Description
Taxonomy
Kingdom | Phylum | Class | Order | Family | Genus |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Animalia | Chordata | Osteichthyes | Clupeiformes | Clupeidae | Dorosoma |
Synonyms
Invasion History
Chesapeake Bay Status
First Record | Population | Range | Introduction | Residency | Source Region | Native Region | Vectors |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
1953 | Established | Stable | Introduced | Regular Resident | North America | North America | Fisheries(Fisheries Intentional) |
History of Spread
Dorosoma petenense (Threadfin Shad) is native to the Mississippi and Gulf of Mexico drainges from IN and IL south to Guatemala (Page and Burr 1991). It may have been introduced to Gulf drainages east of the Mississippi River, and to the Florida peninsula in the first half of the 20th century (Fuller et al. 1999). This fish was widely introduced as a forage fish to reservoirs in North America starting in 1950's (Carlander 1969). Tendencies for winter die-offs, 'boom and bust' population fluctuations, and unpredictable invasiveness has led to a decline in introductions in recent years (Jenkins and Burkhead 1993; Fuller et al. 1999).
Dorosoma petenense was introduced to Atlantic drainages from FL to MD by 1981 (Lee et al. 1980; Lee et al. 1981; Fuller et al. 1999). In 1955, a stocking of Lake Havasu AZ led to spread throughout the lower Colorado to the Mexican border. In 1959, it was introduced to reservoirs in the Sacramento-San Joaquin River system and reached the Delta and San Francisco Bay by 1961 (Cohen and Carlton 1995). Dorosoma petenense have been occasionally captured in marine waters of the San FranciscoBay and adjacent coast, as far north as Yaquina Bay OR (by 1973) (Krygier et al. 1973; Lee et al. 1980; Eschmeyer et al. 1983). This species was also introduced to several Hawaiian islands, before 1962 (Carlander 1969). It has been introduced to 24 states, but in some regions it has died out due to cold weather (Fuller et al. 1999).
Dates of Chesapeake Bay introductions and subsequent records are listed below:
Back Bay (Currituck Sound), James River, York River - Dorosoma petenense was stocked in these estuaries between 1953 and 1959 (Jenkins and Burkhead 1993). In 1967-1998 Striped Bass seine surveys, this species was ranked 14th in overall abundance, just below the native D. cepediamum (Gizzard Shad) (Virginia Institute of Marine Science 1998).
Rappahannock River- Dorosoma petenense was not stocked in 1950's and apparently colonized this estuary later (tidal regions only, Jenkins and Burkhead 1993).
Potomac River- Dorosoma petenense was stocked between 1953 and 1959 (Jenkins and Burkhead 1993) and was considered rare by Lippson and Moran (1974). It was collected (juveniles only) in Aquia and Piscataway Creeks and at Maryland Point; (Lippson et al. 1979).
Upper Bay and Drainages- There is one record of D. petenense from the Chesapeake & Delaware Canal (Jones et al. 1978), but this species is not listed by later authors (Raasch and Altemus 1991; Wang and Kernehan 1979).
Eastern Shore Drainages - Dorosoma petenense is listed for MD (Lee et al. 1981); but there are no Eastern Shore VA records (Jenkins and Burkhead 1993). In Coursey Pond DE (1977), it was stocked unsuccessfully, and did not survive the winter (Raasch and Altemus 1991).
The only surviving lake populations in VA are in Back Bay and Lake Anna (York-Pamunkey drainage) (Jenkins and Burkhead 1993).
History References - Carlander 1969; Eschmeyer et al. 1983; Fuller et al. 1999; Jenkins and Burkhead 1993; Jones et al. 1978; Krygier et al. 1973; Lee et al. 1980; Lee et al. 1981; Lippson and Moran 1974; Lippson et al. 1979; Raasch and Altemus 1991; Virginia Institute of Marine Science 1998; Wang and Kernehan 1979
Invasion Comments
Ecology
Environmental Tolerances
For Survival | For Reproduction | |||
---|---|---|---|---|
Minimum | Maximum | Minimum | Maximum | |
Temperature (ºC) | 5.0 | 34.9 | 14.4 | 27.2 |
Salinity (‰) | 0.0 | 32.3 | 0.0 | 1.0 |
Oxygen | ||||
pH | ||||
Salinity Range | fresh-eu |
Age and Growth
Male | Female | |
---|---|---|
Minimum Adult Size (mm) | 52.0 | 52.0 |
Typical Adult Size (mm) | 100.0 | 100.0 |
Maximum Adult Size (mm) | 178.0 | 178.0 |
Maximum Longevity (yrs) | 4.0 | 4.0 |
Typical Longevity (yrs | 2.0 | 2.0 |
Reproduction
Start | Peak | End | |
---|---|---|---|
Reproductive Season | |||
Typical Number of Young Per Reproductive Event |
|||
Sexuality Mode(s) | |||
Mode(s) of Asexual Reproduction |
|||
Fertilization Type(s) | |||
More than One Reproduction Event per Year |
|||
Reproductive Startegy | |||
Egg/Seed Form |
Impacts
Economic Impacts in Chesapeake Bay
Dorosoma petenense (Threadfin Shad) could possibly benefit Bay fisheries as a forage fish, or adversely affect them due to competition with native clupeids (shads and herrings) or juvenile sport fishes (See 'Ecological Impacts'). Statistical analyses indicate that D. petenense may be affecting the abundance of native clupeids (Herbert Austin, personal communication 1998).
