Download Lepomis cyanellus (Rafinesque, 1819)

EU NON-NATIVE SPECIES RISK ANALYSIS – RISK ASSESSMENT TEMPLATE V1.0
EU NON-NATIVE ORGANISM RISK ASSESSMENT SCHEME
Name of genus: Lepomis (Rafinesque, 1819) - Sunfishes
Lepomis auritus (Linnaeus, 1758) – Redbreast Sunfish
Lepomis cyanellus Rafinesque, 1819 –Green Sunfish
Lepomis gibbosus (Linnaeus, 1758) – kiver, Pumpkinseed
Lepomis gulosus (Cuvier in Cuvier and Valenciennes, 1829) –Warmouth
Lepomis humilis (Girard, 1858) – Orangespotted Sunfish
Lepomis macrochirus Rafinesque, 1819 –Bluegill
Lepomis marginatus (Holbrook, 1855) – Dollar Sunfish
Lepomis megalotis (Rafinesque, 1820) –Longear Sunfish
Lepomis microlophus (Günther, 1859) –Redear Sunfish
Lepomis miniatus (Jordan, 1877) – scarlet sunfish, Redspotted Sunfish
Lepomis peltastes Cope, 1870 – Northern Sunfish
Lepomis punctatus (Valenciennes in Cuvier and Valenciennes, 1831) – Spotted Sunfish
Lepomis symmetricus Forbes in Jordan and Gilbert, 1883 – Bantam Sunfish
Author: Deputy Direction of Nature (Ministry of Agriculture, Fish, Food and Environment of Spain)
Risk Assessment Area: Europe
Draft: December 2016
Peer reviewed by:
Dr. Carlos Fernández-Delgado
Grupo de Investigación "Aphanius"
Departamento de Zoología. Córdoba University.
correo-e: [email protected]
http://www.uco.es/aphanius
Laura Capdevila Argüelles
Coordinator of GEIB - Grupo Especialista en Invasiones Biológicas.
correo-e: [email protected]
http://geib.blogspot.com
1
EU NON-NATIVE SPECIES RISK ANALYSIS – RISK ASSESSMENT TEMPLATE V1.0
Date of finalisation: 31/01/2017
2
EU NON-NATIVE SPECIES RISK ANALYSIS – RISK ASSESSMENT TEMPLATE V1.0
EU CHAPPEAU
QUESTION
1. In how many EU member states has this species been recorded? List
them.
RESPONSE
Lepomis auritus (Linnaeus, 1758)
Germany (Holčik, 1991; Elvira, 2001), Italy (Welcomme, 1988, Elvira, 2001;
Bianco, 2013), Czech Republic (DAISIE, 2016)
Lepomis cyanellus (Rafinesque, 1819)
Germany (Elvira, 2001; NOBANIS, 2016).
Lepomis gibbosus (Linnaeus, 1758)
Austria, Belgium, Bulgaria, Croatia, Czech Republic, Denmark, Estonia, France,
Germany, Hungary, Italy, Latvia, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Netherlands, Poland,
Portugal, Romania, Slovakia, Slovenia, Spain, United Kingdom (Elvira, 2001;
CABI, 2011; Froese and Pauly, 2009; NOBANIS, 2016); Cyprus (Zogaris et al,
2012) and Greece (Zenetos et al, 2009).
Lepomis megalotis (Rafinesque, 1820)
Germany (Geiter, 2002)
2. In how many EU member states has this species currently
established populations? List them.
There is no information about the introduction of the other species of Lepomis in EU
countries.
Lepomis auritus
Germany, Italy (Elvira, 2001)
Lepomis cyanellus
Germany (Elvira, 2001)
Lepomis gibbosus is now established in at least 28 countries of Europe and Asia minor
(Copp and Fox, 2007). Only in Europe it is established in 23, possibly 24 countries.
3
EU NON-NATIVE SPECIES RISK ANALYSIS – RISK ASSESSMENT TEMPLATE V1.0
These are: Austria, Belgium, Bulgaria, Croatia, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Denmark,
France, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Italy, Latvia, Luxembourg, Netherlands, Poland,
Portugal, Romania, Slovakia, Slovenia, Spain and UK (CABI, 2011, NOBANIS,
2011), Lithuania and possibly Estonia (Elvira, 2001).
It seems that other species of Lepomis are not established in Europe, but most of them
demonstrated their invasive character in other parts of the world where introduced
(see question 8, Section A).
3. In how many EU member states has this species shown signs of
invasiveness? List them.
Lepomis gibbosus is considered a pest anywhere has been introduced. This species is
invasive in Netherlands, Portugal, Romania, Spain and UK (CABI, 2011), Austria,
Belgium, Denmark, Germany (NOBANIS, 2016), but formed established populations
in almost all countries in Europe (Cucherousset et al., 2009).
Lepomis auritus has supplanted the native bleak Alburnus alburnus in some Italian
oligotrophic lakes (Elvira, 2001).
L. auritus, L. cyanellus and L. megalotis, are already present or established in
Germany; its characteristics of a successful invader increase the possibility of
becoming invasive in any country with similar or warmer climate.
There is no evidence of invasiveness of other Lepomis spp in Europe at the moment.
4. In which EU Biogeographic areas could this species establish?
Lepomis gibbosus can tolerate a wide range of climatic conditions. It is present in all
biogeographic areas: Continental area, Mediterranean area, Atlantic area, Black Sea
area, Pannonian area, Alpine area, Macaronesian area, Boreal area and Steppic Area.
5. In how many EU Member States could this species establish in the
future [given current climate] (including those where it is already
established)? List them.
L. gibbosus established in all biogeographic areas in Europe, so other Lepomis species
are likely to establish in any European countries, giving their similar characteristics
and flexibility in their habitat preferences (Soes et al., 2011).
These countries, including those where at least L. gibbosus is already established, are:
Austria, Belgium, Bulgaria, Croatia, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Denmark, France,
Germany, Greece, Hungary, Italy, Latvia, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Netherlands,
Poland, Portugal, Romania, Slovakia, Slovenia, Spain and UK. In the future, L.
4
EU NON-NATIVE SPECIES RISK ANALYSIS – RISK ASSESSMENT TEMPLATE V1.0
gibbosus could still establish in Estonia (if not already), Malta and Ireland. Finland
and Sweden present a lower risk because of colder climate.
In a study realized in Netherlands, Soes et al (2011) indicate a medium or high risk of
establishment for six Lepomis species for countries with similar or warmer climate as
Netherlands. These countries are: Austria, Belgium, Bulgaria, Croatia, Cyprus, Czech
Republic, Denmark, France, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Italy, Luxembourg, Malta,
Netherlands, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Slovakia, Slovenia, Spain and UK.
6. In how many EU member states could this species become invasive
in the future [given current climate] (where it is not already
established)?
Lepomis gibbosus is cited as invasive in: Netherlands, Portugal, Romania, Spain and
UK (CABI, 2011), Austria, Belgium, Denmark, Germany (NOBANIS, 2016).
At least six Lepomis species could become invasive in any country in Europe in which
water temperature would allow reproduction. These countries are: Austria, Belgium,
Bulgaria, Croatia, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Denmark, France, Germany, Greece,
Hungary, Italy, Luxembourg, Malta, Netherlands, Poland, Portugal, Romania,
Slovakia, Slovenia, Spain and UK.
5
EU NON-NATIVE SPECIES RISK ANALYSIS – RISK ASSESSMENT TEMPLATE V1.0
SECTION A – Organism Information and Screening
Stage 1. Organism Information
RESPONSE
[chose one entry, delete all others]
COMMENT
1. Identify the organism. Is it clearly a single
taxonomic entity and can it be adequately
distinguished from other entities of the same rank?
This Risk Assessment refers to genus
Lepomis and includes information about
the most representative species, which
have been introduced in Europe and
established populations in at least one
country.
Hybridization is common among centrarchid fishes. This
makes the task of identifying difficult or almost impossible,
and could require using molecular techniques (Soes et al,
2011).
Kingdom: Animalia >> Phylum: Chordata >>
Class: Actinopterygii >> Order: Perciformes >>
Family: Centrarchidae
The genus Lepomis (Rafinesque, 1819) is part of
Perciformes Order (Perch-likes) and Centrarchidae Family
(Sunfishes). This family includes some of the more
attractive and brightly colored of the freshwater fishes of
North America.
EN: common sunfishes, eared sunfishes
Direct children (from Integrated Taxonomic Information
System (ITIS) (http://www.itis.gov):
Lepomis auritus (Linnaeus, 1758)
EN:Redbreast Sunfish, ES: mojarra pecho rojo, FR: crapet
rouge
Lepomis cyanellus (Rafinesque, 1819)
EN: green sunfish, ES: pez sol, FR: crapet vert.
Lepomis gibbosus (Linnaeus, 1758)
6
EU NON-NATIVE SPECIES RISK ANALYSIS – RISK ASSESSMENT TEMPLATE V1.0
EN: Pumpkinseed, Sunfish, DE: Sonnenbarsch, FR: Perche
soleil, IT: Perisco sole, ES: Pez sol, perca sol.
