Invasive Species Compendium

Detailed coverage of invasive species threatening livelihoods and the environment worldwide

Datasheet

crayfish plague

Toolbox

Datasheet

crayfish plague

Summary

  • Last modified
  • 14 July 2018
  • Datasheet Type(s)
  • Animal Disease
  • Preferred Scientific Name
  • crayfish plague
  • Overview
  • Crayfish plague had a long history before the oomycete, Aphanomyces astaci, was finally established as the causative organism of the disease (

  • There are no pictures available for this datasheet

    If you can supply pictures for this datasheet please contact:

    Compendia
    CAB International
    Wallingford
    Oxfordshire
    OX10 8DE
    UK
    compend@cabi.org
  • Distribution map More information

Don't need the entire report?

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

Generate report

Pictures

Top of page
PictureTitleCaptionCopyright

Identity

Top of page

Preferred Scientific Name

  • crayfish plague

International Common Names

  • English: crayfish aphanomyciasis; crayfish plague (fungus disease)
  • French: la peste de l'écrevisse

Local Common Names

  • Germany: Krebspest
  • Sweden: Kräftpest

Overview

Top of page

Crayfish plague had a long history before the oomycete, Aphanomyces astaci, was finally established as the causative organism of the disease (Schikora, 1906; Schäperclaus, 1935; Nybelin, 1936; Rennerfelt, 1936). It was recognised as an infectious disease at the end of the 19th century. Early publications on the causative agent claimed that a bacterium, Bacillus pestis astaci, caused the disease (Hofer, 1898), but in 1903 Schikora identified a fungus, an Aphanomyces species, as the disease agent (Schikora, 1903). It was not until 1934 that A. astaci was finally determined to be the true infectious agent; the difficulty in isolating the fungus in pure culture was the reason for its prolonged obscurity. This problem is mainly due to the presence of bacteria and other fungi on the tissues used for cultivation. These contaminants can easily overgrow A. astaci, which itself is rather slow growing (Oidtmann et al., 1999b).

A. astaci is a member of a group of organisms commonly known as the water moulds. Although long regarded as fungi, this group, the Oomycetida, are now considered to be protists and are classified with diatoms and brown algae in a group called the Stramenopiles or Chromista. A. astaci belongs to the class Oomycetes and the order Saprolegniales, in which a number of aquatic animal pathogens can be found. It is a member of the family Leptolegniaceae. 

A. astaci is the cause of crayfish plague in freshwater crayfish species susceptible to the disease, such as those of Europe and Australia. In contrast, in North American crayfish species, it acts as a benign parasite and these species can act as carriers of the pathogen (Unestam, 1969b; Unestam and Weiss, 1970; Unestam, 1972, 1975). 

Crayfish plague is currently considered the most serious disease of freshwater crayfish.   

A. astaci is thought to have been introduced into Europe in the middle of the 19th century (Cornalia, 1860; Alderman, 1996). Since then it has spread across large parts of Europe, leading to several outbreaks of crayfish plague in European crayfish populations, and is considered the most important reason for the decline of these species across Europe. The source of the original infections in the 19th century was never established; but the post-1960s spread is largely linked to the introduction and spread of North American crayfish introduced for purposes of crayfish farming.

Host Animals

Top of page
Animal nameContextLife stageSystem
Astacopsis fluviatilisExperimental settingsAquatic: Adult
Astacopsis gouldiExperimental settingsAquatic: Adult
Astacus astacus (European crayfish)Domesticated host, Experimental settings, Wild hostAquatic: Adult|Aquatic/LarvalOpen water systems/Enhancements and culture-based fisheries (inc. ranching and stock enhacement)|Enclosed systems/Ponds|Enclosed systems/Raceways / running water ponds
Astacus leptodactylus (Danube crayfish)Domesticated host, Experimental settings, Wild hostAquatic: Adult|Aquatic/LarvalOpen water systems/Enhancements and culture-based fisheries (inc. ranching and stock enhacement)|Enclosed systems/Ponds|Enclosed systems/Raceways / running water ponds
Austropotamobius pallipes (freshwater white-clawed crayfish)Wild hostAquatic: Adult|Aquatic/Larval
Austropotamobius torrentiumWild hostAquatic: Adult|Aquatic/Larval
Cambaroides japonicusExperimental settingsAquatic: Adult
Cherax destructor (yabby)Experimental settingsAquatic: Adult
Cherax papuanusExperimental settingsAquatic: Adult
Cherax quinquecarinatusExperimental settingsAquatic: Adult
Eriocheir sinensis (Chinese mitten crab)Experimental settingsAquatic: Adult
Euastacus clydensisExperimental settingsAquatic: Adult
Euastacus crassusExperimental settingsAquatic: Adult
Euastacus kershawiExperimental settingsAquatic: Adult
Geocharax gracilisExperimental settingsAquatic: Adult
Orconectes limosusDomesticated host, Subclinical, Wild hostAquatic: Adult|Aquatic/Larval
Pacifastacus leniusculus (American signal crayfish)Domesticated host, Subclinical, Wild hostAquatic: Adult|Aquatic/Larval
Procambarus clarkii (red swamp crayfish)Domesticated host, Subclinical, Wild hostAquatic: Adult|Aquatic/Larval

Hosts/Species Affected

Top of page

To date, all species of freshwater crayfish have to be considered as susceptible to infection with A. astaci. The outcome of an infection varies depending on species. All stages of European crayfish species, including the Noble crayfish (Astacus astacus) of north-west Europe, the white clawed crayfish (Austropotamobius pallipes) of south-west and west Europe, the related Austropotamobius torrentium (mountain streams of south-west Europe) and the slender clawed or Turkish crayfish (Astacus leptodactylus) of eastern Europe and Asia Minor are highly susceptible (Unestam, 1969b; Unestam and Weiss, 1970; Unestam, 1975; Alderman et al., 1984; Rahe and Soylu, 1989; Alderman, 1996). Laboratory challenges have demonstrated that Australian species of crayfish are also highly susceptible (Unestam, 1975). North American crayfish such as the signal crayfish (Pacifastacus leniusculus), Louisiana swamp crayfish (Procambarus clarkii) and Orconectes spp. are infected by A. astaci, but under normal conditions the infection does not cause clinical disease or death. All North American crayfish species investigated to date have been shown to be susceptible to infection (Unestam, 1969b; Unestam and Weiss, 1970; Oidtmann et al., 2006) and it is therefore currently assumed that this is the case for any other North American species. The only other crustacean known to be susceptible to infection by A. astaci is the Chinese mitten crab (Eriocheir sinensis) but this was reported only under laboratory conditions (Benisch, 1940).

