Micropterus salmoides (largemouth bass)

Pictures

Top of page

Picture

Title

Caption

Copyright

Adult

Micropterus salmoides (largemouth bass); adult.

©Fishes of North Carolina/http://www.ncfishes.com - CC BY-NC-SA 4.0

Artwork of adult fish

Largemouth bass (Micropterus salmoides); artwork of adult fish.

Released into the Public Domain by the U S Fish & Wildlife Service/National Digital Library - Original artwork by Duane Raver Jr.

Adult

Micropterus salmoides (Largemouth bass); adult.

©Public Domain - U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service/Eric Engbretson

Identity

Top of page

Preferred Scientific Name

Micropterus salmoides (Lacepède, 1802)

Preferred Common Name

largemouth bass

Other Scientific Names

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

International Common Names

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

Local Common Names

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

Summary of Invasiveness

Top of page

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

Taxonomic Tree

Top of page

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

Notes on Taxonomy and Nomenclature

Top of page

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

Description

Top of page

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

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

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

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

Distribution

Top of page

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

Distribution Table

Top of page

The distribution in this summary table is based on all the information available. When several references are cited, they may give conflicting information on the status. Further details may be available for individual references in the Distribution Table Details section which can be selected by going to Generate Report.

Last updated: 10 Jan 2020

Continent/Country/Region	Distribution	Origin	First Reported	Invasive	Reference	Notes
Africa
Algeria	Present	Introduced	1970		Welcomme (1988); Froese and Pauly (2004)
Botswana	Present	Introduced	1937		Welcomme (1988); Froese and Pauly (2004)
Cameroon	Absent, Formerly present		1956		Welcomme (1988)	Introduced for aquaculture but introduction into wild unsuccessful.
Congo, Republic of the	Absent, Formerly present		1955		CABI (Undated)	Introduction was unsuccessful. Introduced to control the proliferation of Tilapia spp. in ponds. The species had not acclimatized and was abandoned, thus favouring Clarias spp; Original citation: FAO (Food Agriculture Organization of the United Nations) (1997)
Eswatini	Present	Introduced			Froese and Pauly (2004)
Kenya	Present	Introduced			Muchiri et al. (1995); Froese and Pauly (2004); CABI (Undated)	Established in Lake Naivasha.
Lesotho	Present	Introduced	1937		Welcomme (1988); Froese and Pauly (2004)
Madagascar	Present	Introduced	1951		Stiassny and Gertsner (1992); Welcomme (1988); Froese and Pauly (2004)	Successful at high altitudes. Its introduction, coupled with habitat degradtion, have been implicated in the severely restricted distrubution and displacement of the endemic Paratilapia polleni.
Malawi	Present	Introduced			Froese and Pauly (2004)
Mauritius	Present, Localized	Introduced	1949		CABI (Undated); Froese and Pauly (2004)	Present in small numbers. Not used for fisheries; Original citation: FAO (Food Agriculture Organization of the United Nations) (1997)
Morocco	Present	Introduced	1934	Naturalized	Lever (1996); Welcomme (1988); Froese and Pauly (2004)	After early success, the species diminished and is now maintained by stocking in some areas. Naturalized in suitable waters from Lac Nfiss near Marrakech to the Arbaoua larache region in the Rif Mountains in the north, at altitudes ranging from sea level to 1700m.
Namibia	Present, Widespread	Introduced			Okeyo (2003); Hay et al. (1999); Froese and Pauly (2004); CABI (Undated)	Widely distributed within central Namibian impoundments and farm dams (Omatako Omuramba, Von Bach dam) and river drainages of Omatako and Swakopmund. May also be used as an ornamental fish.
Nigeria	Present	Introduced	1976		Welcomme (1988)