Lepomis gulosus (Cuvier, 1829) – EN: Warmouth, ES:
mojarra golosa, FR: crapet sac-à-lait,
Lepomis humilis (Girard, 1858) – EN: Orangespotted
Sunfish; ES: Mojarra, FR: crapet menu;
Lepomis macrochirus (Rafinesque, 1819) – EN: Bluegill,
ES: mojarra oreja azul, FR: crapet arlequin,
Lepomis marginatus (Holbrook, 1855) – Dollar Sunfish
Lepomis megalotis (Rafinesque, 1820) – EN: Longear
Sunfish, ES: mojarra gigante, mojarra orejona, FR: crapet à
longues oreilles
Lepomis microlophus (Günther, 1859) – EN: Redear
Sunfish, ES : mojarra oreja roja
Lepomis miniatus (Jordan, 1877) – scarlet sunfish,
Redspotted Sunfish
Lepomis peltastes Cope, 1870 – EN: Northern Sunfish, FR:
crapet du nord
Lepomis punctatus (Valenciennes in Cuvier and
Valenciennes, 1831) – EN: Spotted Sunfish, ES: mojarra
manchada
Lepomis symmetricus (Forbes in Jordan and Gilbert, 1883)
Bantam Sunfish
7
EU NON-NATIVE SPECIES RISK ANALYSIS – RISK ASSESSMENT TEMPLATE V1.0
It is expected that several additional centrarchid species are
likely to be identified after further research using molecular
techniques (Near and Koppelman, 2009), especialy in
polymorhic taxa like L. megalotis and L. macrochirus.
2. If not a single taxonomic entity, can it be
redefined? (if necessary use the response box to
re-define the organism and carry on)
NA
3. Does a relevant earlier risk assessment exist?
(give details of any previous risk assessment)
Yes
4. If there is an earlier risk assessment is it still
entirely valid, or only partly valid?
Yes
In 2010 Netherlands presented a risk analysis of sunfishes
(Centrarchidae) in Netherlands. In this study it is shown that
at least another four species of Lepomis, besides L. gibossus,
should be considered to be potentially invasive and they are
all available for export in North America at least, and have a
high probability of establishment based on their thermal
biology: L. cyanellus, L. macrochirus, L. megalotis. When
considering possible climate change in the period 19902050, L. auritus should be included in this list (Soes et al,
2011).
L. gibbosus has been subject to FISK assessment (Copp et
al., 2009; Almeida et al., 2013) but there is no Risk
assessment specific of the genus Lepomis.
In the study of Centrarchidae developed in Netherlands,
commissioned by the Invasive Alien Species Team of the
Food and Consumer Product Safety Authority, a risk analysis
was undertaken to provide more insight into the present
distribution of Centrarchidae [...], their (potential) impacts,
the probability of entry (introduction pathways), the
probability of establishment, the probability of further spread
and endangered areas. Subsequently, measures are identified
to prevent further spread of these species and eradication and
physical control methods are described that can be used to
reduce their number in The Netherlands.
8
EU NON-NATIVE SPECIES RISK ANALYSIS – RISK ASSESSMENT TEMPLATE V1.0
The FISK assessment developped in UK by Copp et al.,
2009; and in Iberia by Almeida et al., 2013 are still valid.
5. Where is the organism native?
Lepomis species are widely distributed throughout the lakes
and rivers of the North and Central America.
- Lepomis auritus is native from Atlantic and Gulf Slope
drainages, from New Brunswick to central Florida, and west
to the Apalachicola and Choctawhatchee drainages, Georgia
and Florida (Page and Burr 1991).
- Lepomis cyanellus is native to the central plains of North
America between the Appalachian and Rocky Mountains,
from Ontario (Canada) and New York state in the north to
the Gulf Coast and northern Mexico in the south.
- Lepomis gibbosus is native to the eastern part of North
America, where sunfishes are known to have existed since
the Miocene (Scott and Crossman, 1973).
- Lepomis macrochirus is native of Mexico, USA and
Canada (CABI, 2013).
- Lepomis megalotis is native to the Mississippi River basin
west of the Appalachian Mountains from Indiana west to
eastern Illinois and south to the Gulf of Mexico and to Gulf
Slope drainages from the Choctawhatchee River, Florida,
west to the Rio Grande, Texas, southern New Mexico, and
northeastern Mexico (Page and Burr, 1991; Miller, 2005).
6. What is the global distribution of the organism
(excluding Europe)?
Lepomis auritus
Dominican Republic, Mexico, Puerto Rico (Froese and
Pauly, 2012), USA (introduced in Alabama, Arkansas,
Georgia, Kentucky, Louisiana, North Carolina, Oklahoma,
Texas, Tennessee, Virginia) (Fuller, 2016).
Lepomis cyanellus
9
EU NON-NATIVE SPECIES RISK ANALYSIS – RISK ASSESSMENT TEMPLATE V1.0
This species has been so widely introduced in the USA that
it is now present in almost every state, including Atlantic and
Pacific slope drainages and Hawaii, except for parts of the
north-east of the country (Page and Burr, 1991). It was
introduced to China in 1999 for use as food (Ma et al., 2003),
Philippines where it was introduced from the United States
in 1950 for aquaculture purposes, Although there are reports
of an established population in Japan (Welcomme, 1988;
Froese and Pauly, 2013).
Lepomis gibossus
Native from the East of North America it has been introduced
in Turkey and Georgia in Asia Minor; Congo and Morocco
in Africa; Brazil, Chile and Venezuela, Cuba, Guatemala in
America, also in the West from EEUU and Canada (CABI,
2011).
Lepomis macrochirus
Bluegill has been introduced to a number of countries
including Iran, Japan, Korea, Philippines, South Africa,
Kenya, Morocco, Mauritius, Brazil, Congo, Cuba and Puerto
Rico (CABI, 2013).
Lepomis megalotis was largely introduced in the USA. The
species that have been repeatedly been introduced outside
their native area are L. cyanellus, L. gibbosus and L.
macrochirus (Soes et al, 2011).
7. What is the distribution of the organism in
Europe?
Lepomis auritus
Germany, Italy (Elvira, 2001), Czech Republic (DAISIE,
2016)
Lepomis cyanellus
Germany (Elvira, 2001)
10
EU NON-NATIVE SPECIES RISK ANALYSIS – RISK ASSESSMENT TEMPLATE V1.0
Also Maitland (1977) (cited in Soes et al., 2011) reported that
the introduction of L. cyanellus by aquarists to the Frankfurt
area in Germany led to established populations;
Lepomis gibossus
Widely distributed across Europe, only not present in
Finland, Sweden, Ireland and Malta.
8. Is the organism known to be invasive (i.e. to
threaten organisms, habitats or ecosystems)
anywhere in the world?
Lepomis megalotis
Germany (Geiter, 2002)
The redbreast sunfish Lepomis auritus has supplanted the
native bleak Alburnus alburnus in some Italian oligotrophic
lakes (Elvira, 2001).
In streams where L. cyanellus has been introduced in
California, it is believed to have helped deplete the California
roach, Hesperoleucus symmetricus (CABI, 2013). L.
cyanellus along with other predatory fish species is also
thought to be responsible for the decline of native frogs and
salamanders in the USA (CABI, 2013). L. cyanellus is listed
as a major invasive species in parts of Arizona (USDA, 2012)
and California (Dill and Cordone, 1997). New Jersey state
authorities list it as a potentially dangerous species due to its
ability to outcompete native fish species; it is listed as an
invasive species of concern in Georgia and Florida (CABI,
2013). Marsh (2010), in a discussion on the advantages of
genetic biocontrol in the Colorado River basin system,
referred to the species as “one of the most invasive,
pervasive, and destructive species in the basin, not even
recognized as an invasive species by some states”. Olden and
Poff (2005), in a study of long-term trends (> 160 years) of
fish species distributions in the Lower Colorado River Basin,
to identify those native species exhibiting the greatest rates
of decline and those non-native species exhibiting the highest
rates of spread, found that L. cyanellus was amongst the
11
EU NON-NATIVE SPECIES RISK ANALYSIS – RISK ASSESSMENT TEMPLATE V1.0
fastest expanding invaders in the basin and the most invasive
in terms of negative impacts on native fish communities
L. cyanellus and other introduced predatory centrarchids are
also believed to have played a part in the decline of the
California tiger salamander (Ambystoma californiense) in
California (Hayes and Jennings, 1986; Dill and Cordone,
1997) and the Chiricahua leopard frog (Rana
chiricahuensis [Lithobates chiricahuensis]) populations in
southeastern Arizona (Rosen et al., 1995). L. cyanellus is not
listed as a threatened species in any part of its native range
(CABI, 2013).
L. gibbosus is recorded from standing waters, such as
moorland pools ponds, lakes, river meanders and canals, but
the species is also encountered in streams (Klaar et al. 2004)
and rivers (Balon, 1959).
L. gibbosus is listed among the top ten introduced fish
species with adverse ecological effects (Casal, 2006). It is
considered a threat for native fish species (Welcomme, 1988)
through competition for food and predation on eggs and
juveniles. Densities decreases of fish species have been
reported to regularly coincide with sharp increases in L.
gibbosus abundances (Tomoček et al., 2007 and literature
therein). The species is also held responsible for the locally
strong decline and disappearance of endangered amphibians,
such as Pelobates fuscus, Triturus cristatus and Hyla
arborea (Bosman, 2003; Soes, 2011) and dragonflies
(Janssen, 2000), including several species covered by Natura
2000.
Pumpkinseed is omnivorous and an opportunistic feeder.
Prey selection varies with age, prey availability, habitat,
season and presence of other fish species. There are two
12
EU NON-NATIVE SPECIES RISK ANALYSIS – RISK ASSESSMENT TEMPLATE V1.0
morphological forms of Pumpkinseed; one, with wide short
gill rakers that feed mainly on benthic macro invertebrates
and, a second, with longer gill rakers, better adapted to feed
on planktonic prey. Fry feed on zooplankton but
Pumpkinseed becomes more piscivorous as it grows larger
(DFO, 2011).
