Log In
en
English
Search
Search
Search
European Alien Species Information Network - Editorial Board
Close
Select your language
български
español
čeština
dansk
Deutsch
eesti
ελληνικά
English
français
Gaeilge
hrvatski
italiano
latviešu
lietuvių
magyar
Malti
Nederlands
polski
português
română
slovenčina
slovenščina
suomi
svenska
Menu
Close
Menu
Back
Home
About
EASIN in a Nutshell
Legal Framework
Species Catalogue and Geodatabase
EASIN-Lit
EASIN Team
Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ)
How to Cite
Services
Species Search and Mapping
Web Services
NOTSYS
European Invasive Alien Species Notification System (EASIN NOTSYS)
Member States Reporting Support
Member States Competent Authorities
Documentation
IAS Union Concern Baseline
IAS of Union Concern
IAS Regulation Implementation
MSFD Descriptor 2, Non-Indigenous Species
EASIN Publications
Codes of Conduct and Guidelines
Media Repositories on IAS
IAS of Concern for the Outermost Regions
Citizen Science
Become a Citizen Scientist
Report Species
Explore Citizen Science Reports
Information Factsheets
Citizen Science Projects
Training
"Have You Seen an Alien?" Game
Beware of Aliens
Contribute
How to Contribute
Editorial Board
Data Partners
Contact us
Menu
Close
Submenu
Back
Introduction
Discussions
The Board
Thread Discussion: Atherina boyeri
[thread closed]
UTC Created On: 4/30/2014 3:39 PM
Author: Stelios Katsanevakis
Responsible Member(s): Argyro ZENETOS ::
UTC Closed On: 6/1/2016 4:12 PM
Closing User: Stelios Katsanevakis
Stelios Katsanevakis 4/30/2014 - 3:39 PM
Thread Opening Text: In the catalogue, Atherina boyeri is listed as alien, but partly native in the European Seas. As far as I know, it is more or less native everywhere, so the question is: why it is included? Which is exactly the alien range of this species (and related references)?
Argyro ZENETOS 5/6/2014 - 1:53 PM
reported as alien in the Netherlands: Schrieken, B. & Swennen, B., 1969. Atherina nochon Cuv. A second species of sand-melt (Pisces, Atherinidae) from Dutch coastal water. Neth. J. Sea. Res. 4: 373-375. Introduction Vector— Transport of eggs by ships? (Van der Velde & Polderman, 1972, 1976). Oosterschelde: Gittenberg, 2009 also in UK -see: Roy et al. (2012) Non-Native Species in Great Britain: establishment, detection and reporting to inform effective decision making. https://secure.fera.defra.gov.uk/nonnativespecies/
Fabio CROCETTA 5/7/2014 - 10:52 AM
Yes, but may be this is one of the common non-sence of the online databases. In fact, in UK, when going deep into the link then they say... http://www.nonnativespecies.org/factsheet/factsheet.cfm?speciesId=401 "probably native". Was the database developed by a snake expert? :-) I would really say that without molecolar we cannot say anything about a possible alien range of this species....
Fabio CROCETTA 5/12/2014 - 12:19 PM
Could you send me pdfs regarding its alien status in the Netherlands? I also checked its status in Great Britain. If you go straight to the link, then: http://www.nonnativespecies.org/factsheet/factsheet.cfm?speciesId=401 they declare it as "probably native" (first record as 1846!!). I would say that without molecular we can say nothing....
Eugenio GERVASINI 1/29/2015 - 12:56 PM
Is there any evidence that can allow closing the discussion on this issue?
Michel BARICHE 2/24/2016 - 9:07 AM
There is no clear evidence whether A. boyeri should be considered an alien or not along the European North-Eastern Atlantic coast and the North Sea. The species has been recorded since 1846 from Great Britain (according to FaCrox), which would imply it being indigenous. It was considered alien in both the Netherlands and GB (Schrieken & Swennen, 1969; Roy et al., 2012). Quignard & Pras (1986) and Kottelat & Freyhof (2007) mentioned isolated populations in southern England and the Netherlands without considering them as aliens. Kottelat & Freyhof (2007) had distinguished two species A. boyeri (freshwater) and A. mochon (marine) by a different number of gill rackers. The presence of two species may explain the fact that A. boyeri was considered very euryhaline (0-77‰) by Quignard & Pras (1986). Francisco et al. (2008) were not able to collect A. boyeri (but another species A. presbyter) from the concerned areas and showed that A. boyeri is a complex clade with clear geographic subdivisions. They considered that this was because of the fragmentation of its habitats together with low dispersal ability. Francisco et al. (2008) also labeled A. boyeri as a brackish/freshwater clade and reported 2 other clades (punctuated fish and not punctuated) that were marine. I would suggest to list the species as cryptogenic (sensu Carlton, 1996) in the region, until molecular evidences solve this question. References: •Carlton JT (1996). "Biological invasions and cryptogenic species". Ecology (Ecological Society of America) 77 (6): 1653–1655. •Francisco et al. (2008). Phylogenetic relationships of the North-eastern Atlantic and Mediterranean forms of Atherina (Pisces, Atherinidae). Molecular Phylogenetics and Evolution 48, 782–788. •Kottelat, M. and J. Freyhof, 2007. Handbook of European freshwater fishes. Publications Kottelat, Cornol and Freyhof, Berlin. 646 pp. •Quignard, J.-P. and A. Pras, 1986. Atherinidae. p. 1207-1210. In P.J.P. Whitehead, M.-L. Bauchot, J.-C. Hureau, J. Nielsen and E. Tortonese (eds.) Fishes of the North-eastern Atlantic and the Mediterranean. UNESCO, Paris. Vol. 3. •Roy et al. (2012) Non-Native Species in Great Britain: establishment, detection and reporting to inform effective decision making. https://secure.fera.defra.gov.uk/nonnativespecies/ •Schrieken, B. & Swennen, B., 1969. Atherina nochon Cuv. A second species of sand-melt (Pisces, Atherinidae) from Dutch coastal water. Neth. J. Sea. Res. 4: 373-375.
Stelios Katsanevakis 6/1/2016 - 4:12 PM
Thread Closing Text: list the species as cryptogenic (sensu Carlton, 1996) in the region, until molecular evidences solve this question.
Back To Threads