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: Ide

Synonyms and Other Names: Silver Orfe, Golden Orfe, Golden Ide, Cyprinus idus (Linnaeus, 1758), Idus idus (Linnaeus, 1758), Idus melanotus (Heckel, 1843)

Taxonomy: available through www.itis.gov

Identification: Leuciscus idus is a medium-sized fish with a thick minnow-shaped body, a small, bluntly-pointed head, a forked tail, and a distinct arch in the belly and back (Stahlman, 2016). It exhibits dark coloration on the back and sides above the lateral line, paler coloration on the belly, and red-orange fins. Two color morphs exist: the wild form is an olive-gray color shading to silver with reddish fins, while the ornamental variety has a bright orange back, silvery-orange belly, and bright orange fins (Stahlman, 2016). The Golden Orfe or Golden Ide is the domestic form, with portions of the body and fins pinkish-gold or red-orange. This colorful variety has received some degree of attention as an ornamental pond fish since its first introduction into this country near the turn of the century (e.g., Bean 1896, 1903).

Leuciscus idus is superficially similar to many native North American cyprinids and does not possess a unique characteristic that easily sets it apart from native species. However, L. idus can be distinguished from most native North American cyprinids using the following characteristics: pharyngeal teeth 3,5-5,3, no barbels, lateral-line scales 55-63, and typically 8 branched dorsal rays. Further distinguishing characteristics and photographs or illustrations appeared in Berg (1949), Muus and Dahlstrom (1978), Wheeler (1978), Phillips and Rix (1985), and Smith (1995), along with Page and Burr (1991).

Size: 102 cm

Native Range: Native from northern Europe through Siberia (Berg 1949; Robins et al. 1991).

Alaska	Hawaii	Puerto Rico & Virgin Islands	Guam Saipan

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

Ecology: In its native range, L. idus is migratory and found in both freshwater and brackish water habitats (Muus and Dahlstrom 1978). Leuciscus idus is native to northern Europe and Siberia. The Siberian climate is quite varied, but has an average low temperature in January of -12°C, and an average high temperature in July of 25.7°C. Precipitation is low in the north, but high in the south with heavy summer rainfall up to 850mm. Leuciscus idus tolerates a wide range of conditions (Seeley 1962) and can successfully reproduce in waters of 8-23°C (Kupren et al. 2011). However, it does show reduced foraging success in turbid waters (Kuliskova et al. 2009). This species eats larval and adult insects, snails, and other invertebrates; larger individuals also take small fish (Phillips and Rix 1985).

Leuciscus idus spawn in tributaries where their eggs attach to gravel, weeds, and stones (Froese 2013). Juveniles prefer water depths up to 2 m and flow velocities of about 0.5 m/s2 (Grift 2001).

Means of Introduction: Leuciscus idus was first imported in 1877 by the U.S. Fish Commission (Baird 1879). Historically, it was intentionally stocked by the U.S. Fish Commission; recent introductions include intentional stocking by a state agency and escapes from commercial and government ponds (Lee et al. 1980 et seq.). In 1889, an estimated 20 Ide, along with other foreign cyprinids, escaped into the Potomac River from fish ponds in Washington, D.C., during a flood event (McDonald 1893). Similarly, Schwartz (1963) stated that it may have escaped from commercial ponds at Thurmont, Maryland into the Monocacy River; but he did not provide a date nor other details. Ide were also consigned to applicants in Virginia from 1892 to 1894 (Jenkins and Burkhead 1994). According to Courtenay et al. (1984, 1986), the U.S. Fish Commission gave no specific reason for importing and distributing this species, although they assumed that the intended use was both as an ornamental and food fish. Bean (1903) indicated that this species was introduced into American ponds for ornamental purposes. Schwartz (1963) stated that it may have escaped from commercial ponds at Thurmont, Maryland into the Monocacy River; but he did not provide a date or other details. Reports of Ide culture in Arkansas are incongruous.  Fletcher and Hallock (1992) reported that Arkansas fish farmers were raising Ide for bait in the early 1990s. However, recent discussions with University of Arkansas personnel, fish farmers, and other local experts indicate there are no known records of ide culture in Arkansas and that they are doubtful the the species was ever raised commercially there (N. Stone, Univ. of Ark., pers. comm., 2005). In the early 1980s this species was reportedly being used as a bait fish in Tennessee (Courtenay et al. 1984, 1986). Because this species is sometimes misidentified as goldfish, Courtenay et al. (1984) argued that there was an increased probability of its spread and possible establishment.

