Faxonius limosus (Spiny-cheek crayfish)
- 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
- Latitude/Altitude Ranges
- Water Tolerances
- Natural enemies
- Notes on Natural Enemies
- Means of Movement and Dispersal
- Pathway Causes
- Impact Summary
- Economic Impact
- Environmental Impact
- Threatened Species
- Social Impact
- Risk and Impact Factors
- Uses List
- Detection and Inspection
- Similarities to Other Species/Conditions
- Prevention and Control
- Gaps in Knowledge/Research Needs
- Links to Websites
- 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
- Faxonius limosus (Rafinesque, 1817)
Preferred Common Name
- Spiny-cheek crayfish
Other Scientific Names
- Astacus affinis
- Orconectes limosus (Rafinesque, 1817)
Local Common Names
- Czech Republic: rak pruhovaný
- France: écrevisse américaine
- Germany: Kamberkrebs
- Italy: gambero americano
- Netherlands: amerikaanse rivierkreeft
- Poland: rak pregowany
- Russian Federation: polosatyi rak
Summary of InvasivenessTop of page
Faxonius limosus (formerly Orconectes limosus) is a crayfish native to the Atlantic watershed of North America. It was introduced to Europe in the 1890s for use in aquaculture, and is considered one of the most invasive crayfish there; it is included in the list of species of Union concern attached to the EU Regulation 1143/2014 on invasive alien species. It is an omnivorous species, feeding on aquatic vegetation, fish eggs and invertebrates, and thus affecting biodiversity. It is a carrier of crayfish plague, lethal for the European native crayfish. It can destabilize riverbanks, and modify other habitats, due to its burrowing behaviour. It can live in a variety of habitats, has a high dispersal capability and can spread both unaided and facilitated (deliberately or accidentally) by humans. As well as Europe, it has also been reported in Morocco. It is known or suspected to have been introduced in parts of its North American range, but it is not considered to be particularly invasive there (and is thought to have been extirpated from West Virginia by F. virilis).
Taxonomic TreeTop of page
- Domain: Eukaryota
- Kingdom: Metazoa
- Phylum: Arthropoda
- Subphylum: Crustacea
- Class: Malacostraca
- Subclass: Eumalacostraca
- Order: Decapoda
- Suborder: Reptantia
- Unknown: Astacoidea
- Family: Cambaridae
- Genus: Faxonius
- Species: Faxonius limosus
Notes on Taxonomy and NomenclatureTop of page
According to Crandall and De Grave (2017), the accepted name of the species is Faxonius limosus (Rafinesque, 1817), replacing the previous name Orconectes limosus. The English common name of the species is ‘spiny-cheek crayfish’.
DescriptionTop of page
Detailed descriptions are provided by Hamr (2002) and Souty-Grosset et al. (2006).
Faxonius limosus has an anterior cephalothorax, comprising the head and the thorax, with two pairs of antennae, claws, mouth, and walking legs, and a posterior abdomen with appendages, used mainly by females for incubating eggs, and the “fan” tail.
It has a pale or dark brown or olive-green body (the colour depends partly on the environment where it lives) with a typical transverse brown-red band in each abdominal segment. The carapace is relatively smooth, but it has prominent spines on each side (hence the common name in English). The claws are generally small with rows of pits on the surface, smooth to touch; their tips are orange with black bands. Females have a seminal receptacle (annulus ventralis) at the bases of the posterior walking legs; males have the first and second appendages of abdomen (gonopods) modified for copulation. The reproductive Form I males have harder gonopods, and a more robust exoskeleton than Form II males which are the non-reproductive form. Sexually active males have grasping hooks on the ischium of the 2nd pair of walking legs. Total length can be up to 12 cm, but it is usually 10 cm (without claws).
DistributionTop of page
Faxonius limosus is native to the Atlantic watershed of North America, specifically the lower catchment of the River Delaware, the area around Chesapeake Bay (Pennsylvania and Maryland), and possibly also other rivers of this region such as the Susquehanna (Filipová et al., 2011; Alekhnovich and Buřič, 2017). It occurs in Québec, New Brunswick, Vermont, Massachusetts, Rhode Island, New Jersey, New York, Connecticut, Delaware, District of Columbia, Maryland, Pennsylvania and Virginia (IUCN, 2019). Its presence in West Virginia is uncertain -- Swecker et al. (2010) reported its possible extirpation by F. virilis. It has been introduced to New Hampshire and Maine (Hamr, 2002), but is probably also introduced in many of the states mentioned above (Hamr, 2002; Alekhnovich and Buřič, 2017). In Canada it is uncertain whether it was introduced, whether it has spread naturally or whether its presence was underestimated in the past; Hamr, 2002). It is the most introduced crayfish in Europe, where it is reported in 24 territories (Kouba et al., 2014; Trichkova et al., 2015; Govedič, 2017), including Corsica (Kouba et al., 2014) and the UK (Holdich and Black, 2007), and is particularly widespread in Germany, Poland and France. It has also been introduced in Morocco (Holdich et al., 2006).