Lepomis macrochirus is known to be invasive in Japan,
Korea (Kawamura et al., 2006), South Africa (Wellcome,
1988) and some states of the USA (CABI, 2013). In these
areas it can overcrowd and stunt the growth of other fish,
including native sunfish species, by competing for food and
habitat. It may even cause displacement and extinction of
native fish. The invasion success of L. macrochirus in Lake
Biwa in Japan is attributed to its drastic population growth
shortly after its introduction, together with artificial
transplantations (Kawamura et al., 2010). They feed on the
young of some native fishes, threatening the survival of
several species such as the tanago (Acheilognathus
melanogaster) and honmoroko (Gnathopogon caerulescens)
(CABI, 2013). This species is commonly considered a pest
in its introduced range and several countries report it causing
negative ecological effects (Myers et al., 2016; Froese and
Pauly, 2016). L. macrochirus overcrowd and stunt the
growth of other fish and may even be responsible for causing
extinctions, such as the extinction of a native fish in Panamá
(CABI, 2013)
Lepomis cyanellus and L. macrochirus are mentioned as two
of the most commonly reported alien species in US National
Parks (Ziska and Dukes, 2014).
In conclusion, like L. gibbosus also other Lepomis species
are likely to affect ecosystems mainly by predation
(amphibians, smaller fish species, damselflies, etc.) and
13
EU NON-NATIVE SPECIES RISK ANALYSIS – RISK ASSESSMENT TEMPLATE V1.0
competition with other predatory fish. Especially
ecosystems, lacking comparable native predatory fish
species prior to the establishment of such an exotic
centrarchid, are susceptible to significant ecological impact.
9. Describe any known socio-economic benefits of
the organism in the risk assessment area.
Lepomis auritus has been imported as an aquarium fish but
not become a great success in aquaristics (Soes, 2011).
Lepomis cyanellus was imported for stock enhancement or
ornamental trade but it is a relatively large species with
aggressive predatory behavior that makes them less suitable
for ponds that offer too little space and cover.
L. gibbosus is principally a recreational sportfish species,
with production in aquaculture facilities for stocking of
recreational fishing waters, baitfish production (as a food
item for Micropterus salmoides) and scientific research. L.
gibbosus are also sold in the aquarium trade.
Lepomis macrochirus
Fisheries: minor commercial; aquaculture: commercial;
gamefish: yes; aquarium: commercial (Froese and Pauly,
2016). Also commonly stocked as forage for the largemouth
bass, Micropterus salmoides (Fuller et al., 1999).
In conclusion, the establishment of larger centrarchid
species would have a small, positive social and economic
impact to commercial fisheries, the angling society and
related business.
14
EU NON-NATIVE SPECIES RISK ANALYSIS – RISK ASSESSMENT TEMPLATE V1.0
SECTION B – Detailed assessment
PROBABILITY OF ENTRY
Important instructions:
 Entry is the introduction of an organism into Europe. Not to be confused with spread, the movement of an organism within Europe.
 For organisms which are already present in Europe, only complete the entry section for current active pathways of entry or if relevant potential future
pathways. The entry section need not be completed for organisms which have entered in the past and have no current pathways of entry.
QUESTION
RESPONSE
[chose one entry,
delete all others]
1.1. How many active pathways are relevant to the
potential entry of this organism?
Many
(If there are no active pathways or potential future
pathways respond N/A and move to the Establishment
section)
CONFIDENCE COMMENT
[chose one
entry, delete all
others]
Moderate
L. gibbosus was introduced mainly as an ornamental fish,
and stocked in gardens as well as in aquaria, and released
through accidental or deliberate releases to different water
bodies (Geiter, 2002; Tandon, 1976).
For angling purposes initially was introduced as a sport
fish but later as a forage fish for piscivorous fishes (CABI,
2011).
Some authors also assume that L. gibbosus could be
introduced unintentionally, for instance with imports of
carp fry used in stocking (Tandon, 1976).
L. gibbosus has been intentionally (but illegally)
introduced to lakes in Denmark with Onchorhynchus
mykiss under the presumption that they would free the
Rainbow trout from the fish louse (Argulus sp.)
(NOBANIS, 2016)
15
EU NON-NATIVE SPECIES RISK ANALYSIS – RISK ASSESSMENT TEMPLATE V1.0
1.2. List relevant pathways through which the organism
could enter. Where possible give detail about the specific
origins and end points of the pathways.
[Sport Fishing;
and Pet-trade]
For each pathway answer questions 1.3 to 1.10 (copy and
paste additional rows at the end of this section as
necessary).
Lepomis species could entry as ornamental pet and for
sportfishing.
The main introduction pathways for L. gibbosus was as an
ornamental fish including stocking in outdoor ponds as
well as in aquaria (e.g. United Kingdom), sport fishing
(e.g. France), or for extensive fish culture for use as forage
food for largemouth bass (Iberia and Congo) and more
recently as a pet fish, i.e. indoor aquaria. Human
assistance in the spread of L. gibbosus (e.g. by anglers)
appears to be more common in southern Europe than
elsewhere, though it is rarely sought after in Europe as an
angling amenity in its own right (CABI, 2011).
Fig. 1: The main introduction pathways of aquatic species within
Europe (Garcia-Berthou et al, 2005)
Active pathways for any Lepomis species:
- ornamental trade by aquarists;
- intentional stocking for sportfishing.
- introduction as forage fish (Przybylski, et al., 2011).
- unintentionally with imports of other species used in
stocking (Tandon, 1976).
Pathway name:
[Sportfishing activities]
16
EU NON-NATIVE SPECIES RISK ANALYSIS – RISK ASSESSMENT TEMPLATE V1.0
1.3. Is entry along this pathway intentional (e.g. the
organism is imported for trade) or accidental (the
organism is a contaminant of imported goods)?
intentional
accidental
high
Lepomis gibossus has been intentionally imported for
fishing activities in many parts of Europe, and also as
forage food for Micropterus salmoides (Fuller et al.,
1999).
(If intentional, only answer questions 1.4, 1.9, 1.10, 1.11)
The pathway through which L. macrochirus were
introduced across the United States is through
introduction for recreational fishing also as forage fish for
Micropterus salmoides (Kawamura et al. 2010).
Some species (e. g. L. cyanellus) where introduced outside
its native area with other intended species as a stock
contaminant (CABI, 2013).
1.4. How likely is it that large numbers of the organism
will travel along this pathway from the point(s) of origin
over the course of one year?
unlikely
low
Subnote: In your comment discuss how likely the
organism is to get onto the pathway in the first place.
In conclusion the entry along this pathway could be
intentional but also accidental.
Over the course of one year it is not expected that a large
number of organism would entry in Europe. Specimens
coming from North America is not expected, because
anglers take them from established populations in Europe.
But the use of the fish as forage fish makes very easy the
introduction in natural habitats.
1.9. How likely is the organism to be able to transfer from
the pathway to a suitable habitat or host?
very likely
high
Once entered it is very likely that the organism transfer to
a suitable habitat.
1.10. Estimate the overall likelihood of entry into Europe
based on this pathway?
likely
medium
Even the demand has decresed, Lepomis species could be
imported for sportfishing activities.
Pathway name:
[Pet-trade ]
1.3. Is entry along this pathway intentional (e.g. the
organism is imported for trade) or accidental (the
organism is a contaminant of imported goods)?
intentional
accidental
high
Lepomis species are intentionally imported for aquariums
or garden lagoons, but demand has decreased.
17
EU NON-NATIVE SPECIES RISK ANALYSIS – RISK ASSESSMENT TEMPLATE V1.0
1.4. How likely is it that large numbers of the organism
will travel along this pathway from the point(s) of origin
over the course of one year?
They can also be introduced accidentally as a contaminant
with other species.
Over the course of one year it is not expected that a large
number of organism would entry in Europe. Entries from
North America are very unlikely but trade can be done
between European countries.
unlikely
medium
1.9. How likely is the organism to be able to transfer from
the pathway to a suitable habitat or host?
very likely
high
Pets are released into the wild when owners don’t want to
keep them anymore.
1.10. Estimate the overall likelihood of entry into Europe
based on this pathway?
unlikely
low
Trade can be done between European countries.
The probability of new entries of Lepomis species as pettrade from North America is low.
.
moderately likely
medium
New entries of other Lepomis species in Europe, as pets
or sportfishing activities cannot be discarded.
Subnote: In your comment discuss how likely the
organism is to get onto the pathway in the first place.
End of pathway assessment, repeat as necessary.
1.11. Estimate the overall likelihood of entry into Europe
based on all pathways (comment on the key issues that
lead to this conclusion).
18
EU NON-NATIVE SPECIES RISK ANALYSIS – RISK ASSESSMENT TEMPLATE V1.0
PROBABILITY OF ESTABLISHMENT
Important instructions:
 For organisms which are already well established in Europe, only complete questions 1.15 and 1.21 then move onto the spread section. If uncertain,
check with the Non-native Species Secretariat.
QUESTION
1.15. How widespread are habitats or species necessary
for the survival, development and multiplication of the
organism in Europe?
RESPONSE
widespread
CONFIDENCE COMMENT
High
Opportunistic dietary of the genus and suitable
habitats present widely distributed in the Risk
Assessment Area.