Réunion	Present	Introduced	1994		Bartley (2006)	Introduced for aquaculture, but rarely used.
South Africa	Present, Widespread	Introduced	1928	Invasive	Welcomme (1988); Froese and Pauly (2004)	Widespread in still, clear rivers. Has preyed heavily on native species and has been implicated in the decline of several rare and indigenous species.
Tanzania	Absent, Unconfirmed presence record(s)				Eccles (1992); Froese and Pauly (2004)	Introduced into some highland dams.
Tunisia	Present	Introduced	1966		CABI (Undated); Froese and Pauly (2004)	Highly appreciated for food and sport; Original citation: FAO (Food Agriculture Organization of the United Nations) (1997)
Zambia	Present	Introduced		Invasive	Losse (1998); Froese and Pauly (2004)	Introduced into Lake Kariba. Introduction of the species is of considerable concern and future abundance and apparent effects should be closely monitored.
Zimbabwe	Present	Introduced	1932		Welcomme (1988); Froese and Pauly (2004)
Asia
China	Present	Introduced	1983		Welcomme (1988); Ma et al. (2003); Froese and Pauly (2004)
Hong Kong	Present, Localized	Introduced	1900		Man and Hodgkiss (1981); Froese and Pauly (2004)	Present in several inland reservoirs.
Iran	Absent, Unconfirmed presence record(s)				Coad (1996); Froese and Pauly (2004)	Introduced to the Tigris-Euphrates basin in the Ardakan-Yasuj area, Namak Lake basin.
Japan	Present	Introduced	1925		Chiba et al. (1989); Froese and Pauly (2004)	90 fish introduced into Lake Ahsinoko. Intial transplants into other lakes unsuccessful. Illegally introduced to lakes by anglers. Considered to be one of the most damaging alien species in Japan.
Malaysia	Present, Localized	Introduced	1984		Ang and Gopinath (1989); Froese and Pauly (2004)	About 1000 fry imported from Florida and raised in the Boh hatchery to fingerling size before being released in lakes previously used for trout. Fish are presumed to be restricted to the original lakes.
Philippines	Present	Introduced			Froese and Pauly (2004)
South Korea	Present	Introduced	1963		Jang et al. (2002); Froese and Pauly (2004); Bartley (2006)	Han, Nakdong and Kum Rivers.
Taiwan	Absent, Invalid presence record(s)				Froese and Pauly (2018); Welcomme (1988); Liao and Lia (1989); Froese and Pauly (2004)
Europe
Austria	Present, Localized	Introduced	1911		CABI (Undated); Froese and Pauly (2004)	Lake Worthersee accidentally stocked when a dam of a nearby pond broke. Besides another smaller lake (Forstsee/Carinthia) there is no water body known to be inhabited by this species, shortly after its introduction, population density decreased; Original citation: FAO (Food Agriculture Organization of the United Nations) (1997)
Belarus	Present	Introduced			Froese and Pauly (2004)
Belgium	Present, Few occurrences	Introduced	1877		CABI (Undated); Froese and Pauly (2004)	The species appears to have survived in small numbers in the Meuse; Original citation: FAO (Food Agriculture Organization of the United Nations) (1997)
Cyprus	Present, Localized	Introduced	1971		Welcomme (1988); Froese and Pauly (2004)	Established in two dams, where it is popular for angling.
Czechia	Present, Few occurrences	Introduced			Welcomme (1988); Froese and Pauly (2004)	Natural populations occur in the Danube, although it is rare.
Czechoslovakia	Present, Few occurrences	Introduced			Welcomme (1988)	Natural populations occur in the Danube, although it is rare.
Denmark	Absent, Formerly present		1900		Welcomme (1988)	Introduced from North America just before 1900. Reintroduced from 1906 to 1907. No known surviving populations.
Finland	Present	Introduced	1883		CABI (Undated)	Original citation: FAO (Food Agriculture Organization of the United Nations) (1997)
France	Present, Localized	Introduced	1877	Invasive	Welcomme (1988); Keith and Allardi (1998); Froese and Pauly (2004)
Germany	Present, Localized	Introduced	1888		Welcomme (1988)	Re-introduced in 1930. Established in one lake only.
Hungary	Present, Localized	Introduced	1905		CABI (Undated); Froese and Pauly (2004)	Reintroduced in 1910 and in the 1950s. May have also been introduced through natural dispersal from neighbouring countries. Very few localized self-sustaining population in cooling ponds of power stations. Presumably also in Danube; Original citation: FAO (Food Agriculture Organization of the United Nations) (1997)
