Cyprinella lutrensis (red shiner)
- 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
- Natural Food Sources
- Water Tolerances
- Natural enemies
- Means of Movement and Dispersal
- Impact Summary
- Economic Impact
- Environmental Impact
- Threatened Species
- Risk and Impact Factors
- Similarities to Other Species/Conditions
- Prevention and Control
- Links to Websites
- Distribution Maps
Don't need the entire report?
Generate a print friendly version containing only the sections you need.Generate report
PicturesTop of page
IdentityTop of page
Preferred Scientific Name
- Cyprinella lutrensis (Baird & Girard, 1853)
Preferred Common Name
- red shiner
Other Scientific Names
- Cyprinella beckwithi Girard, 1856
- Cyprinella billingsiana Cope, 1871
- Cyprinella forbesi Jordan, 1878
- Cyprinella gunnisoni Girard, 1856
- Cyprinella lutrensis blairi Hubbs, 1940
- Cyprinella suavis Girard, 1856
- Cyprinella umbrosa Girard, 1856
- Hypsilepis iris Cope, 1875
- Leuciscus bubalinus Baird & Girard, 1853
- Leuciscus lutrensis Baird and Girard 1853
- Moniana complanata Girard, 1856
- Moniana couchi Girard, 1856
- Moniana frigida Girard, 1856
- Moniana gibbosa Girard, 1856
- Moniana jugalis Cope, 1871
- Moniana laetabilis Girard, 1856
- Moniana leonina Girard, 1856
- Moniana pulchella Girard, 1856
- Nototropis forlonensis Meek, 1904
- Notropis lutrensis Baird and Girard 1853
- Notropis lutrensis blairi Hubbs, 1940
International Common Names
- English: red horse minnow
- Spanish: carpita roja
Local Common Names
- China: lu lun jhen siao li; lu lun zhen xiao li
- Czech Republic: notropis cervenomodrý; strevle cervenomodrá; strevlice pestrá
- Denmark: amerikansk rødfinnebarbe
- Finland: sinihohtaja
- Germany: amerikanische Rotflossenorfe
- Mexico: carpita roja
Summary of InvasivenessTop of page
Cyprinella lutrensis, commonly known as the red shiner, is a small minnow native to northern Mexico and certain states of central USA. The red shiner is a habitat generalist, primarily occurring in creeks and small rivers (Poulos et al., 2012). It is well known to prey on eggs and larvae of native fish and is an opportunistic drift feeder (Sublette, 1975; Ruppert et al., 1993). It is a fish species of special concern in the United States as it has been implicated in the decline of native fish populations in the areas to which it has been introduced. C. lutrensis occupies nursery habitats of young native fishes, including the Red River pupfish (Cyprinodon rubrofluviatilis), Colorado pikeminnow (Ptychocheilus lucius), spikedace (Meda fulgida) and razorback sucker (Xyrauchen texanus), most of which are endangered. They are also adapted to thrive in a variety of environments and as generalists are better able to persist in disturbed habitats than the native species of those areas. They are tolerant of harsh environmental conditions, including low or intermittent flows, excessive turbidity and sedimentation, and natural physiochemical extremes (Poulos et al., 2012). Initial introduction is often followed by the species rapid population growth, dispersal, and aggressive colonization (Hubbs and Lagler, 1964; Minckley and Deacon, 1968; Minckley, 1973).
Taxonomic TreeTop of page
- Domain: Eukaryota
- Kingdom: Metazoa
- Phylum: Chordata
- Subphylum: Vertebrata
- Class: Actinopterygii
- Order: Cypriniformes
- Family: Cyprinidae
- Genus: Cyprinella
- Species: Cyprinella lutrensis
Notes on Taxonomy and NomenclatureTop of page
Hubbs (1954) reported that it is likely that more than one subspecies of red shiner have been introduced into the southwestern United States and noted that red shiners found in the lower Colorado River basin were intergrades between the subspecies Notropis lutrensis lutrensis and Notropis lutrensis suavis (USGS, 2012). In contrast, Minckley (1973) reported that the Arizona specimens more closely resembled the typical subspecies, Cyprinella lutrensis lutrensis. Gilbert (1998) also referred to it as the typical subspecies C. lutrensis lutrensis.
DescriptionTop of page
C. lutrensis has a deep and compressed body and a sharp and compressed head (Mayden, 1989; Hubbs et al., 1991). There is a tendency for large males to develop a sharply pointed snout that overhangs the terminal to slightly sub-terminal mouth (Miller and Robison 2004). It has an olive-green back, silver coloured sides and a whitish abdomen (Hassan-Williams and Bonner, 2012; TWPD, 2007). The scales on the back and sides are edged with melanophores, which are arranged in a narrow wedge-shaped pattern on the posterior to the upper end of the opercle and in a medial stripe on the gula (Hassan-Williams and Bonner, 2012). The breeding male has red on the top of its head, a purple crescent behind the head and pinkish sides with some blue on the sides and back. It also has a dark dorsal fin and reddish-orange caudal, pelvic and pectoral fins (Sublette et al., 1990). The black median stripe on the lower jaw does not extend posteriorly through the isthmus and pigments are in inter-radial membranes of the dorsal fin (Hubbs et al., 1991). Peritoneum is silvery in colour with numerous large, dark chromatophores (Goldstein and Simon, 1999).
C. lutrensis grows to a maximum standard length of 7.5 cm and to a maximum total length of 9.0 cm (Matthews, 1980; Mayden, 1989; Page and Burr, 1991). However, the reported common total length is 4.9 cm (Hugg, 1996). The maximum reported age is 3 years (Carlander, 1969).