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: 20 Mar 2020
|Continent/Country/Region||Distribution||Last Reported||Origin||First Reported||Invasive||Reference||Notes|
|Morocco||Present||Introduced||1988||Huner JV (1988)|
|Austria||Present||Introduced||1969||Invasive||Holdich DM et al. (2006)|
|Belarus||Present||Introduced||Invasive||Holdich DM et al. (2006)||First reported: 1990s|
|Belgium||Present||Introduced||1977||Invasive||Boets et al. (2016)|
|Bulgaria||Present||Introduced||2015||Trichkova T et al. (2015)|
|Croatia||Present||Introduced||2003||Invasive||Holdich DM et al. (2006)|
|Czechia||Present, Widespread||Introduced||Invasive||Holdich DM et al. (2006)||First reported: 1960s|
|France||Present, Widespread||Introduced||1896||Invasive||Holdich DM et al. (2006)|
|-Corsica||Present||Introduced||Holdich DM et al. (2006)|
|Germany||Present, Widespread||Introduced||1895||Invasive||Holdich DM et al. (2006)|
|Hungary||Present||Introduced||1959||Invasive||Holdich DM et al. (2006)|
|Italy||Present||Introduced||Invasive||Aquiloni et al. (2010)|
|Latvia||Present||Introduced||Holdich et al. (2009)|
|Lithuania||Present||Introduced||1994||Invasive||Rakauskas V et al. (2010)|
|Luxembourg||Present||Introduced||1978||Ries C and Pfeiffenschneider M (2018)|
|Montenegro||Present||Introduced||Simić et al. (2008)|
|Netherlands||Present||Introduced||Invasive||Geelen JFM (1978)||First reported: 1960s|
|Poland||Present, Widespread||Introduced||1890||Invasive||Holdich DM et al. (2006)|
|Romania||Present||Introduced||2008||Invasive||Pârvulescu L et al. (2009)|
|Russia||Present, Localized||CABI (Undated)||Present based on regional distribution|
|-Central Russia||Present, Localized||Introduced||2000||Invasive||Burba A (2010)||Kaliningrad|
|Serbia||Present||Introduced||2002||Invasive||Holdich DM et al. (2006)|
|Slovakia||Present||Introduced||2007||Invasive||Pârvulescu L et al. (2009)|
|Switzerland||Present||Introduced||1976||Invasive||Hefti D and Stucki P (2006)|
|United Kingdom||Present, Localized||Introduced||1995||Invasive||Holdich and Black (2007); Aldridge D (2011)|
|Canada||Present, Localized||CABI (Undated)||Present based on regional distribution|
|-New Brunswick||Present||Filipová et al. (2011); IUCN (2019)||Possibly introduced|
|-Quebec||Present||Filipová et al. (2011); IUCN (2019)||Possibly introduced|
|United States||Present, Localized||CABI (Undated)||Present based on regional distribution|
|-Connecticut||Present||Hamr (2002); Filipová et al. (2011)||Possibly introduced|
|-Delaware||Present||Hamr (2002); Filipová et al. (2011)||Possibly introduced|
|-District of Columbia||Present||Hamr (2002); Filipová et al. (2011)||Possibly introduced|
|-Massachusetts||Present||Hamr (2002); Filipová et al. (2011)||Possibly introduced|
|-New Hampshire||Present||Introduced||Hamr (2002)|
|-New Jersey||Present||Hamr (2002); Filipová et al. (2011)||Possibly introduced|
|-New York||Present||Hamr (2002); Filipová et al. (2011)||Possibly introduced|
|-Rhode Island||Present||Hamr (2002); Filipová et al. (2011)||Possibly introduced|
|-Vermont||Present||Hamr (2002); Filipová et al. (2011)||Possibly introduced|
|-Virginia||Present||Hamr (2002); Filipová et al. (2011)||Possibly introduced|
|-West Virginia||Absent||Swecker et al. (2010); Hamr (2002); Filipová et al. (2011)||Native, but probably extirpated by Faxonius virilis|
History of Introduction and SpreadTop of page
Initial spread of Faxonius limosus has been mainly as a result of human activity: in Europe it was first introduced in 1890 in Poland for aquaculture to replace the local native crayfish Astacus astacus which was experiencing a severe decrease (Hamr, 2002; Holdich and Black, 2007). It was later introduced in several European states for the same reason (e.g. Germany in 1895; France unsuccessfully in 1896 and successfully in 1911-13; Hungary in 1959; Austria in 1969). It can be introduced also as live bait or as an aquarium species (as probably occurred in the UK: Holdich and Black, 2007) or as contaminant of fish stocking (e.g. in Italy; Aquiloni et al., 2010), or by other accidental means such as being caught up in fishing nets (Holdich et al., 2006). It has also spread naturally through rivers and canals (as happened within France, Poland and Germany; in Belarus from Poland; and in Croatia, Serbia, Slovenia, Romania and Bulgaria along the Danube river system).
IntroductionsTop of page
|Introduced to||Introduced from||Year||Reason||Introduced by||Established in wild through||References||Notes|
|Natural reproduction||Continuous restocking|
|Poland||USA||1890||Aquaculture (pathway cause)||Yes||No||Holdich et al. (2006)||To replace declining native crayfish in aquaculture|
|Germany||Poland||1895||Aquaculture (pathway cause)||Yes||No||Holdich et al. (2006)||To replace declining native crayfish in aquaculture|
|France||USA||1896||Aquaculture (pathway cause)||No||No||Holdich et al. (2006)|
|France||Germany||1911-1913||Aquaculture (pathway cause)||Yes||No||Holdich et al. (2006)|
|Hungary||Germany||1959||Aquaculture (pathway cause)||Yes||No||Holdich et al. (2006)|
|Belarus||Poland||1990s||Interconnected waterways (pathway cause)||Yes||No||Holdich et al. (2006)|
|Lithuania||Poland||1994||Interconnected waterways (pathway cause)||Yes||No||Rakauskas et al. (2010)|
|Croatia||Hungary||2003||Interconnected waterways (pathway cause)||Yes||No||Holdich et al. (2006)|
|Romania||Serbia||2008||Interconnected waterways (pathway cause)||Yes||No||Pârvulescu et al. (2009)||Along the Danube river|
|Central Russia||Lithuania||2010||Interconnected waterways (pathway cause)||Yes||No||Burba (2010)||Kaliningrad region|
Risk of IntroductionTop of page
Notwithstanding that Faxonius limosus is widely recognized as invasive and at least in the European Union is banned by the new regulation on invasive alien species, new findings are reported, because it can spread naturally along rivers and canals, as happened for the recent records in eastern Europe.
HabitatTop of page
Hamr (2002) states that “in North America, the species inhabits soft-bottomed, silty, turbid waters such as found in large rivers, wide streams and lakes with abundant vegetation, although in Canada it has been found occupying stony streams with a moderate current”. In Europe, it occupies a wider range of habitats including cool, fast waters, predominantly occurring in larger watercourses, but preferring lentic, warm, deep waters such as ponds and lakes with shallow bottoms having a layer of sediment (Buřič et al., 2009b), in which it digs burrows (Kouba et al., 2016). It can inhabit water bodies that are organically or inorganically polluted (Holdich et al., 2006). Although it is usually found in lowland waters, in Morocco (North Africa), introduced populations have become established at altitudes between 1400 and 2078 m above sea level (Holdich et al., 2006).
Habitat ListTop of page
|Irrigation channels||Secondary/tolerated habitat||Natural|
|Rivers / streams||Principal habitat||Natural|
Biology and EcologyTop of page
Similarly to F. rusticus, Faxonius limosus has been reported to form hybrids with F. propinquus in Canada (Hamr, 2002).
Genetic analyses conducted by Filipová et al. (2011) have shown that all the European stocks of F. limosus originate from the first introduction of 90 specimens in 1890.
A detailed description of the reproductive biology of Faxonius limosus is provided by Hamr (2002). As in other cambarid species, males transfer sperm into the annulus ventralis (a seminal receptacle) of females; males show cyclic dimorphism, alternating between the reproductively active form I and the reproductively inactive form II (Buřič et al., 2010) .The species mates in autumn and spring. In both North America and Europe, reproduction can occur once or twice per year, depending on the area. Females mated in autumn store the sperm until spring (late April or May) in the annulus ventralis; eggs are laid as water temperatures begin to increase (Hamr, 2002; Holdich and Black, 2007). Females can lay from 30 to 440 eggs, which are carried under the abdomen (Hamr, 2002), but the usual range is between 50 and 300 (Alekhnovich and Buřič, 2017). On average, eggs hatch after 40 to 50 days (Hamr, 2002; Kozák et al., 2006). Young crayfish are similar to adults and become free-living and actively feeding at the third development stage (after 10 days). Maturity is usually reached during the second year (15-16 months; Hamr, 2002; Alekhnovich and Buřič, 2017), but some juveniles can mature and reproduce within the first year (Kozák et al., 2007). The size at maturity is 25-35 mm cephalothorax length (Hamr, 2002). Under laboratory conditions, females have been shown to reproduce by facultative parthenogenesis and to store sperm (Buřič et al., 2011, 2013).