Distribution

Top of page

The natural range of A. astaci is likely to be North America. It has been found in North American crayfish sampled in North America (Unestam and Weiss, 1970). Any occurrence of A. astaci outside of North America is currently considered as an exotic appearance of the pathogen. 

The first evidence for the arrival of A. astaci in Europe is the first large crayfish mortalities, which were first observed in Italy in 1859 (Ninni, 1865; Seligo, 1895). These were followed by further reports of crayfish mortalities, where no other aquatic species were affected, in the Franco-German border region in the third quarter of the 19th century. From there a steady spread of infection occurred, principally in two directions: down the Danube into the Balkans and towards the Black Sea, and across the North German plain into Russia and from there south to the Black Sea and north-west to Finland and, in 1907, to Sweden. In the 1960s, the first outbreaks were reported in Spain and in the 1980s the disease spread further to the British Isles, Turkey, Greece and Norway (Alderman, 1996). The source of the original infections in the 19th century was never established. The spread of the disease post-1960s is largely linked to introductions of North American crayfish for crayfish farming (Alderman, 1996). Pacifastacus leniusculus, Orconectes limosus and Procambarus clarkii are now widely naturalised in many parts of Europe. Since North American crayfish serve as a reservoir of A. astaci, any areas where North American crayfish species are found have to be considered as areas where A. astaci is present (unless shown otherwise). Australia and New Zealand have not experienced any outbreaks of crayfish plague to date and are currently considered free of the disease (OIE, 2011b).

Some North American crayfish species, such as Procambarus clarkii, have been introduced for aquaculture purposes into many areas around the globe, like Central America, South America, Europe, Africa, China and other parts of east and south Asia. In most cases where P. clarkii has been introduced, it has escaped to the wild and established reproducing populations. It is not known whether all of these populations would still be carriers of A. astaci, but North American crayfish populations tested for carrier status in Europe have usually been found to be infected (Oidtmann et al., 2006; Kozubíková et al., 2009). The actual distribution of A. astaci is therefore likely to be far broader than the distribution table would suggest and is more likely to more or less coincide with the distribution of North American crayfish worldwide. If there are no susceptible species in the area to which the North American crayfish are introduced, there may be no impact of such introductions associated with A. astaci

Details for introductions of North American crayfish species into new geographic areas can be obtained from Gherardi et al., 1999.

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

AfghanistanNo information availableOIE, 2009
ArmeniaDisease never reportedOIE, 2009
AzerbaijanDisease never reportedOIE, 2009
BahrainDisease never reportedOIE, 2009
BangladeshDisease never reportedOIE, 2009
BhutanNo information availableOIE, 2009
CambodiaNo information availableOIE, 2009
ChinaDisease never reportedOIE, 2009
-Hong KongDisease never reportedOIE, 2009
IndiaNo information availableOIE, 2009
IndonesiaDisease never reportedOIE, 2009
IranDisease never reportedOIE, 2009
IraqNo information availableOIE, 2009
IsraelDisease never reportedOIE, 2009
JapanDisease never reportedOIE, 2009
JordanNo information availableOIE, 2009
KazakhstanNo information availableOIE, 2009
Korea, Republic ofNo information availableOIE, 2009
KuwaitDisease not reportedOIE, 2009
KyrgyzstanNo information availableOIE, 2009
LaosNo information availableOIE, 2009
LebanonNo information availableOIE, 2009
MalaysiaDisease never reportedOIE, 2009
MongoliaNo information availableOIE, 2009
MyanmarNo information availableOIE, 2009
NepalNo information availableOIE, 2009
OmanNo information availableOIE, 2009
PakistanNo information availableOIE, 2009
PhilippinesNo information availableOIE, 2009
QatarNo information availableOIE, 2009
Saudi ArabiaNo information availableOIE, 2009
SingaporeNo information availableOIE, 2009
Sri LankaNo information availableOIE, 2009
SyriaNo information availableOIE, 2009
TajikistanNo information availableOIE, 2009
ThailandNo information availableOIE, 2009
TurkeyPresentIntroduced Invasive Rahe, 1987; OIE, 2009
United Arab EmiratesNo information availableOIE, 2009
VietnamNo information availableOIE, 2009
YemenNo information availableOIE, 2009

Africa

AlgeriaNo information availableOIE, 2009
AngolaNo information availableOIE, 2009
BeninNo information availableOIE, 2009
BotswanaNo information availableOIE, 2009
Burkina FasoNo information availableOIE, 2009
ChadNo information availableOIE, 2009
CongoNo information availableOIE, 2009
DjiboutiNo information availableOIE, 2009
EgyptNo information availableOIE, 2009
EritreaNo information availableOIE, 2009
EthiopiaNo information availableOIE, 2009
GambiaNo information availableOIE, 2009
GhanaNo information availableOIE, 2009
GuineaNo information availableOIE, 2009
Guinea-BissauNo information availableOIE, 2009
KenyaNo information availableOIE, 2009
LesothoDisease never reportedOIE, 2009
MadagascarNo information availableOIE, 2009
MalawiNo information availableOIE, 2009
MaliNo information availableOIE, 2009
MauritiusNo information availableOIE, 2009
MoroccoNo information availableOIE, 2009
MozambiqueNo information availableOIE, 2009
NamibiaNo information availableOIE, 2009
NigeriaNo information availableOIE, 2009
SenegalNo information availableOIE, 2009
South AfricaNo information availableOIE, 2009
SudanDisease never reportedOIE, 2009
SwazilandNo information availableOIE, 2009
TanzaniaNo information availableOIE, 2009
TogoNo information availableOIE, 2009
TunisiaDisease not reportedOIE, 2009
UgandaNo information availableOIE, 2009
ZambiaNo information availableOIE, 2009
ZimbabweNo information availableOIE, 2009

