Invasive Species Compendium

Detailed coverage of invasive species threatening livelihoods and the environment worldwide

Datasheet

Micropterus salmoides
(largemouth bass)

Toolbox

Datasheet

Micropterus salmoides (largemouth bass)

Summary

  • Last modified
  • 06 November 2018
  • Datasheet Type(s)
  • Invasive Species
  • Natural Enemy
  • Host Animal
  • Preferred Scientific Name
  • Micropterus salmoides
  • Preferred Common Name
  • largemouth bass
  • Taxonomic Tree
  • Domain: Eukaryota
  •   Kingdom: Metazoa
  •     Phylum: Chordata
  •       Subphylum: Vertebrata
  •         Class: Actinopterygii
  • Summary of Invasiveness
  • M. salmoides has been introduced outside of its native range in North America to other areas of North America, South America, Europe, Asia and Pacific islands (i.e. Fiji, Hawaii). The species is exploited heavi...

Don't need the entire report?

Generate a print friendly version containing only the sections you need.

Generate report

Pictures

Top of page
PictureTitleCaptionCopyright
Micropterus salmoides (largemouth bass); adult.
TitleAdult
CaptionMicropterus salmoides (largemouth bass); adult.
Copyright©Fishes of North Carolina/http://www.ncfishes.com - CC BY-NC-SA 4.0
Micropterus salmoides (largemouth bass); adult.
AdultMicropterus salmoides (largemouth bass); adult.©Fishes of North Carolina/http://www.ncfishes.com - CC BY-NC-SA 4.0
Largemouth bass (Micropterus salmoides); artwork of adult fish.
TitleArtwork of adult fish
CaptionLargemouth bass (Micropterus salmoides); artwork of adult fish.
CopyrightReleased into the Public Domain by the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service/National Digital Library - Original artwork by Duane Raver Jr.
Largemouth bass (Micropterus salmoides); artwork of adult fish.
Artwork of adult fishLargemouth bass (Micropterus salmoides); artwork of adult fish.Released into the Public Domain by the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service/National Digital Library - Original artwork by Duane Raver Jr.
Micropterus salmoides (Largemouth bass); adult.
TitleAdult
CaptionMicropterus salmoides (Largemouth bass); adult.
CopyrightReleased into the Public Domain by the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service/original photograph by Eric Engbretson
Micropterus salmoides (Largemouth bass); adult.
AdultMicropterus salmoides (Largemouth bass); adult.Released into the Public Domain by the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service/original photograph by Eric Engbretson

Identity

Top of page

Preferred Scientific Name

  • Micropterus salmoides (Lacepède, 1802)

Preferred Common Name

  • largemouth bass

Other Scientific Names

  • Aplites salmoides (Lacepède, 1802)
  • Grystes megastoma (Garlick, 1857)
  • Huro nigricans (Cuvier, 1828)
  • Huro salmoides (Lacepède, 1802)
  • Labrus salmoides (Lacepède, 1802)
  • Perca nigricans (Cuvier, 1828)

International Common Names

  • English: American black bass; bass; black bass; Florida largemouth bass; green bass; green trout; largemouth; large-mouth bass; largemouth black bass; northern largemouth bass
  • Spanish: black-bass; huro; lobina negra; perca americana
  • French: achigan; achigan à grande bouche; black-bass; black-bass à grande bouche; perche d'Amérique; perche noire; perche truite; perche truitée
  • Russian: bolsherotnyi amerikanskii tscherny okun; bol'sherotyi chernyi okun'

Local Common Names

  • Austria: forellenbarsch
  • Belgium: forelbaars
  • China/Hong Kong: tam suy lo ue
  • Czech Republic: okounek pstruhový; ostracka
  • Denmark: ørredaborre; stormundet black bass; stormundet ørredaborre
  • Finland: isobassi
  • Germany: Forellenbarsch; Großmäuliger Schwarzbarsch
  • Hungary: fekete sügér
  • Iran: bas Dehanbozorg; khorshid Mahi Baleh Kuchak
  • Italy: persico trota
  • Japan: buraku basu; okuchibasu
  • Netherlands: forelbaars; zwarte baars
  • Norway: lakseabbor
  • Poland: bass wielkgebowy; bass wielkogebowy
  • Portugal: achiga
  • Romania: biban cu gura mare
  • Slovakia: ostracka lososovitá
  • Sweden: öringabborre; öringsaborre
  • Switzerland: forellenbarsch; persico trota

Summary of Invasiveness

Top of page

M. salmoides has been introduced outside of its native range in North America to other areas of North America, South America, Europe, Asia and Pacific islands (i.e. Fiji, Hawaii). The species is exploited heavily for angling in its native range, and was spread primarily for recreational angling opportunities and secondarily for aquaculture. Its establishment, once introduced, was likely assisted by its aggressive feeding strategy, which has caused considerable declines in native prey fishes, where introduced (Scott and Crossman, 1973; Welcomme, 1988). Conversely, its stout shape, physically large size, excellent swimming ability and numerous dorsal fin spines preclude predation on adults by all but the largest fishes. Its preference for warm freshwaters allows for suitable invasion habitat within many temperate and sub-tropical regions globally. The species is recognized within the Global Invasive Species Database (ISSG, 2009).

Taxonomic Tree

Top of page
  • Domain: Eukaryota
  •     Kingdom: Metazoa
  •         Phylum: Chordata
  •             Subphylum: Vertebrata
  •                 Class: Actinopterygii
  •                     Order: Perciformes
  •                         Suborder: Percoidei
  •                             Family: Centrarchidae
  •                                 Genus: Micropterus
  •                                     Species: Micropterus salmoides

Notes on Taxonomy and Nomenclature

Top of page

M. salmoides is a member of the sunfishes family (Centrarchidae), evolving primarily within eastern North American drainages. Within its native range, two subspecies have been identified, Micropterus salmoides salmoides, north of Florida, and Micropterus salmoides floridanus within Florida (Hubbs and Lagler, 1957).

Description

Top of page

M. salmoides was described thoroughly by Scott and Crossman (1973) using specimens sampled from its native range in Ontario and Quebec, Canada: 

“A fish with a large, robust body. Adult total lengths typically 203-381 mm with a large, long head (26.6-31.7% of total length). Eye is large, 12.8-20.5% of head length, but may be proportionally larger in young. Mouth is terminal, large and oblique, with lower jaw slightly longer than upper. Gape reaches to the middle of eye or greater. Fins are as follows: two dorsal, the first with 10 spines and the second soft, joined slightly above the dorsal surface. Caudal is broad and shallowly forked with soft rays throughout. Anal with base length less than that of second dorsal, with 3 spines followed by 10-12 soft rays. Pelvics occupy thoracic position with 1 spine and 5 soft rays. Scales are ctenoid, and typical of most members of centrarchidae. Lateral line is complete.

Colouration may vary in response to habitat condition, with clear waters leading to darker pigment or shading throughout. Dorsal surfaces range from bright green to olive. Flank may be light to dark green or gold, complete with a pronounced wide, solid black lateral band across body, often extending to the opercular flap. 

During development, eggs are adhesive and pale. Size is 1.5-1.7 mm after fertilization. Following hatching and yolk absorption (6-7 days within Canada), young will feed and school at 5.9-6.3 mm in length. Growth is rapid, with young-of-the-year in October reaching 41-127 mm total length for Ohio populations (Trautman, 1957).”

Distribution

Top of page

M. salmoides has been introduced outside of its native range in North America to other areas of North America, South America, Europe, Asia and Pacific islands (i.e. Fiji, Hawaii). Early introductions (1800-1899) to Europe were used subsequently as source populations for further intentional and unintentional secondary spread. Asian and South American populations are largely the result of introductions from the United States.

Distribution Table

Top 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/RegionDistributionLast ReportedOriginFirst ReportedInvasiveReferenceNotes

Asia

ChinaPresentIntroduced1983Welcomme, 1988; Ma et al., 2003; Froese and Pauly, 2004
-Hong KongLocalisedIntroduced1900Man and Hodgkiss, 1981; Froese and Pauly, 2004Present in several inland reservoirs.
IranAbsent, unreliable recordIntroducedCoad, 1996; Froese and Pauly, 2004Introduced to the Tigris-Euphrates basin in the Ardakan-Yasuj area, Namak Lake basin.
JapanPresentIntroduced1925Chiba et al., 1989; Froese and Pauly, 200490 fish introduced into Lake Ahsinoko. Intial transplants into other lakes unsuccessful. Illegally introduced to lakes by anglers. Considered to be one of the most damaging alien species in Japan.
Korea, Republic ofPresentIntroduced1963Jang et al., 2002; Froese and Pauly, 2004; Bartley, 2006Han, Nakdong and Kum Rivers.
MalaysiaLocalisedIntroduced1984Ang and Gopinath, 1989; Froese and Pauly, 2004About 1000 fry imported from Florida and raised in the Boh hatchery to fingerling size before being released in lakes previously used for trout. Fish are presumed to be restricted to the original lakes.
PhilippinesPresentIntroducedFroese and Pauly, 2004
TaiwanAbsent, invalid recordWelcomme, 1988; Liao and Lia, 1989; Froese and Pauly, 2004; Froese and Pauly, 2018