It has diamond-shaped scales, outlined in a crosshatch pattern and a slightly de-curved lateral line that extends one third of the way forward (Hassan-Williams and Bonner, 2012; ISSG, 2012). There are 34-36 lateral line scales, 8 dorsal soft fin rays, 8 pelvic soft fin rays, and generally 9 (8-10) anal soft fin rays (Miller and Robison, 2004). The beginning of the dorsal fin is close to the start of the pelvic fin (ISSG, 2012). The nuptial tubercles, in the male are dense and scattered on the snout, top of the head, chin, edges of body scales, and fin rays. Whilst on the female, the weak tubercles are present on the head and on the midline of the back. Nuptial tubercles of the caudal peduncle are largest on the anterior end of the scales. As spawning season progresses, tuberculation increases, progressing from a linear pattern to one that is scattered (Koehne, 1965; Collette, 1977; Sublette et al., 1990).
C. lutrensis typically has a pharyngeal teeth count of 0,4-4,0 but some individuals display 1,4-4,1, and has a short s-shaped intestine (Mayden 1989; Hubbs et al., 1991; Page and Burr, 1991; Goldstein and Simon, 1999).
DistributionTop of page
Native range of distribution of C. lutrensis is throughout the southern Great Plains, American southwest of the United States into Mexico, in tributaries of the middle and lower Mississippi River basin and Gulf of Mexico drainages westward to the Rio Grande, including several endorheic basins in Mexico (Hubbs et al., 1991; DFC, 2010). It has been reported that within the native range in the United States, C. lutrensis is found in Oklahoma, Nebraska, Missouri, Minnesota, Illinois, Arkansas, Iowa, Louisiana, South Dakota, and Kansas and throughout Texas (Matthews, 1987; Hubbs et al., 1991; Douglas et al., 1994; Ashbaugh et al., 1996; TPWD, 2012). The distribution of the red shiner throughout Texas has been attributed to a number of drainage units, including the Red River (from the mouth upstream to and including the Kiamichi River in Oklahoma), Sabine Lake (including minor coastal drainages west to Galveston Bay), Galveston Bay (including minor coastal drainages west to mouth of Brazos River), Brazos River, Colorado River, San Antonio Bay (including minor coastal drainages west of mouth of Colorado River to mouth of Nueces River) and Nueces River (Warren et al., 2000; USGS, 2012).
The known introduced range includes Arizona, Utah, New Mexico, Wyoming, North Carolina, Alabama, North Dakota and Colorado within the USA (Brandenburg and Gido, 1999; Douglas et al., 1994; Quist et al., 2004; NatureServe, 2006; USGS, 2012). In contrast to Hubbs and Lagler (1958), Becker (1983) found that there was no evidence to substantiate the presence of this species in lagoons of Lake Michigan in Chicago.
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|
|Mexico||Present||Native||Contreras-Balderas and Escalante-C, 1984|
|USA||Present||Native||Invasive||Page and Burr, 1991|
|-Alabama||Widespread||Introduced||NatureServe, 2006||Established within Alabama Administrative area|
|-Arizona||Widespread||Introduced||Invasive||Douglas et al., 1994||Established in Gila river|
|-Arkansas||Widespread||Native||Not invasive||Matthews, 1987||Established within Arkansas Administrative Area|
|-California||Widespread||Introduced||Hubbs, 1954; Moyle, 1976; Brandenburg and Gido, 1999|
|-Colorado||Present||Native||Cross, 1985||Native range is only in the south-eastern corner of the state. Introduced to the western side of the state and into Green river|
|-Georgia||Present||Introduced||NatureServe, 2006||Established within Georgia Administrative area|
|-Illinois||Present||Native||Not invasive||Matthews, 1987||Native in some drainages but introduced to others. Established within Illinois Administrative area|
|-Indiana||Present||Native||Page and Burr, 1991|
|-Iowa||Widespread||Native||Not invasive||Matthews, 1987||Established within Iowa Administrative area|
|-Kansas||Widespread||Native||Not invasive||Matthews, 1987||Established within Kansas Administrative area|
|-Louisiana||Widespread||Native||Not invasive||Matthews, 1987; Page and Burr, 1991||Established within Louisiana Administrative area|
|-Minnesota||Present||Native||Not invasive||Matthews, 1987|
|-Mississippi||Widespread||Native||Page and Burr, 1991|
|-Missouri||Widespread||Native||Not invasive||Matthews, 1987||Established within Missouri Administrative area|
|-Nebraska||Widespread||Native||Not invasive||Matthews, 1987||Established within Nebraska Administrative area|
|-New Mexico||Widespread||Native||Brandenburg and Gido, 1999||Native in some drainages but introduced in others. Reported to be present in the San Juan River|
|-North Carolina||Widespread||Introduced||NatureServe, 2006||Established within North Carolina Administrative area|
|-North Dakota||Widespread||NatureServe, 2006||Unknown as to whether the species is native. It is established within the North Dakota Administrative area|
|-Oklahoma||Widespread||Native||Not invasive||Ashbaugh et al., 1996||Reported to be present in Salt Plains National Wildlife Refuge (SPNWR)|
|-South Dakota||Widespread||Native||Not invasive||TPWD, 2012|
|-Tennessee||Present||Native||Page and Burr, 1991|
|-Texas||Widespread||Native||Matthews, 1987||Reported within Brewster County and in Pecos and San Marcos Rivers, with no information on invasiveness. Within Texas Administrative area, it is reported as not invasive|
|-Utah||Widespread||Native||Brandenburg and Gido, 1999||Reported to be present in the San Juan River|
|-Virginia||Present||Introduced||Invasive||US Environmental Protection Agency, 2000||Widespread only in the southern part of the state. Reported in the Virgin River which originates in south-central Utah. There may be populations in the Roanoke drainage|
|-Wisconsin||Present||Native||Page and Burr, 1991|
|-Wyoming||Present||Native||Quist et al., 2004||Established within Wyoming Administrative area. Widespread only in the south-eastern part of the state|
History of Introduction and SpreadTop of page
Use of C. lutrensis as a common bait fish facilitated its spread into new areas outside its native range and so its spread has been mainly attributed to bait bucket releases (Hubbs and Lagler 1964; Jennings and Saiki 1990; Walters et al., 2008). Koehn (1965) mentioned that the species has been introduced as a forage fish. According to Dill and Cordone (1997), C. lutrensis was introduced into northern California as forage, not as a bait minnow as Kimsey and Fisk (1964) had suggested (USGS, 2012). Use of this species as an aquarium fish may have contributed to its introduction into the Yadkin drainage, North Carolina, through aquarium release (Moore et al., 1976). The wide potential distribution of C. lutrensis across the United States demonstrates its adaptation as a site generalist, which facilitates its success in newly invaded habitats. The ability of this species for rapid multiplication, dispersal, and aggressive colonization after initial introduction facilitates its spread (Hubbs and Lagler, 1958; Minckley and Deacon, 1968; Minckley, 1973).