North America

CanadaPresentOIE, 2011b
GreenlandDisease never reportedOIE, 2009
MexicoDisease not reportedOIE, 2009
USAPresentOIE, 2011b
-GeorgiaDisease never reportedOIE, 2009

Central America and Caribbean

BelizeDisease never reportedOIE, 2009
Costa RicaDisease never reportedOIE, 2009
CubaDisease never reportedOIE, 2009
El SalvadorDisease never reportedOIE, 2009
GuadeloupeNo information availableOIE, 2009
GuatemalaDisease never reportedOIE, 2009
HaitiNo information availableOIE, 2009
HondurasNo information availableOIE, 2009
JamaicaNo information availableOIE, 2009
MartiniqueDisease not reportedOIE, 2009
NicaraguaNo information availableOIE, 2009
PanamaNo information availableOIE, 2009

South America

ArgentinaDisease never reportedOIE, 2009
BoliviaNo information availableOIE, 2009
BrazilDisease never reportedOIE, 2009
ChileDisease never reportedOIE, 2009
ColombiaDisease never reportedOIE, 2009
EcuadorNo information availableOIE, 2009
French GuianaDisease not reportedOIE, 2009
PeruNo information availableOIE, 2009
UruguayNo information availableOIE, 2009
VenezuelaDisease never reportedOIE, 2009

Europe

AlbaniaNo information availableOIE, 2009
AustriaPresentIntroduced Invasive Anon, 1879; Pöckl and Pekny, 2002; OIE, 2009
BelarusDisease not reportedOIE, 2009
BelgiumPresentIntroducedISSG, IUCN SSC Invasive Species Specialist Group; Seligo, 1895; OIE, 2009
BulgariaNo information availableOIE, 2009
CroatiaDisease never reportedOIE, 2009
CyprusDisease never reportedOIE, 2009
Czech RepublicPresentIntroduced Invasive Kozubíková et al., 2006; OIE, 2009
DenmarkPresentIntroducedOIE, 2011b
EstoniaNo information availableOIE, 2009
FinlandPresentIntroduced Invasive Westman and Savolainen, 2001; OIE, 2009
FrancePresentIntroduced Invasive ISSG, IUCN SSC Invasive Species Specialist Group; Raveret-Wattel, 1885; Vivier, 1951; OIE, 2009
GermanyPresentIntroduced Invasive Oidtmann et al., 1999a; Tzukerzis, 1964; OIE, 2009
GreecePresentIntroducedTheocharis, 1986; OIE, 2009
HungaryDisease never reportedOIE, 2009
IcelandDisease never reportedOIE, 2009
IrelandPresentIntroduced Invasive Reynolds, 1988; Matthews and Reynolds, 1992; Demers and Reynolds, 2002; OIE, 2009
ItalyPresentIntroducedCornalia, 1860; OIE, 2009; Cammà et al., 2010
LatviaPresentIntroducedISSG, IUCN SSC Invasive Species Specialist Group; Tzukerzis, 1964; OIE, 2009
LiechtensteinNo information availableOIE, 2009
LithuaniaPresentIntroducedISSG, IUCN SSC Invasive Species Specialist Group; Mazylis and Grigelis, 1979; OIE, 2009
LuxembourgPresentIntroducedSeligo, 1895; OIE, 2009
MacedoniaPresentIntroducedISSG, IUCN SSC Invasive Species Specialist Group; OIE, 2009
MaltaNo information availableOIE, 2009
MontenegroNo information availableOIE, 2009
NetherlandsDisease never reportedOIE, 2009
NorwayPresentIntroduced Invasive Hastein and Unestam, 1971; Taugbøl et al., 1993; OIE, 2009
PolandPresentIntroducedSeligo, 1895; Wlasow et al., 2004; OIE, 2009
PortugalPresentIntroducedBernardo and Ilheu, 1997; OIE, 2009
RomaniaPresentIntroducedOIE, 2009; Schrimpf et al., 2012
Russian FederationPresentIntroducedISSG, IUCN SSC Invasive Species Specialist Group; Arnold, 1900; OIE, 2009
SerbiaNo information availableOIE, 2009
SlovakiaDisease not reportedOIE, 2009
SloveniaPresentIntroducedFranke, 1894; OIE, 2009
SpainPresentIntroduced Invasive Cuellar and Coll, 1984; OIE, 2009
SwedenPresentIntroduced Invasive Alm, 1929; Josefsson and Andersson, 2001; Edsman, 2004; OIE, 2009
SwitzerlandPresentIntroducedISSG, IUCN SSC Invasive Species Specialist Group; Roch, 1881; OIE, 2009
UKWidespreadIntroduced Invasive Alderman et al., 1984; OIE, 2009
UkraineDisease never reportedOIE, 2009

Oceania

AustraliaDisease never reportedOIE, 2009
French PolynesiaDisease never reportedOIE, 2009
New CaledoniaDisease never reportedOIE, 2009
New ZealandDisease never reportedOIE, 2009

Pathology

Top of page

Gross Pathology

Highly susceptible species

Depending on a range of factors, the foci of infection in crayfish may be seen by the naked eye or may not be discernable despite careful examination. Such foci can best be seen under a low power stereo microscope and are most commonly recognisable by localised whitening of the muscle beneath the cuticle (Oidtmann et al. 1996). In some cases a brown coloration of cuticle and muscle may occur, and in others, hyphae are visible in infected cuticle in the form of fine brown (melanised) tracks in the cuticle itself. Sites for particular examination include the intersternal soft ventral cuticle of the abdomen and tail, the cuticle of the perianal region, the cuticle between the carapace and abdomen, the joints of the pereiopods (walking legs), particularly the proximal joint, and finally the gills (Alderman and Polglase, 1986; Nyhlen and Unestam, 1980, Oidtmann et al. 1996).

North American crayfish species

Infected North American crayfish can sometimes show melanised spots in their soft cuticle, for example the soft abdominal cuticle. However, it must be stressed that these melanisations can be caused by mechanical injuries or infections with other water moulds and are very unspecific. Conversely, visible melanisation is not always associated with carrier status. Infected animals can appear completely devoid of visible melanisations. 

