Advertisement

Central European Journal of Biology

, Volume 5, Issue 2, pp 256–261 | Cite as

Age and growth in a newly-established invasive population of topmouth gudgeon

  • Eva ZáhorskáEmail author
  • Vladmir Kováč
  • Stanislav Katina
Research Article

Abstract

Specimens of invasive topmouth gudgeon, Pseudorasbora parva, from Šúr Pond (Bratislava, Slovakia) were examined to assess age and growth, and to determine whether this recently-established invasive population employs a less specialized ontogenetic trajectory than the specialized form typical of native and/or long-time established populations. Samples were collected in October 2004 (n=143). Standard length (SL) ranged from 18.16 mm to 67.57 mm (mean 32.56 mm), and eviscerated body weight ranged from 0.10 to 5.02 g (mean 0.63 g). Scale caudal diameter ranged from 0.52 to 2.42 mm (mean 1.08 mm). SL at which the scales started to form was estimated to be 1.58 mm. The population was represented with 5 age groups, from 0+ to 4+. Relative to other populations for which comparable data are available the recently-established population of topmouth gudgeon was found to mature at smaller size and at a younger age compared to native and/or long-time established populations (all specimens bigger than 25.0 mm SL, and 94% of specimens from the age group I were already mature).

Keywords

Pseudorasbora parva Biological invasions Life-history variability 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. [1]
    Bănărescu P.M., Pseudorasbora parva (Temminck & Schlegel 1846), In: Bănărescu P.M., (Ed.), The Freshwater fishes of Europe, Vol 5/I Cyprinidae 2/I., AULA-Verlag, Wiebelsheim, 1999Google Scholar
  2. [2]
    Copp G.H., Bianco P.G., Bogutskaya N., Erős T., Falka I., Ferreira M.T., et al., To be, or not to be, a non-native freshwater fish?, J. Appl. Ichtyol., 2005, 21, 242–262CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. [3]
    Gaviloaie I.C., Falka I., Consideraçii asupra răspândiri actuale a murgoiului bălçat — Pseudorasbora parva (Temminck & Schlegel, 1846) (Pisces, Cyprinidae, Gobininae) — în Europa, Brukenthal Acta Musei, 2006, 1, 145–149, (in Romanian)Google Scholar
  4. [4]
    Rosecchi E., Thomas F., Crivelli A.J., Can life-history traits predict the fate of introduced species? A case study on two cyprinid fish in southern France, Freshw. Biol., 2001, 46, 845–853CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. [5]
    Charlebois P.M., Marsden J.E., Goettel R.G., Wolfe R.K., Jude D.J., Rudnika S., The round goby Neogobius melanostomus (Pallas), A review of European and North American Literature, Illinois-Indiana Sae Grant Program and Illinois Natural History Survey, INHS Special publications No. 20, 1997Google Scholar
  6. [6]
    Záhorská E., Kováč V., Falka I., Beyer K., Katina S., Copp G.H., et al., Morphological variability of the Asiatic cyprinid, topmouth gudgeon Pseudorasbora parva, in its introduced European range, J. Fish Biol., 2009, 74, 167–185CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. [7]
    Britton J.R., Davies G.D., Brazier M., Contrasting life history traits of invasive topmouth gudgeon (Pseudorasbora parva) in adjacent ponds in England, J. Appl. Ichtyol., 2008, 24, 694–698Google Scholar
  8. [8]
    Záhorská E., Kováč V., Life history traits of invasive topmouth gudgeon Pseudorasbora parva from Slovakia, J. Appl. Ichthyol., 2009, 25, 466–469CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. [9]
    Balon E.K., Alternative ontogenies and evolution: a farewell to gradualism, In: Hall B.K., Pearson R.D., Muller G.B., (Eds.), Environment, development and evolution, toward a synthesis, MIT Press, Cambridge, 2004Google Scholar
  10. [10]