Physiology and Phenology
Faxonius limosus is generally considered a tertiary burrower, i.e. it builds burrows only for reproduction or to escape extreme conditions (Thoma, 2015). It has been found to burrow extensively in England but not in other European countries or in North America (Holdich and Black, 2007; Aldridge, 2011). Short burrows have been observed in France (Holdich and Black, 2007) and in the laboratory under drought conditions (Kouba et al., 2016). More complex burrows have been reported in the Czech Republic in soft substrata (Holdich and Black, 2007).
Low temperature is not an obstacle to activity or to mating; Faxonius limosus has been observed to mate regularly mate at 15-16°C, but also at 3-5°C (Holdich and Black, 2007), and even in only a few millimetres of water (Aldridge, 2011).
Faxonius limosus is most active from spring to autumn (May to October) at temperatures above 3°C, but it is known to be active under ice in France during the winter (Baldry, 2007), and many have been observed in the UK from November to January (water temperature: 6-7°C; Holdich and Black, 2007). Depending on the environment and period of life cycle, it can be active both by day or by night (Musil et al., 2010), or more during the day (during the breeding season; Buřič et al., 2009a).
Faxonius limosus can move across land (Puky, 2014), even in winter (Holdich and Black, 2007). Males can be more nomadic during the reproductive period, when they are searching for mates, while females may move less when they bear eggs and more after hatching (Buřič et al., 2009a).
Population Size and Structure
In the field, Faxonius limosus occurs in densities of up to 70 individuals/m2 in Poland (reviewed in Nyström, 1999), or 16 individuals/m2 in Italy and Germany (Pilotto et al., 2008; Hirsch, 2009). It spreads rapidly through contiguous water courses and within lakes. The sex-ratio can vary according to season, habitat and area.
Like other crayfish, Faxonius limosus is omnivorous, feeding on a variety of food items: macroinvertebrates, aquatic plants, fish eggs, and detritus (Hamr, 2002; Alekhnovich and Buřič, 2017). It is a voracious feeder, having high consumption rates (Alekhnovich and Buřič, 2017).
In both the native and the introduced range, Faxonius limosus experiences hot and cold temperature extremes (Aldridge, 2011). However, under laboratory conditions simulating climate change, it reduced its agonistic behaviour at the higher temperature, with the red swamp crayfish Procambarus clarkii outcompeting it (Gherardi et al., 2013). It is tolerant to deoxygenated, eutrophic or polluted water (Holdich and Black, 2007; Alekhnovich and Buřič, 2017). In Austria, it has been reported to reach a high density in a waterbody that is oily and muddy, with other aquatic fauna excluded, indicating low water quality (Pöckl, 1999). It can tolerate drying conditions for many weeks (Laurent, 1988; Holdich et al., 2006). It has been showed to reproduce successfully at salinity values up to 7 ‰ (Jaszczolt and Szaniawska, 2011), with individuals having been found also in brackish waters with salinity of up to 10 ‰.
ClimateTop of page
|C - Temperate/Mesothermal climate||Preferred||Average temp. of coldest month > 0°C and < 18°C, mean warmest month > 10°C|
|D - Continental/Microthermal climate||Preferred||Continental/Microthermal climate (Average temp. of coldest month < 0°C, mean warmest month > 10°C)|
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|
|Salinity (part per thousand)||up to 10||Optimum||Jaszczolt and Szaniawska (2011)|
Natural enemiesTop of page
|Natural enemy||Type||Life stages||Specificity||References||Biological control in||Biological control on|
|Cyprinus carpio||Predator||not specific|
|Esox lucius||Predator||not specific|
|Fulica atra||Predator||not specific|
|Lota lota||Predator||not specific|
|Lutra lutra||Predator||not specific|
|Neovison vison||Predator||not specific|
Notes on Natural EnemiesTop of page
Predators include several fish, such as carp (Cyprinus carpio), pike (Esox lucius), eel (Anguilla anguilla) or burbot (Lota lota); aquatic birds, such as coots (Fulica spp.), herons or cormorants; or mammals, such as otters (Lutra lutra) or mink (Holdich et al., 2006; Holdich and Black, 2007). Large individuals are not much predated as they usually cross the spinous claws and keep them locked, forming a “spinous ball” which is not easy to swallow (Holdich et al., 2006).
Means of Movement and DispersalTop of page
Faxonius limosus is capable of moving across land (Puky, 2014), even in winter (Holdich and Black, 2007). Males can be more nomadic during the reproductive period, when they are searching for mates, while females may move less when they bear eggs and more after hatching (Buřič et al., 2009a). In the Czech Republic, the species showed a high dispersal rate with no directional preference during summer (up to 15 m/day: Buřič et al., 2009a, b). In Lake Constance, radio-tracked individuals moved distances of up to 1200 m within 4 days, mostly remaining within the littoral zone at less than 3 m depth (Hirsch et al., 2016). In Croatia, the rate of upstream dispersal in the Drava River has been reported to be less than 2.5 km/year (Hudina et al., 2009). In the River Danube, in Hungary, the speed of colonization has been estimated to be more than 13 km/year (Puky and Schád, 2006). In Belarus, since 1997, it has spread 177 km upstream along the course of the Neman River from the Grodno region (Aklehnovich and Razlutskij, 2013).
Vector Transmission (Biotic)
In other crayfish (e.g. Procambarus clarkii: Anastácio et al., 2014), it has been reported that juveniles could possibly be transported by aquatic birds over short or medium distances. A similar mechanism could be hypothesized for Faxonius limosus.
Faxonius limosus can be introduced as live bait, or as an aquarium species which can reach the wild if dumped into the water (Holdich and Black, 2007) or as a contaminant of fish stocking (Aquiloni et al., 2010). Getting caught up in fishing nets is another means of accidental introduction (Holdich et al., 2006).
Pathway CausesTop of page
|Aquaculture||Main cause in Europe||Yes||Holdich et al., 2006|
|Aquarium trade||Probably cause of introduction to UK||Yes||Holdich and Black, 2007|
|Fisheries||Yes||Holdich et al., 2006|
|Hitchhiker||Fishing nets or shipments of fish for stocking||Yes||,|
|Hunting, angling, sport or racing||As bait, or contaminant of angling material||Yes||Holdich and Black, 2007|
|Hunting, angling, sport or racing||As bait, or contaminant of angling material||Yes||Aquiloni et al., 2010|
|Interconnected waterways||Reached a number of European countries in this way||Yes||Holdich et al., 2006|
Impact SummaryTop of page
Economic ImpactTop of page
Due to the burrowing behaviour of Faxonius limosus, riverbanks can be affected and destabilized, with consequent damage to infrastructure nearby (Aldridge, 2011). Angling/fisheries could be impacted by the species, e.g. by its feeding on fish eggs or by competing with fish (Souty-Grosset et al., 2006; Aldridge, 2011). According to Laurent (1988), any economic loss in Europe was to the crayfish industry and was moderate.
