Disclaimer:

The Nonindigenous Occurrences section of the NAS species profiles has a new structure. The section is now dynamically updated from the NAS database to ensure that it contains the most current and accurate information. Occurrences are summarized in Table 1, alphabetically by state, with years of earliest and most recent observations, and the tally and names of drainages where the species was observed. The table contains hyperlinks to collections tables of specimens based on the states, years, and drainages selected. References to specimens that were not obtained through sighting reports and personal communications are found through the hyperlink in the Table 1 caption or through the individual specimens linked in the collections tables.

---

Common name: Northern Redbelly Dace

Synonyms and Other Names: Phoxinus eos (Cope, 1861)

Taxonomy: available through www.itis.gov

Identification: Becker (1983); Smith (1985); Holton (1990); Page and Burr (1991). Another name is Chrosomus eos.

Size: 8 cm.

Native Range: Atlantic, Great Lakes, Hudson Bay, upper Mississippi, Missouri, and Peace-Mackenzie River drainages, from Nova Scotia west to Northwest Territories and British Columbia, south to northern Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, Nebraska, and Colorado (Page and Burr 1991).

Alaska	Hawaii	Puerto Rico & Virgin Islands	Guam Saipan

Native range data for this species provided in part by NatureServe

Hydrologic Unit Codes (HUCs) Explained
Interactive maps: Point Distribution Maps

Means of Introduction: In a summary table on fishes liberated in Ohio waters, Trautman (1981) noted that 7,000 Northern Redbelly Dace from Michigan were unsuccessfully introduced into Ohio waters in October 1935, presumably as a forage fish. The report in Oklahoma is apparently based on observations of this species in bait tanks near Ft. Gibson Reservoir in Wagoner County (Heard 1959). The owner of the bait establishment said the minnows were imported from Minnesota. The retailer had noticed the dace mixed in the primarily fathead minnow bait shipments that he had been purchasing and re-selling for over a year. Although, there are no verified records from open waters, at least some individuals were likely introduced through discarded or escaped bait.

Status: Extirpated in Ohio. Reported from Oklahoma.

Impact of Introduction: The impacts of this species are currently unknown, as no studies have been done to determine how it has affected ecosystems in the invaded range. The absence of data does not equate to lack of effects. It does, however, mean that research is required to evaluate effects before conclusions can be made.

Remarks: Except for the information given above, Trautman (1981) provided no details concerning the Ohio introduction. In their check list of Oklahoma fishes, Moore and Riggs (1963) denoted Chrosomus eos as an exotic fish recently introduced into Oklahoma waters, but not known to have become established. They did not provide any additional information. This designation was probably based on the report by Heard (1959) that the species had been observed in bait shipments and could possibly become established in the state. Based on their distribution map for C. eos, Cross et al. (1986) apparently considered records of this species in the upper Red River drainage of Oklahoma (and elsewhere) to represent post-glacial relict populations. However, in their summary table on the distribution of fishes in selected western Mississippi River drainages, Cross et al. (1986) listed P. eos as "uncertain" for the upper Arkansas River drainage. Unfortunately, it is not clear as to how the authors are using the term "uncertain" (possibly in reference to their regarding C. eos as native versus nonindigenous in that drainage). Despite their small size, this species, and the closely related Southern Redbelly Dace Chrosomus erythrogaster, are used as bait fish. Both have the reputation of being hardy in the bait bucket or minnow pail (Scott and Crossman 1973; Becker 1983; Pflieger 1997). Becker (1983) noted that C. erythrogaster had begun appearing in parts of Wisconsin where it had not previously been known. However, Becker did not mention the possibility of introduction.

Other Resources:

Author: Leo Nico, and Pam Fuller

Peer Review Date: 12/5/2003

This information is preliminary or provisional and is subject to revision. It is being provided to meet the need for timely best science. The information has not received final approval by the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) and is provided on the condition that neither the USGS nor the U.S. Government shall be held liable for any damages resulting from the authorized or unauthorized use of the information.