There are records C. lutrensis has declined or been extirpated in certain habitats. The extirpation from or decline of C. lutrensis in six of seven creeks that are direct tributaries of Lake Texoma, Oklahoma-Texas has been attributed to habitat modification and predation (Matthews and Marsh-Matthews, 2007).
Risk of IntroductionTop of page
C. lutrensis is being used as an aquarium and farmed fish and hence, there is a risk of the species spreading through aquarium releases and escapes (Hubbs, 1954; Moore et al., 1976; Jenkins and Burkhead, 1994). Escape from the Arizona Fish Farms in Ehrenburg, Arizona has been attributed to the establishment of this species in the lower Colorado River basin by 1953 (Hubbs, 1954). C. lutrensis is among some of the most thermally-tolerant minnows in North America and therefore, has the potential to spread to other hot environments in the United States (Brues, 1928; Matthews and Hill, 1979; Poulas et al., 2012). The predicted habitat is consistent with the wide-ranging habitat associations of this species in its current native and invaded ranges (Marsh-Matthews and Matthews 2000). Sites with mean minimum temperatures above freezing, high mean maximum summer air temperatures and a high summer heat index (August temperature/ summer precipitation) are potential sites for invasion by C. lutrensis (Poulas et al., 2012). In some areas dispersal of introduced populations has been aided by the presence of irrigation ditches and canals (e.g. Jennings and Saiki, 1990).
HabitatTop of page
This species of minnow can be found occurring in backwaters, creek mouths, medium-sized streams with sand and silt substrates, muddy river beds and unstable banks (Douglas et al., 1994; NatureServe, 2006). Its native range encompasses the lowland tributaries of the Mississippi River and western Gulf slope drainages to the Rio Grande River. In south-eastern United States it inhabits small, direct tributaries that lead to the Mississippi River in Mississippi and Tennessee (Burkhead and Huge, 2010). They are generally uncommon or absent from upland, clear water streams which have moderate or high species richness (Matthews and Hill, 1979; Matthews, 1985; Yu and Peters, 2002). However, they have been found in some clear-water upland streams of the Edwards Plateau, Texas, which have substantial flow (Matthews, 1987). In Wyoming, this species was found mostly at elevations of less than 250 m (Quist et al., 2004). During breeding season in central Texas larger males and females were found in faster flowing areas at the bases of raceways and riffles (Farringer et al., 1979).
C. lutrensis are habitat generalists and favour a wide range of environmental conditions that most other fish species cannot tolerate. These include habitats degraded by human disturbance, and those with poor water quality, natural physiochemical extremes, and seasonally intermittent flows (Burkhead and Huge, 2010). Therefore, in its non-native range, it is rare for C. lutrensis to establish itself in undisturbed areas (Baltz and Moyle, 1993). Introduced populations are often found in pools, slow-flowing riffles and are common in head and tail waters (Hubbs et al. 1953; Riggs and Bonn 1959).
Temperature, current speed, and water depth appear to have the greatest influence on habitat selection. Red shiners will also avoid highly acidic water (TPWD, 2012).
Habitat ListTop of page
|Lakes||Present, no further details||Natural|
|Rivers / streams||Principal habitat||Natural|
Biology and EcologyTop of page
Haploid gametic and diploid zygotic chromosome number (n) is 25 and 50-50 respectively, in localities in Texas, USA (Arkhipchuk, 1999). Genetic markers have been recorded for an unspecified location (Gold and Price, 1985).
C. lutrensis will hybridize with C. venusta in areas of common geographic range; hybrids appear to be intermediate between parent species in shape and colour (Hubbs and Strawn, 1956; Riggs and Bonn, 1959; Smith, 1979).
Spawning season of C. lutrensis is from spring to fall and the peak is during the mid-summer months (ISSG, 2012). Farringer et al. (1979) reported that in Oklahoma and Texas the spawning occurs in mid-April to September. Spawning occurs most frequently on clean gravel riffles or on submerged objects, such as tree roots and logs. Eggs may then be deposited in a variety of environments; within crevices over a range of different substrates (gravel, sand, mud), near the surface over beds of submerged aquatic plants, in clear ponds or in association with green sunfish (Lepomis cyanellus) and orangespotted sunfish (L. humilis) nests (Minckley, 1959; Cross, 1967; Minckley, 1972; Pflieger, 1975; Wang, 1986; TPWD, 2012). Spawning may also occur in midwater as the male and female swim through the water column (Minckley, 1972). The eggs hatch after about 105 hours at a temperature of 24.5°C and the offspring will be sexually mature in 1-2 years (NatureServe, 2006).