Wet Mounts

Small pieces of soft cuticle excised from the soft abdominal cuticle and examined under a microscope may confirm the presence of aseptate fungus-like hyphae 7–9 μm wide (Oidtmann et al. 1996). In the case of North American crayfish, these are usually surrounded by melanin. 

Microscopic Pathology

Unless the selection of tissue for fixation has been well chosen, A. astaci hyphae can be difficult to find in stained preparations. A histological staining technique, such as the Grocott silver stain counterstained with conventional haematoxylin and eosin, will make hyphae more visible in histological stains.

Diagnosis

Top of page

Until recently, the diagnosis of crayfish plague from highly susceptible species strictly required the isolation and characterisation of the pathogen, A. astaci, using simple mycological media with antibiotics to control bacterial contamination. Isolation is only likely to be successful before or within 24 hours of the death of infected crayfish. However, there is no other disease or pollution effect that is known to cause such total mortality of crayfish while leaving all other animals in the same water unharmed. High mortalities in susceptible crayfish while all other invertebrates in the water course remain unharmed strongly suggest that the mortalities are due to a crayfish plague outbreak. 

Clinical signs of crayfish plague include behavioural changes and a range of visible external lesions. The range of these lesions is so large that, except for the experienced eye, such clinical signs are of limited diagnostic value. Also, the lesions are not pathogen-specific and can be caused by mechanical lesions or invasion by other agents such as fungi or bacteria (Persson and Söderhäll, 1983).

The currently recommended method of diagnosis is single-round PCR assay, followed by sequencing (Oidtmann et al. 2006; OIE 2011a). This combination of methods provides a very quick and reliable result. Isolation of the pathogen using culture is time-consuming and can take several weeks. If it is successful, the identification of the isolate has to be further confirmed either by challenge of susceptible crayfish or by PCR and sequencing.

List of Symptoms/Signs

Top of page
SignLife StagesType
Crustaceans / Cessation of feeding - Behaviour Sign
Crustaceans / Changes in colour - Surface Sign
Crustaceans / Changes in feeding behaviour - Behaviour Sign
Crustaceans / Changes in swimming movement - Behaviour Sign
Crustaceans / Failure to right / difficulty in righting - Behaviour Sign
Crustaceans / General weakening - Behaviour Sign
Crustaceans / Lethargy - Behaviour Sign
Crustaceans / Mortalities - Miscellaneous Sign
Crustaceans / Unusual activity during daytime - Behaviour Sign

Disease Course

Top of page

Clinical Signs

Highly susceptible species

Gross clinical signs are extremely variable and depend on challenge severity and water temperatures. The first sign of a crayfish plague mortality may be the presence of numbers of crayfish at large during daylight (crayfish are normally nocturnal), some of which may show evident loss of co-ordination in their movements, and easily fall over on their backs and remain unable to right themselves. Often, however, unless waters are carefully observed, the first sign that there is a problem will be the presence of large numbers of dead crayfish in a river or lake (Alderman et al., 1987). 

In susceptible species, where sufficient numbers of crayfish are present to allow infection to spread rapidly, particularly at summer water temperatures, infection will spread quickly and stretches of over 50 km may lose all their crayfish in less than 21 days from the first observed mortality (D. Alderman, Centre for Environment, Fisheries, and Aquaculture Science, UK, personal communication, 2009). Crayfish plague has unparalleled severity of effect, since infected susceptible crayfish generally do not survive. Mortality or disappearance of other aquatic crustaceans as well as crayfish, even though fish survive, may indicate pollution rather than disease (e.g. insecticides such as cypermethrin have been associated with initial misdiagnoses). 

North American crayfish species

None. 

Behavioural Changes

Highly susceptible species

Infected crayfish of the highly susceptible species may leave their hides during daytime (which is not normally seen in crayfish), and have a reduced escape reflex and progressive paralysis. Dying crayfish are sometimes found lying on their backs. The animals are often no longer able to right themselves. Occasionally, the infected animals can be seen trying to scratch or pinch themselves. 

North American crayfish species

Infected North American crayfish do not show any behavioural changes. 

Epidemiology

Top of page

The life cycle of A. astaci is simple, with vegetative hyphae invading and ramifying through host tissues, eventually producing extramatrical sporangia that release amoeboid primary spores. These initially encyst, but then release a biflagellate zoospore (secondary zoospore), the infective stage. Biflagellate zoospores swim in the water column and, on encountering a susceptible host, attach, encyst and germinate to produce invasive vegetative hyphae. Free-swimming zoospores appear to be chemotactically attracted to crayfish cuticle (Cerenius and Söderhäll, 1984a) and often settle on the cuticle near a wound (Nyhlen and Unestam, 1980). 

Release of the zoospores from the mycelium takes place when the mycelium grows out of the crayfish cuticle. This usually occurs when a susceptible crayfish is severely ill or dead, or, in the case of American species, during moulting or at death. 

Zoospores are capable of repeated encystment and re-emergence, extending the period of their infective viability (Cerenius and Söderhäll, 1984b). Growth and sporulation capacity is strain- and temperature-dependent (Diéguez-Uribeondo et al., 1995). 

It appears that A. astaci remains viable in the cuticle of North American crayfish for several months. In these species it infects the cuticle in a benign infection. Invading hyphae are surrounded by melanin, which is deposited as a result of the host’s immune system responding to the infection. The infection remains confined to the cuticle and does not – as in the highly susceptible species – break through the basal lamina and invade the body cavity and other host tissues. 

Infection in highly susceptible species leads to the death of the host and subsequently, the generation of zoospores in order to find a new viable host. 

A. astaci appears to be specifically adapted to grow in crayfish tissues. It has so far not been detected in any other host from the natural environment. 

In the natural environment A. astaci does not survive well for long periods in the absence of a suitable host. Observations on the longevity of the various life stages have been presented (Unestam, 1969a; Svensson and Unestam, 1975). The authors observed that A. astaci cysts survive for 2 weeks in distilled water, and that zoospores remained motile for up to 3 days (Unestam, 1969a). As A. astaci can go through three cycles of zoospore emergence, the maximum life span outside of a host could be several weeks. Unestam found still-viable spores in a spore suspension kept at 2°C for 2 months (Unestam, 1966). 

