Gambusia holbrooki (eastern mosquitofish)
- 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
- Means of Movement and Dispersal
- Pathway Causes
- Environmental Impact
- Threatened Species
- Risk and Impact Factors
- Uses List
- Prevention and Control
- Links to Websites
- Distribution Maps
Don't need the entire report?
Generate a print friendly version containing only the sections you need.Generate report
PicturesTop of page
IdentityTop of page
Preferred Scientific Name
- Gambusia holbrooki Girard, 1859
Preferred Common Name
- eastern mosquitofish
Other Scientific Names
- Gambusia affinis holbrocki (Girard, 1859)
- Gambusia affinis holbrooki (Girard, 1859)
- Gambusia holbrookii Girard, 1859
- Gambusia patruelis holbrooki (Girard, 1859)
- Heterandria holbrooki (Girard, 1859)
- Heterandria uninotata (non Poey, 1860)
- Schizophallus holbrooki (Girard, 1859)
- Zygonectes atrilatus Jordan & Brayton, 1878
International Common Names
- English: mosquito fish; mosquitofish
- Spanish: gambusino
Local Common Names
- Albania: barkaleci pikalosh
- Australia: eastern gambusia
- Iran: gambusia
- Italy: gambusia
- Portugal: peixe-mosquito
- Romania: gambuzie
- Sweden: östlig moskitfisk
- USA: eastern topminnow
Summary of InvasivenessTop of page
The eastern mosquitofish Gambusia holbrooki is an exotic fish, which is now widespread around the globe and is known to adversely affect native fish through competition and/or predation. G. holbrooki is known to impact upon native fish via competition with similar sized species, predation upon the fry and eggs of native fish, and by attacking all sized fish by aggressive fin-nipping, thereby leaving them susceptible to disease (Arthington, 1991). G. holbrooki can rapidly increase in population size due to its rapid maturation to breeding age (four weeks in summer) and high survival rate of young (Milton and Arthington, 1983; Lloyd et al., 1986; Lloyd, 1990).
Taxonomic TreeTop of page
- Domain: Eukaryota
- Kingdom: Metazoa
- Phylum: Chordata
- Subphylum: Vertebrata
- Class: Actinopterygii
- Order: Cyprinodontiformes
- Family: Poeciliidae
- Genus: Gambusia
- Species: Gambusia holbrooki
Notes on Taxonomy and NomenclatureTop of page
DescriptionTop of page
The male G. holbrooki is about 35 mm standard length whereas the female is larger (up to 60 mm) with a deeper body, the anal fin unmodified and when pregnant, a gravid spot is visible just above the vent (Lloyd, 1987). The fish are mostly translucent grey with a bluish sheen on their sides with a silver belly (Lloyd, 1987). The fins are colourless, with transverse rows of black spots. Some male mosquitofish have irregular black blotching, though some largely melanistic male individuals exist but are uncommon in their native range (Sterba, 1962) and are absent from Australia (Lloyd, 1987). On the male, the anal fin is modified to form a long, thin intromitent organ, the gonopodium, used for sperm transfer (Lloyd, 1990c). The body is slightly compressed with a large and flattened head. The eyes are large, and the mouth is small and terminal (Lloyd, 1987).
DistributionTop of page
Distribution TableTop of page
The distribution in this summary table is based on all the information available. When several references are cited, they may give conflicting information on the status. Further details may be available for individual references in the Distribution Table Details section which can be selected by going to Generate Report.