Africa

AlgeriaPresentIntroduced1970Welcomme, 1988; Froese and Pauly, 2004
BotswanaPresentIntroduced1937Welcomme, 1988; Froese and Pauly, 2004
CameroonAbsent, formerly presentIntroduced1956 Not invasive Welcomme, 1988Introduced for aquaculture but introduction into wild unsuccessful.
CongoAbsent, formerly presentIntroduced1955FAO, Food Agriculture Organization of the United NationsIntroduction was unsuccessful. Introduced to control the proliferation of Tilapia spp. in ponds. The species had not acclimatized and was abandoned, thus favouring Clarias spp.
KenyaPresentIntroducedFAO, Food Agriculture Organization of the United Nations; Muchiri et al., 1995; Froese and Pauly, 2004Established in Lake Naivasha.
LesothoPresentIntroduced1937Welcomme, 1988; Froese and Pauly, 2004
MadagascarPresentIntroduced1951Welcomme, 1988; Stiassny et al., 1992; Froese and Pauly, 2004Successful at high altitudes. Its introduction, coupled with habitat degradtion, have been implicated in the severely restricted distrubution and displacement of the endemic Paratilapia polleni.
MalawiPresentIntroducedFroese and Pauly, 2004
MauritiusLocalisedIntroduced1949FAO, Food Agriculture Organization of the United Nations; Froese and Pauly, 2004Present in small numbers. Not used for fisheries.
MoroccoPresentIntroduced1934Welcomme, 1988; Lever, 1996; Froese and Pauly, 2004After early success, the species diminished and is now maintained by stocking in some areas. Naturalized in suitable waters from Lac Nfiss near Marrakech to the Arbaoua larache region in the Rif Mountains in the north, at altitudes ranging from sea level to 1700m.
NamibiaWidespreadIntroducedFAO, Food Agriculture Organization of the United Nations; Hay et al., 1999; Okeyo, 2003; Froese and Pauly, 2004Widely distributed within central Namibian impoundments and farm dams (Omatako Omuramba, Von Bach dam) and river drainages of Omatako and Swakopmund. May also be used as an ornamental fish.
NigeriaPresentIntroduced1976Welcomme, 1988
RéunionPresentIntroduced1994Bartley, 2006Introduced for aquaculture, but rarely used.
South AfricaWidespreadIntroduced1928 Invasive Welcomme, 1988; Froese and Pauly, 2004Widespread in still, clear rivers. Has preyed heavily on native species and has been implicated in the decline of several rare and indigenous species.
SwazilandPresentIntroducedFroese and Pauly, 2004
TanzaniaAbsent, unreliable recordIntroducedEccles, 1992; Froese and Pauly, 2004Introduced into some highland dams.
TunisiaPresentIntroduced1966FAO, Food Agriculture Organization of the United Nations; Froese and Pauly, 2004Highly appreciated for food and sport.
ZambiaPresentIntroduced Invasive Losse, 1998; Froese and Pauly, 2004Introduced into Lake Kariba. Introduction of the species is of considerable concern and future abundance and apparent effects should be closely monitored.
ZimbabwePresentIntroduced1932Welcomme, 1988; Froese and Pauly, 2004

North America

CanadaPresentNativeFroese and Pauly, 2004
-British ColumbiaLocalisedIntroduced Invasive Scott and Crossman, 1973; Crossman, 1991; Froese and Pauly, 2004Introduced via natural dispersal from the Columbia River, Idaho, USA
-ManitobaLocalisedNative Not invasive Scott and Crossman, 1973Southeastern Manitoba
-OntarioWidespreadNative Not invasive Scott and Crossman, 1973Southern and Northwestern Ontario
-QuebecLocalisedNative Not invasive Scott and Crossman, 1973; Froese and Pauly, 2004Southern Quebec
-SaskatchewanIntroduced1950Scott and Crossman, 1973
MexicoPresentIntroduced1930 Invasive FAO, Food Agriculture Organization of the United Nations; Pérez-Ponce et al., 2000; Froese and Pauly, 2004Due to its carnivorous feeding, populations of native species have decreased. Two host-specific parasites: an ancyrocephalid monogean and the trematode Crepidostomum cornutum were introduced into Lake Patzcuaro with the arrival of the species.
USAPresentPresent based on regional distribution.
-AlabamaPresentFuller et al., 1999
-ArizonaPresentIntroduced Invasive Fuller et al., 1999
-ArkansasPresentFuller et al., 1999
-CaliforniaPresentIntroduced Invasive Fuller et al., 1999
-ColoradoPresentIntroducedFuller et al., 1999
-ConnecticutPresentIntroducedFuller et al., 1999
-DelawarePresentIntroducedFuller et al., 1999
-FloridaWidespreadNative Not invasive Fuller et al., 1999
-GeorgiaPresentFuller et al., 1999
-HawaiiWidespreadIntroduced1897Maciolek, 1984; Fuller et al., 1999; Froese and Pauly, 2004181 individuals were imported and released. Widespread and successful in reservoirs of Hawaii, Kauai and Oahu. Some spontaneous intergeneric hybrids between this species and Lepomis macrochirus have appeared in at least two reservoirs on Kauai island.
-IdahoPresentIntroducedFuller et al., 1999
-IllinoisPresentFuller et al., 1999
-IndianaPresentNativeFuller et al., 1999
-IowaPresentFuller et al., 1999
-KansasPresentFuller et al., 1999
-KentuckyPresentFuller et al., 1999
-LouisianaWidespreadNativeFuller et al., 1999
-MainePresentIntroducedFuller et al., 1999
-MarylandPresentIntroducedFuller et al., 1999
-MassachusettsPresentIntroducedFuller et al., 1999
-MichiganPresentFuller et al., 1999
-MinnesotaPresentFuller et al., 1999
-MississippiPresentFuller et al., 1999
-MissouriPresentFuller et al., 1999
-MontanaPresentIntroducedFuller et al., 1999
-NebraskaPresentFuller et al., 1999
-NevadaPresentIntroduced Invasive Fuller et al., 1999
-New HampshirePresentIntroducedFuller et al., 1999
-New JerseyPresentIntroducedFuller et al., 1999
-New MexicoPresentIntroducedFuller et al., 1999
-New YorkPresentFuller et al., 1999
-North CarolinaPresentFuller et al., 1999
-North DakotaPresentIntroducedFuller et al., 1999
-OhioPresentFuller et al., 1999
-OklahomaPresentFuller et al., 1999
-OregonLocalisedIntroducedFuller et al., 1999
-PennsylvaniaPresentFuller et al., 1999
-Rhode IslandPresentIntroducedFuller et al., 1999
-South CarolinaPresentNativeFuller et al., 1999; Fuller et al., 1999
-South DakotaPresentFuller et al., 1999
-TennesseePresentNativeFuller et al., 1999
-TexasPresentFuller et al., 1999
-UtahLocalisedIntroducedFuller et al., 1999
-VermontPresentIntroducedFuller et al., 1999
-VirginiaPresent Invasive Fuller et al., 1999
-WashingtonPresentIntroducedFuller et al., 1999
-West VirginiaPresentFuller et al., 1999
-WisconsinPresentFuller et al., 1999
-WyomingPresentIntroducedFuller et al., 1999

Central America and Caribbean

Costa RicaPresent only in captivity/cultivationIntroduced Not invasive Bussing, 1998Introduced to private ponds for aquaculture but had little dissemination. Has not established in natural waters.
CubaPresentIntroduced1928 Invasive Lee et al., 1983; Welcomme, 1988; Froese and Pauly, 2004Preys on young of endemic Atractosteus tristoeschus
Dominican RepublicPresent, few occurrencesIntroduced1955Welcomme, 1988; Lever, 1996; Froese and Pauly, 2004Reportedly used for aquaculture
El SalvadorLocalisedIntroduced1957Welcomme, 1988; Froese and Pauly, 2004Present in two small lakes, but is disappearing
GuatemalaLocalisedIntroduced1958 Invasive Welcomme, 1988; Froese and Pauly, 2004; Wittenberg, 2005Destroyed local fish species. Present in Lakes Atitlan and Calderas. This species was one factor that led to the extinction of the Atitlan grebe (Podilymbus gigas), an endemic shorebird species.
HondurasPresentIntroducedFroese and Pauly, 2004
PanamaPresentIntroduced1955Welcomme, 1988; Froese and Pauly, 2004
Puerto RicoPresentIntroducedErdman, 1984; Welcomme, 1988; Froese and Pauly, 2004Widely distributed. Highly appreciated by anglers.
United States Virgin IslandsPresentOgden et al., 1975; Froese and Pauly, 2004Introduced to freshwater ponds and grows to at least 15 lbs; feeds on fishes and aquatic insects.

South America

ArgentinaPresentIntroduced1959 Not invasive Lever, 1996; Froese and Pauly, 2004Introduced for aquaculture, with continual re-stocking thereafter.
BoliviaPresentIntroducedWelcomme, 1988; Froese and Pauly, 2004Used for sportfishing in small lakes and dams.
BrazilIntroduced, not establishedIntroducedScott and Crossman, 1973
ColombiaPresentIntroducedWelcomme, 1988; Froese and Pauly, 2004Established in central highlands watersheds.