C. lutrensis are non-guarders, brood hiders and speleophils (crevice spawners) (Simon, 1999; Hassan-Williams and Bonner, 2012). The male establishes his territory around a crevice and makes display passes along the spawning site. Occasionally males will swim toward females directing them towards the crevice. Males will approach and circle females, flicking their fins forward every few seconds. Courtship can last several hours, with females revisiting the spawning site over 200 times prior to egg release. During spawning the male swims above the female passing directly over the horizontal crevice. The female contorts violently expelling the eggs into the crevice. The first expulsion may be followed by another pass and expulsion. Females produce sounds to attract the males (Delco, 1960).
Females may release up to 16 batches of eggs per day, with up to 71 eggs per batch. An average clutch size may equal around 585 eggs and males and females may spawn 5-19 clutches over the reproductive season (Gale, 1986). Laser and Carlander (1971) reported that 485-684 eggs were laid per gravid female.
C. lutrensis matures at a standard length of 2.4-3.0 cm but some individuals may reach sexual maturity at age 0 (Hubbs and Ortenburger 1929; Cross 1950; Farringer et al., 1979; Marsh-Matthews et al., 2002).
The life span of C. lutrensis is up to three years (Carlander, 1969; Laser and Carlander, 1971; Farringer et al., 1979; Pflieger, 1975; Wang, 1986). Winemiller et al. (2004) reported that in the lower Brazos River, Texas, the population consisted of at least four age groups: age 0, 1, 2, and 3.
Population Size and Density
Carlander (1969) reported the following age groups and standard lengths of C. lutrensis populations in different geographical areas in the Unites States: In Kansas, age groups 0-3 years with a range of standard lengths from 2.5-3.0 cm, 3.0-4.0 cm, 4.0-5.0 cm, and 5.0-6.0 cm, respectively; in Oklahoma, age group 0 years was reported to range from 1.2-1.9 cm. In Iowa, Laser and Carlander (1971) reported total length for age group 0-2 years as 1.7-3.5 cm, 3.7-6.5 cm, and 6.9-7.5 cm, respectively. Growth in new impoundments is more rapid than in streams (Pflieger, 1975).
C. lutrensis is considered an invertivore as it feeds on small invertebrates, such as insects and crustaceans (NatureServe, 2006). According to Goldstein and Simon (1999) first and second trophic classifications for this species are invertivore or herbivore and benthic, respectively and the trophic mode is a grazer. Hale (1963) considered C. lutrensis as omnivorous but opportunistically seized any item available in the average size range.
Main food items include terrestrial and aquatic insects, and algae (Lewis and Gunning, 1959, Carlander, 1969; Laser and Carlander, 1971; Harwood, 1972; Goldstein and Simon, 1999). Wang (1986) found plant leaves in the stomachs of young C. lutrensis and Hale (1963) reported that their diet included sediments.
C. lutrensis are much more versatile than other native minnows and are able to occupy degraded habitats and tolerate extreme environmental conditions such as, intermittent flows, excessive turbidity and sedimentation, and natural physiochemical extremes (Cross, 1967; Sublette, 1975; Matthews and Hill, 1979; Baltz and Moyle, 1993; Douglas et al., 1994; Poulos et al., 2012). This species can tolerate extreme thermal shock, surviving temperatures as low as -21°C up to 39.5°C when living in hot springs (Brues, 1928). Matthews (1986) found that there was no significant differences in critical thermal maximum, (35.9-36.3°C at an acclimation temperature of 21°C), among populations of all major river systems occupied by this species across a 1100 km north-south span of its range. It has been reported that for fish acclimated at 30°C, the critical thermal maxima is of 35.4-39.6°C (Rutledge and Beitinger, 1989).
Natural Food SourcesTop of page
|Food Source||Food Source Datasheet||Life Stage||Contribution to Total Food Intake (%)||Details|
|Zoobenthos (aquatic insects)||Adult/Fry|
Water TolerancesTop of page
|Parameter||Minimum Value||Maximum Value||Typical Value||Status||Life Stage||Notes|
|Dissolved oxygen (mg/l)||Harmful||1.6 mg/l|
|Water pH (pH)||7.0||Optimum|
Natural enemiesTop of page
|Natural enemy||Type||Life stages||Specificity||References||Biological control in||Biological control on|
|Pylodictis olivaris||Predator||Adult/Fry||not specific|
Means of Movement and DispersalTop of page
Natural dispersal (Non-Biotic)
Jennings and Saiki (1990) reported that in some areas dispersal of introduced populations of C. lutrensis has been aided by the presence of irrigation ditches and canals.
The origin of most introduced C. lutrensis populations have been attributed to their use as bait and subsequent releases from bait buckets. The initial introduction is often followed by the rapid multiplication, dispersal, and aggressive colonization of this fish (Hubbs and Lagler, 1958; Minckley and Deacon, 1968; Minckley, 1973). Accidental escapes from the Arizona Fish Farms in Ehrenburg, Arizona, USA, in 1953 have been reported as the cause of the establishment of the species in lower Colorado (Hubbs, 1954).