In principle, spread of crayfish plague can be through 3 pathways: 1) independent of crayfish host tissue (usually as zoospores or cysts), 2) infected cuticle/tissue of the highly susceptible crayfish species (e.g. any of the European species) and 3) spread with infected carrier (=North American) crayfish. 

Spread independent of crayfish host tissue can be through contaminated water, and mechanical vectors or fomites that have been in contact with contaminated water. The likelihood of spread depends on several factors including the number of spores transmitted, the presence of susceptible crayfish at the site of release, the conditions the spores/cysts are exposed to during transfer etc. (Oidtmann et al., 2002; Oidtmann et al., 2005). The mechanical spread route is more relevant for relatively short durations of transfer due to the limited survival of the pathogen outside of a crayfish host. Examples of fomites that may be involved in mechanical transmission are: contaminated crayfish traps, angling equipment, and boots. It may also be possible that animals can carry the spores or cysts in their fur / feathers. Spread of A. astaci via water may occur for example during fish transport, or in ballast water of ships. Fish themselves may also serve as vectors in several ways: two independent studies have shown that A. astaci spores germinate on fish scales in vitro (Hall and Unestam, 1980; Ahne and Halder, 1988). However, it remains yet to be shown that transmission via fish skin occurs in vivo (Oidtmann et al., 2002). Mechanical spread would be most relevant from sites of current crayfish plague outbreaks during which a high number of spores and cysts would be present in the water. 

Outbreaks of crayfish plague in the highly susceptible species are also a period during which spread via infected highly susceptible crayfish would be likely. Crayfish could be harvested without the person harvesting recognizing that there was an ongoing outbreak; the crayfish may also be emergency-harvested, or be preyed upon. In the course of the disease, susceptible crayfish become progressively paralysed and show abnormal behaviour such as daytime activity (normally crayfish are predominantly nocturnal). This makes them easy prey for an increased range of predators, which may eat the crayfish or abduct them to other locations. If eaten by fish, the pathogen may survive the gut passage and released with the fish faeces (Oidtmann et al., 2002). 

American crayfish species carrying the pathogen as an unapparent infection can spread the disease into new areas by colonising new habitats. Commercial trade of live crayfish for human consumption, accidental co-transport during fish transport and crayfish used as bait for fishing may assist colonisation of new areas. Data from North American crayfish populations in Europe tested to date suggest that the majority of populations are carriers of the pathogen in their cuticle (Oidtmann et al., 2006; Kozubíková et al., 2009). Therefore every translocation of North American crayfish into previously A. astaci-free areas converts those areas into crayfish-plague-endangered areas; usually it is only a matter of time until susceptible crayfish in such areas develop the disease. 

The risk of further spread of A. astaci varies depending on geographical region. A. astaci is already fairly widespread in many parts of continental Europe due to the spread of North American crayfish species, which may carry it as a subclinical infection. A broad range of potential pathways of spread exists in areas with North American crayfish presence in the wild. The range of transmission pathways is more limited in areas where North American crayfish do not occur in the wild. The extent of spread of North American crayfish species varies between European countries; accordingly the level of risk associated with the presence of carriers of the pathogen will vary. 

Potential pathways of spread were summarized in a preliminary study.  Sources of spread of carrier crayfish were identified for England and Wales, where they included fish farms, natural waters, crayfish farms, garden ponds, restaurants and aquaria. Modes of spread of A. astaci that were identified included live fish movements (anthropogenic), release of North American crayfish by the general public, crayfish migration, effluent water from rearing facilities, angling with crayfish bait, escapees, bulk water transfer, survey work, use of leisure equipment, angling equipment, birds, migratory fish and construction works (Oidtmann et al., 2005). Depending on customs in other countries these routes may vary. 

Routes of introduction into new geographic areas will be most likely through the import of North American crayfish for food, the aquarium trade or for aquaculture purposes.

Impact

Top of page

Economic Impact

The introduction of crayfish plague led to the disappearance of crayfish species native to Europe. Data on the economic impact of these historic introductions of crayfish plague are not available. However, across Europe, native crayfish have been widely used as food. Crayfish have historically provided food for the poor, since catching them was not regulated (in contrast to wild game). Crayfish have also been widely traded across Europe. Therefore, the livelihood of anyone involved in catching and trading of crayfish was affected. 

Traditionally, five crayfish species have been considered indigenous to Europe:

  • the Noble Crayfish Astacus astacus, centred in Germany and Poland.
  • the narrow-clawed or Turkish Crayfish Astacus leptodactylus of south-eastern Europe.
  • the Stone Crayfish Austropotamobius torrentium, which is found in the Alps and Balkans.
  • the White-clawed Crayfish Austropotamobius pallipes (Lereboullet), which is found in Southern Europe and the British Isles.
  • Astacus pachypus, which is restricted to the Black and Caspian Seas. 

Of these, it is mainly Astacus astacus and Astacus leptodactylus that have been exploited for harvest. In medieval Europe crayfish caught in rivers were a highly esteemed food resource. 

The impact of crayfish plague on harvest is probably best documented through its introduction into Turkey, where harvests declined from 8000 metric tonnes in 1984 to an average of less than 500 metric tonnes between 1990 and 1994 as a result of the disease (Ackefors, 1999). 

Another area of economic impact to be considered is the costs of conservation of the native crayfish species that are affected by the spread of crayfish plague. Over the past 20 years, the costs of species conservation programs are likely to reach several million US$ for most economies in European countries. However, the costs of conservation attempts for native crayfish have never been collated to the knowledge of the author.

Environmental Impact

The consequence of an introduction of Aphanomyces astaci into the natural range of the highly susceptible European species is usually the disappearance of populations of these species in affected areas. In Europe, crayfish are considered a keystone species, due to the pivotal role they have in food webs and the ecology of the freshwater environment. If they are removed (for example as a result of a crayfish plague outbreak), the ecosystem is heavily affected. The proportions of most other species will be affected.

An example of the relevance of crayfish as a keystone species is Sweden. The water temperatures in many lakes in Sweden are too cold to support resident fish species. Native crayfish present in such lakes occupy this niche of ‘top predator’. When crayfish are removed as a result of crayfish plague, macrophytes and opportunistic invertebrates often expand, causing great fluctuations of species, imbalance and reduced biodiversity. 