Europe

AustriaLocalisedIntroduced1911FAO, Food Agriculture Organization of the United Nations; Froese and Pauly, 2004Lake Worthersee accidentally stocked when a dam of a nearby pond broke. Besides another smaller lake (Forstsee/Carinthia) there is no water body known to be inhabited by this species, shortly after its introduction, population density decreased.
BelarusPresentIntroducedFroese and Pauly, 2004
BelgiumPresent, few occurrencesIntroduced1877FAO, Food Agriculture Organization of the United Nations; Froese and Pauly, 2004The species appears to have survived in small numbers in the Meuse.
CyprusLocalisedIntroduced1971Welcomme, 1988; Froese and Pauly, 2004Established in two dams, where it is popular for angling.
Czech RepublicPresent, few occurrencesIntroducedWelcomme, 1988; Froese and Pauly, 2004Natural populations occur in the Danube, although it is rare.
Czechoslovakia (former)Present, few occurrencesIntroducedWelcomme, 1988Natural populations occur in the Danube, although it is rare.
DenmarkAbsent, formerly presentIntroduced1900Welcomme, 1988Introduced from North America just before 1900. Reintroduced from 1906 to 1907. No known surviving populations.
FinlandPresentIntroduced1883FAO, Food Agriculture Organization of the United Nations
FranceLocalisedIntroduced1877 Invasive Welcomme, 1988; Keith and Allardi, 1998; Froese and Pauly, 2004
GermanyLocalisedIntroduced1888Welcomme, 1988Re-introduced in 1930. Established in one lake only.
HungaryLocalisedIntroduced1905FAO, Food Agriculture Organization of the United Nations; Froese and Pauly, 2004Reintroduced in 1910 and in the 1950s. May have also been introduced through natural dispersal from neighbouring countries. Very few localized self-sustaining population in cooling ponds of power stations. Presumably also in Danube.
ItalyWidespreadIntroduced1897 Invasive Bianco and Ketmaier, 2001; Froese and Pauly, 2004Has caused decline in native Alburnus alborella, Esox lucius and Perca fluviatilis as well as introduced Lepomis spp. Established all over the country.
LatviaPresentIntroducedFroese and Pauly, 2004
LithuaniaPresentIntroducedFroese and Pauly, 2004
NetherlandsPresentIntroduced1900Welcomme, 1988; Froese and Pauly, 2004
PolandPresent only in captivity/cultivationIntroduced1899 Invasive Welcomme, 1988; Holcík, 1991; Froese and Pauly, 2004
PortugalPresentIntroduced1969 Invasive FAO, Food Agriculture Organization of the United Nations; Froese and Pauly, 2004Likely displaced some cyprinid spp.
Russian FederationPresent, few occurrencesIntroducedWelcomme, 1988; Bogutskaya and Naseka, 2002; Froese and Pauly, 2004Introduced for fisheries; records of introductions into natural waters near Moscow.
SlovakiaPresentIntroducedWelcomme, 1988; Froese and Pauly, 2004
SpainWidespreadIntroduced1956San Feliu, 1973; Welcomme, 1988; Froese and Pauly, 2004Widely distributed, abundant in one coastal lagoon.
SwedenPresentIntroducedFroese and Pauly, 2004
SwitzerlandPresentIntroducedFAO, Food Agriculture Organization of the United Nations; Froese and Pauly, 2004; Wittenberg, 2005The introduction of the species has been banned since 1994.
UKEradicatedIntroduced1879 Not invasive Welcomme, 1988; Froese and Pauly, 2004Reintroduced from 1929 to the 1930s. Local anglers in Dorset reported sightings in last 2-3 years. These fish were caught and killed by a rogue, disgruntled angler, so the species is now presumed extirpated. Initial reproduction was followed by a period of no recruitment.
UkrainePresentIntroducedFroese and Pauly, 2004
Yugoslavia (Serbia and Montenegro)PresentIntroduced1920Welcomme, 1988; Froese and Pauly, 2004Popular as a sportfish for restricted aquaculture.

Oceania

FijiLocalisedIntroduced1962 Invasive Lewis and Pring, 1986; Welcomme, 1988; Froese and Pauly, 2004Stocked in the Vaturu reservoir, where it is expected to become established (Andrews 1985). The recent (1983) introduction to Vaturu Dam has been very successful and survivors have spawned at least once. This introduction has developed a simple two-species predator/prey system involving largemouth bass and O. mossambicus.
GuamPresentIntroduced1966Maciolek, 1984; Welcomme, 1988; Froese and Pauly, 2004
New CaledoniaPresentIntroducedWelcomme, 1988; Froese and Pauly, 2004

History of Introduction and Spread

Top of page

M. salmoides are native to the warm freshwaters of eastern United States and Canada, mainly within the lower Great Lakes and central Mississippi River watersheds, and eastward to the coasts (Scott and Crossman, 1973). The species has been introduced globally, primarily due to its popularity as a sportfish but secondarily for aquaculture. It is now well represented throughout North America, South America Africa, Europe, Asia, and some Pacific islands. The species was introduced extensively throughout the 1800s to Europe from source populations within the eastern United States. Documented introductions occurred within France (1877) (Welcomme, 1988; Keith and Allardi, 1998), Belgium (1877) (FAO, 1997), the United Kingdom (1879) (Welcomme, 1988), Germany (1800-1890) (Welcomme, 1988) and Italy (1897) (Bianco and Ketmaier, 2001). Established populations from within Germany were subsequently introduced to Poland (1899) (Welcomme, 1988; Holcík, 1991), Austria (1883) (FAO, 1997), Finland (1883) (FAO, 1997), Denmark (1906) (Muus and Dahlstrom, 1990) and Hungary (1910) (FAO, 1997); whereas Belgian populations were subsequently introduced to South Africa (1928) (Welcomme, 1988), Namibia (date unknown) (FAO, 1997), Zimbabwe (1932) (Welcomme, 1988), Botswana (1937) (Welcomme, 1988) and Lesotho (1937) (Welcomme, 1988). Additional introductions to Africa originated from French populations that were introduced to Madagascar (1951) (Welcomme, 1988; Stiassny and Gertsner, 1992), Congo (1955) (FAO, 1997), Cameroon (1956) (Welcomme, 1988), Algeria (1970) (Welcomme, 1988) and Reunion (1994) (Bartley, 2006). Individuals from the United States were also introduced to Nigeria in 1976 (Welcomme, 1988).

Introductions to Central and South America and Mexico occurred mostly from source populations within the United States. The species was transported primarily for angling, with introductions to Cuba (1928) (Lee et al., 1983; Welcomme, 1988), Brazil (1900-1924) (Welcomme, 1988), Mexico (1930) (Perez-Ponce de Leon et al., 2000), Puerto Rico (1946) (Erdman, 1984), Mauritius (1949) (FAO, 1997), Dominican Republic (1955) (Welcomme, 1988; Lever, 1996 ), Panama (1955) (Welcomme, 1988), El Salvador (1957) (Welcomme, 1988), Guatemala (1958) (Welcomme, 1988; Wittenberg, 2005 ) and Argentina (1959) (Lever, 1996).

Introductions to Asia have occurred throughout the last century, with documented introductions to Hong Kong (1900-1924) (Man and Hodgkiss, 1981), Japan (1925) (Chiba et al., 1989), Taiwan (1975) (Welcomme, 1988; Liao and Lia, 1989) and Malaysia (1984) (Ang et al., 1989) from source populations within the United States. The species has been cultured intensely within China since receiving populations originated from Hong Kong (Welcomme, 1988; Ma et al., 2003).

Within its native range, introductions causing range expansions have occurred largely for angling. Most introductions within the species’ native range occur as authorized stocking to provide angling opportunities, although some unauthorized introductions for angling have occurred (Fuller et al., 1999). Within Canada, the species was introduced to Saskatchewan in 1950 but failed to establish. British Columbia received the species from Idaho resulting from natural dispersal through the Columbia River system. Within the United States, extensive introductions have occurred for sport within the species’ native and non-native range. As a result, the species now occupies all 50 contiguous states and Hawaii (Maciolek, 1984; Fuller et al., 1999), and will likely continue to increase its range through natural dispersal within the United States and Canada.

