Description
Potentially Misidentified Species - The Esox lucius X Esox masquinongy ('Tiger Muskie') is a sterile artificial hybrid. Esox reicherti (Amur Pike) is native to Asia (Russia, China) and was introduced to Glendale Lake (PA) in the Susquehanna drainage. It has not been reported from the river proper (Denoncourt et al. 1975b), and is considered to be a failed introduction (Courtenay et al. 1984).
Taxonomy
Kingdom | Phylum | Class | Order | Family | Genus |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Animalia | Chordata | Osteichthyes | Salmoniformes | Esocidae | Esox |
Synonyms
Invasion History
Chesapeake Bay Status
First Record | Population | Range | Introduction | Residency | Source Region | Native Region | Vectors |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
1973 | Unknown | Stable | Introduced | Boundary Resident | North America | Holarctic | Fisheries(Fisheries Intentional) |
History of Spread
Esox lucius (Northern Pike), in North America, is native to Atlantic, Arctic, Great Lakes and Mississippi Basins from Labrador to AK and south to PA, MO, and NE. It is also native to Eurasia as far south as Italy, and is common in the inner Baltic (Page and Burr 1991; Scott and Crossman 1973). Esox lucius was introduced outside its native range, in a limited manner by the United States Fish Commission, but many later introductions were by state agencies (Jenkins and Burkhead 1993; Scott and Crossman 1973). Esox lucius were native to Lake Champlain (and possibly other large deep lakes in New York State), but were stocked in the Hudson River Basin in the 1840's, reaching the lower Hudson by 1976 (Mills et al. 1997). An illegal introduction of E. lucius occurred in CA in the Feather River (Sacramento drainage) between 1976 and 1988. An eradiction program is in progress in C A(Dill and Cordono 1997). Esox lucius has been introduced to non-native waters in 37 states (Fuller et al. 1999).
Early unsuccessful stocking by United States Fish Commission of 100 'pike' in upper James drainage in 1894, but widespread stocking in the Chesapeake Basin apparently began in 1960's in PA (Denoncourt et al. 1975b) and later in MD and VA. In VA and most of MD this species appears to be largely or wholly confined to reservoirs. Esox lucius frequently have limited or no reproductive success south of their native range. In VA (Jenkins and Burkhead 1993), the Susquehanna River PA (Mangan 1986), and RI (Fofonoff personal observation), populations are dependent on stocking. Populations introduced south of the native range are also frequently subjected to mortality from a combination of heat and hypoxia (Jenkins and Burkhead 1993).
Potomac River - E. lucius were stocked in Piedmont streams and impoundments, but have not been caught in recent years (Ernst et al. 1995). In 1992, the District of Columbia released 4,000 fingerlings (Christmas et al. 2000), but the fate of these fish is not known.
Susquehanna River - Esox lucius is not listed for Susquehanna by Fowler (1919; 1948) or in Bielo's (1963) survey, but was described later as 'extensively introduced throughout PA waters by the Pennsylvania Fish Commission. It has now become a common gamefish of the Susquehanna drainage' (Denoncourt et al. 1975b). It was recorded in the lower Susquehanna and in the Conowingo Reservoir (1973-1975) (Denoncourt and Cooper 1975). Reproduction appears to be rare, but a juvenile was collected in Susquehanna in northern PA in 1986 (Mangan 1986). This species has been collected in the Susquehanna below Conowingo Dam, 1972-84 (Pavol and Davis 1982; McKeown 1984). PA has stopped stocking of esocids in the Susquehanna (McLean 1999, personal communication).
Delaware River - Thirty-six 'pike' were introduced in Brandywine Creek DE 1888; probably this species, and presumably a failed introduction (Raasch and Altemus 1991). Esox lucius was not listed for Delaware Estuary by Horwitz (1986).
History References - Bielo 1963; Denoncourt and Cooper 1975; Denoncourt et al. 1975b; Dill and Cordono 1997; Ernst et al. 1995; Fowler 1919; Fowler 1948; Fuller et al. 1999; Horwitz 1986; Jenkins and Burkhead 1993; Lee 1976; Mangan 1986; McKeown 1984; McLean 1999 personal communication; Mills et al. 1997; Raasch and Altemus 1991; Scott and Crossman 1973
Invasion Comments
Ecology
Environmental Tolerances
For Survival | For Reproduction | |||
---|---|---|---|---|
Minimum | Maximum | Minimum | Maximum | |
Temperature (ºC) | 0.0 | 35.0 | 1.0 | 4.0 |
Salinity (‰) | 0.0 | 10.0 | 0.0 | 7.0 |
Oxygen | ||||
pH | ||||
Salinity Range | fresh-oligo |
Age and Growth
Male | Female | |
---|---|---|
Minimum Adult Size (mm) | ||
Typical Adult Size (mm) | ||
Maximum Adult Size (mm) | ||
Maximum Longevity (yrs) | ||
Typical Longevity (yrs |
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
Esox lucius (Northern Pike) have little or no economic and ecological impacts in the Chesapeake Bay proper, they may be important as sportfish in the Susquehanna and reservoirs in the watershed if abundance permits (Jenkins and Burkhead 1993; Lee et al. 1981). They have been stocked in the Potomac, in the District of Columbia (Christmas et al. 2000).
References- Christmas et al. 2000; Jenkins and Burkhead 1993; Lee et al. 1981
Economic Impacts Outside of Chesapeake Bay
Esox lucius (Northern Pike) are widely regarded as an important sportfish, but they are sometimes considered a nuisance as a predator of more desirable species (Scott and Crossman 1973). They have been introduced to non-native watersheds in 39 states (Fuller et al. 1999). In the Sacramento River system CA an expensive eradiction program is under way to eliminate illegally introduced E. lucius, which are regarded as a threat to rare native species and valuable sport fishes (Dill and Cordone 1997).
