Tinca tinca (Linnaeus, 1758)

Common Name: Tench

Synonyms and Other Names:

Copyright Info

Identification: Distinguishing characteristics were given in Berg (1949), Scott and Crossman (1973), Muus and Dahlstrom (1978), Wheeler (1978), and Page and Burr (1991). Identification keys that include this species and photographs or illustrations were provided in a few published state fish books (e.g., Whitworth et al. 1968; Woodling 1985; Bond 1994; Moyle 2002; Wydoski and Whitney 2003). A name used in some of the early literature for this species is Tinca vulgaris.


Size: 84 cm.


Native Range: Most of Europe, including the British Isles, and parts of western Asia (Berg 1949).


Table 1. Great Lakes region nonindigenous occurrences, the earliest and latest observations in each state/province, and the tally and names of HUCs with observations†. Names and dates are hyperlinked to their relevant specimen records. The list of references for all nonindigenous occurrences of Tinca tinca are found here.

Full list of USGS occurrences

State/ProvinceFirst ObservedLast ObservedTotal HUCs with observations†HUCs with observations†
MI194719471Great Lakes Region
NY193920223Lake Champlain; Raisin River-St. Lawrence River; Seneca
OH189118911Cuyahoga
VT200920223Lake Champlain; Lamoille River; Winooski River

Table last updated 10/5/2024

† Populations may not be currently present.


Great Lakes Means of Introduction: Tench were illegally stocked in a pond in Quebec, Canada. In 1986 a farmer transported 30 tench from Germany to stock an aquaculture pond (Dumont et al. 2002). By the 1990s, tench had escaped into the Richelieu River and established a reproducing population. Tench are currently known to be established in the St. Lawrence and Humber Rivers in Ontario, Canada as well as Lake Champlain (Avlijaš et al. 2018). One individual was found in the Bay of Quinte in October 2018 (Avlijaš et al. 2018).


Great Lakes Status: Tench populations are not believed to be established in the Great Lakes currently but there are populations in the St. Lawrence River. Only one individual was found in the Bay of Quinte of Lake Ontario in 2018. A population may also persist near the headwaters of the Humber River after illegal stocking in a farm pond (Avlijaš et al. 2018).

Tinca tinca has a moderate probability of establishment if introduced to the Great Lakes (Confidence level: High).
Tench have high tolerance to a broad range of environmental conditions including low pH, low dissolved oxygen, and high temperatures (Sabapathy 2014; Avlijaš et al. 2018). However, they do not typically inhabit fast flowing water (Avlijaš et al. 2018). They can likely overwinter in the Great Lakes given that they have established populations in Quebec and Ontario (Avlijaš et al. 2018). Climate match analysis rates the Great Lakes region as very high (Avlijaš et al. 2018). Tench also has a broad diet (Scott and Crossman 1973; Alas 2010; Bezmaternykh and Shcherbina 2018), which means they would also likely find appropriate food sources if introduced to the Great Lakes.

However, tench were introduced throughout the United States in the 19th century, yet are only established at a fraction of these sites today (Avlijaš et al. 2018). Some observations indicate that the failure of the tench to establish may be related to a biotic interaction with centrarchids (DeVaney et al. 2009), which are also widely distributed in the Great Lakes Region.


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

EnvironmentalSocioeconomic


Tinca tinca has the potential for moderate environmental impact if introduced to the Great Lakes.
Tench have been found to act as a vector for parasites in their introduced range. In a sample of tench from the Richelieu River, 9 of 10 carried parasites. One parasite in particular, Valipora campylancristota, may pose a threat to the native copper redhorse (Moxostoma hubbsi; Marcogliese et al. 2009). Other parasites and diseases tench have been found to carry include a fish tapeworm (Ligula intestinalis; Aydogan et al. 2018), a myxosporeans (Thelohanellus pyriformis; Goswami et al. 2022), and carp edema virus (Matras et al. 2019).