Status: Ide has been recorded from nine states, but the documentation of its true status in the United States is poor and often contradictory. Courtenay and Stauffer (1990), Courtenay et al. (1991) and Courtenay (1993) listed it as established in Maine; Page and Burr (1991) stated that the species is locally established in a pond in Maine. However, in some early accounts the only known Maine population was thought to have been eradicated (e.g., Courtenay et al. 1984, 1986). In fact, Courtenay et al. (1986) stated that the Maine Department of Inland Fisheries and Wildlife eradicated the population in May 1983. According to Whitworth et al. (1968) one small pond in Connecticut has maintained a population since 1962 or 1963; Schmidt (1986) also listed L. idus as introduced to lowland lacustrine habitat in the Connecticut River drainage. Subsequently, Courtenay et al. (1984, 1986) and Whitworth (1996) stated that the population in Connecticut had been eradicated. It was formerly established in one or a few water bodies in Pennsylvania and New York; however, according to Courtenay et al. (1984, 1986), those populations are no longer extant. The fish that escaped from Washington, D.C. ponds in 1889 apparently persisted for some time. That escape also apparently resulted in the species being listed as occurring in several states along Potomac River, including Virginia and Maryland. Although the literature seems to suggest that the ide population in the Potomac was self sustaining, it is not known when Ide actually disappeared completely from the Potomac drainage. For instance, Schwartz (1963) apparently considered the Ide to be established in the Potomac River; and Hocutt et al. (1986) listed it as introduced to the Potomac River. However, Musick (1972) doubted that this species still survived there, and both Jenkins and Burkhead (1994) and Starnes et al. (2011) also concluded that there was no evidence indicating the Ide persists in the Potomac drainage. Stockings of this species during the late 1800s were unsuccessful in both Nebraska (Morris et al. 1972) and Texas (Howells 1992). There is only a single record documenting its occurrence in open waters of Tennessee (Saylor, personal communication). Howells (1992) indicated that the U.S. Bureau of Fisheries (i.e., the U.S. Fish Commission) distributed the species to private individuals for introduction, but the actual introduction sites are largely unrecorded. The species never became established in Texas and has not been reported since their original introduction (Howells 1992).

Outside of the United States, L. idus has introduced to the United Kingdom, Netherlands, New Zealand, and France (IUCN SSC Invasive Species Specialist Group 2010). It has not been well studied and has no widespread reported impacts, which would suggest it has not become highly invasive and spread extensively.

Impact of Introduction: Unknown. Seeley (1962) recommended against the introduction of the Ide into California. Based on his review of the literature, he indicated the species had the potential of becoming established in state rivers, lakes, and reservoirs, and also of entering brackish and estuarine waters. Because of its tolerance to a wide range of conditions, Seeley believed that it had the potential of becoming more of a problem than either Goldfish Carassius auratus or Common Carp Cyprinus carpio.

Remarks: This species still is occasionally kept in garden ponds, sometimes in combination with Goldfish and Koi, or with other Orfe varieties, such as the Blue Orfe (Smith 1995). Dill and Cordone (1997) stated that this fish is not known to have been introduced into wild waters of California; however, they also indicated that the domesticated form, the Golden Orfe, has been present in garden pools and commercial aquaculture facilities in that state for a number of years.

References: (click for full references)

Baird, S. 1979. Bulletin of the United States Fish Commission. United States Commission of Fish and Fisheries. Washington, D.C.

Bean, T.H. 1896. Report on the propagation and distribution of food-fishes. US Commission of Fish and Fisheries, Report of the Commissioner for 1884 Part 20.

Bean, T.H. 1903. The Food and Game Fishes of New York: notes on their common names, distribution, habits and mode of capture. JB Lyon Company Albany, NY.

Berg, L.S. 1949. Freshwater fishes of the U.S.S.R. and adjacent countries. 3 volumes, 4th edition. Volume 1. Vol 3 has 510 pp --translated from Russian 1962-65.