The impact of crayfish plague on a native crayfish species is fairly well documented in Sweden. It is estimated that out of 30,000 Astacus astacus populations present at the beginning of the 20th century, only 5% remained in the year 2000 (Edsman, 2000). 

Austropotamobius pallipes is considered a flagship species of patrimonial value. Astacus astacus is highly valued – both from a recreational and economic point of view (Souty-Grosset, 2005).

Social Impact

The impact of the decline of the native crayfish as a result of spread of crayfish plague and spread of North American crayfish has been very well studied in Sweden, where crayfish fishery has a substantial social, cultural and economic value. Traditionally, crayfish parties take place in August of each year, which almost all Swedes participate in. The decline in the supplies of native Astacus astacus as the result of the introduction of crayfish plague in 1907 led to the introduction of North American crayfish to replace the Astacus astacus populations that had been lost to the disease. The crayfish parties still take place nowadays, but a large proportion of crayfish are now Pacifastacus leniusculus instead of Astacus astacus. In order to prevent the spread of crayfish plague to the remaining crayfish populations, a range of actions (including informing the public) have been taken (Edsman, 2000).

Disease Treatment

Top of page

No drug treatments are available.

Prevention and Control

Top of page

If crayfish plague is suspected or confirmed in European native crayfish populations, responsible authorities in some countries impose, to a greater or lesser extent, movement controls on the affected water body. In many European countries, the disease is often not diagnosed and also no action is taken to control the spread of the disease. Because crayfish plague is not a notifiable disease in the national legislation of most European countries, there is no direct obligation on the competent authorities to take measures to control the disease. Crayfish plague is currently (2009) a notifiable disease in Norway and Australia.

The only country that has informed the OIE that it has a national contingency plan for crayfish plague is Australia. 

Currently, there is no evidence that vaccines offer long-term protection in crustaceans and even if this were not to be the case, vaccination of natural populations of crayfish is impossible. 

Aphanomyces astaci may be transmitted via live North American crayfish traded for food. As a consequence, some countries have made efforts to control the import of live North American crayfish. To the knowledge of the author, the only European country that currently applies restrictions on the import of live North American crayfish is Sweden. The relevant legislation is based in the Species Protection Act connected to the environmental legislation and came into force in 2003. In short, all import, transportation, and storage of live freshwater crayfish from abroad was prohibited. These rules also apply to the aquarium trade (Edsman, 2004).

References

Top of page

Ackefors H, 1999. The positive effects of established crayfish introductions in Europe. In: Crayfish in Europe as alien species - How to make the best of a bad situation [ed. by Gherardi, F.\Holdich, D. M.]. Rotterdam, Netherlands: A.A. Balkema, 49-61.

Ahne W; Halder M, 1988. Virologische und mykologische Untersuchungen an Krebsbeständen verschiedener Herkunft. Munich, Germany: Berichte der Landesanstalt für Wasserforschung, unpaginated.

Alderman DJ, 1996. Geographical spread of bacterial and fungal diseases of crustaceans. Revue Scientifique et Technique - Office International des Épizooties, 15(2):603-632.

Alderman DJ; Polglase JL, 1986. Aphanomyces astaci: isolation and culture. Journal of Fish Diseases, 9(5):367-379.

Alderman DJ; Polglase JL; Frayling M, 1987. Aphanomyces astaci pathogenicity under laboratory and field conditions. Journal of Fish Diseases, 10(5):385-393.

Alderman DJ; Polglase JL; Frayling M; Hogger J, 1984. Crayfish plague in Britain. Journal of Fish Diseases, 7(5):401-405.

Alm G, 1929. [English title not available]. (Der Krebs und die Krebpest in Schweden.) Zeitschrift für Fischerei, 27:123-138.

Anon, 1879. [English title not available]. (Die Krebsseuche.) Deutsche Fischerei-Zeitung, 1879:387.

Arnold J, 1900. [English title not available]. (Kurzer Bericht über die Verbreitung der Krebspest in Russland und über den gegenwärtigen Zustand des Krebsfanges in dem Wolgagebiet.) Allgemeine Fischerei-Zeitung, 25:449.

Benisch J, 1940. [English title not available]. (Kuenstlich hervorgerufener Aphanomyces Befall bei Wollhandkrabben.) Zeitschrift fuer Fischerei, 38:71-80.

Bernado JM; Ilhéu M; Costa AM, 1997. Distribution, population structure and conservation of Austropotamobius pallipes in Portugal. Bulletin Francais de la Pêche et de la Pisciculture, 347:617-624. http://dx.doi.org/10.1051/kmae/1997044

Bernardo JM; Ilheu M, 1997. Present status of Austropotamobius pallipes (Lereboullet) in Portugal. Freshwater Crayfish, 11:671-680.

Cammà C; Ferri N; Zezza D; Marcacci M; Paolini A; Ricchiuti L; Lelli R, 2010. Confirmation of crayfish plague in Italy: detection of Aphanomyces astaci in white clawed crayfish. Diseases of Aquatic Organisms, 89(3):265-268. http://www.int-res.com/articles/dao_oa/d089p265.pdf

Cerenius L; Söderhäll K, 1984. Chemotaxis in Aphanomyces astaci, an arthropod-parasitic fungus. Journal of Invertebrate Pathology, 43:278-281.

Cerenius L; Söderhäll K, 1984. Repeated zoospore emergence from isolated spore cysts of Aphanomyces astaci. Experimental Mycology, 8(4):370-377.

Cornalia E, 1860. [English title not available]. (Sulla malattia dei gamberi.) Atti della Società Italiana di Scienze Naturali, II:334-336.

Cuellar L; Coll M, 1984. Epizootiology of the crayfish plague (Aphanomycosis) in Spain. Freshwater Crayfish, 5:545-548.

DAISIE, 2011. European Invasive Alien Species Gateway. http://www.europe-aliens.org/

Demers A; Reynolds JD, 2002. A survey of the white-clawed crayfish, Austropotamobius pallipes (Lereboullet), and of water quality in two catchments of eastern Ireland. Bulletin Francais de la Pêche et de la Pisciculture, 347:729-740. http://dx.doi.org/10.1051/kmae:2002062

Diéguez-Uribeondo J; Huang TS; Cerenius L; Söderhäll K, 1995. Physiological adaptation of an Aphanomyces astaci strain isolated from the freshwater crayfish Procambarus clarkii. Mycological Research, 99(5):574-578.

