Population and reproductive characteristics of a non-native western tubenose goby (Proterorhinus semilunaris) population unaffected by gobiid competitors

Abstract

This review examines the ecological, economical, and public health significance of chironomids and provides examples of chironomid invasions via international shipping and the subsequent local and regional impacts. Dispersal and adaptation mechanisms as facilitators of chironomid invasions are presented, and control methods are discussed. Impacts ranged from increased nuisance occurrences to agricultural disruption. Anthropogenic activities including pollution-related decimation of aquatic benthic communities might allow introduction of invasive chironomids. Chironomids can inhabit many environments, including eutrophic lakes and wastewater treatment areas, and may accumulate contaminants in high concentrations. Health concerns include the association of chironomid egg masses with Vibrio cholerae, roles of chironomids as vectors for avian botulism, and effects of chironomid chemicals as human allergens. Therefore, the presence of new chironomid species in an environment may present threats to public health and local ecosystems.

Bio-Ecological Traits of Western Tubenose Goby Proterorhinus semilunaris (Heckel, 1837): A Key to Understand Its Invasion Success

“…The similarity between the ripe egg diameters measured in April and May has contributed to the opinion that the beginning of the spawning was April. Additionally, this relatively long spawning season determined in the present study is similar to the literature [1,30]. According to Valová et al [30], this reproductive characteristic represents a distinct advantage when colonising new areas (a major competitive advantage over native fish in the same habitat).…”

Plasticity in gene transcription explains the differential performance of two invasive fish species

“…Clair River in 1990, Jude et al, 1992) and have similar ages at maturity (females at age 1; round goby: MacInnis & Corkum, 2000b; tubenose goby: Valová et al, 2015) indicating that a similar number of generations since invasion have occurred for both species. It is therefore unlikely that tubenose goby has had enough time to evolve a loss of plasticity in North America, while the round goby has not.…”

“…; Fuller, Nico, et al. ), but this does not appear to result in large differences in fecundity (MacInnis & Corkum, ; Valová, Konečná, Janáč, & Jurajda, ).…”

“…The presence of both species in Lake Superior (Figure 1) suggests that differences in secondary transport due to shipping vectors within the Great Lakes are unlikely to explain the differential range expansion. Tubenose goby are slightly smaller on average than round goby (maximum total length in the Great Lakes: TNG ~ 130 mm, RG ~ 180 mm; Fuller, Benson, et al 2017;Fuller, Nico, et al 2017), but this does not appear to result in large differences in fecundity (MacInnis & Corkum, 2000b;Valová, Konečná, Janáč, & Jurajda, 2015).…”

Plasticity in the feeding ecology of native Ponto‐Caspian gobies suggests establishment success in their nonnative range

“…Like many other bio‐ecological features (e.g., Karakuş et al, ; Valová, Konečná, Janác, & Jurajda, ), the feeding ecology of both P. semilunaris and N. fluviatilis has been investigated to some extent in both their native (Adámek, Andreji, & Gallardo, ; Gaygusuz, Gürsoy Gaygusuz, Tarkan, Acıpınar, & Türer, ; Pinchuk, Vasil’eva, Vasil’ev, & Miller, ) and nonnative ranges (Grabowska et al, ; Kakareko et al, ; Kocovsky et al, ; Vanderploeg et al, ; Vašek et al, ; Všeticková et al, ). However, in their native range of Turkey, only one single study per species is available (i.e., Gaygusuz et al, ; Gürsoy Gaygusuz, Tarkan, & Gaygusuz, ), making both the assessment and management of their risks of invasion (i.e., through translocation) poorly informed.…”