|Continent/Country/Region||Distribution||Last Reported||Origin||First Reported||Invasive||Reference||Notes|
|Armenia||Present||Introduced||Invasive||Froese and Pauly, 2008|
|Bangladesh||Present||Introduced||Invasive||Froese and Pauly, 2008|
|Cambodia||Present||Introduced||Invasive||Froese and Pauly, 2008|
|China||Present||Introduced||1927||Invasive||Fowler, 1970; Froese and Pauly, 2008|
|-Hong Kong||Present||Introduced||Invasive||Froese and Pauly, 2008|
|Georgia (Republic of)||Present||Introduced||1925||Invasive||Froese and Pauly, 2008|
|India||Present||Introduced||Invasive||Das and Rampal, 1966; Froese and Pauly, 2008|
|-Jammu and Kashmir||Present||Introduced||Invasive||Froese and Pauly, 2008|
|Indonesia||Present||Introduced||1929||Froese and Pauly, 2008||Not established|
|-Irian Jaya||Present||Introduced||1930||Invasive||Glucksman and West, 1976|
|Iraq||Present||Introduced||1928||Invasive||Al-Daham et al., 1977|
|Israel||Present||Introduced||1924||Invasive||Froese and Pauly, 2008|
|Japan||Present||Introduced||1916||Invasive||Sasa and Kurihara, 1980|
|Jordan||Present||Introduced||1930||Invasive||Froese and Pauly, 2008|
|Kazakhstan||Present||Introduced||1934||Invasive||Froese and Pauly, 2008|
|Laos||Present||Introduced||Invasive||Froese and Pauly, 2008|
|Lebanon||Present||Introduced||Invasive||Froese and Pauly, 2008|
|Malaysia||Present||Introduced||Invasive||Froese and Pauly, 2008|
|Myanmar||Present||Introduced||Invasive||Froese and Pauly, 2008|
|Pakistan||Present||Introduced||Invasive||Froese and Pauly, 2008|
|Saudi Arabia||Present||Introduced||Invasive||Froese and Pauly, 2008|
|Singapore||Present||Introduced||Invasive||Froese and Pauly, 2008|
|Sri Lanka||Present||Introduced||Invasive||Froese and Pauly, 2008|
|Syria||Present||Introduced||Invasive||Gerberich and Laird, 1968|
|Taiwan||Present||Introduced||1911||Invasive||Sasa and Kurihara, 1980|
|Tajikistan||Present||Introduced||Invasive||Froese and Pauly, 2008|
|Turkey||Present||Introduced||1920||Invasive||Froese and Pauly, 2008|
|Turkmenistan||Present||Introduced||Invasive||Froese and Pauly, 2008|
|United Arab Emirates||Present||Introduced||Invasive||Froese and Pauly, 2008|
|Uzbekistan||Present||Introduced||1930||Invasive||Froese and Pauly, 2008|
|Vietnam||Present||Introduced||Invasive||Froese and Pauly, 2008|
|Yemen||Present||Introduced||Invasive||Froese and Pauly, 2008|
|Central African Republic||Present||Introduced||1958||Invasive||Froese and Pauly, 2008|
|Congo Democratic Republic||Al-Daham et al., 1977; Alemadi and Jenkins, 2007|
|Côte d'Ivoire||Present||Introduced||Invasive||Froese and Pauly, 2008|
|Ethiopia||Present||Introduced||1938||Invasive||Froese and Pauly, 2008|
|Ghana||Present||Introduced||Invasive||Froese and Pauly, 2008|
|Kenya||Present||Introduced||Invasive||Froese and Pauly, 2008|
|Madagascar||Present||Introduced||1929||Invasive||Froese and Pauly, 2008|
|Mauritius||Present||Introduced||Invasive||Froese and Pauly, 2008|
|Morocco||Present||Introduced||1929||Invasive||Gerberich and Laird, 1968; Froese and Pauly, 2008|
|Réunion||Present||Introduced||Invasive||Froese and Pauly, 2008|
|Rodriguez Island||Present||Introduced||Invasive||Froese and Pauly, 2008|
|South Africa||Present||Introduced||1936||Invasive||Fowler, 1970; Froese and Pauly, 2008|
|-Canary Islands||Present||Introduced||1943||Invasive||Krumholz, 1948|
|Zambia||Present||Introduced||1940||Froese and Pauly, 2008||Not established|
|Zimbabwe||Present||Introduced||1925||Invasive||Froese and Pauly, 2008|
|Mexico||Present||Introduced||1931||Invasive||Gerberich and Laird, 1968; Froese and Pauly, 2008|
|USA||Present||Native||Froese and Pauly, 2004|
Central America and Caribbean
|Haiti||Present||Introduced||1983||Invasive||Froese and Pauly, 2008|
|Puerto Rico||Present||Introduced||1914||Invasive||Froese and Pauly, 2008|
|Argentina||Present||Introduced||1943||Invasive||Froese and Pauly, 2008|