Introductions

Top of page
Introduced toIntroduced fromYearReasonIntroduced byEstablished in wild throughReferencesNotes
Natural reproductionContinuous restocking
Algeria France 1970 Aquaculture (pathway cause) Yes No Welcomme (1988)
Argentina USA 1959 Aquaculture (pathway cause) No No Lever (1996) Introduced for aquaculture, with continual re-stocking.
Austria Germany 1883 Fisheries (pathway cause) Yes No FAO (Food Agriculture Organization of the United Nations) (1997) Minor secondary spread resulting from dam failure; species is of low importance.
Belgium USA 1877 Aquaculture (pathway cause) ,
Hunting, angling, sport or racing (pathway cause)
Yes No FAO (Food Agriculture Organization of the United Nations) (1997) The species appears to have survived in small numbers in the Meuse.
Botswana South Africa 1937 Hunting, angling, sport or racing (pathway cause) No No Welcomme (1988)
Brazil USA 1900-1924 Aquaculture (pathway cause) No No Welcomme (1988)
British Columbia Idaho   Interconnected waterways (pathway cause) Yes No Crossman (1991); Scott and Crossman (1973)
Cameroon France 1956 Aquaculture (pathway cause) No No Welcomme (1988) Introduction was unsuccessful.
China Hong Kong 1983 Aquaculture (pathway cause) ,
Ornamental purposes (pathway cause)
No No Ma et al. (2003); Welcomme (1988) Appreciated as one of the best food fishes cultured in China.
Colombia USA   Hunting, angling, sport or racing (pathway cause) Yes No Welcomme (1988) Established in the watersheds of the central highlands.
Congo France 1955 Aquaculture (pathway cause) ,
Biological control (pathway cause)
No No FAO (Food Agriculture Organization of the United Nations) (1997) The species was introduced to control the proliferation of Tilapia spp., but failed to establish.
Costa Rica   Aquaculture (pathway cause) No No Bussing (1998)
Cuba USA 1928 Hunting, angling, sport or racing (pathway cause) Yes No Lee et al. (1983); Welcomme (1988)
Cyprus Canada 1971 Hunting, angling, sport or racing (pathway cause) Yes No Welcomme (1988) Established in two dams, where it is popular for angling
Czech Republic   Interconnected waterways (pathway cause) Yes No Welcomme (1988) Although rare, natural populations occur in the Danube.
Denmark Germany 1906 No No Muus and Dahlstrom (1990) No surviving naturalised populations.
Dominican Republic USA 1955 Aquaculture (pathway cause) No No Lever (1996); Welcomme (1988)
El Salvador USA 1957 Aquaculture (pathway cause) Yes No Welcomme (1988) Present in two small lakes, but populations are dwindling.
Fiji 1962 Hunting, angling, sport or racing (pathway cause) Yes No Lewis and Pring (1986); Welcomme (1988) Stocked and established in the Vaturu reservoir.
Finland Germany 1883 Aquaculture (pathway cause) ,
Hunting, angling, sport or racing (pathway cause)
No No FAO (Food Agriculture Organization of the United Nations) (1997)
France USA 1877 Hunting, angling, sport or racing (pathway cause) Yes No Keith and Allardi (1998); Welcomme (1988) Present in the south and east where the species is appreciated by anglers.
Germany USA 1800-1890 Hunting, angling, sport or racing (pathway cause) Yes No Welcomme (1988) Reintroduced in 1930. Established in one lake only.
Guam 1966 Yes No Maciolek (1984); Welcomme (1988)
Guatemala USA 1958 Hunting, angling, sport or racing (pathway cause) Yes No Welcomme (1988); Wittenberg (2005) Present in Lakes Atitlan and Calderas.
Hawaii California 1897 Fisheries (pathway cause) Yes No Maciolek (1984) 181 individuals were initially imported and released. The species is widespread in reservoirs of Hawaii, Kauai and Oahu.
Hong Kong USA 1900-1924 Hunting, angling, sport or racing (pathway cause) Yes No Man and Hodgkiss (1981) Established within several inland reservoirs.
Hungary Germany 1910 Aquaculture (pathway cause) Yes No FAO (Food Agriculture Organization of the United Nations) (1997) Reintroduced in the 1950s. May have also been introduced through natural dispersal from neighbouring countries. A few localized self-sustaining populations exist in the cooling ponds of power stations. Presumably also in Danube.
Italy USA 1897 Hunting, angling, sport or racing (pathway cause) Yes No Bianco and Ketmaier (2001); Bianco and Ketmaier (2001)
Japan California 1925 Hunting, angling, sport or racing (pathway cause) Yes No Chiba et al. (1989) Initially 90 individuals were introduced into Lake Ashinoko. Due to popularity among anglers, the species was transplanted to many lakes despite government prohibition. Has caused drastic declines in commercial catch biomass and native prey fishes.
Kenya USA   Hunting, angling, sport or racing (pathway cause) No No FAO (Food Agriculture Organization of the United Nations) (1997); Muchiri et al. (1995) Established in Lake Naivasha.
Korea, Republic of   Hunting, angling, sport or racing (pathway cause)Government Yes No Bartley (2006); Jang et al. (2002) Introduced by government to Han, Nakdong and Kim rivers.
Lesotho South Africa 1937 Hunting, angling, sport or racing (pathway cause) No No Welcomme (1988)
Madagascar France 1951 Hunting, angling, sport or racing (pathway cause) Yes No Stiassny et al. (1992); Welcomme (1988) Successful at high altitudes. Its introduction, coupled with habitat degradation, have been implicated in the severely restricted distribution and displacement of the endemic Paratilapia polleni.
Malaysia USA 1984 Hunting, angling, sport or racing (pathway cause) Yes No Ang and Gopinath (1989) About 1,000 fry were imported from Florida and raised in the Boh hatchery to fingerling size before being released in two lakes previously for trout angling.
Mauritius North America 1949 Hunting, angling, sport or racing (pathway cause) Yes No FAO (Food Agriculture Organization of the United Nations) (1997) Present in small numbers.
Mexico USA 1930 Aquaculture (pathway cause) ,
Hunting, angling, sport or racing (pathway cause)
Yes No Pérez-Ponce et al. (2000) Two host-specific parasites: an ancyrocephalid monogean and the trematode Crepidostomum cornutum were introduced into Lake Patzcuaro concurrently with the species.
Morocco France 1934 Hunting, angling, sport or racing (pathway cause) Yes No Lever (1996); Welcomme (1988) After early successful colonization of many waters, the species diminished throughout its acquired range. It is now maintained by stocking in some areas, and is naturalized in suitable waters from Lac Nfiss near Marrakech, to the Arbaoua larache region.
Namibia South Africa   Aquaculture (pathway cause) ,
Hunting, angling, sport or racing (pathway cause)
Yes No FAO (Food Agriculture Organization of the United Nations) (1997) Widely distributed within central Namibian impoundments and river drainages of Omatako and Swakopmund. Also used as an ornamental fish.
Netherlands Belgium 1900-1980 Interconnected waterways (pathway cause) Yes No Welcomme (1988) Appears to have penetrated the Meuse River in Netherlands
Nigeria USA 1976 No No Welcomme (1988)
Panama USA 1955 Hunting, angling, sport or racing (pathway cause) No No Welcomme (1988)
Poland Germany 1899 Aquaculture (pathway cause) Yes No Holcík (1991); Welcomme (1988) Maintained in some aquaculture ponds. Weakly affected several species of native fishes.
Portugal 1960-1969 Hunting, angling, sport or racing (pathway cause) Yes No FAO (Food Agriculture Organization of the United Nations) (1997) Displaced native cyprinid spp.
Puerto Rico USA 1946 Hunting, angling, sport or racing (pathway cause) Yes No Erdman (1984) Widely distributed and highly appreciated by anglers.
Réunion France 1994 Aquaculture (pathway cause) No No Bartley (2006)
Russian Federation   Fisheries (pathway cause) Yes No Blanc et al. (1971); Bogutskaya and Naseka (2002); Welcomme (1988) Most introductions occured in natural waters near Moscow.
Saskatchewan 1950 No No Scott and Crossman (1973)
Slovakia   Interconnected waterways (pathway cause) Yes No Welcomme (1988) Although rare, natural populations occur in the Danube.
South Africa Netherlands 1928 Hunting, angling, sport or racing (pathway cause) Yes No Welcomme (1988) Widespread in still, clear rivers. Preys heavily on native species and has been implicated in the decline of several rare, idigenous species.
Spain 1956 Aquaculture (pathway cause) Yes No San Feliu (1973); Welcomme (1988) Widely distributed, abundant in one coastal lagoon.
Switzerland   Aquaculture (pathway cause) ,
Hunting, angling, sport or racing (pathway cause)
Yes No Wittenberg (2005) Introduction of the species has been banned since 1994.
Taiwan North America 1975-1979 Aquaculture (pathway cause) No No Liao and Lia (1989); Welcomme (1988) Presently monocultured in Southern Taiwan and exported to Hong Kong; not stocked in natural waters.
Tanzania   Hunting, angling, sport or racing (pathway cause) Yes No Eccles (1992) Introduced to some highland dams.
Tunisia Morocco 1966 Fisheries (pathway cause) ,
Hunting, angling, sport or racing (pathway cause)
Yes No FAO (Food Agriculture Organization of the United Nations) (1997)
UK USA 1879 Hunting, angling, sport or racing (pathway cause) No No Welcomme (1988) Reintroduced from 1929 to the 1930s. Local anglers in Dorset, England reported sightings in the 1990s. These fish were caught and killed by a rogue, disgruntled angler.
Yugoslavia (Serbia and Montenegro) 1920 Aquaculture (pathway cause) ,
Hunting, angling, sport or racing (pathway cause)
Yes No Welcomme (1988) Popular as a sportfish and for restricted aquaculture.
Zambia   Hunting, angling, sport or racing (pathway cause) Yes No Losse (1998) Introduced in Lake Kariba.
Zimbabwe South Africa 1932 Hunting, angling, sport or racing (pathway cause) Yes No Welcomme (1988)

Risk of Introduction

Top of page

Although M. salmoides is not considered a quarantine pest, several countries (Japan (Chiba et al., 1989); United States (Fuller et al., 1999); Madagascar (Welcome, 1988; Stiassny and Gertsner, 1992); South Africa (Welcomme, 1988); Mexico (Perez-Ponce de Leon et al., 2000); Cuba (Lee et al., 1983); Guatemala (Welcomme, 1988; Wittenberg, 2005); Italy (Bianco and Ketmaier, 2001) and Portugal (FAO, 1997) report adverse effects on native fish communities following its establishment. The reduction or elimination of native prey fishes is suspected to be the greatest impact of the species following establishment.

The risk of introduction of M. salmoides for angling is dependant upon the goals and regulations of fishery management programs (e.g., the encouragement of non-native fish stocking for sport, or biological control) and the prevalence of unauthorized introductions within areas of potential introduction and establishment. Given the global popularity of angling for M. salmoides, future unauthorized introductions for angling are likely to occur.

The risk of accidental introduction from aquaculture facilities (see Distribution Table for list of facilities) will be dependant upon the type of facility (e.g., enclosed versus wild pens) and proximity to natural waterbodies. Facilities that are physically connected to natural waterbodies likely pose the greatest risk of introduction. Of these facilities, the effectiveness of physical barriers (e.g., netting, electricity) will determine the likelihood of introduction due to potential escapement.

Although rare, the species has been introduced for biological control of small fishes that occupy aquaculture facilities (FAO, 1997). Future introductions within culture facilities physically connected to natural waterbodies pose the greatest risk for further spread.

Ornamental use of the species is rare; however, the risk of introduction will be dependant upon the likelihood of release of ornamental specimens into previously-unoccupied natural waterbodies. 

Natural dispersal of wild populations through drainage networks will likely occur given the species’ excellent swimming ability (Scott and Crossman, 1973) and wide habitat tolerance, particularly in temperate and sub-tropical freshwaters. However, the species may tolerate ice-cover for up to six months in its native range, suggesting that ice cover within the introduced range may not hinder dispersal success providing that suitably warm temperatures exist during spawning season.

Habitat

Top of page

M. salmoides prefers warm freshwater habitats within lakes, ponds, rivers and streams. Temperatures from 26.6-27.7°C were preferred during a field study in Ontario, Canada (Scott and Crossman, 1973). The species has wide habitat tolerances that allow it to colonize many temperate and sub-tropical freshwaters. However, the species may tolerate ice-cover for up to six months in its native range, suggesting that ice cover within the introduced range may not hinder dispersal success providing that suitably warm temperatures (>15.6°C) exist during spawning season.