Environmental ImpactTop of page
Impact on Habitats
In experimental flumes, Statzner et al. (2000, 2003) showed that Faxonius limosus at a fixed biomass (174 g/m2) significantly affected sand and gravel erosion. Its effect as a bioturbator varied as a function of the presence of refugia and aggression. Bioturbation by crayfish was found to change bedform roughness, physical particle consolidation, the proportion of sand in gravel interstices, sand cover by gravel, and the cover of filamentous algae. Such changes may in turn affect the abundance and structure of the entire benthic community, e.g. by modifying the substrate or by reducing algae and biofilm available for grazers. Also, sand reduction among gravel might alter the egg survival of gravel-breeding fish, like salmonids. Recent experiments conducted in seminatural conditions in the USA confirmed that the species is a bioturbator and can alter surface and subsurface gravel arrangement and bed topography (Albertson and Daniels, 2018). Being an omnivorous species, it can cause a decrease in macrophyte cover, macroinvertebrate abundance and diversity, altering the ecosystem function (Vojkovská et al., 2014; Šidagytė et al., 2017). Generally, in Europe its population density appears much higher than of the native species, and has been reported to be equivalent to much or most of the biomass of macroinvertebrates and fish (Haertel-Borer et al., 2005).
Impact on Biodiversity
Faxonius limosus is not considered particularly invasive in North America, where it faces competition from other crayfish species, particularly F. rusticus (Hamr, 2002), although it appears to have displaced F. virilis in the lower St Lawrence River (Hamr, 2002). Since its introduction to continental Europe, it has proved to be extremely invasive, active and aggressive (Holdich, 2002; Souty-Grosset et al., 2006; Lozan, 2000; Musil et al., 2010; Kouba et al., 2014), displacing native crayfish populations through competition for resources and the transmission of crayfish plague caused by the oomycete Aphanomyces astaci (Holdich et al., 2006; Kozubíková et al., 2006; Holdich and Black, 2007; Kozák et al., 2007; Musil et al., 2010; Pârvulescu et al., 2012). In the 1990s, the main catch in Hungary was the native Astacus astacus, but F. limosus is now the most abundant crayfish (Holdich et al., 2006). It is almost impossible to restock native crayfish where it is present (Souty-Grosset et al., 2006).
Using mesocosm experiments, Hirsch and Fischer (2008) found that the invasive Faxonius limosus successfully repelled native young-of-year burbot Lota lota from their preferred daytime shelters into alternative, previously unselected shelters. They also affected the nocturnal behaviour of YOY burbot by eliciting avoidance behavior, and caused an increase in the plasma cortisol levels. However, they did not change adult burbot behaviour.
Faxonius limosus is omnivorous and, being able to reach high densities, can impact native macroinvertebrates and macrophytes. Detritus and plant materials (including roots) were found to be the main component of its diet (Vojkovská et al., 2014); combining laboratory and field approaches, Šidagytė et al. (2017) found that, compared to the European Astacus leptodactylus (Pontastacus leptodactylus), it has a more diverse predatory diet, being less selective, and can thus have a stronger effect on macroinvertebrate taxa sensitive to disturbances, possibly altering macroinvertebrate assemblages and compromising conventional ecological assessment.
It is particularly interesting to investigate the relationship of Faxonius limosus with other invasive crayfish such as F. rusticus, Procambarus clarkii and Pacifastacus leniusculus, which are considered to have more destructive effects than F. limosus (Wilson et al., 2004; Dunoyer et al., 2014). Under laboratory conditions, in interspecific pairs formed by Pacifastacus leniusculus and F. limosus, the former is more prone to fighting than the latter, which consistently retreated from staged bouts as fights became more intense (Hudina and Hock, 2012). In the wetlands of ‘Parc Naturel Régional de la Brenne’ (Indre department, Centre region, France), both P. clarkii and F. limosus have coexisted since 2007, but the latter species is declining due to the higher invasiveness and aggressiveness of the former (Tricarico and Aquiloni, 2016).
Threatened SpeciesTop of page
|Threatened Species||Conservation Status||Where Threatened||Mechanism||References||Notes|
|Orconectes virilis (virile crayfish)||No Details||USA||Competition - monopolizing resources; Competition (unspecified)||Hamr, 2002|
|Faxonius propinquus||No Details||USA||Hybridization||Hamr, 2002|
|Austropotamobius pallipes (freshwater white-clawed crayfish)||EN (IUCN red list: Endangered)||Competition - monopolizing resources; Competition (unspecified); Pest and disease transmission||Holdich et al., 2006|
|Astacus astacus (European crayfish)||VU (IUCN red list: Vulnerable)||Competition - monopolizing resources; Competition (unspecified); Pest and disease transmission||Holdich et al., 2006|
|Astacus leptodactylus (Danube crayfish)||No Details||Competition - monopolizing resources; Competition (unspecified); Pest and disease transmission||Holdich et al., 2006|
Social ImpactTop of page
Faxonius limosus “does not appear to have caused much social or other harm in North America. However, it has affected those whose livelihoods depend on harvesting native crayfish in continental Europe, even [though] a quantification has never been performed” (Souty-Grosset et al., 2006; Aldridge, 2011).
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
- Highly mobile locally
- Fast growing
- Has high reproductive potential
- Reproduces asexually
- Altered trophic level
- Changed gene pool/ selective loss of genotypes
- Damaged ecosystem services
- Ecosystem change/ habitat alteration
- Increases vulnerability to invasions
- Infrastructure damage
- Modification of hydrology
- Modification of natural benthic communities
- Negatively impacts aquaculture/fisheries
- Reduced native biodiversity
- Threat to/ loss of endangered species
- Threat to/ loss of native species
- Competition - monopolizing resources
- Competition (unspecified)
- Pest and disease transmission
- Rapid growth
- Highly likely to be transported internationally accidentally
- Highly likely to be transported internationally deliberately
- Highly likely to be transported internationally illegally
- Difficult/costly to control
UsesTop of page
Although Faxonius limosus is abundant and common, and has been used for food (Hamr, 2002), it has not been used extensively for commercial purposes for two reasons: in many European countries, it is considered to be characteristic of eutrophic or polluted waters; and it is smaller than the European A. astacus or the other North American species Pacifastacus leniusculus or Procambarus clarkii (Hamr, 2002; Holdich et al., 2006). It can be used as live bait or as an aquarium species (Holdich and Black, 2007), or as a research model (Tricarico and Aquiloni, 2016).
