Appendix II
Table 1 Peer-reviewed papers that discussed population control of non-native fishes covered in this review. Agencies are: Auburn U - Auburn
University, FL FWC - Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission (formerly Florida Game Commission), FL DNR - Florida Department of
Natural Resources, NPS – National park Service, UCF - University of Central Florida, UF - University of Florida, USFWS – United States Fish and
Wildlife Service, USGS – United States Geological Survey. “Local” indicates that a specific population was controlled or eliminated but other
populations survived. * denotes multiple secondary citations of the same control event
Citation
Species
abbreviation
Secondary
Report
Desc/Manip
Intentional
Agency
Control
agent
Successful?
Clar batr
no
Desc
no
FL FWC
Ichthyocide
Uncertain
Buntz and
Manooch 1968
Oreo aure
yes
Desc
yes
FL FWC
Electrofishing
, nets
Local, temporary
Colle et al. 1978
Cten idel
no
Manip
yes
FL FWC
Ichthyocide
No
Courtenay and
Kohler 1986
Tila zill*
yes
Desc
yes
unknown
unknown
Yes
Courtenay and
Robins 1973
Tila zill*
yes
Desc
yes
FL FWC
Ichthyocide
Yes
Courtenay et al.
1984
Thor meek,
Para salv, Tila
zill*
both
Desc
yes
FL
FWCC/unknown
unknown
Para salv - Local,
temporary, Thor meek
- Local,Tila zill* - Yes
Courtenay et al.
1986
Para salv,
Thor meek,
Roci octo
yes
Desc
yes
FL FWC
Ichthyocide
Para salv - Local,
temporary, Thor meek
- Local, Roci octo Local
Courtenay et al.
1974
Tila zill*, Oreo
moss
yes
Desc
yes
FL FWC
Ichthyocide
Tila zill - Yes;
Oreo moss – No
Ager 1975
Oreo aure
no
Desc
yes
FL FWC
Nets
Local, temporary
Hoplias
no
Desc
yes
FL DNR
Ichthyocide
No, but later
eliminated, perhaps by
cold
Astro ocel,
Amit nigr,
Colo/Piar
no
Desc
yes
UF and FL FWC
Ichthyocide
Astro ocel - Local,
Amit nigr - Yes,
Colo/Piar – Local
Hogg 1976
Tila zill*
yes
Desc
yes
FL FWC
Ichthyocide
Yes
Kolar et al.
2010
Mono spp.
yes
Manip
yes
USGS/USFWS
Electrofishing
Local, temporary
Loftus 1988
Oreo aure
no
Desc
yes
NPS
Mechanical
Local, temporary
Maceina et al.
1999
Cten idel
no
Manip
yes
Auburn U
Mechanical
Yes - Electric barrier
Mallison et al.
1995
Cten idel
no
Both
yes
FL FWC
Rotenonelaced bait
Local
Martin 1976
Oreo aure
yes
Desc
no
FL FWC
Nets
N/A
Martin and
Martin 1979
Cten idel
yes
Desc
no
unknown
Ichthyocide
N/A
Osborne and
Sassic 1979
Cten idel
no
Manip
yes
UCF
Ichthyocide
No
Osborne and
Sassic 1981
Cten idel
no
Manip
yes
UCF
Ichthyocide
Local
Schofield and
Nico 2007
Mono spp.
no
Manip
yes
USGS
Electrofishing
No
Hale et al. 1995
Hensley and
Moody 1975
Hill and Cichra,
2005
Schramm and
Jirka 1986
Cten idel
no
Manip
yes
UF
Nets,
barriers, bait,
electrofishing
, ichthyocide
Local control using
some methods
Shafland 1976
Tila zill*,
Amph trim,
Oreo moss,
Tila mari,
Hypo/Plec
yes
Desc
both
FL FWC
Ichthyocide
Tila zill - Yes
Shafland 1996
Para mana,
Para salv,
Clar batr
no
Desc
yes
FL FWC
Ichthyocide
Local for all 3 spp.
Shafland and
Foote 1979
Serr/Pygo
no
Both
yes
FL FWC
Ichthyocide
Yes
Shafland et al.
2008a
Thor meek,
Para salv,
Roci octo
both
Desc
yes
FL FWC
Ichthyocide
Para salv - Local; Roci
octo - Yes; Thor meeki
– Yes
Taylor et al.
1986
Tila zill*, Tila
mari*
yes
Desc
yes
FL FWC
Ichthyocide
Tila zill – Yes
Willis et al.