Within its native range the species frequents relatively shallow waters and is seldom captured from depths greater then 7 m (Scott and Crossman, 1973). Coincident with its introduction for sport and aquaculture, it may inhabit artificial waterbodies (e.g., irrigation ditches; canals) that possess suitably warm water for spawning (>15.6°C; Scott and Crossman, 1973). Survival within ice-covered lakes is possible assuming sufficient dissolved oxygen (> 1.5 mg/L). Relatively clear waters are preferred due to the species’ method of visual predation, although the species is known from certain turbid systems where it presumably relies on scent and vibration to obtain prey items. Aquatic vegetation (both emergent and submergent) is usually necessary, as are mud, sand or gravel substrates that provide spawning habitat. The species preferentially occupies the nearshore (littoral) area of lakes due to the abundance of aquatic vegetation and warm temperatures. Feeding is reduced at water temperatures below 10°C, or may cease entirely during winter and spawning periods (Scott and Crossman, 1973). The species is not known to be particularly sensitive to organic or inorganic contaminants.

Habitat List

Top of page
CategoryHabitatPresenceStatus
Brackish
Estuaries Secondary/tolerated habitat Natural
Freshwater
Irrigation channels Secondary/tolerated habitat Productive/non-natural
Lakes Principal habitat Productive/non-natural
Ponds Principal habitat Productive/non-natural
Reservoirs Principal habitat Productive/non-natural
Rivers / streams Principal habitat Natural

Host Animals

Top of page
Animal nameContextLife stageSystem
Sciaenops ocellatus (red drum)Aquatic: Broodstock|Aquatic/Fry

Biology and Ecology

Top of page

Genetics

Hybridization between M. salmoides and other sunfishes (Micropterus, Pomoxis and Lepomis spp.) has not been documented within its native range, although Hester (1970) described artificial hybrids of the species that do not occur in nature. Maciolek (1984) described the occurrence of spontaneous intergeneric hybrids between M. salmoides and bluegill (Lepomis macrochirus) within its introduced range in Hawaii, United States. The genetic diversity and origin of Florida largemouth bass introduced into Lake Biwa was studied by Aoki et al. (2006).

Reproductive Biology

The spawning behaviour of M. salmoides was described in detail by Scott and Crossman (1973) from populations within Ontario and Quebec, Canada:

“Spawning occurs in late spring to mid-summer in Canada, when water temperatures reach 15.6 °C. Spawning sites consist of sand, gravel or marl substrates and are usually contained within protected waters (coves, bays of larger lakes) with ample aquatic vegetation. Males clear a 61-95 cm area that may include exposed roots of emergent vegetation. Nudging and nipping between male and female initiates spawning, which results in the female depositing between 2000 and 109,314 eggs that are 1.5-1.7 mm in diameter. Males aggressively guard the nest during egg development. Hatching takes 3-5 days in southern Ontario, which produced transparent fry about 3 mm long. A nest may produce between 751-11,457 fry, averaging 5000-7000 individuals. Yolk is absorbed usually 6 or 7 days after hatching, at which point young will feed and school actively. Growth is rapid, with age-0 individuals reaching 51-127 mm by October in Ohio populations (Trautman, 1957). Invertebrates initially form the bulk of food supply, with fishes entering the diet at or above 50 mm total length.”

Physiology and Phenology

Physiological and phylogenetic specializations are unknown for the species. Little documentation exists regarding phenological variation in native and exotic ranges.

Nutrition

M. salmoides are a generalist carnivore, feeding mostly during the day and eating mainly nearshore organisms that occur frequently within freshwaters. Their diet consists mostly of invertebrates at young ages, but will be dominated by fishes as age increases. Cannibalism may occur, especially in age-0 individuals exhibiting high variability in growth rate (Scott and Crossman, 1973). In their native range in Ontario and Quebec, Canada, they have been known to forage on Cladocera, mayfly nymphs, amphipods, chironomid larvae, coeopods, caddisfly nymphs, dragonfly and damselfly nymphs, small fishes and crayfish. Prey fishes include many cyprinid spp., gizzard shad (Dorosoma cepedianum), common carp (Cyprinus carpio), bluegill (Lepomis macrochirus), pumpkinseed (Lepomis gibbosus), yellow perch (Perca flavescens), largemouth bass (M. salmoides) and brook silversides (Labidesthes sicculus); however, it is assumed that almost any species of appropriate size is eaten (Scott and Crossman, 1973).

Water Tolerances

Top of page
ParameterMinimum ValueMaximum ValueTypical ValueStatusLife StageNotes
Depth (m b.s.l.) <7 Optimum
Dissolved oxygen (mg/l) >1.5 Optimum As low as 1.5 tolerated
Salinity (part per thousand) 0 Optimum
Velocity (cm/h) Optimum Low (<0.1 m/s) preferred
Water temperature (ºC temperature) 26.6 27.7 Optimum Upper lethal: 28.9-36.4, depending on locality and acclimation period and temperature

Natural enemies

Top of page
Natural enemyTypeLife stagesSpecificityReferencesBiological control inBiological control on
Ardeidae Predator not specific Scott and Crossman, 1973
Ceryle Predator not specific Scott and Crossman, 1973
Esox lucius Predator not specific Scott and Crossman, 1973
Esox masquinongy Predator not specific Scott and Crossman, 1973
Perca flavescens Predator not specific Scott and Crossman, 1973
Sander vitreus Predator not specific Scott and Crossman, 1973

Notes on Natural Enemies

Top of page

By virtue of its numerous sharp dorsal spines, swimming speed and physically large size, the adult M. salmoides is well protected from predation by all but the largest fish predators in its native range in Canada (Scott and Crossman, 1973). Although present in juveniles, the spines are less robust making juveniles more susceptible to predation by fishes of smaller size ranges. Within its native range, fish predators include members of the pike family (Esox spp.), pike-perches (Sander spp.) and yellow perch (Perca flavescens) (Scott and Crossman, 1973). Many waters in the introduced range lack suitably large piscivorous fishes for effective adult predation, which may be a contributing factor leading to establishment success in novel habitats. Predation by large shorebirds such as members of the heron family (Ardeidae species) and kingfishers (Ceryle spp.) has also been observed.

Means of Movement and Dispersal

Top of page

Natural Dispersal

M. salmoides is a strong swimmer (Scott and Crossman, 1973) that is capable of surviving a range of warm freshwater environments; therefore, it will undoubtedly increase its introduced range through natural dispersal within suitable drainage networks. The magnitude of spread will be dependant upon the spatial configuration of potential habitats and their physical connectivity via drainage networks. Most natural dispersal within the native range of Canada and the United States has occurred at local levels (Fuller et al., 1999).

Vector Transmission

Although M. salmoides may be predated upon by larger fishes, the likelihood of long-distance dispersal resulting from this vector is low. Most piscivorous fishes are unable to utilize adult M. salmoides for food due to their numerous sharp dorsal spines and physically large size. Those individuals that are successfully predated upon should incur immediate mortality.

Intentional Introduction

Introduction via fisheries (angling/sport purposes) and aquaculture are the dominant long-distance (national; international) vectors. Intentional introductions by fisheries managers may result in long-distance travel events via stocking from source populations. Aquaculture introductions may have similar magnitudes of spread. Unauthorized intentional release by anglers also has the potential to contribute to local, national or international events but may be constrained by the effectiveness of legal restrictions that prohibit import of live organisms across borders. Introductions via the live food trade will be dependant on the spatial scale of transport and the likelihood of accidental release to natural waterbodies. Dispersal potential through the live food trade in the native range likely occurs at local levels (N Mandrak, DFO, Canada, personal communication, 2009).

Pathway Causes

Top of page
CauseNotesLong DistanceLocalReferences
Aquaculture Yes
Fisheries Yes
Hunting, angling, sport or racing Yes
Intentional release Yes
Interbasin transfers Yes
Interconnected waterways Yes
Live food or feed tradeKnown within native range in Canada (N Mandrak, DFO, Canada, personal communication, 2009) Yes

Pathway Vectors

Top of page
VectorNotesLong DistanceLocalReferences
Aircraft Yes
Aquaculture stock Yes
BaitKnown within native range in Canada (N Mandrak, DFO, Canada, personal communication, 2009) Yes Litvak and Mandrak, 1993
Land vehicles Yes
Water Yes Crossman, 1991

Impact Summary

Top of page
CategoryImpact
Cultural/amenity Negative
Economic/livelihood Positive and negative
Environment (generally) Negative
Human health None

Economic Impact

Top of page

To date, economic impacts resulting from M. salmoides introductions have not been quantified. In certain cases of wild establishment, M. salmoides introductions have the potential to hinder local commercial and sport fisheries through competition with target species.

Environmental Impact

Top of page

Impact on Habitats

Once introduced, M. salmoides may increase predation at one or more lower trophic levels, which should result in altered ecosystem processes (e.g., productivity of lower trophic levels; nutrient cycling). Of particular concern is the potential for altered energetic pathways within recipient ecosystems, given their largely piscivorous diet and a body structure that precludes predation from but all of the largest piscivorous predators. Estimates regarding specific habitat impacts following M. salmoides introductions have not been quantified.

Impact on Biodiversity

M. salmoides introductions typically lead to predation on small fishes, invertebrates or other small food items. Predation impacts (reductions, extinctions) to small fishes following introduction and establishment have been documented globally (Virginia (Fuller et al., 1999); Japan (Chiba et al., 1989); Mexico (Perez-Ponce de Leon et al., 2000); France (Keith and Allardi, 1998); Italy (Bianco and Ketmaier, 2001); Portugal (FAO, 1997); Fiji (Lewis and Pring, 1986); Cuba (Lee et al., 1983)). Several states within the native range have documented reductions of imperiled species attributed directly to predation from M. salmoides (California, Nevada and Arizona (Fuller et al., 1999)), with similar reductions of imperiled species also occurring within introduced ranges (Madagascar (Stiassny and Gertsner, 1992); South Africa (Welcomme, 1988)). Predation impacts suggest that competition for food occur within many introduced waters. Direct predation and monopolizing resources by the species was attributed to the extinction of an endemic Guatemalan waterbird (Podilymbus gigas).