References- Austin 1998 personal communication
Economic Impacts Outside of Chesapeake Bay
Dorosoma petenense (Threadfin Shad) was widely introduced as a forage fish to reservoirs in North America starting in 1950's (Carlander 1969). A tendency to winter die-offs, 'boom and bust' population fluctuations, a tendency for unexpected invasions (Lee et al. 1980), and possible interference with sport fish recruitment through alteration of plankton food-webs (Crowl and Boxrucker 1988; Guest et al. 1990) have all limited recent introductions (Jenkins and Burkhead 1993).
References - Carlander 1969; Crowl and Boxrucker 1988; Guest et al. 1990; Jenkins and Burkhead 1993; Lee et al. 1980
Ecological Impacts on Chesapeake Native Species
The abundance of Dorosoma petenense (Threadfin Shad) in the Chesapeake region may be limited by climate. This species and its impacts are currently confined to western Bay tributaries south of the Potomac River, where it has roughly half the abundance of the native D. cepedianum (Gizzard Shad) (Wagner et al. 1999). The invasive ability of this species is considered a serious drawback to any further stocking (Jenkins and Burkhead 1993).
Predation- Dorosoma petenense is an efficient feeder on zooplankton, feeding both by filtering and by selective visual predation on larger organisms. It has affected reservoirs and lakes by alteration of the size-structure of zooplankton (Guest et al. 1990). Other clupeiids in the Chesapeake, including D. cepedianum (Gizzard Shad), Brevoortia tyrannus (Menhaden), Alosa sapidissima (American Shad), A. mediocris (Hickory Shad), A. pseudoharengus (Alewife) and A. aestivalis (Blueback Herring), have also have planktivorous feeding habits and are apparently more abundant (Musick 1972a; Jenkins and Burkhead 1993). However, in experimental ponds, D. petenense had greater effects on zooplankton than D. cepedianum, because of their greater degree of selective visual feeding (Guest et al. 1990). Possible alteration of zooplankton communities due to predation is seen as one of the drawbacks of D. petenense introductions (Crowl and Boxrucker 1988; Guest et al. 1990; Jenkins and Burkhead 1993).
Competition- Competition with native clupeids or other planktivorous fishes in Chesapeake Bay has not been documented to our knowledge. High abundances of D. petenense resulted in lower recruitment of Dorosoma cepedianum (Gizzard Shad, native in the Chesapeake) and Pomoxis annularis (introduced in the Chesapeake) in experimental ponds in TX, apparently by reducing abundance of larger zooplankton forms (Guest et al. 1990). Such alterations of zooplankton size-structure could affect native planktivorous fishes including clupeids and larvae and juveniles of game species. Statistical analyses indicate that D. petenense is affecting the abundance of native clupeids (Herbert Austin, pers. comm. 1998).
Food- Potential native fish predators include Morone saxatilis (Striped Bass) and Morone americana (White Perch).
References - Crowl and Boxrucker 1988; Guest et al. 1990; Austin personal commication 1998; Jenkins and Burkhead 1993; Musick 1972a
Ecological Impacts on Other Chesapeake Non-Native Species
Impacts of Dorosoma petenense on introduced fishes in Chesapeake Bay may be limited by the low abundance of this fish, due to mortality at low temperatures (Jenkins and Burkhead 1993). As noted below, both positive and negative impacts of D. petenensis on abundance and growth of sport fishes have been observed. The small adult size and rapid growth of this fish makes it a desirable forage fish, but when this species is not controlled by predation, excessive biomasses may compete with planktivorous larvae and juveniles of sport fishes (Hirst and DeVries 1994).
Food/Prey- Dorosoma petenense was introduced to Chesapeake Bay as a forage fish for predatory fishes such as Micropterus salmoides (Largemouth Bass), Lepomis spp. (sunfishes), Pomoxis spp. (crappies), etc (Carlander 1969; Jenkins and Burkhead 1993). It is considered a better forage fish than native Dorosoma cepedianum because of its smaller size (Jenkins and Burkhead 1993). The elimination of an introduced population of D. petenense in a reservoir in the NC Piedmont, due to a winter kill, resulted in reduced recruitment and slower growth of P. nigromaculatus (Black Crappie). Reestablishment of D. petenense led to a return of earlier growth patterns (Jackson and Bryant 1993).
