Cyprinus rutilus, C. ruttilus, Gardonus rutilus, Leuciscus rutilus

Nonindigenous Occurrences: Rutilus rutilus was introduced to Windermere, England in the early 1900s (Winfield et al. 2008). Rutilus rutilus was introduced to Ireland from Britain in 1889 as live bait by anglers (Griffiths 1997). It was first found in the Lough Neagh catchment in 1971 and is now one of the most common fish species there. By 1991 it comprised 70% of the fish biomass in the Lower Lough Erne (Griffiths 1997). Rutilus rutilus was introduced for recreation in Tuscany, and it spread to the Po River basin, and was first  recorded in Lago Maggiore, Italy in 2006 (Volta and Jepsen 2008).

Potential pathway(s) of introduction: Unintentional introduction for recreational fish and trans-oceanic shipping (ballast water).

Rutilus rutilus is sold as baitfish and is used for recreational fishing in Europe (Froese and Pauly 2010, Griffiths 1997); however, this species is not easily obtained in the Great Lakes region. This species may be taken up in ballast  but is unlikely to survive ballast water exchange. Rutilus rutilus occurs in ports that have direct trade connections with the Great Lakes (Lappalainen et al. 2001, NBIC 2009, Härmä et al. 2008).

Rutilus rutilus does not currently occur near waters connected to the Great Lakes basin. It is not known to hitchhike or foul recreational gear. This species is not cultured, stocked, or sold in the Great Lakes region.

Rutilus rutilus has a moderate probability of establishment if introduced to the Great Lakes (Confidence level: High).

The climate of the introduced and native range of R. rutilus is moderately similar to the climate of the Great Lakes (Australian Bureau of Rural Sciences 2010). Rutilus rutilus primarily occurs in brackish and estuarine waters, but it has become abundant in the freshwater Lower Lough Erne (Griffiths 1997). Rutilus rutilus occurs in waters that have ice cover over the winter (Geraudie et al. 2010, Härmä et al. 2008), so it is likely that it can overwinter in the Great Lakes. Predictions on how climate change affects R. rutilus are contradictory (Härmä et al. 2008). Shorter duration of ice cover and warmer temperatures may benefit reproductive success; however, salinity negatively impacts embryonic development, so salinization may reduce its ability to establish in the Great Lakes.
   
This species has a broad, flexible omnivorous diet (Horppila et al. 2000, Volta and Jepsen 2008) and will likely find a suitable food source in the Great Lakes. It has the potential to compete with native species, but there are no predictions regarding species in the Great Lakes. After the introduction of R. rutilus to Northern Ireland, there was a decline in tufted duck (Aythya fuligula) populations, and it was suggested that it was caused by competition for zoobenthos (Winfield et al. 1992). Zebra mussels are preyed on by R. rutilus (Lappalainen et al. 2005) and may potentially facilitate its establishment as an abundant food source in the Great Lakes.
   
Rutilus rutilus has a slightly higher fecundity compared to fish in the same taxon. Rutilus rutilus has a relative fecundity of 87 eggs/g (Jamet and Desmolles 1994) while R. frisii kutum has a relative fecundity of 57 eggs/g (Yousefian and Mosavi 2008). Freshwater habitats and eutrophication of the Great Lakes may enhance R. rutilus reproduction and development (Härmä et al. 2008, Sandström and Karås 2002).
   
The survey that led to the first report of R. rutilus in Lake Maggiore, Italy, had evidence that it had become one of the most abundant fish in the lake (Volta and Jepsen 2008). In Lake Maggiore, R. rutilus had a higher growth rate than in other European waters. In Ireland, the spread of R. rutilus was relatively slower; after introduction in 1889, it took several decades for it to become abundant (Griffiths 1997).

Summary of species impacts derived from literature review. Click on an icon to find out more...

Environmental	Socioeconomic

Arctic charr (Salvelinus alpinus) has been recently impacted by eutrophication, climate change, and the growing populations of R. rutilus. It has been suggested that R. rutilus may compete with Arctic charr in England for zooplankton (Winfield et al. 2008). After its introduction to Lake Erne, the rudd disappeared (Cragg-Hine 1973). After the introduction of R. rutilus to Northern Ireland, there was a decline in the tufted duck (Aythya fuligula) populations, and it has been implicated that it was caused by competition for zoobenthos (Winfield et al. 1992). Rutilus rutilus may have altered predator-prey relationships as a food source for the piscivorous great crested grebes (Podiceps cristatus), which experienced a population increase after its introduction. Rutilus rutilus may be a carrier of parasites such as tapeworm (Ligula intestinalis) (Carter et al. 2005).
    
Studies conducted by Horppila and Kairesalo (1990) provided evidence that Rutilus rutilus has negatively impacted water quality and maintained high algal productivity in southern Finland. Bioturbation occurred when R. rutilus was feeding, which released nutrients from the sediments. During times of low zooplankton abundance, R. rutilus caused high phosphorous loading and turbidity (Horppila and Kairesalo 1992).

Rutilus rutilus has the potential for moderate socio-economic impact if introduced to the Great Lakes.

Rutilus rutilus may curtail efforts to improve water quality: after initial recovery of a lake in southern Finland, algal blooms increased and it was suggested that R. rutilus had maintained high algal productivity and biomass (Horppila and Kairesalo 1990). Rutilus rutilus may negatively impact commercially fisheries and recreational fishing by affecting Atlantic salmon and brown trout stocks (Stokes et al. 2006). Rutilus rutilus does not pose a threat to human health and does not damage infrastructure.

Rutilus rutilus has the potential for high beneficial impact if introduced to the Great Lakes.

The roach fishery only provides some commercial value in Europe, but does provide a highly valuable recreational fishery (Froese and Pauly, 2019). In Ireland, roach are a driver of freshwater angling tourism (Hickley and Tompkins, 1998). In their current range, roach are also a popular bait for pike (Esox lucius).  This species has not been used as biological control. Rutilus rutilus is not valued for medicinal or research purposes. It does not remove toxins, increase water quality, or have a positive ecological impact.
 

Rutilus rutilus are prohibited in Ohio and Minnesota. Rutilus rutilus is also federally listed as injurious wildlife under the Lacey act.*

*Ballast water regulations applicable to this species are currently in place to prevent the introduction of nonindigenous species to the Great Lakes via shipping. See Title 33: Code of Federal Regulations, Part 151, Subparts C and D (33 CFR 151 C) for the most recent federal ballast water regulations applying to the Great Lakes and Hudson River.

Note: Check federal, state/provincial, and local regulations for the most up-to-date information.

Control

Biological
There are no known biological control methods for this species.

Physical
There are no known physical control methods for this species. 

Chemical
There are no known chemical control methods specific to this species. General piscicides (such as rotenone) may be used for control, but expect significant kill of non-target species.

Note: Check state/provincial and local regulations for the most up-to-date information regarding permits for control methods. Follow all label instructions.