Italy	Present, Widespread	Introduced	1897	Invasive	Bianco and Ketmaier (2001); Froese and Pauly (2004)	Has caused decline in native Alburnus alborella, Esox lucius and Perca fluviatilis as well as introduced Lepomis spp. Established all over the country.
Latvia	Present	Introduced			Froese and Pauly (2004)
Lithuania	Present	Introduced			Froese and Pauly (2004)
Netherlands	Present	Introduced	1900		Welcomme (1988); Froese and Pauly (2004)
Poland	Present, Only in captivity/cultivation	Introduced	1899	Invasive	Welcomme (1988); Holcík (1991); Froese and Pauly (2004)
Portugal	Present	Introduced	1969	Invasive	CABI (Undated); Froese and Pauly (2004)	Likely displaced some cyprinid spp; Original citation: FAO (Food Agriculture Organization of the United Nations) (1997)
Russia	Present, Few occurrences	Introduced			Welcomme (1988); Bogutskaya and Naseka (2002); Froese and Pauly (2004)	Introduced for fisheries; records of introductions into natural waters near Moscow.
Serbia and Montenegro	Present	Introduced	1920		Welcomme (1988); Froese and Pauly (2004)	Popular as a sportfish for restricted aquaculture.
Slovakia	Present	Introduced			Welcomme (1988); Froese and Pauly (2004)
Spain	Present, Widespread	Introduced	1956		San Feliu (1973); Welcomme (1988); Froese and Pauly (2004)	Widely distributed, abundant in one coastal lagoon.
Sweden	Present	Introduced			Froese and Pauly (2004)
Switzerland	Present	Introduced			Wittenberg (2005); Froese and Pauly (2004); CABI (Undated)	The introduction of the species has been banned since 1994.
Ukraine	Present	Introduced			Froese and Pauly (2004)
United Kingdom	Absent, Eradicated		1879		Welcomme (1988); Froese and Pauly (2004)	Reintroduced from 1929 to the 1930s. Local anglers in Dorset reported sightings in last 2-3 years. These fish were caught and killed by a rogue, disgruntled angler, so the species is now presumed extirpated. Initial reproduction was followed by a period of no recruitment.
North America
Canada	Present	Native			Froese and Pauly (2004)
-British Columbia	Present, Localized	Introduced		Invasive	Crossman (1991); Scott and Crossman (1973); Froese and Pauly (2004)	Introduced via natural dispersal from the Columbia River, Idaho, USA
-Manitoba	Present, Localized	Native			Scott and Crossman (1973)	Southeastern Manitoba
-Ontario	Present, Widespread	Native			Scott and Crossman (1973)	Southern and Northwestern Ontario
-Quebec	Present, Localized	Native			Scott and Crossman (1973); Froese and Pauly (2004)	Southern Quebec
-Saskatchewan	Present	Introduced	1950		Scott and Crossman (1973)
Costa Rica	Present, Only in captivity/cultivation	Introduced			Bussing (1998)	Introduced to private ponds for aquaculture but had little dissemination. Has not established in natural waters.
Cuba	Present	Introduced	1928	Invasive	Lee et al. (1983); Welcomme (1988); Froese and Pauly (2004)	Preys on young of endemic Atractosteus tristoeschus
Dominican Republic	Present, Few occurrences	Introduced	1955		Lever (1996); Welcomme (1988); Froese and Pauly (2004)	Reportedly used for aquaculture
El Salvador	Present, Localized	Introduced	1957		Welcomme (1988); Froese and Pauly (2004)	Present in two small lakes, but is disappearing
Guatemala	Present, Localized	Introduced	1958	Invasive	Welcomme (1988); Froese and Pauly (2004); Wittenberg (2005)	Destroyed local fish species. Present in Lakes Atitlan and Calderas. This species was one factor that led to the extinction of the Atitlan grebe (Podilymbus gigas), an endemic shorebird species.
Honduras	Present	Introduced			Froese and Pauly (2004)
Mexico	Present	Introduced	1930	Invasive	Pérez-Ponce de León et al. (2000); Froese and Pauly (2004); CABI (Undated)	Due to its carnivorous feeding, populations of native species have decreased. Two host-specific parasites: an ancyrocephalid monogean and the trematode Crepidostomum cornutum were introduced into Lake Patzcuaro with the arrival of the species.
Panama	Present	Introduced	1955		Welcomme (1988); Froese and Pauly (2004)