Impact SummaryTop of page
Economic ImpactTop of page
Environmental ImpactTop of page
Impact on Biodiversity
Red shiner are known to prey on the eggs and larvae of native fish, such as the Red River pupfish (Cyprinodon rubrofluviatilis) and have been implicated with the decline of a number of threatened species as listed by the IUCN. These species include the Colorado pikeminnow (Ptychocheilus lucius), spikedace (Meda fulgida), razorback sucker (Xyrauchen texanus), two threatened species of woundfin (Plagopterus argentissimus) and Virgin River chub (Gila seminude). Predation of eggs and larvae and direct competition for habitat use with red shiner are the leading causes of decline for many of these threatened species (Moyle, 1976; Deacon, 1988). Douglas et al. (1994) demonstrated that biotic interactions between spikedace and red shiner involved interference competition for space, and that spikedace were displaced to less favourable habitats in the presence of this invader. Mooney and Cleland (2001) have suggested that such niche displacement of natives by exotic fishes can have major evolutionary consequences on native populations. Invasive competitiveness may even lead to native fish extinction (Ricciardi and Rasmussen, 1998; Ricciardi et al., 1998; Poulas et al. 2012).
C. lutrensis are capable of hybridizing with native Cyprinella species (Mettee et al., 1996; Fuller et al., 1999). It is reported that such hybridizations has caused a dilution of the gene pool of the blacktail shiner (Cyprinella venusta stigmatura), a native species found in the Coosa River (Burkhead and Huge, 2002).
According to Poulas et al. (2012), the potential spread of this species both eastward and westward beyond its native and currently invaded ranges could threaten the stability of native US minnow populations with similar habitat requirements because of red shiner’s ability to outcompete and hybridize with natives (Burr and Page, 1986; Greger and Deacon, 1988; Larimore and Bayley, 1996). Overlaps in the potential distribution of red shiner and native minnow species richness occur predominantly in the western United States, with the areas of highest minnow diversity and red shiner habitat suitability occurring in Arizona, New Mexico, and southern California (NatureServe, 2004). This suggests that cyprinid congeners in these areas may be the most heavily impacted by red shiner spread (Poulas et al., 2012). Walters et al. (2008) demonstrated that red shiner success can be facilitated through infiltration of genes in locations where congeners are present. Red shiner establishes first in locations with congeners, and then its subsequent expansion is driven primarily by hybrid minnows into new habitats (Poulas et al., 2012).
Threatened SpeciesTop of page
|Threatened Species||Conservation Status||Where Threatened||Mechanism||References||Notes|
|Gila seminuda (Virgin River chub)||EN (IUCN red list: Endangered) EN (IUCN red list: Endangered); National list(s) National list(s); USA ESA listing as endangered species USA ESA listing as endangered species||Arizona; Nevada; Utah||Competition; Predation||NatureServe, 2006|
|Meda fulgida||No Details||Arizona; New Mexico||Competition; Predation||IUCN, 2012|
|Plagopterus argentissimus (woundfin)||EN (IUCN red list: Endangered) EN (IUCN red list: Endangered); USA ESA listing as endangered species USA ESA listing as endangered species||Arizona; Nevada; Utah||Competition; Predation||NatureServe, 2006|
|Ptychocheilus lucius (Colorado pikeminnow)||No Details||Mexico; Arizona; Colorado; Wyoming||Competition; Predation||IUCN, 2012|
|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 species||Arizona; California; Colorado; Nevada; New Mexico; Utah||Competition; Predation||IUCN, 2012|
Risk and Impact FactorsTop of page Invasiveness
- Invasive in its native range
- Proved invasive outside its native range
- Has a broad native range
- Abundant in its native range
- Is a habitat generalist
- Pioneering in disturbed areas
- Long lived
- Changed gene pool/ selective loss of genotypes
- Increases vulnerability to invasions
- Reduced native biodiversity
- Threat to/ loss of endangered species
- Threat to/ loss of native species
UsesTop of page
Similarities to Other Species/ConditionsTop of page
One subspecies of the red shiner, which is now considered extinct, was Cyprinella lutrensis blairi (Maravillas red shiner). This species was reported from Maravillas Canyon, Big Bend region of the Rio Grande (Miller et al., 1989).
It is often difficult to distinguish small Cyprinella lutrensis from Cyprinella venusta (blacktail shiner), especially when collected from turbid water. The number of scales on the lateral line can however, be used to identify each species. C.venusta generally has more lateral line scales (35 or more) and also has a distinct caudal spot (Ross, 2001). C. lutrensis is also similar to C. lepida (plateau shiner) but the breeding male of C. lepida has a green back, yellow-purple sides with yellow-orange fins and a purple bar on the side of its gold-orange head. C. proserpina (proserpine shiner) is also similar to C. lutrensis but C. proserpina has a black stripe along its side and on its chin, throat and sub terminal mouth and also has yellow to orange (on male) fins (Page and Burr, 1991).
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.
Predicting the future spread of non-native aquatic species continues to be a high priority for natural resource managers striving to maintain biodiversity and ecosystem function (Poulas et al., 2012). Poulas et al. (2012) modelled the potential distribution of C. lutrensis, in waterways of the conterminous United States using maximum inventory records from the USGS Non-indigenous Aquatic Species Database, native records for from museum collections, and a geographic information system of 20 raster climatic and environmental variables to produce a map of potential habitat of C. lutrensis. They also concluded that summer climatic variables were the most important environmental predictors of C. lutrensis distribution, which was consistent with the high temperature tolerance of this species. Results from this study provided insights into the locations and environmental conditions in the US that are susceptible to C.lutrensis invasion. Potential distribution maps produced in this study can be used by resource managers for rapid response and early mitigation of non-native fish invasion.
Several attempts have been made to eradicate C. lutrensis from a portion of the Virgin River as part of the recovery plan for woundfin (Plagopterus argentissimus) and Virgin River chubs (Gila seminude). It was successfully eliminated from the river between Washington Fields Diversion and Johnson Diversion, but has re-invaded below Johnson Diversion (USGS, 2012).