Edsman L, 2000. Crayfish conservation in Sweden, lessons to learn. In: Proceedings of Crayfish Conference, Leeds, UK, 26-27 April 2000 [ed. by Rogers, D. \Brickland, J.]. 19-26.

Edsman L, 2004. The Swedish story about import of live crayfish. Bulletin Français de la Pêche et de la Pisciculture, 372-373:281-288.

Franke, 1894. [English title not available]. (Uber die Krebsseuche.) Mitteilung des Österreichischen Fischereivereins, 2-6:139-140.

Gherardi F; Holdich DM, 1999. Crayfish in Europe as alien species (How to make the best of a bad situation?). Rotterdam, Netherlands: A.A. Balkema, unpaginated.

Hall L; Unestam T, 1980. The effect of fungicides on survival of the crayfish plague fungus, Aphanomyces astaci, Oomycetes, growing on fish scales. Mycopathologia, 72(3):131-134.

Hastein T; Unestam T, 1971. [English title not available]. (Krebspest na i Norge.) Fauna, 25:19-22.

Hofer B, 1898. [English title not available]. (Über die Krebspest.) Allgemeine Fischerei-Zeitung, 23:293-300.

ISSG (IUCN SSC Invasive Species Specialist Group), 2013. Global Invasive Species Database (GISD). IUCN SSC Invasive Species Specialist Group. http://www.issg.org/database/welcome/

Josefsson M; Andersson B, 2001. The environmental consequences of alien species in the Swedish Lakes Mälaren, Hjälmaren, Vänern and Vättern. Ambio, 30(8):514-521.

Kozubíková E; Filipová L; Kozák P; Dhacek~uris Z; Martín MP; Diéguez-Uribeondo J; Oidtmann B; Petrusek A, 2009. Prevalence of the crayfish plague pathogen Aphanomyces astaci in invasive American crayfishes in the Czech Republic. Conservation Biology, 23(5):1204-1213. http://www.blackwell-synergy.com/loi/cbi

Kozubíková E; Petrusek A; Duri? Z; Kozák P; Geiger S; Hoffmann R, 2006. The crayfish plague in the Czech Republic - review of recent suspect cases and a pilot detection study. BFPP - Bulletin Francais de la Peche et de la Protection des Milieux Aquatiques:1313-1323.

Matthews M; Reynolds JD, 1992. Ecological impact of crayfish plague in Ireland. Hydrobiologia, 234(1):1-6.

Mazylis A; Grigelis A, 1979. On diseases of Astacus astacus in some Lithuanian lakes. Biologiya Rechnykh Rakov Vod. Litny., Vilnius, 1979:121-127.

Ninni AP, 1865. [English title not available]. (Sulla mortalita dei gambari (Astacus fluviatilis L.) nel veneto e piu particalarmenta nella provincia trevigiana.) Alti Inst. Veneto Ser. III, 10:1203-1209.

Nybelin O, 1936. [English title not available]. (Untersuchungen uber die Ursache der in Schweden gegenvartig vorkommenden Krebspest.) Report of the Institute of Freshwater Research, Drottningholm. Lund, Sweden: Carl Bloms Boktr, 3-29.

Nyhlen l; Unestam T, 1980. Wound reactions and Aphanomyces astaci growth in crayfish cuticle. Journal of Invertebrate Pathology, 36(2):187-197.

Oidtmann B; Cerenius L; Schmid I; Hoffmann R; Söderhäll K, 1999. Crayfish plague epizootics in Germany - classification of two German isolates of the crayfish plague fungus Aphanomyces astaci by random amplification of polymorphic DNA. Diseases of Aquatic Organisms, 35(3):235-238.

Oidtmann B; El-Matbouli M; Fischer H; Hoffmann RW; Klaerding K; Schmid I; Schmidt R, 1996. Light microscopy of Astacus astacus L. under normal and selected pathological conditions, with special emphasis to porcelain disease and crayfish plague. Freshwater crayfish [Freshwater crayfish XI : Proceedings of the International Association of Astacology eleventh symposium, Lakehead University, Thunder Bay, Ontario, Canada, 11-16 August 1996], 11:465-480.

Oidtmann B; Geiger S; Steinbauer P; Culas A; Hoffmann RW, 2006. Detection of Aphanomyces astaci in North American crayfish by polymerase chain reaction. Diseases of Aquatic Organisms, 72:53-64.

Oidtmann B; Heitz E; Rogers D; Hoffmann RW, 2002. Transmission of crayfish plague. Diseases of Aquatic Organisms, 52(2):159-167. http://www.int-res.com/abstracts/dao/v52/n2/p159-167.html

Oidtmann B; Schmid I; Rogers D; Hoffmann R, 1999. An improved isolation method for the cultivation of the crayfish plague fungus, Aphanomyces astaci. Freshwater Crayfish, 12:303-312.

Oidtmann B; Thrush M; Rogers D; Peeler E, 2005. Pathways for transmission of crayfish plague, Aphanomyces astaci, in England and Wales. In: Meeting of the Society for Veterinary Epidemiology and Preventive Medicine, Nairn, UK, 30 March-1 April 2005. http://www.svepm.org.uk/posters/2005/Identification%20of%20pathways%20of%20transmission%20of%20crayfish%20plague%20in%20England%20and%20Wales.pdf

OIE, 2009. World Animal Health Information Database - Version: 1.4. World Animal Health Information Database. Paris, France: World Organisation for Animal Health. http://www.oie.int

OIE, 2011. Manual of Diagnostic Tests for Aquatic Animals 2011. Paris, France: OIE.

OIE, 2011. World Animal Health Information Database - Version: 1.4. Paris, France: World Organisation for Animal Health. http://www.oie.int

Persson M; Söderhäll K, 1983. Pacifastacus leniusculus Dana and its resistance to the parasitic fungus Aphanomyces astaci Schikora. In: Freshwater Crayfish V, Papers from the Fifth International Symposium on Freshwater crayfish, Davis, California, USA, 1981 [ed. by Goldman, C. R.]. Westport, USA: The AVI Publishing Company, 292-298.