Courtenay, W.R., Jr. 1993. Biological pollution through fish introduction. Pages 35-61 in McKnight, B.N, ed. Proceedings of a symposium on Biological pollution: the control and impact of invasive exotic species. Indiana University-Purdue University, Indiana Academy of Science. Indianapolis, IN.

Courtenay, W.R., Jr., D.A. Hensley, J.N. Taylor, and J.A. McCann. 1984. Distribution of exotic fishes in the continental United States. Pages 41-77 in Courtenay, W.R., Jr., and J.R. Stauffer, Jr, eds. Distribution, biology, and management of exotic fishes. John Hopkins University Press. Baltimore, MD.

Courtenay, W.R., Jr., D.A. Hensley, J.N. Taylor, and J.A. McCann. 1986. Distribution of exotic fishes in North America. Pages 675-698 in Hocutt, C.H., and E.O. Wiley, eds. The zoogeography of North American freshwater fishes. John Wiley and Sons. New York, NY.

Courtenay, W.R., Jr., D.P. Jennings, and J.D. Williams. 1991. Appendix 2: Exotic fishes. Pages 97-107 in Robins, C.R., R.M. Bailey, C.E. Bond, J.R. Brooker, E.A. Lachner, R.N. Lea, and W.B. Scott, eds. Common names and scientific names of fishes from the United States and Canada. 5th edition. American Fisheries Society. Bethesda, MD.

Courtenay, W.R., Jr., and J.R. Stauffer. 1990. The introduced fish problem and the aquarium fish industry. Journal of the World Aquaculture Society 21(3):145-159.

Dill, W.A., and A.J. Cordone. 1997. History and status of introduced fishes in California, 1871-1996. Fish Bulletin 178. California Department of Fish and Game, Sacramento, CA.

Fletcher, D., and M. Hallock. 1992. Prohibited fish species in Washington as of January 18, 1991. Identification, biology, and justification for species restrictions. Washington Department of Wildlife.

Grift, R.E., A.D. Buijse, W.L.T. Van Densen, and J.G.P. Klein Breteler. 2001. Restoration of the river-floodplain interaction: benefits for the fish community in the River Rhine. Large Rivers 12, Archiv fur Hydrobiologie Supplement 135(2-4): 173-185.

Hamburger, B., H. Haberling, and H.R. Hitz. 1977. Comparative tests on toxicity to fish using minnow, trout, and golden orfe. Archiv fur Fischereiwissenschaft 28: 45-55.

Hocutt, C.H., R.E. Jenkins, and J.R. Stauffer, Jr. 1986. Zoogeography of the fishes of the central Appalachians and central Atlantic coastal plain. Pages 161-212 in Hocutt, C.H., and E.O. Wiley, eds. The zoogeography of North American freshwater fishes. John Wiley and Sons. New York, NY.

Howells, R.G. 1992. Annotated List of Introduced Non-native Fishes, Mollusks, Crustaceans and Aquatic Plants in Texas Waters. Texas Parks and Wildlife Department, Fisheries and Wildlife Division, Inland Fisheries Branch, Austin, TX.

IUCN SSC Invasive Species Specialist Group. 2010. Leuciscus idus. http://www.issg.org/database/species/ecology.asp?si=613.

Jenkins, R.E., and N.M. Burkhead. 1994. Freshwater fishes of Virginia. American Fisheries Society, Bethesda, MD.

Jezewski, W., and A. Kamara. 1999. First reported occurrence of Thelohanellus oculileucisci (Trojan, 1909) (Myxosporidia) and Leuciscus leuciscus (L.) and L. idus (L.) in Poland. Acta Parasitologica 44:145-146.

Kuliskova, P., P. Horky, O. Slavik, and J.I. Jones. 2009. Factors influencing movement behavior and home range size in ide Leuciscus idus. Journal of Fish Biology 74: 1269-1279.

Kupren, K., D. Zarski, S. Krejszeff, D. Kucharczyk, and K. Targonska. 2011. Effect of stocking density on growth, survival and development of asp Aspius aspius (L.), ide Leuciscus idus (L.) and chub Leuciscus cephalus (L.) larvae during initial rearing under laboratory conditions. Italian Journal of Animal Science 10:178-184.