Tench may also harm native cyprinids and other benthic species through competition (Avlijaš et al. 2018).

Experimental trials showed that tench negatively impact gastropod populations, indirectly leading to increased periphyton biomass and alter physical habitat by reducing macrophyte abundance through trophic cascades (Beklioglu and Moss 1998, Avlijaš et al. 2018). Additionally, the presence of tench is predicted to disturb sediment, reduce water clarity, and disrupt trophic cascades, further affecting macrophytes and promoting epiphytic algae in the Great Lakes region (Avlijaš et al. 2018).

There is little or no evidence to support that Tinca tinca has the potential for significant Socio-Economic impacts if introduced to the Great Lakes.
Tench are not reported to pose any threat to human health, damage infrastructure, affect water quality, harm economic sectors, or inhibit recreational activity.

Tinca tinca has the potential for moderate beneficial impacts if introduced to the Great Lakes.
Tench were originally brought to the United States for use as a food and sport fish (USFWS ERSS 2014). Tench may be mixed with other rough fish for sale (Avlijaš et al. 2018). However, there is not much demand for tench, and their economic contribution is insignificant (Dumont et al. 2002, Marcogliese et al. 2009). Tench are sometimes fished recreationally, however there are already numerous sport fish established in the Great Lakes.

 


Remarks: Baughman (1947) reviewed the history of tench introductions in North America. He also presented evidence suggesting the presence of centrarchids somehow prevented more widespread establishment of tench. Zuckerman and Behnke (1986) noticed that the decline of tench in Colorado coincided with the spread and establishment of the common carp. These authors also noted the occurrence of tench at two sites in Colorado at elevations greater than 2,850 meters. Shapovalov (1944) and Dill and Cordone (1997) reviewed the history of tench in California. In addition to the normal- or wild-colored tench, the U.S. Fish Commission distributed an orange-yellow or reddish variety, the golden tench, to various applicants in the United State during the late 1800s (Bean 1896). That genetic strain apparently was only distributed as an ornamental. There is no evidence that this ornamental variety was introduced to open waters. The golden tench is still used as an ornamental fish in European ponds (Scott and Crossman 1973; Muus and Dahlstrom 1978).

Tench were introduced to Tasmania in the 19th century (Weatherley 1961).

DeVaney et al. (2009) performed ecological niche modeling to examine the invasion potential for tench and three other invasive cyprinids (common carp Cyprinus carpio, grass carp Ctenopharyngodon idella, and black carp Mylopharyngodon piceus). All of the current established populations of tench were in areas of predicted high suitability for this species. Interestingly, many areas where tench failed to become established or is currently extirpated (e.g., Great Lakes region) also had a moderate to high predicted suitability. DeVaney et al. (2009) attributed this potentially to negative interactions with sunfishes or unmeasured environmental factors.

Voucher specimens: Colorado (USNM 055569), Maryland (USNM 31003, 37850, 30336, 27234), Missouri (USNM 073666), New Mexico (UMMZ 118218), Virginia (USNM 30336, 31003, 37850).


References (click for full reference list)


Author: Leo Nico, Pam Fuller, Matt Neilson, and Joseph Redinger


Contributing Agencies:
NOAA GLRI Logo


Revision Date: 2/19/2024


Peer Review Date: 8/19/2015


Citation for this information:
Leo Nico, Pam Fuller, Matt Neilson, and Joseph Redinger, 2024, Tinca tinca (Linnaeus, 1758): U.S. Geological Survey, Nonindigenous Aquatic Species Database, Gainesville, FL, and NOAA Great Lakes Aquatic Nonindigenous Species Information System, Ann Arbor, MI, https://nas.er.usgs.gov/queries/GreatLakes/FactSheet.aspx?Species_ID=652, Revision Date: 2/19/2024, Peer Review Date: 8/19/2015, Access Date: 10/5/2024

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.