Limiting new introductions by prohibiting C. lutrensis sales as an aquarium and bait fish have been recommended to lower the risk of introduction into new areas, which are highly susceptible to its spread and hybridization with native species (Keller and Lodge, 2007). Minimizing the availability of disturbed habitats could be another means of controlling the spread of this species, since this species does well in such locations (Poulas et al., 2012).
ReferencesTop of page
Ashbaugh NA; Reichert RK; Franklin SE; Mercer MN; Lanman HA; Mantooth BS, 1996. A Comparative Study of the Ichthyofauna in Selected Streams on the Salt Plains National Wildlife Refuge in Oklahoma. Proceedings of the Oklahoma Academy of Science, 76:17-21.
Baltz DM; Moyle PB, 1993. Invasion resistance to introduced species by a native assemblage of California stream fishes. Ecological Applications, 3(2):246-255.
Brandenburg WH; Gido KB, 1999. Predation by nonnative fish on native fishes in the San Juan River, New Mexico and Utah. The Southwestern Naturalist, 44(3):392-394.
Brues CT, 1928. Studies on the fauna of hot springs in the western United States and the biology of thermophilous animals. Proceedings of the American Academy of Arts and Science, 63:139-228.
Burkhead NM; Huge DH, 2010. The Case of the Red Shiner: What Happens When a Fish Goes Bad? Virginia, USA: USGS. http://www.usgs.gov/
Burr BM; Page LM, 1986. Zoogeography of fishes of the Lower Ohio-Upper Mississippi basin. In: The zoogeography of North American freshwater fishes [ed. by Hocutt, C. H., Wiley, E. O.]. New York, USA: Wiley, 287-324.
Collette BB, 1977. Epidermal breeding tubercles and bony contact organs in fishes. Symp. Zool. Soc. Lond. Symposia of the Zoological Society of London, 39:225-268.
Contreras-Balderas S; Escalante-C MA, 1984. Distribution and known impacts of exotic fishes in Mexico [ed. by Courtenay Jr. W. R, Stauffer Jr. J. R.]. Baltimore, USA: Johns Hopkins University Press, 102-130.
Cross FB, 1950. Effects of sewage and of a headwaters impoundment on the fishes of Stillwater Creek in Payne County, Oklahoma. American Midland Naturalist, 43(1):128-145.
Cross JN, 1985. Distribution of fish in the Virgin River, a tributary of the lower Colorado River. Environmental Biology of Fishes, 12(1):13-21.
Deacon JE, 1988. The endangered woundfin and water management in the Virgin River, Utah, Arizona, Nevada. Fisheries, 13(1):18-29.
Delco Jr EA, 1960. Sound discrimination by males of two cyprinid fishes. Texas Journal of Science, 12:48-54.
Desert Fishes Council, 2012. Cyprinella lutrensis-red shiner range map in the Desert Fishes Council index to fish images, maps, and information. Texas, USA: University of Texas at Austin. http://www.utexas.edu/tmm/
Douglas ME; Marsh PC; Minkley WE, 1994. Indigenous fishes of western North America and the hypothesis of competitive displacement: Meda fulgida (Cyprinidae) as a case study. Copeia, 1:9-19.
Farringer RT III; Echelle AA; Lehtinen SF, 1979. Reproductive cycle of the red shiner, Notropis lutrensis, in central Texas and south central Oklahoma. Transactions of the American Fisheries Society, 108:271-276.
Fowler HW, 1952. A list of the fishes of New Jersey, with off-shore species. Proceedings of the Academy of Natural Sciences of Philadelphia:89-151.
Gale WF, 1986. Indeterminate fecundity and spawning behavior of captive red shiners - fractions, crevice spawners. Transactions of the American Fisheries Society, 115:429-437.
Gilbert CR, 1998. Type catalog of Recent and fossil North American Freshwater fishes: families Cyprinidae, Catostomidae, Ictaluridae, Centrarchidae and Elassomatidae. Florida, USA: Florida Museum of Natural History, University of Florida.
Gold JR; Price HJ, 1985. Genome size variation among north american minnows (Cyprinidae). I. distribution of the variation in five species. Heredity, 54:297-305.
Goldstein RM; Simon TP, 1999. Toward a united definition of guild structure for feeding ecology of North American freshwater fishes. In: Assessing the sustainability and biological integrity of water resources using fish communities [ed. by Simon, TP] Boca Raton, Florida: CRC Press, 123-202.
Greger PD; Deacon JE, 1988. Food partitioning among fishes of the Virgin River. Copeia, 1988:314-323.
Hale MC, 1963. A comparative study of the food of the shiners Notropis lutrensis and Notropis venustus. Proceedings of the Oklahoma Academy of Science, 43:125-129.
Harwood RH, 1972. Diurnal feeding rhythm of Notropis lutrensis Baird and Girard. Texas Journal of Science, 24:97-99.
Hassan-Williams Carla; Bonner TH, 2012. Texas Freshwater Fishes. Texas, USA: Texas State University-San Marcos Biology Department / Aquatic Station, Texas A&M Press. http://www.bio.txstate.edu/
Hubbs C; Kuehne RA; Ball JC, 1953. The fishes of the upper Guadalupe River. Texas Journal of Science, 5(2):216-244.
Hubbs C; Strawn K, 1956. Infertility between two sympatric fishes, Notropis lutrensis and Notropis venusta. Evolution, 10(4):341-344.
Hubbs CL, 1954. Establishment of a forage fish, the red shiner (Notropis lutrensis), in the lower Colorado system. California Fish and Game, 40(3):287-294.