|Bolivia||Present||Introduced||Invasive||Froese and Pauly, 2008|
|Chile||Present||Introduced||1937||Invasive||Froese and Pauly, 2008|
|Peru||Present||Introduced||1940||Invasive||Froese and Pauly, 2008|
|Albania||Present||Introduced||Invasive||Froese and Pauly, 2008|
|Bulgaria||Present||Introduced||1924||Invasive||Froese and Pauly, 2008|
|Cyprus||Present||Introduced||1926||Invasive||Gerberich and Laird, 1968|
|France||Present||Introduced||1924||Invasive||Froese and Pauly, 2008|
|-Corsica||Present||Introduced||1924||Invasive||Gerberich and Laird, 1968|
|Hungary||Present||Introduced||1937||Invasive||Froese and Pauly, 2008|
|Portugal||Present||Introduced||1921||Invasive||Froese and Pauly, 2008|
|Romania||Present||Introduced||1921||Invasive||Froese and Pauly, 2008|
|Russian Federation||Present||Introduced||1925||Invasive||Motabar, 1978|
|Spain||Present||Introduced||Froese and Pauly, 2004|
|Ukraine||Present||Introduced||Invasive||Froese and Pauly, 2008|
|Yugoslavia (former)||Present||Introduced||1924||Invasive||Gerberich and Laird, 1968|
|American Samoa||Present||Introduced||Invasive||Froese and Pauly, 2008|
|Australia||Present||Introduced||Froese and Pauly, 2004; Pyke, 2005|
|-Australian Northern Territory||Localised||Introduced||1940||Invasive||Lloyd, 1987; Lloyd, 1987|
|-New South Wales||Widespread||Introduced||1926||Invasive||Wilson, 1960|
|-South Australia||Widespread||Introduced||1926||Invasive||Lloyd, 1987|
|-Tasmania||Localised||Introduced||1990s||Invasive||Keane and Francisco, 2004|
|-Western Australia||Localised||Introduced||1934||Invasive||Lloyd, 1987|
|Cook Islands||Present||Introduced||Invasive||Froese and Pauly, 2008|
|Fiji||Present||Introduced||1930||Invasive||Froese and Pauly, 2008|
|French Polynesia||Present||Introduced||Invasive||Froese and Pauly, 2008|
|Guam||Present||Introduced||Invasive||Froese and Pauly, 2008|
|Kiribati||Present||Introduced||Invasive||Froese and Pauly, 2008|
|Marshall Islands||Present||Introduced||Invasive||Froese and Pauly, 2008|
|Micronesia, Federated states of||Present||Introduced||Invasive||Froese and Pauly, 2008|
|New Zealand||Present||Introduced||1930||Invasive||Allen, 1956|
|Northern Mariana Islands||Present||Introduced||Invasive||Froese and Pauly, 2008|
|Papua New Guinea||Present||Introduced||1930||Invasive||Glucksman and West, 1976|
|Samoa||Present||Introduced||Invasive||Froese and Pauly, 2008|
|Solomon Islands||Present||Introduced||1930||Invasive||Glucksman and West, 1976|
History of Introduction and SpreadTop of page
G. holbrooki were first introduced to Brisbane in 1925 and Sydney the following year (Wilson, 1960). The distribution of the Australian populations has continued to expand through new invasions (such as Northern Tasmania) or in filling of locations within catchments. Gambusia was actively introduced by health authorities to new locations in Australia until the 1990s (Lloyd, 1987).
Risk of IntroductionTop of page
HabitatTop of page
The native habitat of mosquitofish is the lowland ponds, lakes and streams of southern USA (Casterlin and Reynolds, 1977). Mosquitofish are particularly adapted to exploiting inundated floodplains (Ross and Baker, 1983). G. holbrooki is abundant in near-shore environments, close to dense vegetation, and prefers sluggish waters to running water (Lloyd, 1987). Other habitat preferences include: shallow water, dark-coloured substrata, and subsurface vegetation (providing lateral rather than vertical concealment) (Casterlin and Reynolds, 1977; Arthington and Marshall, 1999). They are very adaptable and will live in almost aquatic habitats from fresh to hyper-saline, cold temperate to tropical waters (and artificially heated waters), inland, coastal and estuarine waters, and both still and slow-flowing waters. The species does seem to be poorly adapted to fast flowing waters which inhibits its ability to develop large populations (Lloyd, 1987).