Uses ListTop of page
Animal feed, fodder, forage
- Pet/aquarium trade
- Research model
Human food and beverage
- Meat/fat/offal/blood/bone (whole, cut, fresh, frozen, canned, cured, processed or smoked)
Detection and InspectionTop of page
Traps can be used for surveillance and monitoring of Faxonius limosus, even if they are not always effective when it is at low density. Environmental DNA (eDNA) has been used to successfully detect the species in Europe (Mauvisseau et al., 2018). Citizen science could be promoted to monitor its introduction and spread.
Similarities to Other Species/ConditionsTop of page
There are more than 60 Faxonius species in North America. The spines on both sides of the carapace and the red-brown bands on the abdomen are characteristics of Faxonius limosus.
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.
Like many other aquatic species, Faxonius limosus is difficult to eradicate once established. A ban on live sales would be an effective means of limiting the risk of its introduction. In Europe, it is indeed included in the list of species of Union concern attached to the EU Regulation 1143/2014 on invasive alien species. Inclusion in the list leads to a complete ban on the species in the European Union.
Early warning systems
Traps can be used for surveillance and monitoring of Faxonius limosus, even if they are not always effective when it is at low density. Environmental DNA (eDNA) has been used to successfully detect the species in Europe (Mauvisseau et al., 2018). Citizen science could be promoted to monitor its introduction and spread.
Campaigns to educate and increase awareness on Faxonius limosus can be effective in curbing illegal introductions, especially if targeted at specific sectors.
The use of baited traps can reduce the density of Faxonius limosus population. However, juveniles and ovigerous females can be trap-shy and thus less trapped; moreover, the species can burrow, making trapping less effective. Long-term trapping programmes are necessary for effectiveness, and usually mechanical removal should be coupled with another technique. Draining invaded ponds has been suggested as a control method but, due to its burrowing behaviour, even drying out for a considerable time might not result in the complete removal of the species (Holdich and Black, 2007).
Beaver dams, hydro dams, flood control weirs and waterfalls can block or at least slow movement of crayfish rather effectively (Gherardi et al., 2011).
The use of native predators in combination with intensive trapping has been proved to be effective in other invasive congeneric crayfish (e.g. F. rusticus in the USA: Hein et al., 2007), and could presumably be used for control of Faxonius limosus.
In France, various organophosphate insecticides have been tested on Faxonius limosus from Lake Geneva; fenthion (no longer approved for use in the EU – Pesticide Properties DataBase, 2019) was effective at concentrations much lower than those required to kill finfish, but the toxicity of the biocide lasted several weeks. In field trials, fishes, frogs, mammals, many species of Rotifera, and molluscs were not affected, but insects and other crustaceans were killed with the exception of Copepoda (Laurent, 1995).
Synthetic pyrethroids have been suggested but never tested (Holdich and Black, 2007).
Management practices can be more effective at the early stage of invasion in a closed system (e.g. a pond). An integrated approach is recommended (Gherardi et al., 2011; Stebbing, 2016; Stebbing et al., 2014).
Gaps in Knowledge/Research NeedsTop of page
More research is needed to better assess the physiological tolerance threshold of Faxonius limosus and quantify its ecological impacts (there are many more publications on other invasive crayfish such as F. rusticus, Procambarus clarkii and Pacifastacus leniusculus), to test effective management techniques, and to evaluate the relationship with other invasive crayfish.
ReferencesTop of page
Aklehnovich, A., Razlutskij, V., 2013. Distribution and spread of spiny-cheek crayfish Orconectes limosus (Rafinesque, 1817) in Belarus. BioInvasions Records, 2(3), 221-225. http://www.reabic.net/journals/bir/2013/3/BIR_2013_3_Aklechnovich_Razlutskij.pdf doi: 10.3391/bir.2013.2.3.08
Albertson LK, Daniels MD, 2018. Crayfish ecosystem engineering effects on riverbed disturbance and topography are mediated by size and behaviour. Freshwater Science, 37(4), 836-844.
Aldridge D, 2011. Spinycheek Crayfish, Orconectes limosus. Sand Hutton, UK: GB Non-native Species Secretariat.http://www.nonnativespecies.org/factsheet/factsheet.cfm?speciesId=2441
Alekhnovich A, Buřič M, 2017. NOBANIS – Invasive Alien Species Fact Sheet: Orconectes limosus. European Network on Invasive Alien Species (NOBANIS): https://www.nobanis.org/globalassets/speciesinfo/o/orconectes-limosus/orconectes-limosus.pdf
Anastácio PM, Ferreira MP, Banha F, Capinha C, Rabaca JE, 2014. Waterbird-mediated passive dispersal is a viable process for crayfish. Aquatic Ecology, 48, 1-10.
Baldry D, 2007. (Étude de l’écrevisse américaine Orconectes limosus (Rafinesque, 1817) dans l’étang de Cessy, Pays de Gex, 01170 (France). II. Observations d’Orconectes limosus à de faibles temperatures environnmentales). L’Astaculteur de France, 92, 2-14.
Boets, P., Brosens, D., Lock, K., Adriaens, T., Aelterman, B., Mertens, J., Goethals, P. L. M., 2016. Alien macroinvertebrates in Flanders (Belgium). Aquatic Invasions, 11(2), 131-144. http://www.aquaticinvasions.net/2016/AI_2016_Boets_etal.pdf doi: 10.3391/ai.2016.11.2.03
Burba A, 2010. The dispersal of the invasive spinycheek crayfish, Orconectes limosus, throughout Lithuanian waters. Freshwater Crayfish, 17(1), 67-72.
Buřič M, Hulák M, Kouba A, Petrusek A, Kozák P, 2011. A successful crayfish invader is capable of facultative parthenogenesis: a novel reproductive mode in decapod crustaceans. PLoS ONE, 6, e20281. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0020281
Buřič M, Kouba A, Kozák P, 2013. Reproductive plasticity in freshwater invader: from long-term sperm storage to parthenogenesis. PLoS ONE, 8, e77597. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0077597
Buřič, M., Kozák, P., Kouba, A., 2009. Movement patterns and ranging behavior of the invasive spiny-cheek crayfish in a small reservoir tributary. Fundamental and Applied Limnology, 174(4), 329-337. http://www.ingentaconnect.com/content/schweiz/fal/2009/00000174/00000004/art00006 doi: 10.1127/1863-9135/2009/0174-0329
Crandall KA, De Grave S, 2017. An updated classification of the freshwater crayfishes (Decapoda: Astacidea) of the world, with a complete species list. Journal of Crustacean Biology, 37(5), 615-653. https://doi.org/10.1093/jcbiol/rux070
Dunoyer, L., Dijoux, L., Bollache, L., Lagrue, C., 2014. Effects of crayfish on leaf litter breakdown and shredder prey: are native and introduced species functionally redundant?. Biological Invasions, 16(7), 1545-1555. http://rd.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10530-013-0590-0 doi: 10.1007/s10530-013-0590-0
Filipová, L., Lieb, D. A., Grandjean, F., Petrusek, A., 2011. Haplotype variation in the spiny-cheek crayfish Orconectes limosus: colonization of Europe and genetic diversity of native stocks. Journal of the North American Benthological Society, 30(4), 871-881. http://www.bioone.org/doi/abs/10.1899/10-130.1 doi: 10.1899/10-130.1
Geelen JFM, 1978. The distribution of the crayfish Orconectes limosus (Rafinesque) and Astacus astacus (L.) (Crustacea, Decapoda) in the Netherlands. Zoologische Bijdrage, 23, 4-21.