Puerto Rico	Present	Introduced			Welcomme (1988); Erdman (1984); Froese and Pauly (2004)	Widely distributed. Highly appreciated by anglers.
U.S. Virgin Islands	Present				Ogden et al. (1975); Froese and Pauly (2004)	Introduced to freshwater ponds and grows to at least 15 lbs; feeds on fishes and aquatic insects.
United States	Present				CABI (Undated a)	Present based on regional distribution.
-Alabama	Present				Fuller et al. (1999)
-Arizona	Present	Introduced		Invasive	Fuller et al. (1999)
-Arkansas	Present				Fuller et al. (1999)
-California	Present	Introduced		Invasive	Fuller et al. (1999)
-Colorado	Present	Introduced			Fuller et al. (1999)
-Connecticut	Present	Introduced			Fuller et al. (1999)
-Delaware	Present	Introduced			Fuller et al. (1999)
-Florida	Present, Widespread	Native			Fuller et al. (1999)
-Georgia	Present				Fuller et al. (1999)
-Hawaii	Present, Widespread	Introduced	1897		Fuller et al. (1999); Maciolek (1984); Froese and Pauly (2004)	181 individuals were imported and released. Widespread and successful in reservoirs of Hawaii, Kauai and Oahu. Some spontaneous intergeneric hybrids between this species and Lepomis macrochirus have appeared in at least two reservoirs on Kauai island.
-Idaho	Present	Introduced			Fuller et al. (1999)
-Illinois	Present				Fuller et al. (1999)
-Indiana	Present	Native			Fuller et al. (1999)
-Iowa	Present				Fuller et al. (1999)
-Kansas	Present				Fuller et al. (1999)
-Kentucky	Present				Fuller et al. (1999)
-Louisiana	Present, Widespread	Native			Fuller et al. (1999)
-Maine	Present	Introduced			Fuller et al. (1999)
-Maryland	Present	Introduced			Fuller et al. (1999)
-Massachusetts	Present	Introduced			Fuller et al. (1999)
-Michigan	Present				Fuller et al. (1999)
-Minnesota	Present				Fuller et al. (1999)
-Mississippi	Present				Fuller et al. (1999)
-Missouri	Present				Fuller et al. (1999)
-Montana	Present	Introduced			Fuller et al. (1999)
-Nebraska	Present				Fuller et al. (1999)
-Nevada	Present	Introduced		Invasive	Fuller et al. (1999)
-New Hampshire	Present	Introduced			Fuller et al. (1999)
-New Jersey	Present	Introduced			Fuller et al. (1999)
-New Mexico	Present	Introduced			Fuller et al. (1999)
-New York	Present				Fuller et al. (1999)
-North Carolina	Present				Fuller et al. (1999)
-North Dakota	Present	Introduced			Fuller et al. (1999)
-Ohio	Present				Fuller et al. (1999)
-Oklahoma	Present				Fuller et al. (1999)
-Oregon	Present, Localized	Introduced			Fuller et al. (1999)
-Pennsylvania	Present				Fuller et al. (1999)
-Rhode Island	Present	Introduced			Fuller et al. (1999)
-South Carolina	Present	Native			Fuller et al. (1999)
-South Dakota	Present				Fuller et al. (1999)
-Tennessee	Present	Native			Fuller et al. (1999)
-Texas	Present				Fuller et al. (1999)
-Utah	Present, Localized	Introduced			Fuller et al. (1999)
-Vermont	Present	Introduced			Fuller et al. (1999)
-Virginia	Present			Invasive	Fuller et al. (1999)
-Washington	Present	Introduced			Fuller et al. (1999)
-West Virginia	Present				Fuller et al. (1999)
-Wisconsin	Present				Fuller et al. (1999)
-Wyoming	Present	Introduced			Fuller et al. (1999)
Oceania
Fiji	Present, Localized	Introduced	1962	Invasive	Lewis and Pring (1986); Welcomme (1988); Froese and Pauly (2004)	Stocked in the Vaturu reservoir, where it is expected to become established (Andrews 1985). The recent (1983) introduction to Vaturu Dam has been very successful and survivors have spawned at least once. This introduction has developed a simple two-species predator/prey system involving largemouth bass and O. mossambicus.
Guam	Present	Introduced	1966		Welcomme (1988); Maciolek (1984); Froese and Pauly (2004)
New Caledonia	Present	Introduced			Welcomme (1988); Froese and Pauly (2004)
South America
Argentina	Present	Introduced	1959		Lever (1996); Froese and Pauly (2004)	Introduced for aquaculture, with continual re-stocking thereafter.
Bolivia	Present	Introduced			Welcomme (1988); Froese and Pauly (2004)	Used for sportfishing in small lakes and dams.
Brazil	Present	Introduced			Scott and Crossman (1973)	Not established
Colombia	Present	Introduced			Welcomme (1988); Froese and Pauly (2004)	Established in central highlands watersheds.