Of additional concern is the potential for altered energetic pathways within recipient ecosystems, given their carnivorous diet and a body structure that precludes predation from but all of the largest fishes. Scott and Crossman (1973) describe the following parasites known from within the species, which may be concurrently introduced to recipient ecosystems during M. salmoides introductions: Protozoa, Trematoda, Cestoda, Nematoda, Acanthocephala, leeches, Mollusca, and Crustacea. Two host-specific parasites that infected M. salmoides (an ancyrocephalid monogean, and tremetode Crepidostomum cornutum) were introduced into Lake Pátzcuaro, Mexico following the introduction of the species (FAO, 1997; Perez-Ponce de Leon et al., 2000).

Threatened Species

Top of page
Threatened SpeciesConservation StatusWhere ThreatenedMechanismReferencesNotes
Crenichthys baileyi (White River killfish)VU (IUCN red list: Vulnerable) VU (IUCN red list: Vulnerable)NevadaCompetition - monopolizing resources; PredationFuller et al., 1999
CyprinodonNational list(s) National list(s)ArizonaCompetition - monopolizing resources; PredationFuller et al., 1999
Cyprinodon radiosusEN (IUCN red list: Endangered) EN (IUCN red list: Endangered)MadagascarCompetition - monopolizing resources; PredationStiassny et al., 1992
Gila intermedia (Gila chub)EN (IUCN red list: Endangered) EN (IUCN red list: Endangered); USA ESA listing as endangered species USA ESA listing as endangered speciesArizona; New MexicoCompetition - monopolizing resources; PredationFuller et al., 1999
Gila robusta jordaniNational list(s) National list(s)NevadaCompetition - monopolizing resources; PredationFuller et al., 1999
Lepidomeda albivallisNational list(s) National list(s)NevadaCompetition - monopolizing resources; PredationFuller et al., 1999
Podilymbus gigasCR (IUCN red list: Critically endangered) CR (IUCN red list: Critically endangered)GuatemalaCompetition - monopolizing resources; PredationFuller et al., 1999
Relictus solitariusEN (IUCN red list: Endangered) EN (IUCN red list: Endangered)NevadaCompetition - monopolizing resources; PredationFuller et al., 1999
Rhinichthys osculus oligoporusNational list(s) National list(s); USA ESA listing as endangered species USA ESA listing as endangered speciesNevadaCompetition - monopolizing resources; PredationFuller et al., 1999
Ambystoma californiense (California tiger salamander)VU (IUCN red list: Vulnerable) VU (IUCN red list: Vulnerable); USA ESA listing as endangered species USA ESA listing as endangered speciesCaliforniaPredationUS Fish and Wildlife Service, 2009a
Catostomus santaanae (Santa Ana sucker)EN (IUCN red list: Endangered) EN (IUCN red list: Endangered); USA ESA listing as threatened species USA ESA listing as threatened speciesCaliforniaPredationUS Fish and Wildlife Service, 2011b
Catostomus warnerensis (Warner sucker)EN (IUCN red list: Endangered) EN (IUCN red list: Endangered); USA ESA listing as threatened species USA ESA listing as threatened speciesCalifornia; Nevada; OregonPredationUS Fish and Wildlife Service, 2010b
Catostomus warnerensis (Warner sucker)EN (IUCN red list: Endangered) EN (IUCN red list: Endangered); USA ESA listing as threatened species USA ESA listing as threatened speciesCalifornia; Nevada; OregonPredationUS Fish and Wildlife Service, 2010b
Cyprinella formosa (beautiful shiner)VU (IUCN red list: Vulnerable) VU (IUCN red list: Vulnerable); USA ESA listing as threatened species USA ESA listing as threatened speciesArizona; New MexicoPredationUS Fish and Wildlife Service, 1984
Gila ditaenia (Sonora chub)VU (IUCN red list: Vulnerable) VU (IUCN red list: Vulnerable); USA ESA listing as threatened species USA ESA listing as threatened speciesArizonaPredationUS Fish and Wildlife Service, 1992
Gila nigra (headwater chub)NT (IUCN red list: Near threatened) NT (IUCN red list: Near threatened)Arizona; New MexicoPredationUS Fish and Wildlife Service, 2013a
Gila robusta (roundtail chub)NT (IUCN red list: Near threatened) NT (IUCN red list: Near threatened)Arizona; California; NevadaPredationUS Fish and Wildlife Service, 2013b
Hyla wrightorum (Arizona treefrog)LC (IUCN red list: Least concern) LC (IUCN red list: Least concern)ArizonaPredationUS Fish and Wildlife Service, 2013c
Iotichthys phlegethontis (least chub)EN (IUCN red list: Endangered) EN (IUCN red list: Endangered)UtahPredationUS Fish and Wildlife Service, 2013d
Lepidomeda vittata (Little Colorado spinedace)EN (IUCN red list: Endangered) EN (IUCN red list: Endangered); USA ESA listing as threatened species USA ESA listing as threatened speciesArizonaPredationUS Fish and Wildlife Service, 2008b
Noturus placidus (Neosho madtom)NT (IUCN red list: Near threatened) NT (IUCN red list: Near threatened); USA ESA listing as threatened species USA ESA listing as threatened speciesNew MexicoCompetition - monopolizing resourcesUS Fish and Wildlife Service, 2010a
Oregonichthys crameri (Oregon chub)LC (IUCN red list: Least concern) LC (IUCN red list: Least concern)OregonCompetition - monopolizing resources; PredationUS Fish and Wildlife Service, 1998b
Pacifastacus fortis (Shasta crayfish)CR (IUCN red list: Critically endangered) CR (IUCN red list: Critically endangered); USA ESA listing as endangered species USA ESA listing as endangered speciesCaliforniaPredationUS Fish and Wildlife Service, 2009b
Plagopterus argentissimus (woundfin)EN (IUCN red list: Endangered) EN (IUCN red list: Endangered); USA ESA listing as endangered species USA ESA listing as endangered speciesArizona; Nevada; New Mexico; UtahPredationUS Fish and Wildlife Service, 2008c
Poeciliopsis occidentalis (Gila topminnow)VU (IUCN red list: Vulnerable) VU (IUCN red list: Vulnerable); USA ESA listing as endangered species USA ESA listing as endangered speciesArizona; New MexicoCompetition - monopolizing resources; PredationUS Fish and Wildlife Service, 1998a
Ptychocheilus lucius (Colorado pikeminnow)No DetailsColoradoPredationUS Fish and Wildlife Service, 2011a
Rana pretiosa (Oregon spotted frog)VU (IUCN red list: Vulnerable) VU (IUCN red list: Vulnerable); USA ESA listing as threatened species USA ESA listing as threatened speciesCalifornia; Oregon; WashingtonPredationUS Fish and Wildlife Service, 1998d
Rhinichthys osculus lethoporus (Independence Valley speckled dace)USA ESA listing as endangered species USA ESA listing as endangered speciesNevadaCompetition (unspecified); Ecosystem change / habitat alterationUS Fish and Wildlife Service, 2008a
Rhinichthys osculus oligoporusNational list(s) National list(s); USA ESA listing as endangered species USA ESA listing as endangered speciesNevadaCompetition (unspecified); Ecosystem change / habitat alterationUS Fish and Wildlife Service, 1998c
Xyrauchen texanus (razorback sucker)CR (IUCN red list: Critically endangered) CR (IUCN red list: Critically endangered); USA ESA listing as endangered species USA ESA listing as endangered speciesPredationUS Fish and Wildlife Service, 2002

Social Impact

Top of page

M. salmoides populations may hinder local native sport fisheries by out-competing target fishes, resulting in reduced angling opportunities and their social impacts. Alternatively, introductions may be encouraged locally if M. salmoides are favoured for sport, which has been globally popular for nearly two centuries. Introduction into previously fishless waters may provide new or valued angling opportunities. Current estimates of social impacts resulting from M. salmoides introductions have not been documented.

Risk and Impact Factors

Top of page Invasiveness
  • Invasive in its native range
  • 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
  • Tolerates, or benefits from, cultivation, browsing pressure, mutilation, fire etc
  • Pioneering in disturbed areas
  • Capable of securing and ingesting a wide range of food
  • Highly mobile locally
  • Fast growing
  • Has high reproductive potential
  • Has high genetic variability
Impact outcomes
  • Altered trophic level
  • Changed gene pool/ selective loss of genotypes
  • Damaged ecosystem services
  • Ecosystem change/ habitat alteration
  • Modification of natural benthic communities
  • Negatively impacts aquaculture/fisheries
  • Reduced native biodiversity
  • Threat to/ loss of endangered species
  • Threat to/ loss of native species
Impact mechanisms
  • Competition - monopolizing resources
  • Competition
  • Interaction with other invasive species
  • Predation
Likelihood of entry/control
  • Highly likely to be transported internationally deliberately
  • Highly likely to be transported internationally illegally
  • Difficult/costly to control

Uses

Top of page

Economic Value

M. salmoides have been utilized within their native and introduced range primarily for sport and secondarily for aquaculture. The species may also be found inadvertently within the aquarium and ornamental trade (Welcomme, 1988; FAO, 1997) and baitfish industry (Litvak and Mandrak, 1993). Economic benefits from aquaculture occur primarily within Cameroon, Costa Rica, Dominican Republic, Argentina, Poland, Yugoslavia and Taiwan (Welcomme, 1988; Liao and Lia, 1989; Holcík, 1991; Lever, 1996; Bussing, 1998). Specific economic values associated with sportfish introductions and aquaculture have not been documented.