Gherardi, F., Aquiloni, L., Diéguez-Uribeondo, J., Tricarico, E., 2011. Managing invasive crayfish: is there a hope?. Aquatic Sciences, 73(2), 185-200. http://www.birkhauser.ch doi: 10.1007/s00027-011-0181-z
Gherardi, F., Coignet, A., Souty-Grosset, C., Spigoli, D., Aquiloni, L., 2013. Climate warming and the agonistic behaviour of invasive crayfishes in Europe. Freshwater Biology, 58(9), 1958-1967. http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/journal/10.1111/(ISSN)1365-2427 doi: 10.1111/fwb.12183
Govedič, M., 2017. First record of the spiny-cheek crayfish (Orconectes limosus) in Slovenia - 300 km upstream from its known distribution in the Drava River. Knowledge and Management of Aquatic Ecosystems, (No.418), 7. https://www.kmae-journal.org/articles/kmae/full_html/2017/01/kmae160133/kmae160133.html
Haertel-Borer SS, Zak D, Eckmann R, Baade U, Hölker F, 2005. Population density of the crayfish Orconectes limosus in relation to fish and macroinvertebrate densities in a small mesotrophic lake – implications for the lake’s food web. International Review of Hydrobiology, 90, 523-538.
Hefti D, Stucki P, 2006. Crayfish management for Swiss waters. Bulletin Français de la Pêche et de la Pisciculture, 380-381, 937–950. https://doi.org/10.1051/kmae:2006033
Hein, C. L., Zanden, M. J. vander, Magnuson, J. J., 2007. Intensive trapping and increased fish predation cause massive population decline of an invasive crayfish. Freshwater Biology, 52(6), 1134-1146. http://www.blackwell-synergy.com/loi/fwb doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2427.2007.01741.x
Hirsch, P. E., 2009. Freshwater crayfish invasions: former crayfish invader Galician crayfish hands title "invasive" over to new invader spiny-cheek crayfish. Biological Invasions, 11(3), 515-521. http://www.springerlink.com/content/d5463303x214j426/?p=2e85770c8d884ec89fb065c7701ad87e&pi=3 doi: 10.1007/s10530-008-9267-5
Hirsch, P. E., Burkhardt-Holm, P., Töpfer, I., Fischer, P., 2016. Movement patterns and shelter choice of spiny-cheek crayfish (Orconectes limosus) in a large lake's littoral zone. Aquatic Invasions, 11(1), 55-65. http://www.aquaticinvasions.net/2016/AI_2016_Hirsch_etal.pdf doi: 10.3391/ai.2016.11.1.06
Hirsch, P. E., Fischer, P., 2008. Interactions between native juvenile burbot (Lota lota) and the invasive spinycheek crayfish (Orconectes limosus) in a large European lake. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences, 65(12), 2636-2643. http://pubs.nrc-cnrc.gc.ca/cgi-bin/rp/rp2_desc_e?cjfas doi: 10.1139/F08-162
Holdich DM, 2002. Distribution of crayfish in Europe and some adjoining countries. Bulletin Français de la Pêche et de la Pisciculture, 367(4), 611-650.
Holdich DM, Haffner P, Noël P, 2006. Species files. In: Atlas of Crayfish in Europe, [ed. by Souty-Grosset C, Holdich DM, Noël PY, Reynolds JD, Haffner P]. Paris, France: Museum national d’Histoire naturelle. 50-129.
Holdich, D. M., Reynolds, J. D., Souty-Grosset, C., Sibley, P. J., 2009. A review of the ever increasing threat to European crayfish from non-indigenous crayfish species. Knowledge and Management of Aquatic Ecosystems, (No.394/395), 11. http://www.kmae-journal.org/articles/kmae/pdf/2009/03/kmae09055.pdf doi: 10.1051/kmae/2009025
Holdich, D., Black, J., 2007. The spiny-cheek crayfish, Orconectes limosus (Rafinesque, 1817) [Crustacea: Decapoda: Cambaridae], digs into the UK. Aquatic Invasions, 2(1), 1-16. http://www.aquaticinvasions.ru/2007/AI_2007_2_1_Holdich_Black.pdf doi: 10.3391/ai.2007.2.1.1
Hudina, S., Faller, M., Lucić, A., Klobučar, G., Maguire, I., 2009. Distribution and dispersal of two invasive crayfish species in the Drava River basin, Croatia. Knowledge and Management of Aquatic Ecosystems, (No.394/395), 09. http://www.kmae-journal.org/articles/kmae/pdf/2009/03/kmae09030.pdf doi: 10.1051/kmae/2009023
Hudina, S., Hock, K., 2012. Behavioural determinants of agonistic success in invasive crayfish. Behavioural Processes, 91(1), 77-81. http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0376635712001350 doi: 10.1016/j.beproc.2012.05.011
Huner JV, 1988. Information from Morocco. Crayfish News, 10(4), 7. https://astacology.org/docs/cn/CrayfishNews_10(4)_hr.pdf
IUCN, 2019. IUCN Red List of Threatened Species, Version 2019-2. https://www.iucnredlist.org/
Jaszczolt, J., Szaniawska, A., 2011. The spiny-cheek crayfish Orconectes limosus (Rafinesque, 1817) as an inhabitant of the Baltic Sea - experimental evidences for its invasion of brackish waters. Oceanological and Hydrobiological Studies, 40(3), 52-60. http://www.springerlink.com/content/2g1v3n1587r31151/fulltext.pdf doi: 10.2478/s13545-011-0029-0
Kouba A, Petrusek A, Kozák P, 2014. Continental-wide distribution of crayfish species in Europe: update and maps. Knowledge and Management of Aquatic Ecosystems, (413), article 05. https://doi.org/10.1051/kmae/2014007
Kouba A, Tíkal J, Císar P, Veselý L, Fort M, Príborský J, Patoka J, Buřič M, 2016. The significance of droughts for hyporheic dwellers: evidence from freshwater crayfish. Scientific Reports, 6, 265-269.