Habitat ListTop of page
|Inland saline areas||Principal habitat||Harmful (pest or invasive)|
|Estuaries||Secondary/tolerated habitat||Harmful (pest or invasive)|
|Lagoons||Principal habitat||Harmful (pest or invasive)|
|Terrestrial ‑ Natural / Semi-natural||Riverbanks||Principal habitat||Harmful (pest or invasive)|
|Wetlands||Principal habitat||Harmful (pest or invasive)|
|Coastal areas||Secondary/tolerated habitat||Harmful (pest or invasive)|
|Mangroves||Secondary/tolerated habitat||Harmful (pest or invasive)|
|Mud flats||Secondary/tolerated habitat||Harmful (pest or invasive)|
|Intertidal zone||Secondary/tolerated habitat||Harmful (pest or invasive)|
|Salt marshes||Secondary/tolerated habitat||Harmful (pest or invasive)|
|Irrigation channels||Secondary/tolerated habitat||Harmful (pest or invasive)|
|Lakes||Principal habitat||Harmful (pest or invasive)|
|Reservoirs||Secondary/tolerated habitat||Harmful (pest or invasive)|
|Rivers / streams||Principal habitat||Harmful (pest or invasive)|
|Ponds||Principal habitat||Harmful (pest or invasive)|
|Inshore marine||Secondary/tolerated habitat||Harmful (pest or invasive)|
Biology and EcologyTop of page
Disturbed environments are prone to invasion from this species due to the fact that disturbed habitats can support large populations of invertebrate species (which tend to be pests, e.g. chironomids) and often lack other fish “due to harsh physical conditions” (Lloyd, 1987). Mosquitofish are typically more resistant to pollutants, including organic wastes, herbicides, insecticides, rotenone, phenols, heavy metals and radiation, than most other fish (Lloyd, 1987; Edwards, 2005). The ability of the species to survive genetic ‘bottle-necks’ and their ability to physiologically and genetically adapt to different environments is also important in their spread and success.
Mosquitofish have invaded a wide range of habitats throughout the world including: hot springs, rivers, streams, lakes, swamps, billabongs, cooling pondages, rice fields, ornamental ponds, estuaries, near-shore marine habitats and salt lakes (Lloyd, 1987; Arthington and Lloyd, 1989).
Mosquitofish are found in waters from 0.5°C to 39°C, with a preference for warm waters of about 25°C (Otto, 1974), though Pyke (2005) suggests that mosquitofish prefer water temperatures between 31-35°C. Juvenile mosquitofish are more thermally tolerant than adults, allowing them to colonise and exploit warm patches of the environment with increasing growth, survival, and maturation rate. Mosquitofish can inhabit ice-covered waters (Hirose, 1976;Sasa and Kurihara, 1980) in Japan and hot bores (over 37°C) in central Australia (John Glover, personal communication, cited in Lloyd, 1987).
Mosquitofish can tolerate oxygen concentrations as low as 1.3 mg/L, without access to surface water but can withstand virtual anoxia by utilising of the oxygen-rich surface water/air interface because it has a dorso-ventral mouth (Lewis, 1970).