Competition - Dorosoma petenense can also adversely affect sportfish recruitment by altering the abundance and size structure of zooplankton, reducing food availabilty. Pomoxis annularis was adversely affected in OK reservoirs, but similar effects on juveniles of other sportfishes, and adults of planktivores such as Lepomis macrochirus (Bluegill) are quite likely (Crowl and Boxrucker 1988; Guest et al. 1990). Possible competition between larvae of D. petenense and Micropterus spp. (M. salmoides, Largemouth Bass, and M. punctulatus, Spotted Bass) was studied in two AL reservoirs. Some diet overlap between bass and shad larvae was found, but was judged to be insignificant, given bass' preference for larger prey, and the high zooplankton abundances during the larval period (Hirst and DeVries 1994).
References - Carlander 1969; Crowl and Boxrucker 1988; Guest et al. 1990; Hirst and DeVries 1994; Jackson and Bryant 1993; Jenkins and Burkhead 1993
References
Carlander, Kenneth D. (1969) Handbook of freshwater fishery biology. Vol. 1., In: (Eds.) . , Ames. Pp.Crowl, Todd A.; Boxrucker, Jeff A. (1985) Possible competitive effects of two introduced planktivores, Proceedings of the Annual Conference of the Southeast Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies 42: 185-192
Eschmeyer, William N.; Herald, Earl S.; Hamman, Howard (1983) A field guide to Pacific coast fishes., , Boston. Pp.
Fuller, Pam. L.; Nico, Leo; Williams, J. D. (1999) Nonindigenous fishes introduced into inland waters of the United States, , Bethesda MD. Pp.
Guest, W. Clell; Drenner, Ray W.; Threlkeld, Steven T., Martin, F. Douglas; Smith, J. Durward (1990) Effects of gizzard shad and threadfin shad on zooplankton and young-of-year white crappie production, Transactions of the American Fisheries Society 119: 529-536
Hirst, Shawn C.; DeVries, Dennis R. (1994) Assessing the potential for direct feeding interactions among larval black bass and larval shad in ten southeastern reservoirs., Transactions of the American Fisheries Society 123: 173-181
Jackson, James R.; Bryant, Shari (1993) Impacts of a threadfin shad winterkill on black crappie in a North Carolina reservoir, Proceedings of the Annual Conference of the Southeast Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies 47: 511-519
Jenkins, Robert E.; Burkhead, Noel M. (1993) Freshwater fishes of Virginia., , Bethesda, MD. Pp.
Jones, Philip W.; Martin, F. Douglas; Hardy, Jerry D., Jr. (1978) Development of fishes of the mid-Atlantic Bight. V. 1. Acipenseridae through Ictaluridae., In: (Eds.) . , Washington DC. Pp.
Krygier, Earl E.; Johnson, William C.; Bond, Carl E. (1973) Records of the California tonguefish, threadfin shad and smooth alligator fish from Yaquina Bay, Oregon, California Fish and Game 59: 140-142
Lee, David S.; Gilbert, Carter R.; Hocutt, Charles H.; Jenkins, Robert E.; McAllister, Don E.; Stauffer, Jay R. (1980) Atlas of North American Freshwater Fishes, , Raleigh. Pp.
Lee, David S.; Platania, S. P.; Gilbert, Carter R.; Franz, Richard; Norden, Arnold (1981) A revised list of the freshwater fishes of Maryland and Delaware, Proceedings of the Southeastern Fishes Council 3: 1-9
Lippson, Alice J.; Haire, Michael S.; Holland, A. Frederick; Jacobs, Fred; Jensen, Jorgen; Moran-Johnson, R. Lynn; Polgar, Tibor T.; Richkus, William (1979) Environmental Atlas of the Potomac Estuary, , Baltimore, MD. Pp.
Lippson, Alice J.; Moran, R. Lynn (1974) Manual for identification of early developmental stages of fishes of the Potomac River estuary., In: (Eds.) . , Baltimore MD. Pp.
Musick, J. A.; Wiley, Martin L. (1972) Fishes of Chesapeake Bay and the adjacent coastal plain, Special Scientific Report, Virginia Institute of Marine Science 65: 175-212
Page, Lawrence M.; Burr, Brooks M. (1991) Freshwater Fishes., , Boston. Pp.
Raasch, Maynard S.; Altemus, Vaughn L., Sr. (1991) Delaware's freshwater and brackish water fishes: a popular account, , Wilmingotn, Delaware. Pp.
1998-2005 VIMS's juvenile striped bass seine survey- species caught. http://www.fisheries.vims.edu/trawlseine/sbspchgt.htm
Wang, Johnson, C. S.; Kenehahan, Ronnie (1979) Fishes of the Delaware estuaries: a guide to the early life histories, , Towson MD. Pp.