History of Introduction and Spread

Top of page

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

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

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

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

Introductions

Top of page

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

Risk of Introduction

Top of page

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

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

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

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

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

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

Habitat

Top of page

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

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

Habitat List

Top of page

Category	Habitat	Presence	Status
Freshwater

	Irrigation channels	Secondary/tolerated habitat	Productive/non-natural
	Lakes	Principal habitat	Productive/non-natural
	Reservoirs	Principal habitat	Productive/non-natural
	Rivers / streams	Principal habitat	Natural
	Ponds	Principal habitat	Productive/non-natural
Brackish
Brackish	Estuaries	Secondary/tolerated habitat	Natural

Host Animals

Top of page

Animal name	Context	Life stage	System
Sciaenops ocellatus (red drum)		Aquatic: Broodstock\|Aquatic/Fry

Biology and Ecology

Top of page

Genetics

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

Reproductive Biology

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

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

Physiology and Phenology

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

Nutrition

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

Water Tolerances

Top of page

Parameter	Minimum Value	Maximum Value	Typical Value	Status	Notes
Depth (m b.s.l.)			<7	Optimum
Dissolved oxygen (mg/l)			>1.5	Optimum	As low as 1.5 tolerated
Salinity (part per thousand)			0	Optimum
Velocity (cm/h)				Optimum	Low (<0.1 m/s) preferred
Water temperature (ºC temperature)	26.6	27.7		Optimum	Upper lethal: 28.9-36.4, depending on locality and acclimation period and temperature

Natural enemies

Top of page

Natural enemy	Type	Specificity	References
Ardeidae	Predator	not specific	Scott and Crossman, 1973
Ceryle	Predator	not specific	Scott and Crossman, 1973
Esox lucius	Predator	not specific	Scott and Crossman, 1973
Esox masquinongy	Predator	not specific	Scott and Crossman, 1973
Perca flavescens	Predator	not specific	Scott and Crossman, 1973
Sander vitreus	Predator	not specific	Scott and Crossman, 1973

Notes on Natural Enemies

Top of page

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

Means of Movement and Dispersal

Top of page

Natural Dispersal

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

Vector Transmission

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

Intentional Introduction

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

Pathway Causes

Top of page

Cause	Notes	Long Distance	Local
Aquaculture		Yes
Fisheries		Yes
Hunting, angling, sport or racing		Yes
Intentional release		Yes
Interbasin transfers		Yes
Interconnected waterways		Yes
Live food or feed trade	Known within native range in Canada (N Mandrak, DFO, Canada, personal communication, 2009)		Yes

Pathway Vectors

Top of page

Vector	Notes	Long Distance	Local	References
Aircraft		Yes
Aquaculture stock		Yes
Bait	Known within native range in Canada (N Mandrak, DFO, Canada, personal communication, 2009)		Yes	Litvak and Mandrak, 1993
Land vehicles			Yes
Water			Yes	Crossman, 1991

Impact Summary

Top of page

Category	Impact
Cultural/amenity	Negative
Economic/livelihood	Positive and negative
Environment (generally)	Negative
Human health	None