Social Benefit

Introduced populations of M. salmoides to Europe and some Pacific islands originally provided social benefits as sportfish (Welcomme, 1988), but their current social benefits as sportfish within the introduced range are unknown. Within their native range, the species may be used as a research laboratory organism and held within zoos or public aquariums. 

Uses List

Top of page

Animal feed, fodder, forage

  • Fishmeal

General

  • Botanical garden/zoo
  • Laboratory use
  • Pet/aquarium trade
  • Research model
  • 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 Inspection

Top of page
M. salmoides may be detected from shallow waters using conventional fish sampling methods (minnow traps, fyke nets, seines, boat and backpack electrofishers). Visual sampling of spawning sites (nests) may also be an effective detection metnod in clear waters. Once captured, the species may be identified through analysis of meristics and morphometry using the dichotomous species identification key from Scott and Crossman (1973).

 

Similarities to Other Species/Conditions

Top of page

M. salmoides may be confused with spotted bass Micropterus punctulatus (Mississippi River basin in the United States; introduced to southern Africa), smallmouth bass Micropterus dolomieu (southern Canada, United States; introduced elsewhere), redeye bass Micropterus coosae (Savannah, Chattahoochee and Mobile Bay drainages in North Carolina, South Carolina, Georgia, Tennessee and Alabama in the United States), Suwannee bass Micropterus notius (Suwannee River and Ochlockonee River drainages in Florida and Georgia, United States) and Guadalupe bass Micropterus treculii (Edwards Plateau in Brazos, Colorado; and, Guadalupe, San Antonio and Nueces River drainages in Texas, United States), of which M. coosae, M. notius, and M. treculii are of conservation concern and unlikely to be encountered outside of their native range.

M. salmoides is best distinguished from both smallmouth bass and spotted bass by its upper jaw, which extends past the midpoint of the eye when the jaw is closed. In addition, smallmouth bass display vertical bars along the body length in contrast to the largemouth’s horizontal banding pattern (Trautman, 1957; Scott and Crossman, 1973).

Prevention and Control

Top of page

Prevention

Eradication

Eradication may involve the use of chemical agents (e.g., rotenone) to induce mortality within introduced populations, although such methods should be evaluated for their potential effects on non-target fishes and other aquatic organisms. Other measures (e.g., physical removal using fish sampling gears: fyke nets, seines, boat and backpack electrofishers) may also be effective.

Control

Physical/Mechanical Control

Physical control should involve, if possible, physical isolation of introduced populations, which may require physical (e.g., block nets) or electrical barriers.

Movement Control

As with physical control, movement control will involve physical isolation of introduced populations using physical or electrical barriers.

Biological Control

Biological control of adult M. salmoides is unlikely given the paucity of natural predators within the native range, although juveniles may be predated upon by a range of large-bodied fishes (e.g., Esox spp. and others within native range).

Monitoring and surveillance

Population monitoring will involve physical sampling of invaded and potentially invaded freshwaters using conventional fish sampling methods (minnow traps, fyke nets, seines, boat and backpack electrofishers).

References

Top of page

Andrews S, 1985. Aquatic species introduced to Fiji. Domodomo, 3:67-82

Ang K, Gopinath RC, 1989. The status of introduced fish species in Malaysia. In: Exotic aquatic organisms in Asia. Proceedings of the Workshop on Introduction of Exotic Aquatic Organisms in Asia. Asian Fish. Soc. Spec. Publ [ed. by Silva SDe] Manila, Philippines: Asian Fisheries Society, 71-82

Aoki D, Nakayama Y, Hayashi M, Iwasaki G, 2006. Genetic diversity and origin of Florida largemouth bass (Micropterus salmoides floridanus) introduced into Lake Biwa inferred from the mitochondrial DNA control region. Japanese Journal of Conservation Ecology, 11(1):53-60

Bartley DM, 2006. Introduced species in fisheries and aquaculture: information for responsible use and control. Rome, Italy, FAO: unpaginated

Bianco PG, Ketmaier V, 2001. Anthropogenic changes in the freshwater fish fauna of Italy, with reference to the central region and Barbus graellsii, a newly established alien species of Iberian origin. Journal of Fish Biology, 59(Supplement A):190-208

Blanc M, Gaudet J-L, Banarescu P, Hureau J-C, 1971. European inland water fish. London, United Kingdom: Fishing News Ltd

Bogutskaya NG, Naseka A, 2002. An overview of nonindigenous fishes in inland waters of Russia. Proc. Zool. Inst. Russ. Acad. Sci, 296:21-30

Bussing WA, 1998. [Freshwater fishes of Costa Rica]. San José, Costa Rica: Editorial de la Universidad de Costa Rica

Chiba K, Taki Y, Sakai K, Oozeki Y, 1989. Present status of aquatic organisms introduced into Japan. In: Exotic aquatic organisms in Asia. Proceedings of the Workshop on Introduction of Exotic Aquatic Organisms in Asia. Special Publication of the Asian Fisheries Society 3 [ed. by Silva SSDe]

Coad BW, 1996. Exotic fish species in the Tigris-Euphrates basin. Zoology in the Middle East, 13:71-83

Crossman EJ, 1991. Introduced freshwater fishes: A review of the North American perspective with emphasis on Canada. Can. Fish. Aquat. Sci., 48 (Suppl. Can. J. Fish. Aquat. Sci, No. 48 (Suppl. 1):46-57

Eccles DH, 1992. FAO species identification sheets for fishery purposes. Field guide to freshwater fishes of Tanzania. Rome, Italy: FAO United Nations Development Programme

Eldredge LG, 1994. Freshwater fishes. In: Perspectives in aquatic exotic species management in the Pacific islands. Vol 1. Introductions of commercially significant aquatic organisms to the Pacific islands [ed. by Eldredge LG] New Caledonia

Erdman DS, 1984. Exotic fishes in Puerto Rico. In: Distribution, biology and management of exotic fishes [ed. by Courtney WR, Stauffer JR] Baltimore, United States, 162-176

FAO (Food Agriculture Organization of the United Nations), 1997. FAO database on introduced aquatic species. Rome, Italy: Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations. http://www.fao.org/fishery/dias/en

Froese R, Pauly D, 2004. FishBase DVD. Penang, Malaysia: Worldfish Center. Online at www.fishbase.org

Froese R, Pauly D, 2008. FishBase. http://www.fishbase.org

Froese R, Pauly D, 2018. FishBase. http://www.fishbase.org

Fuller PL, Nico LG, Williams JD, 1999. Nonindigenous fishes introduced into inland waters of the United States. American Fisheries Society Publication, No. 27

Hay CJ, Zyl Bvan, Bank Fder, Ferreira J, Steyn G, 1999. The distribution of freshwater fish in Namibia. Cimbebasia, 15:41-63

Hester FE, 1970. Phylogenetic relationships of sunfishes as demonstrated by hybridization. Transactions of the American Fisheries Society, 99((1)):100-104

Holcík J, 1991. Fish introductions in Europe with particular reference to its central and eastern part. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences, 48((Suppl.1)):13-23

Hubbs CL, Lagler DF, 1957. Fishes of the Great Lakes Region. Bulletin of the Cranbrook Institute of Science, No. 26

ISSG, 2009. Global Invasive Species Database (GISD). Invasive Species Specialist Group of the IUCN Species Survival Commission. http://www.issg.org/database

Jang M-H, Kim J-G, Park S-B, Jeong K-S, Cho G-I, Joo G-J, 2002. The current status of the distribution of introduced fish in large river systems of South Korea. International Review of Hydrobiology, 87(2-3):319-328

Juliano RO, Guerrero RD, Ronquillo I, 1989. The introduction of exotic aquatic species in the Philippines. Proceedings of the Workshop on Introduction of Exotic Aquatic Organisms in Asia. Asian Fisheries Society Special Publication 3

Keith P, Allardi J, 1998. The introduced freshwater fish of France: status, impacts and management. In: Stocking and introduction of fish [ed. by Cowx IG] Bodmin, Cornwall, UK, 153-166

Kullander SO, 1999. Swedish fishes: checklist of Swedish fishes. Stockholm, Sweden: Swedish Museum of Natural History. http://www.fishbase.org

Lee DS, Platania SP, Burgess GH, 1983. Atlas of North American freshwater fishes, 1983 supplement. Occasional Papers of the North Carolina Biological Survey number 1983-6. Raleigh, North Carolina, USA: North Carolina State Museum of Natural History

Lever C, 1996. Naturalized fishes of the world. California, USA: Academic Press, 408 pp

Lewis AD, Pring CK, 1986. Freshwater and brackishwater fish and fisheries of Fiji. Reports and papers presented at the Indo-Pacific Fishery Comission Expert Consultation on inland fisheries of the larger Indo-Pacific islands [ed. by Petr T]. Bankok, Thailand, 38-59

Liao I-C, Lia H-C, 1989. Exotic aquatic species in Taiwan. In: Proceedings of the Workshop on Introduction of Exotic Aquatic Organisms in Asia. Asian Fisheries Society Special Publication 3 [ed. by Silva SSDe] Manila, Philippines

Litvak MK, Mandrak NE, 1993. Ecology of freshwater baitfish use in Canada and the United States. Fisheries, 18((12)):6-13

Losse GF, 1998. Lake Kariba and the Gwembe Valley. In: The small-scale fishery on Lake Kariba in Zambia [ed. by Losse GF] Eschborn, Germany: Deutsche Gessellscahft für Technische Zusammenarbeit

Ma X, Bangxi X, Yindong W, Mingxue W, 2003. Internationally introduced and transferred fishes in China's inland waters. Asian Fisheries Science, 16((3-4)):279-290

Maciolek JA, 1984. Exotic fishes in Hawaii and other island of Oceania. In: Distribution, biology and management of exotic fishes [ed. by Courtenay WR, Stauffer JR] Baltimore, United States, 131-161

