The recent occurrence, establishment and potential impact of Geophagus proximus (Cichlidae: Perciformes) in the Tietê River reservoirs: an Amazonian fish species introduced in the Paraná Basin (Brazil)

Moretto, Evandro Mateus; Marciano, Fernanda Teixeira e; Velludo, Marcela Roquetti; Fenerich-Verani, Nelsy; Espíndola, E. L. G.

doi:10.1007/s10531-008-9413-5

Cited by 20 publications

(18 citation statements)

References 12 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The high prevalence of plerocercoids found in these fish may be related to their diet, which includes copepods that can act as first intermediate hosts of proteocephalideans. Moretto et al (2008) examined the stomach contents of G. proximus from the Tietê River Basin, São Paulo State, Brazil, and found that copepods, along with other food items, such as molluscs, sediment, decomposing organic matter, allochthonous plant fragments and insects, were food items of the diet of this fish species. Plerocercoids found in G. proximus formed tissue-like masses that resemble adipose or testicular formations in the visceral cavity, as reported by Thatcher (2006).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

The helminth community ofGeophagus proximus(Perciformes: Cichlidae) from a tributary of the Paraná River, Ilha Solteira Reservoir, São Paulo State, Brazil

et al. 2012

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

AbstractThis study aimed to evaluate the helminth parasites ofGeophagus proximusfrom the São José dos Dourados River, a tributary of Paraná River, Ilha Solteira Reservoir, São Paulo State, Brazil. From May 2006 to May 2007, 116G. proximusspecimens were examined and seven different taxa of helminth were collected and identified: proteocephalidean plerocercoids (Cestoda); metacercariae ofAustrodiplostomumcompactum, Clinostomum heluansandClinostomumsp. (Trematoda); andRaphidascaris(Sprentascaris)hypostomi, and larvae ofRaphidascarissp. andContracaecumsp. (Nematoda). All parasites presented the typical aggregated pattern of distribution, as well as the presence of a high number of larval stages, an absence of influence of the host sex and seasonality upon community parameters, as well as a correlation between species richness and host body weight. Moreover, with the exception ofA. compactummetacercariae, all helminths found in this study are reported for the first time inG. proximus.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

The helminth community ofGeophagus proximus(Perciformes: Cichlidae) from a tributary of the Paraná River, Ilha Solteira Reservoir, São Paulo State, Brazil

et al. 2012

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Ecosystems with less functional duplication are more vulnerable to disturbance (Schindler, 1990), and in some cases introduced fish could diminish the overall resilience of the ecosystem through modification of the trophic structure (Folke et al , 2004). Most studies on non‐native introductions, however, only identify initial effects of alteration (Moretto et al , 2008; Smith et al, 2009), cover a relatively short period (Gozlan et al , 2003; Encina et al , 2004; Jordan et al , 2004; Buria et al , 2007) or do not explicitly identify effects on other ecosystem processes (Zaret & Paine, 1973; Bradford, 1989; Nelva, 1997) or changes in ecosystem function (Xie & Chen, 1999; Moyle & Davis, 2000; Bernardo et al , 2003; Holcik, 2003; Russell et al , 2003; Olsen & Belk, 2005). Even studies that characterize interactions between non‐native and native fauna rarely discuss these processes in the global context of ecosystem functioning (McIntosh & Townsend, 1995; Chapleau et al , 1997; Funk & Dunlap, 1999; Ling, 2004; Maezono et al , 2005).…”

Section: Ecological Impactmentioning

confidence: 99%

Current knowledge on non‐native freshwater fish introductions

Gozlan

Britton

Cowx

et al. 2010

Journal of Fish Biology

680

606

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This review provides a contemporary account of knowledge on aspects of introductions of non‐native fish species and includes issues associated with introduction pathways, ecological and economic impacts, risk assessments, management options and impact of climate change. It offers guidance to reconcile the increasing demands of certain stakeholders to diversify their activities using non‐native fishes with the long‐term sustainability of native aquatic biodiversity. The rate at which non‐native freshwater fishes have been introduced worldwide has doubled in the space of 30 years, with the principal motives being aquaculture (39%) and improvement of wild stocks (17%). Economic activity is the principal driver of human‐mediated non‐native fish introductions, including the globalization of fish culture, whereby the production of the African cichlid tilapia is seven times higher in Asia than in most areas of Africa, and Chile is responsible for c. 30% of the world's farmed salmon, all based on introduced species. Consequently, these economic benefits need balancing against the detrimental environmental, social and economic effects of introduced non‐native fishes. There are several major ecological effects associated with non‐native fish introductions, including predation, habitat degradation, increased competition for resources, hybridization and disease transmission. Consideration of these aspects in isolation, however, is rarely sufficient to adequately characterize the overall ecological effect of an introduced species. Regarding the management of introduced non‐native fish, pre‐introduction screening tools, such as the fish invasiveness scoring kit (FISK), can be used to ensure that species are not introduced, which may develop invasive populations. Following the introduction of non‐native fish that do develop invasive populations, management responses are typified by either a remediation or a mitigation response, although these are often difficult and expensive to implement, and may have limited effectiveness.

show abstract

“…Geophagus proximus was detected in the Upper Paraná River in early 2000 (reservoirs of Tietê River; Vidotto & Carvalho, 2007;Moretto et al, 2008). We chose this cichlid invader to evaluate our framework because it is a territorial omnivore and occupies the littoral zone, where species richness and thus biological interactions are usually high.…”

Section: Using the Framework: Case Studiesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Using space‐for‐time substitution and time sequence approaches in invasion ecology

et al. 2012

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Summary 1. Invasion biologists use two main approaches to evaluate the effects of non‐native species (NNS) on diversity of native species (DNS), namely space‐for‐time and time approaches. These approaches have pitfalls related to lack of controls: the former lacks pre‐invasion data, while the latter often lacks data from non‐invaded sites. 2. We propose a framework that combines space‐for‐time and time approaches and which should result in more focused mechanistic hypotheses and experiments to test the causes of invasibility and the effects of NNS on DNS. We illustrate the usefulness of our framework using two case studies: one with the submersed macrophyte, Hydrilla verticillata, in reservoir and the other with the fish, Geophagus proximus, in a large river–floodplain system. 3. Hydrilla verticillata invaded sites with DNS similar to that found in non‐invaded sites, indicating that biotic and/or abiotic factors did not influence invasion success; however, DNS increased over time in invaded sites compared with non‐invaded sites, suggesting that H. verticillata facilitated natives. In contrast, G. proximus invaded sites with higher DNS than non‐invaded sites, suggesting that biotic and/or abiotic factors favouring natives were important for invasion success, but DNS increased in invaded and non‐invaded sites over time, indicating that an independent factor contributed to DNS increases. 4. Conclusions from both studies would have been inaccurate or incomplete if the space‐for‐time and time approaches had not been used in combination as proposed in our framework.

show abstract

The recent occurrence, establishment and potential impact of Geophagus proximus (Cichlidae: Perciformes) in the Tietê River reservoirs: an Amazonian fish species introduced in the Paraná Basin (Brazil)

Cited by 20 publications

References 12 publications

The helminth community ofGeophagus proximus(Perciformes: Cichlidae) from a tributary of the Paraná River, Ilha Solteira Reservoir, São Paulo State, Brazil

The helminth community ofGeophagus proximus(Perciformes: Cichlidae) from a tributary of the Paraná River, Ilha Solteira Reservoir, São Paulo State, Brazil

Current knowledge on non‐native freshwater fish introductions

Using space‐for‐time substitution and time sequence approaches in invasion ecology

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About