Kozák P, Buřič M, Policar T, 2006. The fecundity, time of egg development and juvenile production in spiny-cheek crayfish (Orconectes limosus) under controlled conditions. Bulletin Français de la Pêche et de la Pisciculture, (380-381), 1171-1182. https://doi.org/10.1051/kmae:2006019
Kozák, P., Buřič, M., Policar, T., Hamáčková, J., Lepičová, A., 2007. The effect of inter- and intra-specific competition on survival and growth rate of native juvenile noble crayfish Astacus astacus and alien spiny-cheek crayfish Orconectes limosus. Hydrobiologia, 590, 85-94. http://springerlink.metapress.com/content/1573-5117/ doi: 10.1007/s10750-007-0760-0
Kozubíková, E., Petrusek, A., Duriš, Z., Kozák, P., Geiger, S., Hoffmann, R., 2006. The crayfish plague in the Czech Republic - review of recent suspect cases and a pilot detection study. BFPP - Bulletin Francais de la Peche et de la Protection des Milieux Aquatiques, 1313-1323.
Laurent PJ, 1988. Austropotamobius pallipes and A. torrentium, with observations on their interactions with other species in Europe. In: Biology of freshwater crayfish: biology, management and exploitation, [ed. by Holdich DM, Lowery RS]. London, UK: Croom Helm. 341-364.
Laurent PJ, 1995. Eradication of unwanted crayfish species for astacological management purposes. Freshwater Crayfish, 8, 121-133.
Lozan JL, 2000. On the threat to the European crayfish: a contribution with the study of the activity behaviour of four crayfish species (Decapoda: Astacidae). Limnologia, 30, 156-161.
Mauvisseau, Q., Coignet, A., Delaunay, C., Pinet, F., Bouchon, D., Souty-Grosset, C., 2018. Environmental DNA as an efficient tool for detecting invasive crayfishes in freshwater ponds. Hydrobiologia, 805, 163-175. http://rd.springer.com/journal/10750 doi: 10.1007/s10750-017-3288-y
Musil M, Buřič M, Policar T, Kouba A, Kozák P, 2010. Comparison of diurnal and nocturnal activity between noble crayfish (Astacus astacus) and spinycheek crayfish (Orconectes limosus). Freshwater Crayfish, 17, 189-193.
Nyström P, 1999. Ecological impact of introduced and native crayfish on freshwater communities: European perspectives. In: Crayfish in Europe as alien species: How to make the best of a bad situation? , [ed. by Gherardi F, Holdich DM]. Rotterdam, Netherlands: A.A. Balkema. 63-84.
Pârvulescu L, Palos C, Molnar P, 2009. First record of the spiny-cheek crayfish Orconectes limosus (Rafinesque, 1817) (Crustacea: Decapoda: Cambaridae) in Romania. North-Western Journal of Zoology, 5(2), 424-428.
Pârvulescu, L., Schrimpf, A., Kozubíková, E., Resino, S. C., Vrålstad, T., Petrusek, A., Schulz, R., 2012. Invasive crayfish and crayfish plague on the move: first detection of the plague agent Aphanomyces astaci in the Romanian Danube. Diseases of Aquatic Organisms, 98(1), 85-94. http://www.int-res.com/abstracts/dao/v98/n1/p85-94/ doi: 10.3354/dao02432
Pesticide Properties DataBase, 2019. Pesticide Properties DataBase. Hatfield, UK: University of Hertfordshire.http://sitem.herts.ac.uk/aeru/ppdb/en/
Pilotto, F., Free, G., Crosa, G., Sena, F., Ghiani, M., Cardoso, A. C., 2008. The invasive crayfish Orconectes limosus in Lake Varese: estimating abundance and population size structure in the context of habitat and methodological constraints. Journal of Crustacean Biology, 28(4), 633-640. http://www.bioone.org/perlserv/?request=get-document&doi=10.1651%2F07-2967.1 doi: 10.1651/07-2967.1
Puky M, 2014. Invasive crayfish on land: Orconectes limosus (Rafinesque, 1817) (Decapoda: Cambaridae) crossed a terrestrial barrier to move from a side arm into the Danube river at Szeremle, Hungary. Acta Zoologica Bulgarica, 7, 143-146.
Puky M, Schád P, 2006. Orconectes limosus colonises new areas fast along the Danube in Hungary. Bulletin Français de la Pêche et de la Pisciculture, (380-381), 919-926.
Pöckl M, 1999. Distribution of crayfish species in Austria with special reference to introduced species. Freshwater Crayfish, 12, 733-750.
Rakauskas V, Ruginis T, Arbaciauskas K, 2010. Expansion of the Spinycheek Crayfish, Orconectes limosus (Rafinesque 1817), in the Nemunas River Basin, Lithuania. Freshwater Crayfish, 17, 73-76.
Ries C, Pfeiffenschneider M, 2018. Orconectes limosus Rafinesque, 1817. In: neobiota.lu - Invasive Alien Species in Luxembourg, Luxembourg, Luxembourg: Luxembourg National Museum of Natural History.https://neobiota.lu/orconectes-limosus/
Šidagytė, E., Razlutskij, V., Alekhnovich, A., Rybakovas, A., Moroz, M., Šniaukštaitė, V., Vaitonis, G., Arbačiauskas, K., 2017. Predatory diet and potential effects of Orconectes limosus on river macroinvertebrate assemblages of the southeastern Baltic Sea basin: implications for ecological assessment. Aquatic Invasions, 12(4), 523-540. http://www.aquaticinvasions.net/2017/AI_2017_Sidagyte_etal.pdf doi: 10.3391/ai.2017.12.4.09
Simić, V., Petrović, A., Rajković, M., Paunović, M., 2008. Crayfish of Serbia and Montenegro - the population status and the level of endangerment. Crustaceana, 81(10), 1153-1176. http://www.ingentaconnect.com/content/brill/cr/2008/00000081/00000010/art00001 doi: 10.1163/156854008X374496
Statzner, B., Fièvet, E., Champagne, J. Y., Morel, R., Herouin, E., 2000. Crayfish as geomorphic agents and ecosystem engineers: biological behavior affects sand and gravel erosion in experimental streams. Limnology and Oceanography, 45(5), 1030-1040.
Statzner, B., Peltret, O., Tomanova, S., 2003. Crayfish as geomorphic agents and ecosystem engineers: effect of a biomass gradient on baseflow and flood-induced transport of gravel and sand in experimental streams. Freshwater Biology, 48(1), 147-163. doi: 10.1046/j.1365-2427.2003.00984.x
Stebbing PD, 2016. The management of invasive crayfish. In: Biology and ecology of crayfish, [ed. by Longshaw M, Stebbing PD]. Boca Raton, Florida, USA: CRC Press. 337-357.
Stebbing, P., Longshaw, M., Scott, A., 2014. Review of methods for the management of non-indigenous crayfish, with particular reference to Great Britain. Ethology Ecology & Evolution, 26(2/3), 204-231. http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/teee20
Swecker CD, Jones TG, Donahue K, McKinney D, Smith GD, 2010. The extirpation of Orconectes limosus (Spinycheek Crayfish) populations in West Virginia. Southeastern Naturalist, 9(3), 155-164.