The plasticity of this species makes them able to
adapt in response to changes in biotic and abiotic
conditions. All centrarchidae species are
opportunistic and rather flexible in their diet. This
flexibility is well presented by L. gibbosus but it
seems that other species of Lepomis have the same
success as invaders (Soes, 2011)
In the case of L. cyanellus, population abundance is
positively correlated with percentage vegetative
cover (Moyle and Nichols, 1973). It can tolerate
turbidity, siltation, intermittent flow, high
temperatures, high salt content and low dissolved
oxygen.
In conclusion the necessary habitats for survival,
development and multiplication are widespread.
19
EU NON-NATIVE SPECIES RISK ANALYSIS – RISK ASSESSMENT TEMPLATE V1.0
1.21. How likely is it that biological properties of the
organism would allow it to survive eradication campaigns
in Europe?
Likely
high
L. cyanellus is described as a very successful
invader. Its aggressive nature allows it to quickly
dominate wherever it is introduced, taking over in a
very short period, and becoming the only species in
a particular area, thus posing a major threat to native
species (Etnier and Starnes, 2001). As a pioneering
species, it is also the first species to find its way to
newly created farm ponds and the first to repopulate
streams following periods of drought (Tomelleri
and Eberle, 1990; Pflieger, 1975, 1997).
The same characteristics of a very adaptative
organism are described to other Lepomis species
(CABI, 2011; CABI, 2013).
In conclusion in small streams, lakes or ponds,
control and eradication techniques could be
successfully employed to extirpate or suppress
isolated populations (Ling, 2003; Britton et al.,
2010; Davies and Britton, 2015). But when it is
established in a large river system, Lepomis is
nearly impossible to eradicate.
20
EU NON-NATIVE SPECIES RISK ANALYSIS – RISK ASSESSMENT TEMPLATE V1.0
PROBABILITY OF SPREAD
Important notes:
 Spread is defined as the expansion of the geographical distribution of a pest within an area.
QUESTION
RESPONSE
CONFIDENCE
COMMENT
2.1. How important is the expected spread of this
organism in Europe by natural means? (Please list and
comment on the mechanisms for natural spread.)
major
medium
Escapement of L. gibbosus propagules from
hydrologically connected waterbodies has been
demonstrated and is likely to increase under climate
change scenarios (Fobert et al, 2013).
Additionally, increases in water temperatures,
particularly in lentic environment, is likely to facilitate
successful reproduction and invasive potential.
When L. macrochirus are newly introduced to an area,
they do not need a very high propagule pressure to
establish and spread relatively quickly. They have a
high morphological, physiological and behavioral
adaptability to their new environment (Kawamura et
al., 2010).). Once they are introduced, they have a high
morphological, physiological, and behavioral
adaptability to their new environment (Gross and
Charnov, 1980, Ehlinger et al. 1997),
2.2. How important is the expected spread of this
organism in Europe by human assistance? (Please list and
comment on the mechanisms for human-assisted spread.)
major
medium
2.3. Within Europe, how difficult would it be to contain
the organism?
Difficult
high
Spread by human assistance could happen because of
intentional stocking for sportfishing (Fuller, 2016).
The use as forage for fishing and its release in ponds
and aquariums may happen even if demand has
decreased.
L. cyanellus is difficult to control once it has become
established in ponds. The entire fish population must
21
EU NON-NATIVE SPECIES RISK ANALYSIS – RISK ASSESSMENT TEMPLATE V1.0
be eliminated with chemicals, with its contaminant
environmental dangers, or the pond drained to
eliminate these fish. Sometimes it is possible to control
numbers by continuous trapping, or by destroying
spawning areas. The removal of vegetation cover will
also expose L. cyanellus to predatory fish species
(CABI, 2013).
L. gibbosus
Subsequent to establishment of L. gibbosus
populations in the lotic environment, control and
containment would be very difficult. Containment
within lakes and ponds is feasible and extirpation of
populations in small stream systems, lakes and ponds
with hydrological connections is possible (Davies and
Britton, 2015), but may incur high costs, financially
and ecologically.
L. macrochirus has become an issue in bass-bluegill
(Micropterus
salmoides-Lepomis
macrochirus)
population management in the USA (Etnier and
Starnes, 2001).
When established, centrarchid populations can in most
instances only be eradicated with rigorous measures
like dewatering or the use of piscicides. Obviously, the
prevention of entries and further spread reduces the
need for such actions. The major components of
prevention are banning of potential invasive species
from trade and educating the public about the impact
of centrarchids (Soes at al., 2011).
2.4. Based on the answers to questions on the potential for
establishment and spread in Europe, define the area
endangered by the organism.
Most of Europe
high
Tolerates water temps 4 – 28°C; Some species needs
water above 20 °C for reproduction (CABI, 2013).
22
EU NON-NATIVE SPECIES RISK ANALYSIS – RISK ASSESSMENT TEMPLATE V1.0
Centrarchids can experience a broad range of climatic
conditions during winter across their range.
Pronounced latitudinal gradients in winter conditions
exist with growing degree days and summer
temperatures both declining with latitude, while winter
severity (i.e., lower daily temperatures) and winter
length both increase with latitude.
2.5. What proportion (%) of the area/habitat suitable for
establishment (i.e. those parts of Europe were the species
could establish), if any, has already been colonised by the
organism?
2.6. What proportion (%) of the area/habitat suitable for
establishment, if any, do you expect to have been invaded
by the organism five years from now (including any
current presence)?
10-33
low
Given the high proportion of countries in which it is
establish, as well as its adaptability, is considered that
it may be of the order of that proportion.
10-33
low
Given the recent colonization of the species it is
estimates that its colonization to five-year view may be
of this order.
2.7. What other timeframe (in years) would be appropriate
to estimate any significant further spread of the organism
in Europe? (Please comment on why this timeframe is
chosen.)
40
low
2.8. In this timeframe what proportion (%) of the
endangered area/habitat (including any currently occupied
areas/habitats) is likely to have been invaded by this
organism?
10-33
low
There is not a follow-up of its expansion, but
considered, given the conditions of expansion in which
the species occurs, this can be significant in this period.
If taking in consideration climate warming, this
interval could be shorter.
There is not information about the endangered
areas/habitats occupied by the species, but given the
endangered situation of the habitats in wetlands and
rivers in Europe, it is estimated that it could be of the
order of this proportion.
2.9. Estimate the overall potential for future spread for
this organism in Europe (using the comment box to
indicate any key issues).
High
low
Verbrugge et al. (2012) indicate in the comparison of
risk classifications for 25 aquatic non-native species
using various European risk identification protocols a
high risk for Lepomis gibossus.
23
EU NON-NATIVE SPECIES RISK ANALYSIS – RISK ASSESSMENT TEMPLATE V1.0
Soes et al. (2011) identified six Lepomis species as
suspected to establish in most European countries (see
question 2.26).
The spread of the species depends of the different lifehistory of the different places where it is (Fox et al,
2007), but it has been demonstrate that climate change
will help the future spread of these species (Copp et al.
(2009), Britton et al. (2010), Zieba et al. (2015).
24
EU NON-NATIVE SPECIES RISK ANALYSIS – RISK ASSESSMENT TEMPLATE V1.0
PROBABILITY OF IMPACT
Important instructions:
 When assessing potential future impacts, climate change should not be taken into account. This is done in later questions at the end of the assessment.
 Where one type of impact may affect another (e.g. disease may also cause economic impact) the assessor should try to separate the effects (e.g. in this
case note the economic impact of disease in the response and comments of the disease question, but do not include them in the economic section).
 Note questions 2.10-2.14 relate to economic impact and 2.15-2.21 to environmental impact. Each set of questions starts with the impact elsewhere in
the world, then considers impacts in Europe separating known impacts to date (i.e. past and current impacts) from potential future impacts. Key
words are in bold for emphasis.
QUESTION
RESPONSE
CONFIDENCE
COMMENTS
2.10. How great is the economic loss caused by the
organism within its existing geographic range, including
the cost of any current management?
High
Moderate
There are no studies about the economic loss but most of
the states where introduced have complaint.
2.11. How great is the economic cost of the organism
currently in Europe excluding management costs (include
any past costs in your response)?
Unknown
There is no information available regarding the
economic impacts of Lepomis spp. in its introduced
range but many authors described the important impact
of invasive species over the native or endemic species
(Elvira, 1997, Doadrio, 2002). The loss of native species
that it produced supposes an important economic lost.
The occurrence of fish-predators non-native in Iberian
fresh waters, is probably one of the main detrimental
factors influencing the survival of endemic species
(mostly Cyprinidae an Cobitidae). Lepomis spp became
direct competitors or predators over native species as:
Anaecypris hispanica, Cobiditis paludica, C. calderoni
Salmo trutta etc.
25
EU NON-NATIVE SPECIES RISK ANALYSIS – RISK ASSESSMENT TEMPLATE V1.0
2.12. How great is the economic cost of the organism
likely to be in the future in Europe excluding management
costs?
High
2.13. How great are the economic costs associated with
managing this organism currently in Europe (include any
past costs in your response)?
Unknown
Moderate
There are no studies regarding these economic costs.
In the case of the Italian project “Palata Menasciutto –
management and conservation of wet woodlands”
(LIFE99 NAT/IT/6253), the eradication of the
pumpkinseed sunfish (Lepomis gibbosus) was
considered no longer feasible after the start of the
activities. The eradication was not possible because the
water bodies hosting the two species were lying too close
to a river course, and floods, which occur periodically in
that area, would have brought about a natural recolonisation. Another constraint was the lack of speciesspecific eradication techniques to be applied to fish.
See papers on P. parva eradication in England for
piscicide based costs (Britton et al, 2008).
