The introduction of the European bitterling (<i>Rhodeus amarus</i>) to west and central Europe

Damme, Dirk Van; Bogutskaya, Nina G.; Hoffmann, Richard C.; Smith, Carl

doi:10.1111/j.1467-2679.2007.00239.x

Cited by 74 publications

(90 citation statements)

References 50 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…All other bitterling species are restricted to East Asia where they are abundant [12]. Rhodeus amarus is a relatively thermophilic species [25] and expanded across Europe from glacial refugia in the Pontic and Mediterranean regions in warmer climatic periods of the Quaternary [22,23,26]. Two distinct phylogeographic clades colonized much of continental Europe independently, each originating from the same refugium.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Population-specific responses to an invasive species

et al. 2015

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Predicting the impacts of non-native species remains a challenge. As populations of a species are genetically and phenotypically variable, the impact of non-native species on local taxa could crucially depend on populationspecific traits and adaptations of both native and non-native species. Bitterling fishes are brood parasites of unionid mussels and unionid mussels produce larvae that parasitize fishes. We used common garden experiments to measure three key elements in the bitterling-mussel association among two populations of an invasive mussel (Anodonta woodiana) and four populations of European bitterling (Rhodeus amarus). The impact of the invasive mussel varied between geographically distinct R. amarus lineages and between local populations within lineages. The capacity of parasitic larvae of the invasive mussel to exploit R. amarus was higher in a Danubian than in a Baltic R. amarus lineage and in allopatric than in sympatric R. amarus populations. Maladaptive oviposition by R. amarus into A. woodiana varied among populations, with significant population-specific consequences for R. amarus recruitment. We suggest that variation in coevolutionary states may predispose different populations to divergent responses. Given that coevolutionary relationships are ubiquitous, population-specific attributes of invasive and native populations may play a critical role in the outcome of invasion. We argue for a shift from a species-centred to population-centred perspective of the impacts of invasions.

show abstract

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Population-specific responses to an invasive species

et al. 2015

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Except for Rhodeus amarus (Bloch, 1782) and Proterorhinus marmoratus (Pallas, 1814) syn. Protherorhinus semilunaris (Heckel, 1837) that probably spread via the Danube River hundreds of years ago (Harka & Bíró 2007;Van Damme et al 2007), the first introductions occurred in the beginning of the 20 th century, when Oncorhynchus mykiss (Walbaum, 1792) and Salvelinus fontinalis (Mitchill, 1814) followed by Coregonus maraena (Bloch, 1779) a few years later (Table 1) were imported (Holčík 1969;Volf & Hubáček 1930). In the same period Ameiurus nebulosus (Lesueur, 1819) penetrated from neighbouring countries (mainly Hungary) (Balon 1966).…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Common carp that is native to Danube was probably translocated together with bitterling (Rhodeus amarus) throughout Europe in the 12 th or 13 th century (Kottelat & Freyhof 2007;Van Damme et al 2007).…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Non-native fish species in Slovak waters: origins and present status

et al. 2010

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Abstract:Freshwater fishes recorded in the territory of Slovakia include 95 fish species. As many as one third of these are allochthonous fish species belonging to 14 families, among which several have not occurred in Slovakia recently. Historically, there were three main periods of introduction: the first is the beginning of the 20 th century, the second includes two decades between 1955 and 1975 and the third period is from the year 1990 up to the present time. The origins of the exotic species seen in Slovakia are the four continents -Africa (3), North America (7), Central America (3), and Asia (13) and ten of them are from different regions in Europe. The purpose of intentional introductions of non-native species was to occupy vacant ecological niches in the ecosystems reshaped by human activities, fish stocking, angling or fish farming. Some of these species spread from their original ranges or they penetrated spontaneously from the adjacent countries via the river network system. At the present time, 76 fish species in total form populations in Slovakia. There are 54 autochthonous and 22 allochthonous species, 14 of them are exotic fishes. The invasive characters in 13 fish species were considered, the recent native/total fish ratio is 0.71.

show abstract

“…fish species mussel initial glochidia load (median, range) figure 2), whereas the development success of native A. anatina showed an apparent coevolutionary signal in host suitability (Kruskal -Wallis: H 4,44 ¼ 32.3, p , 0.001, figure 2), with low success in species of east Asian origin (present in Europe for several decades) [17] and R. amarus (itself of east Asian origin and descent, with its ancestor colonizing southern Europe 2-3 Ma [18], and most of continental Europe during the Holocene [8,9]). Notably, very low development success under experimental conditions indicated that R. amarus is a non-functional host of A. anatina.…”

Section: Results and Discussion (A) Impact Of Anodonta Woodiana On Rhmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Bitterling are of east Asian origin, with more than 50 species distributed in east Asia and a single species in Europe [7]. European R. amarus has expanded relatively recently (centuries to millennia before present) from the Black Sea region into central and west Europe [8,9] where it exploits evolutionarily naive mussel populations [10].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

An invasive species reverses the roles in a host–parasite relationship between bitterling fish and unionid mussels

et al. 2012

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The impact of multiple invading species can be magnified owing to mutual facilitation—termed ‘invasional meltdown’—but invasive species can also be adversely affected by their interactions with other invaders. Using a unique reciprocal host–parasite relationship between a bitterling fish ( Rhodeus amarus ) and unionid mussels, we show that an invasive mussel reverses the roles in the relationship. Bitterling lay their eggs into mussel gills, and mussel larvae parasitize fish. Bitterling recently colonized Europe and parasitize all sympatric European mussels, but are unable to use a recently invasive mussel, Anodonta woodiana . The parasitic larvae of A. woodiana successfully develop on R. amarus , whereas larvae of European mussels are rejected by bitterling. This demonstrates that invading species may temporarily benefit from a coevolutionary lag by exploiting evolutionarily naive hosts, but the resulting relaxed selection may facilitate its exploitation by subsequent invading species, leading to unexpected consequences for established interspecific relationships.

show abstract

The introduction of the European bitterling (Rhodeus amarus) to west and central Europe

Abstract: The European bitterling is considered to be a native species over much of its present range in Europe.

Cited by 74 publications

References 50 publications

Population-specific responses to an invasive species

Population-specific responses to an invasive species

Non-native fish species in Slovak waters: origins and present status

An invasive species reverses the roles in a host–parasite relationship between bitterling fish and unionid mussels

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About