Economic Impact

Top of page

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

Environmental Impact

Top of page

Impact on Habitats

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

Impact on Biodiversity

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

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

Threatened Species

Top of page

Threatened Species	Conservation Status	Where Threatened	Mechanism	References
Crenichthys baileyi (White River killfish)	VU (IUCN red list: Vulnerable)	Nevada	Competition - monopolizing resources; Predation	Fuller et al., 1999
Cyprinodon	National list(s)	Arizona	Competition - monopolizing resources; Predation	Fuller et al., 1999
Cyprinodon radiosus	EN (IUCN red list: Endangered)	Madagascar	Competition - monopolizing resources; Predation	Stiassny et al., 1992
Gila intermedia (Gila chub)	EN (IUCN red list: Endangered); USA ESA listing as endangered species	Arizona; New Mexico	Competition - monopolizing resources; Predation	Fuller et al., 1999
Gila robusta jordani	National list(s)	Nevada	Competition - monopolizing resources; Predation	Fuller et al., 1999
Lepidomeda albivallis	National list(s)	Nevada	Competition - monopolizing resources; Predation	Fuller et al., 1999
Podilymbus gigas	CR (IUCN red list: Critically endangered)	Guatemala	Competition - monopolizing resources; Predation	Fuller et al., 1999
Relictus solitarius	EN (IUCN red list: Endangered)	Nevada	Competition - monopolizing resources; Predation	Fuller et al., 1999
Rhinichthys osculus oligoporus	National list(s); USA ESA listing as endangered species	Nevada	Competition - monopolizing resources; Predation	Fuller et al., 1999
Ambystoma californiense (California tiger salamander)	VU (IUCN red list: Vulnerable); USA ESA listing as endangered species	California	Predation	US Fish and Wildlife Service, 2009a
Catostomus santaanae (Santa Ana sucker)	EN (IUCN red list: Endangered); USA ESA listing as threatened species	California	Predation	US Fish and Wildlife Service, 2011b
Catostomus warnerensis (Warner sucker)	EN (IUCN red list: Endangered); USA ESA listing as threatened species	California; Nevada; Oregon	Predation	US Fish and Wildlife Service, 2010b
Catostomus warnerensis (Warner sucker)	EN (IUCN red list: Endangered); USA ESA listing as threatened species	California; Nevada; Oregon	Predation	US Fish and Wildlife Service, 2010b
Cyprinella formosa (beautiful shiner)	VU (IUCN red list: Vulnerable); USA ESA listing as threatened species	Arizona; New Mexico	Predation	US Fish and Wildlife Service, 1984
Gila ditaenia (Sonora chub)	VU (IUCN red list: Vulnerable); USA ESA listing as threatened species	Arizona	Predation	US Fish and Wildlife Service, 1992
Gila nigra (headwater chub)	NT (IUCN red list: Near threatened)	Arizona; New Mexico	Predation	US Fish and Wildlife Service, 2013a
Gila robusta (roundtail chub)	NT (IUCN red list: Near threatened)	Arizona; California; Nevada	Predation	US Fish and Wildlife Service, 2013b
Hyla wrightorum (Arizona treefrog)	LC (IUCN red list: Least concern)	Arizona	Predation	US Fish and Wildlife Service, 2013c
Iotichthys phlegethontis (least chub)	EN (IUCN red list: Endangered)	Utah	Predation	US Fish and Wildlife Service, 2013d
Lepidomeda vittata (Little Colorado spinedace)	EN (IUCN red list: Endangered); USA ESA listing as threatened species	Arizona	Predation	US Fish and Wildlife Service, 2008b
Noturus placidus (Neosho madtom)	NT (IUCN red list: Near threatened); USA ESA listing as threatened species	New Mexico	Competition - monopolizing resources	US Fish and Wildlife Service, 2010a
Oregonichthys crameri (Oregon chub)	LC (IUCN red list: Least concern)	Oregon	Competition - monopolizing resources; Predation	US Fish and Wildlife Service, 1998b
Pacifastacus fortis (Shasta crayfish)	CR (IUCN red list: Critically endangered); USA ESA listing as endangered species	California	Predation	US Fish and Wildlife Service, 2009b
Plagopterus argentissimus (woundfin)	EN (IUCN red list: Endangered); USA ESA listing as endangered species	Arizona; Nevada; New Mexico; Utah	Predation	US Fish and Wildlife Service, 2008c
Poeciliopsis occidentalis (Gila topminnow)	VU (IUCN red list: Vulnerable); USA ESA listing as endangered species	Arizona; New Mexico	Competition - monopolizing resources; Predation	US Fish and Wildlife Service, 1998a
Ptychocheilus lucius (Colorado pikeminnow)	No Details	Colorado	Predation	US Fish and Wildlife Service, 2011a
Rana pretiosa (Oregon spotted frog)	VU (IUCN red list: Vulnerable); USA ESA listing as threatened species	California; Oregon; Washington	Predation	US Fish and Wildlife Service, 1998d
Rhinichthys osculus lethoporus (Independence Valley speckled dace)	USA ESA listing as endangered species	Nevada	Competition (unspecified); Ecosystem change / habitat alteration	US Fish and Wildlife Service, 2008a
Rhinichthys osculus oligoporus	National list(s); USA ESA listing as endangered species	Nevada	Competition (unspecified); Ecosystem change / habitat alteration	US Fish and Wildlife Service, 1998c
Xyrauchen texanus (razorback sucker)	CR (IUCN red list: Critically endangered); USA ESA listing as endangered species	USA	Predation	US Fish and Wildlife Service, 2002