Thoma R, 2015. The crayfish fauna of Canada and the United States in North America. In: Freshwater crayfish: a global overview, [ed. by Kawai T, Faulkes Z, Scholtz G]. Boca Raton, Florida, USA: CRC Press. 369-390.
Tricarico E, Aquiloni L, 2016. How Behaviour Has Helped Invasive Crayfish to Conquer Freshwater Ecosystems. In: Biological Invasions and Animal Behaviour, [ed. by Weis J, Sol D]. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. 291-308.
Trichkova T, Todorov M, Hubenov Z, Jurajda P, 2015. First record of Orconectes limosus (Rafinesque, 1817) in Bulgaria. East and South European Network for Invasive Alien Species.http://www.esenias.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=366
Vojkovská, R., Horká, I., Ďuriš, Z., 2014. The diet of the spiny-cheek crayfish Orconectes limosus in the Czech Republic. Central European Journal of Biology, 9(1), 58-69. http://rd.springer.com/article/10.2478/s11535-013-0189-y doi: 10.2478/s11535-013-0189-y
Wilson, K. A., Magnuson, J. J., Lodge, D. M., Hill, A. M., Kratz, T. K., Perry, W. L., Willis, T. V., 2004. A long-term rusty crayfish (Orconectes rusticus) invasion: dispersal patterns and community change in a north temperate lake. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences, 61(11), 2255-2266. doi: 10.1139/f04-170
Aldridge D, 2011. Spinycheek Crayfish, Orconectes limosus., Sand Hutton, UK: GB Non-native Species Secretariat. http://www.nonnativespecies.org/factsheet/factsheet.cfm?speciesId=2441
Boets P, Brosens D, Lock K, Adriaens T, Aelterman B, Mertens J, Goethals P L M, 2016. Alien macroinvertebrates in Flanders (Belgium). Aquatic Invasions. 11 (2), 131-144. http://www.aquaticinvasions.net/2016/AI_2016_Boets_etal.pdf DOI:10.3391/ai.2016.11.2.03
Burba A, 2010. The dispersal of the invasive spinycheek crayfish, Orconectes limosus, throughout Lithuanian waters. Freshwater Crayfish. 17 (1), 67-72.
CABI, Undated. CABI Compendium: Status inferred from regional distribution. Wallingford, UK: CABI
CABI, Undated a. CABI Compendium: Status as determined by CABI editor. Wallingford, UK: CABI
Filipová L, Lieb D A, Grandjean F, Petrusek A, 2011. Haplotype variation in the spiny-cheek crayfish Orconectes limosus: colonization of Europe and genetic diversity of native stocks. Journal of the North American Benthological Society. 30 (4), 871-881. http://www.bioone.org/doi/abs/10.1899/10-130.1 DOI:10.1899/10-130.1
Geelen JFM, 1978. The distribution of the crayfish Orconectes limosus (Rafinesque) and Astacus astacus (L.) (Crustacea, Decapoda) in the Netherlands. Zoologische Bijdrage. 4-21.
Govedič M, 2017. First record of the spiny-cheek crayfish (Orconectes limosus) in Slovenia - 300 km upstream from its known distribution in the Drava River. Knowledge and Management of Aquatic Ecosystems. 7. https://www.kmae-journal.org/articles/kmae/full_html/2017/01/kmae160133/kmae160133.html
Hefti D, Stucki P, 2006. Crayfish management for Swiss waters. Bulletin Français de la Pêche et de la Pisciculture. 937–950. https://doi.org/10.1051/kmae:2006033
Holdich D M, Reynolds J D, Souty-Grosset C, Sibley P J, 2009. A review of the ever increasing threat to European crayfish from non-indigenous crayfish species. Knowledge and Management of Aquatic Ecosystems. 11. http://www.kmae-journal.org/articles/kmae/pdf/2009/03/kmae09055.pdf DOI:10.1051/kmae/2009025
Holdich D, Black J, 2007. The spiny-cheek crayfish, Orconectes limosus (Rafinesque, 1817) [Crustacea: Decapoda: Cambaridae], digs into the UK. Aquatic Invasions. 2 (1), 1-16. http://www.aquaticinvasions.ru/2007/AI_2007_2_1_Holdich_Black.pdf DOI:10.3391/ai.2007.2.1.1
Holdich DM, Haffner P, Noël P, 2006. Species files. In: Atlas of Crayfish in Europe. [ed. by Souty-Grosset C, Holdich DM, Noël PY, Reynolds JD, Haffner P]. Paris, France: Museum national d’Histoire naturelle. 50-129.
Huner JV, 1988. Information from Morocco. Crayfish News. 10 (4), 7. https://astacology.org/docs/cn/CrayfishNews_10(4)_hr.pdf
IUCN, 2019. IUCN Red List of Threatened Species, Version 2019-2., https://www.iucnredlist.org/
Pârvulescu L, Palos C, Molnar P, 2009. First record of the spiny-cheek crayfish Orconectes limosus (Rafinesque, 1817) (Crustacea: Decapoda: Cambaridae) in Romania. North-Western Journal of Zoology. 5 (2), 424-428.
Rakauskas V, Ruginis T, Arbaciauskas K, 2010. Expansion of the Spinycheek Crayfish, Orconectes limosus (Rafinesque 1817), in the Nemunas River Basin, Lithuania. Freshwater Crayfish. 73-76.
Ries C, Pfeiffenschneider M, 2018. Orconectes limosus Rafinesque, 1817. Luxembourg, Luxembourg: Luxembourg National Museum of Natural History. https://neobiota.lu/orconectes-limosus/
Simić V, Petrović A, Rajković M, Paunović M, 2008. Crayfish of Serbia and Montenegro - the population status and the level of endangerment. Crustaceana. 81 (10), 1153-1176. http://www.ingentaconnect.com/content/brill/cr/2008/00000081/00000010/art00001 DOI:10.1163/156854008X374496
Swecker CD, Jones TG, Donahue K, McKinney D, Smith GD, 2010. The extirpation of Orconectes limosus (Spinycheek Crayfish) populations in West Virginia. Southeastern Naturalist. 9 (3), 155-164.
Trichkova T, Todorov M, Hubenov Z, Jurajda P, 2015. First record of Orconectes limosus (Rafinesque, 1817) in Bulgaria. East and South European Network for Invasive Alien Species. http://www.esenias.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=366
OrganizationsTop of page
Czech Republic: University of South Bohemia in České Budějovice, Faculty of Fisheries and Protection of Waters, Laboratory of Ethology of Fish and Crayfish, Zátiší 728/II, 389 25 Vodňany, , České Budějovice, http://www.frov.jcu.cz/en/about-faculty/institutes/research-institute-fish-culture-hydrobiology/lab-ethology-fish-crayfish2
Principal SourceTop of page
Draft datasheet under review.
ContributorsTop of page
21/07/19 Original text by:
Elena Tricarico, Dip. Biologia, Università degli Studi di Firenze, Via Madonna del Piano 6, 50019 Sesto Fiorentino (FI), Italy
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/