See the case of a fishery in North London that removed
A. melas as a cost of approx. £5000.00 (€6356.00).
£10,000.00, including manpower costs (APHA, personal
comm., 2015).
The eradication of two invasive species (Cyprinus carpio
and Gambusia affinis) in an endoreic lagoon (37 Ha) in
south of Spain cost about 300.000 € (FernándezDelgado, comm. pers. 2017).
2.14. How great are the economic costs associated with
managing this organism likely to be in the future in
Europe?
High
Moderate
The management of these species will have great
economic costs. (See papers on P. parva eradication in
England for piscicide based costs (Britton et al, 2008)
and Ameiurus melas in North England (APHA, personal
comm. 2015). The operation to remove the catfish costed
26
EU NON-NATIVE SPECIES RISK ANALYSIS – RISK ASSESSMENT TEMPLATE V1.0
approx. £5000.00 (€6356.00) £10,000.00, including
manpower costs (APHA, personal comm., 2015).
2.15. How important is environmental harm caused by the
organism within its existing geographic range excluding
Europe?
Unknown
The loss of native species that it produced, supposes an
important effect on the function of ecosystems. It affects
the quality of the water, increasing the levels of
chlorophyll and turbidity and the concentrations of
nitrogen and phosphorus (Naspleda et al., 2012).
Lake Biwa catch for native species has dropped from
more than 8000 tons in 1972 to 2174 tons in 2000 while
experts estimate catch of exotic species (black bass and
bluegill) exceeds 3000 tons (Chiba et al., 1989) after the
introduction of L. macrochirus.
Attempts to introduce L. cyanellus in tropical Africa
have been largely unsuccessful; where it has established
itself, occupying smallish, well-vegetated dams and
becoming over-populated, it is regarded a pest,
according to Jackson (1976).
Many authors mentioned the environmental harm that
some Lepomis species brought about regarding the loss
of biodiversity in USA. For instance:
L. cyanellus is sometimes deliberately stocked for sport
fishing, but its high reproductive potential and tolerance
for crowding lead to stunted populations which are
unattractive to anglers. Olden and Poff (2005), in a study
of long-term trends (> 160 years) of fish species
distributions in the Lower Colorado River Basin, to
identify those native species exhibiting the greatest rates
of decline and those non-native species exhibiting the
highest rates of spread, found that the green sunfish was
amongst the fastest expanding invaders in the basin and
27
EU NON-NATIVE SPECIES RISK ANALYSIS – RISK ASSESSMENT TEMPLATE V1.0
the most invasive in terms of negative impacts on native
fish communities.
Lepomis macrochirus is commonly considered a pest in
its introduced range and several countries report it
causing negative ecological effects ((Myers et al., 2016;
Froese and Pauly, 2016). L. macrochirus overcrowd and
stunt the growth of other fish and may even be
responsible for causing extinctions, such as the
extinction of a native fish in Panama. It predates on
crustaceans and insects, and as a population may
consume six times its own weight during a single
summer (Gerking, 1962). It competes for food and
habitat with native sunfish (Maine's red-breast (Lepomis
auritus) and pumpkin seed (Lepomis gibbosus) and
preys on native minnow (blacknose dace (Rhinichthys
atratulus) (USGS, 2012). It has caused displacement of
the native species in Mexico (FAO, 1997) and
eliminated native Astyanax kompi (Welcomme, 1988).
In Japan it feeds on the young of some native fishes,
threatening the survival of several species such as the
honmoroko (Gnathopogon caerulescens) and the IUCN
red listed tanago (Acheilognathus melanogaster) (Chiba
et al., 1989). In California, aggressive bluegill
outcompete native Sacramento perch (Archoplites
interruptus) (Moyle et al., 1974).
In conclusion there is an important impact due to
Lepomis spp. in the ecosystems indicated by many
authors i.e. van Kleef et al, (2008), Dill and Cordone
(1997), Rosen et al. (1995), Casal (2006), Kawamura et
al. (2006), added to the high costs of its eradication.
2.16. How important is the impact of the organism on
biodiversity (e.g. decline in native species, changes in
Major
high
Lepomis species are likely to affect ecosystems mainly
by predation (amphibians, smaller fish species,
28
EU NON-NATIVE SPECIES RISK ANALYSIS – RISK ASSESSMENT TEMPLATE V1.0
native species communities, hybridisation) currently in
Europe (include any past impact in your response)?
damselflies, etc.) and competition for food and as a
predator of fish breeding and adults (Wiesner et al.
2010). Especially ecosystems, lacking comparable
native predatory fish species prior to the establishment
of such an exotic centrarchid, are susceptible to
significant ecological impact.
Some of the negative impacts are: decline in native
species, changes in communities (vegetation, water
quality, macroinvertebrate populations etc.), supplantion
of many native species in the areas where introduced. In
some Italian oligotrophic lakes the redbreast sunfish
Lepomis auritus has supplanted the native bleak
Alburnus alburnus (Elvira, 2001).
As described by many authors Lepomis species have a
major impact on biodiversity in Europe (Elvira, 1997,
2001; Holčík, 1991, Clavero, 2004, Almeida et al. 2013,
Van Kleef et al, 2008)..
Introduction of L. gibbosus into Iberia saw aggression on
native lotic species (Almeida et al. 2013), Van Kleef et
al. (2008) demonstrated impacts on macroinvertebrate
fauna in waterbodies in the Netherlands, albeit in a
highly modified environment, (as shown in question 8,
Section A).
The main response of the recipient species to aggression
from all sizes of L. gibbosus was retreat, specifically
with no return (i.e. the strongest behavioural impact of
the aggression) when aggressors were medium or large
pumpkinseed. These results highlight the true potential
for adverse impact of L. gibbosus through behavioural
interference, resulting in the physical displacement of
native species from essential resources (e.g. food or
habitat), with the subsequent expenditure of energy to
29
EU NON-NATIVE SPECIES RISK ANALYSIS – RISK ASSESSMENT TEMPLATE V1.0
avoid the aggressor. In relation to recipient species, the
results of the study carried out by the authors (Almeida
et al., 2014) showed that L. gibbosus, particularly
medium and large sizes, can display aggression on a
wide range of taxonomic groups with different
ecological requirements, including species at the stream
margins (mosquitofish, frog), in the water column
(calandino, chub) or on the river bed (crayfish, loach).
Previous studies have also shown impacts of
pumpkinseed on a variety of functional groups,
including zooplankton (Angeler DG et al 2002),
macrobenthos (Van Kleef et al 2008), crayfishes
(Bramard et al 2006), fishes (Declerck et al 2006) and
amphibians (Hartel et al 2007).
2.17. How important is the impact of the organism on
biodiversity likely to be in the future in Europe?
major
medium
Some of the species of this genus are already established
in Europe and it is difficult to apreciate its future impact,
especially in rivers and lotic ecosystems where the
impact could increase.
The prevention of entries and further spread are the only
measures to avoid future impact. The major components
of such prevention are banning potential invasive
species from trade and educating the public about when
such centrarchids are actually obtained for e.g. aquaria,
garden ponds or fish ponds (Soes et al, 2011).
2.18. How important is alteration of ecosystem function
(e.g. habitat change, nutrient cycling, trophic
interactions), including losses to ecosystem services,
caused by the organism currently in Europe (include any
past impact in your response)?
major
high
The loss of native species that it produced, supposes an
important effect on the function of ecosystems. It affects
the quality of the water, increasing the levels of
chlorophyll and turbidity and the concentrations of
nitrogen and phosphorus. This suggests that the
introduction of this species in wetlands can be a threat to
the functioning of ecological processes that occur within
these wetlands (Naspleda et al., 2012).
30
EU NON-NATIVE SPECIES RISK ANALYSIS – RISK ASSESSMENT TEMPLATE V1.0
L. gibbosus has been shown to enhance water turbidity
and concentrations of phosphorus and nitrogen (Angeler
et al., 2002). As these substances are important nutrients
for plant growth, increased concentrations can lead to
shifts in plant species composition and changes in
ecosystem functioning.
During a pilot study in the moorland pool “Zwart water”
in Flanders (Unpublished data H. van Kleef)
demonstrated that nesting activity resulted in the
destabilizing of Littorella uniflora plants, an endangered
species in the Netherlands (Soes et al., 2011).
2.19. How important is alteration of ecosystem function
(e.g. habitat change, nutrient cycling, trophic
interactions), including losses to ecosystem services,
caused by the organism likely to be in Europe in the
future?
major
medium
Increased negative effects on ecosystem functions is
likely, with climate change scenarios facilitating
Lepomis spp survival and growth. Trophic cascades (via
increased numbers of the predatory Lepomis spp),
dietary shifts of native species and increased
competition is likely.
The Lepomis species are found in areas of high value for
the conservation of nature, so the loss of biodiversity
supposes a high decline in the conservation status of
these areas. Depredation of macro-invertebrates and
predation of native species could contribute to the
decline in conservation status of a waterbody.
2.20. How important is decline in conservation status (e.g.
sites of nature conservation value, WFD classification)
caused by the organism currently in Europe?
major
high
2.21. How important is decline in conservation status (e.g.
sites of nature conservation value, WFD classification)
caused by the organism likely to be in the future in
Europe?
major
high
Likelihood of declines in conservation status is
increased in the future due to the trophic interactions and
ecosystems alteration caused by these species.
2.22. How important is it that genetic traits of the
organism could be carried to other species, modifying
minimal
medium
There is no evidence of possibility of hybridisation with
native species but hybridisation within species of the
same family ocurre, making its impact more serious and
31
EU NON-NATIVE SPECIES RISK ANALYSIS – RISK ASSESSMENT TEMPLATE V1.0
their genetic nature and making their economic,
environmental or social effects more serious?