References- Dill and Cordone 1997; Fuller et al. 1999; Scott and Crossman 1973
Ecological Impacts on Chesapeake Native Species
Esox lucius (Northern Pike) in the Chesapeake Bay region appears to be largely confined to the Susquehanna River (McKeown 1984; Pavol and Davis 1982) and reservoirs around the Coastal Plain (Jenkins and Burkhead 1993). However, a large release was made in Washington DC on the Potomac, with unknown results (Christmas et al. 2000). As reproduction is rare in the Chesapeake Bay watershed (Jenkins and Burkhead 1993; Mangan 1986), this species is dependent on stocking, and occurs only sporadically. Significant impacts on native fishes are unlikely. In the Feather River system (Sacramento River drainage) CA, an illegally introduced population of E. lucius is regarded as a potentially dangerous predator on native fishes (Dill and Cordono 1997).
References- Christmas et al. 2000; Jenkins and Burkhead 1993; Mangan 1986; McKeown 1984; Pavol and Davis 1982
Ecological Impacts on Other Chesapeake Non-Native Species
Esox lucius (Northern Pike) is unlikely to have significant impacts on introduced fishes in the Chesapeake Bay and watershed because of its limited distribution (Jenkins and Burkhead 1993; McKeown 1984; Pavol and Davis 1982) and lack of natural reproduction (Mangan 1986).
References - Jenkins and Burkhead 1993; Mangan 1986; McKeown 1984; Pavol and Davis 1982
References
Becker, George C. (1983) Fishes of Wisconsin, , Madison. Pp.Bielo, Robert J. (1963) A fishery investigation of the Susquehanna River in Pennsylvania, In: (Eds.) . , Newark. Pp.
Carlander, Kenneth D. (1969) Handbook of freshwater fishery biology. Vol. 1., In: (Eds.) . , Ames. Pp.
Christmas, John and 7 authors. (1998) History, management, and status of introduced fishes in the Chesapeake Bay basin., In: Therres, Glenn D.(Eds.) Conservation of Biological Diversity: A Key to Restoration of the Chesapeake Bay and Beyond.. , Annapolis. Pp. 97-116
Courtenay, Walter R., Jr.; Hensley, Dannie A.; Taylor, Jeffrey; McCann, James A. (1984) Distribution of exotic fishes in the continental United States., In: Courtenay, Walter R., and Stauffer, Jay R.(Eds.) Distribution, Biology, and Management of Exotic Fishes. , Baltimore, MD. Pp.
Denoncourt, Robert F.; Robbins, Timothy W.; Hesser, Robert (1975) Recent introductions and reintroductions to the Pennsylvania fish fauna of the Susquehanna River drainage above Conowingo Dam, Proceedings of the Pennsylvania Academy of Science 49: 57-58
Denoncourt, Robert F.; Cooper, Edwin L. (1975) A review of the literature and checklist of fishes of the Susquehanna River drainage above Conowingo Dam, Proceedings of the Pennsylvania Academy of Science 49: 121-125
Dill, William A.; Cordone, Almo J. (1997) History and status of introduced fishes in California, 1871-1996, California Department of Fish and Game Fish Bulletin 178: 1-414
Ernst, Carl H.; Wilgenbusch, James C.,; Morgan, Donald L.; Boucher, Timothy P.; Sommerfield, Mark (1995) Fishes of Fort Belvoir, Virginia, Maryland Naturalist 39: 1-60
Fowler, Henry W. (1919) A list of the fishes of Pennsylvania, Proceedings of the Biological Society of Washington 32: 49-74
Fowler, Henry W. (1948) A list of the fishes of Pennsylvania., Bulletin of the Board of Fish Commisioners, Commonwealth of Pennsylvania 7: 1-26
Fuller, Pam. L.; Nico, Leo; Williams, J. D. (1999) Nonindigenous fishes introduced into inland waters of the United States, , Bethesda MD. Pp.
Horwitz, Richard J. (1986) Fishes of the Delaware estuary in Pennsylvania., In: Majundar, S.K., Brenner, F. J., Rhoads, A. F.(Eds.) Endangered and Threatened Species Programs in Pennsylvania.. , Philadelphia. Pp. 177-201
Jenkins, Robert E.; Burkhead, Noel M. (1993) Freshwater fishes of Virginia., , Bethesda, MD. Pp.
Lee, David S. (1976) Aquatic zoogeography of Maryland, Atlantic Naturalist 31: 147-158
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
Mangan, Brian P. (1986) Natural reproduction of the muskellunge (Esox masquinongy) in the Susquehanna River, near Berwick, Pennsylvania, Proceedings of the Pennsylvania Academy of Science 60: 200
McKeown, Paul E. (1984) Additions to ichthyofauna of the Susquehanna River with a checklist of fishes of the Susquehanna River drainage below Conowingo Dam, Proceedings of the Pennsylvania Academy of Science 58: 187-192
Mills, Edward L.; Scheuerell, Mark D.; Carlton, James T.; Strayer, David (1997) Biological invasions in the Hudson River: an inventory and historical analysis., New York State Museum Circular 57: 1-51
Page, Lawrence M.; Burr, Brooks M. (1991) Freshwater Fishes., , Boston. Pp.
Pavol, Kenneth W.; Davis, Robert W. (1982) An investigation of the smallmouth bass in the Susquehanna River below Conowingo Dam, F-29R , Annapolis MD. Pp.
Raasch, Maynard S.; Altemus, Vaughn L., Sr. (1991) Delaware's freshwater and brackish water fishes: a popular account, , Wilmingotn, Delaware. Pp.
Scott, W. B.; Crossman, E. J. (1973) Freshwater fishes of Canada, , Ottawa. Pp.