ClimateTop of page
|A - Tropical/Megathermal climate||Preferred||Average temp. of coolest month > 18°C, > 1500mm precipitation annually|
|B - Dry (arid and semi-arid)||Tolerated||< 860mm precipitation annually|
|C - Temperate/Mesothermal climate||Preferred||Average temp. of coldest month > 0°C and < 18°C, mean warmest month > 10°C|
|D - Continental/Microthermal climate||Tolerated||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|
|Dissolved oxygen (mg/l)||>1.3||Optimum|
|Salinity (part per thousand)||<20||Optimum||0-58 tolerated|
|Velocity (cm/h)||Optimum||Gambusia prefer slow flowing waters to fast|
|Water temperature (ºC temperature)||25||31||Optimum||0.5-39 tolerated|
Natural enemiesTop of page
Means of Movement and DispersalTop of page
Mosquitofish have become the most widely distributed freshwater teleosts in the world (Krumholz, 1948) mainly through deliberate human introductions (e.g. Lintermans, 2004). Throughout the world, G. holbrooki and G. affinis have been widely distributed to aid mosquito control in rice paddies and natural waters. (Krumholz, 1948; Lloyd et al., 1986; Arthington and Lloyd, 1989). Worldwide introduction of Gambusia has occurred since the first introduction into Hawaii in 1905 (Krumholz, 1948).
Gambusia are cited to be used in the commercial aquarium industry (www.fishbase.org) but poor sales are likely given its noxious status in many countries, its aggressive behaviour, and its poor appearance. They are likely to be under aquaculture in the USA for use for mosquito control in rice fields. Mosquito control authorities have been known to transfer mosquitofish between locations. Children may also collect mosquitofish for bait and help to distribute it when they move from one place to another.
Pathway CausesTop of page
|Biological control||For mosquito control||Yes|
|Flooding and other natural disasters||Natural spread once species is established||Yes|
|Intentional release||For mosquito control||Yes|
|Medicinal use||For mosquito control||Yes|
|Military movements||For mosquito control||Yes|
Environmental ImpactTop of page
Impact on Biodiversity
In Australia, and possibly other parts of its introduced range, G. holbrooki faces few predators, parasites, diseases or competitors (Lloyd, 1987). Experiments have shown that several Australian native fish predators actively avoid eating this mosquitofish (Lloyd, 1987).
Gambusia occupy the specialized dystrophic habitats of one restricted and two endangered Australian freshwater fishes - Rhadinocentrus ornatus, Pseudomugil mellis, Nannoperca oxleyana (all found in South-eastern Queensland). It is possible that G. holbrooki and the three species interact and compete for habitat, food and spawning areas (Howe et al., 1997; Arthington and Marshall, 1999; Knight and Arthington, 2008).
Threatened SpeciesTop of page
|Threatened Species||Conservation Status||Where Threatened||Mechanism||References||Notes|
|Nannoperca oxleyana||EN (IUCN red list: Endangered) EN (IUCN red list: Endangered)|
|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 species||Queensland||Predation|
|Pseudomugil mellis||EN (IUCN red list: Endangered) EN (IUCN red list: Endangered)||Queensland||Competition; Predation|
|Rhadinocentrus ornatus||No details No details|
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
- Tolerates, or benefits from, cultivation, browsing pressure, mutilation, fire etc
- Pioneering in disturbed areas
- Tolerant of shade
- Capable of securing and ingesting a wide range of food
- Highly mobile locally
- Benefits from human association (i.e. it is a human commensal)
- Long lived
- Fast growing
- Has high reproductive potential
- Has propagules that can remain viable for more than one year
- Reproduces asexually
- Has high genetic variability
- Ecosystem change/ habitat alteration
- Modification of natural benthic communities
- Monoculture formation
- Negatively impacts agriculture
- Reduced native biodiversity
- Threat to/ loss of native species
- Competition - monopolizing resources
- Pest and disease transmission
- Rapid growth
- Highly likely to be transported internationally deliberately
- Difficult/costly to control
UsesTop of page
G. holbrooki and G. affinis have been introduced widely for mosquito control. They are used in the commercial aquarium industry (www.fishbase.org) but poor sales are likely given their noxious status in many countries, aggressive behaviour, and poor appearance.
Uses ListTop of page
- Biological control
- Laboratory use
- Pet/aquarium trade
DiagnosisTop of page
Genetic techniques have been used to distinguish G. holbrooki and G. affinis in Australia.
For information on the morphology of G. holbrooki please see this species' factsheet on FishBase.
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.