2002
Cten idel
no
Manip
yes
UF
Sound and
Reward
Local
Table 2 Papers focusing on Ctenopharyngodon idella that reported effects in Florida
Citation
Direct/Indirect Target
Venue
Control Replication
Cailteux et al. 1996
indirect
Micropterus salmoides field
yes
yes
Canfield et al. 1983
direct
macrophytes
field
no
no
Cassani et al. 1995
direct
macrophytes
field
no
yes
Colle and Shireman 1980
direct
indirect
macrophytes
native fishes
field
field
no
no
no
no
Fry and Osborne 1980
indirect
zooplankton
pond
yes
yes
Gasaway 1979
direct
indirect
macrophytes
benthic
macroinvertebrates
field
no
no
field
no
no
Gasaway and Drda 1978
direct
macrophytes
field
yes
yes
Gasaway et al. 1977
direct
indirect
macrophytes
waterfowl
field
field
no
no
no
no
Hanlon et al. 2000
direct
macrophytes
field
no
yes
Hardin et al. 1984
indirect
waterfowl
field
no
no
Hestand and Carter 1978
direct
indirect
macrophytes
phytoplankton
mesocosm
mesocosm
yes
yes
yes
yes
Leslie and Kobylinski 1985
direct
indirect
macrophytes
benthic
macroinvertebrates
field
no
no
field
no
no
Leslie et al. 1983
direct
macrophytes
field
no
yes
Osborne and Sassic 1979
direct
macrophytes
field
no
no
Osborne and Sassic 1981
direct
macrophytes
field
no
no
Richard et al. 1984
direct
indirect
macrophytes
phytoplankton
field
field
no
no
no
no
Richard et al. 1985
direct
indirect
macrophytes
zooplankton
field
field
no
no
no
no
Shireman and Hoyer 1986
indirect
native fishes
field
no
no
Shireman and Maceina 1981 direct
macrophytes
field
no
no
Shireman et al. 1986
direct
macrophytes
pond
yes
yes
Small et al. 1985
direct
macrophytes
field
no
no
Thompson et al. 1988
direct
macrophytes
pond
no
no
Van Dyke et al. 1984
direct
macrophytes
field
no
yes
Ware and Gasaway 1976
indirect
native fishes
field
no
yes
Table 3 Correlational studies of effects of non-native fishes on native species in Florida from literature covered in this review
Explanatory variable(s)
Time
period of
study
Habitat type and
number
Citation
Response variable
Direction of
relationship
Dorn 2008
macroinvertebrate density
negative
fish biomass
7 months
10 constructed
ponds
Gestring et al.
2009
catch rates of several fish
species (both native and nonnative)
no significant
negative
correlations
reported
catch rates of Hopl litt
12 months
1 lake, including its
2 canals
Gestring et al.
2010
biomass of 10 fish species (both
native and non-native), tested
separately
variable, mostly
none
Pter spp. biomass/catch
12 years
16 canals
Gibbs et al. 2010
activity level of Florida manatee
(Trichechus manatus latirostris)
positive
presence of Pter spp.
6 hours
1 spring
2 years
29 solution holes
Kobza et al.
2004
native fish abundance
negative
time (decreasing water
levels) and presence of
non-native predators
Shafland 1999a
abundance of several fish
species (native and non-native)
as well as various groupings of
fishes
a couple positive,
mostly none
abundance of Cich ocel
10 years
1 canal
Shafland et al.
2010
fish abundance (not clear)
none
Mono spp. abundance
11 years
1 canal
Trexler et al.
2000
total number of fish
no formal statistical
analyses
number of specimens of
introduced species
>20 years
multiple field
habitats (see paper
for details)
Table 4 Experimental studies of effects of non-native fishes covered in this review. LBO = Level of biological organisation sensu Parker et al.
(1999; I = individual, P = population, C = community)
Citation
Baber and
Babbit 2003
Brooks and
Jordan 2010
Dorn et al.
2006
Dunlop-Hayden
and Rehage
2011
Duxbury et al.
2010
Venue
Impactful
species
Target of
impact
mesocosm
Clar batr + 3
native fishes
4 species of
native
tadpoles
laboratory
(aquaria)
field
(caging)
laboratory
(aquaria)
field
(caging)
Tila mari
3 Lepomis
spp.
Belo beli, Cich
urop
intermediate
consumers
(included
small fishes)
Hemi leto,
Lepomis gulosus
(native)
two native
fishes
(Gambusia,
Jordanella)
and
Palaemonetes
grass shrimp
Hopl litt
benthic
invertebrate
community
LBO
I
I
C
I
C
Time
period
24 hours
15 min
14 days
3 hours
28 days
Mechanisms
Comparison to native
Summary conclusions
predation
Compared predation rates
of native and non-native
predators.
Higher predation rates by
native fishes than Clar batr.
competition
(for space)
Compared ability of native
and non-native fishes to
outcompete Lepomis for
preferred habitat.
Tila mari more aggressive than
native fishes.
predation
(putative)
Compared densities of
intermediate consumers
inside exclosures (that
excluded all large
predators, native and nonnative) to those of natural
marsh and partially caged
controls.
Densities of intermediate
consumers in exclosures were
similar to marsh (natural
habitat), while densities at
open cages (controls) were
lower.
predation
Compared predation rates
of native and non-native
predators.
Native (Lepomis) and nonnative (Hemi leto) predators
had similar effects on
Jordanella and shrimp.
Gambusia preyed upon more
heavily by Lepomis than Hemi
leto.
predation
Compared benthic
communities between
Hopl litt and no-predator
treatments.
Hopl litt reduced benthic
invertebrate densities and
caused a shift in species
structure.
Rehage et al.
2009
Schramm and
Zale 1985
Shafland and
Pestrak 1983
laboratory
(aquaria)
Hemi leto, Cich
urop
Gambusia
holbrooki
mesocosm
Micropterus
salmoides
(native)
Oreo aure
and Lepomis
macrochirus
(native)
ponds
Oreo aure
Micropterus
salmoides
(native)
I
I
P
2 hours
10 days
90 days
(approx.)
predation
Compared predation rates
between two non-native
predators (one new, one
long-established).
No difference in predation
rates on the native fish
between two non-native
predators. Prey naiveté did
not affect predation rates
predation
Compared predation rates
on native and non-native
prey.
Differences in prey size and
vegetative cover affected
predator preference.
unknown
Compared bass
production in ponds with
and without Oreo aure;
did not compare to a
native analog.
Bass production was higher in
ponds without Oreo aure.