2.23. How important is social, human health or other
harm (not directly included in economic and
environmental categories) caused by the organism within
its existing geographic range?
more difficult to distinguish between species (Misra and
Holdsworth. 1972)
minimal
2.24. How important is the impact of the organism as
food, a host, a symbiont or a vector for other damaging
organisms (e.g. diseases)?
moderate
2.25. How important might other impacts not already
covered by previous questions be resulting from
introduction of the organism? (specify in the comment
box)
NA
2.26. How important are the expected impacts of the
organism despite any natural control by other organisms,
such as predators, parasites or pathogens that may already
be present in Europe?
Moderate
medium
low
medium
Within recreational fisheries Lepomis populations may
lead to a decrease in participation by anglers, as they
are seen as a pest species.
In addition to the ecological impact of naturalized fishes
outlined above, some species have also on occasion been
of socio-economic significance. This is especially so
when a naturalized species not favoured for human
consumption replaces a popular food species. This
phenomenon commonly occurs in not developed
countries and is still rare in Europe (Elvira, 2001).
There is evidence of alien parasites, which could have an
impact on native species (Wiesner et al., 2010), Hockley
et al. (2011) detected a non-native parasite on introduced
L. gibbosus, which was not found on native species
within the waterbody.
Despite of any predators, parasites and pathogens
present in Europe, L. gibossus had a very successful
evolution in most part of Europe as described
previously.
As demonstrated by Soes et al. (2011) at least L. auritus,
L. cyanellus, L. macrochirus, L. megalotis and L.
peltastes could have the same success in Europe.
32
EU NON-NATIVE SPECIES RISK ANALYSIS – RISK ASSESSMENT TEMPLATE V1.0
The Largemouth (Micropterus salmoides) is an
important predator of the species, but also of native
species in Europe, so it should not be used for that
purpose. Native species within the introduced range of
Lepomis spp could be used to control populations (c.f.
Davies and Britton, 2015) and reduce impacts.
2.27. Indicate any parts of Europe where economic,
environmental and social impacts are particularly likely to
occur (provide as much detail as possible).
[In all its
distribution
area]
medium
Environmental impacts in all its distribution area where
it is established.
In addition to the ecological impact of naturalized fishes
outlined above, some species have also on occasion been
of socio-economic significance. This is especially so
when a naturalized species not favoured for human
consumption replaces a popular food species. This
phenomenon commonly occurs in not developed
countries and is still rare in Europe (2001).
33
EU NON-NATIVE SPECIES RISK ANALYSIS – RISK ASSESSMENT TEMPLATE V1.0
RISK SUMMARIES
Summarise Entry
RESPONSE
likely
CONFIDENCE
high
COMMENT
At least four species of the genus Lepomis are already
present in Europe: .L. gibbosus, L. auritus, L. cyanellus
and L. megalotis,
New entries are possible if not taking preventive
measures. It is necessary to prevent through banning of
potential invasive species from trade and educating the
public about its impact.
Summarise Establishment
very likely
high
Lepomis auritus
Germany, Italy (Elvira, 2001)
Lepomis gibbosus is now established in at least 28
countries of Europe and Asia minor (Copp and Fox,
2007). Only in Europe it is established in 23, possibly 24
countries. These are: Austria, Belgium, Bulgaria,
Croatia, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Denmark, France,
Germany, Greece, Hungary, Italy, Latvia, Luxembourg,
Netherlands, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Slovakia,
Slovenia, Spain and UK (CABI, 2011), Lithuania and
possibly Estonia (Elvira, 2001). The species is
established almost exclusively in lacustrine ecosystems
in northern Europe. Whereas in southern latitudes, in
particular in Iberia, L. gibbosus populations establish
easily in regulated rivers and reservoirs.
Summarise Spread
rapidly
medium
The expansion depends on ecological conditions of river
basins in which it is introduced, but if it finds good
conditions it can be easier. Once established in closed
waters is easy its natural expansion. Verbrugge et al.
34
EU NON-NATIVE SPECIES RISK ANALYSIS – RISK ASSESSMENT TEMPLATE V1.0
(2012) classified it as a high risk invasive species. The
progressive warming of water in ponds and rivers,
facilitates the expansion of the species and changes in
precipitation amount and intensity could lead to the
further dispersal. (Fobert et al. 2013)
Summarise Impact
high
high
Conclusion of the risk assessment
high
high
Loss of biodiversity or impacts on native species and
threats to ecosystem function occurred and is expected to
grow.
The further dispersal (via natural and/ or anthropogenic
means) is likely. Coupled with the plasticity of Lepomis
species life-history traits and environmental tolerances,
increased impacts on ecosystem function and native biota
is expected. The effect of climate change will encourage
their further expansion.
The effects of introducing species in an area other than
their origin are generally unpredictable, and although not
always invasive, precautionary measures are required.
And its entry, voluntary or involuntary, has had
transcendental, sometimes disastrous, consequences
throughout history.
35
EU NON-NATIVE SPECIES RISK ANALYSIS – RISK ASSESSMENT TEMPLATE V1.0
ADDITIONAL QUESTIONS - CLIMATE CHANGE
3.1. What aspects of climate change, if any, are most
likely to affect the risk assessment for this organism?
[Climate
directly]
High
Verbrugge et al. (2012) indicate in the comparison of risk
classifications for 25 aquatic non-native species using
various European risk identification protocols a high risk
for this species. The progressive warming of water in
ponds and rivers, facilitates the expansion of the species.
The further dispersal of Lepomis spp. is likely, due to
increased water temperatures facilitating Y-O-Y survival
and growth. Changes in precipitation amount and
frequency could also contribute to elevated water-levels
and facilitate dispersal into lotic environments.
Additionally, increases in water temperatures,
particularly in lentic environment, is likely to facilitate
successful reproduction and increase invasive potential.
3.2. What is the likely timeframe for such changes?
20 years
low
3.3. What aspects of the risk assessment are most likely to
change as a result of climate change?
[Increase
suitability of the
habitat for the
species].
medium
Whilst not currently considered to be invasive at more
northerly latitudes, including the U.K., L. gibbosus is
predicted to become invasive under conditions of climate
warming (Britton et al., 2010); this is expected to result
in earlier reproduction (Zieba et al., 2010), enhanced
recruitment (Zieba et al., 2015) and subsequent greater
dispersal (Fobert et al. 2013). These traits are then
anticipated to result in adverse impacts on native species
and ecosystems (e.g. Angeler et al., 2002; Van Kleef et
al., 2008).
Aquatic environments are particularly affected by
climate change.
Increased water temperatures as a result of climate
change will extend the reproductive season of Lepomis
species and likelihood of progeny survival. Larger body
sizes and increased growth rates may also lead to a
greater impact on native fauna (Eaton, 1996)
36
EU NON-NATIVE SPECIES RISK ANALYSIS – RISK ASSESSMENT TEMPLATE V1.0
ADDITIONAL QUESTIONS - RESEARCH
4.1. If there is any research that would significantly
strengthen confidence in the risk assessment please
summarise this here.
The impact to
native fauna
should be
further
investigated]
medium
Confidence in the risk assessment is high for
establishment and furtherspread of L. gibbosus. Further
research on the impact of Lepomis specieswithin
different countries and environments (lentic and lotic) of
their invaded range would be beneficial. Dietary analysis
would reveal the degree of competition with native fish
species and likelihood of native species displacement/
depredation by Lepomis. Additionally, species-specific
control measures should be identified, where possible
and mechanisms of Lepomis species control/ extirpation
investigated.
37
EU NON-NATIVE SPECIES RISK ANALYSIS – RISK ASSESSMENT TEMPLATE V1.0
REFERENCES:
Almeida D, Almodóvar A, Nicola GG and B. Elvira B (2009). Feeding tactics and body condition of two introduced populations of pumpkinseed Lepomis
gibbosus: taking advantages of human disturbances? Ecology of Freshwater Fish, 18(1):15-23
Almeida, D., Ribeiro, F., Leunda, P. M., Vilizzi, L. and Copp., G. H. (2013). Effectiveness of FISK, an Invasiveness Screening Tool for Non-Native Freshwater
Fishes, to Perform Risk Identification Assessments in the Iberian Peninsula. Risk Analysis. 33, 1404-1413
Almeida D, R Merino Aguirre, L Vilizzi and GH Copp (2014) Interspecific Aggressive Behaviour of Invasive Pumpkinseed Lepomis gibbosus in Iberian Fresh
Waters. PLOS ONE 9(2): e88038. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0088038
Angeler D. G., Álvarez-Cobelas M, Sánchez-Carrillo S. and Rodrigo, M.A. et al. (2002). Assessment of exotic fish impacts on water quality and zooplankton
in a degraded semi-arid floodplain wetland. Aquatic sciences 64:76–86
Arnold, A. (1990): Eingebürgerte Fischarten, Die Neue Brehm Bücherei; A. Ziemsen Verlag, Wittenberg Lutherstadt, 144 pp
Balon, E.K.. (1959). Die Entwicklung des akklimatisierten Lepomis gibbosus (Linné 1758) wahrend der Embryonalen Periode in den Donauseitenwassern.