All of these measures have been applied to prevent the spread of Gambusia in Australia. The Australian Quarantine Inspection Service (AQIS) has listed G. holbrooki as a high-risk species, highly likely to establish and spread more widely once introduced to new areas (Arthington et al., 1999). Predation by G. holbrooki has been listed as a key threatening process under the New South Wales Threatened Species Conservation Act 1995. The inappropriate spread of Gambusia by humans for the purpose of mosquito control remains a problem in spite of repeated cautionary advice over the past 20 years (Arthington and Lloyd, 1989). Gambusia has been recognised as a potential vertebrate pest in Australia and as such should be managed under the edicts of vertebrate pest policies, programmes, and legislation (Bomford, 2001; Bomford and Glover, 2004).
Early warning systems
Cultural control and sanitary measures
Monitoring and Surveillance
ReferencesTop of page
Arthington AH, 1989. Diet of Gambusia affinis holbrooki, Xiphophorus helleri, X. maculatus and P. reticulata (Pisces: Poeciliidae) in streams of south-eastern Queensland, Australia. Asian Fisheries Science, 2 (1989):192-212.
Arthington AH; Hamlet S; Bluhdorn DR, 1990. The role of habitat disturbance in the establishment of introduced warm-water fishes in Australia. Introduced and Translocated Fishes and their Ecological Effects. Bureau of Rural Resources Proceedings No. 8 [ed. by Pollard DA]. Australian Govt. Pub. Service, Canberra, 61-66.
Arthington AH; Kailola PJ; Woodland DJ; Zalucki JM, 1999. Baseline Environmental Data Relevant to an Evaluation of Quarantine Risk Potentially Associated with the Importation to Australia of Ornamental Finfish. Report to the Australian Quarantine and Inspection Service, Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry, Canberra, ACT. http://www.aqis.gov.au/docs/qdu/Environmental-report.pdf
Arthington AH; Lloyd LN, 1989. Introduced Poeciliidae in Australia and New Zealand. In: Evolution and Ecology of Livebearing Fishes (Poeciliidae) [ed. by Meffe GK, Snelson FF] New York,, : Prentice-Hall,, 333-348.
Arthington AH; Marshal CJ, 1999. Diet of the exotic mosquitofish, Gambusia holbrooki, in an Australian lake and potential for competition with indigenous fish species. Asian Fisheries Science, 12(1):1-8.
Arthington AH; Milton DA; McKay RJ, 1983. Effects of urban development and habitat alterations on the distribution and abundance of native and exotic freshwater fish in the Brisbane region, Queensland. Aust. J. Ecology, 8:87-101.
Balcombe S; Arthington AH; Foster N; Thoms M; Wilson G; Bunn SE, 2006. Fish assemblages of an Australian dryland river: abundance, assemblage structure and recruitment patterns in the Warrego River, Murray-Darling Basin. Marine and Freshwater Research, 57:619-633.
Bomford M, 2001. Can we quantify the risk that imported vertebrates could establish wild pest populations in Australia? In: Proceedings of the 12th Australian vertebrate pest conference, Melbourne, Victoria, 21-25 May 2001. Victoria, Natural Resources and Environment, 178-183.
Dyková I; Lom J; Overstreet RM, 1994. Myxosporean parasites of the genus Kudoa Meglitsch, 1947 from some gulf of Mexico fishes: description of two new species and notes on their ultrastructure. European Journal of Protistology, 30(3):316-323.
Froese R; Pauly D, 2004. FishBase DVD. Penang, Malaysia: Worldfish Center. Online at www.fishbase.org.
GERBERICH JB; LAIRD M, 1968. Bibliography of papers relating to the control of mosquitoes by the use of fish. An annotated bibliography for the years 1901-1966. F. A. O. Fish. tech. Pap. no, 75:vii + 70 pp.
Howe E; Howe C; Lim R; Burchett M, 1997. Impact of the introduced poeciliid Gambusia holbrooki (Girard, 1859) on the growth and reproduction of Pseudomugil signifer (Kner, 1865) in Australia. Marine and Freshwater Research, 48(5):425-433.
Keane JP; Francisco JN, 2004. First record of mosquitofish, Gambusia holbrooki, in Tasmania, Australia: stock structure and reproductive biology. New Zealand Journal of Marine and Freshwater Research, 38:857-867.