Lee, D.S., C.R. Gilbert, C.H. Hocutt, R.E. Jenkins, D.E. McAllister, and J.R. Stauffer, Jr. 1980. Atlas of North American Freshwater Fishes. North Carolina State Museum of Natural History, Raleigh, North Carolina.

McDonald, M. 1893. Report of the Commissioner for 1889 to 1891. Part XVII. U.S. Commission of Fish and Fisheries, Washington, DC.

Morris, J., L. Morris, and L. Witt. 1972. The fishes of Nebraska. Nebraska Game and Parks Commission, Lincoln, NE.

Musick, J.A. 1972. Fishes of Chesapeake Bay and the adjacent coastal plain. Pages 175-212 in A checklist of the biota of lower Chesapeake Bay. Volume 65. Virginia Institute of Marine Science.

Muus, B.J., and P. Dahlstrom. 1978. The freshwater fishes of Britain and Europe. Collins, London, and Glasgow.

Page, L.M., and B.M. Burr. 1991. A field guide to freshwater fishes- North America North of Mexico. Volume 42. Houghton Mifflin Company, Boston, MA.

Phillips, R., and M. Rix. 1985. Freshwater Fish of Britain, Ireland and Europe. Pan Books Ltd.: London.

Robins, C.R., R.M. Bailey, C.E. Bond, J.R. Brooker, E.A. Lachner, R.N. Lea, and W.B. Scott. 1991. Common and scientific names of fishes from the United States and Canada. 5th Edition. American Fisheries Society Special Publication 20. American Fisheries Society, Bethesda, MD.

Schmidt, R.E. 1986. Zoogeography of the northern Appalachians. Pages 137-160 in Hocutt, C.H., and E.O. Wiley, eds. The zoogeography of North American freshwater fishes. John Wiley and Sons. New York, NY.

Schwartz, F. 1963. The fresh-water minnows of Maryland. Maryland Conservationist 40(2):19-29.

Seeley, C.M. 1962. A report on the orfe, Leuciscus idus (Linné). California Department of Fish and Game, Sacramento, CA.

Smith, S.J. 1995. The orfe: a fish for all seasons. Tropical Fish Hobbyist 64(1):102-105.

Stahlman, S. 2016. Mid-Atlantic field guide to aquatic invasive species. Pennsylvania State University and Pennsylvania Sea Grant.

Starnes, W.C., J. Odenkirk, and M.J. Ashton. 2011. Update and analysis of fish occurrences in the lower Potomac River drainage in the vicinity of Plummers Island, Maryland—Contribution XXXI to the natural history of Plummers Island, Maryland. Proceedings of the Biological Society of Washington 124(4):280-309.

Sterud, E., and S.L. Poynton. 2002. Spironucleus vortens (Diplomonadida) in the Ide, Leuciscus idus (L.) (Cyprinidae): A warm water Hexamitid flagellate found in Northern Europe. Journal of Eukaryote Microbiology 49(2): 137-145.

Targonska, K., K. Kupren, D. Zarski, R. Krol, and D. Kucharczyk. 2011. Influence of thermal conditions on successful ide (Leuciscus idus L.) artificial reproduction during the spawning season. Italian Journal of Animal Science 10.

Wheeler, A. 1978. Key to the fishes of northern Europe. Frederick Warne Ltd, London, England.

Whitworth, W.R. 1996. Freshwater fishes of Connecticut. Bulletin 114. 2nd edition. State Geological and Natural History Survey of Connecticut, Department of Environmental Protection, Hartford, CT.

Whitworth, W.R., P.L. Berrien, and W.T. Keller. 1968. Freshwater fishes of Connecticut. Bulletin 101. State Geological and Natural History Survey of Connecticut, Department of Environmental Protection, Hartford, CT.

Wrona, F.J., T.D. Prowse, and J.D. Reist. 2010. Chapter 8.5.3: Climate change effects on arctic freshwater fish populations. In Saundry, P. (ed.). Arctic Climate Impact Assessment. Arctic Climate Impact Assessment and International Arctic Science Committee.

Other Resources:
Global Invasive Species Database Factsheet

US Fish and Wildlife Service Ecological Risk Screening Summary for Leuciscus idus

Author: Nico, L., P. Fuller, M. Neilson, A. Fusaro, A. Davidson, K. Alame, M. Gappy, and W. Conard

Peer Review Date: 1/19/2012

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.