Hubbs CL; Lagler KF, 1958. Fishes of the Great Lakes region. Madison, USA: University of Wisconsin.
Hubbs CL; Lagler KF, 1964. Fishes of the Great Lakes region. Michigan, USA: University of Michigan Press, 213 pp.
Hubbs CL; Ortenburger AI, 1929. Fishes collected in Oklahoma and Arkansas in 1927. University of Oklahoma Biological Survey, 1:45-112.
Hugg DO, 1996. MAPFISH georeferenced mapping database. Freshwater and estuarine fishes of North America. Maryland, USA: Life Science Software.
IUCN, 2012. IUCN Red List of Threatened Species. Version 2012.2. www.iucnredlist.org/
Jennings MR; Saiki MK, 1990. Establishment of Red Shiner, Notropis lutrensis, in the San Joaquin Valley, California. California Fish and Game, 76:46-57.
Keller RP; Lodge DM, 2007. Species invasions from commerce in live aquatic organisms: problems and possible solutions. BioScience, 57(5):428-436. http://www.ingentaselect.com/lg=eng/nw=1/rpsv/catchword/aibs/00063568/contp1.htm
Kimsey JB; Fisk LO, 1964. Freshwater nongame fishes of California. California, USA: California Department of Fish and Game, 54 pp.
Koehn RK, 1965. Development and ecological significance of nuptial tubercles of the red shiner, Notropis lutrensis. Copeia, 1965(4):462-467.
Larimore RW; Bayley PB, 1996. The fishes of Champaign County, Illinois, during a century of alterations of a prairie ecosystem. Illinois Natural History Survey Bulletin, 35:53-183.
Laser KD; Carlander KD, 1971. Life history of red shiners, Notropis lutrensis, in the Skunk River, central Iowa. Iowa State Journal of Science, 45(4):557-562.
Lewis WM; Gunning GE, 1959. Notes on the life history of the steelcolor shiner, Notropis whipplei (Girard). Transactions of the Illinois Academy of Science, 52:59-64.
Marsh-Matthews E; Matthews WJ, 2000. Spatial variation in relative abundance of a widespread, numerically-dominant fish species and its effect on fish assemblage structure. Oecologia, 125:283-292.
Marsh-Matthews E; Matthews WJ; Gido; KB; Marsh RL, 2002. Reproduction by young-of-year red shiner (Cyprinella lutrensis) and its implications for invasion success. The Southwestern Naturalist, 47(4):605-610.
Matthews WJ, 1980. Notropis lutrensis (Baird and Girard), Red shiner. In: Atlas of North American Freshwater Fishes [ed. by Lee DS, Gilbert C, Hocutt C, Jenkins R, McAllister D. E.] North Carolina, USA: North Carolina State Museum of Natural History, 285 pp.
Matthews WJ, 1985. Distribution of Midwestern fishes on multivariate environmental gradients, with emphasis on Notropis lutrensis. American Midland Naturalist, 113:225-237.
Matthews WJ, 1986. Geographic variation in thermal tolerance of a widespread minnow Notropis lutrensis of the North-American mid-west. Journal of Fish Biology, 28(4):407-417.
Matthews WJ, 1987. Geographic Variation in Cyprinella lutrensis (Pisces: Cyprinidae) in the United States, with Notes on Cyprinella lepida. Copeia, 1987(3):616-637.
Matthews WJ; Hill LG, 1977. Tolerance of the Red Shiner Notropis lutrensis (Cyprinedae) to environmental parameters. The Southwestern Naturalist, 22(1):89-98.
Matthews WJ; Hill LG, 1979. Influence of physico-chemical factors on habitat selection by Red Shiners, Notropis lutrensis (Pisces: Cyprinidae). Copeia, 1979:70-81.
Matthews WJ; Marsh-Matthews E, 2007. Extirpation of red shiner in direct tributaries of Lake Texoma (Oklahoma-Texas): A cautionary case history from a fragmented river-reservoir system. Transactions of the American Fisheries Society, 136:1041-1062.
Mayden RL, 1989. Phylogenetic studies of North American minnows, with emphasis on the genus Cyprinella (Teleostei: Cypriniformes). Kansas, USA: The University of Kansas Museum of Natural History, 80:1-189 pp.
Metee MF; O'Neil PE; Pierson JM, 1996. Fishes of Alabama and the Mobile Basin. Birmingham, Alabama, USA: Oxmoor House, 820 pp.
Miller RJ; Robison HW, 2004. Fishes of Oklahoma. Norman, Oklahoma, USA: University of Oklahoma Press, 450 pp.
Minckley WL, 1959. Fishes of the Big Blue River Basin, Kansas. The University of Kansas Museum of Natural History, 11(7):401-442.
Minckley WL, 1972. Notes on the spawning behavior of the red shiner, introduced into Burro Creek, Arizona. Southwestern Naturalist, 17:101-103.
Minckley WL; Deacon JE, 1968. Southwestern fishes and the enigma of "endangered species". Science, 159:1424-1432.
Mooney HA; Cleland EE, 2001. The evolutionary impact of invasive species. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America [The future of evolution. National Academy of Sciences colloquium, Irvine, California, USA, 16-20 March 2000], 98(10):5446-5451.
Moore RH; Garrett RA; Wingate PJ, 1976. Occurrence of the red shiner, Notropis lutrensis, in North Carolina: a probable aquarium release. Transactions of the American Fisheries Society, 102(2):220-221.