Zeitschrift fur Fischerei VIII: 1-27
Bianco, P.G. (2013). An update on the status of native and exotic freshwater fishes of ItalyCon respecto a tu comentario, consideramos que en este apartado,
tratándose de taxonomía, hay que enumerar todas las especies comprendidas en el género, no solamente las que están presentes en Europa. (2013):1-15
Bosman W. (2003). Het Rauwven, een “exotisch” ven in het beekdal van de Aa. RAVON 15:33–36
Bramard M, Demers A, Trouilhe MC, Bachelier E, Dumas JC. et al. (2006) Distribution of indigenous and non-indigenous crayfish populations in the PoitouCharentes region (France): evolution over the past 25 years. B Fr Pêche Piscic 380–381: 857–866
Britton, J. R., Brazier, M., Davies, G. D. and Chare, S. I. (2008) Case studies on eradication the Asiatic cyprinid Pseudorasbora parva from fishing lakes in
England to prevent their riverine dispersal. Aquatic Conservation: Marine and Freshwater Ecosystems. 18, 867-876
Britton, J. R., Davies, G. D. and Brazier, M. (2009). Towards the successful control of the invasive Pseudorasbora parva in the UK. Biological Invasions. 12,
125-131
Britton JR, Cucherousset J, Davies GD et al (2010) Non-native fishes and climate change: predicting species responses to warming temperatures in a temperate
region. Freshwater Biology 55:1130–1141
38
EU NON-NATIVE SPECIES RISK ANALYSIS – RISK ASSESSMENT TEMPLATE V1.0
CABI (2011) Lepomis gibbosus. Invasive Species Compendium. http://www.cabi.org/isc/datasheet/77080
CABI (2013) Lepomis cyanellus. Invasive Species Compendium http://www.cabi.org/isc/datasheet/77079
Carlander KD. (1977) Handbook of Freshwater Fishery Biology, volume two: life history data on Centrarchid fishes of the United States and Canada. Ames,
Iowa, USA: Iowa State University Press, 431 pp
Casal CMV (2006) Global documentation of fish introductions: the growing crisis and recommendations for action. Biological Invasions 8:3–11
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].
Clavero M, Blanco-Garrido F, Prenda J. (2004). Fish fauna in Iberian Mediterranean river basins: biodiversity, introduced species and damming impacts.
Aquatic Conservation, 14:575-585
CONABIO (2016) Sistema de información sobre especies invasoras en México. Comisión Nacional para el Conocimiento y Uso de la Biodiversidad.
Downloaded [15 of December 2016] http://www.biodiversidad.gob.mx/especies/Invasoras/pdf/Peces.pdf
Copp, G. H. and Fox, M. G. (2007). Growth and life history traits of introduced pumpkinseed (Lepomis gibbosus) in Europe, and the relevance to its potential
invasiveness. Biological Invaders in Inland Waters: Profiles, distribution and threats. 2, 289-306
Copp, G. H., Vilizzi, L., Mumford, J., Fenwick, G. V., Godard, M. J. and Gozlan, R. E. (2009). Calibration of FISK, an Invasiveness Screening Tool for
Nonnative Freshwater Fishes. Risk Analysis. 457-567
Cucherousset J, Copp GH, Fox MG, Sterud E, Kleef HHvan, Verreycken H. and E. Záhorská. (2009). Life-history traits and potential invasiveness of introduced
pumpkinseed Lepomis gibbosus populations in northwestern Europe. Biological Invasions 11(9):2171-2180
DAISIE
European
Invasive
Alien
Species
Gateway
(2016).
aliens.org/speciesFactsheet.do?speciesId=5179 [Accessed 15 December 2016]
Lepomis
auritus.
Available
from:
http://www.europe-
Davies, G. D. and Britton, J. R. (2015). Assessing the efficacy and ecology of biocontrol and biomanipulation for managing invasive pest fish. Journal of
Applied Ecology. 52, 1264-1273
39
EU NON-NATIVE SPECIES RISK ANALYSIS – RISK ASSESSMENT TEMPLATE V1.0
Declerck S, Louette G, de Bie T, de Meester L (2002) Patterns of diet overlap between populations of non-indigenous and native fishes in shallow ponds. J Fish
Biol 61: 1182–1197.
DFO. (2011). Science Advice from a Risk Assessment of Pumpkinseed (Lepomis gibbosus) in British Columbia. DFO Canadian Science Advisory Secretariat
Science Advisory Report 2010/084.
Dill WA, Cordone AJ. (1997). History and status of introduced fishes in California. Fish Bulletin, California Department of Fish and Game, 178:1-414
Doadrio, I. (ed.).(2002). Atlas y libro rojo de los peces continentales de España. Dirección General de Conservación de la Naturaleza (Ministerio de Medio
Ambiente). Madrid. 364 pp.
Ehlinger, T.J., Gross, M.R., Phillip, D.P. (1997). Morphological and growth rate differences between bluegill males of alternative reproductive life histories.
North American Journal of Fisheries Management. 17:533- 542.
Elvira, B. (1997). Impacto y control de los peces exóticos introducidos en España. En: Conservación, recuperación y gestión de la ictiofauna continental ibérica,
(Granado-Lorencio, C. ed.): 139-151. Sevilla. Publicaciones de la Estación de Ecología Acuática.
Elvira, B. (2001). Identification of non-native freshwater fishes established in Europe and assessment of their potential threat to the biological diversity. Council
of Europe: Twenty-first meeting of the Bern Convention Standing Committee, Strasbourg, France, 26-30 November 2001: document T-PVS (2001) 6, dated 11
December 2000 (available at www.coe.int)
Eaton J.G., Scheller, R.M. Effects of climate warming on fish thermal habitat in streams of the United States. Limnol. Oceanogr., 41 (1996), pp. 1109–1115
Etnier D, Starnes W. (2001). The Fishes of Tennessee. Knoxville, Tennessee, USA: The University of Tennessee Press
Ferreira T, Oliveira J, Caiola N, Sostoa Ade, Casals F, Cortes R, Economou A, Zogaris S, Garcia-Jalon D, Ilhéu M, Martinez-Capel F, Pont D, Rogers C. and
J. Prenda (2007). Ecological traits of fish assemblages from Mediterranean Europe and their responses to human disturbance. Fisheries Management and
Ecology, 14(6):473-481
Froese R, Pauly D. (2009). FishBase. http://www.fishbase.org
Froese R., Pauly D. (2013). FishBase: Lepomis macrochirus (On-line). Accessed 16 December 2016 at http://www.fishbase.org
Froese, R. and D. Pauly. Editors. (2016). FishBase. World Wide Web electronic publication. www.fishbase.org, (12/2016)
40
EU NON-NATIVE SPECIES RISK ANALYSIS – RISK ASSESSMENT TEMPLATE V1.0
Fobert, E., Zieba, G., Vilizzi, L., Godard, M. J., Fox, M. G., Stakenas, S. and Copp., G. H. (2013) Predicting non-native fish dispersal under conditions of
climate change: case study in England of dispersal and establishement of pumpkinseed Lepomis gibbosus in a floodplain pond. Ecology of Freshwater Fish. 22,
106-116
Fuller P, Nico LG, Williams DD (1999) Nonindigenous fishes introduced into inland waters of the United States. 1Assessment and management of alien species
that threaten .Special publication 27. American Fisheries Society, Bethesda
Fuller P., Cannister M. 2016. Lepomis auritus. USGS Nonindigenous Aquatic Species Database, Gainesville, FL.
https://nas.er.usgs.gov/queries/factsheet.aspx?SpeciesID=379 Revision Date: 4/12/2016
Garcia-Berthou, E; Alcaraz, C; Pou-Rovira, Q; Zamora, L; Coenders, G; Feo, C (2005) Introduction pathways and establishment rates of invasive aquatic
species in Europe. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 62(2): 453-463
Geiter, O.; Homma, S.; Kinzelbach, R. (2002). Bestandsaufnahme und Bewertung von Neozoen in Deutschland. - Texte des Umweltbundesamtes 2002 (25),
293 pp.
Gerking SD, 1962. Production and food utilization in a population of bluegill sunfish. Ecological Monographs, 32(1):31-78
Gross, M.R., Charnov, E.L. (1980). Alternative male life histories in bluegill sunfish. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of
America. 77:6937-6940.
Hermoso V, Blanco-Garrido F, Prenda J. (2008). Spatial distribution of exotic fish species in the Guadiana river basin, with two new records. Limnetica, 27:189194
Hartel T, Nemes S, Cogalniceanu D, Ollerer K, Schweiger O, et al. (2007) The effects of fish and aquatic habitat complexity on amphibians. Hydrobiologia
583: 173–182.
Hockely, F. A., Williams, C. F., Reading, A. J., Taylor, N. G. and Cable, J. (2011). Parasite fauna of introduced pumpkinseed fish Lepomis gibbosus: first
British record of Onchocleidus dispar (Monogenea). Diseases of Aquatic Organisms. 97, 65-73
Hoffmann, G.L. (1999). Parasites of North American freshwater fishes. Cornell University Press, New York
Holčík, 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.
41
EU NON-NATIVE SPECIES RISK ANALYSIS – RISK ASSESSMENT TEMPLATE V1.0
Iacob, M., and Petrescu-Mag, I. V. (2008). Inventarul speciilor non-native de peşti din apele dulci ale României. Bioflux, Cluj-Napoca, 89p.[In Romanian].