Social Impact

Top of page

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

Risk and Impact Factors

Top of page Invasiveness

Invasive in its native range
Proved invasive outside its native range
Has a broad native range
Abundant in its native range
Highly adaptable to different environments
Is a habitat generalist
Tolerates, or benefits from, cultivation, browsing pressure, mutilation, fire etc
Pioneering in disturbed areas
Capable of securing and ingesting a wide range of food
Highly mobile locally
Fast growing
Has high reproductive potential
Has high genetic variability

Impact outcomes

Altered trophic level
Changed gene pool/ selective loss of genotypes
Damaged ecosystem services
Ecosystem change/ habitat alteration
Modification of natural benthic communities
Negatively impacts aquaculture/fisheries
Reduced native biodiversity
Threat to/ loss of endangered species
Threat to/ loss of native species

Impact mechanisms

Competition - monopolizing resources
Competition (unspecified)
Interaction with other invasive species
Predation

Likelihood of entry/control

Highly likely to be transported internationally deliberately
Highly likely to be transported internationally illegally
Difficult/costly to control

Uses

Top of page

Economic Value

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

Social Benefit

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

Uses List

Top of page

Animal feed, fodder, forage

Fishmeal

General

Botanical garden/zoo
Laboratory use
Pet/aquarium trade
Research model
Sport (hunting, shooting, fishing, racing)

Human food and beverage

Meat/fat/offal/blood/bone (whole, cut, fresh, frozen, canned, cured, processed or smoked)

Detection and Inspection

Top of page

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

Similarities to Other Species/Conditions

Top of page

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

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

Prevention and Control

Top of page

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.

Prevention

Eradication

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

Control

Physical/Mechanical Control

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

Movement Control

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

Biological Control

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

Monitoring and surveillance

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

References

Top of page

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Distribution References

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

Bartley D M, 2006. Introduced species in fisheries and aquaculture: information for responsible use and control. In: Introduced species in fisheries and aquaculture: information for responsible use and control, Rome, Italy: FAO.

Bianco P G, Ketmaier V, 2001. Anthropogenic changes in the freshwater fish fauna of Italy, with reference to the central region and Barbus graellsii, a newly established alien species of Iberian origin. Journal of Fish Biology. 59 (Supplement A), 190-208. DOI:10.1111/j.1095-8649.2001.tb01386.x

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

Bussing W A, 1998. Peces de las aguas continentales de Costa Rica. San José, Costa Rica: Editorial de la Universidad de Costa Rica.

CABI, Undated. Compendium record. Wallingford, UK: CABI

CABI, Undated a. CABI Compendium: Status inferred from regional distribution. Wallingford, UK: CABI

CABI, Undated b. CABI Compendium: Status as determined by CABI editor. Wallingford, UK: CABI

Chiba K, Taki Y, Sakai K, Oozeki Y, 1989. Present status of aquatic organisms introduced into Japan. In: Exotic aquatic organisms in Asia. Proceedings of the Workshop on Introduction of Exotic Aquatic Organisms in Asia. [Exotic aquatic organisms in Asia. Proceedings of the Workshop on Introduction of Exotic Aquatic Organisms in Asia.], [ed. by Silva S S De].

Coad B W, 1996. Exotic fish species in the Tigris-Euphrates basin. Zoology in the Middle East. 71-83.

Crossman E J, 1991. Introduced freshwater fishes: A review of the North American perspective with emphasis on Canada. Can. J. Fish. Aquat. Sci. 48 (Suppl. 1), 46-57.

Eccles D H, 1992. Field guide to freshwater fishes of Tanzania. Rome, Italy: FAO United Nations Development Programme.