Man SH, Hodgkiss IJ, 1981. Hong Kong freshwater fishes. Hong Kong, : Wishing Printing Company

Minkley WL, 1973. Fishes of Arizona. Phoenix, Arizona, United States: Arizona Fish and Game Department

Muchiri S, Hart PJB, Harper DM, 1995. The persistence of introduced tilapia species in Lake Naivasha, Kenya, in the face of environmental variability and fishing pressure. In: The impact of species changes in African Lakes [ed. by Pitcher TJ, Hart PJB] London, United Kingdom, 299-319

Muus BJ, Dahlstrom P, 1990. Europas ferskvandsfisk. GEC Gads Forlag, Kobenhavn

Ogden JC, Yntema JA, Clavijo I, 1975. An annotated list of the fishes of St. Croix, U. S. Virgin Islands. Special Publication Number 3. St Croix, US Virgin Islands

Okeyo DO, 2003. On the biodiversity and the distribution of freshwater fish of Namibia: an annotated update. Fish biodiversity: local studies as basis for global inferences. ACP-EU Fish. Res. Rep [ed. by Palomares MLD, Samb B, Diouf T, Vakily JM, Pauly D]., 281 pp

Pérez-Ponce de León G, García-Prieto L, León-Règagnon V, Choudhury A, 2000. Helminth communities of native and introduced fishes in Lake Pátzcuaro, Michoacán, México. Journal of Fish Biology, 57(2):303-325

San Feliu JM, 1973. Present state of aquaculture in the Mediterranean and south Atlantic coast of Spain. General Fisheries Commission for the Mediterranean Study Review., 1-24

Scott WB, Crossman EJ, 1973. Freshwater Fishes of Canada. Bulletin 184, NO. 184:966 pp

Solarz W, 2005. Alien Species in Poland Institute of Nature Conservation. Polish Academy of Sciences. http://www.nobanis.org/DBCatalogue.asp

Stiassny MLJ, Gertsner, CL, 1992. The parental care behaviour of Paratilapia polleni (Perciformes, Labroidei), a phylogenetically primitive cichlid from Madagascar, with a discussion of the evolution of maternal care in the family Cichlidae. Environmental Biology of Fishes, 34((3)):219-233

Trautman MB, 1957. Fishes of Ohio. Columbus, Ohio: Ohio State University Press

US Fish and Wildlife Service, 1984. Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Final Rule To Determine the Yaqui Chub To Be an Endangered Species with Critical Habitat, and To Determine the Beautiful Shiner and the Yaqui Catfish To Be Threatened Species with Critical Habitat. In: Federal Register , 49(171) : US Fish and Wildlife Service.34490-34497. https://www.fws.gov/southwest/es/arizona/Documents/Federal%20Registers/beautiful_shiner_yaqui_catfish.pdf

US Fish and Wildlife Service, 1992. Sonora Chub Gila ditaenia Recovery Plan. In: Sonora Chub Gila ditaenia Recovery Plan : US Fish and Wildlife Service.83 pp. http://ecos.fws.gov/docs/recovery_plan/920930.pdf

US Fish and Wildlife Service, 1998. Gila Topminnow, Poeciliopsis occidentalis occidentalis, Revised Recovery Plan. In: Gila Topminnow, Poeciliopsis occidentalis occidentalis, Revised Recovery Plan : US Fish and Wildlife Service.83 pp.

US Fish and Wildlife Service, 1998. Oregon Chub (Oregonichthys crameri) Recovery Plan. In: Oregon Chub (Oregonichthys crameri) Recovery Plan : US Fish and Wildlife Service.96 pp. http://ecos.fws.gov/docs/recovery_plan/980903b.pdf

US Fish and Wildlife Service, 1998. Recovery Plan for the Endangered Speckled Dace of Clover and Independence Valleys (Rhinichthys osculus lethoporus and Rhinichthys osculus oligoporus). In: Recovery Plan for the Endangered Speckled Dace of Clover and Independence Valleys (Rhinichthys osculus lethoporus and Rhinichthys osculus oligoporus) : US Fish and Wildlife Service.50 pp.

US Fish and Wildlife Service, 1998. Recovery Plan for the Shasta Crayfish (Pacifastacus fortis). In: Recovery Plan for the Shasta Crayfish (Pacifastacus fortis) : US Fish and Wildlife Service.167 pp. http://ecos.fws.gov/docs/recovery_plan/980828.pdf

US Fish and Wildlife Service, 2002. Razorback sucker (Xyrauchen texanus) Recovery Goals: amendment and supplement to the Razorback Sucker Recovery Plan. In: Razorback sucker (Xyrauchen texanus) Recovery Goals: amendment and supplement to the Razorback Sucker Recovery Plan : US Fish and Wildlife Service.78 pp. + appendices.

US Fish and Wildlife Service, 2008. Independence Valley Speckled Dace (Rhinichthys osculus lethoporus). 5-Year Review: Summary and Evaluation. In: Independence Valley Speckled Dace (Rhinichthys osculus lethoporus). 5-Year Review: Summary and Evaluation : US Fish and Wildlife Service.27 pp.

US Fish and Wildlife Service, 2008. Little Colorado Spinedace (Lepidomeda vittata). 5-Year Review: Summary and Evaluation. In: Little Colorado Spinedace (Lepidomeda vittata). 5-Year Review: Summary and Evaluation : US Fish and Wildlife Service.30 pp. http://ecos.fws.gov/docs/five_year_review/doc2008.pdf

US Fish and Wildlife Service, 2008. The Virgin River Fish Woundfin (Plagopterus argentissimus) Virgin River chub (Gila seminuda). 5-Year Review: Summary and Evaluation. In: The Virgin River Fish Woundfin (Plagopterus argentissimus) Virgin River chub (Gila seminuda). 5-Year Review: Summary and Evaluation : US Fish and Wildlife Service.71 pp.

US Fish and Wildlife Service, 2009. California tiger salamander (Ambystoma californiense) Santa Barbara County Distinct Population Segment. 5-Year Review: Summary and Evaluation. In: California tiger salamander (Ambystoma californiense) Santa Barbara County Distinct Population Segment. 5-Year Review: Summary and Evaluation : US Fish and Wildlife Service.59 pp. http://ecos.fws.gov/docs/five_year_review/doc3223.pdf

US Fish and Wildlife Service, 2009. Shasta crayfish, Pacifastacus fortis, 5-year review: Summary and evalution. In: Shasta crayfish, Pacifastacus fortis, 5-year review: summary and evalution : US Fish and Wildlife Service.22 pp.

US Fish and Wildlife Service, 2010. Chihuahua Chub (Gila nigrescens). 5-Year Review: Summary and Evaluation. In: Chihuahua Chub (Gila nigrescens). 5-Year Review: Summary and Evaluation : US Fish and Wildlife Service.23 pp. http://ecos.fws.gov/docs/five_year_review/doc4325.pdf

US Fish and Wildlife Service, 2010. Warner Sucker (Catostomus warnerensis). 5-Year Review: Summary and Evaluation. In: Warner Sucker (Catostomus warnerensis). 5-Year Review: Summary and Evaluation : US Fish and Wildlife Service.35 pp. http://ecos.fws.gov/docs/five_year_review/doc3356.pdf

US Fish and Wildlife Service, 2011. Colorado pikeminnow (Ptychocheilus lucius). 5-Year Review: Summary and Evaluation. In: Colorado pikeminnow (Ptychocheilus lucius). 5-Year Review: Summary and Evaluation : US Fish and Wildlife Service.25 pp.

US Fish and Wildlife Service, 2011. Santa Ana sucker (Catostomus santaanae). 5-Year Review: Summary and Evauation. In: Santa Ana sucker (Catostomus santaanae). 5-Year Review: Summary and Evauation : US Fish and Wildlife Service.74 pp. http://ecos.fws.gov/docs/five_year_review/doc3616.pdf

US Fish and Wildlife Service, 2013. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service species assessment and listing priority assignment form: Gila nigra. In: U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service species assessment and listing priority assignment form: Gila nigra : US Fish and Wildlife Service.37 pp. http://ecos.fws.gov/docs/candidate/assessments/2013/r2/E0AH_V01.pdf

US Fish and Wildlife Service, 2013. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service species assessment and listing priority assignment form: Gila robusta. In: U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service species assessment and listing priority assignment form: Gila robusta : US Fish and Wildlife Service.79 pp. http://ecos.fws.gov/docs/candidate/assessments/2013/r2/E02Z_V01.pdf

US Fish and Wildlife Service, 2013. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service species assessment and listing priority assignment form: Hyla wrightorum. In: U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service species assessment and listing priority assignment form: Hyla wrightorum : US Fish and Wildlife Service.34 pp. https://ecos.fws.gov/docs/candidate/assessments/2014/r2/D03S_V02.pdf

US Fish and Wildlife Service, 2013. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service species assessment and listing priority assignment form: Iotichthys phlegethontis. In: U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service species assessment and listing priority assignment form: Iotichthys phlegethontis : US Fish and Wildlife Service.47 pp. http://ecos.fws.gov/docs/candidate/assessments/2013/r6/E02U_V01.pdf

Welcomme RL, 1988. International introductions of inland aquatic species. FAO Fish. Tech. Pap. 294., 318

Wittenberg R, 2005. An inventory of alien species and their threat to biodiversity and economy in Switzerland. CABI Bioscience Switzerland Centre report to the Swiss Agency for Environment, Forests and Landscape. The environment in practice 0629. Bern

Links to Websites

Top of page
WebsiteURLComment
SARA Registry (Canada)www.sararegistry.com

Organizations

Top of page

USA: United States Geological Survey: Nonindigenous Aquatic Species, Florida Integrated Science Center (FISC), Gainesville, FL 32653

Contributors

Top of page

16/06/09 Original text by:

Andrew Drake, University of Toronto, Canada

Distribution Maps

Top of page
You can pan and zoom the map
Save map