Pöckl M; Pekny R, 2002. Interaction between native and alien species of crayfish in Austria. Bulletin Francais de la Pêche et de la Pisciculture, 367:763-776. http://dx.doi.org/10.1051/kmae:2002064

Rahe R, 1987. [English title not available]. (Geschichte und derzeitiger Stand der Krebspest in der Türkei.) Fischer und Teichwirt, 6:174-177.

Rahe R; Soylu E, 1989. Identification of the pathogenic fungus causing destruction to Turkish crayfish stocks (Astacus leptodactylus). Journal of Invertebrate Pathology, 54(1):10-15.

Raveret-Wattel MC, 1885. [English title not available]. (Résumé des résponses au questionnaire sur la maladie des écrevisses.) Bull. Soc. Acclim, 4:614-615.

RENNERFELT E, 1936. Studies on the development and biology of the Crab fungus, Aphanomyces astaci Schikora. (Untersuchungen über die Entwicklung und Biologie des Krebspestpilzes Aphanomyces astaci, Schikora.) Medd. Undersokn. o. Forsoksanst. Sottvattensfisk, 10:21 pp.

Reynolds JD, 1988. Crayfish extinctions and crayfish plague in central Ireland. Biological Conservation, 45(4):279-285.

Roch GA, 1881. [English title not available]. (Uber das Fortschreiten der Krebsseuche.) Deutsche Fischerei-Zeitung, 1881:392-393.

Schikora F, 1903. [English title not available]. (Über die Krebspest und ihren Erreger.) Fischerei Zeitung, 6:353-355.

Schikora F, 1906. [English title not available]. (Die Krebspest.) Fischerei Zeitung, 9:529-532, 549-553, 561-566, 581-583.

Schrimpf A; Pârvulescu L; Copilas-Ciocianu D; Petrusek A; Schulz R, 2012. Crayfish plague pathogen detected in the Danube Delta - a potential threat to freshwater biodiversity in southeastern Europe. Aquatic Invasions, 7(4):503-510. http://www.aquaticinvasions.net/2012/AI_2012_4_Schrimpf_etal.pdf

Schäperclaus W, 1935. [English title not available]. (Die Ursache der pestartigen Krebsterben.) Zeitschrift für Fischerei, 33:343-366.

SCOTT WW, 1961. A monograph of the genus Aphanomyces. Technical Bulletin. Virginia Agricultural Experiment Station, 151:95 pp.

Seligo A, 1895. [English title not available]. (Bemerkungen über Krebspest, Wasserpest, Lebensverhältnisse des Krebses.) Zeitschrift Fischerei, 3:247-261.

Souty-Grosset C, 2005. Introduction: the EU-network craynet-impacts on fundamental questions. Bulletin Français de la Pêche et de la Pisciculture, 376-377:495-503.

Svensson E; Unestam T, 1975. Differential induction of zoospore encystment and germination in Aphanomyces astaci, Oomycetes. Physiologia Plantarum, 35(3):210-216.

Taugbøl T; Skurdal J; Håstein T, 1993. Crayfish plague and management strategies in Norway. Biological Conservation, 63(1):75-82.

Theocharis V, 1986. [English title not available]. (La pêche de l'écrevisse dans la région d'Hipiros en Gréce.) L'Astaciculteur de France, 8:4-10.

Tzukerzis JM, 1964. On crayfish plague. Travaux de l'Académie des Science SSR, V:77-85.

Unestam T, 1966. Studies on the crayfish plague fungus Aphanomyces astaci. II. Factors affecting zoospores and zoospore production. Physiologia Plantarum, 19:1110-1119.

Unestam T, 1969. On the adaptation of Aphanomyces astaci as a parasite. Physiologia Plantarum, 22:221-235.

Unestam T, 1969. Resistance to the crayfish plague in some American, Japanese and European crayfishes. Report of the Institute of Freshwater Research, Drottningholm. Lund, Sweden: Carl Bloms Boktr, 202-206.

Unestam T, 1972. On the host range and origin of the crayfish plague fungus. Report of the Institute of Freshwater Research, Drottningholm. Lund, Sweden: Carl Bloms Boktr, 192-198.

Unestam T, 1975. Defence reactions in and susceptibility of Australian and New Guinean freshwater crayfish to European-crayfish-plague fungus. Australian Journal of Experimental Biology and Medical Science, 53:349-359.

Unestam T; Weiss DW, 1970. The host-parasite relationship between freshwater crayfish and the crayfish disease fungus Aphanomyces astaci: responses to infection by a susceptible and a resistant species. Journal of General Microbiology, 60:77-90.

Viljamaa-Dirks S, 2006. Improved detection of crayfish plague with a modified isolation method. Freshwater Crayfish, 15:376-382.

Vivier P, 1951. [English title not available]. (La "Peste", un facteur de régulation des populations d'écrevisses (Astacus).) Mitteilungen der Internatinalen Vereinigung für Limnologie:18.

Westman K; Savolainen R, 2001. Long term study of competition between two co-occurring crayfish species, the native Astacus astacus L. and the introduced Pacifastacus leniusculus Dana, in a Finnish lake. Bulletin Francais de la Pêche et de la Pisciculture, 361:613-627. http://dx.doi.org/10.1051/kmae:2001008

Wlasow T; Bernad A; Krzywosz T; Hul M, 2004. Some notices on the incidence of crayfish plague in Poland. (Poznámky k výskytu racího moru v Polsku.) Bulletin - VÚRH Vodnany, 40(3):95-100.

Links to Websites

Top of page
WebsiteURLComment
OIE Manual of Diagnostic Tests for Aquatic Animalshttp://www.oie.intManual accessible from homepage

Organizations

Top of page

World: OIE (World Organisation for Animal Health), 12, rue de Prony, 75017 Paris, France, http://www.oie.int/

UK: CEFAS (Centre for Environment Fisheries and Aquaculture Science), Cefas Weymouth Laboratory, Barrack Road, Weymouth, Dorset DT4 8UB, Weymouth, UK, http://www.cefas.co.uk/

Contributors

Top of page

17/12/09 Original text by:

Birgit Oidtmann, Centre for Environment, Fisheries, and Aquaculture Science, Weymouth Laboratory, Barrack Road, Weymouth, Dorset, DT4 8UB, UK

Distribution Maps

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