Erdman D S, 1984. Exotic fishes in Puerto Rico. In: Distribution, biology and management of exotic fishes. [ed. by Courtney W R, Stauffer J R]. Baltimore, USA: 162-176.

Froese R, Pauly D, 2004. FishBase. http://www.fishbase.org

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

Fuller P L, Nico L G, Williams J D, 1999. Nonindigenous fishes introduced into inland waters of the United States. Nonindigenous fishes introduced into inland waters of the United States.

Hay C J, Zyl B van, Bank F van der, Ferreira J, Steyn G, 1999. The distribution of freshwater fish in Namibia. Cimbebasia. 41-63.

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

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

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

Lee D S, Platania S P, Burgess G H, 1983. Atlas of North American freshwater fishes, 1983 supplement. In: Occasional Papers of the North Carolina Biological Survey number 1983-6, Raleigh, North Carolina, USA: North Carolina State Museum of Natural History.

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

Lewis A D, Pring C K, 1986. Freshwater and brackish water fish and fisheries of Fiji. In: Reports and papers presented at the Indo-Pacific Fishery Comission Expert Consultation on inland fisheries of the larger Indo-Pacific islands [Reports and papers presented at the Indo-Pacific Fishery Comission Expert Consultation on inland fisheries of the larger Indo-Pacific islands], [ed. by Petr T]. Bankok, Thailand: Indo-Pacific Fishery Comission. 38-59.

Liao I C, Lia H C, 1989. Exotic aquatic species in Taiwan. In: Exotic aquatic organisms in Asia. Proceedings of the Workshop on Introduction of Exotic Aquatic Organisms in Asia. [Exotic aquatic organisms in Asia. Proceedings of the Workshop on Introduction of Exotic Aquatic Organisms in Asia.], [ed. by Silva S S De]. Manila, Philippines:

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

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

Maciolek J A, 1984. Exotic fishes in Hawaii and other island of Oceania. In: Distribution, biology and management of exotic fishes. [ed. by Courtenay W R, Stauffer J R]. Baltimore, USA: 131-161.

Man S H, Hodgkiss I J, 1981. Hong Kong freshwater fishes. Hong Kong, Wishing Printing Company.

Muchiri S, Hart P J B, Harper D M, 1995. The persistence of introduced tilapia species in Lake Naivasha, Kenya, in the face of environmental variability and fishing pressure. In: The impact of species changes in African Lakes. [ed. by Pitcher T J, Hart P J B]. London, UK: 299-319.

Ogden J C, Yntema J A, Clavijo I, 1975. An annotated list of the fishes of St. Croix, U. S. Virgin Islands. In: An annotated list of the fishes of St. Croix, U. S. Virgin Islands. St Croix, United States Virgin Islands:

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

Pérez-Ponce de León G, García-Prieto L, León-Règagnon V, Choudhury A, 2000. Helminth communities of native and introduced fishes in Lake Pátzcuaro, Michoacán, México. Journal of Fish Biology. 57 (2), 303-325. DOI:10.1006/jfbi.2000.1325

San Feliu J M, 1973. Present state of aquaculture in the Mediterranean and south Atlantic coast of Spain. In: General Fisheries Commission for the Mediterranean Study Review, 52 1-24.

Scott W B, Crossman E J, 1973. Fisheries Research Board of Canada, Bulletin, Ottawa, Canada: Fisheries Research Board of Canada. 966 pp.

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

Welcomme R L, 1988. FAO Fisheries Technical Paper, Rome, Italy: FAO. 318 pp.

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

Links to Websites

Top of page

Website	URL	Comment
GISD/IASPMR: Invasive Alien Species Pathway Management Resource and DAISIE European Invasive Alien Species Gateway	https://doi.org/10.5061/dryad.m93f6	Data source for updated system data added to species habitat list.
Global register of Introduced and Invasive species (GRIIS)	http://griis.org/	Data source for updated system data added to species habitat list.
SARA Registry (Canada)	www.sararegistry.com

Organizations

Top of page

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

Contributors

Top of page

16/06/09 Original text by:

Andrew Drake, University of Toronto, Canada

Distribution Maps

Top of page

You can pan and zoom the map

Save map

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/

Datasheet

Micropterus salmoides (largemouth bass)

Toolbox