King A, 2003. Niche overlap between larvae of exotic and native fish in a lowland river. In: Presented at the "ASFB Invasive species: Fish and Fisheries Workshop", Australian Society for Fish Biology, Wellington, New Zealand 29-30 June.
Knight JT; Arthington AH, 2008. Distribution and habitat associations of the endangered Oxleyan pygmy perch, Nannoperca oxleyana Whitley, in eastern Australia. Aquatic Conservation Marine and Freshwater Ecosystems.
Komak S; Crossland M, 2000. An assessment of introduced mosquitofish (Gambusia affinis holbrooki) as a predator of eggs, hatchlings, and tadpoles of native and non-native anurans. Wildlife Research, 27:185-189.
Lloyd LN, 1987. Ecology and distribution of the small native fish of the lower River Murray, South Australia and their interactions with the exotic mosquitofish, Gambusia affinis holbrooki (Girard). Dept. of Zoology, University of Adelaide.
Lloyd LN, 1990. Ecological interactions of Gambusia holbrooki with Australian native fish. In: ASFB Workshop on introduced and translocated fishes and their ecological effects. Bureau of Rural Resources Proceedings No. 8 [ed. by Pollard DA]: AGPS, Canberra.
Lloyd LN; Arthington AH; Milton DA, 1986. The mosquitofish - a valuable mosquito control agent or a pest? In: The ecology of exotic plants and animals: some Australian case studies [ed. by Kitching]: John Wiley and Sons, Brisbane.
Lodge DM; Steen RA; Brown KM; Covich AP; Bronmark C; Gavey JE; Klosiewiwski SP, 1998. Predicting impact of freshwater exotic snails on biodiverstiy: challenges in spatial scaling. Australian Journal of Ecology, 23:53-67.
Milton DA; Arthington AH, 1983. Reproductive biology of Gambusia affinis holbrooki Baird and Girard, Xiphophorus helleri (Gunther) and X. maculatus (Heckel) (Pisces; Poeciliidae) in Queensland, Australia. Journal of Fish Biology, 23(1):23-41.
Pyke GH; White AW, 2000. Factors influencing predation on eggs and tadpoles of the endangered Green and Golden Bell Frog Litoria aurea by the introduced Plague Minnow Gambusia holbrooki. Australian Zoologist, 31(3):496-505.
Rehage JS; Barnett BK; Sih A, 2005. Behavioural responses to a novel predator and competitor of invasive mosquitofish and their non-invasive relatives (Gambusia sp.). Behavioural Ecology and Sociobiology, 57:256-266.
Rehage JS; Barnett BK; Sih A, 2005. Foraging behaviour and invasiveness: do invasive Gambusia exhibit higher feeding rates and broader diets than their noninvasive relatives? Ecology of Freshwater Fish, 14:352-360.
Rincon PA; Correas AM; Morcillo F; Risueno P; Lobon-Cervia J, 2002. Interactions between the introduced eastern mosquitofish and two autochthonus Spanish toothcarps. Journal of Fish Biology, 61:1560-1585.
Schoenherr AA, 1974. Life history of the topminnow Poecilliposis occidentalis (Baird and Girard) in Arizona and an analysis of its interaction with the mosquitofish (G. affinis). Arizona State Univ., Tempe, 108 pp.
Todd CR; Mckay SF; Conallin AT; Close PC; Raadik TA, 2002. Aquatic biota introduction from inter-basin water transfer; Murray-Darling Basin, Australia. Report to Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry, Australia. Victoria,, : Freshwater Ecology, Department of Natural Resources and Environment.
Willems KJ; Webb CE; Russell RC, 2005. A comparison of mosquito predation by the fish Pseudomugil signifier Kner and Gambusia holbrooki (Girard) in laboratory trials. Journal of Vector Ecology, 30(1):87-90.
ContributorsTop of page
08/08/08 Original text by:
Angela Arthington, Australian Rivers Institute, Room 1.09A, Environ. 2, (Building N13), Griffith School of Environment, Griffith University, Nathan QLD 4111, Australia
Lance Lloyd, Lloyd Environmental Pty Ltd, PO Box 3014, Syndal, Victoria, 3149, Australia
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/