Survey, USGS National Center 12201 Sunrise Valley Drive, Reston, VA 20192, http://www.usgs.gov/
ContributorsTop of page
27/06/08 Original text by:
Sunil Siriwardena, Institute of Aquaculture, University of Stirling, Stirling, FK9 4LA, UK
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/