    Kováč V., Copp, G.H., Sousa R.P., Life-history traits of invasive bighead goby Neogobius kessleri from the middle Danube with a reflection of who may win the goby competition, J. Appl. Ichthyol., 2009, 25, 33–37Google Scholar
  11. [11]
    Holčík J., Hensel K., Ichtyologická príručka, Obzor, Bratislava, 1972, (in Slovak)Google Scholar
  12. [12]
    Ricker W.E., Computation and interpretation of biological statistics of fish populations, Bulletin Fisheries Research Board Canada, 1975, 191, 1–382Google Scholar
  13. [13]
    Eilers H. C., Marx B., Flexible Smoothing with B-splines and Penalties, Statistical Science, 1996, 11, 89–121CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. [14]
    Wood S.N., Generalized additive models: an introduction with R, Chapman and Hall/CRC, Boca Raton, Florida, USA, 2006Google Scholar
  15. [15]
    R Development Core Team, R: A language and environment for statistical computing, R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Austria, 2008Google Scholar
  16. [16]
    DeMaster D.P., Calculation of the average age of sexual maturity in marine mammals. J. Fish. Res. Board Can., 1978, 35, 912–915Google Scholar
  17. [17]
    Fox M.G., Growth, density, and interspecific influences on pumpkinseed sunfish life histories, Ecology, 1994, 75, 1157–1171CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. [18]
    Trippel E.A., Harvey H.H., Reproductive responses of five white sucker (Catostomus commersoni) populations in relation to lake acidity, Can. J. Fish. Aquat. Sci., 1987, 44, 1018–1023CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. [19]
    Nikolski G.V., Fishes of the Amur, Izd. Akad. Nauk., Moscow, 1956, (in Russian)Google Scholar
  20. [20]
    Copp G.H., Fox M.G., Growth and life history traits of introduced pumpkinseed (Lepomis gibbosus) in Europe, and the relevance to its potential invasiveness, In: Gherardi F., (Ed.), Freshwater bioinvaders: profiles, distribution, and threats, Springer Verlag, Dordrecht, 2007Google Scholar
  21. [21]
    Wootton R.J., Ecology of Teleost fishes, Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht, 1998Google Scholar
  22. [22]
    Baruš V., Kux Z., Libosvárský J., On Pseudorasbora parva (Pisces) in Czechoslovakia, Folia Zool., 1984, 33, 5–18Google Scholar
  23. [23]
    Beyer K., Ecological implications of introducing Leucaspius delineatus (Heckel, 1843) and Pseudorasbora parva (Temminck and Schlegel, 1842) into inland waters in England, PhD thesis, University of Hull, United Kingdom, 2008Google Scholar
  24. [24]
    Kozlov V.I., Amurskij čebačok — Pseudorasbora parva (Schlegel) — novyj vid ichtiofauny basejna Dnestra, Vest. Zool., 1974, 8, 77–78, (in Ukrainian)Google Scholar
  25. [25]
    Mukchatcheva V.A., On the biology of the Amur cyprinid Pseudorasbora parva Schlegel.), Tr. Amur. Ikhtiol. Eksped. 1945–1949, 1950, 1, 365–374, (in Russian)Google Scholar
  26. [26]
    Giurca R., Angelescu N., Consideraţii privind biologia şi aria de raspîndiregeografica a ciprinidului Pseudorasbora parva (Schlegel) in apele României [Consideration concerning the biology and distribution area of the cyprinid fish Pseudorasbora parva (Schlegel) in the Romanian waters, Bul. Cercetari Piscicole, 1971, 30, 99–109, (in Romanian)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© © Versita Warsaw and Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2010

Authors and Affiliations

  • Eva Záhorská
    • 1
    Email author
  • Vladmir Kováč
    • 1
  • Stanislav Katina
    • 2
    • 3
  1. 1.Faculty of Natural Sciences, Department of EcologyComenius UniversityBratislavaSlovakia
  2. 2.Faculty of Mathematics and Physics and Informatics, Department of Probability and Mathematical StatisticsComenius UniversityBratislavaSlovakia
  3. 3.Department of AnthropologyUniversity of ViennaViennaAustria

Personalised recommendations