Janssen ICJM (2000). Monitoring van het Haeselaarsbroek in het brongebied van de Pepinusbeek. Ontwikkelingen in een natuurherstelproject in de
Middenlimburgse gemeente Echt Verslagen Milieukunde nr. 189, Radboud University, Nijmegen
Kawamura, K., Yonekura, R., Katano, O., Taniguchi, Y. and Saitoh, K. (2006), Origin and dispersal of bluegill sunfish, Lepomis macrochirus, in Japan and
Korea. Molecular Ecology, 15: 613–621. doi:10.1111/j.1365-294X.2006.02823.x
Kawamura K, Yonekura R, Ozaki Y, Katano O, Taniguchi Y, Saitoh K. (2010). The role of propagule pressure in the invasion success of bluegill sunfish,
Lepomis macrochirus, in Japan. Molecular Ecology, 19(24):5371-5388. http://www.blackwell-synergy.com/loi/mec
Klaar M, Copp GH, Horsfield R (2004) Autumnal habitat use of non-native pumpkinseed Lepomis gibbosus and Macroinvertebrate abundance in isolated
water bodies associations with native fish species in small English streams. Folia Zool 53:189–202
Kleef, H. van, Velde, G. van der, Leuven, R. S. E. W., Esselink, H. (2008) Pumpkinseed sunfish (Lepomis gibbosus) invasions facilitated by introductions and
nature management strongly reduce macroinvertebrate abundance in isolated water bodies. Biological Invasions 10, 8: 1481-1490
Ling, N. (2003). Rotenone - a review of its toxicity and use for fisheries management. Science for Conservation, 221, 1-40
Maitland PS. (1977). Elseviers gids voor de zoelwatervissen ([English title not available]). Amsterdam, Netherlands: Elsevier
Marsh PC. (2010). The Colorado River basin, its Native and Non-native Fishes, and the Potential for Application of Genetic Biocontrol to the Conservation of
an Imperiled Fauna. In: International Symposium on Genetic Biocontrol of Invasive Fish, Minnesota, USA, 21-24 June
2010. http://www.seagrant.umn.edu/downloads/biocontrol/Colorado_River_Basin_and_Their_Invasives-Paul_Marsh.pdf
Masson, G., Valente, E., Fox, M. G. and Copp, G. H. (2015). Thermal influences of life-history traits and reproductive effort of introduced pumpkinseed sunfish
Lepomis gibbosus in the River Moselle Basin (Northeastern France). River Research and Applications. 31, 563-575
Mesquita N, Coelho MM, Filomena MM. (2006). Spatial variation in fish assemblages across small Mediterranean drainages: effects of habitat and landscape
context. Environmental Biology of Fishes, 77:105-120
Misra, R. K. and Holdsworth, C. (1972). A relative growth index of hybridization in sunfishes (genus Lepomis, Centrarchidae). Freshwater Biology, 2: 325–
335. doi:10.1111/j.1365-2427.1972.tb00374.x
Moyle PB, Nichols R. (1973). Ecology of some native and introduced fishes of the Sierra-Nevada foothills in central California. Copeia: 478-490
42
EU NON-NATIVE SPECIES RISK ANALYSIS – RISK ASSESSMENT TEMPLATE V1.0
Moyle PB, Nichols R. (1974). Decline of native fish fauna of the Sierra-Nevada foothills, central California. American Midland Naturalist, 92:72-83
Murdy, E., R. Baker, J. Musick. (1997). Fishes of Chesapeake Bay. Washington, D.C.: Smithsonian Institution Press
Myers, P., R. Espinosa, C. S. Parr, T. Jones, G. S. Hammond, and T. A. Dewey. (2016). The Animal Diversity Web (online). Accessed at
http://animaldiversity.org.
Naspleda, J. , Zamora. L., Vila-Gispert, A. (2012). Pez sol – Lepomis gibbosus. En: Enciclopedia virtual de los Vertebrados Españoles. Salvador, A., Elvira, B.
(Eds.). Museo Nacional de Ciencias Naturales, Madrid. http://www.vertebradosibericos.org
Near, T.J., and Koppelman, J.B. (2009). Species diversity, phylogeny and phylogeography of Centrarchidae. pages. 1-38. in: S.J. Cooke and D.P. Philipp, 2009.
Centrarchid Fishes. Diversity, biology, and conservation. Blackwell Publishing, West Sussex.
NOBANIS. (2016) Online Database of the European Network on Invasive. Alien Species www.nobanis.org, Date of access 23/12/2016.
Olden JD, Poff NL. (2005). Long-term trends of native and non-native fish faunas in the American Southwest. Animal Biodiversity and Conservation, 28:7589
Page LM, Burr BM, (1991). A field guide to freshwater fishes of North America north of Mexico. Boston, USA: Houghton Mifflin Company, 432 pp.
Pflieger W. (1975). Sunfishes. In: The fishes of Missouri. Jefferson City, Missouri, USA: Missouri Department of Conservation, 249-275.
Pflieger WL. (1997). The fishes of Missouri. Missouri Department of Conservation, Jefferson City, MO. 372 pp.
Przybylski, M., Zięba G. (2011): NOBANIS – Invasive Alien Species Fact Sheet – Lepomis gibbosus. – From: Online Database of the European Network on
Invasive Alien Species – NOBANIS www.nobanis.org, Date of access 11/01/2017.
Rosen PC, Schwalbe CR, Parizek DAJ, Holm PA, Lowe CH. (1995). Introduced aquatic vertebrates in the Chiricahua region: effects on declining ranid frogs.
In: Biodiversity and Management of the Madrean Archipelago: The Sky Islands of Southwestern United States and Northwestern Mexico [ed. by DeBano, L.
F. \Gottfried, G. J. \Hamre, R. H. \Edminster, C. B. \Folliott, P. F. \Ortega-Rubio, A.]. Fort Collins, Colorado, USA: Rocky Mountain Forest and Range
Experiment Station, 251-261
Scott W.B., Crossman E.J. (1973). Freshwater Fishes of Canada. Bulletin 184, NO. 184:966 pp.
43
EU NON-NATIVE SPECIES RISK ANALYSIS – RISK ASSESSMENT TEMPLATE V1.0
Soes DM, Cooke SJ, van Kleef HH , Broeckx PB, Veenvliet P. (2011). A risk analysis of sunfishes (Centrarchidae) and pygmy sunfishes (Elassomatidae) in The
Netherlands. Netherlands: Bureau Waardenburg Bv, 110 pp
Sterba G. (1959). Süsswasserfische aus aller Welt (Freshwater fishes of the whole world). Zimmer and Herzog Verlag. Stroud RH, 1967.
Tandon K. K. (1976). Notes on systematics of the Pumpkin Seed, Lepomis gibbosus (Ostheichthyes, Perciformes, Centrarchidae). Vĕst. Čs. spol. zool., 40: 307311.
Tomoček, J., Kováč V. and Katina S. (2007). The biological flexibility of the pumpkinseed: a successful colonizer throughout Europe. In: F. Gherardi (Ed.)
Biological invaders in inland waters: profiles, distribution, and threats. Springer. Pp. 307-336.
Tomelleri JR, Eberle ME, (1990). Fishes of the Central United States. Lawrence, Kansas, USA: University of Kansas Press, 226 pp.
USDA (2012). Review and assessment of programs for invasive species management in the Southwestern region, 2012. USA: USDA Forest Service,
Southwestern Region, 33 pp. [TR-R3-16-25.]
USGS NAS. (2015). USGS Nonindigenous Aquatic Species Database. Gainesville, Florida, USA: USGS. http://nas.er.usgs.gov/
Van Kleef, H., van der Velde, G., Leuven, R. and Esselink, H. (2008). Pumpkinseed sunfish (Lepomis gibbosus) invasions facilitated by introductions and
nature management strongly reduce macroinvertebrate abundance in isolated water bodies. Biological Invasions. 10, 1481-1490
Verbrugge L.N.H., van der Velde, G. , Hendriks A.J., Verreycken H. and Leuven, R.S.E.W. (2012). Risk classifications of aquatic non-native species:
Application of contemporary European assessment protocols in different biogeographical settings. Aquatic Invasions Vol. 7, 1: 49-58
Welcomme RL. (1988). International introductions of inland aquatic species. FAO fisheries technical paper no. 294. Food and Agriculture Organization
of the United Nations, Rome
Wiesner, C., Wolter, C., Rabitsch, W. and Nehring, S. (2010): Gebietsfremde Fische in Deutschland und Österreich und mögliche Auswirkungen des
Klimawandels. – BfN-Skripten 279: 192 S
Zenetos, A., Pancucci-Papadolopoulou, M., Zogaris, S., Papastergiadou, E., Vardakas, L., Aligizaki, K. and Economou, A. E. (2009). Aquatic alien species in
Greece (2009): tracking sources, patterns and effects on the ecosystem. Journal of Biological Research-Thessaloniki. 12, 135-172
Zieba G, Fox MG, Copp GH. (2010). The effect of elevated temperature on spawning frequency and spawning behavior of introduced pumpkinseed Lepomis
gibbosus in Europe. J Fish Biol 77:1850–1855
44
EU NON-NATIVE SPECIES RISK ANALYSIS – RISK ASSESSMENT TEMPLATE V1.0
Zieba G, Fox MG, Copp GH. (2015). How will climate change affect non-native pumpkinseed Lepomis gibbosus in the U.K.? PLoS One 10:e0135482
Ziska, L.H. and Dukes, J.S., eds. (2014). Invasive Species and Global Climate Change. CABI, Wallingford, UK. 368 pp.
Zogaris S., Chatzinikolaou Y., Koutsikos N., Economou A.N., Oikonomou E., Michaelides G., Hadjisterikotis E., Beaumont W.R.C., Ferreira M.T. (2012)
Freshwater fish assemblages in Cyprus with emphasis on the effects of dams. Acta Ichthyol. Piscat. 42 (3): 165–175.
45