NatureServe, 2004. Downloadable animal datasets, NatureServe Central Databases. Arlington, Virginia, USA: NatureServe. http://www.natureserve.org/getData/datSets/watershedHucs/index
NatureServe, 2006. Downloadable animal datasets, NatureServe Central Databases. Arlington, Virginia, USA: NatureServe. http://www.natureserve.org/getData
Pflieger WL, 1975. The Fishes of Missouri. Jefferson City, Missouri, USA: Missouri Department of Conservation, 343 pp.
Poulos HM; Chernoff B; Fuller PL; Butman D, 2012. Mapping the potential distribution of the invasive red shiner, Cyprinella lutrensis (Teleostei: Cyprinidae) across waterways of the conterminous United States. Aquatic Invasions, 7(3):377-385. http://www.aquaticinvasions.net/2012/AI_2012_3_Poulos_etal.pdf
Quist MC; Hubert WA; Rahel FJ, 2004. Elevation and Stream-Size Thresholds Affect Distributions of Native and Exotic Warmwater Fishes in Wyoming. Journal of Freshwater Ecology, 19(2):227-236.
Ricciardi A; Neves Rasmussen RJJB, 1998. Impending extinctions of North American freshwater mussels (Unionidae) following the zebra mussel (Dreissena polymorpha) invasion. Journal of Animal Ecology, No. 67:613-619.
Ricciardi A; Rasmussen JB, 1998. Predicting the identity and impact of future biological invaders: a priority for aquatic resource management. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences, 55(7):1759-1765.
Riggs CD; Bonn EW, 1959. An annotated list of fishes of lake Taxoma, Oklahoma and Texas. Southwestern Naturalist, 4:157-168.
Ruppert JB; Muth RT; Nesler TP, 1993. Predation on Fish Larvae by Adult Red Shiner, Yampa and Green Rivers, Colorado. The Southwestern Naturalist, 38(4):397-399.
Rutledge CJ; Beitinger; TL, 1989. The effects of dissolved oxygen and aquatic surface respiration on the critical thermal maxima of three intermittent-stream fishes. Environmental Biology of Fishes, 24(2):137-143.
Simon TP, 1999. Assessment of Balon's reproductive guilds with application to Midwestern North American Freshwater Fishes. In: Assessing the sustainability and biological integrity of water resources using fish communities [ed. by Simon T. L.]. Boca Raton, Florida, USA: CRC Press, 97-121 pp.
Sublette JM, 1975. The summer food habits of Notropis lutrensis, the Red Shiner. New Mexico Academy of Science Bulletin, 16:20.
TPWD, 2012. Texas Parks and Wildlife Department. Port Arthur, USA: Texas Parks and Wildlife Department. http://www.tpwd.state.tx.us/
US Environmental Protection Agency, 2000. The Federal Register Environmental Documents. Washington DC, USA: EPA. http://www.epa.gov/fedrgstr/
US Fish and Wildlife Service, 2000. Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Designation of Critical Habitat for the Woundfin and Virgin River Chub. Washington DC, USA: US Government Printing Office, 4140-4156. [The Federal Register Environmental Documents, No. fr26ja00-14.] http://www.epa.gov/fedrgstr/EPA-SPECIES/2000/January/Day-26/e1746.htm
USGS, 2012. Non Indigenous Aquatic Species Database. Reston, Virginia, USA: US Geology Surveys. http://nas.er.usgs.gov/
Walters DM; Blum MJ; Rashleigh B; Freeman BJ; Porter BA; Burkhead NM, 2008. Red shiner invasion and hybridization with blacktail shiner in the upper Coosa River, USA. Biological Invasions, 10(8):1229-1242. http://www.springerlink.com/
Wang JCS, 1986. Fishes of the Sacramento-San Joaquin Estuary and Adjacent Waters, California: A Guide to the Early Life Histories. Berkeley, USA: Digital Library Project, ix + 680 pp. [Interagency Ecological Program Technical Report No. 9].
Warren Jr ML; Burr BM; Walsh SJ; Bart Jr; Cashner RC; Etnier DA; Freeman BJ; Kuhajda BR; Mayden RL; Robison HW; Ross ST; Starnes WC, 2000. Diversity, distribution and conservation status of the native freshwater fishes of the southern United States. Fisheries, 25(10):7-29.
Winemiller KO; Gelwick FP; Bonner TH; Zeug S; Williams C, 2004. Response of oxbow lake biota to hydrologic exchanges with the Brazos River channel. Texas, USA: Texas Agricultural Experiment Station, 59 pp.
Yu S; Peters EJ, 2002. Diel and seasonal habitat use by Red Shiner (Cyprinella lutrensis). Zoological Studies, 41(3):229-235.
OrganizationsTop of page
Italy: FAO (Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations), Viale delle Terme di Caracalla, 00100 Rome, http://www.fao.org/
Switzerland: IUCN International Union for Conservation of Nature, Rue Mauverney 28, 1196 Gland, http://www.iucn.org/
USA: NatureServe, 4600 N. Fairfax Dr., 7th Floor, Arlington, VA 22203, http://www.natureserve.org/
USA: TPWD Texas Parks and Wildlife, 4200 Smith School Road, Austin, Texas, http://www.tpwd.state.tx.us/
USA: USGS US Geological Survey, USGS National Center, 12201 Sunrise Valley Drive, Reston, VA 20192, http://www.usgs.gov/ask/index.php
ContributorsTop of page
17/09/2012 Original text by:
Sunil Niranjan Siriwardena, Stirling, Scotland, UK
Distribution MapsTop of page
Unsupported Web Browser:
One or more of the features that are needed to show you the maps functionality are not available in the web browser that you are using.
Please consider upgrading your browser to the latest version or installing a new browser.
More information about modern web browsers can be found at http://browsehappy.com/